Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
_One of the DEADLIEST Cover-Ups in American History Confirmed: Leaked Documents Prove the FDA Suppressed Vaccine Deaths While Individuals Involved Are Still Operating Within Our Public Health Agencies_
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/one-of-the-deadliest-cover-ups-in
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/one-of-the-deadliest-cover-ups-in
Substack
One of the DEADLIEST Cover-Ups in American History Confirmed: Leaked Documents Prove the FDA Suppressed Vaccine Deaths While Individuals…
New whistleblowers and leaked records expose how federal regulators deliberately buried safety signals of sudden death while coercing the entire population to take experimental injections.
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
_Nixon Was Framed – It Was a Coup_
Nixon, and his Presidency, is NOT what matters. What matters is the existence proof of falsely framing politicians who become inconvenient to The Powers That Should Not Be: That neither started, nor stopped, with Nixon.
FTA: But what about all the president’s men? Did they get a raw deal? According to a raft of scholarly work, the answer, unequivocally, is yes. By fabricating witness testimony, suppressing exculpatory evidence and colluding with the presiding judge, the Watergate prosecutors railroaded the former attorney general John Mitchell, the former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman and the former domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman…
On Feb. 6, 1974, a task force staff lawyer, Peter Rient, sent a colleague a three-page memo titled “Material Discrepancies Between the Senate Select Committee Testimony of John Dean and the Tapes of Dean’s Meetings With the President.” Mr. Nixon was then six months away from resigning…[having the truth here may have saved Nixon his Presidency]
The Rient memo was never released to the news media. The public was kept in the dark about acute problems that Watergate prosecutors had identified in the Senate testimony of their star witness. Likewise, the Rient memo was withheld from defense counsel in U.S. v. Mitchell, the Watergate cover-up trial in which Mr. Dean’s testimony proved decisive. Having ironed out all the material discrepancies from his sworn Senate appearance, the prosecutors used Mr. Dean’s new testimony to secure convictions of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, once among the most powerful men in government.
https://joehoft.com/nixon-was-framed-it-was-coup/
Nixon, and his Presidency, is NOT what matters. What matters is the existence proof of falsely framing politicians who become inconvenient to The Powers That Should Not Be: That neither started, nor stopped, with Nixon.
FTA: But what about all the president’s men? Did they get a raw deal? According to a raft of scholarly work, the answer, unequivocally, is yes. By fabricating witness testimony, suppressing exculpatory evidence and colluding with the presiding judge, the Watergate prosecutors railroaded the former attorney general John Mitchell, the former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman and the former domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman…
On Feb. 6, 1974, a task force staff lawyer, Peter Rient, sent a colleague a three-page memo titled “Material Discrepancies Between the Senate Select Committee Testimony of John Dean and the Tapes of Dean’s Meetings With the President.” Mr. Nixon was then six months away from resigning…[having the truth here may have saved Nixon his Presidency]
The Rient memo was never released to the news media. The public was kept in the dark about acute problems that Watergate prosecutors had identified in the Senate testimony of their star witness. Likewise, the Rient memo was withheld from defense counsel in U.S. v. Mitchell, the Watergate cover-up trial in which Mr. Dean’s testimony proved decisive. Having ironed out all the material discrepancies from his sworn Senate appearance, the prosecutors used Mr. Dean’s new testimony to secure convictions of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, once among the most powerful men in government.
https://joehoft.com/nixon-was-framed-it-was-coup/
Joe Hoft
Nixon Was Framed - It Was a Coup - Joe Hoft
Nixon Was Framed – It Was a Coup James Rosen wrote a delicate piece for the New York Times that was published this week, detailing aspects of the Nixon Administration’s ... Read
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
"Capital allocation follows expected returns. Burden those returns with decade-long permitting, arbitrary environmental reviews, and litigation risk from NGOs with legal standing but no skin in the game, and capital retreats. Scarcity follows. Your cost of living rises. The regulators collect their salaries regardless and keep on adding new regulations to make it even harder for producers."
https://fixupx.com/Handre/status/2110665484215677406
https://fixupx.com/Handre/status/2110665484215677406
From Bivael Le Pogam@X:
This morning, I was discussing with someone who told me that the concentration of power in Elon Musk's hands is dangerous.
It's a real question. But it's poorly framed.
Look at who was at the very top of the ladder over the last 30 years. The people who shaped the world we live in. For many, frankly borderline profiles. And no one ever held them accountable with the same intensity.
Bill Gates, for example. His worldview is deeply Malthusian: humanity as a problem to manage, a variable to reduce, a population to steer. What Musk calls extinctionism.
And that's where it gets serious.
We're living through a civilizational turning point. AI, robotics, energy, space. The world of 2040 will have nothing in common with that of 2020.
And this turning point won't emerge from a consensus. No major historical shift ever has. They're always driven by a handful of people with a vision, and the means to execute it.
So the real question isn't "should someone have that much power." Someone will. The question is: who, and what will they do with it.
Today, at the top, there are two visions.
The first is collectivist on the surface, but ultra-centralized in reality. A few mega-corporations, all-powerful leaders who have nothing left to prove, and below them an infinite lower class, on life support, managed, soothed, rendered useless. Read Sam Altman's blueprint, Moore's Law for Everything. Follow Gates's plan. That's exactly where we're headed.
The second is Elon Musk's. Expansion. More humans, not fewer. More energy, more planets, more consciousness in the universe. Advancing civilization rather than protecting a hyperclass.
And what's fascinating is that even in Silicon Valley, even among people who don't like him, the majority end up saying the same thing in private: if there's anyone to trust in all this mess, it's him.
Is it healthy to have a single human point of failure at the scale of a civilization? No. It's dangerous. Obviously.
In the next 10 to 20 years, a form of council will need to emerge, a generation of builder entrepreneurs in that lineage, so that the future doesn't rest on one man alone.
But today, when you look at his projects, his trajectory, and his worldview, the choice is pretty simple.
Bill Gates and Soros want to maximize the interests of their class.
Elon Musk wants to maximize the interests of humanity.
The best civilizational bet is him.
https://fixupx.com/brivael/status/2110737874723234247
This morning, I was discussing with someone who told me that the concentration of power in Elon Musk's hands is dangerous.
It's a real question. But it's poorly framed.
Look at who was at the very top of the ladder over the last 30 years. The people who shaped the world we live in. For many, frankly borderline profiles. And no one ever held them accountable with the same intensity.
Bill Gates, for example. His worldview is deeply Malthusian: humanity as a problem to manage, a variable to reduce, a population to steer. What Musk calls extinctionism.
And that's where it gets serious.
We're living through a civilizational turning point. AI, robotics, energy, space. The world of 2040 will have nothing in common with that of 2020.
And this turning point won't emerge from a consensus. No major historical shift ever has. They're always driven by a handful of people with a vision, and the means to execute it.
So the real question isn't "should someone have that much power." Someone will. The question is: who, and what will they do with it.
Today, at the top, there are two visions.
The first is collectivist on the surface, but ultra-centralized in reality. A few mega-corporations, all-powerful leaders who have nothing left to prove, and below them an infinite lower class, on life support, managed, soothed, rendered useless. Read Sam Altman's blueprint, Moore's Law for Everything. Follow Gates's plan. That's exactly where we're headed.
The second is Elon Musk's. Expansion. More humans, not fewer. More energy, more planets, more consciousness in the universe. Advancing civilization rather than protecting a hyperclass.
And what's fascinating is that even in Silicon Valley, even among people who don't like him, the majority end up saying the same thing in private: if there's anyone to trust in all this mess, it's him.
Is it healthy to have a single human point of failure at the scale of a civilization? No. It's dangerous. Obviously.
In the next 10 to 20 years, a form of council will need to emerge, a generation of builder entrepreneurs in that lineage, so that the future doesn't rest on one man alone.
But today, when you look at his projects, his trajectory, and his worldview, the choice is pretty simple.
Bill Gates and Soros want to maximize the interests of their class.
Elon Musk wants to maximize the interests of humanity.
The best civilizational bet is him.
https://fixupx.com/brivael/status/2110737874723234247
FixupX
Brivael Le Pogam (@brivael)
Je discutais ce matin avec quelqu'un qui me disait que la concentration de pouvoir entre les mains d'Elon Musk était dangereuse.
C'est une vraie question. Mais elle est mal posée.
Regardez qui était tout en haut de l'échelle ces 30 dernières années. Les…
C'est une vraie question. Mais elle est mal posée.
Regardez qui était tout en haut de l'échelle ces 30 dernières années. Les…
From Bivael Le Pogam@X:
If you're a young American, or a Democrat who's a little confused about where all this is going, read this. It's long. It's worth it.
Start with misery.
For almost all of human history, misery wasn't a crisis. It was the default. Your ancestors were born poor, lived poor, buried half their children, and died poor. Around 1800, roughly 9 out of 10 humans lived in what we'd now call extreme poverty. Even kings lived worse than you: no antibiotics, no anesthesia, no light after sunset.
Today it's around 1 in 10.
That didn't happen because someone finally designed the perfect system. It happened because, in a few corners of the world, people were left free enough to trade, try, fail, and try again. Property rights. Prices. Contracts. Rule of law. Boring words. They built everything you have.
Now meet Friedrich Hayek.
An Austrian economist who watched his continent fall to two ideologies that both promised to organize society from the top. In 1944 he wrote The Road to Serfdom. A year later he wrote a short essay that should be required reading in every high school: The Use of Knowledge in Society.
His insight is simple and devastating. The knowledge needed to run an economy doesn't exist in one place. It's scattered across millions of heads: the baker who knows flour just got expensive, the nurse who knows which shift is understaffed, the farmer who knows his soil. No committee, no ministry, no genius can gather it all. Prices are the miracle that lets all that knowledge talk to itself without anyone being in charge.
When you replace prices with plans, you don't get a smarter economy. You get a blind one.
His friend Karl Popper made the same point about history itself in The Poverty of Historicism, a book dedicated to the countless people who died because someone believed history had a destination and that he alone knew the way.
Then the 20th century ran the experiment. Not once. Everywhere.
The Soviet Union was planned from Moscow. It collapsed in 1991, after famines, gulags, and bread lines in a country with some of the best farmland on earth.
Mao's China gave us the Great Leap Forward and tens of millions dead of hunger. Then Deng opened markets in 1978, and roughly 800 million people escaped extreme poverty. Same people. Same culture. Different rules.
Korea: same peninsula, same language, same ancestors. Look at a satellite photo at night. One half is lit. The other is dark.
Germany: one nation split in two. The side that called itself the workers' paradise had to build a wall to stop its workers from leaving.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Nearly 8 million people have fled it.
Cambodia lost about a quarter of its population in the name of starting over from year zero.
Every time. Different continents, different cultures, different leaders, same ending. At some point it's not bad luck. It's the design.
"But I mean Denmark." Fair. But Denmark isn't socialist. Its own prime minister told a Harvard audience in 2015 that Denmark is a market economy. The Nordics are free-market countries that chose to fund a big welfare state with the wealth markets created. That's a debate worth having. It's not the same debate.
Now let me tell you about my country.
France is the closest thing the developed world has to a live test of "the state will take care of it." Public spending is around 57% of GDP, among the highest on earth. Public debt is above 110% of GDP. The national education system employs over a million people, one of the biggest employers in the world.
And right now, French high school students are blockading hundreds of schools. Their complaints: not enough teachers, crumbling buildings, overloaded schedules. On October 1st, the entrance hall of a high school in Nantes was destroyed by a deliberate fire during a blockade.
Read that again. In the country that spends more than almost anyone and centralizes more than almost anyone, kids are in the street because the system can't give them a teacher and a building that works.
If you're a young American, or a Democrat who's a little confused about where all this is going, read this. It's long. It's worth it.
Start with misery.
For almost all of human history, misery wasn't a crisis. It was the default. Your ancestors were born poor, lived poor, buried half their children, and died poor. Around 1800, roughly 9 out of 10 humans lived in what we'd now call extreme poverty. Even kings lived worse than you: no antibiotics, no anesthesia, no light after sunset.
Today it's around 1 in 10.
That didn't happen because someone finally designed the perfect system. It happened because, in a few corners of the world, people were left free enough to trade, try, fail, and try again. Property rights. Prices. Contracts. Rule of law. Boring words. They built everything you have.
Now meet Friedrich Hayek.
An Austrian economist who watched his continent fall to two ideologies that both promised to organize society from the top. In 1944 he wrote The Road to Serfdom. A year later he wrote a short essay that should be required reading in every high school: The Use of Knowledge in Society.
His insight is simple and devastating. The knowledge needed to run an economy doesn't exist in one place. It's scattered across millions of heads: the baker who knows flour just got expensive, the nurse who knows which shift is understaffed, the farmer who knows his soil. No committee, no ministry, no genius can gather it all. Prices are the miracle that lets all that knowledge talk to itself without anyone being in charge.
When you replace prices with plans, you don't get a smarter economy. You get a blind one.
His friend Karl Popper made the same point about history itself in The Poverty of Historicism, a book dedicated to the countless people who died because someone believed history had a destination and that he alone knew the way.
Then the 20th century ran the experiment. Not once. Everywhere.
The Soviet Union was planned from Moscow. It collapsed in 1991, after famines, gulags, and bread lines in a country with some of the best farmland on earth.
Mao's China gave us the Great Leap Forward and tens of millions dead of hunger. Then Deng opened markets in 1978, and roughly 800 million people escaped extreme poverty. Same people. Same culture. Different rules.
Korea: same peninsula, same language, same ancestors. Look at a satellite photo at night. One half is lit. The other is dark.
Germany: one nation split in two. The side that called itself the workers' paradise had to build a wall to stop its workers from leaving.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Nearly 8 million people have fled it.
Cambodia lost about a quarter of its population in the name of starting over from year zero.
Every time. Different continents, different cultures, different leaders, same ending. At some point it's not bad luck. It's the design.
"But I mean Denmark." Fair. But Denmark isn't socialist. Its own prime minister told a Harvard audience in 2015 that Denmark is a market economy. The Nordics are free-market countries that chose to fund a big welfare state with the wealth markets created. That's a debate worth having. It's not the same debate.
Now let me tell you about my country.
France is the closest thing the developed world has to a live test of "the state will take care of it." Public spending is around 57% of GDP, among the highest on earth. Public debt is above 110% of GDP. The national education system employs over a million people, one of the biggest employers in the world.
And right now, French high school students are blockading hundreds of schools. Their complaints: not enough teachers, crumbling buildings, overloaded schedules. On October 1st, the entrance hall of a high school in Nantes was destroyed by a deliberate fire during a blockade.
Read that again. In the country that spends more than almost anyone and centralizes more than almost anyone, kids are in the street because the system can't give them a teacher and a building that works.
And the demand you hear most? More funding. More state. More of what built the problem.
I'm French. I get the anger. The anger is legitimate. The diagnosis is backwards.
One ministry in Paris trying to run thousands of schools is Hayek's problem in miniature. The principal knows which teacher is missing. The parents know which roof leaks. The ministry knows a spreadsheet.
So here's what I want to say to every young person, in France or in America, who's tempted by the idea that the system just needs more power to finally get it right:
You're allowed to want it. That's your right. But you don't have to guess. You have something no generation before you had: the full archive. Every experiment has been run, documented, photographed, counted. The famines have numbers. The walls have dates. The boat people have names. The night photo of Korea is one click away.
Your ancestors paid for that knowledge. Some with their savings, some with their freedom, many with their lives. They left you the results.
Respect your ancestors. Read what they left you.
Read Hayek. Read Popper. Read Solzhenitsyn. Read Orwell, who was a socialist and still told the truth about totalitarianism.
And then build. Because the thing that pulled humanity out of misery was never a plan. It was millions of free people trying things.
That's you. That's the job.
https://fixupx.com/brivael/status/2111105992091967561
I'm French. I get the anger. The anger is legitimate. The diagnosis is backwards.
One ministry in Paris trying to run thousands of schools is Hayek's problem in miniature. The principal knows which teacher is missing. The parents know which roof leaks. The ministry knows a spreadsheet.
So here's what I want to say to every young person, in France or in America, who's tempted by the idea that the system just needs more power to finally get it right:
You're allowed to want it. That's your right. But you don't have to guess. You have something no generation before you had: the full archive. Every experiment has been run, documented, photographed, counted. The famines have numbers. The walls have dates. The boat people have names. The night photo of Korea is one click away.
Your ancestors paid for that knowledge. Some with their savings, some with their freedom, many with their lives. They left you the results.
Respect your ancestors. Read what they left you.
Read Hayek. Read Popper. Read Solzhenitsyn. Read Orwell, who was a socialist and still told the truth about totalitarianism.
And then build. Because the thing that pulled humanity out of misery was never a plan. It was millions of free people trying things.
That's you. That's the job.
https://fixupx.com/brivael/status/2111105992091967561
FixupX
Brivael Le Pogam (@brivael)
If you're a young American, or a Democrat who's a little confused about where all this is going, read this. It's long. It's worth it.
Start with misery.
For almost all of human history, misery wasn't a crisis. It was the default. Your ancestors were born…
Start with misery.
For almost all of human history, misery wasn't a crisis. It was the default. Your ancestors were born…
👏1
In response to Elizabeth Warren => https://fixupx.com/brivael/status/2111192997811388668
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
_The Loma Prieta Earthquake—October 17, 1989_
On that day (back in 1989,) I was at home--in Largo, FL--watching the World Series between the Oakland A's and the SF Giants--because of course I was, being a native, and longtime resident, of Oakland. I'll never forget the creeping realization, as I watched events unfold on my television, that "the Big One" had finally struck.
On that day (back in 1989,) I was at home--in Largo, FL--watching the World Series between the Oakland A's and the SF Giants--because of course I was, being a native, and longtime resident, of Oakland. I'll never forget the creeping realization, as I watched events unfold on my television, that "the Big One" had finally struck.
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
"Grain builds a state. It feeds millions, it stores, it can be counted and taxed, and it produces a great many small, tired people who stay where they are put.
A herd builds the person. Fewer of them, bigger, stronger, on horseback, and impossible to tax because the wealth walks.
The empires knew which diet won a fight. They wrote it down in their own treasury accounts.
Then they went home and fed their own people the grain."
Full essay => https://fixupx.com/SamaHoole/status/2111155445985427574
A herd builds the person. Fewer of them, bigger, stronger, on horseback, and impossible to tax because the wealth walks.
The empires knew which diet won a fight. They wrote it down in their own treasury accounts.
Then they went home and fed their own people the grain."
Full essay => https://fixupx.com/SamaHoole/status/2111155445985427574
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
"This month alone I've logged a CIA officer admitting he gave away a secret source. Germany arrested its own former spy chief. China is investigating the men who used to run its anti-corruption machine. Saudi Arabia arrests its own officials every month. Now Brazil has arrested a former police chief.
It's the same move every time. First they find the money. Then they shut down the businesses moving it. Then they go after the people who were protecting it.
But look at it from 40,000 feet. In the U.S., China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and now Brazil, rival governments that agree on almost nothing are all doing the same thing at the same time: cleaning out their own house.
Timelines. Patterns. Their words, not mine. All I did was read the receipts."
Full essay => https://fixupx.com/TheDebriefing17/status/2111044640560324894
It's the same move every time. First they find the money. Then they shut down the businesses moving it. Then they go after the people who were protecting it.
But look at it from 40,000 feet. In the U.S., China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and now Brazil, rival governments that agree on almost nothing are all doing the same thing at the same time: cleaning out their own house.
Timelines. Patterns. Their words, not mine. All I did was read the receipts."
Full essay => https://fixupx.com/TheDebriefing17/status/2111044640560324894
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
Shame is a device of external control that results in inauthentic behavior so as to create conformity. In contrast, guilt is a modality of authentic governance derived from one's own genuine, organic conscience.
Shame motivates 'virtue signaling.' Guilt motivates either organic good behavior, or at least genuine remorse.
Grok's analysis => https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_7e8045a2-706a-4b2b-9f4e-2e358cff6587
Shame motivates 'virtue signaling.' Guilt motivates either organic good behavior, or at least genuine remorse.
Grok's analysis => https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_7e8045a2-706a-4b2b-9f4e-2e358cff6587
Grok
Shame vs Guilt in Behavior Control | Shared Grok Conversation
Thesis:
Shame is a device of external control that results in inauthentic behavior so as to create
Shame is a device of external control that results in inauthentic behavior so as to create
👍1
Forwarded from Grumpy's Rabbit Hole
The idea that just taking other-sex hormones is 'safe and effective' is a great example of what I call 'reductionism ad absurdum': It reduces a complex system of mutually-interacting elements into just ONE of the elements, instead of holistically comprehending the phenomena as a complete, dynamic system.
Grok's analysis => https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_fb3646b8-758b-4dc1-8937-895591fc178a
Grok's analysis => https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_fb3646b8-758b-4dc1-8937-895591fc178a
Grok
Critique of Reductionist Hormone Therapy Thesis | Shared Grok Conversation
Thesis:
The idea that just taking other-sex hormones is 'safe and effective' is a great example of
The idea that just taking other-sex hormones is 'safe and effective' is a great example of
"Take a single mother in Houston. She earns $22,000 annually and qualifies for $35,000 in combined federal and state benefits. She gets a raise to $25,000. That $3,000 in new wages costs her $18,000 in benefits. Her employer rewarded her productivity; the state punished her for it. No rational actor climbs that wall."
https://fixupx.com/Handre/status/2111462088925155514
https://fixupx.com/Handre/status/2111462088925155514