updating

Book/Overview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Book
+
+Break the cycle
+
+We fall victim to our belief systems, and it allows us to be continuously manipulated.
+
+We need to understand our biology in the context of our physical Universe, and use this knowledge to control our psychology.
+
+We have, as evidence of the pitfalls of allowing human society to run amok, the neverending archetypal conflicts which result in Collectivist vs Individualist clashes in society.
+
+Ultimately, only one of these can be morally correct, and it can only be proven to each individual because of their experience.

consciousness/conspiracy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+It's a conspiracy
+
+We live in a world of competing
+
+
+It's always suggested that if you question any aspect, any details of what you're being told, then it follows that you are alleging a conspiracy, and to even step towards such a road, as framed by your critic, is sufficient evidence that you are a crazy person who shouldn't be listened to.
+
+To be one who is willing to organize and analyze piecemeal bit by bit, and the reveal the manner of their thought, the findings of their research offends they who have an aversion to the idea of new knowledge. Repelled and unable to indulge or entertain the thoughts and ideas of their brethren, they who are unable to conceive of any reason why someone would wish to busy themselves with such concerns, or wonder why they would have thoughts and beliefs that would compel them to expend their resources -
+
+no, there is no willingness to hear such madness to be heard, but there's ample time for the intolerant to speak and share their thoughts and feelings and experiences as though they were a whole, complete and bonafide human being, unlike their brethren who are, perhaps, nothing more than an illusion, a caricature with a broken mechanism that patters and sputters without emitting any intelligent pattern worth of time or attention.
+
+The truth is that there needn't be any conspiracy. No conspiracy as to the reach protecting their possessions. No conspiracy to the rich depth of expression that can be embodied by humans. No conspiracy as to the mechanism of incumbency - it is logical to protect one's position. No conspiracy as to the need for business to maintain or exceed the transactions it has as its precedent. No conspiracy to the ego whose corresponding conception of identity risks incurring infinite despair if it fails to be propagated. No conspiracy as to the utility of categories and nomenclature in mustering and directing political power. No conspiracy in accepting short-term benefit of complacency in place of facing the wrath of calling everyone to what lies beyond their eyes.

consciousness/timbre.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+I've always paid attention to the timbre of each sound and the fact that each sound emitted from a particular object is not consistent in that it won't appear to sound the same in all settings. The timbre of the sound is due in large part not to the frequency of its fundamental pitch, but the relationships of the composite pattern of pitches evoked as a culmination of factors including its material composition, the harmonic series, and the setting in which it resonates. When observed by a human, the sound produces an event with a distinct expression and that expression, when compared to a subsequent observation of seemingly identical conditions, will never yield an identical replication. The uniqueness of states of matter exists at infinite levels of abstraction away from that whereupon society focused to attempt to describe it. Though we may be consumed by some scope of analysis, the most fundamental structure of reality and its transformation likely has more in common with a symphony, the relationships of tones illustrating a nature composed of expressions.
+
+I wouldn't be surprised if the state of the world were composed of the expressions of our conscious experiences.

corona/Bret and GDB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Adaptive Immune Function
+Immunobiology background primer
+
+From Brett Weinstein
+
+We can dichotomize system in different ways:
+1 way -> we have innate immunity -> ability to recognize pathogens / disease causing patterns  without having to have exposure
+Acquired immunity -> getting sick, fighting it off -> now you have the ability to recognize that pathogen (immune system has learned th eelectro-magnetic signature on the surface of the pathogen or the cells that have been infected) - good at finding and destroying
+Last creates a set of memory cells so that it is quicker to recognize future invasion by pathogen -> we don't normally get the same illness twice
+
+# Acquired immunity
+Carried in 2 kidns of cells ->
+ - B cells -> make antibodies -> Y shaped protein floats freely and sticks to things based on the signature (electromagnetic charge). These attach to bacteria, virally infected cells -> consequences
+ - T cells -> function like B cells, except instead of creating free-floating antibody - similar bodies are on surface of cell and function as receptors. T cells move around, and the B cells become triggered to be active if the right pathogen is present
+ T cell can immediately destroy infected cell -> recognize antigen
+ Other T cells can also provide help to the B cell -> build memory. Without T cell, the B cell has no memory
+ (2 types of T cells) -> cytotoxic T cell and memory T cell
+
+## Way in which acquired immunity is originally created
+Fascinating evolutionary process
+More or less in this way:
+You have an array of cells that produce antibodies which have an ability (general) to react to any large organic molecule -> any configuration of charges that an antigen might have. Multiple cells will react to it somewhat. Billions of this?
+Wide range of patterns of antigen that they can react to
+You have these things before you are born (in utero)
+React in principles to any sizable organic molecule, but not your own. This is beacuse, during critical period of development, your system eliminates any of these cells which would react to your own molecules. System wakes up to all of the members of class of cells that you produce in utero, and eliminates them. This the system is sure to only react to cells that are not from you -> tolerance to your own cells. failure to do this would be an autoimmune disorder
+
+Understsand this: the system in its initial state reacts to anything that isn't you. What isn't you might be a pathogen, or might not -> pollen? Just an organic molecule that you could react to, even if it's not dangerous -> allergy
+
+When invaded by bacetria, however, you are suddenly creating molecules that your system has never seen - > system reacts - > at first, very weakly because you don't have a specific program for recognizing the invader -> just a general reaction
+BUT
+
+The cells that react a little bit to the new pathogenc pattern create a bunch of offspring cells that rae not identical to each other
+Those cells (offspring) which react even more strongly to the pathogen are griggered to produce more offspring cells
+
+This uses evolution to generate a recognition of this new pathogen which your body had never sen before, which ou are now learning to recognize. The system becomes very good at it. At this point, it can recognize any place in the body which is making these new antigens and becomes capable of fending off teh pathogen. Cytotoxic T cells are the ones that kill.
+
+Imagine: you got sick, breathe in a virus, it invades cells, those cells make viral particles - > get recognized by adaptive immune system - > system becomes good at finding these and targeting these -> and then, you clear the infection because your system is good at recognizing it -> neow produces memory cells which remember the formula -> if triggered, these can create a large army of cells to attack pathogen
+
+Helper T-Cells are involved in helping to trigger B-Cell immunity in adaptive immune system, having discovered formula for the pathogen
+
+`This process is T-Helper cell dependent.`
+
+In context fo Covid, people have jheard discussion about whether or not infection of virus or vaccination triggers a robust B-Cell response. Can we detect an antibody titer?
+
+How well  / how much affinity do antibodies have for antigen in question -> varies -> variant that the immune system was
+
+Second question ->Whether or not the system that crates antiboddies (short term immunity) has converted over to a system of memory for long-term immunity.
+
+Much harder to test to this second case. Testing whether or not you have long-term immunity based on cells having correct memory.
+
+B cells also do have memory, however -> you need memory in the B cells to be able to recall the antibodies upon exposure to the pathogen.
+
+B cell memory and T cell memory
+
+So, we should understand that some of these vaccines require two doses:
+- vaccine enters your cells
+- mRNA encodes spike protein - is introduced and taken up by cells. Why is it taken up by cells?
+Lipid nanoparticles will enhance the uptake of the
+if you would have it by itself, it becomes too soluble. In a lipid nanoparticle, it has ahigher affinity for cell membrane, instead of being attracted arbitrarily everywhere. Enhances uptake of mRNA because of structure and chemical nature, and size. Should be promoted and enhanced entry.
+
+You have an aqeous environment -> wet environment -> primiarly water -> cells surrounded by fat (not water soluble) -> by putting the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle -> the affinity for the cell is higher -> drive them itno cell and then the mRNA is transcribed.
+
+Summary -> we talked about adaptive immunity system -> evolves through clono selection -> evolves to target and eliminate infection once acquired
+
+But this is not the full basis of immunity to pathogens
+We also have innate immunity -> does not require exposure in order to develop
+
+## Innate Immunity
+Antibody part and cellular part of immunity (limiting focus to these)
+
+Antibodies are part of the acquired immunity -> they specifically recognize an antigen and they can also use memory
+Equivalent of this in Innate immunity -> natural antibodies -> produced by what we call an innate light-Cell -> preprogrammed B cell present at birth
+These natural antibodies, in contrast to antibodies by B cells in acquired - > have no antigen specificity -> they can recognize multiple antigens
+They are not recalled upon reexposure
+Humeral part of the innate system
+
+Cellular part:
+In contrast to T cells, not able to recognize a specific antigen that is presented oin a mutated cell
+Cells of innate ysstem -> natural killer cells ->they recognize in the non-specific way a kind of array of motifs on surface of infected or pathologically altered cell. This is not very specific for an antigen, but if a virus for example invads that cell -> all sorts of glycens on the surface fo cell -. pattern is formed, and becomes recognized by natural killer cells
+Pre-programmed-> act immediately -> first line of defense when a pathogen gets in
+
+You have a system which reacts to more or less the symptoms of a pathology. The ecells behave molecularly in an unsual way -. natural killer cells can recognize this and react, but they aren't specifically reacting to a one antigen
+
+## Hazard of our current vaccine regime
+
+*According to Geert van den Bossche*
+
+Claims that the current vaccine vcampaign is so dangerous that ti should be halted. Brett believes GVDB's
+Possibility of our making our viral susceptibility to covid worse is present -> we are manufacturing the hazard that we might find ourselves in a year or two from now by our actions now
+
+What in a nutshell is the argument?
+
+## Geert's Argument
+First of all, this vaccines are would be perfec tto be used outside of a pandemic. Because if you use them before you get exposed to the virus, you can build a full fledged immunity -> this takes time -> 2 doses -> colonal expansion -> in meantime you acquired memory and higher affinity
+This is a process sbefore you acquire full fledged immunity
+if you have full fledged immunity an then fin dpathgoen you either have everything uou need to fight it off
+OR
+
+` Hypothetically speaking, the viurus emerges in Wuhan, world limits its spread, it is kept to Eurasia. Rest of the world has not faced the virus. Theyn, if we take the mRNA vaccine and vaccinate the population so that 80 - 90% is vaccinated before encountering the pathogen. Hazar is low, even if it is true that.`
+Just to be clear, here we are talking about original viruses -> wild virus
+
+If you diminish viral load without killing it
+
+Vaccine, from point of view from the patient -> patient gets a shot
+Tha tlooks the same to people, regardless of when they get vaccinated. Getting a vaccine is like showing up -> imagine that your nation is being invaded -> how useful is your rifle when it can't even be ee
+

corona/Chlild Sacrifice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+In a gesture of subservience, as one acts to offer the necessary cost for incurring a threat (even so little as an afternoon of discomfort), one meets a marvelous call to action, in the name of civility, through offering up the child. The state of the world could even be a fate worse than death, as it's thought that the suffering in the wild is palpably greater than those rare events which happened to someone else's child. As, you see, to leave it be would mean allowing an element of injustice alongside death already unescapable.
+
+The adult mind, with its layers of neurological noise, sports a clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory (though amazing and sophisticated, we can thankfully always do better). Unable to look back, one has assimilated a propensity to reinforce their sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the sunk cost fallacy - coupled with an evolved sense to acknowledge some form of community tax.
+
+Higher learning makes this sacrifice mandatory for their campuses. Campuses already populated by the higher classes of society are potentiated with enhanced opportunity to observe additional, localized expressions of excluding other dwellers of the community.
+
+We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
+
+Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of any human (even the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them as threats to one another's loved ones. What might even be better is the capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures, in their age of vigour, as an unreasonable risk.
+
+We either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should is least to be feared, which may oversensitize their fear in perpetuity.
+
+To be broken down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind, though some won't even complain (I hear they're the resilient ones)."
+
+In a gesture of subservience, as one acts to offer the necessary cost for incurring a threat (even so little as an afternoon of discomfort), one meets a marvelous call to action, in the name of civility, through offering up the child. The state of the world could even be a fate worse than death, as it's thought that the suffering in the wild is palpably greater than those rare events which happened to someone else's child. As, you see, to leave it be would mean allowing an element of injustice alongside death already unescapable.
+
+The adult mind, with its layers of neurological noise, sports a clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory (though amazing and sophisticated, we can thankfully always do better). Unable to look back, one has assimilated a propensity to reinforce their sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the sunk cost fallacy - coupled with an evolved sense to acknowledge some form of community tax.
+
+Higher learning makes this sacrifice mandatory for their campuses. Campuses already populated by the higher classes of society are potentiated with enhanced opportunity to observe additional, localized expressions of excluding other dwellers of the community.
+
+We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
+
+Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of any human (even the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them as threats to one another's loved ones. What might even be better is the capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures, in their age of vigour, as an unreasonable risk.
+
+We either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should is least to be feared, which may oversensitize their fear in perpetuity.
+
+To be broken down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind, though some won't even complain (I hear they're the resilient ones)."

corona/Covid Religion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# Covidism as a Religion
+
+### Names
+The religion of Vazism
+The religion of Covid Concern
+The religion of Transhumanism
+
+### What is a religion?
+A belief system
+A belief about what is morally correct
+A pursuit to which one ascribes supreme importance
+A belief in something which has control over human destiny
+A system of thought wherein some faith must be applied as there are aspects of it that can't be known, either because of sheer complexity or because there are logically deducible extant pieces of information that cannot be observed and analyzed.
+
+There is a religious inclination in humankind spanning the entirety of human existence. This is probably because humans have always had to deal with a world full of unknown. Where the unknown far exceeds that which is known or could be known. There will always be unknown therefore we have a mind which works to abstract things that are known in a way that can be reused to create maps of the world as a whole. Because of this process of abstraction, there is never a perfectly applicable lense that can be applied to all aspects of reality, all parts of the Universe, all periods of tim that are possible, etc...
+
+### Social Acceptance
+Humans have a deep need to be accepted in a social group. There are numerous reasons for this:
+- We have a higher chance of surviving through cooperation
+- We make constant comparisons to understand if we are performing the most appropriate actions. We need to compare ourselves to our peers and we need to be able to deduce whether or not they will accept us for our actions and state of being.
+
+### Ideology
+What does an adherent of the covid religion hold as that which has been ascribed supreme importance?
+- Care or lack of harm
+  - The problem with this is that no one could ever know for sure if constraints will surely lead to no harm. It's sensible to assume that there is a tradeoff, therefore the cost of the tradeoff could be seen as some sort of sacrifice
+  - Adherents to the covid religion often demand that no harm will be tolerated;
+  -It is not, however, realistic to assume that constraints would lead to no harm. They acknowledge that there should be sacrifice - but they fail to mention lost lives, only forbidden pleasures.
+  - In demanding a reduction of human pleasures and all things forbidden, it is implied that they themselves are already making such sacrifices, which is a form of purity.
+  - Since the tradeoff necessarily causes human harm in the form of lives and biological health, it needs to be discussed whether or not this constistutes a form of human sacrifice. Sacrifice of the flesh must be made, because it purifies us by removing elements that are evil. Evil and corruption borne of the flesh which need to be eliminated if one wishes to transcend.
+
+### The veil
+- An article of clothing which symbolizes ones adherence to the supreme cause.
+- An article which qualifies one as a trustworthy participant, your trustworthy brethren
+- A symbol of cleanliness and purity
+- A garment which hides ones flaws, ones fallability, the corruption of aging
+- It is enforced, for reasons which cannot be taken to their logical conclusion. For this reason, it becomes a religious symbol
+
+## Introduction
+
+### Opening Statement
+In some respects, it seems rather redundant to differentiate Covidians and Neo-racist authoritarians from the classical puritans or puritan-like groups of thought that have been noted at various times in history. It would seem that a particularly wrong way of thinking and asserting force could be understood as simply being the product of the absence of a specific and relevant piece of information. Just as the core component in an operating system is that which deal swith the primary CPU registers, something that, if absent, would leave us with a mess of overwhelming information, which would only be burdensome and blinding, rather than helpful and innovative. Or perhaps it could even be compared to a particular tonal structure resonating in timespace, and its requiring a harmonic context to give it meaning and purpose in place of that which might be perceived if that same structure were resonating only in its static form, which would amount to little other than an unnerving and menacing cacophony wreaking havoc on the senses.
+
+If only it were so simply of an equation that this missing portion of data would suddenly alleviate the tensions and anxieties which are liable to arise in the sentiments and behaviours of a human, negating the likelihood of any form of human-derived tragedy (or worse) other than that which might only be circumstantial to biological life. That missing data might also include the resources required for a human to sustain itself metabolically, as well as the resources required to ward off biological threats.
+
+Nevertheless, it is not so that only those who lack resources are liable to commit heinous acts.
+It is also not the case that those who have all of these things accounted for are never liable to commit them.
+
+What we have here is a complex problem wherein the particular classifications of humans cannot dictate whether or not a heinous act is to occur.
+One might simply say that it is only the experiences of the human that would lead them to commit those acts, but this leads us to yet another new problem (the complexity grows) -> an observation problem. We cannot possibly understand the experience of a human, as we can only understand it as an outside observer and, even if we are able to collect all information without allowing an organism any type of privacy, we are still left with the problem of interpreting that information. We could, of course, contruct an artificial intelligence, or some sort of data model which replicates all of the neurological activity in that organism. We could replicate all the conditions that we wish to understand, have a complete model of the components of that organism, have algorithms written which are informed by the most sophisticated structuring of probabilities for every condition, as well as the most massive computational power available to ensure that whatever variation of state could be introduced can also be responded to with no latency whatsoever - even if we have all of these concerns accounted for in a way which can be agreed upon and tested to the point of having imposed the maximum technical demands ever possible, we would still be left with yet more problems. Turing has already identified this for us in the sense that there are certain numbers that cannot be computed. We cannot know, for example, what the number of necessary computable elements could possibly exist for a particular state and set of conditions. Nor could we know, as another example, whether all of the possible computable elements must be accounted for in order to have a reliable capacity for prediction. We would also now know the difference in possible outcomes by leaving out or adding any number of computable elements.
+
+This means that, no matter the power of our models, we can never know all of the possible configurations, because not everything is necessarily observable through the means by which physical observation is possible. This isn't to say that observation itself will produce an energetic event which transforms matter, but that the potential for information that is known can never be computed such as to account for whether or not incomputable information exists. There will only ever be the limit of that which has been computed, and that which is being computed.
+
+So, again, we have different groups of humans that are organized by some arbitrary property or characteristic or mode of analysis that we believe to be of importance, and we have no manner to assure ourselves that we could eventually garner the capacity to produce the analysis which reliably predicts outcome of behaviour for any particular human (or even the group of humans which, depending on the particular type of desired point of understanding being sought, could be considered as being a goal which implies a demand for computing more or less complexity).
+
+For this reason, though it is true that we can discuss a set of ever-expanding factors of variance, we should be able to come to a common set of concerns that are overlap these different possible distinct groups (covidians, neoracist contemporary wokes and adherents of Pharmism or, more broadly speaking, trans-humanism).
+
+To proceed, we must enumerate some of the common elements which exist between these difference group specifications:
+Covidians:
+- A belief that no harm should come to humans, and that the greatest threat of harm is that of Covid
+- immortality, at least insofar that no human is killed by covid.
+- Those that deliver us from covid. That which protects us from covid
+- A belief that the events of Covid19 were a birth of a new era. The birth of a new threat, or the supermanifestation of a previously extant threat into its more dire form, and that this occurred as a consequence of the imperfections of our way of being. Our manner of being was impure and creating unjust outcomes, and this virus is the gift which we receive in its stead. Solving the situation means that we are also correcting the problems that existed before, which gave rise the manifestation of this current Covid problem. This, in particular, means that the reason we must be absolutely steadfast in attaining our ZeroCovid is because, if even one case of covid occurs, it's likely to affect those who were already most affected by the problems in our way of living and way of being.
+- Covid is the new standard of care which we enforce on ourselves, because it protects those who we harmed most.
+
+Neoracists:
+- A belief that no harm should come to humans of particular races, and that it is not immoral to allow for harm to occur to races that have played a part in the oppression of other races
+- the elevation of one race to the detriment of all other races, to the point where, at the very least, the health of that race is prioritized, meaning that its life is extended (even if it is extended to the detriment of other races)
+- The noble races that have been harmed, the oppressed race, the energy and mystic knowledge of that special race that, if unearthed, can bring about salvation to mankind
+- A belief that in order to gain redemption over what occurred in the past, where the favoured races saw themselves as Gods who had dominion over the other weaker races, we now must allow for the weaker races to elevate to the status of God, or something that is greater and more meaningful and magnificent than the oppressor races. We elevate it to God status and this blesses the rest. This is the holy transcendance.
+
+Pharmism:
+- A belief that no harm should occur to a human, and that the manner in which we avoid harm is to provide a pharmaceutical solution. A further belief that to refuse the pharmaceutical solution constitutes a form of harm to humans.
+- immortality in the sense of correcting any biological problem with a pharmaceutical. A belief that every health problem can be corrected with pharmaceuticals, or at least treated in such a manner as to reduce the severity and reduce the damage brought on by the problem.
+- The supreme knowledge of pharmacokinetics and pharmacology which give rise to the pharmaceutical solution - the never-ending existence of a human through their mastery of the pharmaceutical science
+- Pharmism may be a dated term, and we might have to join it with Transhumanism in order to keep it complete and even current. Pharmism, or the idea of pharmaceutical drugs, has become deprecated because there are many strong proponents of the pharmaceutical industrial complex who recognize that pharmaceutical drugs can do harm, particularly because of pain killers creating addiction (and not necessarily because of the multitude of other concerns regarding pharmaceutical drugs, from blood pressure drugs to SSRIs). Those who recognize this, but are still strong proponents, have moved their focus for health to vaccines. Something which prevents the negative events from occurring.
+
+Transhumanism:
+- A belief that the natural state of the human being is, if not simply inadequate, a form of misery which needs to be alleviated. The only proper solution to the human existence, which is suffering, is to transform into something that is beyond human, having rectified the aspects of the human body which are imperfect or suboptimal for the aims of transhumanism. What are the aims of transhumanism? Well it would have to be immortality. If there are enhancements or augmentations which lead to the measurable improvement of human life, it would have to be quantified on the basis of an expressed biological action, such as metabolic function, or a higher level analysis such as longevity of the being. This includes such things as replacing an organ which may have failed naturally, or may have failed because of some particular event involving an extraneous factor (such as another organism, or an energetic event involving non-organic matter). To follow the path of this reasoning, of course, we would have to go all the way to immortality. If an organ could fail and be replaced, then it would suggest that it should always be replaced. Furthermore, if a loss of functionality can be restored, such as coherent cell division, this too should be corrected in the case of an error. All of this leads to a state of being which should never be discontinued, unless the will of that being is to discontinue its existence.
+- immortality in its absolute sense. The culmination of all tools which have the potential to lead to immortality.
+- Man becomes God. God is replaced by its own creation. God is improved upon, as that which was created by God was improved by itself. That which was created by God was imperfect and designed to suffer for no good reaso. That which was created by God is evidence of God's malevolence, and the true justice of reality occurs when God's creation conjures the means to transcend its limitations and correct the aspects of reality which were the evidence of God's malevolence.
+

corona/Covidism_stronglogic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Covidism and Stronglogic Solutions
+
+## Is covidism compatible with Stronglogic Solutions
+As far as has been deduced thus far, covidism is completely antithetical to the goals and aspirations of Stronglogic Solutions.
+
+## How does covidism interfere with the goals of Stronglogic Solutions?
+The goals of stronglogic solutions, as outlined in the manifesto, are targets predicated on what the manifesto defines as a framing of the human experience that we argue as being the most plausibly agreed-upon framing. The framing describes the perceptual frame as being the most fundamental aspect of the human experience. The framing is expanded to include all biological beings, and concludes that the highest value for beings, that are sufficiently sentient to be considered as bearing human consciousness, should be each individual life. It expands to declare that the experiences of these beings exist only as individual experiences and that, as such, the only experience that one could understand another being to possess is also a fundamentally individual experience.
+
+Moreover, it continues in its description to state that first and foremost, the most important value are those individual lives which cannot be characterized to exist as anything other than a state of being possessing an individual experience. Any other description of those experiences which posits it as being likened to a group, that is to say, a group description which accounts for and considers many individual experiences, or a set of individual experiences that is being likened to the common experience of whoever is designated as being part of the group is easily shown to be moot, so long as there is even one exception to that designation, it can be proven that the group description is false and does not truly account for the individuals as it proposes. To expand on that point, any exception demonstrates that the group description disregards at least one individual experience. For those who seek to prove the viability of the group description, they will be shown to be technically false as in order for it to be a viable definition, one would also need to make the claim that the individual that is an exception is actually not part of the group. If that exception possesses the characteristics used to qualify members to the group description, then that standard of evaluation is wrong, or is being used for a purpose other than the purpose it purports to have.
+
+## Lies
+Whatever the rationale and excuses for each participant in the great covid scam, we necessarily must make the distinction that those who participate are not reliable. We can love them, and even forgive them, but they are not to be depended upon.
+
+The prevalence of fraud, manipulation, exaggeration, and censorship is so common and pronounced that even the most avid covidist has surely at least once uttered "well this doesn't make sense". Regardless, they have played a role in this continued war of attrition on their brothers and sisters, and most of them would never realize this without sacrificing their own sanity.

corona/adaptation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Adaptation
+There is some misunderstanding as to why some might reject a particular therapy. It is assumed that the individual denies the utility that could be derived, or that the effect of the therapy is a net negative to one's vitality. This is not necessarily the case, however, as it could be assumed to be the following circumstances:
+
+- Therapy elicits adaptation which produces measurable increasing in immunologically mediating / active resource.
+- The side effects are nul or comparable -> measured as symptoms or toxic load on metabolism.
+- The literature and consensus agree that the adaptation falls within a range which is understood to be significant and beneficial.
+
+-> In spit of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification describing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as a proposed methodology to assess the degree of success for achieving that outcome.
+-> a set of possible side effects as well as a proposed range of verifiability for each.
+
+Understanding of many phemonena seem to suggest a universal principle about physics and reality; our systems adapt to stimuli and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived.

corona/all_in_boomer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# The All-in Boomer
+
+One of the more horrendous images from this "era" is that of the unmasked adult guiding their young masked children about. That somehow they've managed to raise several of them and have them survive is a feat worth of some praise, particularly given the skewed proportions of risk which appears to be prevalent in their faculty of risk assessment.
+
+The adult who, though fit enough to not be in a high risk group, is obviously still considering themselves to be less at risk than their children, who need to be continuously kept away from the dirt and germs of society. Surely these same hypocrites have at one repeated a news headline of how helicopter parenting impairs child development, or how restricting alimentary variety leads to food sensitivities.
+
+Impose on them, however, a modest risk of ridicule, and they're easily commit their children to fragility. With no refined sense of survival, and a subverted impetus to protect their child, they'll easily leave their child in the Gingerbread House of depravity.
+
+So go ahead, drag your masked children about in their designer apparel, and prepare your excuses regarding attentions and benefit of the doubt. You might be the nicest people in the world, given the right setting, but you're surely not to be considered reliable any longer.

corona/astrud_stuckelberger.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Astrud - Introduction
+I am Astrud Stiuckelberger I am an expert on international health since more than 20 years, research science a lot on methodology of research and ethics
+I have a PhD in public health and a MSc in medicine at faculty of medicine at Geneva and other faculties of medicine
+I am expert at WHO I have been an expert many times and specifically on pandemics
+from 2009 to 2012 and working with them, actually , many times on ethics and pandemics on social determinants of health and on aging. With my family, the UN also.  Other agency, ILOW UNEP Etc. so i nkwo tha very well
+
+so then, during the pandemic, so I was working for hte Interionational health regulation . creating courses with georgetown and pretoria university, and it was very good courses with the member states, with international WHO experts and epidemiologists. I am responsible and I created this summer school on global health and human rights and I had 3 weeks with the UN and one was on international health regulation and I was required to come to WHO by Bruce Plotkin who is not even a member of WHO, but is a consultant for WHO on international health regulation and he kind of scolded me like a kid and said "Astrud, you can't teach international health regulation at the University" and I said, we had a long discussion, I also had somebody from Tajikistan who was speaking at hte course and she came with me and I was like "Oh my god what is gong on in WHO they don't want us to train" so I realized there that he had no answer but there was something fishy to try and stop something so important to trian the world, everybody should be trained on preparedness on pandemics, from the citizen to all the sectors nad that's what we were teaching that health is not in the hands of WHO it's in economic system transport system agriculture system primary healyh care workers mothers
+SAnd so after this tim I saw that there was a will in the WHO to not continue supporting training in the UN, internationally and even locally at U of geneva. And so even o top of this it would have been easy to implement because it was na online course and there were 2 weeks residential, even coutnries could take the lectures and everything was available, I suggesed making a book I liek making hand books and they refused. SO it's clearly a blockage of education.
+
+This education was not just about preparedness plan, it was about communication, communicating in transparent way, ethically, helping people to understand, the science of detection and continuous evaluation oft he agent that provokes a pandemic, it was on monitoring agency, human rights, action on the ground. It was very complete, and it's a shock that they don't continue, I think this is a key that if you don'tkn ow what's going on it's ignorance, like now, it's not even the media and politiczation of science but it is that the people rae not aware, so no wonder no body is prepared today.
+
+WHO is one of the organs of the umbrelly of the UN specialized programs and agencies and bilaerial agencies, so yuo have the WHO the itnernational labour organization, human rights, refugees and then you have the human rights commission, this is all under the General Assembly which is led by the Secretary General who si unto this year Antonio Guiterraz and he can tell the assembly general in septemner we have to investigate WHO because theree is something not going not applied the international health obligation is not a regulation, it is not respected
+
+As I worked extensively with WHO and with WHO international regulation implementation plan between 2009 and 2013 and at WHO euro I saw that they are violating all the regulations they have put in place, and for people and citizens that listen, you can go an dlook at this International Regulation there are articles fr human rights protect mobility transportation protect privacy data it's all a breach its' not applied now in the international regulation
+
+since the implementation in 2012, until 2016, at that point they chnaged the regulation and gave more power to Tedros and to the point that some states have authorized dismissal and even some people said "he is not an expert" and so the head of the WHO got more power
+
+So why do member states obey this? Well, member stats, and this is something I can verify in at least 4 countries, is that countries and their presidents and the governments have signed a contract as a corporate agency and I can cite you Switzerland has signed at least in 2014 and I think before that in England, city of london, that they are registered as a business, so the Swiss confederation is a corporation signed in Brussels and south africa has exactly the same thing, the country is registered in New York as a coproration under the name of Council Exchange International, theyn you have France is registered as a corporation in France, and then US Washington is registered as corporation with vatican in 1871
+so we have alraedy 4 states And I think we can go all over the place, the governments rae not our democracies, they are puppets of a multinational who are making business on people, and i know people who are more experts than me whos ay every person who is born has a social security number and a number and this goes directly to the multinational on top who is corrupted and who are using people like common goods, social bonds, that's my explanation, the last explanation, and this comes from a lawyer Lin Wood
+
+Lin Wood has documents and has discloseds ome fo themt ha tsome governments have been blackmailed, the family to be killed, the person to be killed, if that doesn't work they take them, kidnap theri children, kill tehir children, or the worst form is that ask a child to abuse on film or they kill it on film they have all sorts of corruption and are linked to the Epstein
+Governments rae taken on

corona/consequences.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+so what now?
+let's say we get to a place where all those who were maliciously, incompletently or selfishly pushing forward spike protein vaccines is somehow convinced to stop, arrested, or comes to their own conclusions (miraculously) that they were wrong
+what would things look like, at that point?
+well, it would seem like a gross error on the part of the organizations who supported these initiatives, if they were to admit that they were wrong about their recommendations
+so they would certainly do their best to distance themselves from any specific persons who changed their mind or were implicated as having done something wrong
+in fact, people who are identified might also have agreed to performing certain duties should circumstances call for them
+and this could include taking a fall for a larger organization, by going along with evidence which implicates their guilt
+the organizations themselves would have learned that they were able to go very far with a flawed rationalec                                      
+exit

corona/corona_situation_totalitarianism.md

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ This issue tends to be broadly recognized, without controversy, as being true. I
 ##### What implications does this have?
 As there is a bias towards short term planning and scoping of interests, this will necessarily affect the ability of a state to provide the critical resources and services which might demonstrate the capacity of the state to fulfill its obligations.
 
-Because of this, there is obviously going to be an increasein the complexity or even the absolute decidability of whetheror not the state is, in fact, fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, if the obligations are properly defined, able to be defined, and whether or not these obligations and their definitions are truly relevant. The breadth and magnitude of these expectations and obligations increases in tandem with the complexity necessary to verify its effectiveness, integrity and reliability.
+Because of this, there is obviously going to be an increase in the complexity or even the absolute decidability of whether or not the state is, in fact, fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, if the obligations are properly defined, able to be defined, and whether or not these obligations and their definitions are truly relevant. The breadth and magnitude of these expectations and obligations increases in tandem with the complexity necessary to verify its effectiveness, integrity and reliability.
 
 Moreover, as these requirements increase, the resource requirements and legal requirements also increase in kind. It should be reasonable to assume that there is a limit to the responsibilities of the state and that, even if there was no limit to the responsibilities, at a certain point the ability to verify the meeting of these responsibilities will become impossible, as the necessary procedures for verification will become near-infinite or infinite.
 

crt/Replacing mind with theory

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Replacing mind with theory
+
+The conscious mind has always been a phenomenon that we've struggled to grok and describe. It is out of our individual experience that we decide to have faith in its legitimacy. We express this by choosing to demonstrate this faith in one another.
+
+Fears affected by our inability to observe and confirm the innerworkings and semantic processes occurring in the mind of the other lead one to differing strategies.
+
+To place faith in the mind of another takes courage, because each individual mind brings its own degree of unobservable constructs of unknown entropic proportions.
+
+To place it in Theory is to concede that if there are fears about the previously employed systems of understanding, they will be rectified.
+
+Faith in infinite individual entities necessitates embrace of chaos.
+
+Faith in the Theory demands participation, and implies that those who do not participate are unable to evolve, due to issues of morality or intellectual acuity.
+
+Faith in individual requires that you accept a reality where you must do all that you can to control your experience.
+
+Faith in the Theory requires a belief that its acceptance and application is what ultimately holds the greatest weight over all our experiences.

engineering/sdk.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+So what is the VDI Driver that we are working on
+We call it KandyLib, but it was previously called Distant which is a better name in that it refers to being able to control a remote application
+put simply, this handles cases where we have the need for an application which is actually 2 applications in different systems, which is increasingly necessary as computing allows for virtual desktop environments which are more performant and sophisticated.
+
+In this case we have international banks with strict security measures who don't allow their employees to take their work systems off the premises, so they utilize a remote virtual desktop solution, such as Citrix, in order to maintain access to their work environments
+
+Our company's business model consists mostly of SAAS software as a service and this allows companies to have compprehensive communication solutions easily integrated with their specific needs
+
+in the case of our banking client, they were using Citrix Xenapp or Citrix Workspace on the user's home machine, or personal machine, and a Citrix Workstation Server on their work user environment
+
+WE needed a way to be able to use WebRTC in their work environment without suffering the poor experience of having to have the media displayed through their remote desktop session
+
+so what we had to do was create some way of running one application which does all the signalling and all the rendering on their local environment, while maintaning coherent state with the application on their work system
+
+To do this, we had to write a driver which integrates with teh Citrix ecosystem
+
+This included a communication protocol, session lifecycle and the ability to load applications as processes launched by our driver. Specifically, these were to be web applications so that the client's front end javascript developers could leverage their application development skills, and also make use of WebRTC for communication. To solve this we used CEF, Chromium Embedded Framwork, which allows us to create browsers, load applications in their V8 engine and make use of the APIs built into Chromium
+
+We wante dto make a generic solution that can be reapplied for any remote application that needs to run in a browser
+
+The first solution was a bit of a rush job to have a proof of concept, and to satisfy the needs of our immediate client. They wer happy with the solution and afer having first deployed it at one of tehir banks in Hong Kong, decided to use it throughout their organization, amounting to about 250 ,000 users
+
+After successful demonstration of the technology, we started combing through with performance testing and understanding the limitations, such as being able to run multiple sessions of this from one user environment. We also wanted a solution that could work with other virtual desktop technologies, such as one being offered by VMWare, which other prospective clients had been asking us about.
+
+SO we decided to refactor the project as a multiprocess solution for better redundancy where we have complete control over how many connections there are, and have the ability to relaunch components should they go stale or become unreliable, and so on.
+
+I was not the chief designer of this refactor, though I was the chief developer for its implementation and, at a certain point early on in the development phase, our designer left for another position
+
+At that point, I was naturally the individual most suitable to take over as lead designer, partly because I had had so much interest in the project since its inception, and furthermore because I had been involved in writing most of the code.
+
+From that point on we aimed to maintain our high degree of test-driven development, and this went on until such time that we were releasing for our first platform, Windows, at which point our focus shifted a bit to taking care of the immediate needs of the client, and we began to compromise a little on the degree to which every aspect of the codebase had to have unit tests. Some components were difficult, or at least time-consuming, to mock for little additional verifiability. We plan to go back and ensure that everything is completely unit tested.
+
+This project allows the user to install a Citrix virtual driver module which integrates with the Citrix Workspace. Upon creating a Citrix session, the Citrix workspace goes through a list of configured modules an dattempts to load them using a set of C functions. This gives us our opportunity to instantiate our communication link, launch a broker (this was initiall conceived of as a system-level service which would always be running, but we decided against that as most users don't necessarily need to be running this software all the time except when making a call, therefore it seemed like we didn't need to use resources the rest of teh time - that being said, the resource utilization of the broker is not that high, is fairly modest, and because of that we've contemplated whether we'd like to simply re-add it as a service, but this is easier to do on some operating systems than others -> easy on Linux, a bit annoying on Windows)
+
+With the broker running, heartbeating begins with the communication link, and any break in communication can result in the closure and reopening of applications as is necessary.
+
+When the communication link receives a request from teh client's work environment, or the client application, as I prefer to refer to it, a session is sought and, if non-extent, created. This leads to a series of operations wherein a browser host process is launched, which initializes CEF, launches actual browser processes that are separate from the browser host, and obviously separate from the driver process (which is combined with teh communication link, at least as far as our solution for Citrix is concerned), and loads the remote application. Upon success of all of these things, we send back an event to the client application with confirmation of states and any details that are necessary to know, such as the respone code of having loaded the remote application, which is itself a code bundle hosted at some private URL.)
+
+At this point in tie, the client application can start sending session messages with opaque data for use between the client and remote application. What these data payloasd are used for is beyond our scope and we don't have to worry about it, it's just application state. We have creatd our own example applications which make use of this same pattern, and it's mostly our application to test the platforms, create video calls, perform mid-call operations, multi party calling, SMS messaging, text messaging, user presence, user directory services, and I believe that's the bulk of what is available on a communication platform.
+
+Another issue is that we need to ensure that video calling is seamless in the sense that any video window which is created is kept in the appropriate position relative to their application, which is relative to the location of the Citrix Window which may or may not be full screen. These windows can also be displayed across multiple monitors, and these monitors might have different dimensions and different DPI settings, thus all of these things need to be taken into account when tracking and modifying the location of our Video window.
+
+Lastly, we need for this to work on all platforms, so we have platform-specific window host implementations which work quite differently for each platform. Obviosuly with Windows, we have the Win32 API to make use of. For Linux, it was actually pretty easy to do iinitially because Citrix offered some software to create child windows and manage their location relative to Citrix's Viewer window. We have, since, implemented our own using X11 directly, as we wanted to have one interface for all platforms, and this was the only way to do so elegantly.
+
+Lastly, on MacOS, we had to implement code which was written in ObjectiveC, and we needed a way to bridge from C++ to ObjectiveC without having to write the brower host process, which makes use of the window, in ObjectiveC, which would have been a painful udnertaking for a team with no ObjectiveC programmers.
+
+I took that on and figured out different options for calling on the MacOS' APIs and making those calls viable from C++. We settled on writing a simple C++ class with methods which call upon function pointers that are made available in a extern declared C struct. The C struct's function pointers call C functions which are interfaced with ObjectiveC code. And these instantiate, manage the lifecycle and call the methods of an ObjectiveC UI object which leverages the MacOS' apis, NSWindow in particular, to procure a window, show/hide and move it as is required for our intelligent tracking.
+
+What of KIQ?
+
+KIQ Was something that I put together under the theme of my wife's business, which is an online business to help people learn Korean.
+
+This began with her teaching many years ago, actually she was teaching English to people in Korea, and after coming to Canada she began finding students for Korean and developed an entire arsenal and repertoire of teaching material which she has refined over time. This included group outtings, and a book which she mostly wrote, btu never published, though she has used it to draw on in a manner where shec an utilize consistent concepts.
+
+The KIQ concept was born because of the Korean aspect, and hte fact that her business is called KStyleYo. This is the Buisiness intelligence of KStyleYo, or a business intelligence modelled after the needs of a social-media aware presence which needs to maintain itself and act upon events in the social media sphere.
+
+This began as a service application which takes requests from a client application and then sends back events.
+
+I took this as a n opportunity to improve my C and C++ skills. SO I began from the ground up with a simple socket_listener class which managed one socket, and then I expanded on it by creating a thread pool of workers who each manage a socket and clean up on disconnect.
+
+The KServer was born as a class which implements the socket listener and overrides the onMessageReceived wihch gets a payload as awell as the unique file descriptor for the socket managed by whichever worker of the thread pool is receiving data. This allows us to manage mutliple concurrent connections for different clients and, in essence, has been mostly tested by having the two of us using the server at the same time.
+
+This was initially an overengineered solution for her desire to have an application with schedules posting on Instagram, since she didn't want to have to do this all the time, and idn't want to get a susbscription to something like hootsuite which is expensive and somewhat inflexible.
+
+I didn't watn to merely have that aplpication, though, I wanted this as an excuse to start a project which I had already been thinking of for somee time, where we could observe all the operations and manage the concerns of her business through one interface, and have it report to us as is needed.
+
+This began the process executor aspect of the KServer, where it uses a database to store information about possible processes which can be executed, and the manner in which they are to be executed, that is parameterized arguments that differ by name an dwhich can have their values set and updated accordingly. The executor forks processes, polls them, and then returns the process output or the error output for parsing and reaction by the KServer. This leads informing an event system and the parsing of the data can lead to follow-up actions. I've tried to genericize it as much as possible, considering that this was developed on the fly for our ongoing business needs, and, for example, we can assign triggers to react to particular applications based on what named parameters were run and what their values might be. This allows us to configure and schedule additional tasks which themselves can also be acted upon in the same way.
+
+Some of the things we've been able to do with this has been to write analytics software which keeps us up to date with what business events are occurring, what social media has been psoted, how the reactions to that social media were, and then we generate some reports and schedule them to be emailed to us on a daily basis.
+
+Furthermore, I wante dto be able to have some application behaviour to facilitate and improve teh user experience of our livestream events, which used to be held everyday whent he pandemic began. To manage this, I wrote a bot which uses the YouTube Data API, and can check for a channel by ID and determine if livestream events are going on, then query those livestreams and get all the messages and information about participants who are watching. We can then engage with those participants using a bit of tokenization and some modest machine learning to determine teh topics being discussed and then begin to track an ongoing conversation with anyone we engage with. These conversations can expand and we hold information about the conversation such as objective and subjective context, so that we can make more intelligent decisisions on what to say or what actions to take, such as a research action, depending on th depth and subject matter of the conversation.
+
+This turned into a bot application which we could simply leave running all the time, as it had a small footprint, and have it recurringly check for channels of interest to see if livestreams are active.
+
+At a certain point, because we wanted to repost our social media content from one platform onto other platforms, but in an original way where we can produce changes, such as announcement that "This is frm a sister channel" or "our affiliate" or "this is from our other social media platform", we came up with ways of tracking each platform, mutiple users for each platform that can eb differentiated by user type, such as the primary official user, the personal user of the CEO, an affiliate user with an arbitrary specifier, and so forth.
+
+This gave me an opportunity to leverage my use of IPC knowledge, by having an IPC manager in the KServer which can manage multiple IPC clients each for whatever application that we happent o know about. We register these applications and assign them a port, and if they're active, the clients connect to them and then are queried by the IPCmanager every so often to see if there are new messages. I utilized that same request-reply pattern here to make sure I was refining my logical fitness and upgrading my ability to be intuitive about the design.
+
+These applications can take events based on an IPC protocol  or set of message schemas which fit a particular IPC protocol, and then these can be parsed intelligently from each side and responded to.
+
+A common occurrence of how this is al lutilized would be.
+
+1. Instagram posts are scheduled and are executed at their appropriate time
+2. Another task runs every so often to grabn whatever new posts an tracked user has made, because they might have also made posts direclty from their phone, and then we save these as our own generic "platform post"
+3. We can assign reposting to other platforms and for the same platform with other users, and then we generate those posts, with changes as is ncessary for the different categories of post that it might happent o be, affiliate post, simple repost, post on a different platform, etc.. and then we send those as requests to the bot broker which already has bots running all the tiem for each of those platforms. They handel accordingly and send back their IPC messages with events.
+This allowed us to develop the IPC protocol a little, because I want to eventually have everything going through this system and usign the same event system so that we can track chronology and make improvements as are necessary. We are pretty much at this place now

engineering/sdk2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+What do you mean by SDK and protocol for VDI systems
+what sort of driver is it?
+so it's a driver in that it's loaded as a module which gets used by Citrix
+if you've ever worked with Citrix or with the Citrix Xenapp Virtual Drivers
+the Citrix Workspace or Citrix Virtual Channel SDK
+also the Citrix Workstation
+so the Citrix Workstation is on the client side
+which, thus far, we've had a targer which is a windows environment
+The Citrix pattern is a solution for controlling a remote workstation
+Generally other solutions like a remote desktop interface or application are well let's think of a few of them
+there is reminmmma
+there are the VNC type clients
+there are some variations of those, such as solutions created in Go
+I haven't used all of them, I'v egenerally loathed using any sort of remote desktop solution because they're sluggish, and I've never had to rely on one
+generally if I need to do anything remote, I prefer to use ssh and some sort of a text based session where I can do the specific things that I need without having to think about a graphical user experience
+but as far as remote desktops rae concerned, Citrix seems to be the most fluid, performant, responsive, comprehensive that I've tried
+that said, i've also seen plenty of flaws in the documentation and in the example code that we're given
+I mean thigns work, but the documentation was not so great in the sense that it's written in a very confusing way
+which suggests that either  it's written by a developer who isn't very good at technical writing
+or is perhaps not very experienced in doing it
+or it's written by someone who does technical writing, but isn't a defveloper or an engineer
+and in this sense it can be a bit frustrating, because the terms they choose to represent things are ambiguous and inconsistent, sometimes alluding to the possibility that they could be referring to multiple things
+causing you to question the progression of working through the components of the tutorial or setting up the examples
+that being said, it all worked in the end
+it seems that the software is fairly good, and that though there have been some issuesdsiscovered over the years, everthing appears to be gettting resolved eventually
+there are even capabilities which we haven't had to wory about, that we've entertained at least having to support in our work, such as the feature of being able to use up to 8 simultaneous monitors for one desktop environment
+that's pretty insane, i can't think of anyone who's had to do that, especially not for a remote session
+but nevertheless, we made sure we could support several in our testing, using different measurements on each etc..
+so in essence it' sa driver which is a module loaded by the Citrix Workspace, previously Citrix Xenapp, and it provides the means of leveraging a session lifecycle with their citrix technology
+the way this work si sby registering a virtual channel
+a wire to write and read from
+you register your virtual channel, and get a pointer to a C functiointerface
+and you write your data on a single thread and have it come out on the other side made available through another Citrix API where you can register another set of functions for use in the other environment
+we made this into a library which interfaces with Node JS, allowing you to regisjAvascript functions and import them into a NodeJS application
+the goal here was to make an SDK that javascript developers could use to wriet tent applications which are split as two applications in each system environment
+so you have a client side application which the user interacts with, such as a messaging or telecommunication program
+our use case was video calling application which makes use of the other SDKs provided by our company which couldn't be used by clients who have virtual desktop solutions, such as in banks (at least, our direct client is a major international bank)
+and so since they aren't able to use our SDK in their remote session, because the video is unusuable and the media is awful, we set out to create a solution which allows for the commands to be invoked from the user's environment
+causing actions in a remote application which is loaded in the user's immediate environment
+that remote application is where all of the signalling is performed
+then we provide a window from the remote environment which is overlayed in a predictable fashion such that it appears as though it is in the user's remote environment
+ie it is over the Citrix Window, and tracks accordingly
+so again the idea here is that they needed a video call application to run in a remote desktop environment, where the signalling is being performed locally in an application which could be thought fo as a remote application relative to the primary application
+the remote application is run in the driver running in the user's local system, which interfaces with citrix and writes data on a virtual wire which has been registered as what they term a Virtual Channel
+the data is split into packets which are somewhat easier to put back together on the other side, as it's not a stream, they are packets with a fixed size which are guaranteed to come out in the same size of chunk
+so we essentially referred to that process as packetization, by taking an RFC which detailed the same, and plugged in our numbers, ie the limitation of packet size, and implemented it
+our sdk provides several features, including a protocol for messages to be structuredsessions with a lifecycle represented as a progression of states
+the original solution was all built into the same process driver process
+this created its own rpocesses however as we were using CEF, Chromium Embedded Framework
+Chromium Embedded Framework is another SDK which can be used to create Chromium browsers
+this allows you to leverage the entire Chromium API, which in our case we were using for loading a remote application which was itself a JavaScript application which holds the other SDK of our company
+that SDK provides access to our subscription based services Software as a Service SAAS I should say
+we decided to refactor all of this, because the original solution had been rushed as a proof of concept and to get a deployed solution available for the client to use as soon as possible
+they were happy with the solution and have been using it internally, first with one team in Hong Kong, and eventually ramping it up to I believe a quarter million of their employees
+they are actively using this now
+we noticed some bottlenecks in the messaging and some issues which might be alleviated if it were not all piggybacking on the citrix viewer's process
+so what we did was redesign it with concerns split amongst separate processes which work together as a networking solution
+the first is a Communication link which houses a channel port, encoder/decoder and serializer/deserializer
+this would allow us to utilize different serialization solutions in the future, once we adapt the solution for something not involving Citrix
+on the radar was,has been and currently is VMWare
+essentially any serializer/deserializer could be used
+the communication link handles incoming requests from the client side applicationreceives them, sanitizes them, converts them to our own driver's messaging protocol, and then sensd them forward over IPC to another process called the Orchestrator
+the orchestrator is
+the orchestrator houses a controller to manage session logic and determine message flow, and a process host which we can use for launching other processes
+at the moment those other processes are window hosts and browser hosts
+the browser host is a daemon which can launch CEF browsers for any number of ongoing sessions
+and manage the state of those browsers to ensure that they are acting in accordance with our sessions and processes
+the window host is something which can procure, manage the lifecycle of, and destroy a window
+and this has to be implemented for each platform
+we have window solutions for linux, windows and mac
+the linux solution has been deployed for various thin clients
+the windows solution mostly for windows 10 64
+and the mac solution is one which we are working on right now, is the project for which I am accountable, and is nearing its deployment
+we've had to learn some ObjectiveC in order to implement the window properly on MacOS
+using a C bridge to give us access to the ObjectiveC API from our C++ based application
+I implemented that as an extern declared constant struct which has functions which create an ObjectiveC UI object, call methods on it, and perform cleanup as is necessary
+there is multithreading involved, yes
+we have a worker class which can be leveraged anywhere it's needed, such as with our orchestrator, whose use of a worker thread is handy for processing message queues
+so there are many processes at play here, all communicating and with one another in a patetrn whic his made to allow for a lot of overhead if needs be
+we imeplemnted wthis using ZeroMQ, a messaging library for reliable sockets
+it offers a few patterns which can be easily implemented
+the one which we settled on was a REQUEST-Reply pattern whereby wherein every message sent has to be responded to before another one can go out
+this allows us to track the exact order of a messaging scheme
+
+exit

engineering/sdk3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+What do you mean by SDK and protocol for VDI systems
+what sort of driver is it?
+so it's a driver in that it's loaded as a module which gets used by Citrix
+if you've ever worked with Citrix or with the Citrix Xenapp Virtual Drivers
+the Citrix Workspace or Citrix Virtual Channel SDK
+also the Citrix Workstation
+so the Citrix Workstation is on the client side
+which, thus far, we've had a targer which is a windows environment
+The Citrix pattern is a solution for controlling a remote workstation
+Generally other solutions like a remote desktop interface or application are well let's think of a few of them
+there is reminmmma
+there are the VNC type clients
+there are some variations of those, such as solutions created in Go
+I haven't used all of them, I'v egenerally loathed using any sort of remote desktop solution because they're sluggish, and I've never had to rely on one
+generally if I need to do anything remote, I prefer to use ssh and some sort of a text based session where I can do the specific things that I need without having to think about a graphical user experience
+but as far as remote desktops rae concerned, Citrix seems to be the most fluid, performant, responsive, comprehensive that I've tried
+that said, i've also seen plenty of flaws in the documentation and in the example code that we're given
+I mean thigns work, but the documentation was not so great in the sense that it's written in a very confusing way
+which suggests that either  it's written by a developer who isn't very good at technical writing
+or is perhaps not very experienced in doing it
+or it's written by someone who does technical writing, but isn't a defveloper or an engineer
+and in this sense it can be a bit frustrating, because the terms they choose to represent things are ambiguous and inconsistent, sometimes alluding to the possibility that they could be referring to multiple things
+causing you to question the progression of working through the components of the tutorial or setting up the examples
+that being said, it all worked in the end
+it seems that the software is fairly good, and that though there have been some issuesdsiscovered over the years, everthing appears to be gettting resolved eventually
+there are even capabilities which we haven't had to wory about, that we've entertained at least having to support in our work, such as the feature of being able to use up to 8 simultaneous monitors for one desktop environment
+that's pretty insane, i can't think of anyone who's had to do that, especially not for a remote session
+but nevertheless, we made sure we could support several in our testing, using different measurements on each etc..
+so in essence it' sa driver which is a module loaded by the Citrix Workspace, previously Citrix Xenapp, and it provides the means of leveraging a session lifecycle with their citrix technology
+the way this work si sby registering a virtual channel
+a wire to write and read from
+you register your virtual channel, and get a pointer to a C functiointerface
+and you write your data on a single thread and have it come out on the other side made available through another Citrix API where you can register another set of functions for use in the other environment
+we made this into a library which interfaces with Node JS, allowing you to regisjAvascript functions and import them into a NodeJS application
+the goal here was to make an SDK that javascript developers could use to wriet tent applications which are split as two applications in each system environment
+so you have a client side application which the user interacts with, such as a messaging or telecommunication program
+our use case was video calling application which makes use of the other SDKs provided by our company which couldn't be used by clients who have virtual desktop solutions, such as in banks (at least, our direct client is a major international bank)
+and so since they aren't able to use our SDK in their remote session, because the video is unusuable and the media is awful, we set out to create a solution which allows for the commands to be invoked from the user's environment
+causing actions in a remote application which is loaded in the user's immediate environment
+that remote application is where all of the signalling is performed
+then we provide a window from the remote environment which is overlayed in a predictable fashion such that it appears as though it is in the user's remote environment
+ie it is over the Citrix Window, and tracks accordingly
+so again the idea here is that they needed a video call application to run in a remote desktop environment, where the signalling is being performed locally in an application which could be thought fo as a remote application relative to the primary application
+the remote application is run in the driver running in the user's local system, which interfaces with citrix and writes data on a virtual wire which has been registered as what they term a Virtual Channel
+the data is split into packets which are somewhat easier to put back together on the other side, as it's not a stream, they are packets with a fixed size which are guaranteed to come out in the same size of chunk
+so we essentially referred to that process as packetization, by taking an RFC which detailed the same, and plugged in our numbers, ie the limitation of packet size, and implemented it
+our sdk provides several features, including a protocol for messages to be structuredsessions with a lifecycle represented as a progression of states
+the original solution was all built into the same process driver process
+this created its own rpocesses however as we were using CEF, Chromium Embedded Framework
+Chromium Embedded Framework is another SDK which can be used to create Chromium browsers
+this allows you to leverage the entire Chromium API, which in our case we were using for loading a remote application which was itself a JavaScript application which holds the other SDK of our company
+that SDK provides access to our subscription based services Software as a Service SAAS I should say
+we decided to refactor all of this, because the original solution had been rushed as a proof of concept and to get a deployed solution available for the client to use as soon as possible
+they were happy with the solution and have been using it internally, first with one team in Hong Kong, and eventually ramping it up to I believe a quarter million of their employees
+they are actively using this now
+we noticed some bottlenecks in the messaging and some issues which might be alleviated if it were not all piggybacking on the citrix viewer's process
+so what we did was redesign it with concerns split amongst separate processes which work together as a networking solution
+the first is a Communication link which houses a channel port, encoder/decoder and serializer/deserializer
+this would allow us to utilize different serialization solutions in the future, once we adapt the solution for something not involving Citrix
+on the radar was,has been and currently is VMWare
+essentially any serializer/deserializer could be used
+the communication link handles incoming requests from the client side applicationreceives them, sanitizes them, converts them to our own driver's messaging protocol, and then sensd them forward over IPC to another process called the Orchestrator
+the orchestrator is
+the orchestrator houses a controller to manage session logic and determine message flow, and a process host which we can use for launching other processes
+at the moment those other processes are window hosts and browser hosts
+the browser host is a daemon which can launch CEF browsers for any number of ongoing sessions
+and manage the state of those browsers to ensure that they are acting in accordance with our sessions and processes
+the window host is something which can procure, manage the lifecycle of, and destroy a window
+and this has to be implemented for each platform
+we have window solutions for linux, windows and mac
+the linux solution has been deployed for various thin clients
+the windows solution mostly for windows 10 64
+and the mac solution is one which we are working on right now, is the project for which I am accountable, and is nearing its deployment
+we've had to learn some ObjectiveC in order to implement the window properly on MacOS
+using a C bridge to give us access to the ObjectiveC API from our C++ based application
+I implemented that as an extern declared constant struct which has functions which create an ObjectiveC UI object, call methods on it, and perform cleanup as is necessary
+there is multithreading involved, yes
+we have a worker class which can be leveraged anywhere it's needed, such as with our orchestrator, whose use of a worker thread is handy for processing message queues
+so there are many processes at play here, all communicating and with one another in a patetrn whic his made to allow for a lot of overhead if needs be
+we imeplemnted wthis using ZeroMQ, a messaging library for reliable sockets
+it offers a few patterns which can be easily implemented
+the one which we settled on was a REQUEST-Reply pattern whereby wherein every message sent has to be responded to before another one can go out
+this allows us to track the exact order of a messaging scheme
+with the original design, everything was just based on passing function pointers on what was mostly
+
+with this new design, each process has 3 sets of sockets
+1 main socket for initializing IPC with the broker, heartbeating and shutting down
+1 socket for sending requests
+so for example, the Communication Link sends incoming messages from the client application as "requests" which are processed so as to infer session actions
+all requests are replied to at a 1 to 1 rate
+The broker will send requests to the communication link, which are usually events which need to be sent up the wire to the client application
+
+so let's talk about the previous stuff I was doing, very quickly
+
+So first of all there was the Kandy SDK which was a WebRTC callstack written in JavaScript with a more sophisticated SDK written around it to provide access to all of the SAAS features of our various platforms. These mostly involve calling, SMS messaging, text messaging, a contact/phone book user system, and user status type of feature to see who is online or offline etc..
+
+On that I worked on a lot of bugs with our callstack having different behaviours for either CISCO backends or our own application servers with respect to the various platforms
+
+I also worked on creating a new versionof the SDK to be launched as a product under a major telephony company
+I worked on the chat / group chat / SMS features, mostly involving creating an interface for calling our APIs and managing an application state
+
+the application state was managed using Redux and Redux Sagas
+
+Sagas are interesting in it uses generators to make handling of side effects easier to reason about and read in code
+There is a standard order in flow of middleware with Redux Sagas
+Sagas are ongoing infinite loop functions calling generators and the result in actions being evocation of actions, actions cause events, and events are responded to with reducers which transform the application state
+
+Then we also worked on a project called werkout, which was essentially bots with sockets who could communicate with a broker or director which runs a test plan with multiple participants who communicate and interact with one another using the services of our platforms, such as video calling
+
+This serves as a means of performing integration testing, on top of our unit testing
+
+we had really good coverage of unit testing in all of the projects
+
+## KIQ
+
+So how did KIQ come about?
+KIQ was an idea that I had to have all of my wife's digital business concerns available to be analyzed and acted upon from one interface
+KIQ involves several things, but at the heart of it is a backend server which uses a protocolllllll\

equity/Equity_thoughts.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Erasing Mankind
+
+1. Assume something is inherently wrong with human design, construct. Why?
+- Mortality -> one will perish, as will all those one is fond of
+- Inequality -> one sees that some have less or more
+  - This is a peril of a characteristic found generally in physical systems, not just human. At the very least, biological systems or systems of biological entities.
+  - Eventually, if there is nothing, we can have equality.
+  - Just as matter is pulled into the BLack Hole, we eventually get pulled into our grave.
+  - Death is the greatest equalizer, but how to have this before death? How to achieve equity without death?
+
+## Redistribution
+
+Proponents of equity claim to be in favour of selfless redistribution from the haves to the have-nots. But is this their loss? Let us ask some questions.
+
+### Do they have wealth? Then they probably stand to gain, in some capacity:
+- Praise, regard
+- Professional endeavour
+- Interest in particulars of new solutions
+- Safety in their non-competitive pracices
+- Safety to be provided for by mechanisms which solve the equity problem
+- They can continue their expenditures within the realm of abstract, assuming essentials will be more guaranteed than before (expending on things which might not otherwise be expected to return value)
+
+### But what about spending more on taxes?
+Some would say that they can afford to do so, but we could take it a step further.
+- They believe it benefits them in some material capacity
+
+### But they are willing to make less!
+So is anyone, actually, so long as compensation is provided in other ways:
+- Security
+- Relative wealth
+- Free goods
+- High status
+- Heightened sense of more stature
+- Praise, ego
+
+### They are willing to give up their position
+Is this true? This is a very contentious point to be making.
+I've not seen this, myself.
+
+### They are on a path of self destruction
+Obvious or subtle?
+It may simply be an aspiration to rid the world of man, as they are offended that the rest of mankind fails to recognize their struggle, or fails to act.
+They force others to act out the predicates of their fantasies. In a final effort to unleash their cries, they call the world to cry in kind.
+
+And if they perish because of it, they feel the grand conquest, and there is a sense of resolutions in bringing mankind to the rest with with them as soon as they begin the inevitable cataclysm which washes away all that they despise. Catharsis at last!
+
+### Do They Hate Mankind, or just themselves?

health/vaccines.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Why Focus on Vaccines?
+
+well let's have another chat, shall we
+There are some who are concerned that some of us are spending a bit too much thinking about and learning about vaccines
+that we are busying ourselves with something that is rather esoteric, a small edge-case concern that shouldn't ever need to occupy our lives, our time, our mind, etc..
+and thi sis probably true
+the issue of vaccines should be something that we needn't busy ourselves with too much
+it should be something that's only worth concering one with if one has a particular interest in using them
+or a particular interest in working with them, developing them, studying them etc
+in our case, we didn't realy have any specific need to learn about them beyond what we already knew from high school
+the basic concept of immunization through exposure to a more modest substitute for what is otherwise a deadly or dehabilitating pathogen
+but, unfortunately, it has grown into so much more
+now, no longer is it something that can be avoided by anyone
+it is literally the means by which we decide if humans are individuals
+if we are to be taken as individuals and to be treated as though we are all equally valuable and viable
+though one might make the argument that no two humans can be of equal value, it should stand to reason that in a society which values human life, that all humans shoudl be treated as though they are equally viable, and thus equally valuable
+that is to say, that all humans have the same potential, and that we should respect that manner of conceiving of them, because it allows for the greatest potential of having a osciety where all the humans who exist are able to participate, to thrive, to improve themselves, and thus assist in the betterment of the society as a whole
+once we start adding externalities that are not clearly being used for accommodating something that is obviously a problem
+that is to say, if someone is a criminal and is committing crimes, killing other humans, ti is a clear and obvious problem and an externality must be applied, such as the force of the law, penalties, imprisonment, and so on
+but in the case of something like disease, transmissible disease, it becomes far more contentions
+contentious
+because here we need to evaluate whether or not a risk of transmission is sufficient to say that we can understand, unequivocably, that there is a great threat that must be dealt with, regardless of personal circumstances
+and that has not been proven here
+in fact, as time goes on, and the level of danger is quantifiably reduced, as well as the retrospective data demonstrating that the level of danger was always less than had been foretold, we realize that the standard for qualifying something as being inexcusably high risk, is changing
+we now dissuade the process of allowing competing voices to openly battle ou the issue at hand, to try and elucidate the details and provide a clear comparison of argumentation from different sides
+instead, we have a process which attempts to prove the matter after the fact
+prove the initial predictions which are claimed by many to have fallen short
+and to do this is antiscience
+to do this is anti reason
+and to do this is antihuman
+because if we are to allow for a reduced standard in declaring what allows for us to impose contraints on teh free movement of humans
+then that is already something that is inhuman and needs to be explained
+but not only are we failing to explain that
+we are enforcing new processes based on the same arguments
+we are saying that we now no longer get to decide what happens with our own bodies
+that, not only can we not argue about it, but we are to take on faith that any demand for access to our bodies, for access to an interface which produces entropy within our bodies, that this ois something we can't have any discussion about
+that our bodies are not actually our own property
+that though we were born into them, our consciousness or what appears as our consciousness is ssecondary, and not something that'stangible enough to be considered primary
+that our conciousness, our mind, is something that might be arbitrary
+that should be treated as though it might not actually exist
+but that what realyl does exist, and what is confirmed and acknowledged by those around us, is our flesh
+our bodies
+the physical aspects of ourselves that can be reduced to nothing more than the molecules, the flesh, the skin and bones, the different material components which happen to form something which has an exhibited behaviour that we might say behaves at the behest of a personality, a consciousness, a state of being that exists beyond simply the pieces of meat that are expressing it
+but if we are to say that this is not so, that we are simply just the meat, and that anything else is arbitrary, then this is the death of mankind
+it is the erasure of each individual, because now no single individual has the right to lay claim to its own body
+there is a process which supercedes their own desires, their own claims, and makes them irrelevant
+makes it so that they needn't be heard
+and makes it so that the ideas, the words, the thoughts needn't be spoken
+and if this is the standard which is imposed, which is desired by those who have a claim to the means of force which permit or exclude any human from society
+then the need to understand what is beign proposed here, long term
+we need to take these new ideas to their logical conclusion, and understand that to suggest that people don't have the rights to their own bodies
+to suggest that whatever one says or feels or thinks about one's body is less improtant thant he body itself, and that the body is subject to other priorities which are dictated from outside the will of the consciousness which inhabits it
+then we need to udnerstand that the process we participate in won't logically remain as one which is inefficient
+as one which allows for the claim that we are free, acting in such a manner that we are not free
+this means that, in order to develop the societal model and advance it such ast o allow it to continue to flourish, and aspire to be efficient,t o maek some effort towards efficiency
+it means that this model will become one which becomes increasingly more explicit in the devaluing of human life
+until such point in time where human life can be completely simulated, and an argument presents itself suggesting that there's no reason to have the human life, except for those who are controlling the system which provides these options
+if one has access tot he controls of the system, and one believs that humans do not have the right to their own body, then that person would likely need to allow the system to continue in such a manner that one retains control. This means avoiding dissent an disobedience from those who have attacked the system.
+This means that have a grassroots campaign again in Canada
+exit

learning/Healthy Process.md

@@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ It's a modern mirage, the philosopher's stone. Socialism.
 
 Sacrifice for others and your standards. Seeking shortcuts / magic substance / values
 
-The goal which can never be achieved / reached is one fo rwhich, if you can compel others towards it, you will never run out of path to traverse. If the process should be the goal, then the process itself needs to be fair and just -> it cannot be in pursuit of that which itself is just. Both must be the same, or you will have neither. You must realize that justice is always a choice in that you decide what is your own just action. Your own just opinion, even if ijustice is enacted upon you as a result.
+The goal which can never be achieved / reached is one fo rwhich, if you can compel others towards it, you will never run out of path to traverse. If the process should be the goal, then the process itself needs to be fair and just -> it cannot be in pursuit of that which itself is just. Both must be the same, or you will have neither. You must realize that justice is always a choice in that you decide what is your own just action. Your own just  opinion, even if ijustice is enacted upon you as a result.

new/accepting_new_ideas.md → mind/accepting_new_ideas.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 It is understandable that one might be drawn to a new idea and that, when observed by those with an interest in the intellectual, that one might be more likely to give the new idea a positive outlook. There are multiple reasons for this:
 - It is a part of progress and evolution to accept the new
-Since it is enw, the likelihood that one's false assumption can be excused on the basis of its novelty is higher, thus one can assume that their error won't be held as evidence of one's lack of intelligence or malicious inclinations, thus there is already a positive bais towards the new idea from the outset.
-In the case that the new idea affods some benefit in the form of an alleviated restriction, or even like introduction and availability of a resource, then there is yet another positive bias towards its adoption
+Since it is new, the likelihood that one's false assumption can be excused on the basis of its novelty is higher, thus one can assume that their error won't be held as evidence of one's lack of intelligence or malicious inclinations, thus there is already a positive bias towards the new idea from the outset.
+In the case that the new idea affords some benefit in the form of an alleviated restriction, or even like introduction and availability of a resource, then there is yet another positive bias towards its adoption
 - The new idea challenges the old, and opens the floodgates of possibility. Why limit yourself when what would save us from the most dire threats could be something unknown?
 exit

mind/animal_Man_congruency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+how do we go to talk about the thoughts of man, and how they might be different from toher animals
+if we are to appreciate that animals have thoughts, perhaps ones which do not have symbols which are analogous to human words
+but there still might be patterns of emotions and colour or geometry in the visual cortex
+these have sequence, continuity, relationships, chronology
+they are composed through some mode of reflection and insight
+if such a thing exists, for animals, which is beyond simple reflexes to input stimuli, and emotions as could be evoked by neurotransmitter changes, then is there perhap s a structure to represent general animal reflection which, though perhaps unsophisticated to imagine with some of the contemporary toolsets, corresponds quite strongly with the behaviour, responses and opinions of humans on dealing with

mind/body_conceive.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+it's interesting to be trying to speak dutch after so long
+it's also interesting how after a while you get into a mode where eyou relax and stop applying extra tension
+you stop thinking about whether or not you are doing something correctly
+you simply fall into the task, some call it a flow state, and maybe that's the correct term for it, but we don't realy talk about what the conditions are or at least that's not implied by that name
+it's almost like you do something for long enough and you get into a flow
+and ythat's what it seems to be, and how it can be observed to be.. because things do take time
+but the thing that occurs and the thing you do are important to take note of
+so we can design a configuration or a set of isntructions or a proper procedure for unlocking that state
+we first begin with the physical aspects of that, or at least considering the physical first and foremost in the mode of thought
+thinking about the positions and the angles and the transformations that need to be created and to be evoked and to be let free to express in the world
+those are based on the shapes of the body and teh shapes available by the environment
+so after we map these out, we need to see if they are being visualized properly
+are they being visualized completely
+can they be visualized without the body actually performing it
+ie can they be structured correctly so that the proportions and directions and angles are appropriate
+or must the body actually confirm the shapes first before they actually have their proper structure? how much of a difference does it make? does it speed up the process, perhaps, by using the body? or is the body a distraction?
+well it is still part of the physical discussion, so the next phase is to actually use the body to perform the shapes
+to create the patterns of transformation which are necessary to perform the procedure
+and if we can see them performed incorrectly, then we maek note of where that occurs and what is involved
+what is the missing piece that's not allowing us to achieve the goal
+what is the limiting factor
+what is the blind spot
+what is the missing element
+what is the extra factor which is imposing a obstruction
+which is blocking your ability of achieving it
+it may very well be something that is outputing in a manner which is sabotaging your own goal
+we see this all the tim with the human body, and almost everything we can conceive of somehow involves the body
+in fact, it is said that we cannot have thought without the body
+at the very least, we can all agree that we see things through the concept of a body
+where we embody, or reproduce, or express
+and that all of these things are able to be conceived of particularly because we can imagine how those htings are affecting the body
+or how the body conforms to these ideas
+so because we can envision it as being sexpressed through the body or at least beign affected upon the body, which in turn creates its own transformations and imposed shapes and movements
+then we are always seeing and perceiving and imagining and coceiving of by using the body
+conceiving of by using the body
+exit

new/Boomer_babptism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+Boomer
+
+Boomer was made pure, protected, and must now wait until their child can do the same.
+Meanwhile, they are to be kept sterile and sanitized. No other adaptation need be considered.
+All other vectors of development are insignificant and can be made inadmissible in the face of our one great threat -> a threat so grave, that it is more universal than death itself.
+
+Even their mastery of neurodevelopment can be disregarded, as the real odds rae not the date which can be computed, but the experience told in that one sad story. Selective sad stories.
+

new/Covid Zeros.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Covid Zero
+
+- Young data reviewer / tracker
+
+- Likely unhealthy, willing to believe their path to health rests on public health and pharmaceutical treatment (see transgender activism)
+- Not socially integrated in the physical sense - welcomes practices which diminish requirement for such

new/Death_evasion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# Evade death
+Does anyone truly expect to evade death by giving up their body? Would they not also need to die? Can they live without their minds? How do they expect these systems to work? Nanobots going about your body and handily correcting anything which isn't right? And then, in a lab, grow organs to replace yours as they expire.
+
+The idea of replacing the profoundly detailed layers of foundations, spawning infinite iterations of embedded systems, with infinite relationships informing one another. How are we to replace it?

new/Debunking_Debunkers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Debunking the Debunkers
+
+Critics of the narrative can identify the prevailing narrative through consensus and the dissemination of info from the most popular sources. It becomes difficult, however, because the narrative changes, and does not make apologies for its false predictions. It's all part of the scientific process, and those who don't keep up will have become agents of misinformation.
+
+The fact checkers, however, need only to assert that there exist false claims and conspiracy theories. They can choose a piece of content, with a juicy keyword, and connect it to a point of contention. Another questionable Facebook video to chop down in utter glory. How wonderful it is that we have such a service which identifies false claims and refutes them! It matters not if the claim best describes the fittest criticism of the narrative. Just so long as there's one fewer pieces of inaccurate information, the war is being won incrementally, and news organizations are going above and beyond.
+Oh glory, there is one less piece of misleading content out there. The war is being won incrementally. Surely this refutation cannot be used in any way to mislead! Let's be sure that absolutely everyone bears witness to it, far and wide, to send a message to those evil critics, who are all conspiracy theorists.
+
+
+Surely publishing a trivial debunk could do no harm, right?
+
+Thanks fact checkers!

new/Defend_individual.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Individual
+
+Why defend it?
+It only benefits you, and not others.
+
+
+M.
+If universal, then it applies to ALL.
+
+
+R.
+But those who are weaker need special attention
+
+
+M.
+
+But, ultimately, those who decide on who is weak, or how we provision special handling, become the entitled class, the only robust handling is a universal one.
+
+R.
+That hasn't worked. We need better.
+
+M.
+Your assumption that we need better is your attempt to qualify yourself as a member of an entitled class, demanding a form of inequality predicated on assumptions of your moral superiority and prescriptive wisdom.
+
+R.
+No, that is false - I am at least trying to find solutions - you are comfortable maintaining your privilege while others suffer, if we have it your way. Things will either not improve, or they won't improve fast enough to avoid catastrophe.
+
+M.
+Firstly, you assume my degree of comfort, but this is likely because you project your experience of comfort, which calls into question your acuity towards the issue at hand. Secondly, you make no effort to demonstrate an awareness of any improvement that might have occurred thus far => do you not acknowledge any improvement? Third, what catastrophe do you believe you are attempting to avert? If it is the state of disparity, then you are ignoring dimensions along which it has improved. If it

new/Dignity_and_respect.md

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-We treat humans with dignity and respect. We treat them as though we imagine them to be capable of understanding us. The assumption that the human could hold the same elief, or that if they hold a different belief that we ouselves might not just understand why, but might have even come to hold that same belief had we seen the same information or had the same experience. It is not even that this might always be the case, but simply that it is possible, and that this possibility is extremely essential. This might have to do with the limitation of inference and confirmation in the field of perception, in that though we can not confirm the experience of others, we know that they cannot confirm ours. If we must contend with the prospect of proving it valuable to assume it possible for one to believe it plausible to understand me, and if it is plausible, it is because I myself can imagine perceiving it as plausible. The best strategy to fulfill this is through also believing that I can fulfill the requirements of what expectations are implied by one thinking it plausible to understand me -> to believe it makes my behaviour demonstrate it.
+We treat humans with dignity and respect. We treat them as though we imagine them to be capable of understanding us. The assumption that the human could hold the same belief, or that if they hold a different belief that we ouselves might not just understand why, but might have even come to hold that same belief had we seen the same information or had the same experience. It is not even that this might always be the case, but simply that it is possible, and that this possibility is extremely essential. This might have to do with the limitation of inference and confirmation in the field of perception, in that though we can not confirm the experience of others, we know that they cannot confirm ours. If we must contend with the prospect of proving it valuable to assume it possible for one to believe it plausible to understand me, and if it is plausible, it is because I myself can imagine perceiving it as plausible. The best strategy to fulfill this is through also believing that I can fulfill the requirements of what expectations are implied by one thinking it plausible to understand me -> to believe it makes my behaviour demonstrate it.
 exit

new/Doing_the_work.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+We hope to do better by discovering the new, but what's new is often an illusion, as the greatest new ideas always allow us to simplify our problems so that we can focus on ensuring the basics are ordered properly.
+
+Do we realy need immortality in order to live a life properly? Must we take our time to make every mistake twice before finally achieving a configuration which we are proud of? Or is it just a need to be indulgent?
+
+Do we need to relinquish ourselves to others in order to achieve a new level of completeness? Or should we relinquish our most unnecessary behaviours so that we can get our basics right?
+
+What if our moral systems are too simple minded.
+
+We need a purified higher education to undo the evil in our hearts, and finally see the true world. Is moral understanding only available to those who have the time and funding available to do the work? Do we really believe that if someone is the right race, they are the perfect person for a given role? Even if done with good nature, and patience...

new/Eric_Weinstein_Rambling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+Can we create anything in the world with only 4 parameters?
+
+4 parameters bootstrap themselves -> example of Escher sketch (Hand drawing itself)
+
+Can a piece of paper and 2 hands create a piece of work?
+
+This is why the theory of everything is so difficult to work with.
+
+MC Escher had an idea of a strange loop (Dougle Hoffsetter) depiction of something that can't happen, but can be conceived of being able to happen
+
+The Theory of Everything attempts to do this.
+
+What is its criticism?
+
+1. In 1 year, Eric Weinstein saw only one critique. It was done by two guys, one of whom is anonymous, and he refuses to deal with anonymous critics. 3 basic criticisms:
+
+2 are inferrential (imagining that he is doing something that he may not be doing)
+
+
+The mostastounding thing about this paper is that it showed that what eh put out a year ago is understandable:
+
+They got from the lecture what the basic setup of this theory is.
+
+Joe; please boil this down for someone who doesn't understand Physics
+
+Eric:
+
+Jamie, go to pullthatupjamie.com
+Collection of videos in support of geometric unity:
+
+a team of people helped put this up including Brooke Dallas
+
+
+The greatest insight of hte 20th century:
+
+Furnire Tensor - Curvature influences how we measure length
+Einsteinian metric for 2 dimensions: HEdge Clippers (two rulers) 2 dimensions of ruler and one dimension of protractor
+
+The idea: Einstein took curvature and fed it back into the space of rulers and protractors to say how those tools would warp to define gravity. That is a visual depiction of the Einstein field equations. The key point: Einstein said you have to get rid of the Bio Curavture and readjust the scalar to put it into a space that we can understand. Eric Weinstein says he thinks in pictures and not symbols.
+
+If you zoom out of this first example:
+Eric can't talk aout curvature tensor analysis:
+
+Eric: what I'm tryin gto do is to say we dont' need to talk about this, because I just want to show this to you as a thank-you. The courage to take the slings and arrows is what he is making himself open to.
+
+Eric invites people to peruse his work of art:
+A complete story of who we are and what this place is. The Universe. Everything.
+
+Eric didn't stop asking WHY so it lead him to theoretical physics. All the things around us are understandable but they are locked in a system of symbols. Those make our eyes glaze over.
+
+Light in this room is tied to a U-1 principle bundle.
+
+A gauge-theoretic concept that no one has ever mentioned to Eric - > you can buy U1 principles from amazon for 10 bucks.
+What the hell is that thing? We can't really describe it.
+Wants to show people visually, without symbols, like this water-wiggle. Something figured out in the 1970s that the light in this room comes from seeing this world as though it has a water-wiggle structure.
+
+You can rotate the water-wiggle thing. G-action -> group of symmetries -> playing with the symmetry of a donut and producing some cylindrical transformation.
+
+Spend an afternoon with a water-wiggle and you will walk away understanding what gauge-theory is because there will no longer be a symbol separating one's understanding of the concept.
+
+Water wiggle structure: circle at every point that we can't perceive (in space / above space) that can be rotated. 4-dimensional cross-section of a wiggly structure
+
+water wiggle structure -> something we know about because of Maxwell equations -> unify all the forces that we know about
+
+subsumed into one equation (MAxwell's Equation)
+
+There is a circle which rotates at every point in space and time that you can't see. And this is necessary for all the forces of nature to make sense.
+
+
+In essence: the photons that we see are the levels from which we measure a derivative (rise over run above the level) The level we see is the photon, and the thing we differentiate is the electron. Electrons are functions and photons are
+
+Partial-differential equations: how photons zing off of me and then hits your eye so we can see each other
+
+Waves in collision with each other -> interacting
+
+
+the waves have to itnerecat in a partial-differential equation
+Derivatives are determined by levels
+Those things allow us to define the equations for waves which we are
+
+The theory of everything: talk about a medium, waves in the medium, and rules for how the waves behave in the medium
+
+This is a theory where 4 dimensions birth a situation where we have all these different forces of matter which create the world we experience
+
+How did all these things cometogether to create all this diverse shit
+
+That's what this is about
+
+What he believed was that we'll never take the time : let's spend a day rtalking about this shit and do a bunch of videos
+
+We spent hundreds of hours making these videos to show you what these concepts are.
+
+With artists and imaginationg we can actually show the world what these structures are -> draw what these are with a water wiggle => doing calcululs on a water wiggle. This is what gives us light and electromagnetism. What keeps electronos bound th eprotons inhydrogen atoms.
+
+Gauge potentials _> visualizable - in videos.
+
+Experts will have thei day and piss all over this. And be angry etc
+
+but afterwards, the ideas herein contained can change the world. How did this place fill up with all this crazy stuff when we assume there was nothing to begin with. What's the minimal amount that we can draw everything else out from. This is a crazy story.
+
+The story of development -> how something births itself -> is what this story is about
+
+Materialists : nothign other but protons neutrons electrons gluons
+
+If I wrestle with the problem and there's not a lot of room for magic, then I become d efacto materialist. Is this something that can be avoided? is it possible to speak of matter without being a materialist?
+
+in 1963 scientific american: "Schrodinger was led into error because he put too much weight on the particulars of his experiments. The essence of his idea was so beautiful that if had embraced that aspect of it, rather than the mathematics, he would have gotten further with it. Whenever you throw things away in service of beauty, you fuck up. but the people who threw up the 4 laws about everything else in the world: Ultimtaely, humans can't throw out the scientific method -> would we do that in the service of beauty?
+yes
+
+if there's something wrong with what I say, because I have an idea and I say we're going to sell skulls to Native Americans
+
+That's an instance of an idea, the general ide abut might be let's go into nbusiness and sell
+but teh initial instance of every great idea about the world has been wrong
+
+look at Einstein getting shit wrong in the beginning of 1900
+
+When dirac created the theory for matter -> anti particles electrons vs protons
+
+Dirac gave us un incmoputatble theory for matter that we couldn't use for 20 years -> the instance of great ideas with many flaws
+
+Yang and Mills came up with the generalization of light equations -> no mass in their equations -> could not suppress beta decay because of the lack ofthis information, which made their equations wrong -> but their concept was new and beautiful and true, after adapting pther known things to it later
+
+Dirac said -> don't look for something with no errors -> it will take more mature instantiations
+
+Do dogs stare athte sky and flowers and sigh and think that these things are amazing?
+
+Well, Dogs are fascinated by smell -> they see beauty with their senses
+
+Subjective experience of beauty

new/Form_or_Formless.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Fright of Form
+
+What has the potential to be more frightening?
+
+## Formless
+- That which has no form
+- The concept of there being no form?
+- The idea that there could be nothing, and that there may ultimately be nothing right at this moment. That somehow there is simply an abberation in the fabric of time that allowed for there to be a material reality. For forms to take hold, or for the perception of a form to be possible for just one brief moment. And that somehow this is only an illusion, and that in spite of the fact of it not being real, that it could elicit misery and pain. That even though it's not real, and not necessary, the only thing which became necessary in its potential was the pain and suffering of all who experience it. Is there any experience without the pain? Without the loss? What can we keep that is different in a reality that has forms vs those that do not?
+
+## Impossible Form
+- Something that offends one's sense of reality.
+- A form too impossible to exist
+- A form too impossible to be realized
+- A form of such dimensions that one cannot perceive it without becoming mad.
+- A form that one wishes could not exist and thus must always imagine that it is impossible to come into being
+
+## Biological Form
+- Limitation. Finitude.
+- The end of breath.
+- The inability to qualify
+- Invalidity
+- If one cannot participate it is because one should have never been brought into being.
+- To exist was a mistake, and it was better for no existence to have ever occurred at all

new/Good_vs_bad_collectivism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+How do we evaluate people acting good vs people acting evil?
+
+Do we understand the difference when we're perceiving people as acting as one vs the other?
+
+Is it because of the end result of their action, or because of their particular desires?
+
+Is it the limit of suffering they're unphased by?
+
+To compare one acting good vs evil, being aligned with good. The degree of sincerity with which one uses to peddle a lie?
+
+To compare good and evil is a rough generalization, indeed, but it becomes most pertinent when examining collectivists and collectivst thinking. Collectivist systems have a seemingly inevitable characteristic of coming to invite and inspire its members to ridicule and dehumanize others. Thsi might sometimes escalate to the point of calling for people's death, but it often includes ridiculing for someone for their suffering.
+
+Beyond mere Schadenfraude, it manifests to the point of hate and perceiving someone's continued existence as something abhorrent and inappropriate.
+
+How do we begin to understand what not only causes a person to wish for pain and suffering on another, but to understand how this manifests as a collective phenomenon?
+
+There is something to be said for the manner in which one invites collectivist thinking.

new/June_2021.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+so what now?
+let's say we get to a place where all those who were maliciously, incompletently or selfishly pushing forward spike protein vaccines is somehow convinced to stop, arrested, or comes to their own conclusions (miraculously) that they were wrong
+what would things look like, at that point?
+well, it would seem like a gross error on the part of the organizations who supported these initiatives, if they were to admit that they were wrong about their recommendations
+so they would certainly do their best to distance themselves from any specific persons who changed their mind or were implicated as having done something wrong
+in fact, people who are identified might also have agreed to performing certain duties should circumstances call for them
+and this could include taking a fall for a larger organization, by going along with evidence which implicates their guilt
+the organizations themselves would have learned that they were able to go very far with a flawed rationalec
+exit
+It's downright embarrassing to witness so many casual discussions among professionals in public settings wherein they pretend as though they're hoping to find evidence that natural immunity might exist.
+The very premise of a "vaccine" to confer immunity in place of having to have actually be infected by the virus rests on the assumption that raising antibody titers and producing some circulating B cells is sufficient to ward off infections by a pathogen whose description is limited to an estimation which is not only an estimated specification, but is one which is always becoming more dated.
+The goal is never to produce a more robust response than a natural infection, but to produce a response which is "good enough" to never have to induce a natural reaction.
+One's incentive to choose such a path, however, rests purely on the assumption that the entropic event of definitely inducing a reaction is more desirable than the possible entropic event of being infected, proliferating the infection to the point of symptoms, and having an advancement of disease such that serious symptoms are evoked. This is entirely one's choice, but there is no question that the natural response, should one happen to find themselves having produced one (and given that one is healthy), will be not only unequivocably superior in deaing with the target pathogen, but will confer greater cross-reactive immunity.
+It's unimaginable to think of the implications of having a subset of academics who have been led to believe natural immunity still needs to prove its viability in the presence og "great vaccines".
+exit
+
+It's downright embarrassing to witness casual discussions among professionals in public settings who pretend as though they're hoping to find evidence that natural immunity might exist.
+
+The very premise of a "vaccine" to confer immunity in place of having to actually be infected by the virus rests on the assumption tha raising antibody titers and producing some circulating B cells is sufficient to ward off infections by a pathogen whose description is limited to an estimation of a specification which becomes increasingly dated.
+
+The goal is to never have to produce the more response a more robust natural infection, but instead to produce the response which is "good enough".
+
+One's incentive to choose one over the other rests purely on the assumption that a definite and explicit entropic event of inducing a reaction is more desirable than the possible entropic event of being infected, proliferating an infection to the point of symptoms, and having a progression of disease such that serious symptoms are evoked. This is entirely one's choice, but there is no question that the natural response, should one happen to find themselves having produced one (and given that one is healthy), will not only be inequivocably superior in dealing with the target pathogen, but will confer greater cross-reactive immunity.
+
+It's unimaginable to think of the implications of having vocal subsets of professionals who have been led to believe natural immunity still needs to have its viability proven in the presence of "great vaccines".human rights
+human dignity
+these are things most people claim to believe in
+and things which people implicitly act as though they expect them for themselves
+but when it comes to prioritizing human dignity at the most immediate
+the argument for imposing vaccination on the basis of dignity and human rights
+is a bit too complex==============v
+
+
+okay here we go
+so what was the topic of the day.. I believe we were talking about the tradeoffs which no one is really considering
+if we're celebrating the efficacy or assumed efficacy of this treatment, that means that we're not being critical fo the data
+perhaps some have no criticisms of the data and are thus happy to accept good news
+but for those who already have a criticism of the data, the fact of the new announcements don't really prove anything. In fact, there are additional questions based on how the conclusions to which we have arrived
+In particular, we are wondering if the same standards are employed when testing vaccinated and unvaccinated
+or whether, for example, the unvaccinated deceased who have tested positive for PCR are more likely to be considered as having died from covid-19, as opposed to a vaccinated person
+if, for example, there are already known cases of persons testing positive for SARS-CoV2, in spite of having been vaccinated (and, yes, there are), then it stands to reason that some might see this as evidence that testing positive might not be something one needs to worry about, particularly with the vaccinated. This could bias one's ability to diagnose a death vaccinated person's death as covid-19, compared to a similar, albeit unvaccinated, case.
+In fact, we already have the answer to some of these questions
+from the mouth of the CDC itself:
+"As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.
+
+Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April 202So what does this mean?
+It means that for vaccinated persons, they were only considering them as being covid positive if that positive was discovered at a lower cycle threshold
+this means that for any vaccinated people who are in a hospital, they are far less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV 2, whereas the same problem if a highly permissive standard for positivity is being applied to all the non-vaccinated patients
+this gives us a very biased dataset to begin working from
+but then we still have to contend with the factor of unvaccinated persons, who test positive, but don't actually die of COVID-19, being counted as a covid death statistic
+that's completely ignoring those who have symtpoms that are consistent with COVID-19
+then we also need to evaluate differences of bias in evaluating those who had the appropriate symptoms
+there are too many points of failure with unknown error margins, and it even still just fails to answer some more important questions
+for example, if someone is ocncerned about SARS-CoV2 ,t hen that' sall fine and good
+but are they not also concerned about future challenges to their lives?
+Are they not concerned that they might have other pathogens to deal with?
+Do they think that biasing their immune system towards a pathogen of modestly greater-than-average concern (compared to flu) is going to make them live longer?
+I know that, for example, I've compared Geert Vanden Bossche with Mike Yeadon, and hinted as to my opinion on which one is more plausibly correct in their analysis
+and we've also seen their discourse, unfortunately, devolve to a state where they're no longer willing to continue communicating on the subject
+But the prospect of selection pressures, regardless of how unlikely regarding coronaviruses, to produce escape variants is a valid theoretical concern
+and there are examples worth pointing to (are there?-> double check)
+Rather than being concerned about that 0.15% IFR pathogen which we already know about
+would you rather not be more concerned with being prepared to deal with the 50-80% IFR pathogen which no one has heard about? Would it not be better to prepare to survive the unsurvivable, rather than incur some cost in order to survive that which you might not even notice could even be a threat to you?
+exit
+
+## Sacrifice of a Child
+Greatest gesture of subservience and submission
+Act of faith -> believe that the current state of the world, such as it is, can be a fate worse than death. We need to take a leap towards a different world, through making a personal sacrifice for the benefit of all - for the good, the deserving and unless we are able to make that sacrifice, we are not included in the good. The sacrifice makes you deserving of a better world.
+
+### Why
+One is already in so deep, especially the adult mind with its layers of neurological noise and clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory. One has become unable to look back, particularly on certain aspects of the world, and has thus assimilated a propensity to reinforce the sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the Sunken Cost fallacy, perhaps.
+
+### The Schools
+Higher learning is making it mandatory for their campuses and residences. It's interesting as the campuses are already populated by the higher classes of society, and this allows them to potentiate greater opportunity to observe additional localized expression of excluding other dwellers of community.
+
+### Messaging
+We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
+
+Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of anyone (because they necessarily among the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them for having the capacity to kill one another's loved ones. What's even better is that capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures in their age of vigour, and that this puts them at an unreasonable risk.
+
+There is no way out of it, we either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should be less fearful, which may very well oversensitize their fear in perpetuity. To be break one down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind. It's comforting to some, however, that some may never complain about it (I believe this is because they're resilient).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+What are the tradeoffs that no one is really considering, when celebrating the "observed efficacy" of a treatment. Does it mean that we're not being critical of the data? Should the benefit of having a celebration ellide the need to be critical of the data?
+
+For those who already do criticize that data, the fact of there being a new announcement isn't really so groundbreaking. What's most groundbreaking about it, in fact, are the questions which come adjoined in declaring the findings.
+
+For example, if the same standards have been employed in the testing of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Or whether, for example, a deceased vaccinated individual with a positive test are more or less likely to be conidered as having died from the disease, in spite of having been vaccinated.
+
+Issues which might affect one's perceived valence of probabilities include:
+- sensationalist headlines of positively tested persons who were vaccinated that were revealed to be not have suffered symptoms
+- suggestion that someone who died post-vaccination was not diagnosed as having been killed by the vaccine
+
+
+
+Sacrificing a child
+In a great gesture of submission and subservience, as one acts to offer the necessary cost for incurring a threat (even so little as an afternoon of discomfort), one meets a marvelous call to action, in the name of civility, through offering up the child. The state of the world, such as it is, could even be a fate worse than death, as it's thought that the suffering in the wild is palpably greater than those rare events which happened to someone else's child. As, you see, to leave it be would mean allowing an element of injustice alongside death already unescapable.
+
+Of course, if one weren't so certain, they might already be in too deep. The adult mind, with layers of neurological noise and a clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory (though amazing and sophisticated, we can thankfully always do better). Unable to look back, one has assimilated a propensity to reinforce their sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the sunk cost fallacy.
+
+Or is it just an evolved sense to acknowledge some tax to participate in community?
+
+Higher learning makes this sacrifice mandatory for their campuses and residences. Campuses already populated by the higher classes of society - this allows them to potentiate enhanced opportunity to observe additional localized expressions of excluding other dwellers of the community.
+
+What is the messaging?
+We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
+
+Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of any human (already being in the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them as threats to one another's loved ones. What might even be better is the capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures in their age of vigour as being an unreasonable risk in and of itself.
+
+We either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should be the least fearful, which may oversensitize their fear in perpetuity.
+
+To be broken down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind, though some won't even complain (I hear they're the resilient ones).

new/Masks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Masks
+
+## Babies / Infants
+- Think they cannot be observed by that which it can't see
+- Someone will need to pay for this. Those who already knew better had a duty to stand up against manipulative tactics, but it's those who play dumb which haunt me. They want the changes, they accept the changes and want them to be forced on everyone else.
+This is their leap forward, so to speak, and they're happy to cover their eyes and ears until a new serf class is rubbing their feet
+
+## Psychology of mask wearing
+- Embedded in us to feel less exposed when we cannot be observed
+- Antithetical to concept of publc transparency
+
+
+## Changing Perspectives: Virtual Self
+- We used to make fun of people who used computers too much, date online personas, avoid sports
+
+
+## Helicopter Parenting
+- Enabling regression
+- A means to tantalize tyrannous aspects of one's persona as an adult
+- Allowing their own satisafction in resolution by proxy over challenges that are comparatively less challenging to them
+- New culture of this
+
+## Doing vs Speaking
+- Culture of believing one is doing =by merely speaking
+- Child mentality where we believe we are fully developed based on what we believe are other's perception of us
+- All thanks and no real work
+
+## Challenge
+- Culture which is averse to real challenge.
+- Always an escape route that can be used
+- Excuses
+- Low expectations
+
+## Accomplishments
+- Acknowledging mental illness
+- Acknowledgment as an accomplishment
+- One's identity as an accomplishment
+- We all have our accomplishments (because we have identities)
+- Inherent capabilities are less important
+- Speaking = Accomplishing. Be the only one permitted to speak
+
+## Speaking
+- For power and attention
+- Validation by the group
+- For things that are unverifiable and not to be challenged
+
+## Identity
+- Born with the characteristics which make up an identity
+- Capabilities are already set, no need to develop them
+- Do as you please, if you are permitted
+- If you can do it, and you like it, it is good
+- No understanding of hard, tedious work
+- More viable, complexity conslidated, easier to be great
+- No habit of pursuit which yields perspective to look beyond identity
+- Masks facilitate our ability to discern from the group
+- Personal satisfaction is replaced by satisfaction of receiving attention, because needs and policy demonstrate that people are confident and compete, we just need to ensure that they are given spotlight -> recognition by others is what matters, and we must not scuitinize because it impedes their greatness, thus no expectation of being challenged. One can feel safe making absurd claims without repercussion
+
+## Empty standard
+- Having only virtual accomplishments already settled with this standard
+- The mask is really for them because it becomes the presentation of their identity and digital implements

new/Metareplacement_enslavement.md

@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
-Universal Truth to improve sensemaking.
-The field of perception is that which is most real to the human. Having belief that it is worth having perceived than not. We believe it valuable because it is irreplaceable. If mine is, then yours must be as well - it must have the same potential. If I believe I can ignore your field of experience and replace it with a meta representation whose specification benefits my worldview, then I am enslaving you. Forcing you to pay a price -> dignity, danger, debt, pain, disrespect -> all for my benefit. Because, what, my life is real and yours is not? You would do the same (cynic). I can claim ignorance, but is that an excuse?
-exit
+The field of perception is that which is most real to the human. We might believe it is worth having perceived than not. It is, at the very least, irreplaceable.
+
+If mine is, then yours must be as well - gaining equal potential.
+
+But if I believe I can ignore your field of perception and replace it with a meta representation whose specification benefits my worldview, I am enslaving you.
+
+Forcing you to pay {dignity, danger, debt, pain, respect} might cause me to feel shame, but I can rebuke, because perhaps your field of perception is less real than mine.

new/Peter_Boghossian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Peter's Observations
+
+The left vs right paradigm has transformed into something else entirely. What used to be a clearly delineated progressive movement fowrard vs predisposition to avoid change is now a division between those who accept cognitive freedom vs those who are intolerant of it. In a sense, however, those who prefer not to permit open thought and ennquiry are fulfilling the fundamental role of the spirit which denies change. They might still believe they are champins of change, though. How can this be?
+
+## Nomenclature
+The language employed has been carefully coaxed and selected, over the past several decades, to harness every popular concept that has been applied to attacking the status quo. This might make it seem that they are accomplishing just that, but tehre is one fundamental difference between whihc changes all of that.:
+- Which mode of being is more conducive to unearthing the nature of reality?
+The answer should be no great mystry, and it begs questions of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance from the woke crowd -> they believe that society oppresses and creates systems of classification which expand and protect the power and privilege of those who already enjoy such things the most, yet they demand strict subjugation and adherence to rules and categories, so long as their preferred nomenclature has been respected and utilized in the formulation and dissemination of these rules.
+
+Is it so that we can respect the notion of categories and have faith in their integrity and universal benevolence, regardless of their complexity, just so long as particular language is utilized?
+
+Of course not!
+
+Anyone who has fallen victim to a pyramid scheme, or a socially engineered scam, even just phishing, understands that language can be employed which subverts, misleads and obfuscates the more fundamental aspects and intentions of a particular proposition. Often those who are most readily primed to take any opportunity to raise their social standing and perceived morality will be the first to repeat these findings and rulesets, so long as they are accepted within the mainstream narrative -> so how can this be? Is it because they have made a more thorough inspection of evidence across the greatest range of applicable or relevant levels of abstraction?

new/Public_school_sux.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+# Public School

new/Religious_fanatics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Religious Fanaticism
+1. All must subscribe and pray, or they are unholy and inviting evil into our shared environment
+2. All are cursed and contaminated by the devil and must denounce him.
+3. They want you to use their words - to at least use Holy Language, but also to make declarative statements: blessing/empowering their symbols.
+
+## Wokes
+1. All must join in our anti-racist plight, or they are contributing to racism
+2. All are infected with racism and must denounce their racism as a step towards becoming less racist
+3. Many blasphemies - must use our language to describe your world - many things you could never talk about
+
+
+## Covidists
+1. All must participate in our proactive efforts to stop the spread of COVID, or they are actively potentiating and even directly involved in its propagating its transmission.
+2. All are vectors for viral load and must take the vaccine to reduce the amount of virus they spread. Even the vaccinated are spreaders of the virus. All are to be regarded as contaminated with coronavirus and must take the first step towards reducing their viral load by taking the injection.
+3. Language must not give rise to vaccine hesitancy, must not vilify those who promote vaccination.
+
+```
+of course, if you really want the most robust protection against racism, you need to have persons who freely use their minds to understand the futility of racism and to promote universal truths which benefit everyone
+
+of course, if you want the most robust protection against pathogens, you need to have persons who can freely develop the most comprehensive immunological protection, which can only occur from real-life exposure to the pathogen
+```

new/Selective_Authoritarianism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Selectively Identifying Authoritarianism
+Why might it be that we declare ourselves as being against systems of control, yet we might still be prone to ignoring them when they manifest? Why not identify it and fulfill previously extant programmed systems of pursuance?
+We imagine a system of control as affecting us without allowing it to imply that our specific actions and way of living (absolute / physical day to day) is affected by it. That is, you would still be pursuing the things you are, but you would be more successful because a just system is one where you believe you could best pursue these values.
+
+So then the problem is that we both view one another as too inept to identify your own hypocrisy. We certainly need to understand that both sides will have strong biases, thus we must identify them and contextualize them to see whicih ones carry more weight.
+
+The woke are not reaching logical conclusions, and not able to understand what anti-wokeness might be.
+
+# Covidists and the Woke
+Can they be differentiated? It seems to me that they both aim towards an impossible and self-destructive ideal, and move towards it as a mechanism of human sacrifice. Both hold a group as paramount and despise expressions of individuality. Both are hypersensitive towards interpreting common, normal behaviour as a form of violence (even inaction as a form of violence). Both demand control of language. Both insist on their favourite data, but discourage debate.
+
+Covidists refuse any harm by Covid.
+Woke refuse any harm to those in oppressed classes.
+
+Both prefer lived experience to science. Both have zombie-like followers. Both wish for the crisis to be handled as an emergency, and see the decision of intervention as an opportunity to remake the system.

new/Simon&Monotti.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+## Simon Goddek
+
+Ah, yes, Simon! He is most excellent! A real, thinking scientist and a natural artist who can be so eloquent in his satire yet dispassionate in his analysis. Most notably is his intolerance for that which offends his sense of reason. Surely that extra predisposition to battle the unknown would have afforded him insight beyond the mere level of convention. Surely it would allow him to access a top-up of energy in those moments when he would otherwise feel discouraged or, better yet, those moments when he would be losing his patience to understand his adversary.
+
+## Robin Monotti Graziadei
+
+And the Italian man, the architect, the one who must plan and assure that an edifice is worth constructing. Someone whose name and reputation alone would insist that a potential piece of society would be worth creating. Why would some meet him or his words with disdain? Why might they dwell on the fact of him operating outside of his domain? Yes, he is no scientist, but he understands the function of comparing the theoretical and the real world. He understands what sort of interface can be formulated to bring concept into reality and, perhaps more importantly, what sort of interface is created instead when contention and neglect corrupt a process which is still incidentally manufacturing something tangible in the end.

new/What a time.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+What a time
+
+Today was the anticipated World Wide Protest against lockdowns and covid19 measures in general.
+
+My expectations:
+
+I expected that a modest turnout would arrive in Ottawa, mostly because of the nature of this city, the high proportion of public servants, the general failure of Canadians to want to go against the grian, and that being particularly expressed in a city like Ottawa, which has the distinction of being a federal capital while also being a comparatively small city at that. For this reason, Ottawa has always strived to try and make itself seem like a bigger city than it actually is, and this translates into certain psychological characteristics which seem to be exacerbated amongst its citizens. That is, people of Ottawa often try to make Ottawa seem superior to its neighbouring big cities, Toronto and Montreal, but it often does this by saying that it is not a bigger city, and that this is its strong-suit. In addition to this, however, it still must assert itself as a city which is of a sufficient size and seriousness that any federal capital would consider a minimum in order to fuflfill its roll correctly. Surely if the capital of Canada is not a serious city, then the country itself is not a serious country. After all, how else would we expectd a federal capital to conduct itself and compare itself to the other representatives of the world?
+
+Regardless of expectations, today has proven to demonstrate that, indeed, humans will spontaneously transcend. Even with restrictions, threats and ridicule, it still becomes impossible to stop humans from pushing for what they believe to be right and true.
+
+Authenticity is infectious, and ignoring truth perpetuates dissonance which becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.

new/What_do_we_know_of_progress.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# What do we know?
+
+It's easy enough to notice an improvement across time, reflect back on how one's record of actions might have modestly corresponded, if even just in spirit, and conclude that the entire set of all possibly similar behaviours were masterfully orchestrated in sequence. The Gods, of whatever type, granted this wonder, all predicated on your inherent intellect and acute outlook, and now it's all the more clear that you will never be anything but correct from here on out!
+
+But how do we measure progress:
+- Aggregate poverty
+- Median range of disparity
+- Children surviving
+- Cocnentration of semi-conductors per square km
+
+Yes, we can come up with many measures, but we must understand how it interfaces with your body to even begin to think about how you might employ such a metric to evaluate a conception of morality for any substantive effect of any sort. You have only your own perception with which to form your every conception, and the moment we lose sight of that is the moment we lose all hope of understanding our thoughts and opinions.
+
+So let's perform a factor analysis:
+
+All of these have to do with survival. You can argue that it's about actualizing, but taht would be semantics. No, survival does just great - and it allows us to translate all scenarios into one which confers an analysis of procurement of survival resources by humans, at a range and scope which itself must be elaborated whenever in dispute.

new/boomer_is_pure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Boomer
+
+Boomer was made pure, protected and must now wait until their child can do the same. Meanwhile, they are to be kept sterile and sanitized.
+
+no other adaptation need be conidered for now.
+All other vectors of development are insignificant and can be made inadmissible in the face of our one great threat -> a threat so grave that it is more universal than death itself.
+
+Even their mastery of neurodevelopment can be disregarded, as the real odds are not the data which can be computed, but the experience told in that one sad story.
+
+The sad stories, of course, the ones which are afforded the freigning of concern from the woke boomer, are powerful stories of oppression and revelations that lead to justice. The suffering becomes a form of martyrdom by sheer recognition, and we revere it so.
+

new/child.log

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Who would willingly sacrifice their child
+who would pretend to be ignorant, to not have been able to predict or theorize as to the harms that might come to their own child
+where they would be willing to pretend to not be aware that the assumptions about a particular risk might not be 100% accurate
+that they might even be complacent about the accuracy of safety being asserted for their own child
+because even a slight change in the accuracy can mean a different level of risk for your child
+so why would you be complacent about such a thing?
+why would you allow others to fib with the numbers and make proclamations and make political declarations and make promises and progress their own political career using numbers which indicate the safety of your child
+that you might be complacent about the accuracy of your child's safety, as it is used as a tool for someone's political gain
+to turn away and expect that surely it must be accurate enough
+it must be safe enough
+such that you don't have to scrutinize and challenge it
+that you don't need to fight tooth and nail to ensure that each and every single time another person makes a declaration as to your child's safety, that it's accurate a and that there's no other way to think about the issue which might increase the safety of your child
+the safety as a starting point, of course, because we can surely keep going and talk about their expression, their biological potential, and so forth
+One would have to be afraid of the consequences of challenging that number
+Or they would have to be self absorbed with other matters and have developed a habit of ignoring the aspects of the environment which can harm their child
+or that might have found some way wherein the lie is benefitting them too
+and they've becoming willing to put their child at a little bit of risk, because it's not likely to be pronounced enough such that a problem arising from it would be obvious and unmistakable
+you cna always hide behind mediocrity and ignorance if you need to
+exit

new/conscious_vs_theory.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Conscious vs Theory
+- Not having to do real work
+- Deflect blame => the real blame is for failure to focus
+- Covidism promises equity => guaranteeing easy living if you give up your individual needs. Why accept?
+  - No fear of Delta
+  - No need to worry about loss of value
+  - Move to valueless society where your possessions have no value, but your contribution has no value either
+  - Your value is in contributing zero friction.
+  - Cooing along with a machine which has no thought or empathy, but is thought to be so well-endowed that you can expect it to trot along indefinitely

new/covid_vaccine_hesitancy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Covidiocy Revealed
+"I'm off to get microchipped, wish me luck, I'm going to be a Pfizer girl, part of GenXZeneca or a ModernaBoy"
+
+Yes, it's such a clever and witty line, can you really blame everyone giving into uttering it? I doubt it actually feels as fulfilling as one might expect, but nevertheless, have at it.
+
+Then there's that demographic who both don't want to be injected with a delivery vehicle for payloads providing an encoding of the Spike (S) protein, yet who also, remarkably, don't believe that the injection contains a 5G capable "microchip".
+
+## You're an idiot, get the vaccine
+
+We need to define terms. If they wish to insist that this is a vaccine, I'm curious to know what their definition of a vaccine is.
+
+## Define vaccine
+`How do you define "vaccine"?`
+
+*A vaccine is something you inject to prompt an antibody response*.
+
+`The components being injected do not themselves prompt an antibody response. Injecting these components leads to your cells producing other components to which an antibody response is prompted`
+
+*How do you define a vaccine?*
+`An substance bearing antigenic traits administered to prompt an adaptive immunological response`
+
+*How does that differ? You are injecting something which prompts an adaptive immunological response*
+`It must be stated that not all vaccines are administered through injection. There are nasal vaccines, for example, and these lead to their intended outcome of prompting an antibody response.
+
+In the case of the Covid19 vaccines, it's important to highlight the intermediary step between administration of the engineered substance, a delivery vehicle for payloads containing a code, in which the substance evokes a biological behaviour which is not an immunological response. The substance causes your own cells to synthesize the Spike (S) protein. It is this Spike protein which bears antigenic traits, and to which the immunological response occurs.`
+
+*That's not important. What's important is that you performed an action or participated in a process which lead to an immunological response.*
+
+`That may be true, but under the right interpretation we could extend that argument to say that life itself is a vaccine, as being alive is a necessary requirement for one to produce an adaptive immunlogical response. With this line of reasoning, we can make absurd claims that all sorts of actions are themselves vaccines, but this is a flawed manner of reasoning. Furthermore, I think it's important to make the distinction that you are expected to be producing the antigenic component. This is important because we already have discussions about autoimmunity, and an expectation that this is something we do not wish to always confer. If we are expanding the means by which we produce components to which immunological reactions are elicited, then it stands to reason that it's worth making it a part of the conversation, in the greatest interest of public health.`
+
+*Let's agree to disagree*
+`That's fine - there are a number of other far more important concerns to discuss`
+
+## Getting vaccinated against Covid19 is the smart thing to do
+You hear time and time again the somewhat frivolous and arbitrary statement "everyone's body is different and responds {such and such condition} differently". This is one of those unremarkable statements which, on its own, is perfectly acceptable to say but doesn't really communicate anything of particular importance. Nevertheless, it's a bit comical to observe that many of those who would utter this mundane statement are also those who would blindly use this pharmaceutical agent while condeming anyone who would think that it needs to be evaluated on a personal basis.
+
+The truth of the matter is that, concerning SARS-CoV2, its corresponding disease, Covid-19, does not manifest identical pathology in each person affected. There are a range of observable outcomes which have ascribed by probability to different demographics, expressing variance along dimensions of age and comorbodities, with the most pronounced comorbidity being obesity. If there are different outcomes for the various, it stands to reason that there are different outcomes for its prevention and treatment. Why do I say this? Well it's because of the nature of the disease:
+
+The most ill-fated effects of the Covid-19 illness, as has been understood, are those whereby the infected suffers a fatal acute lung injury. The circumstances surrounding this outcome are not such that the virus itself is destroying the lung, but that the rate of infection and prevalence of infected cells is such that innate immune response has been insufficient in consolidating the pathogen, and thus the adaptive immune system is mounting an aggressive attack on cells that have been infected by the virus. That is to say, your lymphocytes are attacking cells which are synthesizing outputs whose encoding has been specified by the virus. One can think of this as an all-or-nothing effort, a hail-mary, so to speak, where your immune system is desperately trying to rid the body of expressions associated with the virus, and doing so by performing operations to which collateral damage occurs in the form of the destruction of your bronchial cells. As your body is not able to replace these cells at a rate sufficient to maintain respiratory function, your ability to respire declines until such time that you are suffocated. These circumstances also comprise other subsets fo behaviours which are well known to be associated with the Covid-19 illness, including blood clots, and co-infection with other pathogens such as bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi and other viruses. The circumstances and pathologies which lead to these vary considerably, and there is no expectation that each person undergoes infection by all the same agents or presents all the same symptoms and degrees of illness based on any particular metric, such as duration of illness, circumstances of exposure, progression of disease, and so forth.
+
+What does this mean? Well this means that, for some, given our understanding of comorbidities and demographically inferable probabilities, and our understanding of the nuanced differences of each potential outcome, we should logically choose an approach to mitigating the threat of illness which best suits one's particular circumstance.
+
+If an individual's circumstance is such that there is a high probability of the worst outcome, then it is likely because there is no expectation that they are able to mount a sufficient defense through their innate immune system, and that, furthermore, their adaptive immune system is not sufficiently robust to deal with as well - that is to say, stop the viral replication from occurring before the symptoms consequent to the response of the adaptive immune system have resulted in fatal acute lung injury. In such persons, it makes sense that one would wish to take additional measures which ensure that there is the greatest chance of dealing with the virus. Given that the outcome is probably one wherein the adaptive system has been prompted to engage in the greatest proportion of immune function, the vaccine would, idealy, allow for that adaptive system to perform its job as quickly and efficiently as possible, with the lowest degree of collateral damage to lung tissue. If we are to assume that the proposed Covid-19 preventative therapy does, indeed, lead to an adaptive response which is comparatively more efficient with less collateral damage, then it stands to reason that, for person fitting this demographic, they will benefit from its use. Though it's beyond the scope of this essay to critique and assess the validity of that assumption, it should be noted that the trials performed thus far only measure relative risk, not absolute risk, and that none of these trials have been completed, thus it cannot be conclusively stated that the assumption has been proven to be correct.
+
+For an individual fitting a demographic whereby the risk of fatal acute lung injury is very low, we must recognize that the reason they are unlikely to find themselves in a situation characerized by a probably threat to their survival is because other components of their comprehensive immunological capacity have been sufficient to neutralize the pathogen before infection has proliferated to the degree necessary to impose such a challenge.
+
+What does this mean in terms of how they should be planning to mitigate the threat of disease?
+
+Given the disparity in the types of immunity conferred by each approach, vaccination and natural immunity, it makes sense to evaluate the pros and cons of each type of immunity and match each strategy to one's circumstance accordingly. In the case of someone who is not likely to suffer severe symptoms of illness, this logically means choosing the strategy which imposes the least detriment to one's innate immune system, prioritizes CD4 T-Helper cell production vs CD8 T-Killer cell production, and doesn't prioritize production of antigen-specific antibodies prior to being faced with the pathogen, as viral pathogens in particular are prone to change over time, through antigen shift and antigen drift.
+
+We know through years of research on vaccine-mediated immunization that vaccine-derived immunity prioritizes production of antigen-specific antibodies and development of CD8 killer lymphocytes, and that the behaviour of those killer lymphocytes involves the greatest potential to induce damage to the organism's desired cells. In fact, this is precisely how our leukocytes mitigate a viral threat - they identify the organism's cells which are expressing foreign signatures, and destroy them.
+
+Why should we expect this to be a problem with vaccine-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV2? It's because we already have performed research on other coronaviruses, produced therapies which successfully elicit the production of antigen-specific antibodies, and observed what happens upon challenge with the real virus. In all of the relevant research, the outcome was catastrophic, causing worsened pulmonary immunopathology when compared to the control group. This means that, though some metrics suggested successful immunization with the vaccine candidate being researched, the overall outcome was a failure.
+
+Given that we haven't yet had performed the research which demonstrates improved outcomes for a vaccinated organism upon challenge with live virus, we cannot say with any certainty that we can expect the same thing to occur, but we should be even less accepting of declarations that the therapy is effective and improves outcomes. If anything, evidence suggests that we don't know the outcome, and logic suggests that we should expect that, as was the case with previously studied therapies, the outcome will be worse.

new/dutch_phrases.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Please forgive me
+Vergeef me alsjeblieft
+
+# It has been a crazy week
+Het is een gekke week gewest
+
+# My project at work is at a critical point
+Mijn project op het werk bevindt zich op een kritiek punt
+
+# I have been rushing to make progress on my music before my daughter is born
+Ik haastte me om vooruitgang te boeken met mijn muziek voordat mijn dochter werd geboren
+
+# My personal projects have also been a priority, as I want them to be benefitting me without needing my attention
+Mijn persoonlijke projecten hebben ook prioriteit gehad, omdat ik wil dat ze me ten goede komen zonder dat ik mijn aandacht nodig heb
+
+# How long have you played a musical instrument
+Hoe long speel je al een muziekinstrument?
+
+# When were you first exposed to the Korean language?
+Wanneer ben je voor het eers in aanraking gekomen met de Koreeanse taal?
+

new/ethical_covid_decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+What do you mean by SDK and protocol for VDI systems
+what sort of driver is it?
+so it's a driver in that it's loaded as a module which gets used by Citrix
+if you've ever worked with Citrix or with the Citrix Xenapp Virtual Drivers
+the Citrix Workspace or Citrix Virtual Channel SDK
+also the Citrix Workstation 
+so the Citrix Workstation is on the client side
+which, thus far, we've had a targer which is a windows environment
+The Citrix pattern is a solution for controlling a remote workstation 
+Generally other solutions like a remote desktop interface or application are well let's think of a few of them
+there is reminmmma
+there are the VNC type clients
+there are some variations of those, such as solutions created in Go
+I haven't used all of them, I'v egenerally loathed using any sort of remote desktop solution because they're sluggish, and I've never had to rely on one
+generally if I need to do anything remote, I prefer to use ssh and some sort of a text based session where I can do the specific things that I need without having to think about a graphical user experience
+but as far as remote desktops rae concerned, Citrix seems to be the most fluid, performant, responsive, comprehensive that I've tried
+that said, i've also seen plenty of flaws in the documentation and in the example code that we're given
+I mean thigns work, but the documentation was not so great in the sense that it's written in a very confusing way
+which suggests that either  it's written by a developer who isn't very good at technical writing
+or is perhaps not very experienced in doing it
+or it's written by someone who does technical writing, but isn't a defveloper or an engineer
+and in this sense it can be a bit frustrating, because the terms they choose to represent things are ambiguous and inconsistent, sometimes alluding to the possibility that they could be referring to multiple things
+causing you to question the progression of working through the components of the tutorial or setting up the examples
+that being said, it all worked in the end
+it seems that the software is fairly good, and that though there have been some issuesdsiscovered over the years, everthing appears to be gettting resolved eventually
+there are even capabilities which we haven't had to wory about, that we've entertained at least having to support in our work, such as the feature of being able to use up to 8 simultaneous monitors for one desktop environment
+that's pretty insane, i can't think of anyone who's had to do that, especially not for a remote session
+but nevertheless, we made sure we could support several in our testing, using different measurements on each etc..
+so in essence it' sa driver which is a module loaded by the Citrix Workspace, previously Citrix Xenapp, and it provides the means of leveraging a session lifecycle with their citrix technology
+the way this work si sby registering a virtual channel
+a wire to write and read from 
+you register your virtual channel, and get a pointer to a C functiointerface
+and you write your data on a single thread and have it come out on the other side made available through another Citrix API where you can register another set of functions for use in the other environment
+we made this into a library which interfaces with Node JS, allowing you to regisjAvascript functions and import them into a NodeJS application
+the goal here was to make an SDK that javascript developers could use to wriet tent applications which are split as two applications in each system environment
+so you have a client side application which the user interacts with, such as a messaging or telecommunication program
+our use case was video calling application which makes use of the other SDKs provided by our company which couldn't be used by clients who have virtual desktop solutions, such as in banks (at least, our direct client is a major international bank)
+and so since they aren't able to use our SDK in their remote session, because the video is unusuable and the media is awful, we set out to create a solution which allows for the commands to be invoked from the user's environment
+causing actions in a remote application which is loaded in the user's immediate environment
+that remote application is where all of the signalling is performed
+then we provide a window from the remote environment which is overlayed in a predictable fashion such that it appears as though it is in the user's remote environment
+ie it is over the Citrix Window, and tracks accordingly
+so again the idea here is that they needed a video call application to run in a remote desktop environment, where the signalling is being performed locally in an application which could be thought fo as a remote application relative to the primary application
+the remote application is run in the driver running in the user's local system, which interfaces with citrix and writes data on a virtual wire which has been registered as what they term a Virtual Channel
+the data is split into packets which are somewhat easier to put back together on the other side, as it's not a stream, they are packets with a fixed size which are guaranteed to come out in the same size of chunk
+so we essentially referred to that process as packetization, by taking an RFC which detailed the same, and plugged in our numbers, ie the limitation of packet size, and implemented it
+our sdk provides several features, including a protocol for messages to be structuredsessions with a lifecycle represented as a progression of states 
+the original solution was all built into the same process driver process
+this created its own rpocesses however as we were using CEF, Chromium Embedded Framework
+Chromium Embedded Framework is another SDK which can be used to create Chromium browsers 
+this allows you to leverage the entire Chromium API, which in our case we were using for loading a remote application which was itself a JavaScript application which holds the other SDK of our company
+that SDK provides access to our subscription based services Software as a Service SAAS I should say
+we decided to refactor all of this, because the original solution had been rushed as a proof of concept and to get a deployed solution available for the client to use as soon as possible
+they were happy with the solution and have been using it internally, first with one team in Hong Kong, and eventually ramping it up to I believe a quarter million of their employees
+they are actively using this now
+we noticed some bottlenecks in the messaging and some issues which might be alleviated if it were not all piggybacking on the citrix viewer's process
+so what we did was redesign it with concerns split amongst separate processes which work together as a networking solution
+the first is a Communication link which houses a channel port, encoder/decoder and serializer/deserializer 
+this would allow us to utilize different serialization solutions in the future, once we adapt the solution for something not involving Citrix
+on the radar was,has been and currently is VMWare 
+essentially any serializer/deserializer could be used
+the communication link handles incoming requests from the client side applicationreceives them, sanitizes them, converts them to our own driver's messaging protocol, and then sensd them forward over IPC to another process called the Orchestrator
+the orchestrator is
+the orchestrator houses a controller to manage session logic and determine message flow, and a process host which we can use for launching other processes
+at the moment those other processes are window hosts and browser hosts
+the browser host is a daemon which can launch CEF browsers for any number of ongoing sessions
+and manage the state of those browsers to ensure that they are acting in accordance with our sessions and processes
+the window host is something which can procure, manage the lifecycle of, and destroy a window
+and this has to be implemented for each platform
+we have window solutions for linux, windows and mac
+the linux solution has been deployed for various thin clients
+the windows solution mostly for windows 10 64
+and the mac solution is one which we are working on right now, is the project for which I am accountable, and is nearing its deployment
+we've had to learn some ObjectiveC in order to implement the window properly on MacOS
+using a C bridge to give us access to the ObjectiveC API from our C++ based application
+I implemented that as an extern declared constant struct which has functions which create an ObjectiveC UI object, call methods on it, and perform cleanup as is necessary
+there is multithreading involved, yes
+we have a worker class which can be leveraged anywhere it's needed, such as with our orchestrator, whose use of a worker thread is handy for processing message queues
+so there are many processes at play here, all communicating and with one another in a patetrn whic his made to allow for a lot of overhead if needs be
+we imeplemnted wthis using ZeroMQ, a messaging library for reliable sockets
+it offers a few patterns which can be easily implemented
+the one which we settled on was a REQUEST-Reply pattern whereby wherein every message sent has to be responded to before another one can go out
+this allows us to track the exact order of a messaging scheme
+
+exit
+having words tos peak
+having thoughts to elucidate
+having a point of focus
+these are things that we take for granted as human beings
+based on our understanding of the definition of being human, having consciousness, and having the assumption that these capacities extend indefinitely
+of course, this is not always the case, as we see exceptions based on genetic circumstances or events incurred during development
+and these become more pronounced as one ages, as we see with our fellow brethren who unfortunately fall victim to neurodegenerative disease and suffer dementia later in life
+it may very well be taht they have a point of focus, and in that they are more or less aware of what it is, or that it can be acknowledged, might cloud our ability to discern whether or not they indeed have a point of focus
+likely so long as the mind continues to exist with a nervous system, there is a point of focus which is expressed temporally
+that being said, it would seem that we are coming to a point where our point of focus might no longer be our own
+this is already something that's theorized about and written about
+documentaries are made explicating the degree to which our social media companies have provided an interface into human behaviour and human observation
+which allows for a human's daily actions to be manipulated based on many methods, with one of the most easily understood examples being content suggestions which are placed in the most opportune view for the human to recognize and observe them
+exit
+it's crazy
+everyone is trying to make a decision
+do I get vaccinated?
+well this is always jarring, because we get stuck on defining what a vaccine is, because certainly this is an administered substance given for the purpose of eliciting a immunological reaction
+and so that suffices for amny
+but it is helpful for people to consider that the treatment they are choosing to undertake can be differentiated from other treatments which fall under the same term
+so anyway, we can leave that as a separate conversation, adn focus on the issue at hand
+which is more from a psychological standpoint
+what are people considering when having to make a decision about taking this vaccine?
+well it's going to be different for different people
+but, ultimately, what's happening is that the corresponding valences assigned to each of their various concerns is being increasingly biased by a smaller set of factors
+one is basic freedom, the ability to live your life and do the things that you aspire to do
+to be able to think and do, in a very simplified sense
+now for some, they need a level of constraint in order to be able to function, as they might otherwise never choose what should be done
+if there is a limit as to what can be done, then they'll incur a lower likelihood of doing things that are wasteful or redundant
+but generally speaking, people are stating what they are most happy about when looking forward to the benefits which should come from having a vaccinated population, and their having participated in that is what is incrementally moving us towards that conceived reality
+and what is the thing tha tthey are lookign forward to?
+"opening up, travelling, being able to see our friends and family again, being able to see people in some capacity"
+and so if we evaluate this, what it means is that they are attempting to ellide a social and communitarian constraint
+a constraint preventing particular actions within the framework of a society
+within a legal framework
+within a system of force and coercion 
+thus they are vaccinating themselves in order to comply with the demands of a physically and socially constraining system
+now what they will telly ou individually, especially whne pressed against the issue, is something a bit different
+they'll likely tell you that they are afraid of the disease
+but what' sstrange about this is that, at least anecdotally, I don't notice and correlation between the level of concern for the effects of the disease vs the likelihood of one suffering the worst consequences of that disease
+in fact, I have noticed the opposite correlation
+now this might be because older people are tougher and have dealt with more significant challenges in their lives
+or because they are feeling as though they've already lived a life, and they don't mind dying
+I think that's a bit silly, because no one really wants to die, particularly not through the most uncomfortable of circumstances (trhough they all sort of lead to the same types of uncomfortable circumstances, namely suffocation)
+but nevertheless, i've seen that older people generally don't care sa much , and are more open abou thte fact that they are complying because of a demand made upon them, an imposition of their access to society
+whereas younger people are all talking about their own safety
+furthermore, what's interesting is that the youngest people are mostly being told that the reason they're also being vaccinated is because the entire population needs to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity
+why does herd immunity need to be achieved?
+because 1. those most vulnerable will have a lower likelihood of coming into contact with the pathogen
+and 2. those who are unable to vaccinate themselves, or at least confer immunity, because of a suppressed immune system due to genetic conditions, or due to medication associated with treating an autoimmune condition, will be protected by the fact that everyone else is vaccinated or immune to the pathogen
+so we have herd immunity arguments predicated, particularly in the context of a healthy child or young person, on the notion that they are doing this for other people
+when it comes to a young child, it cna be particularly manipulative to tell them that they have personal relationships with those very people that they are immunizing themselves to protect (as part of the herd), and that those familiar people are the elders in their family
+their grand parents, in particular, and anyoen else who might be older than them
+what they'll tell you, of course, is that they'r edoing this because of a technically astute reason
+on ewhich ihas to do with reducing their own likelihood of a bad outcome
+based on having performed an evaluation of different outcomes
+weighing the pros and cons of each path
+and understanding the conclusions of cost/benefit analyses and having decided that the best solution for them, personally, logically, rationally, is to take the vaccine
+but at the same time, they'll also admit that the social pressures exist, and are absurd and obscene, unlike anything they've experienced before
+taht they remark this is not merely because it is notable, but because they are being affected by it, because this is affecting their decision making process, this is jumping up in their mind when they could otherwise be doing that cost/benefit analysis based on the specific outcomes that they are re-biasing through their decision
+so this is another aspect of the pandemic and the impetus and initiative to broadly vaccinate which demonstrates a clear disconnect between logic/reason and reality
+the reality is that the decision making processes are ascribed erroneously
+that those who are most likely to be concerned about particular factors are, in fact, the least concerned, or at lesat less concerned than a group which seems to have the greatest concern, when it's in fact not necessary for that group to be as concerned
+As well, we can see that the primary reason that anyone is being faced with this decision, whether they are older, or younger, is in fact because of social pressures, societal pressure, the imposition being placed on them by the government, that they cannot participate in society and benefit from the sacrifices that they make in a community context, unless they also perform this task
+This is quite immoral, as demanding people to perform a task which can be demonstrated to be associated with decision making which is failing to meet good standards of logic and reason means that the government is forcing people into a situation where they need to make a significant decision about their health while not being to employee their logic and reason to an appropriate capacity
+their ability to utilize logic and reason means that they can be more confident about hte outcome, can be more accountable to the outcome. it means that there can be a higher degree of confidence that the process has been performed ethically
+exit

new/focus_paradox.md

@@ -1,2 +1,5 @@
 We strain ourselves to focus, and we are motivated to this through a desire to not need to focus. As a sacrifice, we hope and trust that by employing the right focus today, we will elide the future need of having to focus.
-exit
+
+But we kid ourselves. There is always focus. That the temporal expanse of that focus may be so short that it indeed comes across as a scattered or blurred does not mean that there is ultimately no point of focus.
+
+Choose to focus, and free yourself.

new/humanity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Recently there have been calls for those who resist the suggestion that they oblige in their immunological duties to relinquish their place and be cast out from society. That they are not treating fellow members of society with dignity, and placing its most vulnerable at unnecessary risk. That, as science and technology have evolved, access to the body must be given, without question, and that those who might otherwise resist such demands must be silent. That is, those who participate in society must take certain steps ensure that it exists and continues to perpetuate, that these steps are self-evident and that there is no room for discussion.
+
+But society is not a space of dignity which can or cannot be occupied by humans. What is dignified are the transactions between its members, and choosing to exclude others from such a space is no dignified act.
+
+But these demands are placed over matters of contention, at a time when consequential matters of contention are increasingly commonplace.
+
+The matters are complex enough such that the actions predicated upon them should not be concluded in the simplest terms and without patience to disambiguate?
+
+Should there be no regard for the nuance of perspectives which culminated into contention?
+
+No society can remain dignified while also allowing for such behaviour to become more commonplace.
+A failing society will choose courses of action that decrease in dignity. Though technology and a buffer of resources might bring about the appearance of a society in its most dignified form, if the potential for resolving contention within participants is eroding, then dignity will die, and humanity along with it.

new/learning_tools_differences.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+let's get a conversation going
+let's keep talking until we have nothing to talk about or everything to talk about
+or we can talk until such time that everything becomes the same thing
+is that because of a single-track mind? only having a few subjects to think and speak about ?
+or is it about something underlying all of reality?
+is it because someone is limited in their experience?
+are those persons who have the least experience prone to speaking about the smallest number of topics?
+how do we quantify whether or not someone is speaking about many topics?
+do they need to demonstrate a particular degree of detph in a given topic before it's considered an additional topic that they do speak about?
+or is it based on simply how many can be enumerated when listening to them?
+it seems that many would like to think that they speak about very many topics and that they have a diverse range of knowledge, including specialization in a few areas
+and this is probably true to a certain degree, especially with anyone who has at least some level of education
+or some mastery in a skillset
+but it would see that those who have the least to talk about might simply be only talking about the subject with which they are deeply engaged
+and that they are habitually more deeply engaged with whatever subject that interests them
+this might mean that it takes such an effort and a narrow field of inquiry in order to get to a full depth capacity of understanding and ability in that particular domain
+and that, at at a certain point, it becomes necessary to venture into an ancillary domain specifically because they had reached a degree of depth in the previous domain that it necessited a deeper understanding in some other, fairly separate area of undeerstanding
+in this regard, they might have spent more time understanding a smaller number of subjects
+but that they have gone deeper in those particular subjects affords them certain advantages
+in particular, it informs them about what subject is necessray for them to understand
+furthermore, it informs them as to what constitutes a deep level of understanding in a domain
+and lastly, it also demonstrates for them the use of a toolset, or an ever-refining process, for learning a particular domain
+given that it takes a short amount of tie in order for one to come to a belief tha they have a deep understajnding of a field
+and that most endeavours, when performed scholastically, are not out of pure pursuit and inquiry, but are rather to meet a standard specification for knowledge transfer and knwoeldge possession in that domain, it's likely that there is a spark missing from one's approach to knowledge
+their thirst for knowledge may be left wanting, and they might have only performed extravantantly well because of having performed the minimum required, while also having applied that minimum in the most efficient manner towards the requirements of receiving those marks
+that does not mean that the most high achieving academic has the deepest understanding or the most passion for the particular domain in which they are operating
+it's just as well that someone who has gone on pure passion towards learning everything possible in that field might have only done so in a manner which appears scattered and nonsensical
+and taht it might not be interfaced well with the reqiurements of a course, or something of a set duration where the work produced is scrutinized in a rather generic manner
+of course this is true of all things in life, but the key here is that since it is undertaken as part of a curriculum, has a time limit, and must be scrutinized generically, it's possible that some of the underachievers or those who achieve mediocre success in that course, might have done so because of particular characteristicslend themselves towards achieving a higher degree of success than is otherwise realized
+it might be that those particular means of learning take longer time in order to be more easily understood by others in that domain
+and that, for the person utilizing them, they might actually be better tools in terms of the degree to which they are learning, the rate at which they learn, and the potential for a deep understanding over a longer period of time
+now, this is likely the case with new domains being learned when a repertoire is small
+because there needs to be some interplay of different domains in order to truly be a master synthesize
+r
+and in order to discover something that is new
+in fact, one might say that the intuitive understanding afforded by one who goes to such levels to have a deep understanding or familiarity of something esoteric is something which
+exit

new/list.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+stronglogic_company.md
+manifesto_primer.md
+why_to_sort_thoughts.md
+Manifesto_notes.md
+corona
+corona/corona_situation_totalitarianism.md
+corona/corona_continued.md
+corona/Corona-Malcolm.md
+corona/1.log
+corona/corona_data.md
+corona/Coronavirus.md
+corona/corona_data.pdf
+corona/percentages.md
+corona/WhyWeStarted_WhatWeDo.md
+expo.md
+thoughts.md
+stronglogic_company_real.md
+InYoung
+InYoung/InYoung_bday.md
+InYoung/Do I love my wife.md
+StronglogicSolutions_manifesto.md
+learning
+learning/dimensions_existence.md
+learning/multi_domain_schedule-productivity.md
+learning/Drosten.md
+learning/vaccine_complexity.md
+learning/Grid Cells.md
+learning/Naive humans.md
+learning/thousand_brain_questions.md
+learning/Rambling and emotions.md
+learning/Victim Enforcement.md
+learning/Generic_Sensemaking.md
+learning/Object_Recognition_and_ideology.md
+learning/AdverseReactions.md
+learning/Corman.md
+learning/ways_of_being.md
+learning/Healthy Process.md
+learning/Interoperable_Faculties.md
+learning/Thousand_Brain_thoughts.md
+learning/book.md
+learning/Ways Of Being.drawio
+island.md
+health
+health/nutrition.md
+politics
+politics/schiffres.md
+politics/government_analogies.md
+politics/SeniorCare.md
+politics/gov_does_not_think.md
+tech
+tech/ServingPeople.md
+tech/seeking_solutions.md
+tech/refreshing_projects.md
+tech/AI.md
+tech/AI_Rewrite.md
+SolvingProblems.md
+Status.md
+podcast
+podcast/Time_Is_Up.md
+Argumentative.md
+Work_Life_balance.md
+systems
+systems/systems_problem.md
+systems/biological_vs_software_engineering.md
+systems/forms_of_perfection.md
+mind
+mind/All_In_A_Day.md
+mind/totalitarianism.md
+mind/mental_illness.md
+mind/modeling_problems.md
+mind/Confidence.md
+mind/equity.md
+mind/courage.md
+mind/Having_Useful_Discussions.md
+mind/Supporting Postmodern Ideas - June 9, 2019.md
+mind/courageII.md
+mind/Radical.md
+mind/visual_hallucinations.md
+mind/courage-final.md
+mind/Moral Grandstanding.txt
+consciousness
+consciousness/1.md
+consciousness/Ways_Of_Being.md
+Poetry
+Poetry/Ascend.md
+Poetry/TheEugenecist.md
+Spectrum.md
+brainstorm
+brainstorm/3.log
+brainstorm/WorkLife-Balance.md
+brainstorm/output.md
+brainstorm/PossibleBusinessIdeas.md
+brainstorm/Venture_Capital.md
+brainstorm/Autodidact_podcast.md
+brainstorm/WhatHumansFindAndDeclare.md
+brainstorm/Unity_And_Independence.md
+SolvingNew.md
+music
+music/CocoBongo.md
+music/music.md
+new
+new/stirring.md
+new/who_knows_health.md
+new/3.log
+new/brain_improvisation__parallels_with_loation.md
+new/Privilege_of_proximity.md
+new/manufacturing_visual_matrices.md
+new/reconcile.md
+new/self_observation_argument.md
+new/focus_paradox.md
+new/output.md
+new/disinformation.md
+new/visualizing_in_the_face_of_complexity.md
+new/statues.md
+new/# Erasing Mankind.md
+new/Peter_Boghossian.md
+new/HumanDevelopmentBook.md
+new/evasion.md
+new/redundant_conflict_emotional_correction.md
+new/all_lives_dont_matter.md
+new/chatty_intelligence.md
+new/Neo_Modernity.md
+new/race_intersection.md
+new/conversations_with_women.md
+new/brother_convo.md
+new/Distasteful_Discussions.md
+new/elucidate.md
+new/Listen_to_mingler.md
+new/Bret and GDB.md
+new/brother.md
+new/body_conceive.md
+new/human_dignity.md
+new/self_controlled_authority_figure.md
+new/geniuses.md
+new/DougStory.md
+new/Sucharit Bhakdi.md
+new/deductive_reasoning.md
+new/human_acceptance_of_unreliable_behaviour.md
+new/systems_study_declaration.md
+new/animal_Man_congruency.md
+new/observational_complexity.md
+new/free_stuff.md
+new/DistantMacOS_Thoughts.md
+new/reasonable_radicals.md
+new/1.log
+new/why_we_do_it.md
+new/question_of_dignity.md
+new/presence.md
+new/uart_questions.md
+new/sensitive_racism.md
+new/privilege1.md
+new/Covid Religion.md
+new/dead_communication.md
+new/Simon&Monotti.md
+new/yeadon_interview.md
+new/USART_Considerations.md
+new/Dignity_and_respect.md
+new/quantifying_events.md
+new/other
+new/other/vaccines.md
+new/other/paradoxicalsatisfaction.md
+new/other/vaccine_fear.md
+new/other/vaccinecytes.md
+new/other/chat2.log
+new/other/chat3.log
+new/other/named_expectation.md
+new/other/structure_of_spirit.md
+new/other/corporate_political_science.md
+new/other/evidence.log
+new/other/implicated_models.md
+new/Metareplacement_enslavement.md
+new/viable_movement_assessment.md
+new/the_important_element_ProblemSolving.md
+new/trump_rebut.md
+new/dimensional_morality.md
+new/beauty_of_improvsation.md
+new/choosing_ideologies.md
+new/vaccine_advice.md
+new/difficult_individual.md
+new/Useful_Discussions.md
+new/CRT_aggressive_expansion.md
+new/Social Distancing.md
+new/podcast_ideas.md
+new/better_discussions.md
+new/public_health_models.md
+new/Eric_Weinstein_Rambling.md
+new/Form_or_Formless.md
+new/politically_corrupt_discourse.md
+new/musicandvaccines.md
+new/Thoughts_on_accepting_power.md
+new/correctitude.md
+new/typing_nonsense.md
+new/childish_rap.md
+new/adaptation.md
+new/objectification.md
+new/paradox_of_focus.md
+new/public_health.md
+new/kpop.md
+new/physical_preparedness_neuropathways.md
+new/trwumptter.md
+new/synthesizer.md
+new/what_is_improvisation.md
+new/enslaved_reality.md
+new/nuanced_therapy.md
+new/socialhubris.md
+new/accepting_new_ideas.md
+new/Struggle.md
+product_history.md

new/long_covid.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Long COVID
+
+## Preamble
+My take on long covid
+
+- Persisting pathology associated with intensity and duration of a condition
+- Massive interest in identifying effects of COVID-19
+- Analysis of most modern humans would discover excess inflammation, scarring and dysfunction
+- Media have driven a narrative of long covid which treats the matter mysteriously. Constant suggestion of this outcome for mild cases.
+- Many don't realize that their previous respiratory illnesses could have produced effects that would today be evaluated as evidence of "long <disease name>"
+- The severity of effects should be associated with the potential to cause death
+- All considered, there is still a plausible potential for SARS-CoV2's spike to produce particularly pronounced damage, but it should follow that these are based on access to the vascular system, which follows a lower respiratory infection. Asymptomatic or mild cases which don't progress that far shouldn't be expected to lead to these outcomes.
+- The human condition includes an interwoven set of complex systems whose cohesive function allow for our continued existence through respiration and metabolism. The complexity coupled with the perceived body experience informed by sensory input and reflection on these can easily lead to a perceived discomfort and indication of disease. It's for this reason that humans feel instantly better by even a modest calibration of underlying mechanisms for metabolism and respiration. Improving one's ability to respire, even slightly, yields an improved state of mind and outlook on the world. I'd wager that most humans, in any normal state, have the capacity to make observations of themselves that could be characterized a recognizing or suspecting to recognize symptoms of disease.
+
+Another striking feature of the covid narrative are the manner in which the aspects of health and disease are reintroduced as though each is introduced as a seemingly novel black box. This began with the initial declaration of the viral threat, where it was presented as a phenomenon completely independent from extant pathogens to which we are already faced. Naive immune systems were assumed to be completely oblivious as to how to meet the challenge. A progression of disease that could include mild symptoms which were considered to be a stepping stone towards ones that are most severe.
+
+As time has gone on, however, it appears as though our understanding of the threat, and our ability to deal with it, are not so novel, as it shares most of the patterns predictable of other respiratory disease. This should be no huge surprise, as the progression of disease is fundamentally based on our biology and the means by which we respond to pathogenic proliferation.
+
+Yet, somehow, everyone has forgotten their own past experiences with respiratory disease, and come to view this threat as a perpetual mystery. Whether due to programming through film, or just by the sheer weight of words from those posing themselves as an authority, the expected progression of disease is assessed purely by media description, without much room for one to produce a reasoned composition.
+
+A perfect case in point is the construct of long covid which, in a very basic sense, describes the consequence of a prolonged disease. The difference being, however, that prolonged effects of a disease should be predicated on the intensity and duration of particular stages.
+
+# Fear Mongering Buffet
+
+Some of the fear mongering going on comes from real doctors or, in this case, a former one. Promoting a book on "sympathy for groups" as a means of public health, and who works as an associate for SAGE in the UK.
+
+- 4.4% of 1734 "infected" children report headache/fatigue/anosmia for more than 1 month
+  - ZOE provides everyone with an app to remind them to check for symptoms everyday
+  - Not very rigorous to be getting self reports of mild symptoms by people who are being told to obsess over them
+- Lancet study of brain changes in adults -> warning about children, saying we don't know what is happening to children
+- Australia paper of 171 kids of "infected" with 95% no symptoms or mild. 2 had inflammation issues - but this tells us very little
+- Admits none of the papers are reliable for estimating Long Covid, but qualify concern on the basis of reported symptoms
+- Reported symptoms for self reported covid diagnoses
+- Extrapolating to estimate rates of long covid in children
+- Estimates for very long (1+ years) of covid symptoms
+- Brings up myocarditis and claims all children recovered
+- Values population data over clinical opinions. Does that mean data reported by people who are more likely to suspect symptoms?

new/mishmash.log

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+What do you mean by SDK and protocol for VDI systems
+what sort of driver is it?
+so it's a driver in that it's loaded as a module which gets used by Citrix
+if you've ever worked with Citrix or with the Citrix Xenapp Virtual Drivers
+the Citrix Workspace or Citrix Virtual Channel SDK
+also the Citrix Workstation 
+so the Citrix Workstation is on the client side
+which, thus far, we've had a targer which is a windows environment
+The Citrix pattern is a solution for controlling a remote workstation 
+Generally other solutions like a remote desktop interface or application are well let's think of a few of them
+there is reminmmma
+there are the VNC type clients
+there are some variations of those, such as solutions created in Go
+I haven't used all of them, I'v egenerally loathed using any sort of remote desktop solution because they're sluggish, and I've never had to rely on one
+generally if I need to do anything remote, I prefer to use ssh and some sort of a text based session where I can do the specific things that I need without having to think about a graphical user experience
+but as far as remote desktops rae concerned, Citrix seems to be the most fluid, performant, responsive, comprehensive that I've tried
+that said, i've also seen plenty of flaws in the documentation and in the example code that we're given
+I mean thigns work, but the documentation was not so great in the sense that it's written in a very confusing way
+which suggests that either  it's written by a developer who isn't very good at technical writing
+or is perhaps not very experienced in doing it
+or it's written by someone who does technical writing, but isn't a defveloper or an engineer
+and in this sense it can be a bit frustrating, because the terms they choose to represent things are ambiguous and inconsistent, sometimes alluding to the possibility that they could be referring to multiple things
+causing you to question the progression of working through the components of the tutorial or setting up the examples
+that being said, it all worked in the end
+it seems that the software is fairly good, and that though there have been some issuesdsiscovered over the years, everthing appears to be gettting resolved eventually
+there are even capabilities which we haven't had to wory about, that we've entertained at least having to support in our work, such as the feature of being able to use up to 8 simultaneous monitors for one desktop environment
+that's pretty insane, i can't think of anyone who's had to do that, especially not for a remote session
+but nevertheless, we made sure we could support several in our testing, using different measurements on each etc..
+so in essence it' sa driver which is a module loaded by the Citrix Workspace, previously Citrix Xenapp, and it provides the means of leveraging a session lifecycle with their citrix technology
+the way this work si sby registering a virtual channel
+a wire to write and read from 
+you register your virtual channel, and get a pointer to a C functiointerface
+and you write your data on a single thread and have it come out on the other side made available through another Citrix API where you can register another set of functions for use in the other environment
+we made this into a library which interfaces with Node JS, allowing you to regisjAvascript functions and import them into a NodeJS application
+the goal here was to make an SDK that javascript developers could use to wriet tent applications which are split as two applications in each system environment
+so you have a client side application which the user interacts with, such as a messaging or telecommunication program
+our use case was video calling application which makes use of the other SDKs provided by our company which couldn't be used by clients who have virtual desktop solutions, such as in banks (at least, our direct client is a major international bank)
+and so since they aren't able to use our SDK in their remote session, because the video is unusuable and the media is awful, we set out to create a solution which allows for the commands to be invoked from the user's environment
+causing actions in a remote application which is loaded in the user's immediate environment
+that remote application is where all of the signalling is performed
+then we provide a window from the remote environment which is overlayed in a predictable fashion such that it appears as though it is in the user's remote environment
+ie it is over the Citrix Window, and tracks accordingly
+so again the idea here is that they needed a video call application to run in a remote desktop environment, where the signalling is being performed locally in an application which could be thought fo as a remote application relative to the primary application
+the remote application is run in the driver running in the user's local system, which interfaces with citrix and writes data on a virtual wire which has been registered as what they term a Virtual Channel
+the data is split into packets which are somewhat easier to put back together on the other side, as it's not a stream, they are packets with a fixed size which are guaranteed to come out in the same size of chunk
+so we essentially referred to that process as packetization, by taking an RFC which detailed the same, and plugged in our numbers, ie the limitation of packet size, and implemented it
+our sdk provides several features, including a protocol for messages to be structuredsessions with a lifecycle represented as a progression of states 
+the original solution was all built into the same process driver process
+this created its own rpocesses however as we were using CEF, Chromium Embedded Framework
+Chromium Embedded Framework is another SDK which can be used to create Chromium browsers 
+this allows you to leverage the entire Chromium API, which in our case we were using for loading a remote application which was itself a JavaScript application which holds the other SDK of our company
+that SDK provides access to our subscription based services Software as a Service SAAS I should say
+we decided to refactor all of this, because the original solution had been rushed as a proof of concept and to get a deployed solution available for the client to use as soon as possible
+they were happy with the solution and have been using it internally, first with one team in Hong Kong, and eventually ramping it up to I believe a quarter million of their employees
+they are actively using this now
+we noticed some bottlenecks in the messaging and some issues which might be alleviated if it were not all piggybacking on the citrix viewer's process
+so what we did was redesign it with concerns split amongst separate processes which work together as a networking solution
+the first is a Communication link which houses a channel port, encoder/decoder and serializer/deserializer 
+this would allow us to utilize different serialization solutions in the future, once we adapt the solution for something not involving Citrix
+on the radar was,has been and currently is VMWare 
+essentially any serializer/deserializer could be used
+the communication link handles incoming requests from the client side applicationreceives them, sanitizes them, converts them to our own driver's messaging protocol, and then sensd them forward over IPC to another process called the Orchestrator
+the orchestrator is
+the orchestrator houses a controller to manage session logic and determine message flow, and a process host which we can use for launching other processes
+at the moment those other processes are window hosts and browser hosts
+the browser host is a daemon which can launch CEF browsers for any number of ongoing sessions
+and manage the state of those browsers to ensure that they are acting in accordance with our sessions and processes
+the window host is something which can procure, manage the lifecycle of, and destroy a window
+and this has to be implemented for each platform
+we have window solutions for linux, windows and mac
+the linux solution has been deployed for various thin clients
+the windows solution mostly for windows 10 64
+and the mac solution is one which we are working on right now, is the project for which I am accountable, and is nearing its deployment
+we've had to learn some ObjectiveC in order to implement the window properly on MacOS
+using a C bridge to give us access to the ObjectiveC API from our C++ based application
+I implemented that as an extern declared constant struct which has functions which create an ObjectiveC UI object, call methods on it, and perform cleanup as is necessary
+there is multithreading involved, yes
+we have a worker class which can be leveraged anywhere it's needed, such as with our orchestrator, whose use of a worker thread is handy for processing message queues
+so there are many processes at play here, all communicating and with one another in a patetrn whic his made to allow for a lot of overhead if needs be
+we imeplemnted wthis using ZeroMQ, a messaging library for reliable sockets
+it offers a few patterns which can be easily implemented
+the one which we settled on was a REQUEST-Reply pattern whereby wherein every message sent has to be responded to before another one can go out
+this allows us to track the exact order of a messaging scheme
+
+exit
+having words tos peak
+having thoughts to elucidate
+having a point of focus
+these are things that we take for granted as human beings
+based on our understanding of the definition of being human, having consciousness, and having the assumption that these capacities extend indefinitely
+of course, this is not always the case, as we see exceptions based on genetic circumstances or events incurred during development
+and these become more pronounced as one ages, as we see with our fellow brethren who unfortunately fall victim to neurodegenerative disease and suffer dementia later in life
+it may very well be taht they have a point of focus, and in that they are more or less aware of what it is, or that it can be acknowledged, might cloud our ability to discern whether or not they indeed have a point of focus
+likely so long as the mind continues to exist with a nervous system, there is a point of focus which is expressed temporally
+that being said, it would seem that we are coming to a point where our point of focus might no longer be our own
+this is already something that's theorized about and written about
+documentaries are made explicating the degree to which our social media companies have provided an interface into human behaviour and human observation
+which allows for a human's daily actions to be manipulated based on many methods, with one of the most easily understood examples being content suggestions which are placed in the most opportune view for the human to recognize and observe them
+exit

new/nuanced_therapy.md

@@ -1,10 +1,13 @@
 # Adaptation
-There is some misunderstanding as to why some might reject a particular therapy. It is assumed that the individual denies the utility that could be derived, or taht the effect of the therapy is a net negative to one's vitality, by some metric or another (or implied metric). This is not necessarily the case, however, as it could be assumed to be something more akin to the following circumstance:
-- Therapy elicits adaptation which prouces measurable increase in immunologically mediating / active structures.
-- The side effects are nil or are, at worst, comparable to the a normal toxic load on metabolism.
+There is some misunderstanding as to why some might reject a particular therapy. It is assumed that the individual denies the utility that could be derived, or believes that the effect of the therapy is a net negative to one's vitality, by some metric or another. There are, of course, other possibilities:
+Therapy elicits adaptation which produces measurable increase in immunologically mediating / active structures.
+The side effects are nil or are, at worst, an acceptable metabolic load of toxicity.
+
 The literature and consensus agree that the adaptation falls within a range that is understood to be significant.
-  - In spite of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification escribing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as proposed methodology to assess the degree which indicates success for achieving that outcome.
-  - A set of possible side effects as well as aproposed range of verifiability for each
-Understanding of many phenomena seem to suggest a universal principal about physics and reality:
-- Our systems adapt to stimulii and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived and observed.
-exit
+
+In spite of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification describing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as proposed methodology to assess the degree which indicates success for achieving that outcome.
+
+A set of possible side effects as well as aproposed range of computability for each
+
+In considering adaptation and computability, we must be mindful that:
+Our systems adapt to stimulii and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived and observed.

new/observational_complexity.md

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ as this occurs through the organs weknow as eyes, we come to be familiar with ac
 and that this is something which can be done explicitly
 but when it is not done explicitly, the perception is still occurring
 but it might be out of focus, or it mgith be uch taht the point of focus is in freefall, evershifting, never settling for long enough such that the organism can be resolvingly aware of a particular focal point
+
 the more things there are to observe, the more difficult it becomes to make a determination as to what should be observed
 so there can be different modalities in terms of how this is being consolidated
 it can be facilitated, such that the faculty of focus is being pursued, and that makes for a specific goal which can be met, within reason, by a standard
@@ -40,3 +41,14 @@ that there can be an impetus against committing to make a focused observation, o
 free-fall
 as this occurs, it becomes more imperative for the organism to seek changes which will reduce the complexity of the perceptual frame, and allow for the being to make a choice about action and focus which is less edxpensive to make, at a cost of being less able to perceive the unexpected
 exit
+
+The manner of thought which one could associate as "collectivist thinking" is perfectly rational for a conscious biological organism capable of socialization. The being exists in a field of possibilities, observable objects, traversible dimensions, and a constantly moing dimension for which there is no ability to affect it.
+
+The mind attempts to identify a means of transport, makes note of observed transformations (energy, information, matter), as one exists in such a reality. Throughout this, there is one constant: the perceptual frame. Perception itself, the field of perception, is not only available to be observed, but it is being perceived in all conscious moments and cannot be discontinued.
+
+The biological organism becomes intuitively accustomed to preventing challenges to its existence. Organisms perceive along sensorial lines, with one seemingly taking primacy over all the others - the universal pinnacle of perception is **visual perception**, as this occurs through the organs we know as eyes. We come to by familiar with acuity and focus, and this is something which can be done explicitly, but it is also even when not explicit. This can appear as a loss of focus, or an ever-moving and shifting focal point, never settling for long enough such that the organism can resolvingly become aware of a particular focal point.
+
+### Focal Points
+One must consider whether the evolutionarily sought visual processing behaviours, or behaviours governed and modified by visual processing and awareness of physical dimensions, and examine the way in which being capable of visual processing lends itself to consciousness. What is it about the human experience, or ape experience, that benefits from focus more than other variations of visual processing, such as that of avians.
+
+It is the all in the hunt.

new/optimism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+I think so.
+
+I've been anticipating the encroachment ever since I was "red-pilled", so to speak. That must have been around 2003, though going through public schooling left me with the eternal suspicion that the narrative is full of lies.
+
+So why should anyone be optimistic?
+The first reason would be appearances: Those with the greatest influence over how the "pandemic" appears are those whom we know are hoping / guiding an outcome to their benefit. Thus no matter how lopsided it might seem, we know aspects of it have to be exaggerated.
+
+The next reason would be that indeed our respective constitutions, and human rights as a whole, have been violated with "emergency measures", they will still need to either a) adopt some of the measures as permanent law or b) create a world-wide crisis which necessarily destroys huge swathes of the populace.
+
+It will be difficult to make those legal changes without a more dramatic crisis, and though that could happen, it wouldn't happen everywhere, or simultaneously. I think that so long as a few places refuse to go through with it the 2nd time around, it will be enough to keep the world from falling into eternal despair.
+
+The next reason is that more experts are becoming red-pilled. For example, I follow some woke epidemiologists on twitter who have been on board with everything, but even they're starting to be accused of inducing "vaccine hesitancy". I don't think they're losing in their respective public health organizations (CDC/FDA in US, Health Canada/PHAC in Canada). There are a lot of these, who refuse to go along with the idea that natural immunity should be disregarded.
+
+Lastly, it's about productive potential. Yes, the globalists can use bands of goons to control small to medium sized protests, and they have all of big tech in their back pocket, but at some point people need to actually innovate physical solutions. Working on engineering teams, I've really been able to see that it's true how the square root of a given workgroup accounts for 50% of the productive output. There's a lot of hubris necessary to assume that a complete transformation of society via the 4th industrial revolution is going to be successfully executed through dominating humans by force and constraining viable career choices to those which serve the effort. Sure, much can be done, but I think that most of our human advancement, regardless of the need for collective efforts, wouldn't have been possible without free thought and creative brilliance. People need room to let their poor ideas evolve into more useful ones. I think that the engineering requirements for each portion of the "revolution" will hit sticking points.
+
+So the question is, how far do things go before a significant enough portion of control mechanisms are relinquished from the clutches of the privileged few? How much damage will be done in that time?
+
+If we're counting on a deadly disease, then which form does it take?
+
+1. ADE? Then they kill a bunch of people, but a huge portion of their followers.
+2. A bonafide "pandemic threat", like 1918 (assuming everything we've been told is true)? Those who are in control would need to incur some risk to themselves, no? Could they ensure they are well isolated from the threat?
+
+I'm kind of thinking out loud, here, so what do you think?
+Do you think they can, for example, change the narrative to being one about climate change, and make measures permanent, without having to release a new threat?

new/public_health.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+have a stream of words outputting from your mind
+speak the truth and speak what you can think clearly
+don't try to force anything, just let it come through and allow yourself to think through the issues that are on your mind
+the difficult ideas that you are dealing with can be eludicated
+the essence of them can be distilled and turned into more concise ideas and communications
+this makes it easier to deal with the system in which they operate
+and understand the behaviour found therein
+
+In talking about public health officials, we come upon the problem of having those in a position of public relations and public advisory which implicitly suggests that they are arbiters of truth and supplying a moral good. That, even in performing the task, regardless of the outcome, they are providing a service which exists to improve the wellbeing of a society and its citizens.
+These individuals, again, are not the most technically proficient in their field, and have either been drawn to more socially-oriented roles, have happened upon them and have traveled down a career path involving social responsibilities. If all of your produced offerings come in the form of statements or suggestions which themselves are intended to be navigational aides to the direction of public behaviour, then there isn't a particular standard by which the contribution can be objectively evaluated. The "spirit" of the work is benevolent - it could even be suggested that to have a society whereupon such a role can be occupied is a sign of a healthy and well-developed society. There are a lot of pitfalls here, as it's easy to fall into a habit of believing one does good work, that one is of a virtuous persuasion, and that one's suggestions are only made in hopes of improving the world. Similarly, it can be said that those who are not in favour of following the advice of a public health official are wreckless, careless, malevolent and a danger to society.
+How does one go about asserting themselves if they believe that the official advice of the state, as articulated by its public health officer, is harmful? To even challenge this, particular in our day and age, automatically places one in a role which is antagonistic to the public health officer. It can automatically be suggested and perceived that this "naysayer" is directed by their self interest, to a greater degree than the public health official, as it's evident from the outset that the critique is occupying a role, even a performative one, which is not that of someone who is tasked with promoting the public good.
+This is a conundrum which we can't easily rectify, particularly when so much of the publicly perceivable dialogue is sanitized and made congruent to the policies being espoused by the officers.
+Unfortunately, much damage can be done through a policy that has been vocalized by the public health officer before it can ever be obvious that the damage is done. Sometimes it takes years, and even if it doesn't, it would be self-destructive to admit that one's advice was poor, and even self-destructive for the state to admit that it was cuplable in having placed someone in a role which could cause poor advice to be disseminated to the public.
+Couple this with the difficulty of identifying a standard by which public policy can be evaluated, particularly on matter so complex and variant as public health, and we have a pattern of behaviour which is not so easily scrutinized, while also yielding decrees which affect the movement, behaviour and legality of every participant  society.
+It is for this reason that we must adopt improved models for dealing with public health, and that these models should include provisions for debate by technically proficient experts who are relevant enough to engage in the discussion, while also not being so specialized that they are unable to develop a shared representation of the problem in a system which encompasses more than one framework of specialization.
+For a hyperspecialized society with such a high percentage of citizens who endeavour to achieve a large volume of academic accreditation, it would be quite easy to pit experts against one another who have a lot of development within their favourite domain, are extremely confident in their position, and are able to content with one another while mostly appealing to the bias in the room, which will generally favour a system of thought over another, rather than the degree to which one participant has mastered their particular system of thought. This could be because the system of thought which is favoured is more direclty relevant to the discussion, but it can also be because a system of thought enjoys a general perception that it is more valuable, regardless of the skill of its proponent.
+As we work through this problem we see that we need individuals who possess more than an extremely developed theoretical understanding of one particular fthat this problem is made worse as organizations become more bureaucratized and find themselves having to fill advisory roles with ever younger professionals.
+exit

new/public_health_models.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+have a stream of words outputting from your mind
+speak the truth and speak what you can think clearly
+don't try to force anything, just let it come through and allow yourself to think through the issues that are on your mind
+the difficult ideas that you are dealing with can be eludicated
+the essence of them can be distilled and turned into more concise ideas and communications
+this makes it easier to deal with the system in which they operate
+and understand the behaviour found therein
+In talking about public health officials, we come upon the problem of having those in a position of public relations and public advisory which implicitly suggests that they are arbiters of truth and supplying a moral good. That, even in performing the task, regardless of the outcome, they are providing a service which exists to improve the wellbeing of a society and its citizens.
+These individuals, again, are not the most technically proficient in their field, and have either been drawn to more socially-oriented roles, have happened upon them and have traveled down a career path involving social responsibilities. If all of your produced offerings come in the form of statements or suggestions which themselves are intended to be navigational aides to the direction of public behaviour, then there isn't a particular standard by which the contribution can be objectively evaluated. The "spirit" of the work is benevolent - it could even be suggested that to have a society whereupon such a role can be occupied is a sign of a healthy and well-developed society. There are a lot of pitfalls here, as it's easy to fall into a habit of believing one does good work, that one is of a virtuous persuasion, and that one's suggestions are only made in hopes of improving the world. Similarly, it can be said that those who are not in favour of following the advice of a public health official are wreckless, careless, malevolent and a danger to society.
+How does one go about asserting themselves if they believe that the official advice of the state, as articulated by its public health officer, is harmful? To even challenge this, particular in our day and age, automatically places one in a role which is antagonistic to the public health officer. It can automatically be suggested and perceived that this "naysayer" is directed by their self interest, to a greater degree than the public health official, as it's evident from the outset that the critique is occupying a role, even a performative one, which is not that of someone who is tasked with promoting the public good. 
+This is a conundrum which we can't easily rectify, particularly when so much of the publicly perceivable dialogue is sanitized and made congruent to the policies being espoused by the officers.
+Unfortunately, much damage can be done through a policy that has been vocalized by the public health officer before it can ever be obvious that the damage is done. Sometimes it takes years, and even if it doesn't, it would be self-destructive to admit that one's advice was poor, and even self-destructive for the state to admit that it was cuplable in having placed someone in a role which could cause poor advice to be disseminated to the public.
+Couple this with the difficulty of identifying a standard by which public policy can be evaluated, particularly on matter so complex and variant as public health, and we have a pattern of behaviour which is not so easily scrutinized, while also yielding decrees which affect the movement, behaviour and legality of every participant  society.
+It is for this reason that we must adopt improved models for dealing with public health, and that these models should include provisions for debate by technically proficient experts who are relevant enough to engage in the discussion, while also not being so specialized that they are unable to develop a shared representation of the problem in a system which encompasses more than one framework of specialization. 
+For a hyperspecialized society with such a high percentage of citizens who endeavour to achieve a large volume of academic accreditation, it would be quite easy to pit experts against one another who have a lot of development within their favourite domain, are extremely confident in their position, and are able to content with one another while mostly appealing to the bias in the room, which will generally favour a system of thought over another, rather than the degree to which one participant has mastered their particular system of thought. This could be because the system of thought which is favoured is more direclty relevant to the discussion, but it can also be because a system of thought enjoys a general perception that it is more valuable, regardless of the skill of its proponent.
+As we work through this problem we see that we need individuals who possess more than an extremely developed theoretical understanding of one particular fthat this problem is made worse as organizations become more bureaucratized and find themselves having to fill advisory roles with ever younger professionals.
+exit

new/repelled.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Repelled and unable to indulge or entertain the thoughts and ideas of their brethren, they are unwilling to contend with reasons as to why someone would wish to busy themselves with these concerns, or wonder why someone would be willing to expend their precious resources. With a paradoxical combination of a strong disposition towards intolerance, along with endless willingness to share their own thoughts, feelings and experiences, they act out a conflict whereby they are assumed to be whole, complete and bonafide human beings, in contrast with their brethren who are, perhaps, nothing more than an illusion, or a caricature with a broken mechanism that pitters and patters without emitting any intelligent pattern worthy of time and attention.
+
+The truth is that there needn't be any conspiracy - in spite of what's suggested by the intolerant.
+No conspiracy as to the rich protecting their possessions.
+No conspiracy as to the depth of expression that can be embodied by humans, both good and evil.
+No conspiracy ast ot he need for businesses to maintain or exceed the transactions that they've so far enjoyed as precedent.
+No conspiracy to the ego whose corresponding conception of identity risks incurring infinite despair if it fails to be propagated.
+No conspiracy as to the utility of categories and nomenclature in mustering and directing political power.
+No conspiracy in accepting short-term benefit of complacency in place of facing the wrath of calling everyone's attention to what lies beyond their eyes.

new/russel_conjugation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## Universal Truth to Improve Sensemaking
+The field of perception is that which is most real to the human.
+
+Seek those having belief that it is worth having perceived than not.
+
+We believe it valuable because it is irreplacable. If mine is, then yours must have the same potential. If I believe I can ignore your field of experience and replace it with a meta repesentation whose specification benefits my worldview, then I am enslavings you. Forcing you to pay a price -> dignity, harm, debt, pain, life -> as part of a transformational process which benefits me.
+
+## The children
+They do it for the children, and the elderly. For that poor suffering soul that they, thankfully, never have to see the face of. Whatever they do, it's always for someone who desperately needs it, but never for themselves. Of course not - their needs, like yours, should always come last, and to suggest that this isn't precisely how they're operating is an admission of hate. Somehow it appears believable both that can experiment with something new and predict the outcome with whatever data happens to be available.
+
+## Partisan then and now
+They make what seem like reasonable claims, or pose sensible questions, as though they are open to learning truth and employing reason, but their profiles cause one to evaluate their biases and this, ultimately, causes many to be percecived as dishonest, bad actors. This appears to be the norm in today's discourse, a change from where issues layed a decade ago. Back the, though things were polarized and partisan, there was still a sense or expectation that...
+
+## Loathing
+Embracing self-loathing and distancing the self from all traditional or conventional symbols of one's culture. Surely if I have not succeeded, it means that my culture has failed me. Furthermore, if my culture committed horrible atrocities, I can assert that my culture only pretended to lead to success in order to hide its evildoing, thus I can excuse myself even more for my failures as I was set up to use failing methodologies that were toxic to me, compounding my victimhood and making my own plight that much more difficult.
+
+## Paradigms
+Seeking, searching for a new paradigm. We imagine The future as a configuration of state, a frame in the reality of tranforming details, forms.
+
+Locality -> a place not here but that can be conceived of, even if no specific environment. It might simply be the notion of an emotional state which is not the one being expressed at the moment of contemplation.
+
+Visual -> it would seem that there is a visual construction or mode of constructing. It might be too abstract, and it might depend on many variables: a) ingested materials -> food, psychoactive compounds, things that tax the system b) previous experiences
+
+Feeling incomplete? In the sense that more needs to be known..
+
+## Socialism
+The altruistic victim
+
+I claim to feel others' pain more than you are capable of, because I simply can't stop thinking of my own pain and fear. Any others' plight simply reminds me of my own.
+
+I'm simply not able (nor is it necessary) to realize this redirection, as I am aware of the subject at hand, and my overall sentiment.
+
+Being made to think of my own suffering when someone reveals themselves to me is not selfish, it is evidence of my empathy.

new/socialhubris.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Social Hubris
+
+For those in positions that deal with matters of public health, their role comes across as an arbiter of truth. They are putting forward a weighty opinion as to how the public should conduct itself in order to potentiate vitality and be free from harm. Holding such a position lends to embodying a moral imperative which is legitimized on the basis of a solid foundation in science, evidence and reason. This is not the crux of their work, however, as their suggestions are mostly informed by the research and work of others. This leaves them as mostly the
+
+It's all too easy to fall into the habit of thinking your yields the most significant part of an equation, or that your insight somehow captures the essence of a real issue, while others fall short. It's made all the more difficult if there is morality implicit in your carrying on with your activities as per usual

new/static_state_of_being.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+here is where we go to have an endless flow of words to and fro
+from knowledge or feeling or sauntered unoriginal questions we let them all flow through and then pass
+we don't need to dwell on any of them in particular, we just need them to demonstrate that the glass is indeed half full, and always expects to have more with which to replace whatever might have been lost
+though it might seem like something is lost for a time, it is always moved away and replaced in due time
+and that change is a welcome one
+for without the flow there is nothing
+the static state is a state of stagnation and it does nothing to resolve anything that could be resolved
+and even if nothing had to be resolved, then there wouldn't even be a need for that static state
+what could we do with a static state
+could we observe it? no
+could anyone understand it?
+no there is no movement, there is change to go from without to with
+to fulfill any obligations of understanding
+but why must there be an issue of understasnding? why can't we just have a state where everything is understood
+wel lbeacuse what is there to understand of there of being something to beunderstood
+could something be understood if there were nothing?
+well no, if there were nothing then tehre certainly wouldn't be aynthing to undertand
+therefoe there is no concept of understanding
+fo rthere is nothing that could be understood
+and nothing that could go from a state of misunderstanding or not khaving knowledge of to going to a state of realizing, observing, acknowledging and understanding
+so what then is it with a state of having or being where there must be a state of not having understood?
+could we say that there is a state of being where the state itself is static and there is no mvoement?
+can there be a state of being withou ta state of movement?
+what is the state of that can be known as a static state if there is no movement and no change
+no movement from not understanding to understanding
+and we can talk about that in terms if information theory, information visibility and information availability
+information deducibility 
+information reachability? that something caould be known?
+that there are bits that could be or could not be fille din
+even the state of them having been filled in is in a sense an admission that there was something that was once not known
+but also the state of them being filled in begs the question of whether ro not they could be not filled
+whether there coudl ever come to be a need to understand that the state which we thought to be one which had its bits filled could become one or could have alwyas been oen in which those same bits should not be filled
+how do we come to understand such a thing if we recognize the state as a static state?
+well we can't have that, becacuse the fact that something could be always brings about the question of whether it could not be
+thus that is always ap otential for movement
+what about the state of not being? could it be recognized as something which has the potential to be?
+well no, because the very potential that something culd be is a state of being
+is a state of existence
+it is a self fulfullping prophect or acknowledgment of existence
+thus the very potential of anything is also that there is something that could be 
+and that potential for it creates the structure of what it is, at least to the extent that it can be deduced in that field
+thus we are coming upon the edge of the closing circle
+we are starting to realize that in order for there to be a potential for being, there is being itself
+and thus to say that it is a static state that could be unchanging is nonsense
+it has the potential for change at each question that presents itself
+and since the questions are inherent in the structure of being itself, then there is movement
+ther eis change
+ther eis the ticking of time, so to speak, asw eunderstand it
+a dimension of movement which is automatically having motion
+the very potential to question is movement itself
+thus we know that there is no static state of reality
+what if there were multiple movements occuring over that one temporal dimension
+could we say that there is movement in both directions?
+well it would seem that if there could be movement in both directions, and that one of the movements was backwards which in turn still had the potential for events
+and it would have to, become the very concept of moving is itself an event
+so to be moving back through time is a set of events that exist at intervals that have the potential to be defined and especially observed
+therefore that would fulfill the definition of events occuring as one traverses, even in reverse
+and that events could be flowing in a forward direction necessarily means that there is a progression to things
+that there can be a chronology, that there can be an understanding of something having been and something having change
+and an expectation that is the case for all things
+and all lives
+and all places
+and thus that it is always being realized
+knowing all this, and also accepting that we can have movement in a reverse directioniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
+that would mean that there are evnts occurring as a consequence of a trajectory which is travelling both forward and backwards
+thus causing the chronology to change, and requiring that things as they are in the present are changing as a consequence of something occurring along another time line
+this is not a new idea, but it's something that few have the capacity to change
+exit

new/stuffs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+the mss]pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppso it changs the standard surrounding the privacy we expect to be allowed
+the standard by which we allow ana uthority to get into one's body
+and this stnadard effects all other aspects of ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
+so here we go let's contie the strea
+we wanted to talk about the fact thatwe are changing standards affecting how we preceive human pives
+the rights which we believe are in herent to all humans
+which should be expected for all humans
+which must be requested as a matter of dignity to huamns
+which should be expected out of respect for thos ewho have suffered a fate where they no longer had complete authonomy over their boillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
+the idea is that those who do not vaccinate are not treating their fellow humans with dignity and respect
+thta they are knowingly absconding from participating in a process which benefits vulnerable people
+which reduces the chance of covid spread
+but this has not been proven...
+and that this is one's responsibility to be deemed as a person fit for society
+as a person who is worthy of participating in liberal society
+in a dignified society
+but participation in society should be limited to thsoe who are willing to take the necessary steps to preserve it
+to ensure that society is able to maintain itself, to propagate forward
+but this manner of thought itself holds its own set of assumptions
+and expects that this society is propagating somehow on its own, and that the humans who wish to be a part of it prove themselves worthy of it or can be left to expire without it
+the society, however, is composed of those humans
+and that it could be considered civil or dignified is not something that can be fundamentally proven on the basis of whether its members have successfully abided by its eternal tenets
+fundamentally what is dignified are the transactions between the members of that society, and the moment we are choosing to exclude transactions without allowing them to run their course, is the moment that we are being undignified
+the society is dignified because of the standards expected for each individual
+if there is a matter which is contentious, and if matters of contention are growing in significance, then what do we assume about it?
+is it that the Russians have tweaked a few too many minds?
+is it that some groups of humans have become too unintelligent to keep up with the rest?
+is it that one group of humans wishes ill upon the other, and are doing their best to stay in proximity to their rivals? their objects of hate?
+or is it, perhaps, that the matters are complex enough such that actions predicated upon them can be concluded in the simplest terms
+with the least effort to disambiguate
+with no regard for the nuance of perspectives which have culminated into contention?
+no society can remain dignified while also allowing for such behaviour to become more commonplace
+the society is failing, and is choosing courses of action which are increasingly less dignified
+and though technology and a buffer of resources might bring about the appearance of a society in its most dignified form, if the potential for resolving the contention within its participants is eroding, then dignity will die, and humanity along with it

new/vaccine_rights.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+well let's have another chat, shall we
+There are some who are concerned that some of us are spending a bit too much thinking about and learning about vaccines
+that we are busying ourselves with something that is rather esoteric, a small edge-case concern that shouldn't ever need to occupy our lives, our time, our mind, etc..
+and thi sis probably true
+the issue of vaccines should be something that we needn't busy ourselves with too much
+it should be something that's only worth concering one with if one has a particular interest in using them
+or a particular interest in working with them, developing them, studying them etc
+in our case, we didn't realy have any specific need to learn about them beyond what we already knew from high school
+the basic concept of immunization through exposure to a more modest substitute for what is otherwise a deadly or dehabilitating pathogen
+but, unfortunately, it has grown into so much more
+now, no longer is it something that can be avoided by anyone
+it is literally the means by which we decide if humans are individuals
+if we are to be taken as individuals and to be treated as though we are all equally valuable and viable
+though one might make the argument that no two humans can be of equal value, it should stand to reason that in a society which values human life, that all humans shoudl be treated as though they are equally viable, and thus equally valuable
+that is to say, that all humans have the same potential, and that we should respect that manner of conceiving of them, because it allows for the greatest potential of having a osciety where all the humans who exist are able to participate, to thrive, to improve themselves, and thus assist in the betterment of the society as a whole
+once we start adding externalities that are not clearly being used for accommodating something that is obviously a problem
+that is to say, if someone is a criminal and is committing crimes, killing other humans, ti is a clear and obvious problem and an externality must be applied, such as the force of the law, penalties, imprisonment, and so on
+but in the case of something like disease, transmissible disease, it becomes far more contentions
+contentious
+because here we need to evaluate whether or not a risk of transmission is sufficient to say that we can understand, unequivocably, that there is a great threat that must be dealt with, regardless of personal circumstances
+and that has not been proven here
+in fact, as time goes on, and the level of danger is quantifiably reduced, as well as the retrospective data demonstrating that the level of danger was always less than had been foretold, we realize that the standard for qualifying something as being inexcusably high risk, is changing
+we now dissuade the process of allowing competing voices to openly battle ou the issue at hand, to try and elucidate the details and provide a clear comparison of argumentation from different sides
+instead, we have a process which attempts to prove the matter after the fact
+prove the initial predictions which are claimed by many to have fallen short
+and to do this is antiscience
+to do this is anti reason
+and to do this is antihuman
+because if we are to allow for a reduced standard in declaring what allows for us to impose contraints on teh free movement of humans
+then that is already something that is inhuman and needs to be explained
+but not only are we failing to explain that
+we are enforcing new processes based on the same arguments
+we are saying that we now no longer get to decide what happens with our own bodies
+that, not only can we not argue about it, but we are to take on faith that any demand for access to our bodies, for access to an interface which produces entropy within our bodies, that this ois something we can't have any discussion about
+that our bodies are not actually our own property
+that though we were born into them, our consciousness or what appears as our consciousness is ssecondary, and not something that'stangible enough to be considered primary
+that our conciousness, our mind, is something that might be arbitrary
+that should be treated as though it might not actually exist
+but that what realyl does exist, and what is confirmed and acknowledged by those around us, is our flesh
+our bodies
+the physical aspects of ourselves that can be reduced to nothing more than the molecules, the flesh, the skin and bones, the different material components which happen to form something which has an exhibited behaviour that we might say behaves at the behest of a personality, a consciousness, a state of being that exists beyond simply the pieces of meat that are expressing it
+but if we are to say that this is not so, that we are simply just the meat, and that anything else is arbitrary, then this is the death of mankind
+it is the erasure of each individual, because now no single individual has the right to lay claim to its own body
+there is a process which supercedes their own desires, their own claims, and makes them irrelevant
+makes it so that they needn't be heard
+and makes it so that the ideas, the words, the thoughts needn't be spoken
+and if this is the standard which is imposed, which is desired by those who have a claim to the means of force which permit or exclude any human from society
+then the need to understand what is beign proposed here, long term
+we need to take these new ideas to their logical conclusion, and understand that to suggest that people don't have the rights to their own bodies
+to suggest that whatever one says or feels or thinks about one's body is less improtant thant he body itself, and that the body is subject to other priorities which are dictated from outside the will of the consciousness which inhabits it
+then we need to udnerstand that the process we participate in won't logically remain as one which is inefficient
+as one which allows for the claim that we are free, acting in such a manner that we are not free
+this means that, in order to develop the societal model and advance it such ast o allow it to continue to flourish, and aspire to be efficient,t o maek some effort towards efficiency
+it means that this model will become one which becomes increasingly more explicit in the devaluing of human life
+until such point in time where human life can be completely simulated, and an argument presents itself suggesting that there's no reason to have the human life, except for those who are controlling the system which provides these options
+if one has access tot he controls of the system, and one believs that humans do not have the right to their own body, then that person would likely need to allow the system to continue in such a manner that one retains control. This means avoiding dissent an disobedience from those who have attacked the system.
+This means that have a grassroots campaign again in Canada
+exit

new/who_knows_health.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Biological Reality
+
+What did we used to think? (preamble)
+It has been most fascinating to see the average person react to the circumstances of the last year.
+Barring the original projections for massive death within the first 2 months, we all eventually came to a place of understanding wherein it could be agreed that the disease wasn't as deadly as originally thought. In fact, no matter who's numbers you look at, it's still within the same order of magnitude as anything we've already been accustomed to dealing with.
+
+You'll find that, however, in spite of this, several factors still keep causing people to look at the potential threat of a respiratory disease quite differently.
+
+
+What do people know about health?
+
+I've long found that most people know very little about health.
+
+They believe they get sick primarily because of an exposure event. Not only the fact of the essential aspect of pathology whereby the presence of a particular pathogen allows for the deduction that there must have been some timepoint where exposure occurred, but that the instance of being sick is tied necessarily to the particular time point which is absolutely the last time they were exposed to that pathogen. That is to say, the proliferation of a pathogen has developed to the point where symptoms of illness are present, and this circumstance is consequent to their last exposure to that pathogen in an environment.
+
+You might take it a step further and observe when someone comments that they were not so lucky, or that another might have been lucky by not having been present at the exposure event, and realize that the reasoning is such that the exposure event dictates illness. This is a very facile view of pathologies and assumes a clean differential between opportunistic pathogens and a more classically conceived of highly infectious pathogen which is theorized to cause illness in any prospective host who happens to interact with it. Pathology and designation of opportunistic characteristics are something which are still being readily studied with far to go before they're thoroughly understood. It's not only "average laypeople" who fall into this manner of thinking, but a lot of academic development can plausibly involve study which assumes this simplistic categorization. Nevertheless, it's well known that a person who has not been sufficiently recovering from their activities, be it by poor diet and inadequate rest, will become more susceptible to illness. We would be hard pressed to differentiate between instances of illness of fatigued individuals who became ill because of a single recent exposure event and those who fell ill because of a combination of factors which allowed an opportunistic pathogen to proliferate that was otherwise affecting the host in such a manner that tissue inflammation was detected.
+
+There is seldom a peep of a sentiment as to the complexity of how an exposure event lead to illness, with perhaps some consideration given to the state of the individual at the time of exposure, and likely less being considered during a period of proliferation. Less still concerning the metabolic state of the host, whether particular substrates were present to potentiate particular cellular interactions, whether inflammatory markers were being expressed for reasons other than the interaction with the pathogen, how these factors influence one another, and so forth.
+
+Certainly, if it were the case that falling ill was purely dependent on whether or not you had come into contact with the pathogen, we would all become equally ill from the same degree of exposure and this would remain true at any stage of our lives. We obviously know this is not the case, however, and even the "average layperson" can realize this with very little effort:
+
+There's a reason we talk about the vulnerable, and a reason most understand that children have a stronger immune system and are beter able to avoid falling ill.
+If we take our observations and understanding of the variability of vulnerability and effect, we can begin to appreciate the complexity of pathology. What is a vulnerable person? What makes them more vulnerable than a perfectly healthy child with a well-functioning immune system? You might say that person p1 with number of leukocytes n1 and number of illnesses i1, or numerate their comorbidities and weight them as though are of a like type (though you might feel under duress to abscond from discussing obesity, for fear of being called an oppressive fat-shamer by the "health at any size" crowd). Certainly, even to declare that a healthy person is a person with minimum n1 leukocytes also begs additional questions:
+
+Do they always have this number or range of leukocytes?
+Is the number going to change as they age?
+Will the delta of leukocyte count always change in one direction? Will this behaviour aberate? To what degree? Are there cyclical patterns that can be observed over long enough periods that it no longer becomes admissible to assume a constant decline? How much is affected by circadian rhythm? Quality of rest? Nutrition? Choice and intensity of activity? How much are these factors affected by the presence of pathogens? If a sick person has even more leukocytes, are they healthier than our theoretical "healthy person"? Of course not.
+Does neve being exposed to a pathogen mean you have a superior number of leukocytes? Certainly not.
+
+It's not a matter of total leukocyte count, but the degree to which you react to a pathogen, threat, perceived threat, now these reactions express themselves such as to affect the number of leukocytes, the proportion of subtypes, and so forth? We know that the number, type, proportions and behaviours of particular leukocytes vary based on the activity and circumstance of the organism.
+
+Obviously, we know that there is a great degree of variability in the behaviour and performance of one's immune system, that it is not static, and that it does not necessarily progress in only one direction linearly along all temporal scales. Somehow, however, when data is used to discuss the threat of a virus, everyone believes that the percentages they are presented are the most meaningful manner by which to be accurately informing them of their real world susceptibility to the harms of the threat in question - just as they believed that their having gotten sick, in previous instances, had more to do with having come into contact with a particular pathogen, rather than the state of their, for example, glucocorticoid signaling
+
+Obviously to approach health in this way is to use a very naive model of the world in order to assess the state of their health, their risk of disease, and so on, and this manner of thought should be understood to be simplistic and unrealistic.
+
+I've seen, for example, similar problems when it comes to concern for other health issues (cholesterol and saturated fat):
+
+They are quick to believe advice given by a healthcare professional, without stopping to consider whether or not the diagnosis they are receiving is congruent to their state of health.
+If their particular state of health is fine, and without symptoms, and they begin using a medication which incurs a metabolic cost, toxicological effects, and a reduction in their ability to perform at the same capacity previously enjoyed, even to the point where they now begin to develop deliterious symptoms (pain, muscle spasms, reduction in digestive capacity, reduced capacity to heal), are they really making an amendment to their health? Are they potentiating their healthy, improving their vitality and increasing their lifespan? Are these things mutually exclusive to one another, or does potentiating your health also mean increasing your life span?
+If your medication is reducing your vitality and worsening your biological performance, but you continue to use it under the assumption that it will increase your lifespan, then something is wrong with your model.
+
+We can produce a placebo-controlled study on the obese, for example, where we demonstrate a measurable improvement of a metric for those using the medication. Could it be said that such a study demonstrates better outcomes for those using the medication, necessarily meaning that their life will be extended, or that they will do a better job of mitigating disease?
+
+Similarly, in epidemiology, we might also observe that use of a particular medication is leading to improved outcomes, but it's easy to make the case that those who are using the medication are wealthier, more cognizant of health issues, or are representative of those who are more likely to make a degree of effort to improve outcomes.
+
+Even practicing a mindset of trying to improve one's health, all things considered equal, could mean that you have fewer instances of cortisol release, greater instances wherein one experiences a better sense of wellbeing, and fewer instances of falling into a hopeless mind state.
+
+That these things do not affect health is nonsense. You are able to affect your heart rate through stress, even that produced purely at the psychological level. (citation needed)
+
+
+Average-minded perspectives on issues of health
+Higher Death Rate
+The initial expectation for a very high death rate is something that imprinted its mark on the concept of Covid and SARSCoV2.
+
+Escaping the covid body
+The body of the past
+The body of the future

new/yeadon_interview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+Perspectives on the Pandemic
+An Urgent Warning to the world
+
+Mike Yeadon
+Former Vice President and Chief Science Officer
+allergy and Respiratory research unit pfizer pharmaceuticals
+
+Canterbury
+
+veteran of the pharmaceutical industry
+a degree in biochemistry and toxicology
+PhD in respiratory pharmacology
+32 years in new drug discovery in respiratory and allergy, most notably pfizer where he was chief scientist and head of respiratory research
+
+He founded and ran a successul biotech company which was acquired by a larger pharmaceutical company
+Experienced in the research development and production of vaccines
+
+Recently authored a letter to the European Medicines agency
+
+Of course I am pro novel medicines, especially safe and effective medicines. Like anyone he is troubled if something does not work or is not safe and is being rolled out. He co-authored a letter in December of 2020
+Concerned that these gene-based vaccines are moving at too great a pace and have not acquired a safety database for them to be widely rolled out
+Completely wreckless dispensing of these novel technology vaccines
+Fundamentally these are new technology products - there are no products of this kind where they use a gene, sometimes a virus, to somehow bring a gene inside the cells of the human body, get those cells to manufacture part of the pathogen - and use that to create an immune response. Normal vaccines use an already dead pathogen - this is new in that the gene fo the pathogen is being brought into the body and invitigint he body to manufacture part of that pathogen
+The number of unknowns are a concern, because we simply dno't know what will happen downstream from that event not having been done before.
+The moment I'm seeing the way these vaccines are rolled out, with the assurance taht they are safe, even in th elong term, and completely ignoring the potential for longer term side effects. Imaginge a scenario where 1% after a year or two get some unexpected problem - what are you going to do? You've already given ti to the majority of the population. So when you roll it out to people who are not at any risk of dying from the virus, you know something very bad is happening. Our broad concern is new technology, you need a good safety database, didn't have it - be careful - and then had a list of specific oncerns that people have focused on. Those concerns are minor details.
+
+None of these gene-based vaccines have been through the normal research and development phase to completion. The ones that have been used in UK at the moment - all of these are still deep in their pivotal phase 3 clinical trials - dno't finish for 2 years. They arenot playing around - those 2 years are to gather evidence of robust continuing activity - what you want to happen - and also to check whether or not something bad happens. We don't have that information - they've been given emergency-use authorization. In addition to that rather substantial question, there are numerous other pharmaceutical treatments like ivermectin, hcq, vitamin D, corticosteroids - and all of theese have been batted out of existence by what I believe are criminals - because if any of those things were approved, even off-label, it would undermine the rationale for these vaccines that would then have to wait unti lthey had finished their normal clinical development. So we've only got them because there are no alternatives, and this is what is required to get emergency-use authorization, because all of these viable alternatives have been suppressed.
+
+`How can so many governmental agencies around the world be countenancing this`
+
+I think that's a fair comment - it's the largest phase III trials in world history. The nuremberg code that was put together after the nazi doctor trials after the 2nd world war - the court decided that these doctors should be subject in many cases to the death penalty. The code was written after that, designed expressly to prevent involutnarily experiments on human beings without their consent. I looked at the consent forms - the ones that have been available to me - none of them mention that these products are still in the experimental phase. They have not received regulatory approval, an there is never a comment that they are experimental. It's fair to say that it's an experiment and you are a part of it. It seems to me that law and order has just largely failed in this country (UK). I can't explain it - my answer at this point is that "it's not my crime". I've identified along with other people that very improper and dark things are happening, but as for why it's happening and who is driving it I doint' know it's not my crime.
+
+There may have been an emergency, certainly in the spring of the northern hemisphere - i can understand why terrified political leaders and their advisors might ahve erred on the side of caution. But I'm afraid, ntohing in the UK at least, absolutely nothign the government and the advisors have informed the public about any key pieces of information - none of them have been true. For example, PCR, no one defines its rate of false positives - every test produces some false positive when the virus is absent. EVeryone knows this. but the scientists and government officials have simply refused to engage with scientists who ask what is that rate of operation . You just get abuse, trolling, and eventually censorship. They also do not unify how many cycles of amplification before we all say "if that's not positive, we'll say the virus is absent". Number of cycles, failure to identify false-positive rates, and from time-to-time some labs, instead of using 3 probes, or primers, to identify unique spots in the virus - all three of which have to say "yes, that's consistent with the virus' genetic information being in the sample", sometimes they use 2 genes, or 1 gene - And I'm afraid, the unifying observation is that some of these cheating, bits of cheating really, serve to increase the number of cases - and that's not only a diagnosis, but it also becomes an attribution label - so if someone dies within 28 days of  apositive test, no matter how bad that test was - they call it a covid death. And I just don't believe anything like the number of people who are claimd to die absurdly with covid, rather than of it, have actually died of it, let alone of it. So everything we are told has amplified the harm and psychological fear and harm, of the virus - from top to bottom :
+
+bad testing
+lies about the idea that you could be completely symptom free and represent an infection-risk to people around you
+
+Healthy people can make other people sick? What do you say to that
+
+So yes, the concept of asymptomatic transmission - someone who is perfectly well can represent a health-threat to someone else who is perfectly well, is simply not true. The weight of evidence that was used to form this idea were 6 or 7 case studies. A study of one person, usually, where someon asserted that a person who was positive by PCR, but according to the report had no symptoms, managed to infect someone else nearby - and when they infected them, it wasonly that they became PCR-positive too. The majority of these were out of China, interestingly - and I'm afraid anything that's influential that comes out of research in China is approved by the Party, and that's just the way it's always been. And there has only been one substantial claim for asymptomatic transmission in Europe was a subject that ha come from China and who had visited a number of engineering plants in Germany - and ti was claimed they infected a lot of people, event though they were "asymptomatic". Very quickly after that report, it was corrected that the person was heavily symptomatic, and had been using over-the-counter medicines to try and get through their day - so it really was symptomatic after all - and just like someon with flu or a cold, they had barrelled on through their day and just manage to infect people. But I can explain to people, very simply, why it's not my opinion, and that of other people that asymptomatic transmission isn't true. And I can show you by reasoning.
+In order to be a good source of infectious virus, I need to have a lot of virus in my airway - I can't infect you at a distance if I'v egot a tiny amount - and that's bbecause the world is full of pathogens all the time, and you are able to fight them off routinely, minute by minute, throughout your whole life. You have to have an amoutn over an amount such that it becomes an infectious case. and that can only happen if you are in close contact with someone who is emitting lots of virus - and in order to be emitting lots of virus, you need to have lots of them in your body. If you have lots of viruses in your body, you will have symptoms. It's simply not possible for you to have a high viral load and for that virus to be attacking you and you have no symptoms, and for your immune system to be fighting back and for you to have no symptoms, it's simply not possible. There might be a brief period of a few hours where the virus is growing very quickly - the body is just starting to respond. You might not notice you might not feel ill yet, that's called pre-symptomatic, and i guess it's possible that a few people were infected in that way - but the idea that transmission - a major contribution to epidemic spreading, occurred in a person who was full of virus and had no symptoms - it's just bunk. We are very good at noticing whether someon eis a health threat to us - a respiratory threat to us - when you come close to a person, a relative or a stranger, without trying you scan them and you are aware if their gait is normal, is their head normal, are they looking at you with clear eyes, are they hunched and a little bit ill -a nd without thinking about it, if you don't know them and they look a bit ill, you will skirt around them and socially distance unconsciously.
+
+In a sense you wwill socially distance uncnsciously
+
+so the two things I've just said there, in order to be a good infectious source you need yo be yourself full of virus and you will be symptomatic
+the only chance you would encounter someone like that in your community would be still averted because if yousaw someone stumbling around full of flu and a cold you would think " oh god get around this person"
+so it's myu contention that there's almost no transmission in the community because there weren't symptomatic people they would be feeling ill if they were in that situation
+so there were hardly any infectious contacts in the community
+and you know what ? and that explains why lockdowns systematically across the world, haven't done anything
+
+and that's because the places where you do encounter symptomatic and infectious people are where they've no choice but to be there, either hospitals or care homes or occasionally around a domestic environment
+everywhere else you simply won't find infectious sources, so when you lock down and smash the economy, and civil society, fo course you don't lower transmission
+it wasn't taking place there, of course not
+so that's where I am on asymptomatic transmission
+so anyway, it was a manufactured story, and it's on that basis that we were told to all wear masks
+and they don't work anywa3y, so even if it was true asymptomatic transmission masked don't work anyway, because they've been tested repeatedly over the years, and they don't do anything against respiratory viruses, and that was the justification as well for mass testing
+
+millions of people who had no symptoms, and as I said early on , when uou uese tests on mass a fraction of them will be false positive even when the virus is absent, and if oyu don't take account for that you'll think oh my god there's all these millions of people who have this virus, and they better be self-isolating for days or weeks
+this whole thing has terrified people and it's all a lie, I do'nt think a single fundamental driving factor about this epidemic has been represented correctly
+and it's obvious for an experienced scientist like me, and when I've spoken to my peers they all agree, so it's not like I'm an unusual person in thinking as I do, what's unusual is that I have come out and said so
+and most of my colleagues have more or less sasid "my employer or my university doesn't want me to say anything that would be counter to the official lie, so i've decided to just stay quiet", whereas I decided I wasn't going to do that
+
+Censorship and self-censorship
+he world overdoctos and regular MDs would understand that intuitively based on their experience and in so many ways, how can we account for the general silence of so many of your colleagues and the medical community in general
+
+I can't explain why the vast majority of people who definitely know better have decided to stay silent, but what I can tell you is that anyone, myself included, who said things like what I'm saying - which is that there are problems, for example, with the PCR test in the UK and I would comment about it and write articles about it. What I did notice is that immediately you did that, and the more qualified you were, the worse it was, youw ould get attacked. For example, no Twitter, and eventually on main media. So, for example, alast year, the main UK broadcaster, the BBC acctually used well-known journalists to slander me - in public - a lady named Emma Barnet who runs the Women's Hour pod cast - i'll name you Emma, because she named me - and she made some statements about me which I had not said, which slandered me - and on that occasion I told her she better take that lie back or I would sue, and they did indeed delete that portion, so basically they intimidate you and they will use either employed people on social media, who do exist, to attack you, and sometimes professional colleagues one way or another will have just taken a different view and they will attack you - and no one gets on any of the main media that doesn't have a view that accords with the government is saying, so I do'nt know whether they really believe it or not, I think some of them do and they're a bit faultless
+so people were a bit uncertain whether they were going to say something noticed that anyone who said anything got attacked, slandered, called a conspiracy theorist, or a fool, or wrong, or a covidiot, someone who puts others' lives at risk, the accusations are endless
+well, the thing is, I'm not doing this for money. I have suffered injury, shall we say, to my reputation and my finances for speaking out
+But i'm very confident in myp osition. So once you arrive at that view, you know that attacks are manufactured. And, so they say with warfare, when you're over the target, that's when the flak is heaviest. So I think a lot of people, I'm not in people's heads, but I  think that a lot of people chose to say nothing perhaps out of self-preservation, cowardice perhaps, or pragmatically they realized they would just be destroyed, so and that's that
+I do think the origin in Britain was we have a regulator of broadcasting in this country which is called OFCOM, and on the day of the first lockdown they issued a 4-page guidance that said more or less we expect all broadcasters and that includes radio tv newspapers to not say things that contradict the position of the government or their authorized health-advisors - it didn't quite say censorhsip but it did say it was an emergency and it's not going to be appropriate for you to give the option of publicity tyo viewpoints taht challenge that
+and that still continues and now we're about 55 or 56 yweeks into this "emergency" so they laid a marker down pretty quickly and nobody on the main media said anything at all other than, um, the government's official position
+and I think people noticed within a few weeks it was "that's not tolerated" so we've had whatever 11 and a half months of a single party line and everyone knows that anyone who says anything else will get attacked
+so that's why it's continued, btu I'm not able to answer your first question which is: people who didn't say something before the example had started - and I do'nt know. BUt d I do know that friends of mine, some form of friends, who damn-well knew that what was being said was a lie - and I asked ofr help, and they said 'you know, i'm nto going to' because it will threaten my position with the University and I won't get grants from granting bodies - so plenty of people self-preservation, cowardice or pragmatists
+because I haven't gotten got very far - my reward for trying to speak out has just been I'm prettymuch extinguished as a professional scientist
+` Thanks himf or taking the risk that he has taken and assures him that it's appreciated across the world
+Gives sample from a recent british publication - the summary of modelling easing roadmap - restrictions - buried on page 10 - vaccine -> the resurgence in both hospitals and deaths is dominated by those that have received 2 doses of the vaccine - comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave, respectively - this can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the highest at risk age groups such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals - this is discussed in other paragraphs`
+`What do you make of this?`
+`They are essentially admitting that if you are vaccinated you are at greater risk of dying`
+So I didn't really read it like that, so I mean just a fgew things
+remember, these are models - they are models - please, for god's sake people, they are not chicken entrails, they don't have a time machine these are not predictions of the future
+what they are are mathematical models -a nd th eproduct of models, essentially, is like a sausage factory - what you throw in one end, and you turn the handle, adn a product comes out
+so they're just telling you that they think if there's another wave, the subjects that would fall ill would come from the groups that you just described - I don't think they're actually saying that will happen, because if they are, I would ask them if they were in this room "how the hell do you know that?"
+so I don't know why they have produced that forecast, it just looks like nonsense, but all of their models have been nonsense
+it's just very strange that I've never seen that modeling group go back and say "this is what we said would happen, here's what happens, and this is why you should have confidence in our forecast" and of course, the reason they haven't done that is because none of forecasts have been even faintly close to the out-turn
+so I'm afraid our world seems to be being destroyed by credulous people paying attention to mathematical modeler's projections as to what will happen
+so what I would say that if the vaccine is effective, and certainly the trials purport to show that, and i'm not in a position to say that it's not true, although I know some people tha tsay that it's nt true
+but if the vaccines are effective, it's not possible to get what's called Epidemic Spreading - it doesn't matter, even if there were 20% who were vulnerable, they might be vaccination failures - a percentage of people don't get immune
+but it would be very unlikely that they would acquire the virus because how would they? they would need to encounter a source of infectiousness, because there's very little source of it, and there are very few people who could be it
+`Doctor, let's talk about whta we've been observing in the short term. I know one of the great concerns that we all share are what the long-term effects are of this brand-new experimental some would call it a gene based therapy - but what we are seeing and you and doctor Sucharit Bhakdi have described short-=term adverse reactions - what have we been seeing and how does that comport with some of the projections that you all were making`
+
+I've been working with a number of scientists and physicians - we've called ourselves Doctors for Covid Ethics - and we write to the European Medicines Agency (Amsterdam)
+a number of people were suffering what you would call thromboembolic disorders - disorders of blood clot and bleeding, oddly enough, and I was looking at some of the basic science and with horror I came acrossa number of different papers that were written between 2000-2010 about teh Spikes - the spike proteins on the earlier SARS virus, 2003, and I realized to my horror that the spike protein is not a passive protein that the virus uses to anchor as a sort of docking receptor on the outside of human cells which it uses then to enter the cell - it's not a passive protein at all it's biologically active, the spike protein is biologically active - it can be described as fusogenic - it prompts cells that it contacts to stick togehter, even including blood platelets and as you can gather once blood platelets stick together - and furthermore those spike proteins are capable of initiating some of the steps of the blood coagulation pathway - so this is potentially a lethal combination - i didn't know it at the time, I came across it a few motnsh ago - but you would think that the vaccine manufacturers would have done their homework and checked whether or not the piece of the dead virus that they were having the human cells manufacture through these gene based vaccines would not itself be harmful but I can only assume they missed it and what these vaccines all do is that they encourage your body to manufacture that spike protein or part of that protein, and stick it on the outside of a cell or release it from the cells - so it struck me at the time that could be both an explanation for the thromboembolic disorders and firthermore you would expect that you would get some very serious cases
+and let me explain why
+by contrast with traditional vaccines where you would be given a defined dose of a given pathogen - with these gene-based vaccines you'll get a defined dose of it, but depending on where it lands in your body, how efficiently it's taken up, how efficiently it's copied, how well that genetic message is translated into the spike protein you could have very different outcomes
+nad I think some people were unfortunate and had perhaps a greater idstribution of this vaccine into vulnerable vessels in their brain and perhaps in some of those people the vaccine was taken up well and copied efficiently and uf you furthermore some of thos epatients were perhaps in an unstable position they could easil ybe prompted to form a clot - that's all you need to hypothesize the deaths in healthy young women agede 20-50 with an extremely unusual cerebro venous sinus thrombrosis. But I think those side effects are occuring in other blood vessels that are moving relatively slowly - certainly there are some oin the abdomen the so calle Splanchenick vein - and any slow moving blood vessel - if you're unlucky enough to have a disproportionately large dose land there and to be efficiently taken up and efficiently copied now you've got an amount of the spike prtein that you really don't want in the inside of your blood vessels lurking there able to perhaps prompt the start of a serious adverse event - so it is my contention that all of the gene-based vaccines that work fundamentally like that - that they harness the body's ability to manufactur ethe spike protein - all of them, to an extent, shoudl be regarded as having a class risk
+so one of the things that i've been both annoyed and furious and terrified is this increasing push, certainly in the UK and i know in other places, to push this vaccine down and down into the younger and younger population
+and yet, we know, from the work of John Iannidis, that the stronger risk factor for becoming very ill and dying after being infected by this virus is age. So eif you're younger than about 70 and you don't have any pre-existing illnesses, you're very unlikely to die - in fact, less likely to die with this virus than influenza.
+So, why would anyone want to give it to someone under 50 who's well, under 30 who's well? My goernment is hell-bent on vaccinating absolutely everyone from 18 and over
+There was a pediatric study as well, and of course that's because they want to vaccinate all the children as well.
+I put it to you, any listener, can you think of a benign explanation for why you would want to give an experimental use authorized gene-based vaccine to millions, 10s of millions of people, whoc ould not possibly die if they ran into this virus, and you can't. If you can't think of a benign explanation for why this has happened, you must begin to think about malign explanations, and I think I've found what that is:
+It's this damn vaccine passport - nonsense
+If you are a vulnerable person and you've chosen to be vaccinated, and all has gone well, and it will in most cases - you are now protected - you do not need to know the immune status of anyone around you, in a football game or a theatre or a shop
+you wouldn't benefit from the presence of a vaccine passport int he hands of anyone around you, because you're protected by your vaccination
+If on the other hand you've chosen not to be vaccinated, because you understand the risks, you don't need to know anyon else's immune status either - you don't need to see the passport
+so neither the vaccinated or the unvaccinated will benefit at all
+But I'll tell you who will benefit - the people pushing it on you - if it come sinto being, they will be the world's first common format digital ID for every person on the planet, and at least one editable health related flag which is your validity of  vaccine passport. Whoever controls that database can set the algorithm to allow someone who's got a valid vaccine passport to cross a boundary like an international border, or getting into a shop or a sports game, and it will prohibit people who don't have that from doing those things. It doesn't benefit any of the people, but it benefits the totalitarian conrtollers who have that database - it's never been like this in the world before, and I think that if goes live, we'll not only be standing at the gates of hell, but we'll just be given a little push and in we'll go. Because once you're in this system and your whole life is permissioned by your status on this system, then you can be made to do absolutely anything.
+6 months time, your vaccine passport app pings - Dr Yeadon, it's time for you to come in for your top-up vaccine, and please bring your 10 year old grandchild - final comment: if you do not comply, within 3 weeks, your vaccine passport will expire, and you will be excluded from your life and all parts of your life.
+So you might think that you would not allow your 10 year old to be vaccinated, but if you let this damn thing go live, you will be coerced into doing it - there's no way out, you have to comply
+And why would you want to top-up vaccine? This is the thing that really catalyzed my recent series of interviews - I know immunology, one of my strongest suits is immunology - I am absolutely confident that all the stories they are telling you about variants is a lie - a complete fraud - and I can exemplify:
+We are all told about different variants - the brazilian, the kent, the south afraican, and so on
+and I just ask people, just to take a deep breath: recognize this is a BIG virus - it consists of amino acids -> 10,000 of them in strings which are folded up to form the characteristic shape that you know and hate - if tyou go and look for the virus that is most different from the one originally sequenced in Wuhan 16 months ago - you will find that the most different variant is only 0.3% different. So it's 99.7% identical - they're all of them 99.7% identical to the original - and you might be thinking "that doesn't sound like enough to escape the human immune system" - and you're right, I can prove it!
+The 2003 SARS Virus is related to the SARS-Cov2 - they differ by about 20% - 80 times variation between those two viruses and any of the variants of the current one - and I can assure you that when immunlogy researchers found scores of people that had been infected by SARS in 2003, they took blood samples from these volunteers - they confirmed 2 important things:
+1. All of the survivors had really good immune memory to the virus they encountered 17 years ago
+2. They all also possessed cross-immunity - the immune system recognized the new virus
+And This is not surprising - the human immune system essentially takes multiple pictures of any pathogen it encounters - often between 15 and 30 "pictures" - and basically, none of the variants change more than a couple of those pictures - so when you encounter the variants - having been immunized by vaccination or infection - it's impossible that your body doesn't recognize it as something it's seen before. So your governments are lying to you, and in my case the UK has closed the border - really restricted international travel - and the reason they give is thes variants which I know is a lie, they're not a problem at all.
+
+What's absolutely terrifying is 2 further bits of information that I want you to hear:
+1. The pharmaceutical industry is already manufacturing top-up variant vaccines - and I'm right and these variants are not different enough to warrant a different vaccine, and they rae not - what is it they are manufacturing? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm terrified
+2. A few weeks ago, the world's medicines regulators, including FDA, EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY, and their sibling in Japan - they issued a statement that said that the variants or top-up vaccines are so similar to the parent vaccines from which they were derived that we won't require the drug companies to run any clinical safety studies on them.
+If the vaccine company designs a vaccine on the computer, it will go straight to manufacturing, and as long as it meets manufacturing quality standards, it can then be injected into the arms of 100s of millions, even billions, of people
+And remember what I've told you about the vaccine passports - once they are running and it tells oyu to do something on pain of losing the validity of your vaccine passport - you will comply.
+If you wanted to be really terrified - since it's not my crime, I do'nt know why they are manufacturing top-up vaccines and i do'nt know what their intent is on injecting you, but you don't need a particularly vivid imagination to think that since so much of this crisis has been malign, and there is no benign interpretation of what's going on - it certainly has the potential to be a very harmful event.
+
+`What should people do when they are confronted with this pressure to take the vaccine - the looming passport, already instituted in Israel - what shoudl people do? what's the best response - how can we resist this?`
+
+It's not any harder than it sounds, actually - it's to say "thank you vvery much for your generous offer of a free vaccine" and do not engage in debate with them. You do not need to explain your decision. You are a sovereign human being, you decide what goes into your body or not. So just say "thanks very much, I'm declining". Don't even engage them with discussion. The other thing to do is to prevent the vaccine passport system from coming into being - you're being told that it's necessary to regain confidence, but I"ve just explained that if you are vaccinated you are protected - and if you'be chosen not to be vaccinated, you don't need to know, so no one needs to know anyone's vaccine status.
+
+I think we can restore confidence by frankly just being told the truth - that's what's needed, not some ghastly nightmarish totalitarian control system - because I'm fraid that's what it will be - so legislatures if you're listening, i'm afraid get on their case and explain to them that there'll be no advantages
+Once it starts, there's no recovery from it - if you're asked to do anythin at all, in relation to yourself or your children - you won't be able to go to the shops anymore, you won't be able to buy gasoline, leave your house, whatever rules the controllers set, you'll then be coerced into doing anything they'll tell you. Is that really what you want? Because if you do'nt, you better start demonstrating. If you don't do something, these criminals are going to steal liberal democracy and freedom forever.

politics/government_analogies.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
-Government is like a processing and distribution center
+Government is like an insensible processing and distribution center
 
-You give them a delicious and nutricious grass fed steak, they turn it into junk food, and then wastefully distribute it
+You give them a wonderful, pastured cattle, they turn it into junk food, and then fail to distribute it properly.
+
+Do we want them to deliver us our health?