but the way the drug is being used for covid patients is the same as it is being used for lupus patients.
does dr. fauci have any comments to make about a study such as this?
Friday, July 31, 2020
i'm not dr. fauci's peer, and i'm not going to pretend i am.
but, this is my opinion of his position.
this isn't a situation where a randomized study makes any sense. the study itself indicates that multiple treatments were used, and assigns the different results to that fact; fauci seems to think that's a bad thing, but it actually represents real-world use, as this drug probably wouldn't work as a sole treatment option. it's only going to be useful when you see patients fall into the cytokine storms. randomized trials are just going to lead to the drug being used in situations that are not actually appropriate.
so, his claim may sound convincing, but it isn't - it demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the situation very well. it seems like he's trying to rebut the second study rather than the first - but, as stated, i would expect the second study (the prophylactic one.) to fail.
i don't know what he's doing. maybe he's embarrassed and humiliated and digging in and hoping it works out. maybe he's legitimately confused.
but, i think an analysis and deconstruction by his actual peers would be highly useful, in context.
but, this is my opinion of his position.
this isn't a situation where a randomized study makes any sense. the study itself indicates that multiple treatments were used, and assigns the different results to that fact; fauci seems to think that's a bad thing, but it actually represents real-world use, as this drug probably wouldn't work as a sole treatment option. it's only going to be useful when you see patients fall into the cytokine storms. randomized trials are just going to lead to the drug being used in situations that are not actually appropriate.
so, his claim may sound convincing, but it isn't - it demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the situation very well. it seems like he's trying to rebut the second study rather than the first - but, as stated, i would expect the second study (the prophylactic one.) to fail.
i don't know what he's doing. maybe he's embarrassed and humiliated and digging in and hoping it works out. maybe he's legitimately confused.
but, i think an analysis and deconstruction by his actual peers would be highly useful, in context.
can we peer review dr fauci's testimony?
thanks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/house-committee-coronavirus-1.5670440
thanks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/house-committee-coronavirus-1.5670440
our school systems are failing to teach basic science, and the media is just taking advantage of it to maximize profit - while the social media gatekeepers and government agencies tell us to relax and trust their lies.
it's a perfect dystopia, isn't it?
there's only one way out - educate yourself. do your own research. use critical reasoning; do not suspend disbelief.
only you are in charge of your mind.
be vigilant.
it's a perfect dystopia, isn't it?
there's only one way out - educate yourself. do your own research. use critical reasoning; do not suspend disbelief.
only you are in charge of your mind.
be vigilant.
it took way too long for them to write this article, but it's better late than never.
read that and then compare it to the bullshit you've been reading in your twitter feed, for what? weeks? months?
my stepmother is (was? i don't even know. i guess she's over 65 now, anyways.) a bone marrow specialist with the red cross for some time, working specifically in the oncology department at the cbs. she ended up getting fired for harassing a colleague; i guess she couldn't throw the colleague out of the house. so, i admit i cheated a little. but, it's, like, introductory bio, guys...
i have a tendency to attack people for being ignorant fucking idiots, but i'm a patient person. you don't know this; maybe you should, but you don't. fine.
but, how some of this garbage got published at big sites like cnn, with no apparent attempt to bother checking the facts before generating the clickbait, is beyond me. there's dozens of articles by big organizations that made somebody a lot of money, but really, really just shouldn't exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-immunity.html
read that and then compare it to the bullshit you've been reading in your twitter feed, for what? weeks? months?
my stepmother is (was? i don't even know. i guess she's over 65 now, anyways.) a bone marrow specialist with the red cross for some time, working specifically in the oncology department at the cbs. she ended up getting fired for harassing a colleague; i guess she couldn't throw the colleague out of the house. so, i admit i cheated a little. but, it's, like, introductory bio, guys...
i have a tendency to attack people for being ignorant fucking idiots, but i'm a patient person. you don't know this; maybe you should, but you don't. fine.
but, how some of this garbage got published at big sites like cnn, with no apparent attempt to bother checking the facts before generating the clickbait, is beyond me. there's dozens of articles by big organizations that made somebody a lot of money, but really, really just shouldn't exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-immunity.html
so, if biden picks a black woman called karen, how long before black america spontaneously combusts, in a warp in space-time?
i'm imagining the speech. after five or ten minutes of empty pandering and talking about how important black americans are to the campaign, he stops and says.
so, i've picked my candidate, and we think that black americans will love her. her name is....
(pause)
KAREN....
...and, then all of a sudden, the earth starts shaking, the lights start blinking, and anybody that were to look towards the sky at that exact moment would have seen swirls of colours in the night sky, for that split second.
and, then that's it.
biden is gone. and, black america has imploded, gone to some other dimension within our vast & poorly understood cosmos.
i'm imagining the speech. after five or ten minutes of empty pandering and talking about how important black americans are to the campaign, he stops and says.
so, i've picked my candidate, and we think that black americans will love her. her name is....
(pause)
KAREN....
...and, then all of a sudden, the earth starts shaking, the lights start blinking, and anybody that were to look towards the sky at that exact moment would have seen swirls of colours in the night sky, for that split second.
and, then that's it.
biden is gone. and, black america has imploded, gone to some other dimension within our vast & poorly understood cosmos.
well, this is nice to see.
hey, you give me some good news every fucking once in a while, and i'll post it, eh?
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2020/07/canada-and-ontario-invest-in-affordable-housing-in-kingston.html
hey, you give me some good news every fucking once in a while, and i'll post it, eh?
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2020/07/canada-and-ontario-invest-in-affordable-housing-in-kingston.html
one thing that is probably true, though, is that the babylonians had more actual raw data than we do.
we have actual sunspot data, for example, going back a few hundred years.
they probably had thousands of years worth of observation, by the end of the process. those observations are probably lost, but (ignoring errors, like procession) they may have helped them understand cycles that we're really only able to guess with math. they probably recorded celestial objects we've never seen, and saw them come through more than once.
it's actually one of the great tragedies of history, and we can only hope we find something useful, eventually.
we have actual sunspot data, for example, going back a few hundred years.
they probably had thousands of years worth of observation, by the end of the process. those observations are probably lost, but (ignoring errors, like procession) they may have helped them understand cycles that we're really only able to guess with math. they probably recorded celestial objects we've never seen, and saw them come through more than once.
it's actually one of the great tragedies of history, and we can only hope we find something useful, eventually.
it's a fair enough critique; i may have been a little anachronistic in my language. i guess this clarifies what i meant to say.
but, this also helps to explain two things:
1) why the islamic authorities were so uncomfortable with the math & astronomy going on
2) the existence of certain strains of islam (like sufi.) that are kind of kabbalistic in scope. that is, there has continually been a synthesis of islam with astrology happening under the radar, and that's what they were trying to stop.
we had the same bullshit in europe. it's known now that newton, for example, was an avid alchemist - and that he spent a large amount of his life trying to convert base metals into gold. but, he had to keep it underground, or he'd have ended up dead.
and, if you look into it, the whole kepler/copernicus crowd had astrological streaks of it's own.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/babylonians-scientists/462150/
but, this also helps to explain two things:
1) why the islamic authorities were so uncomfortable with the math & astronomy going on
2) the existence of certain strains of islam (like sufi.) that are kind of kabbalistic in scope. that is, there has continually been a synthesis of islam with astrology happening under the radar, and that's what they were trying to stop.
we had the same bullshit in europe. it's known now that newton, for example, was an avid alchemist - and that he spent a large amount of his life trying to convert base metals into gold. but, he had to keep it underground, or he'd have ended up dead.
and, if you look into it, the whole kepler/copernicus crowd had astrological streaks of it's own.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/babylonians-scientists/462150/
ei is in need of reform and has been for a very long time; it's stuck in the 50s, in a lot of ways.
so, this is beyond necessary, and i hope they make it better.
but, my confidence is fairly low. let's hope they prove me wrong.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7239834/cerb-recipient-move-ei/
so, this is beyond necessary, and i hope they make it better.
but, my confidence is fairly low. let's hope they prove me wrong.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7239834/cerb-recipient-move-ei/
i highly advise against downloading this or otherwise interacting with it in any way at all.
in the end, you might get arrested for alcohol consumption.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/07/31/health-canadas-covid-alert-app-goes-live-friday/
in the end, you might get arrested for alcohol consumption.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/07/31/health-canadas-covid-alert-app-goes-live-friday/
according to the official tallies, cases are supposedly going down. so, why are they targeting bars & restaurants, at this point in the process?
well, they just passed a hijab law for kids, with the apparent purpose of habituating them to mask use. i mean, just think about you're doing - you're telling 10 to 15 year-old kids to wear masks at school. what's going to happen?
1) they're only going to wear them when there are adults looking over them.
2) they're going to grab the front of the mask repeatedly (defeating the point)
3) they're going to grab each other's masks and play games with them. there will be kids that have their masks stolen.
..and you can follow my train of thought from there.
these are actually exactly the reasons that health experts hesitated to even talk about masks for so long - if you don't wear them right, they'll make things worse.
on top of that, you're talking about kids in very close quarters. if actual medical masks may have some marginal benefit in stopping spread in spaces like malls, hijab-type cloth masks are going to be entirely useless in stopping the spread amongst kids in close proximity to each other.
and, you're not going to succeed in keeping kids apart from each other without exceedingly strict measures that nobody is going to tolerate.
it's a crazy idea, for any reason other than to try to habituate. that's what they're doing. deal with it.
and, what's next on the list?
alcohol.
muslims forbid any consumption of alcohol.
are you starting to get it yet?
well, they just passed a hijab law for kids, with the apparent purpose of habituating them to mask use. i mean, just think about you're doing - you're telling 10 to 15 year-old kids to wear masks at school. what's going to happen?
1) they're only going to wear them when there are adults looking over them.
2) they're going to grab the front of the mask repeatedly (defeating the point)
3) they're going to grab each other's masks and play games with them. there will be kids that have their masks stolen.
..and you can follow my train of thought from there.
these are actually exactly the reasons that health experts hesitated to even talk about masks for so long - if you don't wear them right, they'll make things worse.
on top of that, you're talking about kids in very close quarters. if actual medical masks may have some marginal benefit in stopping spread in spaces like malls, hijab-type cloth masks are going to be entirely useless in stopping the spread amongst kids in close proximity to each other.
and, you're not going to succeed in keeping kids apart from each other without exceedingly strict measures that nobody is going to tolerate.
it's a crazy idea, for any reason other than to try to habituate. that's what they're doing. deal with it.
and, what's next on the list?
alcohol.
muslims forbid any consumption of alcohol.
are you starting to get it yet?
lol.
props to the first person that shits his pants in his seat in protest of the requirements.
they're breaking their own laws.
doug ford needs to resign, immediately. by breaking the rule of law in such an absurd fashion, he has defaulted on his previous mandate. he no longer has any authority, and no laws he passes have any force.
we need an election, immediately.
in the mean time, how do you deal with this kind of fascism?
1) non-compliance, in whatever form it takes.
2) civil disobedience.
3) targeted legal action.
while i have no interest in sitting in a bar without live music, i will not be abiding by these rules, and i dare you to do something about it.
and, why do i call the "islamic golden age" a "babylonian renaissance"?
because that's what it was.
while muslims like to take credit for this now, the islamic authorities were actually not particularly impressed by all of the star gazing and astronomy that was going on and acted more to suppress it than to support it. the names that have come down to us are almost all kurdish. the contribution that islam played into this was really on the level of ending the damn war, which allowed the ancestral populations (which were semitic, not persian) to kind of regain themselves.
so, they built a city called baghdad on top of the ruins of babylon, but it just turned back into babylon, and picked back up where the babylonians had left off, in staring out at the stars and trying to figure it out.
the babylonians were, in their day, master astronomers, and we have stories of pythagoras traveling to babylon to meet the "sages" there for good reason; large amounts of what we call greek math are probably ultimately babylonian, in origin. we just can't trace it back; instead, we get these dead ends at the greek. more often than not, those dead ends are going to go back to babylon.
and, that's what happened - a return of babylonian science, in the city they built on top of the wreckage.
baghdad was eventually decimated by a grandson of genghis khan, and brother of kublai khan, and i'm in the camp that argues they never fully recovered.
because that's what it was.
while muslims like to take credit for this now, the islamic authorities were actually not particularly impressed by all of the star gazing and astronomy that was going on and acted more to suppress it than to support it. the names that have come down to us are almost all kurdish. the contribution that islam played into this was really on the level of ending the damn war, which allowed the ancestral populations (which were semitic, not persian) to kind of regain themselves.
so, they built a city called baghdad on top of the ruins of babylon, but it just turned back into babylon, and picked back up where the babylonians had left off, in staring out at the stars and trying to figure it out.
the babylonians were, in their day, master astronomers, and we have stories of pythagoras traveling to babylon to meet the "sages" there for good reason; large amounts of what we call greek math are probably ultimately babylonian, in origin. we just can't trace it back; instead, we get these dead ends at the greek. more often than not, those dead ends are going to go back to babylon.
and, that's what happened - a return of babylonian science, in the city they built on top of the wreckage.
baghdad was eventually decimated by a grandson of genghis khan, and brother of kublai khan, and i'm in the camp that argues they never fully recovered.
i've been over this before, but briefly.
while there have been some attempts to link kurdish ethnogenesis further back in time, both the origin of the term (which means 'tent-dweller' or 'wanderer'.....which i'm interpreting as refugee) and the proposed date of linguistic differentiation from persian suggest that kurdish ethnogenesis did not actually take place until well after the islamization of the fertile crescent. stated very tersely, when the dust settled after the major shift in power that happened after the arabs moved north and (1) kicked the romans out and (2) flat out conquered the persians, there were all of a sudden all of these iraqi persians living in the mountains, and there's really not a story as to how that happened - kind of like how there's really not a story about how we ended up with a really large amount of jews in eastern europe.
we know that there was nobody called kurds in the region during the classical period, and we know that persians had been in control of iraq almost continually at that point for roughly 1500 years, with the only substantive break occurring in alexander's lifetime; the post-alexandrian seleucid state was eventually overrun by parthians from central asia, but it was essentially a continuation of the achaemenid state. so, the persians had a very deep history in iraq at the time of what was initially an arabic military occupation. so, we know that there was no such thing as a 'kurd' in any of the literature from the time of cyrus (c. 550 bce) until roughly the year 900 ce, and we know that the persians dominated the region for almost all of that period, until about 650 ce (roughly, and the dates are actually a little blurry).
then, we have these kurds living in the mountains like refugees, speaking a new dialect of persian that just pops into history just right then. further, we have a lot of muslims in mesopotamia, all of a sudden, living in baghdad rather than ctesiphon or seleucia (initially babylon). over time, we see these kurds develop as a kind of ruling elite, as well. if you look into it, you realize that the entire babylonian renaissance that was centered on baghdad was really kurdish, rather than arabic, in origin.
i don't even know how you'd convincingly prove the hypothesis, but it just seems obvious to me to put two and two together and deduce that quite a lot of iraqi persians must have ended up in the mountains around the time, as a way to evade what was happening in the city, and surrounding areas. and, all you have to do is look at what happened in the isis invasion to get a kind of rough idea of how that must have happened - the arab groups come in from the south in a rage, and the persians must have sought higher ground to get out. a few hundred years later, they have a new dialect and a new identity. or, sort of; if you can interpret being called a refugee as an identity.
what that means is that, if i'm right, the kurds are essentially a 1300 year old iraqi persian refugee population.
yes...
1300 years of being refugees in the mountains.
while there have been some attempts to link kurdish ethnogenesis further back in time, both the origin of the term (which means 'tent-dweller' or 'wanderer'.....which i'm interpreting as refugee) and the proposed date of linguistic differentiation from persian suggest that kurdish ethnogenesis did not actually take place until well after the islamization of the fertile crescent. stated very tersely, when the dust settled after the major shift in power that happened after the arabs moved north and (1) kicked the romans out and (2) flat out conquered the persians, there were all of a sudden all of these iraqi persians living in the mountains, and there's really not a story as to how that happened - kind of like how there's really not a story about how we ended up with a really large amount of jews in eastern europe.
we know that there was nobody called kurds in the region during the classical period, and we know that persians had been in control of iraq almost continually at that point for roughly 1500 years, with the only substantive break occurring in alexander's lifetime; the post-alexandrian seleucid state was eventually overrun by parthians from central asia, but it was essentially a continuation of the achaemenid state. so, the persians had a very deep history in iraq at the time of what was initially an arabic military occupation. so, we know that there was no such thing as a 'kurd' in any of the literature from the time of cyrus (c. 550 bce) until roughly the year 900 ce, and we know that the persians dominated the region for almost all of that period, until about 650 ce (roughly, and the dates are actually a little blurry).
then, we have these kurds living in the mountains like refugees, speaking a new dialect of persian that just pops into history just right then. further, we have a lot of muslims in mesopotamia, all of a sudden, living in baghdad rather than ctesiphon or seleucia (initially babylon). over time, we see these kurds develop as a kind of ruling elite, as well. if you look into it, you realize that the entire babylonian renaissance that was centered on baghdad was really kurdish, rather than arabic, in origin.
i don't even know how you'd convincingly prove the hypothesis, but it just seems obvious to me to put two and two together and deduce that quite a lot of iraqi persians must have ended up in the mountains around the time, as a way to evade what was happening in the city, and surrounding areas. and, all you have to do is look at what happened in the isis invasion to get a kind of rough idea of how that must have happened - the arab groups come in from the south in a rage, and the persians must have sought higher ground to get out. a few hundred years later, they have a new dialect and a new identity. or, sort of; if you can interpret being called a refugee as an identity.
what that means is that, if i'm right, the kurds are essentially a 1300 year old iraqi persian refugee population.
yes...
1300 years of being refugees in the mountains.
are ashkenazi jews really jews though?
the y-dna says that, yes, they are. the mt-dna suggests some admixture with indo-european types, although that's also true of mizrahi jews, due to the massive influence of the persian empire on hebrew ethnogenesis.
the science on this advanced rapidly about 15 years ago or so, when the technology finally allowed for it, and it's not really an open question. but, it's never really been clear how so many jews got so far north, and i'll admit having looked into the khazar thing...
there really does appear to have been a jewish empire parked roughly around the ukraine in the dark ages, and the story as to how they became jewish has not come down to us in any form other than myth. the story is that the khazar king converted to judaism to act as a buffer between the recently converted christian russians (they didn't actually convert for a long time after that) and the more seriously muslim caliphate to the south of the caucasus. i can't prove that didn't happen, but nobody really takes the legend all that seriously. so, nobody really knew for sure until they did the testing...
the thing is that eastern european jews don't actually look turkish, either. the turks are a central asian people that really have strongly eastern phenotypes. so, while the jewish empire was there, and for several centuries, it was actually observationally obvious that all these eastern european jews couldn't really be all that turkish, either.
they must have just migrated north sometime around the year 700. that would have been about the same time that the caliphate came in, and introduced coercive rules to stimulate conversion.
i have a similar hypothesis with the kurds, who show up out of nowhere at the same time, and the curiously close genetic relationship we've uncovered between kurds and jews is maybe kind of illuminating in that respect. both populations seem to have become migrant at about the same time, and apparently as refugees of the muslim takeover, after the conclusion of the lengthy roman-persian wars that ended the classical period.
but, yes - they are genetically jewish, even if they really don't look like it. and, it's just that curve tending to the limit, over time.
i used the example because it was the most obvious i could find...
the y-dna says that, yes, they are. the mt-dna suggests some admixture with indo-european types, although that's also true of mizrahi jews, due to the massive influence of the persian empire on hebrew ethnogenesis.
the science on this advanced rapidly about 15 years ago or so, when the technology finally allowed for it, and it's not really an open question. but, it's never really been clear how so many jews got so far north, and i'll admit having looked into the khazar thing...
there really does appear to have been a jewish empire parked roughly around the ukraine in the dark ages, and the story as to how they became jewish has not come down to us in any form other than myth. the story is that the khazar king converted to judaism to act as a buffer between the recently converted christian russians (they didn't actually convert for a long time after that) and the more seriously muslim caliphate to the south of the caucasus. i can't prove that didn't happen, but nobody really takes the legend all that seriously. so, nobody really knew for sure until they did the testing...
the thing is that eastern european jews don't actually look turkish, either. the turks are a central asian people that really have strongly eastern phenotypes. so, while the jewish empire was there, and for several centuries, it was actually observationally obvious that all these eastern european jews couldn't really be all that turkish, either.
they must have just migrated north sometime around the year 700. that would have been about the same time that the caliphate came in, and introduced coercive rules to stimulate conversion.
i have a similar hypothesis with the kurds, who show up out of nowhere at the same time, and the curiously close genetic relationship we've uncovered between kurds and jews is maybe kind of illuminating in that respect. both populations seem to have become migrant at about the same time, and apparently as refugees of the muslim takeover, after the conclusion of the lengthy roman-persian wars that ended the classical period.
but, yes - they are genetically jewish, even if they really don't look like it. and, it's just that curve tending to the limit, over time.
i used the example because it was the most obvious i could find...
"but skin pigment is caused by latitude and sun exposure"
well...
if you were to take sequential samples of italians over many thousands of years, you may find that they have a tendency towards a browner skin colour, as that phenotype repeatedly wins in that latitude.
but, if you were born in modern day germany, and your ancestors were from russia, and you migrate south to italy in a very large group of other similar looking people, you're bringing in dna that adapted to a very different climate, and it's going to take quite a while for that to get absorbed.
it works the other way, too - if you take darker skinned people and plonk them on the booted peninsula, their descendants may lighten up eventually, if they're lucky, but it's going to take quite a long time.
italians and spaniards seem to be roughly about where they ought to be, in terms of pigmentation, relative to other people at the same latitude, at this time. but, i believe the last major waves of migration to the peninsula were vikings and arabs, both pushing 1000 years ago, at this point.
immediately before the roman period, there would have been a large scale migration of very light-skinned people from over the alps, and that migration would be responsible for what we call the roman republic. when rome fell apart, you had germans from the north and arabs from the south meeting each other at that latitude, and the result would have been an infusion of darker skin, which has actually since lightened up - which is why it is both true that italians from the classical period look whiter than they do today and south italians from the dark ages look darker than they do, today.
if you look at a map more closely, you see this kind of thing all over the place, even with indigenous groups. people in the area north of china look more like people to the south of china than the chinese, themselves, because that was the direction of that migration. if you check back in a thousand years, that might change, but it takes some time to adjust....
likewise, european-americans are going to end up with the same skin tone as native americans, eventually. but, we're a few hundred years in, so far, and still waiting.
so, you need to be careful with that - the curve tends to a limit over time, but it's always going to be short-term migration that is dominant, overall.
well...
if you were to take sequential samples of italians over many thousands of years, you may find that they have a tendency towards a browner skin colour, as that phenotype repeatedly wins in that latitude.
but, if you were born in modern day germany, and your ancestors were from russia, and you migrate south to italy in a very large group of other similar looking people, you're bringing in dna that adapted to a very different climate, and it's going to take quite a while for that to get absorbed.
it works the other way, too - if you take darker skinned people and plonk them on the booted peninsula, their descendants may lighten up eventually, if they're lucky, but it's going to take quite a long time.
italians and spaniards seem to be roughly about where they ought to be, in terms of pigmentation, relative to other people at the same latitude, at this time. but, i believe the last major waves of migration to the peninsula were vikings and arabs, both pushing 1000 years ago, at this point.
immediately before the roman period, there would have been a large scale migration of very light-skinned people from over the alps, and that migration would be responsible for what we call the roman republic. when rome fell apart, you had germans from the north and arabs from the south meeting each other at that latitude, and the result would have been an infusion of darker skin, which has actually since lightened up - which is why it is both true that italians from the classical period look whiter than they do today and south italians from the dark ages look darker than they do, today.
if you look at a map more closely, you see this kind of thing all over the place, even with indigenous groups. people in the area north of china look more like people to the south of china than the chinese, themselves, because that was the direction of that migration. if you check back in a thousand years, that might change, but it takes some time to adjust....
likewise, european-americans are going to end up with the same skin tone as native americans, eventually. but, we're a few hundred years in, so far, and still waiting.
so, you need to be careful with that - the curve tends to a limit over time, but it's always going to be short-term migration that is dominant, overall.
when the romans started off, they would have looked more like modern day swiss or austrians than modern day italians. the italic languages are thought to have evolved alongside the celtic languages in modern day switzerland, before moving south into italy. but celtic and italic actually are thought to have split rather late, so the wide swath of western europe including spain, france, southern germany, italy and the british isles would have emerged from the bronze age roughly homogeneous in culture and language.
over time, the pax romana, which set in after augustus, led to large scale migration all over the place. the romans also brought in massive numbers of slaves from everywhere they conquered, and freed a large number of them in the end. genetic studies have demonstrated a major footprint from the orontes, which was noted in the classical literature as well.
so, rome changed over time. but, for the proper roman period, ending in 476, the emperors would have mostly been startlingly, pasty white.
if you want to know what a roman proper looked like, zuckerberg is actually pretty much spot on.
https://www.quora.com/Were-Roman-emperors-all-white
over time, the pax romana, which set in after augustus, led to large scale migration all over the place. the romans also brought in massive numbers of slaves from everywhere they conquered, and freed a large number of them in the end. genetic studies have demonstrated a major footprint from the orontes, which was noted in the classical literature as well.
so, rome changed over time. but, for the proper roman period, ending in 476, the emperors would have mostly been startlingly, pasty white.
if you want to know what a roman proper looked like, zuckerberg is actually pretty much spot on.
https://www.quora.com/Were-Roman-emperors-all-white
listen, though.
i'm an advocate of democracy, and in ways so intense you've probably never even imagined it, but history teaches us fairly clearly that the type of fake "democracy" that exists in the united states always ends up in dictatorship, in the end.
the american system almost seems like it intended for an augustus to take over, eventually.
i don't think trump's the guy, though. too old. past his due date...
i'm an advocate of democracy, and in ways so intense you've probably never even imagined it, but history teaches us fairly clearly that the type of fake "democracy" that exists in the united states always ends up in dictatorship, in the end.
the american system almost seems like it intended for an augustus to take over, eventually.
i don't think trump's the guy, though. too old. past his due date...
i want to flip the conspiracy theory over, though.
trump talks about the opposition rigging the election when he's in the process of rigging it, himself. it's a deflection tactic.
the thing is that we just watched biden steal the primary.
Everyone knows it. Smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it
he's right.
this is going to end up as two old, corrupt white guys trying to steal the election by outcheating each other.
trump talks about the opposition rigging the election when he's in the process of rigging it, himself. it's a deflection tactic.
the thing is that we just watched biden steal the primary.
Everyone knows it. Smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it
he's right.
this is going to end up as two old, corrupt white guys trying to steal the election by outcheating each other.
well......
just watch him, right?
if he were to delay the election by executive order or presidential proclamation (probably the latter.) at more or less the last minute, then challenge it at every level, he would no doubt be able to delay it for months.
1) the court is going to eventually rule on an election date. who knows when. but, that might be all he wants.
2) i couldn't imagine him winning an election that he delays by executive order, and then has overturned by the courts.
the more pressing issue is how self-identified conservatives are going to react to such a thing, and it would no doubt be pyrrhic, to say the least.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270
just watch him, right?
if he were to delay the election by executive order or presidential proclamation (probably the latter.) at more or less the last minute, then challenge it at every level, he would no doubt be able to delay it for months.
1) the court is going to eventually rule on an election date. who knows when. but, that might be all he wants.
2) i couldn't imagine him winning an election that he delays by executive order, and then has overturned by the courts.
the more pressing issue is how self-identified conservatives are going to react to such a thing, and it would no doubt be pyrrhic, to say the least.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270
would i have supported the american revolution?
no, i probably wouldn't have.
the american revolution is a little more complicated to me than the french revolution, which i would have supported very strongly (i may have even written a book tearing down edmund burke). i suspect i would have found myself in canada fairly quickly, but i can't say for sure; it may have depended a lot on what class i found myself born into.
france & russia are no brainers, for me, though - i would have been fully in support of all of the death and all of the carnage, as necessary to overthrow the ancien regime.
no, i probably wouldn't have.
the american revolution is a little more complicated to me than the french revolution, which i would have supported very strongly (i may have even written a book tearing down edmund burke). i suspect i would have found myself in canada fairly quickly, but i can't say for sure; it may have depended a lot on what class i found myself born into.
france & russia are no brainers, for me, though - i would have been fully in support of all of the death and all of the carnage, as necessary to overthrow the ancien regime.
if i was in england in the 16th & 17th centuries, would i have argued in favour of bombing the puritan settlers?
i'd have a hard time making that argument....because bombs hadn't been developed yet.
cannons, maybe.
but, given the context, i'd have been more likely to encourage as many of them to leave england as possible; i'd have been more concerned about just getting rid of them first.
and, then, maybe, once every single puritan had been banished from england, then maybe we could start thinking about laying siege to them.
i'd have a hard time making that argument....because bombs hadn't been developed yet.
cannons, maybe.
but, given the context, i'd have been more likely to encourage as many of them to leave england as possible; i'd have been more concerned about just getting rid of them first.
and, then, maybe, once every single puritan had been banished from england, then maybe we could start thinking about laying siege to them.
if only it was that easy, right?
if we could just hit delete and end religion forever, right?
*sigh*.
the difference between the bountiful colonies that i will again say i would support carpet bombing and...mennonitism?....is that in bountiful we're talking about one colony and with the mennonites there's many, many of them.
so, i can't uphold an example of rape as a reason to bomb all of the mennonite colonies. there may be the odd one that's ok; the point is i can't generalize like that, and i know it.
but, i'd certainly support bombing the bad ones.
if we could just hit delete and end religion forever, right?
*sigh*.
the difference between the bountiful colonies that i will again say i would support carpet bombing and...mennonitism?....is that in bountiful we're talking about one colony and with the mennonites there's many, many of them.
so, i can't uphold an example of rape as a reason to bomb all of the mennonite colonies. there may be the odd one that's ok; the point is i can't generalize like that, and i know it.
but, i'd certainly support bombing the bad ones.
what do i think of these weirdo mennonites, though, anyways?
not much, frankly.
they're very quiet. i guess we all know they're there, but we don't hear much from them, so it's kind of like they're not. and, that's probably better for both of us.
i don't really know much about them, what they believe or how they live. i get the idea that they don't really like technology, and i guess they probably live in very patriarchal societies that are rooted by threats of violence, but i've really never thought about it much. if they were to ever show up with guns and try to take over the government, i guess i'd have a reason to look into them a little more. as it is, the fact that they're so quiet means i have essentially no reason to really care about them much, one way or the other.
i know i've been very critical of the mormon groups up in the mountains, like in bountiful. that was a case that they very badly screwed up. "religious freedom" is hardly a valid excuse for rape, and i'd be just as happy if they carpet-bombed the place.
i frankly don't know if that kind of thing goes on in these mennonite colonies or not, but i would support a crackdown on them if there is any evidence or suggestion that it does.
if not, the existing arrangement - where we barely acknowledge each other's existence in any way at all - is fine with me. so, carry on...
not much, frankly.
they're very quiet. i guess we all know they're there, but we don't hear much from them, so it's kind of like they're not. and, that's probably better for both of us.
i don't really know much about them, what they believe or how they live. i get the idea that they don't really like technology, and i guess they probably live in very patriarchal societies that are rooted by threats of violence, but i've really never thought about it much. if they were to ever show up with guns and try to take over the government, i guess i'd have a reason to look into them a little more. as it is, the fact that they're so quiet means i have essentially no reason to really care about them much, one way or the other.
i know i've been very critical of the mormon groups up in the mountains, like in bountiful. that was a case that they very badly screwed up. "religious freedom" is hardly a valid excuse for rape, and i'd be just as happy if they carpet-bombed the place.
i frankly don't know if that kind of thing goes on in these mennonite colonies or not, but i would support a crackdown on them if there is any evidence or suggestion that it does.
if not, the existing arrangement - where we barely acknowledge each other's existence in any way at all - is fine with me. so, carry on...
the issue is explicitly and specifically within the mennonite community and explicitly and specifically tied to the religious and cultural aspects of that community.
the media should not be referring to them by the language or ethnicity they may share with people of other faiths, or of no faith at all.
the media should not be referring to them by the language or ethnicity they may share with people of other faiths, or of no faith at all.
i saw this in a different paper and couldn't figure out what the hell they were talking about, what is a "low german speaking" population?
it turns out that the term is used to refer to people from the low countries that speak germanic languages. but, like....is there some dutch community out there that got hit? did it spare the walloons, specifically?
it turns out that by "low german speaking", what they mean is mennonite/hutterite, and this actually appears to be a case of political correctness that has gone full retard. that is, as far as i can tell, they're trying to avoid mentioning the religious character of the community so as to not create some kind of stigma.
but, if you see this term come up, that's what it means - the isolated mennonite communities that do indeed exist throughout canada, and apparently in essex county, and that have been experiencing heightened rates, indeed as a consequence of their religious practices.
and, i'm actually sort of uncomfortable with this. when i talk about muslims or christians or whatever else, i ensure that it's the religion i'm mentioning, because i know there are plenty of arabs that have abandoned islam and plenty of italians that have abandoned christianity (and whole swaths of hebrews that have abandoned judaism). like, there is a difference between a religion and a language.
i would actually consider it racist to use arab and muslim interchangeably - these are different concepts, and i'm very careful to separate them.
i would really like to see this use of language discontinued, and denounced as the racism that it really is - there's not an outbreak in the dutch-speaking community, whatever that might even mean. rather, there is a developing problem with outbreaks in religious mennonite communities.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/health-unit-reports-covid-19-cases-among-low-german-speaking-community
it turns out that the term is used to refer to people from the low countries that speak germanic languages. but, like....is there some dutch community out there that got hit? did it spare the walloons, specifically?
it turns out that by "low german speaking", what they mean is mennonite/hutterite, and this actually appears to be a case of political correctness that has gone full retard. that is, as far as i can tell, they're trying to avoid mentioning the religious character of the community so as to not create some kind of stigma.
but, if you see this term come up, that's what it means - the isolated mennonite communities that do indeed exist throughout canada, and apparently in essex county, and that have been experiencing heightened rates, indeed as a consequence of their religious practices.
and, i'm actually sort of uncomfortable with this. when i talk about muslims or christians or whatever else, i ensure that it's the religion i'm mentioning, because i know there are plenty of arabs that have abandoned islam and plenty of italians that have abandoned christianity (and whole swaths of hebrews that have abandoned judaism). like, there is a difference between a religion and a language.
i would actually consider it racist to use arab and muslim interchangeably - these are different concepts, and i'm very careful to separate them.
i would really like to see this use of language discontinued, and denounced as the racism that it really is - there's not an outbreak in the dutch-speaking community, whatever that might even mean. rather, there is a developing problem with outbreaks in religious mennonite communities.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/health-unit-reports-covid-19-cases-among-low-german-speaking-community
there's another foundational difference underlying the gap between how the americanized spectrum views these terms through colloquial language and what the terms actual mean, in the context of the theories they exist within, and that's this dichotomy around the individual v the collective.
what the americanized spectrum wants to do is set individualism (which it speciously associates strictly with hyper-capitalism) off against collectivism (which it equally speciously associates strictly with communism). so, in the americanized spectrum, you have individualists on one side and collectivists on the other and they're just always in struggle.
but, any european politico would acknowledge the centrality of hegel in the development of the politics of the left, and realize that the entire point of the left for the last 200 years has been about finding a way to synthesize the individual and collective into a dialectic, not set them off against each other in a fight. on the left, we fight about class, not about this individualist/collectivist canard.
the individual is more free when the collective takes control of private property; socialism maximizes personal freedom, it doesn't struggle against it. there is no contradiction, at all.
as an aside, one of the fun ways that left-libertarians like to piss off right-libertarians is to remind them that market theory is inherently collectivist in nature, and that the great ricardo was a total pinko. it's also fun to remind them that one of the defining traits of contemporary capitalism is the trivialization of individuality into market choice.
what the americanized spectrum wants to do is set individualism (which it speciously associates strictly with hyper-capitalism) off against collectivism (which it equally speciously associates strictly with communism). so, in the americanized spectrum, you have individualists on one side and collectivists on the other and they're just always in struggle.
but, any european politico would acknowledge the centrality of hegel in the development of the politics of the left, and realize that the entire point of the left for the last 200 years has been about finding a way to synthesize the individual and collective into a dialectic, not set them off against each other in a fight. on the left, we fight about class, not about this individualist/collectivist canard.
the individual is more free when the collective takes control of private property; socialism maximizes personal freedom, it doesn't struggle against it. there is no contradiction, at all.
as an aside, one of the fun ways that left-libertarians like to piss off right-libertarians is to remind them that market theory is inherently collectivist in nature, and that the great ricardo was a total pinko. it's also fun to remind them that one of the defining traits of contemporary capitalism is the trivialization of individuality into market choice.
most people that call themselves socialists nowadays don't seem to care a lot about human rights in the face of government authority, and would probably be better off calling themselves conservatives, in the actual meaning of the word. what they want is an ordered, top down society where everybody has a defined role and rules are enforced relatively strictly. like star trek, or something. they think that's socialism.
they should read up on edmund burke; that's where they really are, and that is really where their movement is.
but, of course, the people that call themselves conservatives today are actually mostly classical liberals. so that's not their tribe, either.
they should read up on edmund burke; that's where they really are, and that is really where their movement is.
but, of course, the people that call themselves conservatives today are actually mostly classical liberals. so that's not their tribe, either.
i realize i just used a term i used to use more often but don't use as much anymore.
left libertarian.
nowadays, i usually just call myself an anarchist, but i haven't clarified the point in a while. due to the co-option of the term by hard-right classical liberals, anarchism has become kind of a damaged label - i know that, i get that. but, i guess at some point i stopped caring. or, maybe i decided there was enough writing out there at that point to make the distinction unnecessary.
but, as i'm ranting about masks in a way that is not that different than the ancaps are (and, this is the rare scenario where our shared libertarianism overpowers our diametrically opposed economic views), maybe it's a good time to remind you of the point: when i call myself an anarchist or a libertarian, i use the term in a mostly french/european context, just as i use the terms liberal and conservative in very british/canadian ways. i insist that i'm using the language correctly, and that i am right to use the language correctly, but i realize that the fact that americans are hopelessly lost in backwards colloquialisms may make my writing a little hard to follow if you watch too much tv.
this is a succinct quote:
anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State.
that's me, isn't it? spot on.
i realize that it's a contradiction within the americanized spectrum to simultaneously argue for individual liberty and the socialization of production at the same time, but that's where we are here on the libertarian left, and we don't see it as a contradiction at all but as two halves of a greater vision for a society where people are freer to live in less statist restrictions because they've socialized the means of production.
the last thing to point out is that a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that the word socialism, itself, is so warped in the americanized spectrum. in this highly colloquial americanized spectrum, the words liberal and conservative have almost perfectly reversed meaning and libertarianism has been co-opted by what most of the world calls liberals (and americans call conservatives). so, it's only natural that the world socialism has been colloquialized as well to mean a reference to big government, when socialism has always been about abolishing government everywhere else in the world.
so, of course you're confused - you don't really understand what any of the words i use mean, because you've managed to destroy the meaning of virtually all of them.
but, i'm not going to conform to your colloquialisms, i'm going to insist on the proper terminology and demand you try harder to keep up.
left libertarian.
nowadays, i usually just call myself an anarchist, but i haven't clarified the point in a while. due to the co-option of the term by hard-right classical liberals, anarchism has become kind of a damaged label - i know that, i get that. but, i guess at some point i stopped caring. or, maybe i decided there was enough writing out there at that point to make the distinction unnecessary.
but, as i'm ranting about masks in a way that is not that different than the ancaps are (and, this is the rare scenario where our shared libertarianism overpowers our diametrically opposed economic views), maybe it's a good time to remind you of the point: when i call myself an anarchist or a libertarian, i use the term in a mostly french/european context, just as i use the terms liberal and conservative in very british/canadian ways. i insist that i'm using the language correctly, and that i am right to use the language correctly, but i realize that the fact that americans are hopelessly lost in backwards colloquialisms may make my writing a little hard to follow if you watch too much tv.
this is a succinct quote:
anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State.
that's me, isn't it? spot on.
i realize that it's a contradiction within the americanized spectrum to simultaneously argue for individual liberty and the socialization of production at the same time, but that's where we are here on the libertarian left, and we don't see it as a contradiction at all but as two halves of a greater vision for a society where people are freer to live in less statist restrictions because they've socialized the means of production.
the last thing to point out is that a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that the word socialism, itself, is so warped in the americanized spectrum. in this highly colloquial americanized spectrum, the words liberal and conservative have almost perfectly reversed meaning and libertarianism has been co-opted by what most of the world calls liberals (and americans call conservatives). so, it's only natural that the world socialism has been colloquialized as well to mean a reference to big government, when socialism has always been about abolishing government everywhere else in the world.
so, of course you're confused - you don't really understand what any of the words i use mean, because you've managed to destroy the meaning of virtually all of them.
but, i'm not going to conform to your colloquialisms, i'm going to insist on the proper terminology and demand you try harder to keep up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)