Lebensraum

Cogito, ergo sum

As a random person on the Internet I don’t actually have anything to add but felt it would be nice to jump in.

If there had been a “Buy 10, Get 1 free” they could’ve used 11 humans instead of 10 for the same $250.

In an ICE car the part of the tailpipe which is wider (which I believe is also were the catalytic converter is) is tuned to change the engine noise (mostly to reduce it, but it can also be tuned to make it “purr” rather than “roar”, like in sports cars)

Cut that out and the car becomes much louder (and if it’s not diesel, I believe it’s with the kind engine sound one associates with muscle cars).

If I remember it correctly, the second normal at lower IQs was due to environmental factors during growing up that caused some people to have a lower level of intelligence that they would otherwise have.

Also the Public Prosecution Office (or whatever one’s country equivalent) are almost almost always arbitrary gatekeepers of the Criminal Justice System, so if they chose from somebody not to be prosecuted for something, they’re not prosecuted and similarly, they can chose to crack down on somebody for something minor and that person will be dragged through the coals for it (they might or not win in the end, but of they can’t afford good lawyers they’ll probably lose).

So people with enough influence often never even got to court when they commit a crime because the public prosecutors simply don’t prosecute, which they can since they have arbitrary power.

This is what we’re seeing with all those in the Epstein Files, by the way.

Ju$tice.

“They’re Free to ask the right questions!!!”

I actually went and investigated this at some point out of curiosity and came across a paper showing that intelligence is not a normal distribution but a sum of TWO normal distributions, the second one much smaller than the first and slightly offset (towards the lower values if I remember it correctly).

That being so, for the distribution of intelligence in humans the median is not the same as the mean (which is what’s commonly meant by “average”) so it’s slightly incorrect to say that half of people are below average intelligence.

Actually it works best if you look at them all as ethno-Fascists (Fascists whose ideas are around ethnicity, rather than nationality like the more traditional Fascists) which is a pretty rare variant.

Obviously Zionists aren’t the National Socialist Party of The German Worker.

However they are ethno-Fascists, same as the NAZIs, hence sharing a lot of characteristics such as a race-centric discourse, extreme racist views and extreme sociopathic violence against those they see as “enemy races”, all of which explains to an extent why Zionists are so similar to NAZIs except in terms of which ethnicities they see as superior and which they see as “vermin”.

Also both ideologies were born at around the same time and were even for a while allied, though NAZIsm was defangued and mainly destroyed after WWII, whilst Zionism was given their own nation and left to spread their racism for 3 generations, which further explains the similarities between NAZIsm and Zionism (especially in terms of the style of propaganda).

This latter part also explains how Israel is a nation dominated by late 19th century white colonialism views who unironically see themselves as having “Western values”, whilst most of the West has actually significantly improved beyond such mindset since the 19th century and are nowhere as prone to things like mass murdering of civilians because of their ethnicity.

There’s a lot that goes into the choice of a President, starting way upstream from the actual Presidential vote - after all, there are 340 million of Americans who could be President, so clearly there is a lot of choosing going on outside the actual vote to trim that down, otherwise the Presidential election vote would have a lot more than just 2 real options.

Sadly a lot of Americans seem to have been brainwashed into a sort of learned blindness were they think of the actual election vote as the entirety of the choice, not really pondering on the rest of choosing that must be going on to go from 340 million possibilities to 2.

Posts like this one are elements of the very propaganda used to convince Americans that their only power as citizens is in that one single moment were somebody else already trimmed 340 million down to 2 and a loud spectacle is made of them having the choice of 1 out of those preselected 2.

If one doesn’t allow oneself to be swindled into such a reductive view of Democratic choice in America, it becomes pretty obvious that the vote itself does very little of the choosing and that have more of the choice one has to at minimum participate in Primaries, better yet do things like campaigning, even better be part of civil society groups, go on demonstrations and even distribute pamphlets and put up posters denouncing the actions of the worst politicians (such as getting money from AIPAC).

People who genuinely want to improve the way America is run wouldn’t relentlessly try to artificial reduce the view that others have of the process down to the smallest and least mathematically significant part of it.

That most people being brainwashed into thinking that selecting between the last 2 is all that matters massively helps those doing the biggest and most obscure part of the choosing to retain said power and not be questioned for it, probably explains why the Propaganda pushing for the hyper-reductive take on the choosing of a President is so relentless and intense.

One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.

The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.

Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.

So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).

Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.

The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.

Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.

I lived in Britain for a decade.

Amazingly, in my experience not a single one of those things is true in practice.

• Britain has First Fast The Post and an unelected second house of Parliament and Head Of State. The current government has a parliamentary ABSOLUTE majority (in a country with no written Constitution, so they pretty much can enact whatever laws they want with it) when they only got 33.7% of votes cast, so a lot more like Putin’s Russia than, say, a country like The Netherlands.
• To see Britain’s “Rule of Law” just look at how one group of demonstrators against the Genocide in Gaza were deemed Terrorists because of nothing more than throwing paint at a parked airplane used for surveillance in Gaza, and than was then used to arrest anybody supporting that group as being “Terrorist supporters”.
• Harder to explain: culturally Brits - especially middle class and above - see people as having a moral obligation to fit in, which is how you end up with things like demonstrators being arrested for “Disturbing the Public Order”. Also, just notice the transphobia in Britain. Britain’s love of individual liberty was little more than a short period of relaxing of moral mores in the sexual sphere that lasted a few decades - just enough to legalize Homosexual Marriage - and then stopped and now you get things like upper-middle class “Feminists” writting newspaper opinion pieces in the supposedly liberal The Guardian raging again some sexual practice or other.
• Just read how Muslims are described in British newspapers. Also talk to any friend of yours in Britain who has an ethnicity other than white-Briton, including white non-Britons such as Poles.

In reality British values are almost all related to “keeping up appearences” (hence the whole “stiff upper lip” thing), a belief in the inherent superiority of Britain, Britons and British ways and about how others “should know their place” (to the point that “kicking down” on those below on the social ladder is vastly more common that trying to climb that ladder)

De facto Kindness is not a British value, though there is a lot of loud and performative “contributing to Charity” which is really about projecting a good impression of oneself on others to help one’s own image (plus a lot of “Charity” in Britain is just the visible side of a very common Tax Evasion system for the rich involving setting up “Charitable Fundations” in the Channel Islands and then “donating” all of one’s income to them to end up paying ZERO tax).

Britain is a society which is very big on performative “looking like you’re doing”/“saying” good things and punishing those who do not (and the punishments themselves also differ depending on a person’s image - “posh gentlemen” get totally different sentence than Arabic-looking people) but not in following principles like refraining oneself from advancing one’s personal upsides if that would hurt or harm others.

That, said, like everywhere else, there are genuinelly kind people in Britain, tough there they often are preyed upon by those running “Charity” grifts.

Both NAZIs and Zionists claim to represent an entire ethnicity.

Both NAZIs and Zionists claim “their” ethnicity is inherently superior to others (“ubermenschen”, “God’s chosen people”)

Both NAZIs and Zionists react to criticism of their actions by saying the critics are discriminating against the ethnicity they claim to represent (“against the Arian Race”, “anti-semitic”)

Both NAZIs and Zionists openly call those belonging to the ethnicities they see as less than human “vermin”.

Both NAZIs and Zionists mass murder those of the “vermin” ethnicity with such extreme sociopathic violence that they’ll actually directly and purposefully murder children as a standard practice.

In both NAZI Germany and Zionist Israel it is common for roving bands of members of the dominant ethnicity to attack members of the “vermin” ethnicity whilst the police turns a blind eye or even activelly participates.

Both NAZIs and Zionists openly state that they want to get rid of the “vermin” ethnicity, including both using the expression “Final solution for the [vermin ethnicity] problem” to describe their plan to do so.

And don’t get me started on how the Propaganda techniques of both are incredibly similar and how if you grab most things said by Israeli politicians, replace “Jews” with “Arians” and “Muslims/Palestinians” with “Jews” you get something indistinguishable from NAZI statements.

IMHO, the only real difference between NAZI Germany and Zionist Israel is which ethinicities they deem “ubermenschen” and which they deem “untermenschen” and the historical symbol they have chosen to represent the. This is probably why most politicians in Germany - a nation which was never fully denazified - “unwaveringly support” Israel.

There being no real pushback from the rest of the World on the present-day version of the NAZIs they will keep on doing ever more NAZI things until they’re openly running a modern equivalent of gas chambers and concentration camps (which they’re already doing covertly with Gaza and the mass murder of Palestinians there).

The behavior of Western leaders now is way more disgraceful than what Chamberlain did and personally I think that there must be a lot of Western politicians on whom Israel and the US have blackmail material, which for some will be pedophilia-related.

So yeah, Israel has been doing this for literally decades, is doing this right now and will continue to do this in the future because their leadership are ultra-racist ethno-Fascist sociopaths, over 70% their population are ultra-racist ethno-Fascist sociopaths and a lot of Western politician and Press owners are sociopaths and criminals.

Oh, and by the way, The Guardian was one of Israel’s greatest cheerleaders and Propaganda partner until recently and still is, now focusing more on whitewashing the attack on Iran rather than the Genocide in Gaza and being a bit less obvious in their pro-Israel propaganda (down from overtly doing it, now they’re mostly using Manufacturing Consent techniques like use of the passive/active depending on the side, passing statements from one side as fact whilst those of the other are listes as “claims” and so on).

This is literally a situation where Kamala would do NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing - i.e. not doing anything about it.

Of all the possible scenarios you could use to point out that Lesser Evil is not Greater Evil, this is the worst one since Kamala would do the same toward Israel as Trump, but be more of an hypocrite about it (like saying some bullshit about “the US does not interfere with internal Israeli affairs” whilst sending them more bombs).

It would be way better to compare the actions of a possible non-Evil candidate that the Democracts should have fielded (but did not because the party is under the control of evil sociopaths) with those of Trump.

“What would Bernie have done?” sounds like a much better question to suggest here as the contrast with Trump would be huge.

Of course, pointing out that there are several Democrats who would act way differently from Trump or Kamala in this would bring up the point that a party which sidelined non-evil candidates in order to field a “as evil as possible but just shy of the other party’s” Presidential candidate needs to change and that would be questioning the perfection of he tribe and the quality of its chiefs, a step too far for a tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …

There’s a reason present day “AI-in-everything” Microsoft bought a code hosting company.

Solar panels don’t care if the energy they could produce isn’t consumed.

Wind generators can be feathered and breaked until they stop rotating and generating.

Hydro-generation dams can simply close their water intakes and stop generating.

The things that have problems stopping generation are not renewables, they’re things like nuclear power plants.

Negative energy prices are not a technical problem - if the decision to do so is made, renewable generation systems can quickly stop producing.

Negative energy prices are due to Market systems being used to decide who stops generating if supply exceeds demand - instead of some centralized entity deciding who will stop, the individual suppliers look at the market price for their product and decide themselves to stop/start producing or not.

Because electric power supply/demand balance changes way faster than said market signals are produced and processed ultimatelly to decisions to stop or start generation, you end up with prices overshooting and undershooting the ideal price point which is in equilibrium with the supply/demand balance, and sometimes the undershooting results in negative prices.

So negative energy prices are the result of the political choice of using market systems rather than some kind of centralized control - a system with centralized control would respond far faster to falls in demand and would thus not generate more power than demand to the point that somebody is actually paid to consume power.

So yeah, the idea that it’s solar panels that are the problem by causing negative energy prices is complete total bullshit - the choice of a market system to regulate supply and demand is the source of the problem and solar, because it has very low operational costs and thus the price solar operators are willing to sell their product for is lower, just means that when the market at times naturally undershots (because it’s SLOW at responding to changes in supply/demand) it will do so against an equilibrium price which is lower because solar is cheaper, and will thus more frequently end up going below zero price and into negative territory before bouncing back and stabilizing at the price which is in equilibrium with the current supply/demand balance.