I agree on the matter of Chinese-made goods. From my interactions with Chinese expats, it appears there are two tiers of Chinese goods - the cheap crap sold for decades to foreign companies, and the decent and still affordable stuff meant for local use, which is now expanding abroad. So in that regard, the manufactured goods markets in its major trading partners wouldn't be severely affected. And vice versa, the growing economies of both China and India will be more than happy to welcome the excess Russian gas if the import restrictions of the EU become permanent. And the overall global economy seems to hold up for another day... for now.
You have to betray yourself to become a top lawyer or economist.
Sadly, I've often seen that kind of mentality in Eastern Europe - the whole "everyone successful is some kind of swindler" deal. Not that it's entirely untrue, but it does tend to sound like an excuse, particularly from the crowd that - as you yourself have said - holds most laws in abject contempt. So it's less moral objection and more petty thieves complaining about the not-so-petty thieves.
The same goes for the STEM fields - Asians may not be the most imaginative bunch, but they at least know to value technical education, particularly compared to the omnipresent image of the lame nerd in western pop-culture. Ditto Jews in economics and the humanities - the pencil-neck paper pusher is an unflattering cultural image, but I suspect that's the whole point - white Americans allowed themselves to believe it, and to avoid the respective professions... until it was too late.
Look at it this way - whenever someone complains that black people are institutionally oppressed with regard to jobs and education, one go-to response is that black culture simply doesn't regard education and hard work as values, compared to the idealized image of the petty thug in overpriced fake gold chains. Respectively, the same can be said of how white American culture nowadays idolizes ultra-macho gun-wielding rednecks - which can be readily observed even here with all the "sundae gundae" and "look at my gas station sticker" posts. Or, on the other side of the world, of the Russian idolization of oligarchs and the "gopnik" culture adopted by lower class teens. Overall, if white people have been fed a poison pill, it was a pill they still took on their own.
All that stupid sanctions, really, do much more harm to the West, than to Russia. And that is obviously intentional.
Pretty much. The question is - to what end? Sure enough, Russia is already increasing raw resource trade with China and India, though I'm not sure what's the situation with consumer goods. I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese manufacturers of ostensibly western brands, have simply ignored the ban on exports to Russian outlets. Overall, I'm not expecting a major shakeup on Russian markets.
In the west, however, there's already talk of goods shortages, from wheat to sunflower oil. I suspect this precipitates a planned restructuring of the economy - an expansion of mining and farming jobs, in order to achieve at least some self-sufficiency for the EU and certain NATO countries. After all, oligarchs like Bill Gates have been buying up farmland like there's no tomorrow, and they tend to be pretty good bellwethers in that regard. And wouldn't you know it - the past decade saw an influx of unskilled migrants, good for just this sort of thing. Amazing coincidence, I know.
Altogether, this whole conflict seems to function like a not-quite-amicable economic divorce - an unsurprising, likely even necessary measure after the financial crisis that marked the past decade.
I'm starting to think there was a mass misprint error in western geography textbooks, where Asia and South America are simply missing or something. I have to wonder what's sillier - western whitebreads believing the world ends with them, or that the end will come at the hands of the one group of people who've only ever made headway in industries nobody else competed - banking in medieval times, and film-making in 20th century America.
Here's a general tip - so long as white Americans believe that studying Law, Economics or STEM is for lame nerds, these fields will be solely occupied by Jews and Asians who don't. I'm not too fond of the noseys either, but I can hardly fault them for taking advantage of a glaring flaw in white American upbringing, where bullets, bibles and beer are regarded as a complete substitute for brains.
It's always funny when 99% of the media parrots the same talking points, while criticism or mere disagreement are actively penalized... but when dissenting opinion does manage to reach the few outlets still even slightly open, that's "propaganda". When Facetwittubeddit stops banning accounts for their political views, then we can talk about echo chambers.
Well, I did say the sheer scale tends to be the odd feature. In this case, it could have been:
A) built on top of a pre-existing ziggurat-type building - possible, since this happened early in the dynastic era, where Upper Egypt had yet to achieve complete dominance over Lower Egypt, and the pharaoh would have an interest in replacing local religious sites with ones devoted to his own religion. After all, that's what happened to the Sphinx, replacing its original sacred animal head with that of a pharaoh.
B) built using faster transportation means than we give them credit for. Namely, reed boats - reed has insane flotation capabilities, is readily available along the Nile, and would leave no lasting trace after use. Moreover, both reed and limestone get slippery when wet, so a flat causeway (of which there is on-site evidence) kept watered (of which the Egyptians were masters) would provide the perfect path for sliding the blocks to the building sites, boats and all. Now, it would still take a near-constant stream of stone to match that timeline, but then again, the pharaohs were exactly the kind of people capable of organizing logistics like that.
C) built using a combination of the above. Again, the pharaohs had every reason to claim they built the pyramids alone, within their own reign, and it would be easy for them to destroy any records saying otherwise. The actual distinguishing features of the pyramids as such are the cover and capstones - and those can easily fit the given timeframe by themselves.
Oh, that it is. Usually the impressive part is the sheer scale of the construction, along with certain other details that are different for each pyramid. Not that any of it was beyond the technological means of the people back then, but in terms of organization, it implied a level of leadership and resource management not often seen in history. For lack of a better word, it really took god-kings to build those things.
Case in point for the "everything is religious" mentality.
Have you ever thought it might be the other way around? That what's happening to the US right now is simply a phase that has affected every failing empire in the past five thousand years, so it's nothing special in the overall framework of things? But that it's citizens, particularly in media, are squarely in denial about that fact, and would rather cling on to some grand mythical explanation, than face the simple truth - that their country isn't special. It's simply one more nation among hundreds of others, no more noble or less corruptible than the rest.
And in turn, Biden taking over is nothing but a blip on the historical radar, like Carter was in the seventies - you know, the last time conservatives wailed about the coming of the antichrist, television preachers were on the rise, and airports were filled with religious panhnadlers milking that same fear. And what came of it - the Reagan years. Not exactly the apocalypse, I'd imagine.
So again, focus on the facts, and look for practical explanations with well-defined predictions. Getting emotional in a crisis never helped anyone, while overstating or misconstruing the danger is a great way to get yourself swindled, as many a toilet-paper-hoarder has realized over the past two years.
Finding willing people isn't that much of a problem - J6 showed that 100 times 100 people were perfectly fine with the idea of entering a public building, only to simply make a mess of things because they had no clue what to do once they got in.
And that's the actual problem at hand - there's no plan of action, no overall strategy or contingencies, no unambiguous endgame or peaceful plans for after the unsavory parts are done. Not that it's so surprising - American history in particular has deliberately fostered the myth of the rag-tag bunch of rebels led by Washington, taking on the far better trained and equipped British forces... even though in practice, it was the other way around, with the King's army having major supply issues, while the revolutionary army received considerable support from the French - you know, the people Americans have been raised to hate and mock ever since, maybe so as to prevent an alliance like that from happening ever again.
In light of this, before seeking out 100 or even a dozen men, first do some browsing through at least 100 books, ideally with about half of them being from the West Point required reading list. Then look for allies abroad, who'd be willing to recognize the shift of power if it ever happens. Then iron out the practicalities - supplies, contingencies, tactical and strategic assets... In short, long before the first shot is fired, you must have already won. Because that's how your enemies fight, and they also have hundreds of years of experience on their side. It's not an unwinnable battle, but if you allow yourself to think it's gonna be noble or clean or fair, that's generally how you know you'll lose before you ever see it coming.
Well, let's see. First off, we got clickbait articles in the style of "here's what this liberal politician said to make parents angry".
Then, a lineup of writers ranging from emotional mouth-breathers, to pearl-clutching soccer moms, to melodramatic larpers thinking they're in a revolutionary war reenactment.
Throw in daily scripture references, because of course everything has to be taken as proof we're living in the end times, and every problem is fundamentally religious and can't be viewed in purely practical terms.
And finally, an editorial policy prioritizing engineered outrage puff pieces over comprehensive analysis and neutral presentation of major national and global events.
Toss it all around, and you have the classic recipe for controlled opposition - articles meant to feed your daily need for emotional validation - in this case, outrage against the mainstream narrative - without really adding anything more substantial.
Just for contrast and comparison, check out foreign sources like Xinhua, Al Jazeera, the English versions of Indian and Japanese media. Yes, there's loads of propaganda there, but at least it's designed to work, to actually propagate a narrative of its own, rather than spew passive aggressive outrage over the narrative of someone else. That's how you drive an opposing viewpoint - whereas the "alt news" of western media are meant as minor distractions, without any real relevance as sources of information.
I'd go with a mixture of simple cold feet - since most if not all of the "don't tread on me" crowd is comprised of blowhards with no real competence outside the plinking range - and, far more importantly, a sub-conscious aversion to how violent resistance actuly works. In real life, violent revolutions aren't close to glamorous, even if the government being overthrown is far worse. Once the bullets really start flying, there are no heroes on either side. Only survivors, who occasionally have the audacity to call themselves winners.
And this is the real stopper here - most of the locals, especially the most vocal critics of The Pedos That Be, are strictly in it for the sense of heroism they get for doing it; basically no different from how social justice windbags love nothing more than screeching against the evil white men who run everything. They'll show off their (downloaded pictures of) guns every Sunday, and maybe the occasional gas station sticker - because nothing spells heroic resistance quite like petty vandalism of private property - and this'll be the full extent of their efforts. Because it gets them their daily fix of "I'ma stickin it to da man, y'all", and they really want nothing more anyway.
So of course, they lash out against both sides - both the "optics" crowd, who at least have enough sense not to draw attention to themselves with petty douchebaggery, and the people who advocate for more forceful resistance - because that might actually rock the boat, and cost them the above daily fix. Ironically, the optics guys are probably a better group to bet on if violence does ensue, under the historically proven truth that there's nothing more dangerous than someone who simply wants a calm and quiet life, and something isn't letting him have it.
I support the recognition and enforcement of single, open standards, instead of ignoring the invasive policies of countries from NATO and the EU - often involving sovereign nations literally an ocean apart - only to clutch pearls in indignation when Russia acts to prevent a neighboring country from providing military bases and missile installations to its strategic enemies.
And before anyone cries the favorite liberal buzzword of "whataboutism" - no, it's not whataboutism for others to hold you to the same standard you wish to judge them by and enforce on them. It's not whataboutism to point out every pathetic excuse the US had for artificially fueling civil conflicts in the Balkans, or invading the Middle East under false pretenses. It's not whataboutism to point out that the EU supported those acts, both politically and militarily, so they have no leg to stand on now.
Safe to say, it's not the Russians who invented the game of "send troops abroad and pretend you're a hero for it". They're just the ones playing the current round better than anyone else. And the fact that the current crop of wailing moralists ignore all the previous rounds - that most of them are still old enough to remember - shows exactly what their morals consist of, and what they really support - their own agendas, and their own reputation for speaking out only when it's popular to do so.
To keep it concise - climate on Earth is governed by two processes - solar radiation and plate tectonics. Both can affect ocean currents - which in turn are the main driver of weather events - and neither is even remotely within human technology. Naturally, neither official side of the "debate" is willing to even mention plate tectonics in the first place, since a lot of discoveries there would render the whole point moot - and thus leave a ton of lawyers, lobbyists and media pundits on both sides in need to look for a real job.
Probably an underwhelming answer, but at least on the Rod of Asclepius, the snakes most likely stand for... snakes. Yeah, the ancients could be painfully literal at times. In this case, non-venomous snakes are noted to have been used in the temples of Asclepius for unspecified healing rituals, possibly divination on their guts. Not exactly family-friendly, but neither is most of ancient history.
On the Caduceus, on the other hand, the legend goes that Hermes/Mercury once saw a pair of fighting snakes, and made peace between them using his traveler's rod, so the snakes stand for adversaries finding peace, and for negotiation in general - a suitable symbol for the god of messengers and traders. Over time, however, it got confused with the Rod of Asclepius, so now both are used for medicine... though it does fit the way medicine nowadays is mostly a commercial venture with the occasional health benefit.
It's some kind of dust, I'll give you that. There's a reason space and general technology-related conspiracies surged with the mass introduction of hard drugs in the mid-twentieth century.
In a way, it kinda reminds me of the "what the hell happened" meme showing everyone in two-piece business suits in the 1930s, versus modern crowds in garish outfits that's generous to call clothing altogether. Yeah, those first guys - also brought up with at least some modicum of classical education, including science and math. The modern crowd - hippie liberals and paranoid conservatives, who both think that homemade essential oils are the cure for brain cancer that evil corporations and the government have been hiding for years. And that's not going into the literal flat-earthers - the living proof that modern western education can't hold a candle to a couple of Greeks with a stick and an abacus.
Tell me about it. Even the average car crash leaves enough chunky salsa around to make even seasoned paramedics want to reach for the unsee juice; never mind the kind of nightmares one can find in a war zone.
Thanks for the footage and the respective source - it definitely makes for a great (if gut-churning) demonstration of how wartime casualties actually look like - burn marks, mutilations, and scenes where you can't easily tell where a body ends and wreckage begins.
Overall, whatever else the Russians are doing in Ukraine, the "denazification" part - or at least the extermination of the Azov forces - seems authentic enough.
Yeah, kinda puts the whole post in a different perspective. It makes it sound like the whole "globalists destroying western society" is really an excuse for certain western nations to start yet another pointless war somewhere, and never, ever, own up to their own faults and destructive tendencies. Which isn't too far from the truth, either.
I also love how there's not a drop of blood on their clothes or on the ground, no burn marks from point blank gunfire, no physical signs of bleedout or trauma. It seems that the real supply crisis shown on the news is that of half-decent crisis actors.
For that matter - and this is an open question to anyone who can point out any source - has there been any kind of conclusive footage of casualties for the past two months? Because so far, in all news sources and social media feeds, I've seen tons upon tons of wrecked vehicles, some demolished buildings, several hours' worth of hazy background explosions... and barely a couple of scratches in terms of personal damage, on otherwise living people. No gore, no blood, no burns - none of the things you'd expect when a crewed vehicle is hit by any kind of heavy ordnance.
Overall, in terms of onscreen human casualties, the whole conflict seems about as sterile as the 80s G.I. Joe cartoons. So I wonder if it's just my impression, or this grand age of information we live in has somehow failed to produce any substantial footage of casualties.
Pretty much. Particularly regarding government lies, spreading the conspiracy theory might have been a dodge regarding another thing - massive corruption around the early Space Shuttle program (which everyone forgets began around the time of the final moon flights). Fact is, the Shuttle never fulfilled its designated purpose - cheap transport to low-earth orbit - yet managed to bury billions in spending, along with over a dozen human casualties of designer hubris and management incompetence. It was a criminal flop through and through, needing a quick change of subject - so, how `bout them moon landings, huh? Something fishy going on there, that's fer sure. Never mind the Shuttle, it can wait, just keep looking at the moon, that's a good boy.
All in all, as with most crimes, government lies also tend to involve money first, pragmatism second, nebulous nefarious plans last, if at all.
NASA could have sent a probe that sent a signal...
On this I actually agree. A disposable probe with only flyby capabilities and no need for reentry navigation - well within the technology of the time. It flies off, plays its tune, burns up in atmo on the way back, and the ships "find" the splashed-down crew module at the designated location.
That said, they'd still need pinpoint script timing to pull off the impression of real-time conversation between the pre-recorded messages from the probe, and the responses of mission control. And, of course, rely on absolutely nothing happening during the inevitable signal loss when the probe is behind the Moon. The fact the Soviets sent a robotic lander the very next year, speaks highly of the remote control technology of the time, at least for tasks as simple as driving a glorified RC buggy on flat rock.
But that's the thing - with automated technology being that advanced, it would cost nothing to strap on a couple of human passengers anyway, at least for bragging rights. Life support issues are the main concern, of course, but most of the conditions would be the same as in orbit - and those were already covered ground by the time.
And of course, this still leaves the smoking gun - terrestrial telescope images of the landing sites. Either put by hand or by machine, the one thing certain is that something manmade was placed there within the past fifty years or so.
As for the Ukraine conflict, Russia has already announced it will suspend joint operations in the ISS until the sanctions are lifted... however that is supposed to work, since the hub and life support modules of the thing are Russian. Either it's a token announcement with no practical substance, or, cynical as it may be, a testament that matters of space always have and will continue to be guided by terrestrial concerns, at least for the foreseeable future. So there's that.
In an age where anyone can cry "photoshopped" (with or without knowledge of how hard it is to fake content on the kind of physical media used for the missions), a lot of discussion on the landings ends up being a "he said, she said" dead end.
Instead, I think it would be interesting to try a new approach - what we might call Poirot over Holmes - and focus our little gray cells on matters of motivation and opportunity, rather than having the exact same "the flag sways to the wind / the flag is hanging from a horizontal pole" debate that everyone's had before. So, here goes:
Evidence for the landings: They came as a natural step in space development, after sending objects in orbit, animals and people in orbit, and two manned lunar flybys immediately before. However...
Evidence against the landings: Most of those firsts were done by the Soviets, and Americans badly needed a victory to boost their international prestige. Especially with the Vietnam War not going nearly the way they wanted - so they could use a major distraction there as well, and they certainly weren't above trying to fake the whole deal. However...
For: The Soviets had the requisite equipment to triangulate if the Apollo signals came from space or not, and would be the first to cry foul if they could. They didn't. But instead....
For: All the landings happened during the term of Richard Nixon, the go-to "evil president" media bogeyman before Trump, meaning his in-country opponents had every reason to discredit his achievements as president. Which doesn't quite explain why...
Against: The manned landings stopped with the end of Nixon's presidency, and further lunar missions have been token at best. But then again...
For: The manned missions didn't have much practical utility over robotic explorers - which were sent by the Soviets - and the samples taken by the Apollo crews, coupled with ever-advancing spectroscopic analysis, would provide ample scientific data for decades to come. And culturally, while the space program was a cornerstone of Soviet propaganda, Americans quickly lost interest after these first manned missions, making them a costly and risky endeavor with next to no return. Though still...
For: The leftover equipment from the landings is still visible by telescope, including ones that can be rented for private purposes. Meaning that serious skeptics can still pool resources and produce new images of the sites, conclusively proving them to be barren and untouched, if they were. But again, this also hasn't happened.
Overall, we certainly have motive for the crime, but not quite the opportunity - the Soviets could easily spot them for trying, and an exposed faking of the landings during the Cold War, especially the Vietnam years, would mean a massive hit on American prestige that they could not afford. However, there's plenty of motives and opportunities for the local opponents of the Nixon administration to attempt a frame-up, while his subsequent post-resignation demonization would affect all projects during his term, including the space program.
Question for the ages. In recent history, the most notable cases of culturally dead-end nations turning around, are in Asia - with Japan, China and India leading the charge, and Turkey and now Iran following suit. I mean, before the US-led post-WWII reformations, the Japanese workforce had a reputation for laziness and poor quality - and now look at them go. The same is apparently happening right now in China, with regard to their manufactured goods. And of course, there's the phenomenon of how every other tech tutorial online is made by an Indian. So at least we know the turnaround is possible in theory. The next step would be to see what cultural and socio-economic cornerstones exist in these countries, that can be emulated elsewhere.