lots of new

new/AllConcernsAccountedFor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# All Concerns Accounted For
+
+You can tell that it's a religion because they know full-well that their system of tyranny and domaination of others would have to remain permanent in order for their legacy to remain untarnished.
+
+Surely they understand that their new standard demands the classification of numerous into new castes or classes, and they must have a rationale as to why not every human would end up in the privleged class. Either such a human, by their deduction, would be immoral or incompetent.
+
+The immoral would just have would be revealed by their failures or shortcomings in a holy society whih knows everything abou everyone, thus the leader can have faith that there is no risk that anyone would be wrongly identified as such.
+
+The incompetent would incur some inconveniences at first, which is no concern as surely they are too incompetent to produce any effective reacting (unwanted), and they will soon be guided by ubermenschen who will resolve the matter for them.
+
+Any historical precedence where by a leader's will, even if correct, were overturned by an empowered populace or group be disregarded as there can be absolute faith in this foretold outcome. 100% of them.
+
+All of the dimensions of social, biological and philosophical evolution are aligned, and there can only be one consequent direction.
+
+To lead the world towards an inevitable new state means that one will be immoralized as the creator of our better world; our true state of being.
+
+Do you think such figures whose accomplishments require popular opinion, would take the risk, otherwise?

new/Convenient_Exclusion.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+# The Convenience of Exclusion

new/Cult_of_Covidians.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# Cult of Covidians
+
+As I've said before, Covidism and Covidians are not something new. It isn't even so much that there are two types of people, and that we are dividing along a line, though that might seem a de-facto consequence. In truth, I suspect that circumstance and momentum have a lot to do with it. The question is, can being the right type of person help you overcome this circumstance, and can you fight the inertia of the momentum?
+
+We have a sense of cults. We know what it is to participate in a group function such as to come and experience the way in which your actions inform your beliefs. This is just the reality of being human, which is an extended characteristic of being in a conscious, mortal and biological form, and we work through it all the time. The difference with a cult, however, is that the cult has a strong opinion about what its members should do, are detecting whether someone is deviating from its prescribed norms, and the cult members have no tolerance for information or refutations of the cult's stated beliefs. Is that not what we see with Covidians? Aggressively so.
+
+One of the tell-tale signs is eye contact. When someone is wishing to communicate to you in search of truth, they aim to connect with you and come to a shared understanding. This is because you intend to uncover something new while confirming its veracity through your perceptual acknowledgment. The cultist, however, is participating in the belief, and any deviation might risk breaking the belief. If such a route is forbidden, the participant will naturally have an aversion to reaching an open state of critical thinking and deliberation with another.
+

new/Cult_of_Covidians.md.backup

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Cult of Covidians
+
+As I've said before, Covidism and Covidians are not something new. It isn't even so much that there are two types of people, and that we are dividing along a line, though that might seem a de-facto consequence. In truth, I suspect that circumstance and momentum have a lot to do with it. The question is, can being the right type of person help you overcome this circumstance, and can you fight the inertia of the momentum?
+
+We have a sense of cults. We know what it is to participate in a group function such as to come and experience the way in which your actions inform your beliefs. This is just the reality of being human, which is an extended characteristic of being in a conscious, mortal and biological form, and we work through it all the time. The difference with a cult, however, is that the cult has a strong opinion about what its members should do, are detecting whether someone is deviating from its prescribed norms, and the cult members have no tolerance for information or refutations of the cult's stated beliefs. Is that not what we see with Covidians? Aggressively so.
+
+One of the tell-tale signs is eye contact. When someone is wishing to communicate to you in search of truth, they aim to connect with you and come to a shared understanding. This is because you intend to uncover something new while confirming its veracity through your perceptual acknowledgment. The cultist, however, is participating in the belief, and any deviation might risk breaking the belief. If such a route is forbidden, the participant will naturally have an aversion to reaching an open state of critical thinking and deliberation with another.

new/Defending_Objectivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Objectivity
+
+## Issue
+
+The issue is not simply whether objectivity is attainable, or whether the other participant enters into an objectivity supposing contract in good faith. To enter into any contract without objectivity is to commit oneself to tyranny and manipulation, likely out of intimidation, and this incurs violence or sets one on a course to violence.
+
+If objectivity is the only path with a model which needn't by violent, then all who negate the option of objectivity are, in effect, choosing violence.
+
+## How Negation of Objectivity = Choice of Violence
+Objectivity presupposes that it is possible to understand. That there are meaningful observations that can be made and that, from the data captured, an improved outcome can be realized.
+
+What if there is no hope of affecting a better outcome through improved understanding? What remains in such a state? No cooperation:
+- If I don't believe in common understanding from multiple perspectives, then I will never expect a beneficial outcome except from that which I champion.
+
+To control th eperception of other men is something that has likely gone on since the dawn of our species, because we have certainly seen trickery existing among and between other species of animals. Do we somehow think that our motivating factors are fundamentally different? Do we expect that since there are multiple factors relevant to our inclination to deceive, and that we are so incredibly unique that a common configuration or permutation of distributed elements of impact uniquely do not apply, or have a characteristically different pattern to the point where two primary expressions are no longer the same.
+
+## Fallbility
+It should be repeated ad infinitum that we are fallible to the point of creating special circumstances for ourselves, condemning others to their own different ruleset and allowing for their suffering to go unkacknowledged. This is the most particularly damning part of it, as we would surely not deem it justice to absorb the same set of expectations that we bestow on others and, in the process, make more normal the conditions which we commit others to. This, of course, increases the likelihood of our succumbing to the same conditions ourselves. Yet on we go, repeating what must be, at some (or many) level 5, an error.
+
+So, then, why make the error again? Would it not be simpler to maintain th eprinciple which reduces the occurence of a known injustice? How do we maintain the apparatus of ignoring such key perspectives, thus giving ourselves the rationale of plausible deniability?
+
+```
+Partly the immediacy of inclinations borne of one's animal instinct, shall we say, where more immediate survival challenges are always prioritized. Okay, but where are the challenges?
+
+Because this certainly is something which can be noticed, for it has been referred to many times, yet it is always the problem. The knowledge from the tree in the garden of eden. You know of your death, but you alos come to believe that outcomes are not just set in stone, and that's why you might to improve your chances by doing some key things. "This might be how bad it is felt transitioning through gender ideology.
+
+They learn a great deal, and are exposed to what seems to be
+```
+
+

new/Geert_infectiousness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+Meeting of Giants
+
+Ambiguity
+So there is, in my mind, there is still an unresolved question of whether, even with the additional jabs, we aren't seeing some vaccine enhanced replication, at aminimum.
+
+`Before you go on, I want to ask Geert, does that make sense that the vaccinated could in effect be superspreaders`
+
+Geert:
+So my understanding of this whole thing is the following. In countries where you have high vaccine coverage rates, like UK like Israel like US. You will see that there is some movement of waves around the plateau that is really very high. The average infection rate is high, if you compare these countries with other European countries, you will see that the plateau is much higher.
+
+So we know the effect of mass-vaccination. That, indeed, in vaccinated people they exhert a lot of immune pressure on the virus. This is, in fact, an ideal breeding ground for more infectious variants. The more you vaccinate, the more you're going to see that you'll not succeed in bringing down the infectious pressure.
+
+However, if you still have a substantial proportion of the population who is non-vaccinated, you will see that these people will of course get infected, but will happen is that, a lot of them still up until today, is not going to have any kind of the disease. They get infected, they will shed the virus for some time, but they will eliminate the virus.
+
+So basically they're going to reduce infectious pressure. And those who get the disease will build life long, well at least long-lived immunity, and also contribute to diminishing infectious pressure. So that is important, you will see in those countries where there is still a substantial amount of non-vaccinated people who can get asymptomatically or symptomatically ill, they will contribute to diminishing the infectious pressure, and hence you will see that the average level in countries with relatively high vaccination rates is relatively high, but you will still see some substantial waves every time you get unvaccinated people get the disease will reduce the infectious pressure when they mount antibodies, and the more you vaccinate people, the more you're going to see that this will disappear.
+
+So, in other words, what I'm expecting in Israel to see is that this movement will come down, will calm down, you will end up with this high plateau, a little bit of movement, still around it, and then what I expect is a huge wave.
+
+In other countries, where there is much less vaccination, for example where there is still a substantial amount of non-vaccinated people. Again, the average level of infectious pressure is still way way above where we were a year ago, and you will still see movement, because there is still unvaccinated who can get a disease when they get infected, for example, asymptomatically, I call them the vacuum cleaners. They will eliminate a lot of virus from the population, those who get the symptoms, they will mount long-lived immunity, and also contribute to the reduction of the infectious pressure. So the wave will stop again, you will have diminished infectious pressure. But then there is still other non-vaccinated who can get disease, it will go up again. And the more you vaccinate people, the more you're going to see that the waves become smaller and smaller, but the average level of the infectious pressure will still be high, it will become as high, fo example in countries like Germany and my country, it will become as high as the countries that have now already high vaccine coverage rates like the US like the UK. And then we are just waiting for the huge wave.
+
+And that is my prediction, and this is what I interpret when I see these data in Israel, where you see there is not big waves anymore, but the plateau is very very high, right? And what else do you expect, you have vaccinated almost all people, and we know that the vaccinated people are not going to contribute to the diminishment of the infectious pressure. The only people who can do this are the non-vaccinated. And the fewer unvaccinated, the less impact you have on the average infection rate. This is my prediction, people can follow this.
+
+Malone:
+
+Can I comment? I'm going to try to paraphrase what Geert just said in a real simple way.
+
+The truth is that it's the vaccinated who are creating the risk, and not the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated are, like he said, serving as virus sinks for the most part, unless they are in those high risk groups.
+
+The probability of them having significant diseaes and death is minute, particularly if one administers anti-inflammatory drugs early.
+
+And the whole risk in this whole equation is not being generated by the unvaccinated that then develop broad-base natural immunity to multiple antigens and epitopes that's typically long-lived. It's the vaccinated that have received these very focused spike-vaccines that all have, basically, a common epitope structure, and are driving through selective pressure, evolution to escape those key epitopes that are present primarily on the receptor binding domain.
+
+Geert, am I understanding you correctly?
+
+Geert:
+Ya, there is one thing, Robert, and I'm sure you're getting this right, but I want to emphasize this because this is so important, again as I am saying all the time, we should not stigmatize people, we should not blame the vaccinees as individuals and, therefore, let's put up the slide.
+
+It's not because someone is vaccinated and is exerting an immune pressure that this person is a problem. It becomes only a problem when everybody is in a similar situation because, then, you give the opportunity to that more infectious variant to really adapt to the population and to dominate.
+
+So, again, this is the most important thing that I want to convey, it is not a problem of individuals being vaccinated. We know all, Robert, you confirmed this - what we should have been doing at the very beginning of this pandemic with the vaccines was to vaccinate the vulnerable people. A segment of the population. That wouldn't have done any harm in terms of evolutionary escape, etc.
+
+So, the problem, are not the individuals who are vaccinated, the problem is the mass vaccination. To push a whole population to exert this widespread immune pressure. That is how, finally, the more infectious variant can adapt to the population and become dominant. And, of course, this population can no longer reduce infectious pressure.
+
+The fact checkers are saying, you guys are talking nonsense because the vaccination is not driving mutations or mutants. Nobody ever said this. It's so important that we explain to people where the confusion comes from. There is no other way but with these slides to give a little bit of clarification on what exactly is the probelm.
+
+Two individuals, one who is vaccinated, one who is not vaccinated. (or two groups)
+
+You always have a proportion of mutants, more infectious variants for example, and you have, let's say, you take one variant and you have the originals.
+
+Let's say we have 100 viral particles. The ratio is 80 wild virus and 20 variants.
+
+It is a ratio of 1 : 5. 1 variant and 4 wuhan lineages. 1 in 5 for the variant.
+
+So what happens when this innoculum will be put on a vaccinated person vs a non-vaccinated.
+
+Well, the vaccinated, if he's vaccinated, will have antibodies against the spike protein. And, therefore, there will be a selection of this different viruses, because only the variants will pass through the small hole.
+
+So that means, there is a resistance, which is a smaller hole of contractive opportunity, the smaller hole representing the immunity against the S spike protein. And if that resistance exists, then there is only those viruses that can overcome this resistance by passing through this small hole that will be selected.
+
+So you can, for example, from 100 particles, through selection, reduce them to 10. You have a reduction of 10 times the total amount of viral particles.
+
+As a matter of fact, this reduction ends up in 10 particles of the same nature. They are all infectious, more infectious variants, because these are the only ones who managed to pass through this small hole.
+
+So now exactly the same situation with an unvaccinated person. So let's assume we have the same level of reduction from the 100 particles we are going to go down to 10 particles. Is that possible? Of course.
+
+Because the unvaccinated people, let's not forget, they have immunity. This is the reason why when we got the Wuhan strain, the vast majority of the people were protected from innate immunity, so that is really a protection, it's not like the unvaccinated have no protection whatsoever, and this protection is conferred by immunity and more specifically by innate antibodies.
+
+So you have a reduction, as well, from 1 to 10. let's say the same.
+
+<!-- What is the difference? Well the difference is that the innate antibodies they do not thy are not selective. They do not discriminate against mre infectious particles, original particles. They are non-selective, so they reduce the viral load, but they do it in the same way for the more infectious variants as for the original strains. So that means that -->
+
+So what's the difference? Well the difference is that the innate antibodies they do not, they are not selective. They do not discrimintae against more infectious particles, original particles. They are non-selective, so they reduce the viral load, but they do it in the same way for the more infectious variants as for the original strains. So that means that, of this 100 particles are going to end up by a reduction of 10, but I'm going to have the same ratio, 1 to 4, that I had at the beginning, 1 variant for 4 original particles, so the 10 that I have here, there are 2 variants and 8 wild-type viruses.
+
+So the end effect , I'm still having 10 infectious virus particles, but the difference is that in the individual who got vaccinated, I will have 10 particles of the same nature, all more infectious, whereas in the one who did not get vaccinated, and who did not put this immune-selection pressure on the virus, I have 10 particles, 2 of which are the variant, and 8 of which are the wild strain. Exactly the same ratio that I had at the beginning.
+
+So, now, what does that mean? Immune selection, if there is only 1 individual in the whole population who does this, then there is no problem, because this variant will never ever be able to dominate in the population.
+
+So the probelm is that if I am going to mass-vaccinate, then I do have a problem, and I am giving here the example of a population being 25% vaccinated.
+
+So 25% means that 1 in 4 people will fit into this scenario with the smaller hole, and 75% will fit in the other scenario where the hole is much larger where there is no immune selection against the S-protein.
+
+So you can see there is 25% with the smaller, and 75% with the larger hole.
+
+So let's compare in a situation where we go to 75% vaccination. 3 out of 4 people are in the scenario where immune seleciton pressure is exerted against the S-protein, and only 1 in 4 fits into this scenario. So what is going to happen? If I know make the calculation, how many more infectious particles do I have in total?
+
+SO here you will see that I have 1, 2, 3, 4 variants out of 7 in total. Whereas here, with the 75% vaccination rate, I have 1, 2, 3, 4 variants out of a total of 5 viruses. So you see the concentration effect that is taking place, 4 out 7, is like 60%. 4 out of 5 is 80%. So you can imagine the more I vaccinate, the more I will have this selection, and I will end up with basically with only more infectious variants.
+
+When that happens, this selection, this reduction doesn't take place anymore. This selection doesn't take place anymore. Hre I had a reduction, why did I have a reduction? Because I had a selection factor against S. But if all of them are already more infectious, I'm not going to have a selection anymore, so I'm not going to reduce the infectious pressure anymore. This can be seen in the Israaeli curve, where the more you vaccinate, you have a higher plateau and you will not be able to bring it down anymore.
+
+The interesting thing is that if you look at the non-vaccinated, you will have something which works the other way around. How do you go from 75 to 25? You have to bring in non-vaccinated people. The baby-boom does this. It's very interesting because in the UK, for example, the lockdown measures were lifted in July - what did we have? Well, people wwere again mixing, there was still a fair amount of non-vaccinated people, and people had close contact again. So you bring people again in contact with fully-vaccinated people, what will you have? You will have no selection,y ou have a dilution of the infectious pressure, because the competitive advantage that exists here, that the more infectious variant has, has a tremendous competitive advantage, will be weakened, mitigated when you have more non-vaccinated people, when you intensify these contacts. If everybody gets vaccinated, you won't have this anymore, and yo ucan see that in the infectious rate curve of the UK. Nobody could explain this, Boris Johnson was just gambling, he was trying something, why does he trying something? Because he was saying, well for teh first time in the pandemic we see a disconnect betwen the number of cases and teh number of deaths, so let's take advantage.
+
+Let's lift the lockdwon measures? Within the next few weeks we saw quite a substantial decrease, because we had close contact between a number of non-vaccinated people, despite the fact that mass-vaccination continued during this time. These are the kind of examples that i'm trying to ask people to explain. Within 2 weeks, this has nothing to do with vaccination, this has to do with contacts with non-vaccinated, and I call tehm the vacuum cleaners, because they will reduce infectious pressure without putting pressure on the infectiousness of the viruses, because it's not selective, the innate antibodies will go after themore infecitous variants as the less infectious variants, the mechanism is completely difeen, it's through multivalent binding.
+
+Robert Malone:
+
+Hate the game, nto the player. It's not hte individual, it's th epolicy. If i'm understanding Geert correctly, the policy of universal mass-vaccination is the problem here. It's not targeting any individual because of what they have or have not elected to do. So, hwo do I explain it to the average person? The problem I have in the US is that a large fraction of the population is unfamiliar with Darwinian selection. That's the starting point, I can't really have a conversation about selective pressure with many people. So you have to have that kind of understanding before you can go further.
+
+To explain what Geert has just shared - the nuance of how to relate the dilutive effect of the unvaccinated is new to me, so I thank him for sharing that and walking me through it, so now i have to think about how I can simplify that into a tweet nad walk people through this. I like teh idea, so basically what he's saying is that the unvaccinated serve as a dampening function, a sponge in the distribution of the virus mutants, and because they have a more diverse immune response, and so are not going to be selecting for a specific variant, that's the key in what he's saying in a metaphor of a thin channel, what he's realy focusing on is that it's not just an immune response, but a very selective immune respone that's going to result in a particula type of phenotypes that rae going to circumvent that. I
+
+I'm often given the same challenge that he did, why isn't the unvaccinated the ones that are selecting for the mutants, and it's hard to express the idea that diversity of immune response in the diversity of each of us in terms of our MHC molecules, makes it so that I guess in his model, in the unaccinated population that hasn't been driven to this common endpoint, in terms of the education of their B and T respones, they have a wide diversity of how they are responding to the virus and so instead of really one narrow pore, he has a metaphor of a large pore, it has a lot of pores. The selection is on a lot of different proteins and a lot of different epitopes. So the virus doesn't converge, this mass vaccination will not be driving to a commonly adapted final endpoint, and this is what he's warning us about the explosion from.
+
+Geert: Yes, of course
+
+Robert: We are going to see convergent evolution towards a final endpoint.
+
+Phillip: Based on the research that I've been doing as well is that one of the difficulties is that this virus is largely bening in the sense that if you get a nenonate and ge tthem infected with it, they don't get severe disease. So the question is, the huge problem is when someone gets infected is in the interferon response, and the virus is abl eto Block that. In someone who is vaccinated, what was interesting is that they finds that they produce a weak IgA respones. So they do produce some IgA against the virus, but not enough to stop the replication of the virus. Additionally, it's tuned to the original virus, and therefore you will only end up with replication of the virus that can evade that weak IgA response. An dso you are right, it does select, and this is what I found in a very interesting paper that was shared, in a prison population they had a huge uotbreak of COVID-19 when they were all vaccinated . And so it's as though they selected virus that could evade the antibodies and then you end up with a mutated virus that can infect everybody, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
+
+Robert: Geert has made the point that under this scheme, using Marek's disease as a metaphor, and this is something that we had disagreed with previously, but im' coming to his point of view, the risk is nto only that we're generating escape mutants, but we're generating mutants that are more highly replication competent, more highly infectious, and potentially more pathogenic, this is his point that it's not just that we're culling the elders with the prior waves of infection in the migration of the virus to more pathogenicity in the younger cohorts, but that the fundamental biology of the virus and its replicative effect is shifting, and that's creating more risk in those younger cohorts?
+
+Geert: Well my opinion is slightly different in the sense that we really need to distinguish between infectiousness and virulence. When we're talking here about immune selection pressure, very very clearly because these are S-based vaccines, and so the immune pressure is against of course the S protein, and the immune pressure is sub-optimal, because otherwise we could have really sterilizing immunity, which is certainly impossible if we vaccinate in the midst of ap andemic, so we put sub-optimal pressure on the spike protein, and the spike protein is responsible for the infectiousness. And so, again, we put sub-optimal immune pressure on viral infectiousness.
+
+And so the question is what is the effect on virulence. I am not aware of any pressure that is exerted on the viral pathogenicity, the virulence, and if we would have seen such spectacular mutations it would have been published and shared. So far there is none of this. And so nobody can explain why is it that all of as udden that the younger age groups are getting disease and getting susceptible because the virulence is not changing. And then my explanation is that we do have, becuase of the circulation of more infectious strains, we do have, on average, and we see it on the curves again, on average we have higher infection rates, we have higher inectioun rates so the likelihood that somebody gets exposed shortly after the first infection becomes higher and higher, and so the likelihood that somebody becaomes exposed again to the virus just a few weeks after he or she has been exposed for the first tie becomes higher because of the high infectious pressure.
+
+There are really interesting publications that show that people like youngsters young people who teh fifrst time were not showing any symptoms, that they develop S antibodies that are short-lived that do not induce B-cell memory, so they are not really primed, but these short-lived antibodies are still capable of binding to the virus, without necessarily neutralizing it, and they prevent the innate antibodies that have much less affinity, they prevent them from binding, so they suppress, in fact, the innate immunity, and that is the reason why young people are now getting the disease, and as a matter of fact, pretty fast. So it's not a matter of the virulence, it's a matter of the increased infectious pressure that increases the likelihood for somebody who got infected to become re-infected within a short time frame after this first infection, whie still sitting on short-lived antibodies that are not sufficient to really neutralize, but that can suppress the innate antibodies, and that they do not neutralize, why - it's very clear. These asymptomatically people have already eliminated the virus before the short-lived antibodies start to peak.
+
+So the short-lived antibodies have no function at all in the elimination of the virus. This is completely, so why are they there? I mean, when such things happen, we can not afford to leave any stone unturned, and this is a very interesting trick of the virus, becaues in doing this it can take another part out of this reservoir, out of this young people you will see the more this virus becomes infectious, the more we will go down with the age groups that become susceptible. That is my fear, the more we vaccinate, the higher the infectiousness of the dominantly circulating virus, and the more we will go down in the age groups that will become susceptible to the virus.
+
+So it's not a matter of intrinsic virulance mutations, it's really a matter again of the high infectious pressure that is built up because of adaptation of more infectious immune-selected variants, thanks to mass-vaccination.
+
+Philip: Can I point out something that I think is important when we think about how the viru sworks. With children, one of the issues that I've been having is that we've stopped doing autopsies, we've stopped studying the details. And when yuo have a virus, the delta variant is producing I think 1000 times more viral particles. The question is simple - are we dealing with a cytokine storm, or are we dealing with a viral pneumonia?
+And you can't know unless you're doing autopsies because that would explain why the younger age groups are being infected now - they are now having a viral pneumonia, where there's lots of virus all over the lungs and they're getting sick with it, as opposed to the original problem with COVID-19 which was a cytokine storm. ANd we seem to be missing, doing these critical things. I just want to ask Robert about his thoughts on ADE - any thoughts with regards, what would you say about that?
+
+Robert:
+
+So, from my standpoint you just jumped from one topic to another. You were talking about the viral replication, the viral pathology, intrinsic viral pathology, and then bridging that to the cytokine storm viral pathology, and then you introduced the thread of antibody enhancement.
+
+I caution with the primary viral infection, the virenia phase, your language suggested that you were focused mainly on the pulmonary tract, and so just to hammer the point home, this thing goes everywhere. I have friends that are primate virologists that have been doing detailed autopsies, and they're seeing that this pathogen is infecting virtually all tissues, including reproductive tissues at very high levels and also, by the way, setting up chronic infection in the gut. So I just caution focusing too much on the respiratory tract, when we seem to have spike-mediated effects on coagulation, on endothelial damage, on renal disease, on lung yes, but on a variety of other tissues, including teh reproductive tract, and if we're having higher viral loads because we have selected mutations that enable high levels of virenia, it totally makes sense to me that we'll see more of a primray viral pathology in all these tissues.
+
+In terms of the cytokine storm, the cytokine storm thesis seems to be less of an issue except in those who have the preexisting conditions. It's like they don't move into that second phase, we clearly have a 2-phase disease, and that second phase that I'm told with delta instead of starting at about day 7, it's more pushed up to about day 5 when it does occur. And I'm perplexed as to why the vaccine should be dampening that. The phenotype that there's less severe disease and death associated with the vaccinated because that for me is troubling how to makae sense of that because what's killing us is that hyper inflammatory response.
+
+So why an antigenic specific vaccine would be dampening the reactive hyper-inflammatory response in patients that have just as much viral load, if not higher, doesn't make sense to me- I'm looking forward to reading that manuscript in an upcoming issue of cell, I'm sure, but I haven't seen that yet.
+
+Then the Antibody Dependent Enhancement - so I got the FDA specifically called out antibody-dependent-enhacnement in its various communications as a risk that was uncharacterized and unknown still at the time that they issued the emergency use authorization. It still remains unresolved, to what extent it occurs, Geert will probably tell you and I can share with you that in the case of, say Dengue virus, which is the classic example of ADE, one has the greatest risk during the waning phase of the immune response, because the slop, there's a more protracted duration in which you move through the threshold where you have enough antibody around that it's binding the virus, but it's not blocking its ability to infect.
+
+So it's that waning phase window which seems to be the setup for ADE. Here's the rub, and this has been pointed out to me multiple times by others - is that, even though the FDA has used the term in all the prior literature on corona vaccine development used the term ADE as the risk - in fact, this virus is not replicating in macrophage and monocytes, so that data is not there. And so, for the purist, antibody dependent enhancement ADE is defined as facilitation of uptake through FC receptors into monocyte derived populations like macrophages, and so you get this explosive replication in cells that otherwise don't have the right receptor, and so they say "you can't call this ADE, robert, you've been fact checked you're wrong".
+
+And so I think that's a bit of nomenclature thing, tomato tomato - I prefer to use the term vaccine-enhanced infection, replication or disease. Because it's a broader category, ADE is a subset, so how might we be having vaccine-enhanced infection or replication? If the antibodies that are being generated are able to bridge and enable use of receptor pathways that aren't being used - notivce I'm saying the same thing, but with different words, the presumption is that ADE has to occur through FC receptors - well FC receptors aren't the only way to pick the lot to get into a cell - there are other antigens and receptors and so the idea is that potentially vaccine-induced antibody responses may be enabling viral infection through alternative receptor pathways than is happening otherwise.
+
+So they key question in my mind is people are saying "well, we're not seeing enhanced disease post-vaccination, we're seeing attenuated disease" I'm saying yeah, btu the disease in the inflammatory response to the virenia it's not the virenia itself, generally speaking, that's what we justestablished earlier when you were talking about the inflammatory phase. So then in my mind the phenotype that we need to watch for is the enhanced loads - viral titer loads, because that would be the true sign of a vaccine-induced enhancement - because that's thte kind of proximal things that we could look at - now, do we have decent tools for lookign at viral loads? Well, if we look ourselves in the face, the answer is no. As Kary Mullis, prior to his untimely death liked to point out - PCR is not a quantitative asset. And so we're not having people do classical virology, like Geert and his veterinary colleagues do - where you're actually looking at virus titers, and you're culturing them in cells and micro-titer plates.
+
+We're relying on the surrogate assays of what is the cycle number as an indirect measure of viral load. So if you were able to detect the virus after a much lower numbe rof PCR cycles, that suggests that there's more nucleic acid there and so we use that as a crude surrogate for viral load. So the problem, in my mind, is that we're not asking ourselves the question and we haven't really taken up the task of looking at it rigorously. A skeptic could say that we're avoiding the question studiously, but that's why I'm very eager to see from my Israeli colleagues data, even if it's PCR threshold number, where they parse by weeks post-vaccination or months post-vaccination so that we could see what are the relative viral loads in the infected vaccinated at, say, 3 months when you have peak, or even 3 months, vs 6 to 8 months. And look at load then, and I think that would b the indicator of whether or not we're having vaccine-enhanced replication, but right now, I don't have those data, I haven't seen it, and I've asked for it and I think the problem is that there's just a lot of disincentives to asking those kinds of questions, no one wants to fund them, and so we're in a world where it's knowable but unknown. And so that's my sense of the whole vaccine-enhanced replication disease ADE spectrum of things.
+
+Philip: And so it brings us to a very important phase of our discussion. You guys understand how the regulators think and you've interacted with them at different levels. What will they be thinking now, and if you were in the room with them, what would you be saying to them? I will start with probably Geert.
+
+Geert: Well, what I would be saying is that what I'm trying to do since the beginning of this year is trying to explain what the impact is of mass-vaccination and making it clear to them, because I think that even the regulators, the regulators are used to looking at vaccines that have been tested in clinical trials, in a very well-defined environment, where you don't have what we see now during the pandemic, what we see is that you start vaccinating lots and lots of people, you start developing a kind of dynamic of population-level immunity. And that dynamic, that changes of course, the more you vaccinate people, that dynamic has repurcussions on the evolutionary dynamics of the virus. And those influences and interactions are having an impact on the effectiveness of the vaccines, etc. I've been seeing this thing evolving, right?
+
+This is something these guys, in fact, have no experience with. That is not what you typically see during a clear well-defined clinical trial where almost everything is standardized. So they are trying to deal with this like with any other vaccine that has been tested in efficacy trials, and we already see all the difference - my goodness that we see in terms of effectiveness, in terms of safety, in terms of the dynamics that are evolving as well in terms of immunity in terms of viral infectiousness, and that is something that is completely absent in their reasoning, and so I think that is why they are completely puzzled and I think there is a huge need for them to learn, really to learn, but it's very difficult if you are a regulatory authority to say "well guys, but we first have to dive in our books and in a number of publications and listen to a number of experts who can explain those dynamics before we can reasonably make an assessment of those dossiers". And I think one of those regulators, I happen to know one of those regulators who left FDA. And I think this si kind of like, this uncertainty and anxiousness of not knowing and not understanding what is going to happen.
+
+Because if you understand these things, you can act in good faith and you know these are the risks an these are the disadvantages. But if the beast is unknown and you do something at such a large scale, authorization at the large scale, and you go into children - something we rarely do right away with vaccines - then it becomes really something tha tlooks very scary to people. And I think, personally, you're going ot see other folks leaving, that's waht I think.
+
+Philip: And your thoughts Robert, what would they be thinking, what would you be thinking and doing?
+
+Robert:
+
+And so I feel the need to parse your question once again, and forgive me for that, I guess I'm being a reductionist now.
+
+I personally feel tha tgeert is giving the benefit of the doubt too much. An dI can't speak for the european medicines agency, or the individual regulatory authorities in Europe and how they think - I can speak to what I see in the United States. Your question infers that, if you're talking about regulatory authorities I ifner that you're talking about FDA.
+
+FDA operates based on checklist. And they are kind of rigid in that way. It's like a punch list, like you're going to go shopping and you have to ge tthis thing and the other thing and they all have to be done. The list that your spouse gives you on the weekend of chores. So that's how the FDA approaches that - they're not a whole lot of thinking. They don' tset policy. So your question is really a kind of policy question, but it presumes that policy decisions are happening at the FDA level - they're not. At the FDA they're looking at a dossier and saying "does this meet our predefined criteria, if so, then yes".
+
+Now, one of the things about that in that regulatory space is they're looking at potency,efficacy or effectiveness, safety, purity and adulteration. That's kind of the main checklist that they're looking for. And so they are hobbled, right now, and they admit it in the BioNTech licensure letter, in that they flat out at the FDA state that the existing database structure that exists in the United states - so that's VAERS, VSAFE and the databases from medicare medicaid and VA and army medical system etc. They're not sufficient, they're not structured in a way and they're not sufficient to allow them to detect rare adverse events. And so they have directed BioNTech that they have to perform more rigorous studies to evaluate the safety signal.
+
+So the FDA is admitting that they can't evaluate the safety very well. And, yet, they are still moving forward with market authorization - why are they doing that? Why did we see two of the top regulators in the vaccine branch resign, over the issue of the third job? The boosters?
+
+The reason is because the FDA is no longer independent from the policy-making apparatus which exists in their executive branch.
+
+So it's the White House that's setting the policy, which is to say that because Tony Fauci is appointed basically the czar of this disease, it mostly comes down to Dr. Fauci's personal perspective.
+
+And then you float, and you just saw a great example of this kind of process flow with this decision about the third jab, the booster experience, in the United States, we had the independent academic reviewers looking at the data on behalf of the FDA, this is the verbac panel - and they made a clear unambiguous decision that despite the lack of sufficient data to make a Go decision, in terms of safety an efficacy in the elderly and high-risk populations, they were going to go ahead and authorize that because the risk to those populations was already sufficiently well-documented because of the Israeli data na some American data showing that the vaccine durability was so poor. And so these people are now at higher risk and they were already at higher risk and now their vaccine protectio nis dropping. And so they're saying, in teh balance we should go ahead with that.
+
+But then you had the director of the FDA, Janet Woodcock step in and say "Well that's all fine and dandy, but I'm going to add in another group which is basically - we think that anybody that has contact with the public, so this is nurses health care personnel all the way down to grocery clerks - are at significantly enhanced risk of severe disease and death" There's actually no data supporting that. If you're 55 or 45 or whatever, that's your risk stratification - there aren't data saying tha if you're a grocery clerk, you have a much higher probability of death and hospitalization if you're 25 than someone who isn't a grocery clerk. So they made that political decision because they watn to impose universal mandates.
+
+And so this gets tossed to the CDC, to show you how the US works - it gets tossed to the CDC. And the CDC independent panel, called the ACIP, evaluated the same data and said no we reject this added 3rd group taht the director of the FDa has added in. That's all those with public contact. Wt reject that logic, there's no data to support that assertion, and we just think you should go ahead with the same recommendation that the verbac gave. And then we had, within 2 days, the director of the CDC overruled that, and went back to the same policy that Janet Woodcock of the FDA had rolled out, which is basically coming from Tony Fauci, as I explained. And so that's how things rae working here. There are other wrinkles to this.
+
+We are at a situation where we are operating in a way that is independent of science - the science no longe rmatters, really. It's public policy by FIAT. And, int he case of the CDC in particular, I think it's important to understand that CDC is a classic case of aregulatory group in a sense, tehy're not really regulatory - they're policy advisory -a dn they have authority to purchase vaccine, that's part of why they do this. So they set standards for care in the UNited States, or they attempt to establish standard of care. And it's important to understand about hte CDC that they have a dual function. They are specifically tasked with vaccine efficacy. They get a large amount of money to promote vaccination, yet they also have an internal mandate to ensure vaccine safety and regulate vaccine safety - these two things are in conflict - I think that's self evident - there's an intrinsic conflict of interest within the CDC in that it is funded largely to promote vaccines, but it has also the underfunded mission of evalutaing their safety.
+
+So that's the situation int he states, so ynow I've parse that part out. Given this question, assume Biden calls you up that's not going to happen - an dsays, dear Robert, what shoudl we do? We have a problem? Red lights are flashing? I'm so concerned about what you're saying on Twitter.
+
+That hypothetical was presented to me and Peter Navarro - and so we did come up with a set of policy statemnets and publish them in the washington times and they amount to 4 key policy items, and they're very very informed by Geert's thinking. Frankly, when I finally got my head wrapped around what Geert has been trying to teach us, I realized that we had a big probelm and we had to change course.
+
+So what I advocated and I advocated by the way with Cardinal Turkson at the vatican 2 weeks ago, I was granted an audience. I've advocated in Portugal, I've advocated in Italy and I"ve advocated here in the UNited States through those op-eds with Peter Navarro - is a 4-point strategy.
+
+1. Reserve the vaccines for the elders and the morbidly obese and the high risk population, and make it available globally. Right now we're overusing vaccine in the WEstern World - we're basically beign vaccine pigs, but we are hording the resources in the West unnecessarily. As Geert has kindly taught us, we're actually doing damage through our policy of overusing vaccines in the west, and meanwhile vaccines are not being made available in populations in less economically advantaged countries that don't have the ccapital to buy - it's not just buyiing the freezers, it' sthe cold chain is enormously expensive and difficult. And it's the elders in those countries that represent the memory - the wisdom and knowledge of each of those countries' villages and townships etc. And, it's a huge crime that we're not providing vaccine coverage for thos epeople who need it just as much as the elders do in the EU and the US and Israel, for example. So, spread it out, use it where it's really needed, don' thorde it or use it as an economic weapon.
+
+2. Make early interventions widely available. The agents that are out there, including the monoclonal antibodies, are very effective when adminstered early and aggressively. A number of those agents are considered controversial and yet they are beign used widely often in emergeing economies tha tare having better outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality than we are in the west, certainly where we arein the US. THe most recent example of Uttar Pradesh with their wide use of Ivermectin in India and suddenly collapsing the incidence rate of death and disease from COVID. We saw from before some fantastic examples in Peru, and that as kind of a challenge re-challenge experiment, where they deployed ivermectin and then they changed policy and didn't deploy it, and the morbidity and mortality shot up. We have a number of agents, not the least of which is Vitamin D which makes a big difference in the morbidity and mortality, os make those available early.
+
+3. I believe that rapid test kits that are biased towards false-positives, because any test will have a bias - an dso acknowledging that home test kits be made available that have a bias towards false-positives, because there has to be a bias one way or the other. And then, available, more specific tests in physicians' offices - so people have a good idea that they don't have respiratory syncitial virus, like whta was ripping up the pediatric population this year an deverybody thought it was SARS-CoV2 it was RSV.
+
+4. I really think that we need to address the fear. There has been too much fear promoted, and Geert has pointed out your risk currently with the current circulating strains, if you're not in one of those high-risk groups, you're not one of the elderly, is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. That you would get death or severe disease from this virus, inf act what you will get for most of us is broad-based long lasting immunity, as Geert has kindly shared with us. So, we don't have to be afraid and I think that we can address the fear using apps or other computational tools that allow you to make an assessment of what your own risk is.
+
+So those are the four policy points that peter navarro and I had come up with. And of course after we published it in the Washington Times so that everyone in DC would be able to read it, we got nothing but fact-checked from Facebook, but other than that virtually no responses. So I don't know what to say, I'm trying to influence policy, but I feel like it' sa labour of sisyphus.
+
+Philip: Anything to add, Geert?
+
+Well, for me I think that the most important thing to do, if tehre is one thing that I really need to point out, it's to reduce this infectious pressure. And that is, for me, something nobody has any kind of idea how we are going to get rid of this highly infectious variants, and they are not going to calm down spontaneously. It's not like this virus is going to say Enough is Enough, I am going to insert a number of mutations that will diminish my infectiousness. And, as I was saying, for me this is really a huge threat to those who were previously naturally protected, we have seen young people all these younger age groups, below 65 etc, having almost no problem whatsoever when the pandemic started, and now we see increasingly younger age groups that get the disease. For me this is clearly due to the high infectious pressure as I already explained, so how can we reduce it? Well, first of all, we have to stop this mass vaccination - the worst thing ever. The worst thing ever that we do is to vaccinate younger age groups. As I tried to explain, this is the buffer. The younger age groups, you bring them in, for example, the unvaccinated, you are going to see a diminishment in the infectious pressure. They are the vacuum cleaners. ANd even if they get the disease, most of them resist relatively well to severe disease because of their younger age, because of their stil fairly-high rate of innate antibodies. Vaccinologists know very little about innate antibodies. Go on my website and look at the publications, it' svery fascinating.
+
+So if they start vaccinating these people, they lose this potential. When people get vaccinated, they are going to breed, in fact, those more infectious strains, and through immune selection pressure, there is no longer this elimination. We lose, completely, this buffer. The people get the disease, they build long-lived immunity, so this is really our hope for herd immunity. Nobody talks anymore about herd immunity, what is the objective still of the mass vaccination campaign? Can anybody tell me the objective? If tehre is no objectivity, there is no strategy, of course. There is only tactics. There is no common objective, and every country is doing its own thing, so this is really a disaster, because the only way to solve this, still, we don't change biology - we don't change immunology. It's still the interplay between the virus and the immune system, it's still herd immunity, so where are we going to get herd immunity from? Certainly not from vaccination, and even less when we do mass vaccination.
+
+So if we could reduce this infectious pressure, we could say back to the younger age groups, go out and do your thing. Because this goes back to the beginning of the pandemic where we had the wuhan strain with a much lower intrinsic infectiousness, and nothing was happening with these age groups. There's always people who have an innate immune defect, etc, but we didn't see these incidences now higher rates of morbidity in younger age groups. So we need to bring donw the mass vaccination, of course, because we are just turning all this potential to build herd immunity, we are just converting this into the opposite. People who cannot contribute anymore to herd immunity, and it's not really only from a public health standpoint, but it's also from an individual health viewpoint, because this thing is evolving and I pointed this out in a number of articles that I have posted. It's not me saying that there is now high pressure from the population in driving mutants that escape neutralizing S-based antibodies. These are molecular epidemiologists who are describing this, of course they're not saying that this from mass-vaccination the mmune pressure, btu they are clearly point out that there is a fast mounting immune pressure and that drives, increasingly, mutations that are escaping from neutralizing antibodies. So this is evolving, so that means that we know one day that some of these resistant variants are circulating, it's just that they have not necessarily become the more dominant strain, or the more infectious ones, but that is what we're going to end up with. Let's not be naive with resistance, right?
+
+And also, from an individual viewpoint, you can be happy that today you are still protected. But don't we ask ourselves the question how long is this protection going to last? How about 3 months from now? Where is this limitation, we know already that this protection is limited, and we hav already seen how it has been evolving, initially there was an impact on transmission, certainly, and then in fact it was lost but then there was still an impact on disease, prevention of disease, now it's only severe disease. So all this rhetoric and the narrative that is changing about the claims of the vaccine is merely reflecting the evolutionary dynamics of the virus during this pandemic, so we need to bring down this infectious pressure and the only way it can be done, if you would like to Ivermectin or not, frankly speaking, I don't care, but we can only do this with antiviral prophylaxis. How else are you going to do this?
+
+And stoppping of course, mass vaccination, and what I would say that is very important as well, according to my humble opinion and humble interpretation of the data we also need to avoid overcrowding. Personally, I think that infectious strains have started circulating in the population even long before mass-vaccination had started, was due to a large extent in certain ideas to realy overcrowding. Because when you have overcrowding you have high infectious pressure, of course that's almost by definition. So the likelihood that somebod who gets asymptomatically infected gets reinfected during the time where he or she is still sitting on antibodies is very very high.
+
+So what does that mean? Immune pressure of course. Immune pressure on S-protein, so higher infectiousness, right? So that is something hygiene but essentially overcrowding, stopping mass-vaccination, and dramatically reducing this infectious pressure.
+And we can not do this with the vaccines, in all the countries where we have this high vaccination rate, that is where we have high infection rates. For me this is a complete no-brainer. This is simply common sense and it could be done. it could be done. But if we continue the mass vaccination, nature will win. We will end this with herd immunity, but we will pay a huge price, of course.
+
+And what I don't understand, Philip, is that initially I have been begging to compare the ratio of mutants shed by vacinees, vs the original strains. To see whether there was a shift towards more mutants shed by vacinees compared to non-vaccinees. Btu then all of a sudden they said well if you're vaccinated, we don't do the sequencing anymore, we close this chapter, we dion' do this anymore. So that was not a criterium
+
+
+Now my next criterium for demonstrating the detrimental impact of continuing these mass-vaccines, would be to compare the ratio of severe disease and death

new/Gender_heretic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Interrogation
+So who are you to judge
+
+Transhumanism, Transgenderism, Autogynephilia, Parapilia, Attraction to what we please, Attraction as it naturally manifests. Is it a fetish if it's our natural inclination? Why should we fight it?
+The manner in which we conceive of something might arouse us, as arousal is interest, and thus we are elevating that very thing, are we not?
+We bestow upon them the symbols which connect them to our truth, do we not?
+Can we criticizie the impetus of society towards transgenderism? Is it not normal that we would wish to master our own limitations? That we would wish to transcend them and enter into a new age with new possibilities? Is that not progress and evolution?
+
+To deny this must be a form of hate. To hate progress out of fear that one would be left behind. An inferiority complex, perhaps, or just a general and paranoid disposition which causes one to expect that anything organized is not working in his favour. Particularly if that which is being organized is beyond the intellectual grasp of the person in question.
+
+Because, certainly, nothing is asked of you. You are simply being asked to show the most minimal of respect. To allow something to exist, is it not? To allow someone to be, as it were.
+
+Well, perhaps, but that assumes that we are negating an erroneous or destructive action. We are, however, not negating anything. The proof that they are respectful of the proposed truth is by their active participation. They must become an active participant and perform a set of necessary, and almost holy, actions in order to keep peace with the other participant(s).
+
+Of course, in this way, the person being quested is being compelled to perform action, and to perform it with pre-selected parameters such as to maximize the particular type of ideas being communicated through the action. This is to be done on the basis of assuming that the meaning of the language is ...
+
+Can you prove that you do not hate by being compelled to perform an action with pre-selected parameters, in spite of what the action and its parameters mean to you? Do you not create hate and distress by becoming the plaything of intolerance and inauthenticity? To be normalizing the production of actions that are not borne of one's beliefs, and not borne of the result of a resolving dialogue, but only as a means to resolve threats? What we normalize are threats and violence, and to participate in a process which normalizes that is to value them over reason and open discourse.
+
+If it's already understood that open discourse is undesired and even despised, then even if one were to perform the task out of intimidation, it would be with an understanding that any hope of eventual discourse is being diminished, thus giving reason to expect that they that are being demanded to act will have a strong rationale for not obliging.
+
+If we are to suppose that the party making the demand is significantly intelligent, then we should also expect that they understand this as well. With that in mind, it becomes reasonable to ponder whether the choice to compel was done so for the purpose of evoking violence, rather than a form of compliance that could be undertaken without violence. If violence is the goal, then the cloaking and obfuscating of it is most insidious, though this is not out of character with related behaviours.
+
+## The meaning of the task
+Some would presume that the intention of the task is to adhere to a minimal standard of human rights and courtesy, and that to have fulfilled the action will reinforce every party's ability to derive meaning from the event, which can be healing and conducive to development and flourishing. But if a party feels coerced, and if there is an understanding that means of rationality and open discourse are not to be utilized, then the primary meaning of the task becomes the implications of the transaction as it relates to survivability and the recognition of violence in the life experience. These do produce meaning, as life is full of thresholds and challenges, the pursuit of which leads to transformations which incur increase or reduction of strength, increase or reduction of vitality, and increase or reduction of survivability, and so forth. These changes do cause the organism to infer meaning, as the biological reality of mortality becomes referenced and evaluated in the face of changes to one's survivability.
+
+It's seldom possible to evade the meaning of survivability, so it should be harnessed in such a way which benefits all powers, rather than to the detriment of any one party. The moment a detriment becomes clear, the more the organism evaluates the proposition of life insofar that pain and frustration are traded for the ability to consciously experience and act.
+
+`Retort: What do you mean? What's wrong with the meaning? The meaning is that of being accurate, that of choosing the correct terms bound to the right qualities'`
+
+This assumes that one is unaware of the full set of qualities, and that the qualities being proposed as have not yet been completely understood, perhaps even less understood as a consequence of the explicit and direct presupposition that we are engaged in transactions where the interlocutor is satisfied to direct actions without understanding the full set of qualities associated with that action.
+
+To think that there is meaning in the word being chosen, and that the meaning itself is not affected or diminished by the disregard for agreement about the action and its implications, is ignorant at best and quite possible malicious.
+
+Meaning is something which is produced through our relationship and the interactions contained therein. The reality of the interaction produces meaning, through our active participation, and through our specific actions leading to an agreement, or lack of it.
+
+We gain and propose meaning the choice of which structures to illuminate, our understanding of these structures, and our understanding of one another's perspective on those structures.
+
+## Structures
+`Structures? What silliness. There are no structures`
+Structures are a configuration of symbols and a degree of significance. Some might call this a hierarchy. Also, necessarily, the choice of symbol affects the set of symbols, as it implies relationships between the other symbols as they interface to the common construct to which they are being applied or compared.
+
+Given that these have value in making determinations about that which is being understood, they also affect the vaule of one another in the choice of context for analysis. With that in mind, we can't really get around our choices of symbols without also performing the analyse of their particular relationships amongst and between one another.
+
+Performing an analysis which determine the symbols and their given relationships is, of course, one of infinite complexity. Not only that, but there is an infinite number of interpretations for aspects that can be enumerated (there rae likely more interpretation and more symbols and relationships than can be observed).
+
+That being said, it's still necessary to enumerate the symbols and relationships, or the task will not have any degree of coherence or predicted utility.
+
+So to proceed for this task, there must be a set of ground rules. First, it must be agreed upon that though there are an infinite number of possible concerns and interpretations insofar that we can attempt to enumerate every possible option with respect to our target of study, we can also agree that there exist some concerns and interpretations which require greater attention than others. This is because we can certainly each come into establishing a rationale for a particular concern and a particular interpretation of the issue. Furthermore, we are able to identify a concern or an interpretation which we believe to be superfluous. Given this, it is obvious that we must also agree that we have made a discriminatory assertion and that, as such, we are, by virtue of our own actions, reasoning that there is an ordered precedence inherent in the set of concerns and interpretations.
+
+If we can agree that there can be different positions in the ordered precedence of concerns, then we must agree to use objectivity to guide our analysis. There are ways of thinking which posit that objectivity is either impossible to achieve, or completely non-existent from reality. If either of these positions are adhered to, then no agreement is possible, as it is technically impossible to establish veritable trust in the good faith of each participant. Regardless of taxonomy used to reason about the decision to relinquish any expectation that an objective mechanism can be used to judiciously improve the quality of discourse, there is no avoiding this one insurmountable feature of the transaction. The only alternative means to objective discourse is violence.
+
+If we do agree to these principles and we maintain a process which does no defy them, then the natural step is to resolve our understanding the requirements of maintaining the integrity of our mechanism. We must do this, not out of an expectation that the process is futile, but out of respect and empathy for the perspective that it is natural for a party to be apprehensive, both due to logical reasoning, and due to emotionally-mediated thinking and cognitive biases. We do this out of an expectation tha we can cooperate in utilizing a process which minimizes the impact of cognitive biases. This is, in a sense, an admission that one has cognitive biases, and that is a necessary component even for a theoretical objective thinker who performs a technically perfect analysis. It is especially with a perfect execution that one must consolidate the potential of a problem which has the power to impact the quality of process.
+
+In restoring the utility in our ability to choose a subject among many, we identify targets for understanding the behaviour of our subject in a way that can be systematized, with defined terms for evaluation and study. By choosing the terms as a cooperative process, we reduce the prospect of unfairly framing one another's arguments. The defined terms become the formal taxonomical tool of reference for the objects relevant for discussion.
+
+Without an agreed upon objective process by which to determine which subjects to choose, we are left in a state where every choice will certainly not be trusted, be it at least from one side, therefore it will become nothing but a war for power.
+
+If one side bases their reasoning over presuming a moral failure in the face of an environment with no process by which to objectively reason about our transaction, then the transaction is one of violence. All paths would lead to that end, as the avoidance of objectivity is the insistence on violence. The necessarily produced disengagement makes this apparent; the fact of one side declaring that the process of reasoning has ended is an explicit uncoupling from any agreement to pursue fairness.
+
+One might ask why this is; what qualifies this need to adhere to objectivity?
+
+The natural state of conscious interaction is one where reason is demonstrated at even what some might call the most basic levels, such as with animals who can't communicate abstract concepts. That is, to apply the reasonable amount of survival force with respect to the survival needs of each participant. At this "basic" level, which isn't actually basic at all, but basic in the sense of the removal of linguistic dialogue, there is a transaction about what sort of behaviour is tolerated given the resource requirements for a given context. Once a certain threshold is surpassed by one party, the behaviour of the interaction changes to one which involves violence which threatens survival for one or both participants.
+
+In such a case, we can see that it is a reasonable transaction to the extent that the participants are capable of affecting material expression. This is a system in that we see that there is a continuity of these organisms or entities. If there was no success in the chronology of the relationship, evolutionarily speaking, then we woulnd't have the demonstration fo their continued existence. One might say that it could very well be the case that there have been other relationships which ceased to exist, and that this had nothing to do with the logic of the interactions.
+
+But the logic is that there is a predisposition towards survival. The actions which are undertaken by the organisms are ones which are chosen given their impact on survival. Whether or not it can be established that they are primarily driven by an understanding that survival is the most important factor is inadmissible, because we understand that the organism is aware of the need for survival, we understand that evolution demonstrates survival, and we agree that an organism is capable of acting or reacting such as to consolidate its need for survival. Thus our expectation of a logical behaviour concerning impact on survival is implicit.
+
+To elaborate on the logic of a conscious, biological system acting for its survival, consider even just the unconscious neurological activation and disinhibitory patterns that are performed without deliberate thought. Even these demonstrate logic and are, particularly in some cases, initiating or affecting the interaction of the participant. That these pulses of natural biology potentiate survival is an obvious indication that it is reasonable to potentiate one's survival, and that these impulses potentiate the survival of an organism in the presence o other organisms. The fact of there being a plurality of organisms who experience an impact on their survival by unconscious neurological impulses suggests that the reasonable and logical engagement of each organism in its interaction with another is one which is perpetually evaluated by each organism on its respective survival impact.
+
+It is with this understanding and reasoning that it becomes clear: there is only one feasible choice of methodology for analysis and resolution of a concern shared by multiple organisms, and it is one whose specification declares most explicitly the expectation of equal application and discrimination for each participant.
+
+There is no other conception of a system which expresses by nature of its specification a desire for equal relationship among participants. Regardless of whether there exists equality, there can only be an expression for a desire to have equality by making available the explicit choice to value a system which could ever possibly enumerate the possibility of selecting equality.

new/Investing_in_Disease.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Investing in Disease
+
+People like to mock those who remind others that a loss of population or even a loss of respect for human life (how would the former not follow?) is an ever-increasing possibility, and not because of an unexpected pandemic of the century.
+
+We have massively expanded our ability to declare, suspect and detect disease, yet with a bias to favour identification and discovery. It is said that we must err on such a side, due to our "novel" situation. THe expectation that, in maintaining a larger scope, we can catch extra problems, or tackle bigger problems. A sensitization towards discovering disease, including that which might not be available for direct observation.
+
+But, of course, detection of disease has also become activism, and anything which is assumed to be a form of guaranteed charitability, a good will, is something which naturally evades a range of criticism, thus easily qualifying an increase of support.
+
+This means that the standard by which we define can be come more permissive and memory would dare not even consider to challenge the assumption that this is an obviously great idea.

new/Jessica_Rose.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Jessica Rose testimony
+In Israel
+
+Over 1004% increase in total adverse event counts in 2021 just in the ocontext of the covid-19 products (and 2021 is not complete yet - October 31) in contrast with 10 years
+
+An insane statistic, but you can count the number of adverse event reports. 5000% death increase.
+
+Total adverse event for domestic data -> just data collected for US citizens - 600,000
+
+Deaths at 10,000 (not including foreign data)
+Hospitalization and ER 100,000
+
+These numbers don't consider the underreporting factor. It's a known thing that VAERS is underreported. Some people claim that it's 1% of peopel filing reports. She recently calculated an estimtae based on the pfizer data, which might be questionable, which puts it at 31. You have to multiply the numbers by 31?
+
+The rates of reports being filed for children aged 0-18 23,000. Within the cohort of children 0-18 60 of them have died and 38% of that 60 were less than 2 years old. Back in the last .........>>>?
+
+Update which was October 21st - 5510 children aged 0-18 had as their primary reported adverse event product administered to person of inappropriate age. Children who aren't supposed to be injected are being injected in great numbers, and some of them are dying, these are just repots, this is not the total count.
+Female reproductive issues - hot topic tonight - female adverse events related to female reproductiev issues - her count (conservative only counting  some of the coded reports) - almost 10,000 not considering underreporting
+Spontaneous abortions are highly reported. Atypical when compared to the past 10 or 30 years.
+
+Another point - cardiovascular neurological and immunological adverse events, if grouped together, it is off the charts. For cardiovascular event reports, about a month ago it was 1 in 660 peopel were reporting via a measured code (assign the diagnosed adverse event, myocarditis, cardiac arrest, anything heart related) 1 in 660 people? Something that needs to be addressed by the owners of the data. They needed to be doing (CDC FDA) weekly or monthly reports. A private citizen is not getting anything for this, and by some people's definition I'm risking some things. It's very weird by any angle that you look at it from. Kids don't need this, they do fine - They have beautiful little immune systems that let them play, leave them alone, they don't need this and it's very clear from the data here that they're being damaged from this. The rates are very clearly - the risk benefit analysis that anyone does as an individual - the risk far outweigh the benefit, int he context of these injectable products.
+
+`What's going on in Israel? Are the people in Israel alarmed about what's going on over there? Why are they doing this - what direction do you suggest they go besides stopping the jabs and what should they do for the problems the massive probelm in Israel and nobody seems to be trying to do something. Why aren't they listening?`
+
+Well you know I'm happy to tell you they're a lot of wonderful people who are fighting since the beginning - a lot of people, but of course we're not being heard. This is why I'm talking about my paper being censored. The level of the censorship going on, it's so extreme, nobody knows what's going on here.so it's a bizarre thing. what needs to be done, besides just stopping this nonsense in its tracks, the issue of variants of concern is so high with these boosters, which I heard are the same injections which were given the first and second times, which makes no sense for the issue of variants. Let doctors be doctors - information overload from peer reviewed studies on therapies - there are beautiful published protocols on how to deal with COVID. It's a treatable disease we can do this, there are only a few high risk groups. If we keep pushing these injections, it's unfathomable that they'd even think to be putting this in children - but if we keep pushing this virus, the only job that viruses have is to escape environemntal pressures, and what these injections are internal environmental pressures - we are creatin ga perfect storm here by doing this - it needs to stop categorically. I'm not sure how else to respond. I did put a link in the comments to a fantastic documentary - Testimonies - jewish brothers and sisters living in Israeli who have been vaccine injured by these covid products - and it will break your heart, and everybody needs to see it. Two striking things about these testimonies - the broad range of adverse events htat they are reporting and the severity of the adverse reports that they're reporting - a man who is in it 50 years old says I'm waiting for the third stroke to come and kill me.
+
+To me, I have to say one more thing about VAERS -  the last thing we had an actual vaccine rollout that caused deaths in humans was with this H1N1 product - and the number of people they considered intolerable to go above was 50 - after 53 deaths they said ok not safe we're not doing this anymore - Considering the underreported data at 10,000 and you should know that it takes 30 minutes to fill out a VAERS report. It's alarming.
+
+`16,000 or more - ` my friend who has open VAERS who designed it we're in constant communication to make sure we're checking each other's data. I use the domestic data which is around 10,000 whereas if you include the foreign data you get up to 16,000 - it's missing scertain fields - it's US citizens living abroad reporting to VAERS and 2 flowover from the UK system and it's unknown where some of the data is comingfrom but the most important thing to consider is that they're all VAERS reports - 30 minutes taken by a GP or a Nurse practitioner or a person from the family to file these reports.
+
+H1N1 product - what product is this?

new/Karol_Sikora.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Hi
+It' sKarol Sikora
+
+Some very exciting news, just yesterday, again from the karolinsky institute in stockholm sweden, showing that T cells are absolutely vital in our immune system. We tested all 200 staff in our cancer centres at the Rutherford and only 5.4% were actually positive for antibodies, and yet some of them lived together, and one was positive for antibody and one was negative, so there must be another component in the immune system, and that's what this paper shows. They took people recovered, measured antibodies in many there were no antibodies, and yet they showed that powerful T-cell systems are in place. So it means that instead of having just 5% of people infected, there'd be a huge number more, who are defending themselves by T-cell responses. Not only that, the T-cell system works against the previous 2 corona viruses, the sars and the mers, against which many of us have been infected, and many of us have immunity which will cross over to COV-2. So, I think it's good news, we're understanding more about the immune system, we've got to stick with it, do all the precautions necessar,y nad htere might be an outcome, a test if you've been infected and developed T-cell immunity.

new/LifeExtension.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Life Extension Techniques
+
+Many futurists have predicated some of the methods which might be used to extend human life. Most of these involve mitigating the aging of the body by replacing organs, renewing tissue generation, maintaining or extending telomere length, killing pathogens before they can perform damage, and curing or ceasing the progress of a disease.
+
+And why not? Surely any child, upon learning of their finitude and impending mortal end, instantly yearn for immortality.
+
+So is it any surprise that those who might find themselves in the advantageous position of being able to dabble with formulating the means to solve the problem of human mortality might find it irresistable to do so? Not simply because the idea has been sold to them, but because to work on the problem is the envision a means of living forever.
+
+How

new/Muroads.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+It is not just an example of being asked to do one more thing that you don't want to do, and it is incredible that so many libertarians have resorted to seeing our circumstances in this way.
+
+Paying for roads with taxes is not the same thing as changing all the standards having to do with modern bodily autonomy. A standard which causes the service of one's and everyone else's body to become an asset for the state in ways not seen before. So what does that mean? Public measures can be declared which continuously require you to fulfill some part of it. Some would say that some form of participation is always being asked of you, thus this is no different, but what sort of things are asked of us?
+- Paying taxes, filling out census, paying to survive in community, economic participation
+What else? None of these require access to your body, internally, require you to modify your physiology an cause you to take a direct material risk. Particularly while not being given the option to express genuinely informed consent.
+
+And what this does is not just a matter of incurring some risk from an adverse reaction / reaction to having administered a treatment, but to be acknowledging a new standard as to what can be repeated and accepted in society. It is now to be more commonly accepted not just that access to one's body be made available, but that one's opinion on the transaction is completely irrelevant at best, and hostile when not compliant in the worst.
+
+This sets the precedent that one's thoughts and ideas are not only to be disregarded in the face of public and civic disagreement, but that they are even irrelevant in the matter of making decisions for one's own self interest.
+
+And all for a standard which itself need not scratch any past precedent, but can be reformulated without one's opinion as well. At this stage, you are only useful insofar that you have the capacity to not be burdensome to the state.

new/NaturalImmunity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+```Book site: https://covid.logicp.ca/en/book/biology```
+# Intro
+Natural immunity is a myth. It does not exist. If you previously believed yourself to have had immunity to any pathogen, it was purely coincidence. If you thought your previous vaccines evoked an immune response in your body by way of your adaptive immune system, you were mistaken.
+
+Why is this the case? Because for the vision of the future which was aspire to achieve, we must look beyond reality, beyond the human being, and look beyond understanding limited by science, logic, and even reason.
+
+Any previous truthful concept which conflicts with my belief about the best strategy to employ in pursuit of vaccine equity should be, for all intents and purpose, be treated as a lie. If we simply modify our hierarchical understanding of the world and simply replace all things that are true, with things which directly serve my pursuits, then this will be a net good for the world. Any benefit to me, personally, is pure circumstance, and wasn't necessarily a benefit, as I slave away night and day for others so that they might have a better existence than I.
+
+And so remember, for all that I do, you're welcome.
+
+# The Attack on Natural Immunity
+Is it also an attack on nature? What we understand of nature can vary to suit different contexts. There is, for example, the romantic idea that all is harmonious and plentiful in nature, and this meme is referenced in pop culture, but is that how people behave? Only a small selection of western humans are regularly exposed to uncivilized environments, and they likely have the insight to put such tropes to rest. For everyone else, their actions are all contained within environments that are free of the raw elements of nature. If anything, they are copletely averse to anything unpredictable enough to resemble nature, only opting for creature comforts and suburban habituations.
+
+And so too are the species, havign by necessity to master evermore aspects of nature in order to evade mortality at every turn. And so our default reaction to any pathogen should be predictably so, as even our abilities to transcend the vulnerabilties is insofar that our own natural form and its needs are consolidated in the face of another natural threat or form. There is still, at the end, a natural specification which is being served and valued.
+
+But if we can rule over all a large portion of nature, does the very concept of nature become something to evade? Should it offend us that there be limits that cannot be overlooked?
+
+Again, we struggle to make distinct what is a naturally evolved specification from that which is structured from the aspects which came into being as per the naturally evolving process. One might say that both have come into beign as per evolution and a range of developmental factors that are still being adhered to, as can be observed by our maintaining all aspects of reality that we deem essential.
+
+But perhaps that's not the best take. To consider synonymous the changes which occur genetically as expressed in the forms which bear life cycles and the actions and events executed and evoked by these forms are not coherently understood material instances which can be compared as like terms, or even within the same system and at the same level of abstraction. They are vastly different conceptions, and should be treated as such.
+
+The means by which a pattern of behaviour, along with its progression of selectice forces, have been occuring through the same mechanism and cycle of transformation that has existed for some time.
+
+# Simplifying Science
+When your great and supreme concern yields the entrypoint into every other possible concern, it's attractive to preemptively assume that it is chiefly responsible. Regardless of whether you are correct, you might feel that this will be a winning strategy.
+
+Those who subscribe to an ideological position on matters of this concern will choose to highlithy, even while knowing it is incorrect, so long as they believe it is to be socially viable.
+
+It is obvious that if a human being believes a factor bears chief responsibility in some matter, and it meets a Threshold of Importance to them, they will proactively or reactively support an effort to make this known in their social space.

new/Objective_Morality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Objective Morality
+
+How can we infer an objective morality from the laws of reality/physics?
+
+Some might question what is real, but if they are unsure that anything is real, then we have no fundamental premise upon which to establish any agreement. There must be, at minimum, an agreement that there does exist something real. Then the fun begins, because we must define reality. We can propose a few variations:
+
+1. Reality is all tha can be observed or experienced
+2. Reality is all that is, regardless of whether it can be observed
+3. Reality is everything that is every material composition
+4. Reality is anything that can be proven with science
+5. Reality is the belief that one's experience can be witnessed by another
+
+Each of this is a proposed agreement.

new/Preventing_movement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Benefits of Preventing Movement
+*A dialogue*
+If there is no perfectly methodical process being utilized to determine the necessity of this preventative treatment being enforced on all members of society, then we have to assume that its more primray motivation factors and causes of inception are related to whatever the advantages being conferred happen to be. We know that it restricts movement, in the broadest sense, but how is that advantageous?
+
+```
+It is not necessarily advantageous, at least not obviously so. Though we could theorize about why someone might wish to prevent anyone from accessing certain restricted areas, like some woke family wishing ot keep undesirables out of particular circles, but there are other advantages conferred by the change.
+
+First, if you are part of the state and on its payroll, then there is an unquestioning admiration of the measures an those who are part of that conglomerate who somehow feels part of the process of formulating and administering solutions (even those who don't actually play any real role in it). Whatever is being formulated is, de-facto, guaranteed to be part of the solution used. In this way, the solution will alwyas seem valuable. It is always being used in some way.
+
+In the software world, we would say that it was deployed or released, and that is something to which one will feel proud for having been a part of.
+
+Furthermore, we know that someon ein such a position is likely engaged, for at least 35 hours per week, in an environment where the narrative is adhered to more congruently and uncritically than in perhaps any other setting, so there is indeed good reason for anyone within the public service to have some form of cognitive bias. That doesn't mean, however, that they are specifically benefitting from the restricting of other people's movement. You need to provide better examples
+```
+
+Very well, that seems reasonable.
+
+It needn't be an immediate benefit with obvious, first order material conequence. There is a range of benefits which can be understood by role. Beginning with the broadest application, we can see that, regardless of the expectation or the importance ascribed to any one role being performed in the private sector, any public servant role is constantly maintained and understood to be an essential one. There is no question that anyone in public service hasn't even the sneaking suspicion that there could be some form of lockdown which would consequently cost them some degree of their livelihood.
+
+Now, you must be thinking that I am confusing employement with movement, but of course I am not. If this is your manner of thought, then you are admitting your own lack of awareness. You see, the very expectation that some individuals be denied access to society is an expression fo a failure to believe in, or recognize, the need for that person's contribution. You might think that "oh, they are imposing risk", and that could be its own technical discussion as to whom has placed the greatest of a particular type of risk, but given that there are many risks, and will always be risks, we msut also deduce that there exist some roles that are more difficult to replace, and some roles which might contribute greater risk due to the nature of the role. We can agree that, even if we are to ignore the case of not being able to work in a space as a case of denying the value of tehir prospective contriution, so too can we say that this is also the case in situations where a person cannot simply be in a space of society.
+
+As the proportion of such restricted spaces grows, so too can we say that they are less important and valuable to society, not simply due to the exptation through expression of exclusion, nor a lack of their being able to contribute, but it is even a necessary aspect of the society itself, in that it obviously cannot continue in a way in which it relies on and deems essential that which it excludes, so it must be, if it were relying on those who are to be excluded, that it should evolve to have no need for them. Their exclusion is a commitment to this.
+
+Whatever contribution may have previously existed is now of no recognizable value, and any embedded effects can be considered as being part of the system, in spit of any previous pathological circumstance.
+
+```
+But, wait. Surely you aren't accusing me of contributing to that exclusion. I am simply abiding by the measures that have been recommended by professionals. I don't get to make these decisions, nor have I the expertise required to do so. We should be grateful that the government is capable of organizing the systems to produce those insgihts, and all indications are that if you are not following the recommendations, you are adding to the problem and placing others at risk.
+```
+
+Are you not astute enough to be able to deduce all the types of risks that are potentiated by each option in the proposed transactions? Surely you understand risks such as violence and lethal force, or the risk of survival being made more difficult by constraining money and food? And not just that of those whom you prevent from making a living, but all those who suffer as a consequence of loss of productivity, manifestation of systemic/intersystemic bottlenecks, and elisions resulting from state-imposed restrictions? We are not even at the point of discussion where we have specified a form of datum with which to evaluate comparisons of these ever complex and at times disparate concerns.
+
+You, if you have an amateur understanding of health, community, civilization and its advancement, should be screaming at the top of your lungs, demanding an upgrade and refinement of a discourse which includes all of the conflicting voices, in the spirit of liberal democracy. Instead, you live in ignorance and fear, pretending to gain a complete perspective, but lazy enough to uncritically absorb all that is presented, or at least to be apathetic enough to repeat it without giving it due scrutiny. And now, charmingly enough, taking at face value any narrative which proclaims that there exist other perspectives, but that they are false and not to be observed by anyone civlized.
+
+For you to have faith that this is reliable, even in matters so conequential to coming generations, is an artifact of a lazy and cowardly disposition, which consumes the narrative as entertainment, and commits their own friends and kin to the judgments of others' theories.

new/Safety - What of it.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Safety - What of it?
+
+How do we suddenly have a strong understanding about safety for something just beginning to be used, and which was sought and introduced under the auspices of emergency?
+
+That there are any renowned professionals or experts at all who express disagreement at a time when such dissent is more greatly met with scorn and assassination of character should be sufficient for the lay person to stop and say "okay, perhps I do not understand what is being asked of me. It would be wise for me to wait and see, but it would be wiser for me to ask why this can be compelled, and why are we losing freedom and dignity?"
+
+And let's be clear, it isn't just indefensible to support the excluding of citizens from work over a vaccination status (especially if no court process was used to deliberate the evidence for and against such a mandate - and whether we have a istuation which can qualify a new standard to change our legal precedence), but to even stay silent and idle while 5, or 2, or 1, or 0.5% or even less of your fellow citizens are made to realize their very survival to become more difficult and to stand back while society moves forward with their genocide - there is no defending anyone who took this approach. To fail to demonstrate a minimum level of liberal compassion and awareness/insight into logically deducible potential of risk, not just for those being threatened with no food and money, but the threat for all types of people in a society where the state can make ever-more policies that round people down with greater dehumunization (ironically while trying to construct an aesthetic veil that claims a humanitarian justification), is both a failure or morality and a failure of intelligence.
+
+The path sought by such a society will be merciless and deaf. All must defuse if they are to be in a society where they can expect fairness and justice.

new/Squid Episode 4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# Player Quarters / Meal time
+Skipping back in line to get seconds
+they figh
+bottle of bubbly water gets broken
+you scrawny piece of shit, you should learn to share
+kills the man and then drinks from the broken glass
+calls for the guards, but they don't do anything.
+Gi-hun is the only one concerned. He implicates the gangster man. No one seems to react the way Gi-hun is expecting. Gi-hun locates the camera, and screams "we shouldn't be killing each other like this" to the man in the mask.
+Player 271 eliminated, more cash money! Chiptune music
+They walk out with a nicely finished coffin. The killer smiles.
+
+# Underground / basement
+Coffins
+Undercover cop removes his mask for a second. Another squid asks him why he isn't working, but then he recognizes the undercover cop as a  higehr ranked squid, and apologizes.
+
+# Surgery
+Doctor removing eye from body with open torso cavity and all organs exposed
+
+# Player quarters
+Gi-Hun wakes up old man. You can't go to sleep after lights out - gotta keep an eye out, it will be dangerous.
+Eyeing the gangster, who is eyeing the north korean girl. Gi Hun comes to her and asks her if she's okay. He offers protection by his bed. She says she doesn't trust anyone.
+You don't trust people because you can, you trust people because you don't have anybody else / any choice.
+
+# Basement
+Squid scanned as he comes into room. Why are you alone?
+Responds that other man didn't show up. I can't go underwater, it's too dangerous.
+Squid offers egg to the surgeon.
+"if i get eliminated, I can't do any of this"
+We gave you less food on purpose to make you fight each other - weed out the weaklings. We can't protect you when you get in there.
+Stick with the strongest, it's the only way you'll live.
+
+# Bathroom
+Opens eye and finds a hint in the middle of the yolk. He reads and eats.
+
+# Player quarters
+5 minutes to bed time. Surgeon man walking around looking for the strongest group. He comes to gangsters. Le me join.
+"Why should we - what are you good at?"
+You will need me, I'm a doctor.
+She makes fun of him
+Gangster man: Don't breathe or make a soudn. If I hear you breathe, I'll come after you.
+Doctor: I know what the next game is.
+
+# Lights out count down
+countdown, woman over speakers coordinating everyone with instructions to get into place
+Squids go down an elevator with guns. 30 seconds left to.
+Gangster has broken bottle in his hand.
+
+Squids watching everyone with infrared/heat camera.
+Gangster creeps up on the girl he cut in front of line. Starts stabbing her with the broken glass. Everyone screaming.
+Squids stand ready.
+Masked man: Do it.
+FULL BLACKOUT
+Chaos, people start having bes tipped over
+Someone has a knife. They are choking the north korean girl, gangster comes to her but she kicks him.
+She has the knife. She starts stabbing him, but he beats the knife out of her hand and chokes her again. She is losing consciousness, but kicks him in the balls just in the nick of time. Runs and grabs the knife. He comes around the corner again, but someone jumps on him from behind. Gangster stabs the man repeatedly in the back. He's looking for her again.
+GiHun jups out of bed. Fights with another guy who has a bar of metal. Hits him a few times, gets into a fight with someone else. Sang-Woo saves him
+
+They go to the old man's bed, but he's not in there. Where are you?
+another be gets thrown over and someone is being smothered with a pillow.
+ More people having their necks broken.
+
+ Guy beats woman to death with bar.
+
+Man in mask watches the mayhem.
+
+North Korean girl walks to Gi-Hun, but the gangster comes from behind and attacks.
+Showdown between the two groups.
+All of you stop this. I am scared (from the old man. We are all gonna die in here. Ever single one of us is going to die. I'm so scared. Stop thismadness)
+
+Masked man: End it.
+Squids come out and fire warning shots. The fighting stops.
+Frisk the gangster guy - they find a switchblade and confiscate it.
+They take note of all the eliminayed players.
+Undercover cop (square squid) ask Gi-Hun if a player (by name - Hwang InHo) is there. He responds that they don't use their real names.
+
+** Cremation scene**
+
+# Group aftermath
+Sitting with the old man now. They share names. Ali, Cho SangWoo, Gi Hun of Ssangddong? GiHun looks to North Korean girl, she is reluctant, Kang Say-Byeok. That' a pretty name.
+Ali asks the old man, who is a bit dazed - my name? oh.. it... He has to think. Old man doesn't look too great.
+
+# Gangsters
+Stitching up the gangster dude's leg. Doctor says he plans to get out of there with the money.
+If we kill everyone else, what happens to us? They won't let us take all that money.
+Gangster man: We'll eb able to try and kill them again in teh next game
+
+We got rid of quite a few . From 107 to 80.
+Babe instead of Obba?
+
+They flirt and decide to btoh go to the bathroom.
+
+# Bathroom
+Sex in the stall. Obba. You and that doctor ara ehiding something.
+Gangster says no and Lights up a smoke.
+She asks if he swears to stick together till the end. He says he promises. Together you and I will get out of here.
+She asks his name. Deok-Su . Jang Deok-su
+She takes a drag of his smoke.
+She says his name and says "if you betray me, I'll kill you".
+You're the reason that I think I might die tonight.
+He starts humping her again.
+
+# Squid going to bed.
+Undercover cop under bed sheet hears couhging noises as morse code, takes it down (notes on his phone).
+
+# Player quarters
+Home team gang is hanging out having just awoken. Old man was up all night. You don't really need that much sleep when you're old. He kept night watch.
+Third game will begin momentarily.
+THere is still blood on the ground.
+
+# Halls
+Squids moving through halls.
+Does the cop have two masks? Square and circle?
+He is wearing circle now.
+
+# White staircase
+Big white room with staircase. All the players walking along/through.
+Gangster says they need a team of 10 strong men. Gangster is asked about the girl. They wave to each other.
+
+Home team: They think about games involving 10 players. Tail tag? Our tem already has a girl and an older man.
+Sang-Woo is sexist!
+
+# Beginning area
+The North Korean girl walks off.
+Ali is missing two fingers - SangWoo tells him to hide his hand so they odn't perceive him as weaker.
+
+Teams are being formed, and everyone is ignoring the weak.
+
+Ali taps someon efrom behind and they seem to agree to be on the same team.
+Sang Woo asks a man to join, but the man says he can't join unless a his female associate (wife?) can also join. Rejected.
+North Korean girl walking around, notices another girl sitting on the steps.
+
+Girl who banged Gangster asks to join, and he says no. She says you can't do this. Gets on her knees and begs.
+Let's split up just for this game, we'll meet up for the next one.
+She tries to kiss him, and he throws her down. Stop calling me sweetie if you say it again I'll your throat?
+He says she was using him.
+She says he's dead and call shim by name. He says "I'm so scared"
+Bay-Yeok approaches gir on steps and asks her to come join their team.
+
+They have 9 players. SangWoo says everyone should have brought men. The girl says she'll lave, but Gi-Hun tells her to stay.
+The gangster's reject girl comes and joins them, sitting herself down while being chatty.
+The time runs out and the female voice over the intercom announces it.
+
+# Game room
+walls open up (white) and there is a room with black walls revealed behind (bright lights and 2 yellow construction-coloured platforms)
+
+Numbers will be drawn to see who plays first.
+Teams sit on the floor.
+Team one is chosen first. They stand.
+Another tema is drawn.
+Team 7 is chosen. They each have opposing towers.
+1 vs 7 (gangster team vs rando team)
+It's a tug of war from each tower, with a huge space between for them to fall.
+Gangster team wins, and the other team hangs onto the rope. A guillotine drops and cuts the rope. They have all fallen to their death.
+Player deaths announced. Some of them are still alive, but are put in the coffins just the same. (organs?)
+One squid marks the coffin with a cross of blood. Another squid watches (the cop?) Was probably marking the coffin because the live body can be sused for organ harvest.
+
+Next team selection. The home team is fighting against a team of all men.
+
+Home team and gangster team walk past each other as home team walks to their tower.
+
+# Underground
+Coffins being driven, cross clearly visible - raised blood
+
+# Tower elevator
+Old man says "don't loes you spirit. Tug of war nees more than just raw strength. You need a good straegy in a tug of war, combined with good team work, and you can win against stronger teams.
+You can barely stay standing, so shut up and keep your strength.
+Gi-Hun says we should listen tto he old man.
+WheN i was young I played and would alwyas win. Even if theer was a wrestler on the other team, and the odds were stuck against us. Listen closely, I'll tell you how my team and I were able to win, even when it seemed impossible.Having a good leader is important, the perso at the front, and keeps an eye on how the other tema is performing. Ther est of teh team focuses on the back of the leader's head and follows his lead. If leader seems weak, then the game is already over. You need to have someone strong and dependable like the anchor (Ali) at the back
+If one player is on the right, the next should be on the left, alternating.
+Both of your feet should face fowrad. Hold the rope in your armpit to use all your strength.
+Once the game begins, the first ten seconds you have eto hold your ground. Lean back, practically lie down. Push yor lower abdomen up tot he sky and throw your head back. Hold like this for ten seconds until the opposing team gets frustrated. They believed they were very much stronger. If you can hold out that long, you will be able to catch a moment where your opponents rhythm breaks.
+
+The otehr team falters, and they start pulling them back. Home tea is perfectly in sync. The leader of the otehr team is frantic and they manage to fight back. They pull it back to the mid point, the home team is now being pulled across.
+Crazy girl screams. They are getting close to losing.
+Sang Woo says "Take three steps when I signal"
+Move up or you'll die ont he count of three. One, two three -
+
+EPISODE OVER
+

new/Squid Game 5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
+# Tug of war towers
+
+## Conclusion of battle
+This causes the other team to fall, with Gi-Hun having fallen off but held up on the rope.
+
+With the other team on the ground, they start pulling with new momentum, and manage to pull the team's leader over the edge, with oen of their players still on the ground.
+
+The anchor was pivotal
+
+Guillotine drops, saving the winning team.
+Old man is laughing on the ground. He loves it, the rest of them look traumatized.
+
+## Floor
+Bodies being picked up in coffins.
+
+# Elevator
+Blood on GiHun's hand from dealing with the rope.
+
+New girl makes fun of person praying to God.
+Reminds them that they should be thanking the man with the idea to walk forward.
+
+Man responds saying that he's not praying for himself, but praying for the people we killed.
+
+She says it's bullshit, we killed them.
+She pretends to pray.
+Sae Byeok North Korean girl says for everyone to shut up
+
+They get off the elevator.
+
+Girl reminds Sae byeok that he had asked her to join them
+
+# Player quarters/arena
+
+Gangsters chilling at their beds as the home team walks in. They exchange menacing looks (gangster boss and the girl he ditched)
+
+# Cleanup
+Squids wheeling coffins in the basement and washing the blood on the asphalt by the towers.
+Coffin put in chute gets dropped in ostensibly for cremation
+One of the coffins was marked
+Cue to camera, it is removed, then the flames come
+Coffin dragged to a room, with a nicely wrapped bow and cross marked next to it
+Body is taken out - it's a man, they listen for his breath - he's not breathing, get a doctor
+
+# Player quarters / arena
+Girl asking old man how he knows all that stuff.
+She's excited and being annoying to all of them.
+Ali eventually makes fun of her for having cried and panicked when they
+She alls him an aillegal alien
+strange foreigner team 's more secure
+We need to restructure the team - who's the captain - brains, you've been captain? He says we're all equal.
+Oh that's great, an egalitarian society (she makes fun of them some more). But then she looks over to the gangster and their boss, whome she despises.
+She gives her name - minyeo
+Han mminyeo
+
+It's almost like they knew ahead of time (about the game needing mal eplayers for tug of war).
+Bedtime is announced in 30 minutes.
+Another fight could break out before night. We should make a plan.
+
+Our team is the weakest one - we're all sinners (the priest talking shit now)
+attacking them is our best option - man suggests
+Gi-Hun suggests: Before lights go out,let's create a barricade.
+10 minutes left
+
+Gangster is snickering as they begin to restructure their base.
+He comes over and says he appreciaes the work they're doing. Nice. Do you think these will do anything? We can get through easily.
+
+Gi-Hun responds: are you not worried about your scumbag teamates? Do you trust them? If I was there, once fighitng starts to happen, you'll be the first person I'd go for. You're the strongest person here.
+His teammates are practicing swords/bars/fighting as he comes back.
+He says for them to cut it out so they can rest.
+Asks about missing person, who apparently went to rest room.
+
+# House / bathroom
+He's taken through a special door by a squid. Control room with all the squids watching.
+He's going down the stairs, possibly to work on that body.
+
+# Player Quarters
+Planning on take turns keeping watch.
+Old man says he'll go first, but Sang Woo and Ali offer to do first watch. Old man and gi-Hun for second watch.
+41.6 billion on the screen
+Lights out
+
+# Night time
+We see the zoomout of a coffin finishing being cremated.
+Squids walking through the underground halls. Fun music again. The money glows.
+Ali offers some corn which he saved for Sang Woo, cuz Sang Woo saved his life
+they split it and have a chat.
+Ali is 33 and Sang Woo doesn't want to be called Sir anymore. Says to call me brother (older brother). Are you for real?
+He left pakistan with his wife and child, a 1 year old boy, and now he needs money.
+Ali asks what Sang Woo's reason for being here is.
+Sang Woo: the same as yours. For money.
+
+# Squids in the fun house
+Going down the stairs, a squid hides the camera feed to conceal what's happening
+I stopped the other guys from killing you since you saved my life during the last dive. We're even now. If you do that again, you're out.
+
+# Surgery
+Squids join a surgery in session. Chest caivty is completely open.
+We couldn't make the delivery last night. We can't let it slide. Then you deliver this yourself! Yout hink it's easy to find divers? Make sure tonight's delivery goes without a hitch!
+You aren't even done with one? The doctor is slow today, more so than suual.
+Hey quack, hurry up!
+
+Doc: You come over here and try doing this, I'm just barely escaping death every damn day.
+
+They tell him "that' swhy we give you extra food and tell you what the games are ahead of time"
+He drops a heart in a bag of clear fluid
+
+# Player quarters
+Gi-Hun wakes up from a nightmare or something.
+
+Back at the gangster base, the boss gets up and says he can't sleep. Tries to express camraderie with the guy keeping watch.
+
+# Surgery
+Incision being made across the flesh.
+Doctor argues with one of the squids about ruining the eyes from the last organ harvest.
+Other squid says they're running out of time.
+
+# layer Quarters
+Tear gas ropped on the ground. Riot cops beating each other, or riot cops beating down construction workers or someone with helmets.
+We see people falling down in teh haze. Gi-Hun is dreaming. He sees his partner having his head bashed in.
+It was just his imagination. Old man snaps him out of it and says I thought you were sleeping with your eyes open.
+"Thinking of the good old days. This time we went on strike. had a barricade. I used to mak eparts for cars. They fired a bunch of us all at once, so we striked."
+I couldn't afford to get fired ( had a kid on the way). Our bosses said we couldn't stray, we had no options. They ruined the company. It made me furious. And everyone same as now all kept watching in pairs that way no one could kick us out. And we were all so scared. Policy might come any second.
+Old man remembers this story . a car company with a huge strike - crazy story on the news. Someone died, right?
+Gi-Hun is remembering. Old man is sorry. "I don't know why I said all that". Consoling him, and then he turns and has pain in his head.
+Gi-Hun detects that the old man has a high temperature.
+
+# Surgery
+Squids talking about a drea he had last night with everyone getting killed. Wher ethey were taking organ s from a zombie?
+
+# Player Quarters
+Gi-Hun putting down the old man to rest. Sae Byeok hands him a bottle of water so he can wet a face cloth.
+
+# Surgery
+The squids start to suspect something weird about the undercover cop, because he doesn't remember something that went down in the surgery room (where a squid had to beat someone to death).
+Doctor gets pissed and screams for them to shut up so he can concentrate and get some work done.
+
+# Player Quarters
+Gi-Hun says they'll start the next game without the old man (when it comes).
+He goes and sits next to Sae Byeok and tells her to get some rest. She says she's already awake and they decided to do these watches in pairs.
+Gi-Hun thanks her for the bottle of water. She says he can pay her back tomorrow.
+
+# Post-surgery
+Last organ is being bagged up.
+The boat is already here.
+
+Doctor asks what the next game is, and squid says they haven't been told yet.
+Doctor is pissed and they assure him that they'll tell him before the game begins.
+He picks up a scalpel and holds it to a squid before the scene changes.
+
+# Kitchen in the dark
+Two squids with their bags move the fridge out of the way - it' a asecret passage - dug out cave that they have to crawl through.
+They pull on a chain to bring the refridgerator back into place, concealing their exit.
+They come up a ladder
+
+# Post-surgery conflict
+Doctor holds the scalpel to the squid. He insisits they make a call to find out what the next game is.
+The squids seem concerned the doctor will actually kill the squid.
+They agree and they say to get the keys out of his pockey.
+He attakcs the doctor, but the doctor starts stabbing him witht he scalpel.
+Other squid runs at the doctor and manages to hit him once, but he overcomes and gets out of there.
+
+# Squids coming down the ladder
+Squid tells the other undercover that there's a bomb in the passageway
+they come down and get into a room, dark, light turns on and a knife is put to the undercover cop's throat
+
+# Escape
+the doctor is running through the stairs, and a squid notices on camera. Ssibal.
+It's a funhouse/ mad house / going through dor after door, all confusing, seemingly neverending. He finds himself in the game room where they played the "honeycomb" toffee game.
+
+# Showdown
+His partner holds the knife to his throat. Your voice has changed. Show me your face.
+who are you?
+But the cop is holding a gun to the other squid's torso. Now show me yours.
+And it's...
+
+# Honeycomb game room
+Doctor holds a crowbar as another squid comes in with a gun. Squid reasons with him that it's too much of a mess if they don't clean this up. They can cremate the bodies of the soldiers - no one will care.
+
+# Underground cave with undercover
+Undercover is pissed because he wants his brother. Gets the other squid to start telling him some info
+
+# Doctor showdown
+The squid puts down the gun and takes off his mask.
+If you go back before your bedtime is up, you and I can live through this.
+Doc drops the crowbar. What do I have to do?
+Listen, doctor
+pulls ou ta knife, about to stab the doctor, but get sshot - by the Man witht he Mask. The controller man.
+
+# Undergroun cave
+Squid pleads, says he has all the information about everyone. Including the leader, who has a different mask from everyone else.
+The cop lowers the gun.
+
+Squid says we'll find your brother, i'll give you all the everything.. Cop brings up the gun and shoots him in the head - he falls back into the cave water.
+
+# Play room
+Masked man says I don't care what you do with the organs. But you ruined the most important piece of this. Equality.
+Everyone is equal while they play ghis game. Every player gets to play by the same rools. These people suffered with inequality and we're giving them oen last change to fight fair. You broke that principle.
+
+Shoots him in the head. (the squid)
+
+Masked man walks away, and the nanother squid shoots the doctor with a submachine gun.
+
+# Cop climbs up the ladder
+no mask, and the hatch at the top is locked.
+
+# Surgery room
+Masked man and others are looking at the scene.
+
+# Cop ladder
+he got through the ladder, and is coming into the Hotel lobby?
+
+# Masked man - cave
+They know there's another squid that they need to catch. He has likely killed this squid.
+Masked man pulls a bullet out of the head of the dead squid.
+
+# Player quarters
+a siren blows, and the lights turn on
+
+# Records room
+The undercover cop searches shelves of files and papers/records. He finds a binder with all the player records.
+There's binder after binder of player records for different years. Several per year.
+Squid Archives. 2020. He looks through and finds ...
+
+# Soldier quarter hall
+Squids search room after room for the missing squid.
+
+# Player quarters
+Squids come intot he player quarters searching around. All plaers ordered to center of room.
+Old man peed his pants. They pull off the blankets and seems embarrassed.
+
+# Records room
+He continues to look through. Sees a box with a ribbon.
+List of winners  2015 Hang Wo - his brother? - winner?
+2015 - list of players binder 1 - player 132
+In-Ho

new/Squid_Game_6.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# Squid Episode 6
+
+## Quarters
+What are you looking at (to the squid)
+
+Off into the FunHouse they go
+
+## Fun House
+Is what remains of those tainted the pure and fair ideology everything I have worked towards
+You must be guaranteed the same opportunity. Showing you fairness with these dead bodies
+
+## CGanbu
+## Records room
+cop is photographing more evidence.
+The phone rings just outside
+
+## Lobby
+Elevator opens and the masked man comes out.
+Disturbance has taken place, but is being addressed.
+VPs are coming. The game will begin on time.
+Cop overhears the front man speaking
+
+## White pregame area
+I'll kill that ? slut bitch?
+For this game you will be playing in teams of two. Find smoeone. When you agree, you shake hands.
+Gangster girl wants to pair up with Gi-Hun, but he is reluctant. Being skanky about it as she offers herself up to Sang-Woo.
+Noth Korean girl talks some sense into her when she's being annoying.
+
+It was Adam's rib he used to create woman. Religious bigot guy wants to play with a man.
+Gi-Hun tells Sae-Byeok not to walk off "what, you want to play with a girl?"
+Skanky girl says they'll regret it.
+
+Sang-Woo joins up with Ali, but Ali looks reluctant because of Gi-Hun, but he encourages them to join up.
+
+Gi-Hun still hasn't joined with anyone yet, in spite of several of the characters having joined together.
+Old man hands his jacket to Gi-Hun.
+
+Sae-Byeok and the new girl pair up.
+
+Math Teacher guy says there's an odd number of people with the cheater gone. Says they'll need to pair up. Gi-Hun hesitates and then ends up going to the old man, and offering his hand.
+
+The skanky girl seems to be all alone.
+She bothers everyone and gets thrown down by the gangsters.
+
+The squids approach her and drag her away.
+
+## Game town
+Mock neighbourhood with red walls in the background.
+
+Get to your designated positions.
+Sang-Woo gives words of encouragement / exchanges with Ali
+
+Take marbles from the squid in front of you.
+Ggangbu now. We are Ggangbo - a good friend who Ican trust a lot. Even with each otehr's marbles.
+They make it official with a pinky/thumb handshake. They are really excited now.
+
+Using your set of ten marbles, you will play the game of your choice with your partner. The player who manages to get all the marbles wins.
+They are playing against their partners
+They have 30 minutes to play.
+After 4 minutes Ali and SangWoo haven't started yet. Ali is holding them up, but SangWoo reasons that they'll both be dead if they don't play.
+Ali refuses.
+
+Sae Byeok playing tough, and wants to choose a game.
+
+Old man seems confused and is looking for his old house, but he might be pretending.
+
+Sang-Woo and Ali play a game of choosing even or odd marbles.
+
+Gangsters seem to be playing the same game.
+The Boss man's partner is giggling as he might win. He starts showing his contempt and willingness to antagonize.
+
+Old man acting confused and not wanting to play a game for "little children".
+
+The girls are talking. The new girl suggests playing an all-or-nothing game, instead of playing many rounds.
+Suggests they can wait until the end, talking until then (things they've never told anyone).
+
+Ali and SangWoo are playing the even/odd game. SangWoo shows his even pair, and Ali has the same. Ali wins the bet. He has most of the marbles.
+
+Gi-Hun tries to ask their squid about the outcome if the old man is too nuts to play.
+Gi-Hun yells at the old man saying they'll both be dead.
+Old man says don't yell at me. I'll play, but don't yell.
+
+Gangster boss is losing and suggests a new game, but the other guy doesn't want to change the game. Bossman reasons to the squid, who accepts the request. Their game doesn't seem to be equal, so far.
+
+SangWoo loses another marble and is down to only one more.
+
+"You asshole, you gotta be cheating. How are you winning every round? The odds are 50 50"
+He loses his cool and starts grabbing Ali by the collar. The squid draws his weapon and intervenes.
+
+The girls chat, with Sae Byeok revealing details about her escape from North Korea.
+
+The old man and Gi-Hun are playing the even/odd game.
+Old man wins 5 marbles.
+
+Gangsters have a new game, but the boss man's adversary doesn't seem phased.
+
+Girls talking about going to Jeju island.
+
+SangWoo and Ali are both crying now, because they each have a famly to save.
+Ali is willing to use a new plan to try and get out with Sang-Woo.
+
+Gi-Hun is down to his last marble after losing again.
+
+Gangsters are tossing marbles at a concave hole in the dirt. Gangster boss finally gets ahead.
+
+Girls are talking about the bodies they've seen. Dead bodies.
+New girl mentions she killed her dad because he beat them. And that he was a pastor and he would pray after having beaten them.
+
+People are dying regularly now.
+
+Old man seems to be playing dumb to try and keep Gi-Hun from losing his last marble.
+
+Sang-Woo seems convinced that they can both win the round. Let me give you this, so you won't have any guilt around my death.
+Ali entrusts Sang-Woo to hold his marbles.
+
+Gangsers playing, boss man almost gets it in, using his last marble. but it's not in, and the annoying gangster throws his last marble. It's going in but it moves into gangster boss' marble. Bossman has won. Piggy gangster runs off but gets cut off by a squid with a submachine gun. He is tkaen out.
+
+Old man and Gi-Hun aren't making much progress, as old man seems to be perpetually confused. He loses again - on purpose?
+
+Asks about today's date, because his son has a birthday soon.
+
+The girls are palying now. Finally. Whoever throws once over there and makes the shot that comes closest to the wall wins.
+New girl drops her marble, as though she's giving up. Sacrificng herself so North Korean girl can go to Jeje island.
+
+Sang-Woo Seems to have abandonned Ali. Ali checks his bag of marbles, and they're just rocks.
+He got played.
+Ali is dead. SangWoo hears the shot.
+New Girl says thanks for playing with me, and gets shot.
+
+Gi-Hun and the old man remain.
+The old man seems to have found the right house. This is it. My wife nad I had this one here. Raised my son right in there.
+Gi-Hun begs the old man, crying like a little bitch.
+Old man says let's play one more game and bet everything on it.
+Gi-Hun gets the last marble.
+Old man's name is Il-Han.

new/Squid_game_1-MoneyScene.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Squid Game Episode 1 - Money Scene
+## 1. Withdraw:
+$500 USD
+
+500,000 Won - **Oshib man won**
+
+## 2. Win (Races)
+$4,500 USD
+
+4,500,000 Won - **Sa baeg oshib man won**
+
+## 3. Tip
+$10 USD
+
+10,000 Won - **Man won**
+
+## 4. Loan Sharks
+$4,000 USD
+
+4,000,000 Won - **Sa baeg man won**
+
+## 5. Beg the sharks
+$10 USD
+
+10,000 Won - **Man won**
+
+## 6. Tip Girl
+$10 USD
+
+10,000 Won - **Man won**
+
+## 7. Ddakji 1 slap
+$100 USD
+
+100,000 Won - **Shib man won**
+
+## 8. Win (Ddakji)
+$100 USD
+
+100,000 Won - **Shib man won**
+
+## 9. Debt revealed
+### Loan Sharks
+$160,000 USD
+
+160,000,000 Won - **Il eog yuk cheon man won**
+
+### Bank
+$250,000 USD
+
+250,000,000 Won

new/Squid_game_1.md.backup

@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+# Squid Game - Episode 1
+Squid game was something they played
+In a court shaped like squid
+Rules:
+- two groups
+- offense / defense
+- run around within bounds
+- offense allowed to hop on one foot only
+- I f attacked cuts through waste of the squid, passing defense, they are given freedom to use both feet
+- Inspector Royale (upgrade status ?)
+- Must in order to win tap a small closed off space on the squid's head with your foot
+if someone pushes you outside of the squid boundary, you die
+
+Foreigner
+```
+Manse - Victory
+```
+
+Red Light Green Light
+
+Ga-Yeong's birthday
+tough times, not enough for good food, but she likes fried chicken
+No money for presents? Man is a chauffeur
+can't pay off loan interest
+Barely spending, conflict that they should at least spend more sometimes
+money all seems to come from mother
+
+secret card in a tin? Secret bank account, but can't access because invalid PIN
+Friend jokes that it was the woman who did it
+Mother celebrates **lunar** year date, confusion
+
+One last try for pin manages to get in
+Mother had changed pin to birthdate of grand daughter
+
+They withdrew 500 dollars (500,000 won) *1
+
+Men gambling on race tracks (Horses)
+Main character bet his money and lost
+Friend pissed that main character's prediction was wrong (you told me ...)
+Bets on 10th race, final bet
+Friend talks to main character who spazzes out upon touch, then places his bet (6 and 8 are the last to add)
+He seems to be about to win, THUNDERFLASH OUTRUNS 7, he's screaming for victory, and he WINS! 6 and 8 were the lucky winners
+
+June 8th is today, the day of his daughter's birthday
+
+*Four and a half million won payout?*
+```
+4.5k USD
+```
+
+Tips the girl, who grabs it awkwardly.
+
+Laughs about chicken, says they can get nicer.
+
+Suddenly a man calls to him, 3 men walking towards him, they chase after him, he likely owes them money. Runs into a girl, who looks to be a possible character. Knocks her drink (bubble tea). She keeps her head rather low, then notices he's being chased.
+They corner him at the urinals.
+
+Says he has 4 million won for them, but still owes them more.
+But the money is gone, the girl probably got it.
+
+He is hit once and bleeds, drinks the blood and says you must be eating well.
+
+Bowl in front of his face, going to make him bleed from the nose? knife inserted, but doesn't cut.
+
+Man withdraws because he was crying like a bitch.
+Coerces him to sign his name promising his kidneys.
+
+Blood thumbprint. 1 month to pay it off.
+
+Men have accent.
+
+He asks to borrow 10,000 more, but they refuse.
+
+He goes back to the girl he tipped at the races, and asks for the tip back because he's so broke. It was 10,000 won. ``` 10 bucks ```
+
+## Arcade
+Playing his money away to try and win a prize from a machine for his daughter, supposedly.
+
+Kid comes and helps him get the prize successfully. They celebrate.
+
+
+## Daughter street food
+It's late at night, though, and his daughter seems concerned about the blood on his face, and tardiness of their celebration.
+
+Daughter says "you can get into all the fights you want, bu try not to get hurt"
+
+dag bogi birthday food
+ddeoggboggi
+Tteokbokki
+
+Mom says it's junk food.
+
+Gives the present to his daughter, and it's a box with a gun in it.
+Even women go to war these days. Wants her to get use dto the gun, which is actually a lighter.
+
+Daughter says mom would be mad, but doesn't seem upset. Says not to use it for smoking. She smells smoke.
+
+Promises he'll get her a great present next year.
+
+She wants to say something, but then says nothing
+
+## Mom
+Mom is mad that he's bringing her back so late.
+
+Sleeping on the back
+
+## Subway station
+Misses what seems to be the last subway ride home.
+
+Sits and a man in a nice suit sits next to him. Starts conversation "Can I talk to you?"
+Offers him a great opportunity. Man is resistant.
+Offers again, a game, opens suitcase with neatly stacked big bills.
+Ddakji is the game. A few rounds and each time he wins a round 100,000 won.
+
+Hit a ddakji? And he can be first to play.
+
+He chooses to be blue.
+
+He loses, but can't pay money. Slaps him for 100,000.
+Wants to play another round, and keeps getting slapped.
+
+```
+How do we make ddakji / play
+```
+
+He keeps losing and getting slapped. He never flips it?
+
+He finally flips it, it flips many times, and he finally wins. He's ecstatic.
+
+He goes to slap the man, who blocks him, and then brings him to his senses cuz he was only interested in being able to slap the man back, by that point.
+
+He's counting his money as the next train goesby.
+
+Man stands up and offers
+Earlier you signed away your physical rights. The man knows everything about him. Company laid him off, opened chicken shop, chauffeur now, divorced 3 years, 10 years daughter,
+160,000,000 won to loan sharks
+160k
+He owes 250 more to the bank
+250k
+410k total
+
+The man gives him a card, says we don't have many spots left. Think about it.
+
+010-034 on the card
+
+## Street market
+Fish chopped
+Woman accuses him of gambling, cuz he's giddy about money. Says he earned it legitimately.
+Woman's son is successful. Seems to be a friend of this man, who has ruined his life. Her son went to school.
+He didn't pay enough (12,000 won) he only gave 10
+
+Gives fish to a little cat.
+
+## Home
+Eating cooked fish. Counting money.
+Mom concerned about his face. He downplays it. She thinks money stolen. He says he earned it, worked all day, with his hands and face.
+Did you get fried chicken? He says he got her dinner and a present.
+
+She asks if anything "came up". Hi daughter Gayoung and ex wife and new husband all going to America.
+That's why she had something to say, but she didn't want to ruin the money.
+
+`Migug` -> Mi beautiful country
+
+Mother wants him to get his daughter (her granddaughter) to stay there. She's more upset than him, it seems.
+Father needs to show financial support to get custody, legally.
+Forget to speak Korean?
+Mother asks him if he can keep going without his daughter.
+
+## Bed
+Looking at photos of daughter.
+He is restless, can't sleep, so picks up card and calls.
+"To participate in game state your name and birthday"
+
+## Outside street/building
+Van/Bus comes by
+`Red Light, Green light` is the password
+```mugumhoagochi pyeosseumnida Flower has bloomed```
+
+
+He gets in and passengers all asleep. Gas flows in and he is rendered unconscious. Driver in a gas mask and red jumpsuit.
+
+
+## Cell / Bed
+*Classical music playing*
+Wakes up, dressed in jump suit as everyone else
+
+Red jump suit men in control room, with large screens
+Man / leader comes in wearing grey with mask
+
+Asks older looking gentleman who is counting everyone, doesn't want to be disturbed.
+But the board shows 456 players. Main character is the 456th. Man says he's counting to avoid dementia.
+Says he doesn't have much time left, doctor found lump in his head.
+
+Fight breaking out? Man hits a girl, and her mouth is bleeding.
+
+You could always take a hit, I took care of you,. Probably his pimp or something. She says she went "independent". He tries to punch her and then throws her and kicks her.
+
+Says she's from North Korea.
+
+The main character comes and grabs her, asking for his money. The pimp kicks him down.
+
+Pimp accuses them of having a scam. Main character alleges she was acting at pimp's behest.
+
+**BUZZER RINGS**
+
+Men in pink jumpsuits come out.
+Extending a heartfelt welcome,
+6 games over 6 days
+Handsome cash prize. People who win all 6 will win.
+
+Man complains about their treatment
+
+Jumpsuit guy says we took those as precautions for privacy.
+
+Ensures game fairness and confidentiality.
+
+Other man complains that they were kidnapped and tricked. Says that they need more.
+
+They show video of that man playing the same slapping game, andshows that he owes a huge amount of money.
+Everyone there owes lots of money, they're all in a situation where they have no choice but to compete.
+You all have debts that you can't pay.
+You volunteered by your own free will. It's one last chance to choose. Go back to old depressing lives, or take the opportunity. SEIZE the opportunity here.
+
+Indian man asks what games are we playing?
+Jumpsuit says we can't give any of that information.
+
+Main character _asks how much money_
+
+Big clear plastic container with golden light comes down. It's empty but will be filled with money, supposedly.
+
+They give one chance to opt out of the game. No one seems to go for it. They all sign contracts:
+- You cannot stop playing
+- If you refuse to play, you will be eliminated
+- Games may be determined if the majority agrees
+
+He signs.
+## Bright coloured house
+Danube music playing
+Walking in hall
+They all enter into the weird brightly coloured house. Have their photos taken with smiley face screen asking them to smile. In english.
+
+Main character has big smile. Bigger than his peers.
+
+Masked man in control room is watching.
+
+They all walk up winding staircases with fuschia, pink, yellow, light green/yellow, bright yellow
+
+Masked man from control room into golden elevator. Eye at top of elevator scans him.
+
+## Outside
+All players come out from 3 archways into an open area, seemingly outdoors but with wallpaper with blue skies and corn fields/trees. Dirt evenly spread on the ground. Bright light as though outside.
+
+The main character sees Sang Woo and asks him what happened, I talked to your mom she said you're on a business trip.
+Turns out he's also in debt.
+Sang Woo doesn't want to socialize, and says we need to keep in our lines.
+
+## Vault/Hotel
+Masked man answers the phone> "Front Man speaking" he announces the games have begun
+Phone was old school winding cord / circular dialing control
+He watches on a screen with a golden chandelier above him.
+
+
+## Back outside
+You can see the real sky above the walls of the giant outdoor enclosure. Birds flying.
+
+On other side of field is a tree with a child doll robot(large). She gives the rules.
+
+### The rules spoken from doll
+
+You can move forward when it shouts green light. If you move after it says gred light, you will be eliminated.
+
+If movement is detected, you wil lbe eliminated.
+
+2 Players making bets with each other
+
+Those players who cross the liine without being eliminated will pass this round.
+
+Child robot detects cheaters running too soon, and the man gets shot.
+Players realize this is for real.
+
+She continues with green light.
+
+The guy who bet against him moves when he spits up blood, and gets shot.
+People panic an start running, they all get shot
+Doll camera eyes seem very accurate and quick.
+Everyone'sgetting shot now, very few aren't trying to run, because of the mass panic.
+
+Guns are sticking out from the wals
+
+Masked man pours a drink on ice. He has his mask off now.
+
+Only about 20-30% left at most. Maybe even less.
+
+Bot repeats the rules a few more times. Resumes game.
+
+Old man is doing realy well, getting way ahead and walkign quickly.
+They do much better, with the odd one getting shot on red light.
+
+Main character is laying on the gorund all this time, and his frien dtalks to him, risking bieing shot, to convince him to move forward.
+
+Next iteration 2 get shot. Friend reminds him again. He gets up at the next green light.
+
+Pimp is also still alive, with the girl/associate behind him.
+
+Old man gets shot?
+
+Pimp says he can hear her behind him. She pulls pimp down from his hair, he falls on his ass.
+
+Main character is trying to move forward but someone already shot grabs his leg, asking for help.
+
+He rips his leg free and then the man gets shot again.
+
+Fly me to the moon plays, with a weird toy robot band.
+
+Front man is watching still, enjoying the music and drink on teh last minute of play.
+
+Old man is still alive. An dseems to be having a very good time at the front.
+
+People are sprinting forward on each iteration now, almost at the line.
+
+They finally get across the line, the girl, the pimp, the old man, the friend of the main character, and then the main character is still behind the line, with almost no time left.
+Friend looks at him, there's another iteration and main character trips over a body, but is kept from falling by the indian man, saving his life. They barely make it through, sprinting across at the last second.
+
+All remaining players behind the line are shot.
+
+Pimp has a tough smile, everyone else seems distraught.
+
+## Final scene
+Zoom out, they're on a tropical island in the middle of the ocean? The arena roof closes and is covered with camouflage.
+

new/Squid_game_2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+# Squid Game 2 - Hell
+
+# Underground basement
+Man grunting, still alive in box. They nail it shut (nail gun)
+
+# Cells
+Everyone collecting themselves and resting. Very quiet, reflecting on traumatic events.
+
+# Pink men came out
+Congratulate them, they're moving on
+Number of players changes
+from 456 to 201 - 255 dead
+Woman crying hysterically apologizing and asking for mercy, she has a child, hasn't even named
+Another woman joins her, saying she'll find a way to pay back
+Another woman
+now several men too
+
+Pink men claim they're not trying to hurt htem, but giving them a chance.
+Masked manager calls it a game
+
+People just want to go and start chanting together.
+Pink man reminds that they cannot stop.
+Player mentions police possibly discovering them because they are missed.
+
+Pink man warning shot, others take aim
+
+COnsent form clause 2 - player who refuses to play will be eliminated
+Clause 3 says they can democratically revoke consent
+Manager confirms
+Man suggests they do the vote.
+Pink manager permits.
+
+They announce prize money before the vote. Money drops into the golden-lit hanging bubble. Everyone is mesmerized by the money (and the music - us) (chiptune music)
+25,000,000,000 25.5 billion won prize money has been accumulated so far 100,000,000 won per player killed (255 were killed)
+
+Even the main character's friend looks intrigued by the money. They all look intrigued.
+
+Pink manager exlpains the money will go to the family of the dead (if they choose to leave)
+45.6 billion won
+If we complete all 6 games, we win total prize money
+
+## Vote
+Players are given a control to vote Green O and Red X, voting done by reverse numbers, main character is FIRST!
+
+he votes X to leave
+
+greyish haired woman comes, votes to play
+
+close vote until
+
+Main character's friend Sang-woo votes to PLAY! breaking the even score 51 over 50
+
+The woman who had been crying is now rationalizing why they shoudl stay inside and play (it's just as bad  out there)
+
+The players argue amongst themselves
+They fight - pink men point MP5 submachine gun at them.
+
+Indian dude votes X
+Gangster dude pressed X to leave
+North Korean girl votes O to play
+
+it remains tight 98 99
+100 100
+One vote remains. it is the old man. Of course he wants to kill everyone, this crazy old man.
+
+The main chracter recalls the old man speaking of a tumour in his head, and him not having much time to live. He pauses between both buttons, hand quivering. He votes X to leave
+
+The majority of players have voted to terminate the game, the game is terminated.
+
+Some players are restless and want to keep playing. Asking to continue the game.
+
+The masked ma in the ocntrol room watches.
+
+## Drop Off
+Van drives, throwing people out with wrists and eyes bound.
+Main character is thrown otu with a woman, both i n underwear (North Korean)
+He helps her get loose, and then she just walks off without helping him.
+
+She ignores him and starts walking away. She finally looks back, and says he's going to try to get his money from her.
+They negotiate some more, and she pulls out a knife and cuts him free.
+
+As soon as his hands are free, he hops at her with tied feet asking for his oney.
+She walks away while he yells.
+
+## Other players dropped off
+Indian man and Sang-woo are speaking. Indian: where are we?
+SangWoo: center of Seoul
+Indian: asks to borrow phone to make a call
+
+2000 won to charge his phone
+
+Cyber police subpoena has been sent
+SangWoo, call us now and we won't sue
+ Loans are you... are to attend at once
+
+Indian man eating, SangWoo gives him hpone to use. He's very grateful
+
+
+SangWoo asks Indian dude if he has money for the bus. He doesn't.
+SangWoo gives him money. Indian dude refuses, but SangWoo insists.
+
+Sajang-nim (Sir? CEO)
+SagngWoo is bothered and asks not to be called that.
+Indian dude very grateful as SangWoo walks off
+
+## Police Station
+Main character is telling crazy story of what happened, more than 200 dead, Red Light Green Light, Kids The ydon't believe him.
+They make fun of him.
+He mentions tens of billions of won.
+Man at desk summarizes story accurately.
+They question his sanity and suggest medical help. He yells at them and throws down the Squid Game business card he got from the dude he played ddakji with.
+
+Police calls the number, and a woman picks up. Asks to play those games.
+The woman sounds confused. Who the heck are you calling me with this weird shit at this time.
+
+## Outside
+The man yells at police while he walks out from the station. He calls a number and finds that the number does not exist/is out of service/. (the last number on his phone - 010-034)
+
+## Back in police
+Gangster looking dudes come in to make an inquiry, see the card on the desk
+
+## Home
+Main character is back in his apartment. Continues calling number without success.
+Place is a mess
+
+## Street market
+Main character finsd Sang-Woo. They drink coffees together.
+Main characfter reassuring Sang-Woo that he is intelligent and will be successful no matter what. He owes 6,000,000,000 6 billion won (main character had thought it was only 0.6billion  600,000,000)
+
+All those stocks? It wasn't just stocks. Futures too.
+Main character doesn't even know what a future is.
+SangWoo says he used his own mother's house as collateral. Put everything on the line. Can't claim bankruptcy.
+
+Main character gets a call - from the emergency center
+
+## Hospital
+His mom has an infection on her foot. It might have to be amputated, if not treated.
+
+## Evening leaving hospital
+Say I stay here and they treat me, who will pay the rent?
+He even got rid of insurance, there's no assistance for her. She says she's too tired to go on, let's end this.
+He says he'll get all the money she needs, as she walks/hobbles off.
+
+## Cop driving
+Heading to "his" apartment. I'm sure he's fine. Says he is a police officer. His brother is missing.
+
+## Building
+Land lord helps him into the apartment. She asks if he can pay the rent. Says he will pay after he looks inside.
+GoShiWon
+dead fish in the fish tank. (gold fish)
+Books and a box with the squid game card inside. Remembers having seen the same card at the police station
+
+## Park
+North Korean girl with younger boy who has a bandaid on his face. He's upset and not talking to her.
+Siblings.  All the kids tol d me you lied. Says he is abandonned / would be abandonned.
+She reassures him that mom and dad will return. They'll all live together again.
+
+He said she lied but she asks for confirmation that she always keeps her word, and he nods. Weird.
+
+## Police Station
+Cop asking desk man about the guy who was in there (main character). Desk cop tries to remember the guy's name - they consult one another and come up with the name Seong Gi-hun who lives in Ssangmun-dong.
+Asks for the address.
+
+## Shop/Factory
+Indian walks into boss' office and asks owner to pay for wages owed. Can't even afford for doctor.
+Boss says he's also broke and needs a doctor. He has money on the table which th eIndian dude just barely sees. He tries to walk off with th emoney.
+Indian dude rabs him and they start fighting.
+Hand gets stuck in machine. Crushed.
+envelope of money falls. Is it the one from the main character?
+Indian dude grabs it and runs out
+
+## Tea
+Southern Men and Northern Women? Arranged marriage business?
+
+North Korean girl talking to some guy pouring tea. Asking about a broker who fled with money.
+Says many were victims of him including someone who chased after im to Ddangdon and got caught by chinese police and was dragged back to North Korea.
+
+Asks what her options are, but he says that she needs to "start over again" with a new broker (someone who can broker a deal to try and retrieve her remaining family members from North Korea)
+
+The man says it will cost at least 40,000,000, and that's only to get them into China. She responds to this by throwing hot tea in his face and then, while he's writhing in pain, puts a knife to his throat. He pleads that he is ignorant and innocent, so she says she'll get him the money while threatening him. It appears she may have robbed him at the same time.
+
+## Fish Market
+Woman talking to SangWoo. Says he won't be coming back soon.
+He's depressed as she says she loves him and hangs up to serve a customer for squid.
+
+She boasts about her son to the customer as police detectives interrupt their chat to ask her questions about her son, claiming they have a warrant for his arrest. They mention this while disclosing details of the charges, potentially violating his right to privacy.
+
+The customer/friend observes all of this, to SangWoo's mother's embarrassment.
+
+
+## Bathtub
+SangWoo drinks SoJu and tries to relax, as he lays fully-clothed in the tube. The doorbell rings many times.
+
+He answers the door soaking wet/barefoot. No one answers verbally, but someone pushes the Squid Game business card under the door. SangWoo is intrigued.
+
+## Ali's home
+Ali brings money to his wife and child, in the envelope with blood on it. He says she has to go and that he'll join her later.
+
+## Outside Bar
+Main character asks his friend for cash, even just for a month, but his friend, who owns a bar, is too broke. Main character keeps asking, but friend's wife comes out and yells at him. Tells him it's rude for him to be smoking outside the building.
+
+## Outside Night Shop
+Drinking Soju, the main character is suddenly met with the old man (crazy old man with brain tumour). Old man sits down with him to have a drink, responding to the main character's courtesy.
+
+Old man claims it was destiny. Player456 pours him a drink, and they begin. No food, but old man pulls out Ramen, which they eat raw while drinking.
+
+Old man discloses that he has decided to go back to the game. He explains that his time is almost out, and that he doesn't want to sit around and wait to die. Says "what they say is true, out here the torture is WORSE".
+
+456 takes a drink.
+
+## Fair
+Gangster character is waiting for man who runs up to him with an umbrella, giving excuses as to why he is late. Man is delivering money, to pay back loan, but it's not the full amount. More excuses. The man is his associate/employee
+
+Gangster wants to go to man's car.
+
+## Bridge/Road
+They are parked on the side of the road. Gangster is showing him the Squid Game card. Gives details of the operation inside, how many are armed, how much money there is, etc...
+"10s of billions of won, so long as we hit them with everything we got". No more deaing with stupid drunks at bars, etc.
+
+Associate reminds Gangster character that he had been exiled / put into hiding because he had made the "big boss" angry. Says that they wouldn't be able to convince other gangsters to help.
+
+Gangster character says they need to do it themselves so he can get money to pay the big boss. back.

new/Sunetra_herd_immunity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+
+This is an example of the Pfizer vaccine actually showing major reductions in our T-cells after you get vaccinated. Study published in Nature in 2020 using the Pfizer vaccine, and you can see here the count of the lymphocytes, the T-cells, actually goes down following the initial injection with a Pfizer vaccine. Now it doesn't go down as much later on, but it certainly doesn't go up. This is a Rhesus monkey study using the Moderna vaccine, and what this study clearly showed, it was published in NEJM when they looked at the memory CD-4 cells, the T-helper 2 response, there is no T-helper 2 cell response using the Moderna vaccine. And so there is no complete innate response, and these cells are the ones that are critical for antibody production.
+
+
+***********
+
+Herd immunity probably takes the prize for being the most misunderstood term of 2020, it is also widely misused to mean the willful culling of vulnerable people in a population during an epidemic.
+
+The way to understand herd immunity is by recognizing that your risk of infection depends very much on how many people around you are already immune. When a virus survives in a population, it starts to spread very quickly, because people are not immune, so everyone is available for infection.
+
+But as it spreads, it limits its own possibilities, because people stop being immune, putting up a barrier to its spread. Eventually it settles to a level that we call an endemic equilibrium.
+
+So it moves from being epidemic, to being endemic, that is to say that it persists at a stable level, fluctuating around on such factors as seasonality. That is exactly how we live with the other coronaviruses.
+
+So there'll always be an increase in cases around winter, and then they drop off again in the summer. This is also true of influenza, pneumoccocal pneumonia, a whole range of other respiratory infectious diseases.
+
+So there are 4 other coronaviruses that we currentlly live with, that are all circulating in th epopulation. And the reason you don't hear about them is because there is herd immunity to each one of them, which keeps the risks of being infected very low.
+
+Immunity to these current viruses is established upon infection. but it doesn't last forever. So after a while you become infected again, you are re-infected.
+
+Our relationship with these coronaviruses is one of repeated re-infected. But re-infection doesn't carry with it a significant threat of disease or death.
+
+So this is a slightly different situation to measles, where you become infected and remain immune for life.
+As you get older you suffer what we call immune sunaissance, which is that your immune system doesn't work as well as it used to. And this is why the elderly are particularly vulnerable to disease and death.
+
+Every year a number of elderly people do die of these other coronaviruses, but the risk of coronavirus infection among the elderly is kept low by herd immunity.
+
+Well there's no reason to believe that this novel Coronavirus is more virulent, intrisically, than the other seasonal coronaviruses, as we call them. The difference is that when this new coronavirus arrived, it encountered a population where there was no immunity to this new vrus, other than that which accumulates from exposure to the other coronaviruses already in circulation.
+
+Given how the other coronaviruses behave in human populations, it is reasonable to assume that this novel coronavirus will also settle down to that endemic equilibrium with a risk of infection in the vulnerable population is of the same level that we accept for all the other coronaviruses.
+
+So people have questioned the idea whether herd immunity can be established to the new virus, for a number of reasons. First of all there was a question surrounding whether we wuold develop immunity at all to this virus. Not surprisingly we have learned that we do develop strong protective immune responses just as we do to all the other coronaviruses.
+
+So we know that immunity is established upon infection, what we don't know is how long it lasts. If we go by the other coronaviruses, it is not going to be life-long. But this does not mean that you cannot established herd immunity.
+
+Indeed, we know that we have herd immunity to all these other viruses. How is that possible?
+
+The rate of loss of immunity doesn't really affect the level of immunity that's maintained in the population.
+
+In an endemic state, the loss, the rate at which people lose immunity is matched by the rate at which people gain immunity. It's a bit like water flowing into a system. To start with, when you have an empty system, the water gushes in, but as the system fills up, the rate at which water pours in slows down. So the build-up of immunity in the population is like the filling up of the system.
+
+Now, once the system fills up, it will remain at that level, even though some water might leak away from it, because it will be replnished by water coming into it. It could leak away very slowly, as it does for measles, because immunity is life-long, and replenished very slowly by people being born and getting measles. Or it could leak away very quickly as it does for the coronaviruses, but then it is replnished also very quickly by reinfection, so you end up maintaining this level of water in the system, or population-level immunity, or herd immunity, whether or not the leakage from the system is slow or fast.
+

new/Trans_critiques_religious_covidism_amongst_right.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Trans-left critiques right-wing covidists
+A MtoF trans person was talking about how the COVID era has lead to exacerbation of religious behaviour among the "right wing", and that this takes the form of those who see themselves as being in the right to refuse the vaccine, simply because they are good people. They go on to explain that these "right wingers" believe that that the fact of them being good people means that they won't become infected with COVID, or suffer disease.
+
+this is obviously a very brittle argument all on its own, because it ignores huge swathes of "right-wing" people who have
+1. taken the vaccine
+2. had COVID and recovered
+3. expressed that they do not expect that they won't get COVID
+
+The trans person then, in what seems to be a moment of self-awareness, goes on to say that:
+"religious thinking also occurs on the left", and that left see themselves as doing "all the right things" which might also cause them to believe they won't get covid, but that this is not a good way of thinking about it, because they might still get covid and that the reason they'll get covid is because of "right-wing" antimaskers who contaminate their environment and infect them.
+
+It's insane to see the lack of self-awareness here, because they are attempting to demonstrate awarenesss and reflection by humbly admitting that they are liable to also fall into a pattern of "religious" thinking, by saying that they might expect to not get COVID because they've done all the RIGHT/MORAL/HOLY things (keep sanitizing!!) which should keep them safe from the EVIL infection, and that the pitfall of this "religious mindset" is that they'll be off-guard if and when they actually catch COVID.
+
+They don't mention at all the fact that their religious mindset has lead them to assume that the reason their "holy acts" fail is because of the inherent evil of the "right wingers" who cause them to be contaminated with the devil's disease.
+
+It's probably impossible to avoid dogmatic thinking while also assuming that there is an "other" who, by definition of their identity, will cause you harm. I do this too.

new/Universal Language of Objectivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Being under mind control can be something so subtle. Even some mild gut inflammation will put you in a different state of mind, change your available disposition of physical movement, affect your mood, etc. You can help someone solve many of their difficulties by simply resetting their gut state, granting them what appears as a clean slate with which to think again. These things are always relative, of course, with an infinite set of imposed biasing factors borne of being bound to a physical framework, but it just serves as a good example that most anyone can relate to.
+
+In the case of social media, having the right stream of advertisements or the right sequence of flashed social utterances can lead someone on a detailed and semantically complete journey of thoughts with suggestions, evidence and conclusions all yielded through it, leaving them in a state of mind that will help potentiate a particular decision or viewpoint. These sorts of operations are virtually costless, and the efficacy of them are continuously learned from and improved upon with little to no human intervention.
+
+Neurologically speaking, there's really no limit as to how many planned steps of stimuli that can be intelligently chained and branched such as to guide not only a human's mood and opinion, but even their physical movement. It needn't be the sort of "mind control" one imagines from a cartoon where some character is put into a zombie-state and idles at-the-ready, awaiting a command. Instead, AI can continuously provide a stream of impulses such that every requirement to satisfy both the organism's own belief of their possessing autonomy in conjunction with faultless congruence to the requested directives of some governing endpoint are perfectly accounted for. With no computational limits, access to a deep range of neurological dynamic expression and a wealth of sociocultural artifacts through which to express suggestion, it must already be the case that the technology exists, without ANY need for pharmaceutical intervention, to control people's minds.
+
+And so where do we go from there? How do we reclaim the mind? We might say that to fight back is futile, because we can never be certain whether or not we are being controlled or if we are acting at the behest of thoughts and beliefs that were veritably and authentically instantiated from within ourselves. It's likely that this is where certain practices must be adopted and regularly performed, such as meditation and use of psychedelics. Practices that require high threshold and complex activation of one's capacity for motor recruitment might also be a tool through which to retain one's autonomy, at least in part. The fact of us having these conversations might seem daunting and make us wonder if ever we've been autonomous, and whether we'd ever be able to reclaim such autonomy in the face of these challenges. The fact of the matter is that there is really no choice but to contend with it.
+
+If you fear death, you fear some combination of physical discomfort or the potential of having to realize that no desire of yours can ever be fulfilled, and no thought of yours can ever be followed upon. It grows even more strongly, because it brings into question if there is any purpose for reality whatsoever. Why have a frame of perception at all if you are not able to enact any change in the environment from your free will. If none of your ideas are consequential, and if your physical form is nothing but a plaything for other mechanisms which needn't take into account any consideration for your state of being, beyond, perhaps, its capacity to be an extended implement of that said mechanism, then it is a cruel existence indeed.
+
+The fact of reality existing purely as a form of conscious suffering, as some sort of lesson as to why reality should not actually be, is an engaged challenge for all humans of eternity, but we've at least had some means of fighting back against some of the implications, if even simply by being able to look one another in the eyes, acknowledge some authentic understanding of our both being present, and thus reinforcing a belief or understanding that, indeed, we are here, we are real, and we express power of mind. The notion that this might all be an illusion is not something new, but the concept of it being illusory may have previously been limited to the conception of a reality where the aspects of its composition that are observable are simply not available to us, and this was something we already know from experience based on physical barriers, questions as to the physics of our reality, and what not. To take this a step further to the point of saying that, regardless of whether or not we are, at some level, a semantically distinct structure with some operational capacity and a means of directing said capacity, none of the expressed behaviour or perception is anything more than that overarching mechanism, and any incidental perception on your part, or a belief in having a perception, is simply a characteristic of the framework itself, and is not borne of any purpose or guiding factor that may rationalize the need for your being able to perceive. If it's simply an arbitrary property of the process, that a perceptual frame was instantiated and experienced, then the suffering is arbitrary, and the only possible conclusion could be that there needn't be a purpose, and thus it shouldn't be in the first place.
+
+A dark realization, but must we end it there?

new/Vagabond_1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Vagabond
+
+Childre of any age will likely be vaccinated
+
+Children though they can get infected with COVID-19, they are at much lower risj of getting severe disease compared to older adults
+THe risk level that they face from Covid-19 is statistically 0. To force an experimental investigation agent upon children when we do not have the long term effects there are so many unknowns, upon children, who are at risk effecively zero risk for fataility from this disease, is a ridiculous proposition, and yet they are moving forward, and we have to be particularly sensitive with children because they are not just small adults
+
+It is not necessary that children must get the vaccine before they can go back to school
+
+According to Dr. Fauci, they are going to start vaccinating the 12-15 year olds as soon as they come back in Fall
+
+Wlk us through your thoughts about this vaccine for adolescents and school-aged children
+
+To reiterate, I'm of the industry my whole career, but I'm pro vaccine safety, and these covid vaccines are not safe, youn ghpeople are not susceptible to covid-19, if they acquire the virus they usually have no symptoms and they shrug it off very easily. It's a crazy thing to vaccinate them with something that is 50 times more likely to kill them than the virus itself.
+
+
+Hypothesis on Natural Immunity
+
+Suneel Dahnd
+
+Scientific hypothesis on natural immunity following COVID infection
+
+At the end of the week the CDC published a tweet saying Among adults hospitalized with symptoms similar to COVID-19, unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 recently were 5 times more likely to test positive than people who ewre recently fully-vaccinated.
+
+Now the study that they are referring to has some very obvious flaws in its design. A very oddly produced study. But rather than tell you what my thoughts are, I want to share with you some responses from the medical community.
+
+Martin Kulldorff:
+This study has a major statistical flaw and the 5x conclusion is wrong. It implicitly assumes that hospitalized respiratory patients are repsentative of the population, which they are not.
+When you get in the weeds on this, you read the details and find out that this study is represented by a grand-total of 89 reinfected hospitalized patients from January-September 2021 over 187 hospitals. That's the basis in which they're making this claim.
+
+Just the wording of this tweet and the imgae screams intentionally misleading. When the CDC intentionally misleads about natural immunity in this context, it's also disseminating vaccine misinformation at the same time. Does this infrmation about vaccines help vaccines.
+
+Cali MD:
+As I read the CDC's latest study on natural immunity yesterday, I felt I was no longer reading a scientific paper, but a chapter out of Alice in Wonderland. The CDC just squandered its last shred of credibility.
+
+Responses of physician colleagues:
+
+CDC way to get more people vax, but this daya is waaay misleading.
+They are purposely just grabbing the headline to sway more vaccination. Don't use flawed data to use it as fact.
+
+I am dumbfounded by how political CDC is and how far they go to distort science. Their study is completely bogus as they aren't comparing known covid illness to known covid illness. Completely contrary to the Israeli study.
+
+Another colleague:
+Well-respected specialist physician in the UK who also has a PhD in research, we sometimes don't agree on diffeent matters and we go back and forth, he's a good friend.
+
+How misleading are the CDC? Have you read the actual report? They categorize anyone with cold/flu symptoms irrespective of whether they test positive as a reinfection/breakthrough case.
+
+You are supposd to represent some of the best minds in the nation, som eof the best doctors and scientists, nad if you're going to put forward policy proposals, at least back them up with studies that are strong and robust.
+
+The end of teh publication -> conflicts of interest. Several of them have openly declared conflicts of interst, including those who have received financial support from Pfizer and Astrazeneca.

new/Who_is_Left_or_Right.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Whos Is Left or Right?
+
+We ran into this same discussion about left and right time and time again, because we enjoy labeling the participants of society in such a way where a politically implement can manipulate the classification of persons in order to navigate towards its goals.
+
+This political implement is extended not from a particular group, but from thought itself.
+
+From systems of values and the expressions thereof, through biological means, the populace, the individuals themselves, reflect and radiate these values outward into the culture of society.
+
+We have the old longstanding view that those who vocally ask for there to be more benefits for the many are leftists and open people. And, that those who do not wish to extend any single on of these benefits being proposed, at whatever time they are being proposed, and for any reason at all, are the far-right and closed people.
+
+That somehow we can take for granted that there are benefits, that they are indeed benficial, that they are extended to the many, and that these things are self-evident and not worthy of scrutiny. Furthermore, it is thought that any effort to scrutinize them is, in fact, an effort to avoid extending benefits to the many and is, more specifically, a closing of opportunity, a fear of change, a willingness to adhere to a static system which produces more of the same problems, and never offers a new solution for anything.
+
+The issue here is that we fail to define what the state of the system is, what the problems of the system are, in the sense of their material transformations, as opposed to their declared titles and low resolution descriptions. We fail to make clear whether or not the propositions which make the claim of offering a benefit are, indeed, rectifying the slow changing aspects of the system which prevent benefits from being provisioned to the many, or whether they are, in actuality, preventing change and causing a reinforcement of some aspects of the system which are disproportioantely influential and able to evade criticism and reflection.
+
+In a very general sense, if we want to talk about openness and closedness, and how these express themselves physically and biologically, we talk about an aversion to chaos and the unknown.
+
+It's a very simple concept, which makes all of the other interpretations clear, based on the degree of complexity which is being aded to the discernment.
+
+If you are indeed a left-minded thinker, you are open to chaos and the unknown. You are willing to confront the dark abyss of chaos and risk your complete destruction in order to move forward with the chance of bringing about greater illumination over the things that you cannot yet see. You are admitting that you are blind and that you would risk death in order to see.
+
+On the other side, if you are indeed a right-minded thinker ,you are closed to chaos and the unknown.
+
+You are not willing to confront that dark abyss and are instead wishing to replace any risk with the assurance that such considerations have been either made on your behalf, or that they won't need to be made and that the chaos won't need to be confronted in any respect that will be extended to your perceptual frame, your direct experience. Or that, if it is to be extended to your perceptual frame, it will have its dynamics constrained and tailored through a predictive mechanism which understands exactly how it must be composed for you.
+
+That your experience will somehow remain as is known, or as has been predicted, and that you can maintain this expectation by adhering to the propositions which are given to you by the system.
+
+You would not be willing to dance with chaos and risk your destruction simply for a glimpse into the unknown. For the chance to shed light upon a path that may include catastrophe and change all perception abotu what has been known.
+
+That the degree of acuity and resolution which is currently enjoyed is sufficient, and that all the propositions and prescriptions that are to be considered are based on this specific degree of acuity and its corresponding knowledge.

new/Young_People_choice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Young People and Choice
+
+Remember the Pepsi Generation?
+The corporately instructed young people were granted rationale for feeling as though they were part of something new. Daring to be different and reject conformity. Isn't that what being progressive is all about? Do young people believe themselves to default to such a mentality?
+
+Surely, most adults expect that of them, extending from the belief that it would have described themin their own childhood. Would that not necessarily be the case, or do some people grow more open minded with age?
+
+I suspect that the permitting of new ideas in one's older age requires scrutiny, established structures.
+
+## Progressive Minds hold Progressive Viewpoints
+
+It sounds reasonable to assume that progressive viewpoints are held by newer, younger, more open minded people who are best able to adapt to change. They don't mind jumping into the unfamiliar and allowing strong changes to our way of life.
+
+## Choice
+Young people don't generally believe or feel that they have the power of choice. They believe that when they become adults, this is what is granted to them.
+
+As a child, what seems to be the granting of the power of choice is when they are able to model adult behaviour. This might be in the form of gaining access to that which is restricted to adults, or being able to have an opinion which one would assume to be predicted to have come from an adult. Even having the opinion at all might and raising the potential of being placed in the adult category as a result is itself reason-enough for one to set about having an opinion to assert.
+
+So, in this sense, persuading children to form an opinion and to mould the opinion into the one which matches your own interest is not very challenging to understand. You simply need to appeal to their sense of adult-mediated empowerment, and have them believe it endows them with an expression of transcending child-associated limitations.

new/fear_of_life.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Fear of Life
+
+The great fear is the fear of existing, because if its structure can be understood, then perhaps we can know that there may be things about it that cannot be changed. If everything were left unchosen and unascribed, then at least the yet uncovered reality might be ultimately better than what could ever be imagined, or it could be void of the aspects of our reality that we wish weren't truly its components.
+
+To impose a limit serves to reduce some complexity, but it also produces chances of not knowing how to cope with having knowledge of the structure that one cannot accept. Ultimately, the augmentation of understanding is something which alleviates a concern, alleviates a set of concerns, instantiates a set of concerns, or proves the placement of the concern with the highest order of precedence. This happens everytime, in some capacity, as any change of perspective must be reflected in one's understanding of survival, or one's position with respect to whether they are to be concerned with survival (for example: attempting to achieve a state of Zen).
+
+This fear of life is why so many who have been conditioned to fear and identify Fascism in everything will actually turn away from the fight when it truly presents itself, or will even lazily defend it while using it as a stepping stone for their privilege. To cheer for the boot which stamps, rather than the mind which resists and uses quick thought and cunning to keep the spirit of humanity alive.

new/intolerance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+It's intolerance that they are aiming at. Whether they call it a "necessary step in order to save democracy", or excuse it by saying "well, all governance utilizes force", they are banking on the expectation that an intolerant system which demands control and domination will enable revenge, enlightenment or the satisfying of an intellectual curiosity.
+
+What they aren't aiming at is the belief in the conscious human mind. This signifies their massive weakness.

new/leader.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Do we need to be lead? And if so, must be be lead by a leader who is holy?
+
+What is the standard for a leader who most veritably transforms our state of reality?
+Must they be technically perfect?
+Must they use the right nomenclature?
+Must they command a sufficiently powerful aesthetic?
+
+Or must they simply be transparent enough for it to be evident when they are wrong?
+

new/real_question.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+What is the real question?
+
+1. There are many questions being presented in the wake of the trans phenomenon. How many people are secretly trans, how many have been living a false life? How many will never be able to live life with their true identity? Can we ever achieve justice?
+
+For many, justice is a direction and a mode of living and transacting with community, rather than a specific state of the social sphere. They have learned to do activities, not because of the end (and to be closer to Aegi), but because doing activism draws us closer to power, while also affording the  practitioner for an identity. And not just any identity, but one which, whether it deserves it or not, finds the path and clues.
+
+My position is that justice has been redefined and can now fit on your shoes yet it will always remain B. The justice they claim to seek will never, in contrast with our pre-true justice, will aways remain. The justice they claim to seek will never, in contrast with our pre-true justice, the one which makes you focus on redefining what justice is is not one which should be able to identify a true moment of oppenness, faith and good will.
+
+Each day we battle against a process which seeks for justice to be redefined into something elusive and unachievable, and for injustice to be redefined as something akin to devilry, which is apparent in everyone and all things except when performing an action to dismantle existing structures and replace them with a proposed set of holy symbols. If we are to believe that there is no justice that can be discovered objectively, by virtue of understanding the perceptual frame engaged by one another, then we simply give consent to be forced to participate in a false aesthetic of justice, all the while being damned to not experience and to accept that there needn't exist any form of authentic justice.
+
+As they don't believe in anyone's ability to deduce truth from reality, there is no longer a formal and technically universal methodology for evaluating justice, especially their own dynamic conception of it. It is wholly inferred on the basis of the holy symbol and language which suggest control over the environment. If they understand that a space can only operate using terms which supersede social, legal and technical boundaries otherwise universally applicable, then they believe they can outpace and evade the evil otherwise always embedded, invisibly so, in the system.
+
+And so on goes the attack on truth, but is it truly reinforced because of a complete disbelief in what is true?
+
+This would posit that we somehow exist in an ethereal and inabsolute form, and that this would afford us some special possibilities that are otherwise obviously not possible in a material reality. So this is a means of choosing matter in such a way where the laws of matter no longer apply as aconsequence. A submission to matter.
+
+If you have faith in matter, you empower the force which can redefine matter such as to rescuse you from it. The promise is one which accounts for everyone who is willing to believe. It gives you every reason to believe, except that what it proposes wouldn't have been true in the old reality. So accept it and how your faith so we can transcend reality and save humanity, which is actually saving you.
+
+```
+But that doesn't make sense. How can someone who chooses matter explicitly actually mean to transcend its limitations? Surely if they choose the matter they value the perceptual frame yet more. It would seem that you are reading too much into it.
+```
+
+They needn't be aware of the possibility of choosing something other than them. As far as they are concerned, they conflate the understanding of matter with fiath that matter can be perfectly understood. They then take this belief and bring it back down a level to erodae any cognitive dissonance by solving any conflict or anxiety related to an understanding which might make thems doubt the likelihood of having their desired outcome by acknowledging their own lack of understanding which, though it could have been useful in driving an impetus to learn and understand, has now transitioned into "knowing enough to choose the right narrative", which does not resolve any lack of understanding.
+
+Concerns -> Anxiety -> Solutions -> Use the poor to generate wealth, but keep them out of medicine
+Concerns -> Science -> alleviate some concern -> new more discernible concern

new/sustainability notes - Marcuse.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+# Sustainability: The Tyranny of the 21st Century
+
+*Herbert Marcuse*
+
+*Why is it important to talk about Herbert MArcuse repeatedly?*
+**Answer**: Because we live in his world
+
+If you read his works, you can get a sense that someone picked this up (the new left that followed him) and saw it as a template for building the world that we live in now.
+
+Some might say that he was "right", but it should be clear that his vision has been forced into being, and it didn't have to be this way.
+
+Eros in Civilization (Pushing Freudian psychoanalysis into Marxian theory) - rough idea:
+The new sensibility. The society we live in (advanced capitalist society) forces people to repress their libido to become productive (sexual urges, sexual drive, will to do things, Freudian libido). He says the capitalist society represses our libido/eros. Forces us to tamp it down and channel it into productive work. Repression causes you to become aggressive. The aggression and violence is inherent in the capitalist system and has its roots in the suppression of eros/libido. The libido which would have been released into the sexual realm is now released into the an aggressive realm.
+
+In 1964 he published One Dimensional Man. A huge deal because he has this idea that the consumer society, by the same process, flattens society into a one-dimensional process. Get up, go to work, make money, buy stuff, do it again tomorrow. You don't think outside of this pattern, and everything in society reinforces this pattern to keep you stuck in it. You aren't doing a critical theory of society, and your experience in society (a discontended proletariat revolutionary).
+
+Repressive Tolerance: we have to rethink tolerance because that which maintains and preserves this society (conservatism/right-wing thought) (maintains this repressive society) - even the most liberal person on the planet who believes (I saw on today an educator saying that our completely Marxist schools are a center right institution) even if you are this very left liberal character, but you believe in the structure of a free liberal democratic society, then you're a Fascist. You want to preserve the status quo of the existing system and only aim for incremental progress, step by step change, so you're evil. You are prat of the right, according to their thought, everyone who wants to maintain the existing system instead of overthrowing it for a new one. The left are people who want to voerthrow it for a new system -> radical revolutionaries. Everyone else is on the right.
+
+FO rexample, Helen Pluckrose who alwys speaks of how she on the left. She is a rightist, according to this formulation in repressive tolerance and under Marcusian thought. She is a conservative rightist, because she watns to maintain the essential character of our society. We have to rethink tolerance to be tolerant of the left (as understood this way) and be utterly intolerant of the Right.
+
+Two different rulebooks for our society. That's what this means -> the double standards -> the left is to be given tolerance even when they are violent, because it is justified against a repressive regime - the left is supposed to be outside of the law, because the law is designed to maintain order and maintain the existing system - therefore it' all illeitimate nad you have to be outside of it.
+
+Far left by all everyday standards can be rightists through this definition.
+
+Not only can the right not be tolerated, but they also have to be censored and pre-censored so that the thought can't even enter their head.
+
+Hitler: if we hadn't extended to him democratic tolerance, then eh couldn't have had the holocaust, we would have avoided Auschwitz and a wworld war had we not extended him this. What's absolutely necessary or ultimtaely necessary is not to prevent Hitler, but to prevent the movement around him, so you need to pre-censor this from happening -> so that the thought of maintaining the society can't even enter their head. Just in case it becomes Fascistic.
+
+In 1969 he writes the essay on liberation -> outlines, basically, what the new revolution looks like. Probably the most important essay to understand leftism since the end of the 1960s. Even taking into account woke literature, like Gender Trouble from Judith Butler, or Mapping the Margins from Kimberle Crenshaw.
+
+4 chapters in the Essay on Liberation -> a biological foundation for socialism (freaky), a new sensibility (today in this), Subverting forces in transition (what's upsetting things right now - what is working - ghetto populations, student intelligentsia - third world liberation movements), solidarity -> a common element between all of these groups -> a new proletariat and the need to create, basically, identity Marxism. Shore up that term -> classical Marxism is vulgar, because it's only economics -> in the 1920s you end up seeing cultural Marxists, like George Lucache, Antonio Gramsci, Mao Zedong - in europe you have, out of cultural Marxism, you end up having the establishment of the Frankfurt School -> which develops the Critical Theory, or Neo Marxism -> progresses and is complicated - 3-4 generations (or siblings) ->
+
+Generations of Neo Marxism:
+1. early rumblings of Frankfurt School to Horkheimer very formal ->
+2. Marcuse takes over for the 2nd generation, after Kruschez confesses to the sins of Stalin and becomes a new character on the scene
+Then it splits
+3. Critical Theory school stays philosophical
+4. Marcuse's little revolutionaries, like Angela Davis -> they go off in a different direction
+
+Suspicious of consumerist society, which eliminates the possibility of a marxian proletariat ever arising. Society works and they have to reckon with that, and a cultural analysis is not enough to generat ethe changes we need.
+
+4. Dive into identity politics with Identity Marxism (the long list of traits) exasperated etc of identity categories or intersectional thought. Uses the same cultural marxism apparatus but takes identity as a proxy for culture. If you are black, you have black culture, etc. Chicanx Chicanx culture. Queer Queer culture. All of these identities become like nations, seriously, int he folkish sense, all of these guys were big fans of Friedrich Johann Herder -> a big nationalist who had the idea of a folkish religion that the people had a spirit to them, a folksgeist -> the spirit of a country that gives it its character -> a character ont he world stage. A japanese anime did this where litereally countries are represented by individuals, and they have a play, a drama playing out between them. The character becomes representative of the folksgeist -> the spirit of people. This has been transposed onto identity categories through the doctrine of structural determinism.
+
+The structural forces of society like racims, sexism, even vulgar marxism to a degre, ableism, creates a structural expereince whihc creates a cultural experience lke being Black in a White world, or a Latinx in a cisheteronormative western-centric white world in which, still, latinx people are said to participate in whitesupremacy and antiblackness. Intersectional crap is Identity Marxism.
+
+5thw rok of Marcuse is the counter revolution and revolt -> entertaining read -> difficult to read or get into. You have to read these things over and over to realy figure out what he's talking about.
+
+Counter revolution and revolt -> very plain. It appeared as though the revolution was going to happen, but then society stabilizes and he started complaining about the Nixon administration and said we're going to lose communism if we don't do something about it.
+
+Eros isn't as important as the other 4.
+
+How to understand the contours of this world? The new sensibility -> the second chapter in the essay on liberation.
+
+Identity marxism is the new sensibility. Intersectionality -> but more complicated than that, and the people who have read Marcuse have used him in different ways.
+
+There are layers to this, nested ideas -> bigger outside one and the inside is intersectionality as the smaller one. It's a part of teh bigger one. The bigger one is sustainability.
+
+SUSTAINABILITY.
+
+Derivable from his work -> big characters on the main stage are pushing htese ideas -> Klaus Schwab? George Soros? Hard to say, but these kinds of characters are pushing the sustainability agenda -> I don't know what their reliatioships are, or if they have direct ones, but they are pushing this culture of sustainability across everything big. The climate change narrative is only comprehensible this way. The virus narrative is made comprehensible this way. Everything is packaged up to be about sustainability. The center piece which Marcuse has outlined, but it's a little mroe difficult to draw it out from what's written, but it's there.
+
+Harder to spot in some of his works than others.
+
+Marcuse has a habit of sprinkling in big ideas in weird ways across many long tangential paragraphs. A little difficult to spot where he says it exactly, but let's get a taste.
+
+Counter Revolution and Revolt: (this part sums it up)
+The idea of sustainability -> we have to talk about it what abotu climate change what if it's unsustainable, what about our approach to population, or travel. What do we do about those issues?
+
+Little rang ein the beginning of Counter Revolution and Revolt.
+Complaining about capitalism, btu then has a little part where he vents.
+
+Can one not make a living without that stupid, exhausting, endless labour. Living with less waste, fewer gadgets and plastic, but with more time and more freedom. It's absolutely the most important thing, usually abstract, but no longer an abstract emotional unrealistic question -. it assummes dangerously concrete, realistic, subversive forms. So the question, can one not make a living without that stupid exhausting, endless labour. Living with less wsate, fewer gadgets, less plastic, but with more tim and more freedom.
+
+We are all working too hard. beacuse of the advanced state of technology and capitalism, we can all meet our needs without workign in the rat race all the time. We can actually eject from the rat race, if we just allow ourselves to.
+
+And what it means is that we have to live with less. Can we not have less and work less? We'll have more time and more freedom, and less waste.
+
+This is one of the biggest themes in Marcuse, that we need to understand to understand what he's getting at. At the end of the Solidary section of Essay on liberation:
+(comparing the successes of capitalism and comparing it against the soviety and third world situations)
+The absorption of unemployment and the maintenance of an adequate rate of profit would thus require the stimulation of demand on an everlarger scale. Thereby, stimulating the rat race of the competitive struggle for existence  through the multiplication of waste, planned obsolescence, parasitic and stupid jobs and servicecs. The higher standard of living, propelled by the g growing, parasitic sector of society would drive wage demands towards capital's point of no return. What he's saying is that capitalism can be imagined as a exponential growth curve, wihch we're all familiar with thanks to pandemic, and it's just growing and growing, we have to have more stuff and more money. To get that we have to work more hours. Doesn't mattter that the machines make us more productive. It doesn't matter if we are more productive and making more and more, - this is unsustainable.
+
+ because the progress of this is going to require the stimulation of demand on an ever-larger scale. This is a bublbe which will pop, and it will, meanwhile, make people miserable as they engage in the rat-rate. Planned obsolescenc. Parasiti and stupid jobs and services. This produces a higher standard of living, but it's a parasitic
+
+ ### Subjecting Forces in Transition
+ We have this increasingly automated machine system no longer used as a system of exploitation. It allows a distantiation of labour from the instruments of production. Marx foresaw this at the end of capitalism. Technology will get good enough so that we don't have to work too much more. That extra productivity can be transformed into leisure time. The workers would cease to become the principle agents of material production, and become its supervisors and regulators. The emergence of a free subject within the realm. But that's nto what advanced capitalism is realy don't. The achievements of science and technology permit the play of the productive imagination. Experimentaion with the possibility of matter and form hitherto enclosed in the density of unmastered nature. The technical transformation of nature tends to make things lighter, easier, prettier. The loosening up of reification. The material becomes increasingly susceptible becomes increasingly susceptible and subject to aesthetic forms which enhance its exchange value, the artistic, the modernistic banks, the office buildings, kitchenm, salesrooms and salespeople etc within the tremendous framework of capitalism the tremendous growth and productivity of labour enforces the ever enlarged production of luxuries. Wasteful in the armament industry, in the marketing of gadgets, devices, trimmings and status symbols. The same trend of production and consumption which makes for the affluence and attraction of advanced capitalism makes for the perpetuation of the struggle for existence. For the increasing necessity to produce and consume the non-necessary.
+
+ 1972 - Can't we have less stuff? 1969 - complaining that what we're producing is beyond basic needs. We're no longer just meeting basic needs, because they become comfortable and then they want more stuff. Looking for things to fulfill them. An expensive hobby, classic cars, car restoration, hot rods. Blue collar guys wasting their minds and time. This is a luxury. It's wasteful. You don't need that. It's not a vital need.
+
+ What happens, is, you get the working class, you meet their basic eneds, they start having perks to life, their man caves, sports memorabilia. They feel like they need it. That becomes a sense of a second nature that they need this stuff. Almost like these luxuries become vital needs. What thsi rpocess of advanced capitalism does is that ti takes luxuries and makes people think that they need them.
+
+ Can't we just be happy with less? And then we wouldn't have to work, and we could have a revolution.
+
+ Increasing necessity to produce and consume the non-necessary. Enjoyment is non-necessary, because we could be having communism.
+
+ The growth of the so-called discretionary income in the United States indicates the extent to which income earned is spent on other-than-basic needs. Former luxuries become basic needs. You stupid working class assholes. How dare you enjoy yourself. Former luxuries become basic needs.
+
+It's not a basic need, you don't actually need that. Why should you enjoy yourself when we could be working for our political goals. You selfish fucks.
+
+Spending your "discretionary income" by choosing to vote for things which make our situation worse.
+Working class have betrayed their revolutionary instinct. Building a stable platform of wealth so you can risk spending your extra discretionary income on things that you enjoy, mental emotional social spiritual level, but not basic needs, so screw you.
+
+Working class betrayed your instincts and became conservative.
+
+This is all a normal development under capitalism. You have stuff that you weren't hungry for. Capitalism snuck in and advertised to you. He Mr. Working class guy. I see you have a comfortable home. Corporate capitalism extends the business of living to newly created needs and satisfactions.
+
+You didn't even know you needed these things until corporate capitalism came and advertised it to you.
+You could have this, you could be this, you could have custom bowling shirts and shoes, a nice ball. Luxuries become basic needs. Capitalism sneaks in and extends the competitive business of living to newly created needs and satisfactions.
+
+You might like these things, but it was newly created, you stupid conservative jerk who should have stayed miserable so you would have become a Marxist revolutionary.
+
+Check out`Subverting Forces in Transition.`
+
+The fantastic output of all sorts of things and services defies the imagination while restricting and distorting it in the commodity form.
+
+Your things that make you happy are not really meeting your needs and enriching your life, and giving you a path to happiness. It's commodity form. It has been packaged up and sold to you. Corvette is enjoyed because the marketers convinced you that you're a Corvette man.
+
+Commodity form through which capitalist production enlarges its hold over human existence.
+
+It's not that there's an increasing set o options which allow you to enrich your life your way. Its not that you're meeting some sort of freedom dream where there's more stuff available. It's all fake, commodities, taking hold over human existence, controlling everybody, making you have to keep working in the rat race. Now you need Corvette gear, a model Corvette, track time to drive it fast.
+
+Precisely through this spread of commodity form, this repressive social morality which sustains the system is being weakened. You don't have this repressive social morality, because you have consumer morality instead. The light and the free life on the one hand, and intensification for struggle on the other. This generates among the underlying population a diffused aggresiveness which, unless streered to hate and to fight the national enemy, will hit any suitable target. Rich or poor, jew or black.
+You are racist because you can't get everything that you want. If we have an alleged national enemy. Your car and shoes ruined your authentic experience.
+Horheimer said that advanced capitalism doesn't make people miserable, it helps them build a better life, and this was a crisis to these Neo-Marxists. The aggressiveness of those with the mutilated experience with false consciousness and false needs, who depend on repressive society and repressive the alternative -> communism. Their violence is that of the establishment and takes as its figures which rightly or wrongly seem to be different (revolutionaries).
+
+## One-Dimensional Civilizational Man
+This maybe isn't the best paragraph, because there are so many, but here's an example from One-Dimensional civilizational man:
+
+People recognize themselves in their commodoties, they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split level home, kitchen equipment, god forbid you be happy with stuff you actually enjoy, (you stupid working-class shlob who is not a proletariat revolutionary). The very mechanism which has tied the individual to the a system has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced. The prevailing forms of social control are technological in a new sense to be sure the technical structure and efficacy of the productive and destructive apparatus has been a major instrumentality for subjecting the population of the established social division of labour throughout the modern period. Moreover, such integration has always been accomplished by more obvious forms of compulsion. Loss of livelihood, th administration of justice, the police, the armed forces, it still is. But in the contemporary period appear to be the very embodiment of reason for the benefit of all social groups and interests to such an extent that all contradiction seems irrational, and all counteraction impossible.
+
+This is why James says we are stuck in Herbert Marcuse's world. This is the Iron Law of Woke Projection. Not the way he described it, he's talking about a free society generating this, but we now have a tyrranical technocracy generating this. The technological controls appear to be the very embodiment of reason for the benefit of all social groups and interest. Covid policy, enforced by his people on us. All contradiction seems irrational, you anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist. And all counter-action impossible, because we're going to fire you from your job. Loss of livelihood, coof-camp, administration of justice, cops come to make you stay in your home, radicalize the military to make sure that nobody can get away with the armed forces. They are manifesting his world, they've read this stuff, even the places where he is issuing a warning, and they've turned us into this world.
+
+It's an odd thing.
+
+The point is that Marcuse's view is that this new high-tech advanced capitalism changes how people are and makes them happy and make them think that they're having an enjoyable life, but what they're actually doing is stealing away the revolutionary potential.
+
+The productive apparatus and the goods and services which produces a "cell" or impose the social system as a whole. The means of mass-transportation and communication, the commodities of lodging, food and clothing, the irresistable output of the entertainment and information industry, carry wiht them prescribed attitudes and habits. Certain intellectual and emotional reaction which bind tat the consumer, more or less pleasantly to the producers and through the latter to the whole. The products indoctrinate and manipulate. They promote a false-consciousness which is immune against its falsehood. And as these beneficial products become available to more individuals and more social classes (as poor people can get what they want, not just what they barely need), the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity. It becomes a way of life.
+
+It is a good way of life, much better than before, and as a good way of life it militates against qualitative change. (it drives out communist discontent). (You enjoy your life, you stupid poor lower class people who can now have more beneficial products than ever, and your needs are met, and you might have stuff you like, and they indoctrinate you with that. That's how they get you. It becomes your way of life - you care too much about the corvette you worked your ass off to get.)
+
+It's a good way of life, better than before, and it militates against qualitative change). Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behaviour in which ideas, aspirations and objectives which by their content transcend the universe of discourse and action and are either repelled or reduced to terms of this Universe. (1-dimensional key) (Thus emerges a pattern of 1-dimensional thought and behaviour in which communism is either repelled or reduced to terms of this Universe - misrepresented or commodified and bought up and brought into the existing repressive system). They are redefined by the rationality of the given system and by its quantative extension.
+
+(This is what 1-dimensional man is all about - the capitalist consumer society eats everything and turns everything into the one-dimensional project of continuing this unsustainable project, this unsustainable growth that is going to risk everything.)
+
+## Essay on Liberation
+The argument that he makes in the briefest (near the end):
+
+This is an unsustainable trajectory. We're going to keep making more and it's going to drive capitalism to its brink. Background milieu for the points James wants to make in the podcast:
+For Marcuse, capitalism isn't just something that's going to teeter and collapse (the Neo-Marxists believed that, unlike previous Marxists, society had 2 possible trajectories out of capitalism: (not two like the traditional, who believed a strong historicism where capitalism will finally awaken those alienated feelings, discontentedness in the working class, producing a proletariat revolution, just a matter of when the conditions are made right), Fascism can happen too. Either descends into Fascism or saved by the Socialists having the revolution.). Capitalism is unsustainable, so he's begging with the reader in 1972 -> can't we just be happy with less? We'll have less waste, we'll work less, we'll be more content, we'll have mor etime, we'll have more freedom, we won't have to work as much!! The sacrifice is we'll have less gadgets, fewer gadgets, less plastic, etc. Have less stuff. If we just get the equity going and simmer it down to a lower level where people have less stuff than they want, we wouldn't have to work as hard and we'd have more time and freedom. Less planned obsolescence, etc. We're not taking care of trying to make things work in the best way, and are just pursuing profit-principle. McDonald's ice-cream machine story is an example where crony capitalism leads to a broken product, and people getting ripped off. But it's not capitalism, it's crony-capitalims which is protofascisms. The problem is always in this cronyism, and the Neo-MArxist conflates these and believes it will always happen. The FTC to step in and investigate McDonald's to find out that there is probably some kind of realy bad dastardly monopoly behaviour going on - exclusive agreement leading to a crooked need to constantly call repairmen to help make the company lots of money to the expense of the franchise owners.
+
+They act like it's not possible, and complain, in the same breath, that capitalism is somehow causing people to have a better life which makes them forget the problems.
+
+The problem we face now is actually the same one - we have lots of great stuff for anti-trust, where it comes to the industrial sector. We understand how to apply it, and we didn't think very well about how to apply it ot the finance and banking industry, to the big tech industry, etc. Now we have these sort of trust and crony-capitalist problems emerging again.
+
+The irony is that they're using wokeness in Marcuse's world and imposing world on us which allows them to evade critique (no no, we're not crony capitalists, that's a right-wing thing, we're obviously left-wing radicals who screw everyone over.)
+
+Capitalism is unsustainable - we need to generate a new sensitivity if we want to generate a liberated world where people have less and work less, have more freedom and more time. We don't work just to produce the gadgets, to sell the gadgets, to have the gadgets, etc in and endless cycle. No one needs these things, but someone migh twant them, so we're chasing a fake demand premised on the fact that nobody needs these things, but just want them as a consequence of emotive manipulation.
+
+## Intersectionality and WEF
+This will push capitalism to the breaking point (2016 WEF forum about Great Reset - Western Civlization has been pushed to the breaking point). Also, in that same video, you will own nothing and you will be happy. You can be content with less. You'll have less waste, because our approach is rooted in sustainability.
+
+The new sensibility was intersectionality, but that's just one piece of a bigger set of a bigger new sensibility where everything is sustainable. A Circular Economy (WEF)> Perfectly sustainable - everythign is totally recycled because the economy runs in a circle. It is a circular economy so everything is environmentally sustainable. Waste, pollution, plastic. Everything has to be sustainable, sustainable working models (models), so we're not exploiting workers and their labour. We have 3 letters that go with sustainability. E S G. Environmental, Social and Governance.
+
+Social - intersectionality
+Governance - Intersectionality built-in, so we don't exploit people
+Environmental - Climate side - climate justice links in intersectionality.
+
+Intersectionality becomes constant thinking of where you are in the broader social positioning which you can measure with something like a social credit score. That becomes the dynamic by which we're all going to understand how we fit into the new sustainable, circular economy.
+
+Sustainability becomes the new sensibility. Everything must be sustainable. Everything corpoate, everything governance, envionomentally, socially, and in terms of how we're going to actually govern companies and people. ESG.
+
+All laid out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2030, etc.. A communist buzzword, as it turns out, rooted in this new sensibility of Herbert Marcuse.
+
+Klaus Schwab reads Marcuse and reads this part where it says "Oh we keep making these needs which will blow up an cause capitalism to elad us towards exponential growth predicated on a fake bubble. We need to get out of that and create a circular economy, instead of linear exponential." We're going to have this whole new economy to break out of the threat outlined by Marcuse. A new way of thinking about things, instead of th previously linear economy. Totally new paradigm of thought. You can picture Schwab reading Marcuse and seeing this and then seeing all the talk about the intersectionality seeds - new proletariat - who are the losers? The global south, the global east, the ghetto populations, racial minorities, sexual minorities, radical outsiders. These people are the losers, who will shepherd them to the next thing? The liberal Intelligentisia. The students brought into the new sensibility which is communicated and taught throught eh Universities where the schools do the ought for us.
+
+## Marcuse's Essay on Liberation (again)
+Essay on liberation (3rd section): Transition forces. The development of a true consciousness is still the professional function of the universities. No wonder, then, that the student opposition meets with the all but pathological hatred on the part of the so-called community, including large sections of organized labour. (the student opposition means the radical goofball students and true consciousness is "becoming Critical Theorists". If you believe that it means becoming intellectually mature, you'll say - of course this makes sense! The little Marxists in training are the opposition). To the degree to which the university becomes dependent on the financial and political goodwill of the community and of the government, the struggle for a free and critical education becomes a vital part in the larger struggle for change. (Afraid that our society will say no and not teach Marxism in colleges, which is exactly what it was saying and should have kept saying. We have lost track of that, and now we have a big problem.) The degree to which University is dependent is the degree to which they have to struggle for a free and critical education.
+
+No more financial and political good will.
+
+If you are a government, defund your universities. If you're an alumni, stop funding the universities. They don't deserve financial and political goodwill, because they are rotting out society from the inside.
+
+What appears to be the extraneous politicization of the university by disrupting radicals is today as it was so often in the past the logical internal dynamic of education. (Becoming radical in the university is what universities were always meant for. Trade off human values and knowledge and turn them into reality.) The translation of knowledge into reality. Humanistic values into humane conditions of existence.
+
+*Humane conditions = communism.*
+
+We're going to transform through th euniversity. The dynamic arrested by the pseudo-neutral features of academia, would, for example, be released by the inclusion into the curriculum of courses, giving adequate treatment to the great non-conformist movements in civilization (decolonized curriculum) into the critical analysis of contemporary analysis.
+
+(Critical race theory needs to be in every level of education)
+
+Why:
+The ground work for building the bridge between the ought and the is, between theory and practice, is laid in theory itself.
+
+(For Marcuse, the theory is religion. The theory. He is saying that it is the objective of the university to transform into something that can put the ought back into the is, because the theory is where they can be done, and the theory needs to be made center. The driving of our movement is to refuse to grow up, to mature, to perform efficiently and normally in and for a society which compels the vast majority of the population to earn their living in stupid, inhumane and unnecessary jobs. In order to sustain the profitable producivity on which the hierarchy depends. For him, theory contains the ought that will put it back into the is, and it's the university's job, it's social science's job to become the church. Trading off of humanistic values and transforming them into humanism is only achieved when we have communism.
+This is what his idea is, and what the new senstibility is all about. The whole point is that the driving force of this movement.
+
+Predicated on the idea that we need everything to be sustainable. But is it really sustainable? Does it define a version of sustainability which is most sustainable?
+
+The driving force of this movement to buil da church out of the universities that teach Critical Theory as the bridge between ought and is - is the refusal to grow up, to mature, to perform efficiently and normally in and for a society which compels the vast majority of society to earn their living in stupid and unnecessary jobs... which, in order to sustain the profitable productivity on which its hierarchy depends, utilizes its vast resources for waste, destruction, and ever more methodical creation of conformist needs and satisfactions.
+
+Which conducts its booming business on the back of ghettos, slums and internal on external colonialism, which is infested with violence and repression while demanding obedience from thevictims of violence and repression.
+
+So it's gotta be intersectional. Klaus Schwab reads this and sees: Circular economy, attentive to environment, which we'll dstroy with our waste and exploitation. To do what? TO generate needless stuff, for more and more unnecessary people. And when you get into a circular economy, that's sustainable, to get away from that, so in between the sustainability paradigm, intersectionality presents as a necessary function because it's picked up as Identity Marxism - a fundamental component of this new sensibility.
+
+So you need ESG - get rid of waste, be sustainable. You can't mention
+
+## One Dimensional Man - Page 248
+A new standard of living adapted to the pacification of existence also presupposed reduction in the future population.
+(War normally does that, btu now we have to do something different).
+
+This moral scruples are understandable and reasonable.
+
+It is understandable, even reasonable that an industrial civilization considers legitimtae the slaughter of millions of people in war, in the daily sacrifices of all those who don't have adequate care and protection, but discovers its moral and religious scruples if it is the question of avoiding the production of more life in a society (anti-Natalism).
+
+Production of moral life in a society which is still geared towards the planned annihiliation of life in the national interest and to the unplanned deprivation of life on behalf of private interests. These moral scruples are understandable and reasonable because such a society needs an ever-increasing number of customers and supporters. The constantly regenerated excess aapacity must be managed. However, the requirements of profitable mass-production are not necessarily identical with those of mankind. The problem is not only, and perhaps not even primarily, that of adequately feeding and caring for the growing population, it is first a problem of number of mere quantity. There is more than poetic license in the indictment which Stephane George pronounced half a century ago (Beautiful something).
+
+THe crime is that of a society in which the growing population aggravates a struggle for existence in the face of its possible alleviation. The drive from where living space operates not only an intergenerational aggressiveness, but also within the nation. Here, expansion has in all forms of teamwork, community and fun invaded the inner space of privacy, and practically eliminated the possibility of that isolation in which the individual, thrown back on himself alone, can think, question and find, this sort of privacy, the sole condition that on the basis of satisfied vital needs can give meaning to freedom and independence thought, has long since become the most expensive commodity, available only on the very rich, who don't use it. In this respect, too, culture reveals its feudal origins and limitations.
+
+It can become democratic only in the abolition of mass-democracy.
+
+That is, if society succeeded in restoring the perogatives of privacy by granting them to all and protecting them from each.
+
+A new standard of living, adapted the pacification of existence also presupposes the reduction in the future population.
+Conservatives are alright with killing everyone, but they freak out if you tell them not to have more babies.
+
+This is just a problem of numbers, the more people you have, the more places you have to put them. This drives down privacy, and our ability to be happy and sane. Mankind doesn't need that.
+
+There will be losers in the intersectional hierarchy, so we need a sustainable, circular economy with a managed population.
+
+This is what Marcuse was arguing for when he laid the groundwork for the new left. Sustainability becomes the new sensibility, the new paradigm he wants us all to operate iwthin. Sustainability is the buzzword of the century, is it not?
+
+Open your damn eyes to what is being talked about with sustainability. It means communism, with a managed population, centrally planned and controlled with all the cool technology we have now: content with less, eat your damn bugs, live in your 150ft2 pod, in your super smart city where you never need to travel more than 40 minutes from your home, or 15 minute walk from your home. Basic vital needs are met. You don't need any other stuff, because it doesn't give you any real satisfaction anyway. You can own nothing and be happy!
+
+## The Weakning of the Superpower
+Under these circumstances, the preconditions for the liberation and development of the 3rd world must emerge in the advanced capitalist countries. (Make advanced societies like the third world, first - South Africa is the waystation along the way. Critical Race Theory step 1 is make America like South Africa)
+
+Only the internal weakening of the superpower can finally stop the financing and equipping of suppression in the backwards countries.
+
+Weird trick: that's what we have to do. We have to protect the national liberation fronts (Vietcong, cubans). Happens by stopping the western empire from funding that stuff. End the embargo etc.. One thing that he says that has to happen is that the chain of exploitation must break at its weakest link. And that can only come to fruition if the internal structure and cohesion of the capitalist system begins to disintegrate.
+
+Corporate capitalism is not immune against economic crisis. There's a need for crises.
+
+The change itself could then occur in a general, unstructured, unorganized and diffuse process of disintegration. The process might be sparked by a system of the system which would activate the resistance not only against the political, but also against the mental repression imposed by the society.
+
+Almost like having COVID19, a global pandemic, as the narrow window of time in which we could spark a new Great Reset of the entire program. A new sensibility that is based in sustainability and a circular economy.
+
+Its insane features, expression of the ever more blatant contradiction between the available resources for liberation, and their use for the perpetuation of servitude would undermine the daily routine.
+
+You're all stuck at home wearing masks, the repressive conformity, the rationality required for the continued functioning of society. Break the functioning of society.
+
+We can disintegrate its moral fiber, and once that has happened (because this will cause a collapse of the work disciplines, slowdown spread of disobedience rules and regulations). Once we disintegrate this, we can hit it with a crisis, and then, all of a sudden, it might flip over. The superpower can finally be weakened internally. The chain of exploitation can be broken at its strongest link.
+
+### Soviet Economy
+*The problem for him with the Soviets, in general and throughout the essay, is that the Soviets are too backwards. The highly bureaucratic socialist system they produced doesn't produce new stuff. It doesn't innovate. Somehow, the Soviet situation has to catch up. It literally has to catch up to the innovation and productivity of the advanced capitalist societies, so it can meet those basic needs which its failing at. And if it can do that, then we're in business.*
+
+Not only a sustainability of the new sensibility, with intersectionality where we constantly think in terms of power dynamics, and who's getting screwed over according to the identities. Not only is that the new sensibility in terms of how the whole world has to be reordered, but now we have to figure out a way to weaken the capitalist superpower, hwile making the Soviet society more innovative like advanced capitalism. We have to create a dialectical synthesis of capitalism and socialism.
+
+Isn't it useful, in the 1980s with Den Shao Ping, that the Chinese Communist context did exactly that. He figured out a way to open up the capitalist market in China, under the blessing and at the pleasure of the CCP.
+
+So the Dengist model creates this thing where you have capitalist-like innovation (people rae striving and working to get rich), but it operates within this oppressive, communist-structured system. You have a new thing that is a synthesis of communism and corporatism, because all the corporations are colluding and at the pleasure of the CCP, and are centrally-planned by the CCP. A communo-fascist fusion, that Klaus Schwab calls a public-private partnership, which is going to manage the new circular economy, which will be rooted in the new sustainability.
+
+The idea is, Marcuse is saying we can actually achieve this. We can get to the liberated, communist system that we actually want. We can get away from all the stupidity, the failure, the losers and the injustice of the capitalist world order, of the free liberal world order, if we could just accept less, and in the process figure out how to dialectically fuse capitalism (corrupted capitalism - crony capitalism) to socialism, and create a public-private partnership (Dengism), and make it take up an entirely new trajectory, not one of domination and reproduction of domination by getting more/making more/selling power/producing more/buying more. Instead, we could figure out how to have a managed population, with a managed circle economy, that operates on sustainability, where that sustainability produces the least amount of conflict so that it stays stable, which means that it has to the least amount of winners and losers, which means we have to have an equity-based system that's going to be intersectional in its orientation. We're going to constantly think in terms of intersectional power dynamics to figure out how to redistribute, not just material, but also power, privilege, opportunity and access. So that we can end up in an open society situation where everyone can travel, there are no borders, etc. But nobody should want to travel, because that's not sustainable (carbon footprint). Unless you can order great social credit to earn the privilege.
+
+You can put the right/wrong people in charge of reading Herbert Marcuse, understanding what Marcuse understood and then having access to the big players who can be bought into this whole program, and OMG what can you do? You can create Marcuse' world. The irony is that if Marcuse were still alive, he would be horified. He would see the coming to fruition of his exact ideas. He would be giddy with the excitement of thinking it's going to work, but when he thinks sees the cooptation of Disney, sees Goldman Sachs and all these big entities, sees what Blackrock is doing, when he starts to see what's actually playing out, when all these big corporate players who are all members of the WEF. When he saw how it is actually going, he would say capitalism, the will to dominate is capturing it again. The new sensibility, isn't pure. The corporate interests, which always reproduce capitalism, have bought into..
+
+## Wrap-up
+What Marcuse is talking about, aside from how horrific it is, and apart from how the intersectional model is just part of a sustainability model. And the sustainability model is the new sensibility that they're trying to destroy the world. Apart from all this:
+
+He talks about the idea of comparing capitalist societies vs the Soviet societies which are backwards, but can be liberated as well - they could get to a perfect communist liberated thing without bureaucracies, and everyone is happy and has freedom. The problem and is necessary is that the superpowers need to be weakened from within in order to achieve liberation. To get people to be willing.
+
+A mass crisis, once the superpowers are weakened, is the main gateway.
+
+## Final Summary
+The idea in the essay on liberation is that, for communism to work ()

new/the_transaction.md.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Interrogation
+So who are you to judge
+
+transhumanism
+transgenderism
+autogynephillia
+paraphilia
+Attraction to things
+to Objects
+fetishizing objects for their form or function
+their conception and representation
+the symbols which they evoke, and the symbols which they are
+The question is whether someone who is criticizing the transgender impetus of society as it stands today
+is doing so out of hate
+and what the accusation of transphobia entails
+Who are you to judge what others do
+why are you demanding something of others
+well was I really ever demanding anything?
+It's completely the other way around
+I have been asked to perform a function
+or, at least, if tasked with performing that function, implicitly, to perform it with the parameters which have been prescribed
+and to not change them
+regardless of their meaning
+well what do you mean, what's wrong with the meaning? the meaning is that of being accurate, that of hcoosing the correct term with the appropriate qualities
+But that's completely wrong, as well. The meaning is something which is produced from our relationship
+and the interaction
+the reality of the interaction is what produces the meaning, because our active participation, through active decision and agreement
+for the choice of which structures to illuminate
+our understanding of these structures
+and our understanding of one another's perspective on those structures
+What does it mean, to have a perspective on those structures?
+well the structures are a configuration of symbols and degree of significance
+some might say a hierarchy
+and also, necessarily, the choice of symbol affects the set, as it implies relationships between teh other symbols as they interface to the common issue being understood
+and given that these have value in making determinations about that which is being understood
+they also affect the value of one another in any given choice of context for analysis
+so with that in mind, we can't really get around our choices of symbols without also performing the analyses of their particular relationships amongst one another
+
+this is a task of infinite complexity, and this is why the ground rules are so important
+since there is an infinite amount of work, and an infinite number of interpretations for aspects that can be enumerated amongst the work
+we need for two things to be applied in order to be able to perform the task with any degree of utility
+and any degree of trust
+the first is that we must establishing use objectivity to guide our analysis
+the second is that we must begin with good faith in the process
+this can only be done if we are in an agreement that the first principle has not been defied
+and we can only do this by addressing one another's concerns about the process
+there is no way around this, because the only way to restore utility is to choose a subject among many as it relates to our pursuit of analyzing that which we've targed to understand
+and a behaviour within that subject in order to systematize and define in terms which can be evaluated and studied
+but without an agreed upon objective process by which to determine which subjects to choose
+we are left in a state where every choice will certainly not be trusted be at least one side
+therefore it becomes nothing but a power struggle
+and if one side is basing their reasoning over presuming a moral failure in the face of an environment with no process for using objectivity to reason about in our transaction
+then there is no transaction except violence
+because all paths lead to that end
+therefore the choice to avoid objectivity
+is one which is insisting on violence
+it is the disengagement which makes this apparant
+apparent
+the fact of one side declaring that the process of reasoning has ended
+because the natural state of conscious interaction is one where reason is to be demonstrated
+even at the basic level with animals who can't communicate abstract concepts
+and that is to apply the reasonable amount of survival force with respect to the survival needs of each participant
+at this basic level, which isn't actually basic at all, but is basic in the sense of the removal of linguistic dialogue
+but at this basic level, there is a transaction about what sort of behaviour is being tolerated given the resource requirements for a given context
+and once a certain threshold has been surpassed by one of the parties, the behaviour of the relationship / interaction changes to one which involves violence
+which threatens the survival of one or both of the participants
+and so in this case we can see that it is a reasonable transaction, to the extent that the participants are capable
+this is a system in that we see that there is a continuity of these organisms or entities
+if there was no success in the chronology of the relationship, then we wouldn't have the demonstration of their continued existence
+one might say that it could very well be the case that there have been other relationships which ceased to exist, and that this had nothing to do with the logic of the interactions
+but the logic is that there is a predisposition towards survival
+and that the actions which are undertaken by the organisms are ones which are chosen given their impact on survival
+this is always done to some degree, if even jsut by unconscious neurological activation patterns which appear to be performed without deliberate thought
+but even these are demonstrating the logic and are, particularly in some cases, initiating or affecting the interaction of the participant
+that these natural pulses of natural biology potentiate survival is an obvious indication that it is reasonable to potentiate one's survival
+and that these impulses potentiate the survival of an organism in the presence of other organisms
+and that the fact of there being a plurality of organisms who experience an impact on their survival by unconscious neurological impulses suggests that the reasonable and logical engagement of each organism in its interaction with one another is one which is perpetually evaluated on each organism's survival impact
+it is for this reason that the only feasible choice of methodology for analysis and resolution of a concern shared by multiple organisms is one whose specification declares most explicitly the expectation of equal application and discrimination for each participant
+because there is no other conception of a system which expresses by nature of its specification a desire for an equal relationship among participants
+regardless of whether there exists equality, there can only be an expression for a desire to have equality by the explicit choice to value a system which could ever possibly enumerate the possible selection of equality