mercoledì 20 marzo 2024

The history of bandits and criminals climbing to power, and clinging to it.

As in any pyramid system, fascist, communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, theocratic, technocratic, the first to rise to power are bandits, it doesn't matter that the system was started by honest people and with love for what they do, as soon as they get power the bandits will climb the scheme pushing each other to the top so they can steal.

The honest Romanian Fascists (legionnaires) died shot in the back by the ariviste legionaries clinging to power prior to world war II, the few who escaped died in the communist prisons after the world war II, the bandit legionnaires, arivistes and traitors became communists overnight, torturers in the communist prisons, party activists, etc., because the party needed professionals, so they wiped their history with a sponge, new name, new county, and at work as before.

Whoever argues about the Legionnaires because they were good or bad is a brat and has not understood history, the same applies to those who hate communism and argue with those who praise communism.

The entire history of human politics is nothing but the history of bandits and criminals climbing to power, legislating their right to be in power, legalizing their methods of staying in power, and their battle against the civil population that they milk and oppress, in any way or form of classical or modern feudalism (fascist, communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, theocratic, technocratic, constitutional monarchy, republic and any other form of pyramidal society).

mercoledì 21 febbraio 2024

Money is just an accounting expression, not a value "di' per se' ".

Money is not property of the bearer, money is property of the issuer.

In USA the Federal reserve own the money for example, similar institutions work similarly for other countries, the bearer is only authorised to keep them as accounting method of the value accounted for that cannot be otherwise proven.

Unlike real estate or objects that bear their own value and need no money to express it, other values like intellectual property for instance cannot be given away psically like a house, so they are passed to the next bearer only on paper, using money to ascertain their value in the transaction documents, even if no actual money change hands but an object is given for the said value, like you write me a song and I give you my car for it, so now I own my song written by you for the value of the car, that in the contract we put down in US Dollars becasue that is the money we decided to express the transaction instead of expressing it in Rubles for exmaple, thou we could of, is perfectly legal to express it any way you want.

Money is debt, USA Federal Reserve issuing a debt bond in dollar notes, that the bearer (members of the public, individuals and businesses) handle to account for their un expressable assets (or liabilities) by existing phisical means like property, goods, etc. When the Federal Reserve gets their money back as taxes or by other menas they extinguesh that portion of debt they issued.

You practically hadle as values somebody elses debt to you, that is all.

lunedì 19 febbraio 2024

Science corrupts. Absolute science corrupts absolutely.

Scientific consesnus can only be obtained via orchestrated targeted financing with T&C attached, hence scientific consensus is anything but science.

Goodhart's law. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

China, India, Russia, Iran, etc, are merelly catching up with what US and Europe were doing for decades now, if not for over a century, where genuine works never get published because... it contradicts the trend established by the money providers and their politcal minions, while bullshit papers get published because... backed up by big money and a powerfull political machine, and every now and than retracted because too baltantly fake, and now you get angry because the rest of the fake world and their fake as our academia people are competitng with our fake academia and beat us at our own game of faking academic research papers... lol.

University research is a for profit business. They have to give the funders what they want or else they go out of business. "Science" is much more fraudulent than most people have yet understood,

In academia it only counts if it's published in an scientific journal. The more famous the journal the better. It's how you get grants and keep your employment.

Publicly funded research is chosen by committees, who take input from researchers who review the submissions. People who want to challenge current research are reviewed by people who created the current research.

Peer review is not the way things should go, one can always make a pact with other 10 scmamers to peer review eachother and always win, in fact this is how is been working for decades now. Replicating the experiment with same results should be the way, replicating with the intent to fail it and find if the whole thing is not a scam or plagiarism. Once a paper is pubblishesd everybody in the sector should try to replicate the experiment, just for the fun of finding out if it is a fake paper or not, also everybody should hunt down plagiarism, and those two sectors is where the money should go, unmasking the fake. Obviously big companies and corporations, and most governments, will never agree to funding that. Because... poatatoes.

This issue runs way deeper than just "quantity over quality". There is plenty of politics involved here, the least of all people seeking promotions. Corporations trying to insulate their products from contrary research; political parties trying to falsely legitimize questionable public policy; biased scientists steeped in dogma trying to push their own precious ideologies. Science is not as 'objective' as people like to think it is. Never was, never will be.

This is why you should always question the science, not trust it. Trust nothing, it is just not science, at all... only propaganda, money backed propaganda dressed as science that no one is authorised to question, and if questioning it is a no go, than for me that is a religion, not science, and I am not a religious person by definition.

lunedì 12 febbraio 2024

The Putin Interview seen by Terente Marcel over a beer.

The interview must be digested slowly.

It is true that Tuckson lost control of the interview in the first phase, but journalism is by no means the hysterical parody of the semi-illiterate "big" media barking pekeneeze at the guest in order to force them to respond according to their expectations.

I admit, at first I also had this impression that Putin did not answer any of the relevant questions.

Later I re-watched the Interview and understood that some complicated questions cannot have simple answers.
It takes a lot of intelligence and a complex rational way to understand the answers.

I think Tuckson was very frustrated that the answers he received were diplomatic rather than direct.
But he did not abandon the journalistic approach and "hung on" to the statements of the interlocutor as any professional journalist would do.

At the beginning of the interview he seemed genuinely disturbed by the way Putin chose to treat the issue from a historical point of view, clearly he had not come there for a history lesson and expected something else.

He later proved his intelligence in that he began to understand that there were no simple answers to his questions.

Above all else he showed patience and tact.
You claim that you did not understand what was relevant and probably relatively new after this interview.

If you have the patience to watch it again, possibly in bits and pieces, you will have an answer.

Purely subjectively, for me, there were many relevant elements: the first and most important is that Putin understood the current new economic and political realities, in opposition to the Western political class that seems intellectually anesthetized; the second relevant thing is that he understood that in the USA it is not the political class that leads but someone else (he says the elites), so decisions are not made at the political level; another relevant fact is that in light of this, he uses intelligence channels rather than diplomatic channels; that says a lot about who is running the "collective west" today.

The unasked and implicitly unanswered question is who these services answer to, but this topic has not been touched upon.

I did not have the feeling that Putin invited Poland, Romania or Hungary to the dismemberment of Ukraine, the statements cannot be taken out of context as some try.

However uncomfortable the historical truth may be for some, including Russians, Putin did not shy away from bringing it to the attention of public opinion.

This shows that he is a very different type of politician from the ones we have today.

Some see in this interview another way of making propaganda and others see another point of view unknown in the Western environment, as well as another way of doing politics, if necessary including by force.

In any case, the interview is far from trivial or uninteresting.