"Impeachment" Is A Diversion And Delay - Part II: Blocking of the "impeachment" witnesses was collusion planned before the new year. Listen to an FBI agent's disclosure from January 1, 2O2O here. President was to resign late summer securing election for DNC. See latest updates.
|Here is the zip file, which was also made available in the 3Jan2O2O update. The file within is VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on headphones.
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. Verbot e;lne;lvme;q , ereqrl.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF that was last updated on 15 FEB 2O2O:
OK, but that's changing the goalposts, the claim here is that communism has more deaths. If we're now saying people are going to die under both communism and capitalism, then "people will die under communism" isn't an argument to go with capitalism (nor vice versa) and we should find some other way to save their lives instead of putting our hope in either capitalism or communism.
In this article are 10 object ways the world is getting better. Your "meme" is not capturing the gradual, and quite amazing, lifting our of poverty of hundreds of millions in the last few decades. The failures of communism in Russia, China, Venezuela are their own meme.
1. Can you link the world getting better with capitalism specifically? (Are we more able to feed and heal the world because the discoverers of new techniques were motivated by profit and capitalism enabled them to do their work? Norman Borlaug and Alexander Fleming would probably disagree with that.)
2. How would Russia, China, and Venezuela have fared if it weren't for US sanctions and military threat? We don't see communism in a vacuum, we see communism spending all its resources defending itself from existential threats from "capitalist" countries with significant (taxpayer-funded) militaries.
3. Hasn't poverty gotten worse in Russia after the transition to capitalism?
1. Capitalism does not succeed on its own. The success of the west is combining free markets, capitalism and shared values about individual rights and freedoms.
2. Sure blame America. Wait didn’t America send food aid to China when it descended into famine in the 20s?
3. It certainly hasn’t transitioned to a free society with shared values and an open free market system
Isn't communism a political system that nearly always implements extreme socialism? I mean the last 30 years in China have shown a communist country successfully implement a capitalist system and bring nearly a billion people out of extreme poverty and into wide spread prosperity, but aren't they the only one?
China is a large scale command economy[1] with a market driven middle tier. Far as I can tell this is the organization that works well. The neoliberal/fresh water economic pipe dream doesn't. The problem with the latter is it lack top level coherence and degenerates into looting[2].
[1] State supported heavy industry, export sector, and large public works projects.
[2] Russia after shock treatment is economically worse off than under communism. Roll that over.
Sure but in capitalism, the wealth goes to individual value holders (landlords and rent seekers are derogatory terms for this). In true communism, the wealth goes to the state.
The difference to most employees is honestly pretty small, working for McDonald's versus being a janitor for the post office are functionally the same, no one really cares who the guy at the top of the chain is.
The main benefit of capitalism is the dream of being the wealthy person, if you're a janitor it's almost impossible, but the dream is there
Does it? If you work super hard at your job, the best thing you can hope for is a bonus or promotion. They tend to offer you stock options to make you invested
I think it only applies in certain cases were mobility is possible. If someone is a janitor earning hourly wages, functionally their lives will be the same, poverty, no potential for advancement. If you believe the Bernie hype, under communism at least they'd get to go to the hospital, but it's a system with no real attempts
In state communism the wealth goes to the state. There is also anarcho communism which is state-less. Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin advocated for anarcho communism.
> The main benefit of capitalism is the dream of being the wealthy person, if you're a janitor it's almost impossible, but the dream is there
Would you prefer to be a poverty-line worker with a realistic but unlikely dream of being wealthy, or a worker who can support a 4-person family comfortably and retire at age 60 but has no chance of ever making any more money?
(This is not a rhetorical question, I think there are genuinely lots of possible answers there.)
Let's say a 1% chance, and no amount of trying hard can change that percentage, it's a pure dice roll.
(This is proxy for limited opportunity, tough facts like "you have a family that relies on you so you cannot spend 5 years trying and failing at startups," discrimination, economic downturns, the fact that the world cannot sustain more than a few Bill Gateses, and all sorts of other things that are beyond your control even in a capitalist society. On the other hand, I think 1% is significantly above the number of actual janitors who actually strike it rich in real capitalist societies.)
Communism also generates wealth for significantly fewer people. You think the concentration of wealth is bad in capitalist countries? It is. But communism spreads the wealth even more unevenly.
Got a source for that? We’ve got extreme wealth inequality today on broadly capitalist terms. I think it depends on whether you mean state communism, where state officials can enrich themselves, or anarcho communism which would be truly democratic.
Actually in most cases I think wealth concentration has a lot to do with how much democracy you have. In America the wealthy classes control our democracy and so we have a lot of inequality. In Soviet Russia the state officials had control and so there was a lot of inequality.
A lot of anarchist theory is schemes for more democracy. The whole idea of anarchism is to eliminate unnecessary hierarchy.
My source was communism, as it was actually in the communist bloc, rather than communism in theory. The capitalist west not only did better at generating wealth than the communist bloc, it also did better at spreading it to more people in society. (Not well - just better.)
But if we want to compare communism in ideal theory, we have to compare it to capitalism in ideal theory, right? At that point, nobody has any actual data.
Well, officially the USSR had very little wealth inequality. But... what fraction of the population got to shop at the special stores? (You might consider them the "rich", because they could buy more things, and for less money.) I'm pretty sure they weren't more than 5% of the population, and maybe significantly less, but I don't recall specifically.
And that's if communism was functioning "normally". Didn't Romania turn into a kleptocracy? What was the level of wealth inequality there?
The fact that you can't get accurate income data from communist regimes that cover the entire society is also a sign of applied communism being a big lie/illusion, it needs to lie to its people and keep them in the dark to preserve it.
I grew up in communism and indeed there were people who were "more equal" than others, mostly those well connected with high positioned party members (if themselves weren't such party members). That allowed them much better living conditions than the regular "worker", they ate meat every day (yes, it may sound strange to the average reader of HN but meat wasn't something that we in the 80s in Eastern Europe had access to very often), had bread (for the rest of us it was rationed), soft toilet paper, jeans (I would have killed for a pair of jeans!), pepsi (no coca-cola tho) and a million little other things that people living in Western Europe in the 80s took for granted.
But hey, most of us were "equal" in our poverty, so communism can't be that bad.
I'm not sure it's as simple as a binary "communism" vs. "capitalism" - at least in the context of feasible political proposals in most Western country, that's less often the debate than the strength of the welfare state and the amount of market regulation. Do we have stats on how wealth inequality relates to such things?
There's also the question of what the shape of the distribution looks like - for instance, would you prefer a country where 90% of the country has no savings and 10% has more money than they need, or one where 95% of the country has two months worth of savings and 5% of the country has more money than they need?
For what it's worth, I didn't notice the name until after I had replied. I replied because I thought it appropriate to reply to what was said, not because of who said it.
[Edit: I will agree that your post was not inflammatory.
I also note that I (on a different thread) replied to you on a programming topic, and for a change, I agreed with you and thought that you had a very interesting perspective.]
I agree that "Luddite" is a label we shouldn't be afraid of - at the very least, it should be within the Overton window of acceptable, debatable ideas. It is not an impractical and kneejerk opposition to technology; it is a principled belief that some particular technology, while it might make other people rich, hurts me and others like me, and we have the right to defend ourselves. It is certainly not a mere fear of unfamiliar technology.
One thing I'm noticing from the world around me is the extent to which political campaigning is a zero-sum game. We've poured billions of dollars into the US presidential campaigns, funding everything from microtargeted advertising to (probably) machine learning to figure out who to microtarget, and the effect is that each candidate spends tons of money on it, fighting each other. It's not clear that overall outcomes have improved (e.g., "does the elected president more accurately represent what the people actually want, because they're better informed about positions and issues"), and it certainly seems like if you could magically prevent everyone from spending piles of money, we wouldn't be any worse for it - but it's very hard to do that in any meaningful sense (there's enough ways to spend money on influence, on get-out-the-vote campaigns targeting specific neighborhoods, etc.), so it's irrational for anyone to voluntarily back down. And a huge chunk of this money, in turn, is spent on computers (and electricity and emissions) and not on human jobs.
> Decomputerization doesn’t mean no computers. It means that not all spheres of life should be rendered into data and computed upon. Ubiquitous “smartness” largely serves to enrich and empower the few at the expense of the many, while inflicting ecological harm that will threaten the survival and flourishing of billions of people.
> the effect is that each candidate spends tons of money on it, fighting each other
I've been following Brexit since 2016 and my impression from the materials/research available is that microtargeting via social networks is in fact cheaper than the "analog" campaigning. Let alone money spent on political ads are easier to dodge and thus not even report as campaign spending. But in any case microtargeting being cheaper is the reason it's being increasingly used in politics.
Now taking the price into account, I'm not so sure energy consumption is greater for digital campaigns compared to the "analog" ones: consider rallies, talks other events that have a similar impact to microtargeting.
That is not to say digital campaigning is better in any sense of the word, it is scary because it can be far more manipulative (take Brexit as an example), just that the carbon footprint argument is not very convincing to me in this case.
Your ad blocker might be saving you from seeing "You've landed on an Extra Crunch exclusive. Select a plan to continue reading. Already a member? Sign in." where it cuts off.
This is why we need to evolve to a more human centered capitalism. We need to put stakeholders back ahead of shareholders. We need to realize that growth is not limitless and to stop worshiping it. And we need to stop measuring our success as a nation based on macroeconomic metrics like GDP and focus more on metrics that indicate the wellbeing of our citizens. We can not abandon capitalism but we cannot stagnate either.
Human-centered capitalism is perfectly possible with some of the alternative forms of stock ownership and company governance. You can start and build a company that's employee-governed through elections, optionally also employee-owned in the economic sense, though the latter is optional. There are many examples of various types of ownership among some famous companies too, from Ikea to Bosch and Zeiss. What they have in common is, there are no absentee owners and therefore no pressure of profit maximization at all costs on the company.
Capitalism works great. It's what's powered a lot of the world's economic growth and encourages the work force to make new discoveries.
Capitalism also leads to generosity and social progress. Look at what Bill Gates (and others like him) are doing with their gains. Can you point me to a socialist enterprise that's doing as much good?
I have starting looking for software engineering jobs for the first time in a few years, and I'm looking at it through a more socially conscious lens than I did a few years ago.
I'm not opposed to commerce or people making money, but so many of the startup I see are based on business plans that just seem dystopian.
Software can solve real problems, but right now capital seems to be choosing some really unsettling applications. Things like using ML to inform "behavioral nudges" for asset manager, many of the healthcare tech startups, and all of the surveillance and spying tech.
47 comments
[ 401 ms ] story [ 2504 ms ] thread|Here is the zip file, which was also made available in the 3Jan2O2O update. The file within is VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on headphones.
BB10Mp3Footage31Dec1Jan.zip 122.4mb
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXOOhQhHybwky8Z5pGdr9ZXhWpI...
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
163 pg PDF [last updated: February|15|2O2O]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
Previously reported:
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. Verbot e;lne;lvme;q , ereqrl.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF that was last updated on 15 FEB 2O2O:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey).
President Donald Trump:
Demands a $4 billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4thJan2019:
3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77...
3JanCh2_900-1100-avi
Isn't communism in the same "depending on the situation" boat?
The reality is that Capitalism is the worst type of economy except for all the others, just like Democracy is for governance.
https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-bette...
2. How would Russia, China, and Venezuela have fared if it weren't for US sanctions and military threat? We don't see communism in a vacuum, we see communism spending all its resources defending itself from existential threats from "capitalist" countries with significant (taxpayer-funded) militaries.
3. Hasn't poverty gotten worse in Russia after the transition to capitalism?
Enjoy downvoting this
[1] State supported heavy industry, export sector, and large public works projects.
[2] Russia after shock treatment is economically worse off than under communism. Roll that over.
The difference to most employees is honestly pretty small, working for McDonald's versus being a janitor for the post office are functionally the same, no one really cares who the guy at the top of the chain is.
The main benefit of capitalism is the dream of being the wealthy person, if you're a janitor it's almost impossible, but the dream is there
We've never seen that as a country-level organization, but that's the theory.
Would you prefer to be a poverty-line worker with a realistic but unlikely dream of being wealthy, or a worker who can support a 4-person family comfortably and retire at age 60 but has no chance of ever making any more money?
(This is not a rhetorical question, I think there are genuinely lots of possible answers there.)
(This is proxy for limited opportunity, tough facts like "you have a family that relies on you so you cannot spend 5 years trying and failing at startups," discrimination, economic downturns, the fact that the world cannot sustain more than a few Bill Gateses, and all sorts of other things that are beyond your control even in a capitalist society. On the other hand, I think 1% is significantly above the number of actual janitors who actually strike it rich in real capitalist societies.)
Actually in most cases I think wealth concentration has a lot to do with how much democracy you have. In America the wealthy classes control our democracy and so we have a lot of inequality. In Soviet Russia the state officials had control and so there was a lot of inequality.
A lot of anarchist theory is schemes for more democracy. The whole idea of anarchism is to eliminate unnecessary hierarchy.
But if we want to compare communism in ideal theory, we have to compare it to capitalism in ideal theory, right? At that point, nobody has any actual data.
I’m genuinely curious if that’s true or not. But it doesn’t sound like you have a source. Is that just a feeling you have?
And that's if communism was functioning "normally". Didn't Romania turn into a kleptocracy? What was the level of wealth inequality there?
Now if you’re really concerned with who was authoritarian, I wouldn’t defend them.
But it sure doesn’t seem obvious to me that there was more inequality in soviet Russia than there is today in the USA.
I grew up in communism and indeed there were people who were "more equal" than others, mostly those well connected with high positioned party members (if themselves weren't such party members). That allowed them much better living conditions than the regular "worker", they ate meat every day (yes, it may sound strange to the average reader of HN but meat wasn't something that we in the 80s in Eastern Europe had access to very often), had bread (for the rest of us it was rationed), soft toilet paper, jeans (I would have killed for a pair of jeans!), pepsi (no coca-cola tho) and a million little other things that people living in Western Europe in the 80s took for granted.
But hey, most of us were "equal" in our poverty, so communism can't be that bad.
There's also the question of what the shape of the distribution looks like - for instance, would you prefer a country where 90% of the country has no savings and 10% has more money than they need, or one where 95% of the country has two months worth of savings and 5% of the country has more money than they need?
[Edit: I will agree that your post was not inflammatory.
I also note that I (on a different thread) replied to you on a programming topic, and for a change, I agreed with you and thought that you had a very interesting perspective.]
I agree that "Luddite" is a label we shouldn't be afraid of - at the very least, it should be within the Overton window of acceptable, debatable ideas. It is not an impractical and kneejerk opposition to technology; it is a principled belief that some particular technology, while it might make other people rich, hurts me and others like me, and we have the right to defend ourselves. It is certainly not a mere fear of unfamiliar technology.
One thing I'm noticing from the world around me is the extent to which political campaigning is a zero-sum game. We've poured billions of dollars into the US presidential campaigns, funding everything from microtargeted advertising to (probably) machine learning to figure out who to microtarget, and the effect is that each candidate spends tons of money on it, fighting each other. It's not clear that overall outcomes have improved (e.g., "does the elected president more accurately represent what the people actually want, because they're better informed about positions and issues"), and it certainly seems like if you could magically prevent everyone from spending piles of money, we wouldn't be any worse for it - but it's very hard to do that in any meaningful sense (there's enough ways to spend money on influence, on get-out-the-vote campaigns targeting specific neighborhoods, etc.), so it's irrational for anyone to voluntarily back down. And a huge chunk of this money, in turn, is spent on computers (and electricity and emissions) and not on human jobs.
> Decomputerization doesn’t mean no computers. It means that not all spheres of life should be rendered into data and computed upon. Ubiquitous “smartness” largely serves to enrich and empower the few at the expense of the many, while inflicting ecological harm that will threaten the survival and flourishing of billions of people.
I've been following Brexit since 2016 and my impression from the materials/research available is that microtargeting via social networks is in fact cheaper than the "analog" campaigning. Let alone money spent on political ads are easier to dodge and thus not even report as campaign spending. But in any case microtargeting being cheaper is the reason it's being increasingly used in politics.
Now taking the price into account, I'm not so sure energy consumption is greater for digital campaigns compared to the "analog" ones: consider rallies, talks other events that have a similar impact to microtargeting.
That is not to say digital campaigning is better in any sense of the word, it is scary because it can be far more manipulative (take Brexit as an example), just that the carbon footprint argument is not very convincing to me in this case.
If it's human-centered, it's not capitalism. If it's capitalism, it's not human-centered. You can't have a “more four-sided triangle”.
Capitalism works great. It's what's powered a lot of the world's economic growth and encourages the work force to make new discoveries.
Capitalism also leads to generosity and social progress. Look at what Bill Gates (and others like him) are doing with their gains. Can you point me to a socialist enterprise that's doing as much good?
I'm not opposed to commerce or people making money, but so many of the startup I see are based on business plans that just seem dystopian.
Software can solve real problems, but right now capital seems to be choosing some really unsettling applications. Things like using ML to inform "behavioral nudges" for asset manager, many of the healthcare tech startups, and all of the surveillance and spying tech.