Alien LBO?
Reading Pat Foster's book on the last years of Studebaker. It's familiar territory, with a few details I hadn't seen before. The closedown was an LBO, before the practice was named and established. Curtiss-Wright Aviation wanted to acquire Packard's aircraft plants and tooling without the inconvenience of paying. In other words, they wanted to STEAL the factories. They set up a management contract for Studebaker, not exactly a merger, "picked the Packard plums", then abandoned the company.

Leads me to wonder about the recent focus on ET aliens. Suddenly governments are treating aliens with respect, and fashionable magazines are shaping elites toward negotiating and submitting to superior aliens. Heimatssicherheitsdienst is running Alien Invasion alerts "just for fun".

The war of attrition against all real human commerce and industry and purpose started in 1975 with environmentalism plus offshoring. Those trends continued for 40 years, and now we're in a final push toward victory under the Viran regime.

The war of attrition is identical to a planet-level LBO. Run the place on debt, close down all real factories and stores and mines and resources. Fire the workers or wear them down with incessant crazy demands and low wages.

A commercial LBO leaves the resources and real estate vacant and unused, purchased without payment, ready for the predator to start exploiting.

A planetary LBO would look the same, and this is exactly where we are.

I don't believe this theory. I don't like complicated theories. Ockham removes unnecessary entities. The simplest explanation for the last 40 years is just Viagra for psychopaths. Demons running rampant because they can.

Still, the alien LBO is an interesting correlation. Maybe more complex thinkers can fill in more of the details.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 6:36 AM

  The missing piece in the point of inflection
In the last two weeks I've been reading and noting some remarkably prophetic articles in Edmund Berkeley's Computers and Automation journal, from 1956 to 1976.

The authors had a sharp and clear grasp of the virtues and failings of computer tech, which was just about ready to transform the world in 1976. They also saw and predicted Deepstate's takeover of all souls through tech.

At the exact same time a parallel change was rumbling, a change that affected the country and economy in the same way and the same places as tech. Offshoring had started around 1958 in consumer electronics (first to Japan), and spread to the entire real economy by 1990. 1976 was the BIG inflection point in this trend because Mao died.

Nixon had been opening the gates from our side, but China didn't unbolt its side of the door until Mao died and new leaders restored China's natural capitalism.

Other tech magazines and CEOs like Romney were already worrying about offshoring in '58. I haven't seen even the slightest mention of China or Japan or offshoring in Berkeley's mag.

Why? I don't know. Were these authors ivory-tower academics who didn't think about factories? No, there were plenty of articles ABOUT factories by practical industrial types.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 9:15 PM

  Bot oddity
This blog always has 3 or 4 real readers and lots of fake-reader bots. The reals tend to be partial Luddites like me, sticking with older versions of Windows and browsers. (I saw a Windows Vista last week!) Bots always use the latest Chrome and Win 10. (Come to think of it, I haven't seen any Win 11 yet.)

Lately the bots have been following a simple pattern.



More bots on even days, less bots on odd days. Sometimes the rhythm skips a day and flips the even-odd.

Presumably the low point, around 150 per day, represents the baseline random assortment of bots without daily schedules, and the peaks are added by one bot-center that hits this blog as part of an odd-day group or an even-day group.

But why? What do bots gain by "reading" a blog that has only a handful of actual readers? They're sure as hell not learning what Influencers think. It's a puzzle.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Metrology

  ¶ 5:32 AM

  More zombies
Random note while I'm thinking about those skeletal burning ascetics, and thinking about Chicago.

I happened to notice a picture of the current mayor of Chicago. THIS IS A ZOMBIE. A skeleton kept "alive" by a BURNING NEED TO EAT BRAINS.

More important random note, thinking about Bush Junior's original orders to Mecher along with the ascetic zombies. Chertoff was head of the Homeland Gestapo at that time. Another skeleton. Did he play a major part in initiating the holocaust? He doesn't seem to be mentioned in Lewis's hagiography, but that doesn't mean much.

Labels: #WholeOfSociety, Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 10:42 PM

  No Schindlers this time
Vintage.es features a British aristocrat who used his power and wealth to rescue some Czech Jews from Hitler's genocide. We rightly honor those rescuers.

No Schindlers this time. Nobody in a position of power and wealth lifted a finger to slow down the genocide. A whole bunch of people have been trying to maintain the truth, but we don't have power and wealth.

Was this perfect OCD cleanliness intentional?

We still don't know much about the threats and bribes that kept EVERYONE in line. At the start we heard from Lukashenko and Magufuli that the IMF had tried to bribe them. We heard occasional scraps of evidence about bribes to individual legislators. None of that is sufficient to explain PERFECT COMPLIANCE BY ONE MILLION DEMONS.

The Public Death Demons were trained and selected toward this consummation for a century. But many mayors and governors were relatively new to politics and hadn't been inside the Epstein blackmail circle during the 15 years of preparation.

Maybe the Mecher story will offer more clues as it gradually unfolds. The unfolders like Jeffrey Tucker are irritatingly slow, dangling little teasers about "not yet public" info.

Speaking of teasers, Justin Hart hasn't followed up on his tease about Pence being at the center of the shit.

The planners thought of everything. At some point they had to take specific actions to stop "heroes" from obstructing the Whole-Of-Society Disinfection.

Labels: #WholeOfSociety, Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 7:52 AM

  God says TLM.
In previous item I had the tardigrade protesters carrying a 'Tardi Lives Matter' sign, just because it's a typical sign nowadays. I was throwing together a fast silly picture because I felt a shortage of silly pictures. Amusing myself.



Maybe it's not so amusing.

There are many similar critters living in the same places. Arthropods, annelids, nematodes, rotifers. Some are more complex than tardis, some are simpler. Tardis are ordinary in size and complexity.

Only tardis have superpowers.

None of those other critters have special mechanisms to survive all sorts of conditions that don't happen in nature. A shady moss grove doesn't experience gamma rays, vacuum, absolute zero, or being shot from guns.

It's clear that Tardi Lives Mattered in the mind of the designer. Why? Were tardis the original colonists sent to establish life on earth? Or sent from earth to colonize other planets? They have exactly the powers needed for a long spaceflight. After the flight, they live everywhere and they're inconspicuous and innocuous, maybe even cute. Nobody hates them.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Entertainment, Grand Blueprint

  ¶ 12:53 AM

  Random thought about writing and reading
This is a big question that itches me occasionally, for no real purpose. Two new subquestions....

Big question: We have hard-wired brain sections for speaking and listening to language. These have been known and partly understood for a long time. We also have hard-wired brain sections for reading and writing, more recently identified.

We have a solid record of languages developing over time, though we don't know how the first languages grew out of the internal structures of the brain. Languages start out wildly complicated, with the specific purpose of private communication among our family or our tribe. If the tribe or family spreads or conquers others, the language simplifies and broadens.

Our conventional history of writing systems is reversed from the above pattern. We assume, based on good evidence from cave paintings and ceramic markings and such, that the first writing was simple and crude, some combination of drawings and tally marks.

Tally marks are the start of bookkeeping, and also the start of formalized status. More notches on the stick = more kills = more status. This status count has spread into military insignia and branding, as in Roadmaster and Impala. More VentiPorts = more cylinders = more status.

Subquestion 1: Drawings and tally marks are NOT a complex structure, and NOT a good basis for encryption to protect our tribe or our business from competing spies. If the analogy holds, we should have started with a highly structured form of painting or tallying, with brush patterns or 'grace notes' to protect secrecy. Are the cave paintings really the earliest examples? Were earlier and more complex paintings or writings made on surfaces that didn't endure?

Subquestion 2: Nature matches the food with the consumer, and matches the sender with the receiver. Most animals know what they're supposed to eat, and have jaws or mandibles or digestive systems designed to consume the desired target. Bees and flowers supposedly developed independently, but their communication systems are exquisitely matched, including a tally system.

Since we have hard-wired capacities for reading and writing, this analogy would require some tool or surface developed for our use. It's easy to imagine that we felt the need to make marks, and started scratching in the dust with fingers, then used a stick for more precision, then dipped the stick in mud, then started mixing pigmented mud to write on rocks. But that sequence doesn't fit the overall pattern of user and tool co-developing. Was there a plant or tree or leaf that was the intended paper for our pen?

The two subquestions converge on the intended paper or surface. If such a surface can be determined, it should be easier to look for remnants or 'tracks' from remnants. When you know what you're looking for, you start looking in places you didn't bother to check before. A lot of recent discoveries in biology came after the lookers removed their theory goggles and looked in new places, or looked at existing places from different angles.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Grand Blueprint

  ¶ 5:02 PM

  A hypothesis
Pure speculation, but consistent with known patterns.

Fact 1. FDR broke two of Deepstate's pillars. On his first day in office he clamped down on banks, and continued clamping down harder on the entire financial pillar. He then repealed Prohibition, depriving Lady Edgar of her main source of power and revenue.

Fact 2. FBI's sole purpose is committing blackmail and creating "terrorists".

Hypothesis. When FDR deprived Lady Edgar of power and revenue, Lady Edgar struck back by grabbing authority over bank robberies and creating bank "terrorists". Dillinger and Pretty Boy made bank-haters (including FDR) look horrible, and gave Lady Edgar a way to defend the banks from the horrible enemy. The two pillars, bankers and blackmailers, were now united in opposition to FDR.

In short, Dillinger and Pretty Boy were working for Lady Edgar, just as the "Soviet" "agents" of the 50s and the "hippie" "terrorists" of the '60s and the "anti-nuke" "activists" of the 70s and the "Islamic" "terrorists" of 2001 and the "Trump" "insurrectionists" of 2021 were working for FBI.

Can this be proved or disproved? No. But it does fit the century-long pattern.

= = = = =

Later non-barking thought: Why are the '80s and '90s missing from the list? FBI made a couple of big splashes in the '90s (Ruby Ridge, Waco) but those murderfests didn't turn entire groups into "terrorists". Why? Possibly because blackmail power is intensely personal, not institutional. After Lady Edgar ceased blackmailing, FBI was weakened and rudderless for a while, and even allowed Congress to fakely "investigate" its overreach. 2001 marked the rebirth of full terrorforce with the switch to "bioterror".

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 1:19 AM

  Old subject plus new question
Languages start out with impenetrable complexity, used for encryption. Over time they simplify in ways appropriate for the groups that use them.

Reprinting from 2016:

= = = = = START PARTIAL REPRINT:

Modern debates about encryption (ie the Bitcoin scam or the fake dispute between Apple and FBI) ring hollow to my ear, but I hadn't figured out why until just now.

Both sides are missing the oldest and deepest fact.

Encryption is the PRIMARY form of communication. Encryption came first. Publicly readable speech and writing came later.

Most living things communicate through chemical, visual and audio signals. Some fish communicate through AM and FM radio waves. Bacteria and mitochondria communicate electrically via wires. Most of these 'channels' are intrinsically and physically private.

Smarter vertebrates turn public audio channels into private channels through individual variations. Why do birds develop special grace notes? So a male can stand out as a mateworthy individual, and so members of a family can recognize each other.

Why did humans take it to the next level with more complex and more articulate syllables? Not so everyone could understand. That's SUICIDAL. We developed language so OUR FAMILY and OUR TRIBE could communicate without OTHER FAMILIES picking up the information.

Why did humans later develop ways of recording information on clay or wood? Three semi-separate motivations. (1) The priesthood of bookkeepers (my kind of priesthood!) developed numbers so they could keep track of business transactions. After the idea of visual mapping became familiar, the specific number symbols for One Ox or One House came to represent the ox or house itself, and then the sounds for Ox or House. After that, metaphor expanded or specialized the symbols.



(2) Census-takers picked up the trick, using it to register information about residents for governmental purposes like debts and taxes. (3) Religious priesthoods used writing to keep the scriptures within bounds, so they could gain power and money by renting out little bits of the ceremony. Guilds developed their own special sublanguages to protect their ownership of skill-estate, so they could rent out skilled labor without passing the skills to outsiders.

All of these priesthoods were trying to keep information within their own circles. Otherwise, why bother?

And that's where we are now. The same place we've always been.... except that AS FUCKING USUAL we intentionally reverse our understanding.

The initial and permanent purpose of communication is EXCLUSION. DIVISIVENESS. XENOPHOBIA. When communication REALLY MATTERS, it's coded.

= = = = = END PARTIAL REPRINT.

Language develops just like genes. All the complexity is there at the start, and each group loses or turns off the genes it doesn't need.

New question:

The original complexity of language must be contained in the genes, PLUS the original need for secret and encoded communication, and facilities for creating variations in sound to ensure privacy. The variation ability is well recognized in birds, but not in humans. Do we have an innate sense or measuring tool for secrecy?

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Grand Blueprint, skill-estate

  ¶ 1:46 AM

  Nice clear article on Bitcoin
Atypically, BBC has a wonderfully clear account of recent moves in Bitcoin, plus a straightforward and understandable description of how the crime works. The latter is remarkably hard to find.

The article compares Bitcoin's total energy usage with several countries, which has been done before and isn't really useful. Countries have a wide variety of climates and use energy in a wide variety of ways, so the total energy of Holland or Chile can't be compared with anything else.

The article also compares Bitcoin with the total power usage of all data centers, which is a precise comparison. Bitcoin and the cloud are the same thing working for different purposes. Bitcoin uses HALF AS MUCH POWER as the total of all other data servers. The cloud is working for real business and government. Some of what the cloud does is horrible by my standards, but it's unquestionably REAL. Bitcoin is working for nothing at all, just running calculations that are discarded. Absolute pure total purposeless meaningless waste, and mostly run by fossil fuels.

= = = = =

Calibrating: I've been puzzled or bothered lately by the convergence of Bitcoin sellers and truth-tellers. Several of the best HARDASS truth-tellers are also Bitcoin cultists.

Are they cynically using the truth as a 'loss-leader' to attract followers? Or do they have a blind spot? The latter is always possible. Everyone has blind spots, everyone sees the truth about some things and deludes themselves about other things.

No puzzle about McAfee. He is total HARDASS. He tells the truth (as he sees it) about everything, and openly states that he's pushing Bitcoin solely to make money. Sucker Filter right out front.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Sucker Filter

  ¶ 9:37 AM

  Irrelevant personal sidenote on follies
I encountered and enjoyed two follies when I was young. One was an astounding and mystifying piece of architecture on a property that had once been wealthy; the other was more ordinary but still fun.

The big one: In 1960 my radio uncle was renting the main section of a fantastic building in St Joseph. As far as I can tell the building is gone now. It was around 6th and Robidoux, on the SE corner of a block. Everything in that area has been replaced by city buildings, and nothing resembling this place shows on Googlestreet. The main part was a fairly ordinary 'mission-style' bungalow, with a two-story apartment wing attached. My uncle got reduced rent for acting as the resident manager for the apts. Below the main wing was a basement containing a museum, with archeological displays and skeletons. From the basement a long tunnel, something like the Hartness tunnel, led down to a large underground auditorium carved from a natural cave. (I'm calling it an auditorium because it had a raised stage at one end.) The auditorium had a separate hillside entrance, something like a mine adit, with a long flight of stairs down to the auditorium. This entrance, and the auditorium and the apts, were built like a school or public facility, with industrial-type floors and walls. There was a little ticket booth inside the hillside entrance. What was it? I haven't the slightest idea. It might have served as a bomb shelter, but the school-type floors and stairs were older than the '50s, so weren't built for that purpose. The tunnel had shelves with full wine bottles, and the attic above the apts contained old pinball machines and similar gambling equipment. Best guess: a speakeasy or semi-legal private nightclub for guests of the manor? Gambling + wine + secret room with a stage = speakeasy? Maybe. Opposite explanation: A convent, with apts for nuns, the main house serving as 'commons', and the underground chamber as a chapel.

The smaller one: Across the street from Grandma's apartment in Ponca, an upperclass bungalow had a stone fish pond in the yard, open for everyone to hang around and watch the colorful fish. Next to the fish pond was a glass display case attached to the house, always full of interesting objects. Nothing mysterious, just a real folly, maintained at some cost and effort to amuse the neighbors. The follies were removed around 1970, probably when the house changed owners, but the house itself is still there as seen on Googlestreet.

Here's a real mystery in Ponca.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Entertainment

  ¶ 3:14 PM

  1933 puzzle
Found this in a 'station album' from WMFF in Plattsburg NY.

The book doesn't have a copyright date but seems to be from '42, judging by the emphasis on war and the dates in biographies.

This is their mobile unit:



Lo-res picture makes details difficult. It's definitely a true Commercial Sedan with a side-opening tailgate, not just a two-door coach with the windows covered. Looks to me like '33 GM, more Pontiac than Chevy. The radiator appears to be curved, while the Chevy still had a flat radiator. The hubcaps look more like the Pontiac than the Chevy version. I can't find any indication online that Pontiac had a Commercial Sedan. Pontiac later made some Sedan Deliveries, which were more like a station wagon than a 2-dr coach.

Later after looking at more pix, I suspect this is more likely a '34 Chev, not a '33 Pontiac.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 11:47 AM

  Bridges or balances 2: trying a question.
Self-calibration is necessary and sometimes difficult.

When I choose one side of an issue, am I choosing it because it's popular? Because it's unpopular? Or because it's right? In an era when Deepstate organizes and distorts "both" "sides" of most issues, the motivations are especially important and especially difficult to navigate. Gouvernour Morris and James Hartness offered useful advice. Both were living through times of tyranny and revolution, and both were trying to hold their focus on permanent truth.

Calibration is especially slippery in moral territory where Nature doesn't offer simple data, like capital punishment or justifiable wars. It's NOT hard in cases like "global warming" and "virus" where Nature is blazingly clear and the correct data has always been publicly available. In these cases the demons are pulling the old Sprenger trick. State the data and then do the exact opposite. Cognitive dissonance builds a fanatical cult.

= = = = =

Mainly for the sake of the slippery cases, I'm going to ask an open question, which I can't answer yet. All I'm doing at this stage is laying out some metaphors that might (or might not) help with the question.

For background, review the Personal Equation Machine: Sidereal time was established by marking the transit of 'standard' stars across a marked lens. Astronomers had to calibrate their own eyes and nervous reactions so they could be sure their transit moment would agree with others. They developed the Personal Equation Machine, with an artificial star crossing a real transit, to calibrate and train their own detection ability. Using the machine established the astronomer's delay time and variability, and using it more helped to reduce the variability.



= = = = =

The question:

Personal Equation Machines calibrate and exercise an astronomer's accuracy and reliability in detecting the truth of a sidereal transit. This is an extremely specialized calibration. Can we find a way to calibrate and train broader powers of truth detection?

If it's possible at all, I think a balance or bridge is a promising path. I'm continuing from last week's discussion of balances and bridges.

= = = = =

I'll use two different types of balance or bridge to show how a balance can detect dynamic or functional qualities, not just static measurements like weight and resistance. These balances send a signal toward the object being measured, and detect the difference between the sent and received signal. If the object is a faithful reflector or amplifier, the difference can be nulled. If the object introduces its own distortions, the difference can't be nulled.

First: The standing-wave balance, commonly used in acoustics labs, sends a steady sound wave down a tube toward a sample of an unknown substance. By changing the frequency of the wave you can set up a resonance in the tube. If you can achieve a resonance or standing wave, you can measure the difference between incident and reflected waves by measuring the strength at the nodes or low points. A perfect reflection leads to zero pressure at the node points.



Here we're using a GenRad tuning fork oscillator to drive the speaker, and using a GenRad sound level meter to pick up the resultant sound. The sample goes in the cap at the left end. The microphone has a long probe extending through the speaker into the resonance tube, and the probe can be moved back and forth by pushing the microphone car. (Incidentally, the car is sort of fun to 'drive', and can be controlled vernierly with the big wheels.)



Polistra has opened up the sample cap, and Happystar has a precut sample of an unknown material ready for insertion.



With the oscillator driving the speaker, we can see the green outgoing wave first, then the violet reflected wave by itself, then the interference pattern of the incident and reflected waves. The open end of the microphone probe is roughly centered in the tube. (I've shifted the reflected wave upward for easier visibility.)



Here's a more schematic image of what really happens. Bear in mind that there's no such thing as zero air pressure. Sound waves are repetitions of increased pressure (red) and decreased pressure (blue) with the "zero" crossings at normal atmospheric pressure. As the incident and reflected waves move through the tube, the actual audible and measurable pressure at each location is always the result of mixing or summing the increased and decreased pressures. The nodes are the places that stay centered as the mix goes up and down.



= = = = =

Now we bring in the original question of sensing or measuring faithfulness of reflection. What happens when the material sample distorts the sound instead of just reflecting part of it? Some materials contain a variety of internal resonators that catch certain frequencies and create their own signals in response. Living things do this all the time.



There's no way to detect a node or null now, because the reflection isn't simply a copy or a negative copy of the original. There might be some points of lower sound, but they will be hard to spot amid the extra frequencies emitted by the active responder.

Several measuring tools for hearing are designed to pick up active live responses. The best is the OAE (oto-acoustic emission) instrument, which I detailed here. The OAE measurement is a truth detector, and is used in real life to detect fake claims of hearing damage.

= = = = =

Second example of a dynamic balance or bridge: an old GenRad tube tester.



We have the same basic pieces. A tone generator drives the grid of the tube. When the voltage between the grid and filament of the tube increases, the flow from filament to plate decreases, and thus the voltage in the output loop. Ideally the output loop should provide an amplified reflection of the input loop. The earphones pick up the difference or balance point between the two loops. Adjusting the variable resistor R1 is like adjusting the small weight on a balance, compensating for the amplification.



Here Polistra is listening for the null while adjusting the resistor to reduce the amplification to equality.



As the pot moves both ways, the reflection in the output loop increases and decreases. At some setting of R1, the reflection will exactly null out the incident signal. If you had to divide the output signal by 4 to hear an exact balance or null, this tells you that the tube was multiplying the input by 4. The setting of R1 thus gives the amplification figure of the tube.



Now we introduce distortion, as we did with the standing-wave acoustic reflection. When the sample being examined (the tube) creates its own noise or active responses, there's no chance of nulling the output. The output loop can never be either a copy or an inverted copy of the input, no matter how much it's reduced by R1. There will always be something extra audible.



= = = = =

Both of these dynamic or functional balances can perform a service that would be hard to define and measure in a simple balance, though it's actually a common situation with a simple balance. Think of trying to weigh a puppy on a produce scale. You could tell that the animal was restless and wiggling around, but the scale wouldn't be able to measure the restless behavior itself. The wiggling would be an unwanted factor, and you'd have to approximate the mean weight in the middle of the jumping and tail-wagging.

As mentioned at the start, this doesn't reach the ultimate goal of a balance-style truth calibrator or exerciser. The active setting of the microphone car or R1 would be the equivalent of tapping the telegraph key on the Personal Equation Machine. There are several huge missing steps. How would this active setting serve as an exercise to help you USE your detection ability? How would a balance try to null out a more abstract "sample" of a moral question? Is there a more concrete "sample" that will accomplish the same exercise?

= = = = =

Language footnote: When I wrote 'trying a question' in the title, I only meant that I was intending to ask a vague question. After I wrote it I realized it's a perfectly apt description. 'Trying' in legal terminology refers obviously to what happens in a courtroom, and arcanely to checking coinage against a standard weight on a balance. See Trial of the Pyx. So trying a question is checking the question against a standard of truth on a balance.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Equipoise, metametrology, Metrology

  ¶ 1:44 PM

  How did they last so long?
Seems like we should be able to learn something from organizations that last a long time, like Trinity House. How do they withstand the pressures of Parkinson? How do they maintain their PURPOSE for hundreds of years?

Nearly all of the longest continuous businesses are in Japan. Many of them are essentially monasteries, so they don't quite count as businesses. But the non-religious ones have also managed to survive, some operated by the same family for 1000 years.

Was Japan's economic structure equally constant? A quick look at some older books on Japanese banking answers HELL NO. Banking was just as tempestuous and unstable as US banking from 1700 to 1930 when the books were written. Central banks were started and abandoned. Currency schemes were started and abandoned. Often a single businessman (like JP Morgan) was effectively the national treasury. Before 1900 most business was still feudal in structure, not commercial in the modern sense.

The most dramatic event happened in 1868 when the shogun abdicated, cleaned out his desk, and cleaned out the treasury.

The government then had to start from scratch, so it confiscated huge amounts from the biggest businesses.

Not stable.

Payment of interest wasn't a typical practice until 1890, so the Jap abandonment of interest in 2000 wasn't really a break with long tradition.

Japan is simply a different species. The people don't do anything to stay healthy. They live to 100. The businesses don't do anything to stay stable. They live to 1000. Different species.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Parkinson, Trinity House

  ¶ 5:06 AM

  ACU more accessible
ACU still hasn't fulfilled its promise of opening the blackmail and finding the Cui Bono. At least they're doing a better job of making their info available in English. Their info and discussions are clear and emotionally powerful.

Discussion doesn't change minds. Minds and attitudes are sometimes open to new info, and it's important to have the info EASILY AVAILABLE in a powerful form when those NOW I SEE moments happen.


Here's the page with proper English subtitles and transcripts on videos.

Also, last week's interview with Pam Popper was natively in English.

And a new interview with Dolores Cahill is all in English. She asks the basic UNANSWERED question for the trillionth time, in clear and strong words. The lockdowns and murder masks are EXACTLY THE WRONG ACTIONS to fight a virus. They make everything worse INCLUDING the virus. So the lockdowns and murder masks must be required for SOME OTHER PURPOSE. What is the other purpose?

Labels: Asked and unanswered, NOW I SEE

  ¶ 7:18 AM

  Who was Wilson's Soros?
I like to ask historical pattern questions. They don't always have a definite answer, but they tend to pry out other useful insights along the way.

Q: Who was the Soros figure in the first incarnation of Deepstate?

The Epstein figure is obvious. Lady Edgar. A sexual deviant who used sexual deviance to blackmail everyone else into abject submission. Lady Edgar continued to fill that slot until she stopped blackmailing in 1973. Then there was a 10-year interregnum, partly filled by Roy Cohn, who was Trump's mentor and teacher. Epstein showed up in the '80s after Cohn stopped blackmailing.

In the 1946 zombie resurrection of Deepstate, the Soros role was unquestionably filled by Bernard Baruch, always depicted in the media as a humble modest philanthropist. Baruch stopped killing in 1965, then a longer interregnum before Soros took over the position in the '80s. In the '60s there were some semi-Soros types like Allard Lowenstein, but no full equivalent of Baruch and Soros.

I can't see an equivalent for Soros in the first birth under Wilson. JP Morgan basically ran the country from 1870 to 1912, but he was never depicted as a humble philanthropist. Everyone knew he ran the country. He stopped killing in 1913, at the same time when Wilson started the formal Deepstate. Since then the "Morgan Interests" have always owned a large part of the economy, but without total control.

Carnegie fits the philanthropist image. Was he the equivalent? Sherburne Hopkins was in charge of Color Revolutions just before Wilson bought the franchise, but Hopkins wasn't especially rich or famous.

One useful insight already pops out: New monster appears just after old monster expires. Not much overlap, no room for two occupants in the niche.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 11:45 PM

  More oddly placed Huxley
Looking through some new items at American Radio History, I found a 1936 issue of a radio listener guide from India, containing Huxley's essay on Pacifism and Philosophy. The magazine wasn't political; it was just the Indian version of the typical weekly program listing with ads and feature articles aimed at housewives.

Huxley has a way of turning up in odd places.

I read the essay, hoping Huxley might have something useful to offer. His insights were prophetic in many areas.

Nope, nothing useful. Huxley gets the facts right. Discussion is pointless, democracy is an empty word, violence works, war and insane genocide are normal. He claims at the start of the article to offer a solution, a way to shape governments toward non-interventionism through discussion. He never gets there.

Only one difference between then and now: Discussion is WORSE than pointless now. In the '30s the Euro Deepstates were using crude censorship to stop all discussion. Since 1946 the US/UK Deepstate has mastered the technique of using fake discussions between two fake "sides" to DISPLACE real thought and real questions.

This isn't really new. Jesuits perfected the art many centuries ago. Jesuit-trained intellectuals know every sleazy dirty vicious arguing trick in the book, and use every trick all the time to defeat and dispirit and de-soul their opponents. Lady Edgar was trained by Jesuits, and she packed her FBI with other Jesuit-trained Romans. After FDR died, Lady Edgar ran rampant creating fake "sides" in every area of culture, ripping up the fabric of society with Jesuit expertise.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 7:06 AM

  Are they getting ready?
Looks like ACU is getting ready for a more significant announcement? They've added two new press conference videos, partly in English. One of them is called FINAL, but so far I'm not seeing any new info or conclusions. Just repeats of the original statement of purpose.

They're also making some live speeches for the protesters in Berlin who are busting through the new Wall.

Bravo to the protesters. Good slogan on one sign: Denkpflicht statt Maskpflicht. Pointless but good.

Maybe the live speeches will break the necessary info? Hope springs eternal, despite constant SMASHING of all hope.

Later: Here is the conference with good clear English subtitles.



Nothing new, but at least they're not collapsing and converging and surrendering into Deepstate like every fucking body else. Heiko Schöning, the first speaker, hits the BIG point around the 5 minute mark.

Labels: Asked and unanswered

  ¶ 11:12 AM

  ACU isn't trying very hard
ACU in Germany has been posting helpful info and videos since June. They declared that they were trying to find the motive and the Cui Bono for this holocaust.

I've been watching their website and several associated websites and Youtube channels.

So far no sign of investigations, no really NEW info. It's reassuring to see serious people with serious credentials firmly MAINTAINING the side of sanity, but after a certain point you start to wonder what they're really doing. (They now say they will issue a report "in August", so maybe I'm jumping the gun.)

The only way to HALT this hell is to break the blackmail. Thousands of Public Death Officers and politicians KNOW the secret, and some of them should be disgruntled enough to talk about it with proper persuasion.

The only meaningful info came a couple weeks ago from Lukashenko, who told about the IMF's attempt to bribe him into compliance, which he courageously rejected. He also said that the World Bank DIDN'T try to bribe him, offering loans without forcing compliance. Taken together, these two data points should be major clues leading to the source of the holocaust. The barking dog and the non-barking dog. But I don't see anyone tracking them.

Now that several Euro countries have officially pulled out of the holocaust, there should be less internal pressure on bureaucrats in those countries. But still no info.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Constants and Variables

  ¶ 9:46 PM

  First false flag
A new video from ACU.



Ruppert is talking in stark and heartbreaking terms about the INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF JOY AND CONFIDENCE by the psychopathic terrorists. He's hitting the mark precisely, because this is the innate permanent natural purpose of psychopaths. Killing is always available, but killing is just spitting out a used-up wad of chewing gum after it loses its flavor. Destroying confidence is the FUN PART. Victims must NEVER be allowed to keep their mental balance. Every time the victim adapts to the latest grotesque incomprehensible tyranny, every time the victim starts to feel slightly stable and normal, the psychopath PUNCHES the victim and SLAMS his face back into the shit.

Unfortunately Ruppert also seems to be supporting one of the obvious false flags, the microchip vaccine story. It's clear that vaccination is expressed as a goal by the Public Death Officers, but this is solely to create a plausible and forever-movable goal post. Vaccinations don't work well for flu and common cold viruses, and this Haute-Couture Branded Virus is the common cold with a designer label. "Masking and locking until the vax works" is a deceptive way of saying "Masking and locking FOREVER." And of course the masking and locking serve to extend the epidemic forever, along with causing millions of extra wonderful deaths from all other causes. Beautiful positive feedback loop.

Even from a prosaic monetary standpoint the vax doesn't fit. If Big Pharma and Gates wanted to profit from a new forced vax, the previous mechanisms of Public Health, before it was switched to Public Death, could have done it. Many vaxes are already required for infants or school starters. With the power of the Gates Foundation, it would have been easy to add a new vax to the required set. No need to destroy the world.

False flags on all topics misuse constants and variables in this way. Flaggers tell us that the new evil is needed to accomplish a goal that either ALREADY EXISTS, or could have been accomplished easily without all the effort and expense of the new evil. The 'vote-by-mail' false flag is a good example. The flaggers claim that this holocaust is designed to force mail voting. Immediately wrong, because Wash and Ore and Calif, the heart of the holocaust, ALREADY HAVE mail voting.

Labels: Asked and unanswered, Constants and Variables, Jackboot stomping forever, Jail mode

  ¶ 5:40 AM