“I’ve just been outside, the climate… the climate is gone!!! As of today, there’s no more climate out there! Temperatures, winds, humidity and all that… don’t exist anymore. Good thing I have machines that maintain the climate in the house! Close all the windows now, don’t let my climate leak out!”
The first historical instance of “climate denial”, by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
There you go, that’s what “climate denial” means, if you’re using English as a code for your communication. And no one has ever done it before me in the history of humanity!
There exist no climate deniers since no one has ever denied climate.
If you were thinking of people who deny the climate change, those are called “climate change deniers” in English. It’s a completely different group, since they’re denying different things. That’s if you operate the formal distinction between “climate” and “change”, but climate is change, factually, it’s anything but constant. However, there has always been a small and fringe group of people who denied climate change of any sort. Note that in English “fringe” doesn’t mean “wrong”, they’re just not representative for large populations.
Remember: the correct denomination for this group is “climate change deniers”!
Lastly, but most importantly, quantitatively and scientifically, there’s the large mass of “climate change official narrative deniers“, people who deny establishment’s official story about the climate. And that’s the third and most important group you need to be aware of and understand what they do. But frankly, if you needed these clarifications, you seriously need professional help with your cognitive functions, not my blog posts. I mean it clinically, not mockingly.
Later edit: unsurprisingly, in the first couple of days since publishing, among the few negative comments this article got on social media, the most frequent theme is: “I don’t get it, therefore you’re a stupid troll!”. QED.
There is this mad scientist character in ‘The Walking Dead”, obsessed with turning zombies back, he never gives up, despite a long history of constant failures. Can we turn a functional illiterate and make him get it? Help us find out, here’s a fun challenge: Make the least wordy and the most visual version of my meme below, something a goldfish can understand. Then let’s each compare the feedback from goldfish and gretards. And the rest of menagerie that survives at the bottom of the human intelligence pit. My money is on goldfish.
Can you make this better and reach a functional illiterate’s mind?
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
On June 28, 2017, The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.
“This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.”
Going through the IMF/IBRD official press-release published with the launch of this financial “A-Team”, it didn’t take long to spot something very interesting:
World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We are moving away from the cycle of panic and neglect that has characterized so much of our approach to pandemics. We are leveraging our capital market expertise, our deep understanding of the health sector, our experience overcoming development challenges, and our strong relationships with donors and the insurance industry to serve the world’s poorest people. This creates an entirely new market for pandemic risk insurance. Drawing on lessons from the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, the Facility will help improve health security for everyone. I especially want to thank the World Health Organization and the governments of Japan and Germany for their support in launching this new mechanism.”
The World Bank announced the creation of the PEF in May 2016 at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Governors meeting in Sendai, Japan. The PEF will quickly channel funding to countries facing a major disease outbreak with pandemic potential. “Its unique financing structure combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties. The structure was designed to attract a wider, more diverse set of investors.”
According to The World Bank, the PEF has two windows. The first is an ‘insurance’ window with premiums funded by Japan and Germany, consisting of bonds and swaps including those executed today. The second is a ‘cash’ window, for which Germany provided initial funding of Euro 50 million. The cash window will be available from 2018 for the containment of diseases that may not be eligible for funding under the insurance window.
The bonds and derivatives for the PEF’s ‘insurance’ window were developed by the World Bank Treasury in cooperation with leading reinsurance companies Swiss Re and Munich Re. AIR Worldwide was the sole modeler, using the AIR Pandemic Model to provide expert risk analysis. Swiss Re Capital Markets is the sole book runner for the transaction. Swiss Re Capital Markets and Munich Re are the joint structuring agents. Munich Re and GC Securities, a division of MMC Securities LLC are co-managers.
Swiss Re Capital Markets Limited, Munich Re and GC Securities were also joint arrangers on the derivatives transactions.
The bonds will be issued under IBRD’s “capital at risk” program because investors bear the risk of losing part or all of their investment in the bond if an epidemic event triggers pay-outs to eligible countries covered under the PEF.
The PEF covers six viruses that are most likely to cause a pandemic. These include new Orthomyxoviruses (new influenza pandemic virus A), Coronaviridae (SARS, MERS), Filoviridae (Ebola, Marburg) and other zoonotic diseases (Crimean Congo, Rift Valley, Lassa fever).
PEF financing to eligible countries will be triggered when an outbreak reaches predetermined levels of contagion, including number of deaths; the speed of the spread of the disease; and whether the disease crosses international borders. The determinations for the trigger are made based on publicly available data as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Countries eligible for financing under the PEF’s insurance window are members of the International Development Association (IDA), the institution of the World Bank Group that provides concessional finance for the world’s poorest countries. The PEF will be governed by a Steering Body, whose voting members include Japan and Germany. WHO and the World Bank serve as non-voting members.
In the past ten years, The World Bank brags about having has executed close to $2 billion in catastrophe risk transactions.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The best doctor is the one that prescribes the least medicine
popular wisdom
Where does that come from and what does it mean for health-related businesses?
Actual old Nye post
Before admitting pharmaceuticals and medical treatments for quality assessment, before assessing manufacturers’ expertise, before giving them any attention at all, first and foremost we have to consider that:
Sheep don’t benefit wolf’s expertise. Same for sheeple and their predators.
So we have to make sure we’re from the same side of the fence. If I am to be a sheep, I can only count on sheep support. The best way to clear that out is by looking at two things:
Incentives
History
You don’t judge Mafia by Mafia laws, only mobsters do that. Same for Pharmafia.
1. Incentives
“Freakonomics”, a global best-selling book which shaped a generation, has dedicated a solid chapter to experts and their incentives, which obviously dictate how the expertise is used.
An incentive is a bullet, a key: an often tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation
Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
In “for-profit healthcare”, the main incentive is in the name. “For-profit”. What drives profit up? Diseases. What drives profit down? Health.
Disease is demand for health, the demand needs to be maintained above the offer, insatiable. Selling health lowers the demand, cures kill it. Imagine if Coca-Cola cured thirst for good, instead of boosting it and being addictive. There would be no Coca-Cola today. So selling health and cures is a cannibalistic unsustainable business model. As admitted by Goldman-Sachs experts in a letter to a bio-tech client:
The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies… While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.
Goldman-Sachs analyst Salveen Richter cited by CNBC
Drug-addicted mainstream-media tried to spin it and inject doubt. As you can see from the actual quote, the analyst didn’t ask a thing, he stated.
For as long as humanity has been mentally functional and intelligence has been a successful adaptation tool, common sense (seen as natural logic based on personal and peer experience) used to determine our actions. Common sense guided our species’ survival just until corporate education and propaganda took over our minds. Common sense helped us realize that the better the healer, the less you need to see him.
As opposed to most other businesses and occupations, healthcare has a particularity: Its success kills its demand. The better the medicine, the less you need to take it. The perfect medicine would end the need for medicine.
SELLING HEALTH IS COMMERCIAL SUICIDE
So what’s a businessman supposed to do in the commercial-suicide business?
“If they’re selling glass and the business is slow, they grab some bricks and break some windows”
Popular wisdom
Which, in medical business terms, translates as:
YOU CAN PROFIT SELLING HEALTH ONLY IF YOU SPREAD MORE DISEASE THAN HEALTH
There’s no other way to maintain a “health-care” business.
The biggest profit is always in returning customers, which, for a health-care business, identify as people with real or imaginary diseases who can live with them (and spread them, preferably) so they can buy products and services for long enough. The diseased and the hypochondriacs are the market. The market needs perpetually expanded. Of course, if a disease is killing the customers too quickly, you can jack up some prices so you can milk same money or more in a shorter time span. Or life span. See the cancer industry. Better health makes customers return less, unless it’s on subscription. And “a patient cured is a customer lost”.
So spread a bit of health for public image and marketing purposes, spread as much illness and fear as you possibly can without fully destroying your market, and you’re set for an unlimited cash-flow. Worked every time. Success depends only on how you balance the health and the disease you put out. Bonus: this way you also get to control population development, which is a very marketable service too.
The fear created by commercial experts may not quite rival the fear created by terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan, but the principle is the same.
– Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
This business model has been already successfully implemented by every ideology ever. Ideologists sell fear of fictitious dangers and suffering, usually from an imaginary future, demanding actual present tangible benefits as protection tax. The climate industry is booming on the same principles. This sort of mental racketeering is actually the core of our society, it fuels politics, business, religion, and even science.
And that puts the healthcare customer on the other side of the fence from the healthcare business.
In healthcare business, the customer and the seller are in a conflict of interests
2. History
An expert with good intentions and good methods should have a history to vouch for him. According to the officially registered and reported history, every Pharma giant is a felon with multiple convictions for false, fraud, bribery, and other forms of deceit and corruption. Don’t believe what I say, research what I say, just look up whatever your favorite sources are, they all reported the crimes, “the truth is not hidden, people are hiding from it”.
That’s all there is to this chapter, and below is what common-sense should’ve already dictated (and what made my most successful meme to date):
There is no long-term profit in selling health and taking health advice from disease-profiteers is a suicidal policy. They employ experts capable to make you their returning customer, aka perennial patient. The better they get at it, the sicker you get.
The original classic by yours truly
Thus we have shown that the race for profit turns healthcare businesses into expert predators, not helpers. I chose not to become their pray. You?
</debate>
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Big Oil is huge! But it’s still just a segment of the energy market, and whoever controls energy, controls the human species. Foreseeable, technology is bound to make oil obsolete sooner or later, it was already one of the least efficient combustibles available when the Rockefellers turned it into a standard. So, as moguls always do, instead of letting a demise take them by surprise, they organize a “controlled demolition show”, and they sell tickets (taxation) to the poor to make some extra-profit. The Rockefellers, the most notorious rock-stars on this stage, are known as Big Oil moguls, but they are actually way bigger than that. They’ve been always acting like they aspire to be planetary moguls, through the control of energy, food, health and media. The old decrepit Big Oil is actually just holding them back now and they’ve been wanting to end it for quite a while. Exxon, Russia and the rest of the oil/gas-reliant forces on the planet are just annoyances for the Rockefellers and friends. They’ve already ensured themselves a leading position in the next level of the game and have been eager to get there for a while. They’re already selling solutions to the problem they created, instead of letting others steal that market from them. Problem – Reaction – Solution, right?
As mega-financiers, the Rothschilds profit from any controlled demolition or construction, as long as they’re on the controls too. And with mega-vultures like these, always comes a menagerie of predators and corpse-eaters. Projected on the TV screens, this story translates as a “climate emergency”. Below you have a little collection of evidences that prove climate alarmism has always been an elite-sponsored movement , despite the popular belief.
Billionaires are the most invested people in climate alarmism on the planet. Here’s some of the evidence:
THE ROCKEFELLERS HAVE PLEDGED BILLIONS IN THE POST-OIL ENERGY MARKET
The Ecologist, 27th September 2014: ” The movement to divest from fossil fuels is gaining strength, writes Ruth Lumley, with $50 billion of institutional investment behind it. This week’s news that almost $1 billion of Rockefeller money is moving from fossil fuels to clean energy shows that the world is changing faster than most ever imagined.
The latest fund to announce its divestment from fossil fuels is none other then the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, built on oil and coal.
Coinciding with today’s UN Climate Change Summit in New York, the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund said that not only would it pull vast sums of money out of fossil fuels, but that it would funnel the money into clean energy.
This latest announcement is further evidence that the divestment movement is unstoppably gaining traction and snowballing, fast.
Institutions across the globe have begun to pledge to divest from fossil fuels in support of the climate change campaign. This list includes the British Medical Association and the Church of Sweden.
The combined asset size of the 837 institutions and individuals committing to divest amounts to more than $50 billion, campaign group 350.org has calculated.
$50 billion moving out of fossil fuels
The move towards rapid divestment form individuals and institutions has been a result of support for the climate change movement.
The demand for climate change action was evident on Sunday when an estimated 40,000 people took to the streets of London for the Peoples Climate March, which saw over 2,000 protests take place around the world in a bid to make world leaders take solid action towards a stopping climate change.
The movement also took New York by storm with an estimated 400,000 marchers, as well as Rio, Jakarta, Brisbane and hundreds of cities around the world.
In New York, many of the 50,000 students, faith groups, state contingents, and groups carrying banners representing cities or towns, also wore orange squares representing fossil fuel divestment.
Records show that 181 institutions and local governments and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion dollars have pledged to divest to-date.
That number includes the $860 million which will be redirected from fossil fuels by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The report indicates that divestment commitments have doubled in the eight months since January 2014.”
As I said earlier, The Rockefellers have been long selling solutions to the problem they’ve created. Fast forward from 2014 to present time and go on their website to watch Katherine Hamilton – Chair of 38 North Solutions, a boutique consulting firm that provides a suite of business strategy, public policy, and communications services to innovative businesses and organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Energy Global Future Council and was formerly the President of GRID Alternatives Mid-Atlantic. In a nice video, she will tell you all about how “ we can transition to a clean energy economy through the advancement of technology and leadership to end dependence on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. “ Aren’t you already starting to love the Rockefellers?
Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism (propaganda) efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.
“The billionaires’ goal, according to the report, was to crush the oil and gas industry, using government power as the weapon of choice, to ultimately gain greater control over the energy sector once again. “Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy,” the report explains, offering examples. But Rockefellers are no strangers to underhanded machinations to gain market share. Using extremely shady tactics, the report also details how John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, gained a virtual monopoly over the U.S. energy industry by the 1880s — at least until the feds broke it up into smaller companies.” noted The New American in January 2107
“EVEN THE ROTHSCHILDS ARE WEATHER OBSESSED”
Can you believe it?! 🙂
Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschilds’ investments into media and information.
The couple’s private-investment company, E.L. Rothschild LLC, is slated to acquire 70% of Weather Central, which provides weather forecasting services and graphics to local television stations and TV programs such as ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
Ms. Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications executive and a prominent Democratic fund raiser, is CEO of E.L. Rothschild. Evelyn, her husband, is chairman of the investment company and was chairman of the NM Rothschild & Sons investment bank until 2007, when he cashed out his investment. His cousin, Baron David de Rothschild, now runs the investment bank.
E.L. Rothschild also holds the couple’s investments in the U.K.’s Economist Group and agricultural company FieldFresh Foods, majority owned by India’s Bharti Enterprises.
“We have been looking for an investment to partner on an operating basis — as we did with our investment in agriculture in India and with the Economist — since my husband sold his position in NM Rothschild,” Ms. Forester de Rothschild said in an interview.
This is what happened right after the acquisition.
Before Greta Thunberg, there was David de Rothschild
David de Rothschild was a romantic climate warrior before it was cool, basically he’s the proto-climate-hipster. Here he is, in 2009, at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen, whining they can’t fix the weather without a global government and that’s hard to get.
One year earlier, “Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading. In a recently published paper, Trading Emissions, for the Social Market Foundation, Mr Linnett argues that the International problem of climate change demands an international solution. Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.” – The Telegraph, 2008 We can see what you’re doing there!
It all goes back to 1987, when the Rothschilds, through their proxy Maurice Strong, ignited the theory that CO2 is driving global warming. The subtext was that it will cost some money to solve the problem, but they can lend them to any government in need. Which they did, through a host of financial bodies and instruments they control: IMF, World Bank, World Conservation Bank which later became Global Environment Facility, Edmond de Rothschild Private Equity and many more. And the world has never been the same since.
OF COURSE SOROS IS OVER HIS HEAD INTO SPONSORING CLIMATE WARRIORS…
Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.
The Hungarian-born U.S. investor also announced he would form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years.
“Global warming is a political problem,” Soros told a meeting of editors in the Danish capital where governments are scheduled to meet in December to try to hammer out a new global climate agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
“The science is clear, what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem,” he said, according to a brief email statement.
In 2016, DC Leaks has released documents showing that AlGore pulled in $30 million over three years from the Open Society Foundation: “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”
ONE FOUNDATION AKA THE HOLY CLIMATE ALLIANCE: GATES, SOROS, BONO, GRETA. BARE THIEVES.
According to their own website: “ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues. Within a few years, DATA had joined with several other organizations to form ONE, with major backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal was to create a political constituency for development priorities—particularly the UN Millennium Development Goals, which in 2000 set specific global targets to address disease, poverty, and other pressing development issues. “ They are baby-sitting Greta Thunberg too, and the rest is history:
An anonymous source claims to have extracted lots of documents from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database and has put them up online.
The documents, if genuine, seem to have been exposed through carelessness on the part of Extinction Rebellion, not a computer hack. Anyway, Paul Homewood has been filleting some of the best bits and here is what he has found.
The richest people on the planet, representing a small sliver of the total population, are emitting carbon dioxide at a rate that’s imperiling hopes of keeping global heating below 1.5°C, prompting fresh calls for government action to rein in “luxury” pollution and combat the intertwined crises of inequality and climate change.
New research by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) shows that by 2030, the carbon footprints of the wealthiest 1% of humanity are on track to be 30 times larger than the size compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious temperature target.Bezos: “We must conserve what we still have, we must restore what we’ve lost.” Image: EPA
If current trends continue, the richest 1% will account for 16% of global CO2 emissions in 2030.
The carbon emissions of the poorest half of the global population, meanwhile, “are set to remain well below the 1.5°C-compatible level,” according to the analysis, which was commissioned by Oxfam International and published Friday. The planet has already warmed by roughly 1.1°C, and scientists have said any heating beyond 1.5°C would have destructive consequences worldwide.
“The emissions from a single billionaire spaceflight would exceed the lifetime emissions of someone in the poorest billion people on Earth,” Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam’s climate policy lead, said in a statement. “A tiny elite appear to have a free pass to pollute. Their oversized emissions are fueling extreme weather around the world and jeopardizing the international goal of limiting global heating.”
“The emissions of the wealthiest 10% alone could send us beyond the agreed limit in the next nine years,” Dabi added. “This would have catastrophic results for some of the most vulnerable people on Earth who are already facing deadly storms, hunger, and destitution.”
Authored by Tim Gore, head of the Low Carbon and Circular Economy program at IEEP, the new research paper notes that “while carbon inequality is often most stark at the global level, inequalities within countries are also very significant.”
“They increasingly drive the extent of global inequality, and likely have a greater impact on the political and social acceptability of national emissions reduction efforts,” the paper reads. “It is therefore notable that in all of the major emitting countries, the richest 10% and 1% nationally are set to have per capita consumption footprints substantially above the 1.5⁰C global per capita level.”
To slash the outsized planet-warming emissions of the global rich, the study calls on policymakers to pursue restrictions on mega-yachts, private jets, and recreational space travel. In a paper published last month, French economist Lucas Chancel estimated that “an 11-minute [space] flight emits no fewer than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger once indirect emissions are taken into account (and more likely, in the 250-1,000 tonnes range).”
“At the other end of the distribution, about one billion individuals emit less than one tonne per person per year,” Chancel observed. “Over their lifetime, this group of one billion individuals does not emit more than 75 tonnes of carbon per person. It therefore takes a few minutes in space travel to emit at least as much carbon as an individual from the bottom billion will emit in her entire lifetime.”
In addition to targeting sources of “luxury carbon consumption,” the analysis by IEEP and SEI also proposes restrictions on “climate-intensive investments like stock-holdings in fossil fuel industries.”
“The global emissions gap to keep the 1.5°C Paris goal alive is not the result of the consumption of most of the world’s people: it reflects instead the excessive emissions of just the richest citizens on the planet,” Gore said in a statement. “It is necessary for governments to target measures at their richest, highest emitters―the climate and inequality crises should be tackled together.” Emily Ghosh, a scientist at SEI, agreed, arguing that “carbon inequality must urgently be put at the center of governments efforts to reduce emissions.”
“Our research highlights the challenge of ensuring a more equitable distribution of the remaining and rapidly diminishing global carbon budget,” said Ghosh. “If we continue on the same trajectory as today, the stark inequalities in income and emissions across the global population will remain, challenging the equity principle at the very heart of the Paris Agreement.”
I’ve only scratched the surface in this article, this is just a trailer of a saga, the rabbit hole looks more like an old termite colony. I will try to come back with more in depth information and research on the topic, but the main point is beyond evidenced here already, I think: Environmentalism is super-rich men’s business and we’re just pawns in it.
“The plan Soros touted, for instance, is one being put forward by Sir David King, a former chief scientific advisor to the U.K. government: that a fleet of boats positioned around the Arctic could spray salt water into the sky which could help form sun-blocking clouds.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”
I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”
That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.
“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”
But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.
I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
People who declare themselves non-bisexuals have a preference for only one of the two types of genitalia, and some specific body features. 2. According to the new age left, all genders can have any type of genitalia and body features. Ergo: whatever you like, you like all genders. You pervs! ^_^
To my fellow pansexual above: I am happy for you, can I be happy for being what I am? When I fell in love with a person that meets my physical preference for vaginas and titties, it can be a person of any gender, according to your own philosophy. If I reject a person for not having my favorite set of body-features, it can be a person of any gender, isn’t it? So don’t hate me because you’re just like me, and I’m just like you, if you lobotomize me.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Things like justice, truth, correctness are conceptual absolutes that do not support modifiers. Once you attach an attribute to them, it alters their absolute essence and they cease to be justice, truth, correctness etc.
So these concepts in the headline are nothing but semantic scams meant to sell something else as justice, truth, correctness… This is how ideologies are born, as opposed to science and truth.
My argument can only be either correct or not correct. If it’s correct, it’s correct. If it’s politically correct, it’s not correct.
Originally published in March, 2019 on my “Reality for Dummies” web pages
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
About 2 years ago, Ello, an artistic social network, made a roll call for poster graphics on an re-emerging theme: #Resist. Having a hunch where this is coming from and where it is going, I decided to take the opportunity to test my intuition and also send a message.
My thought process was something like: “this is a theme for activists. What are the main threats that need to be resisted by any activist movement ? The list is long and may vary from case to case, but whatever you’re resisting, there’s always one common danger: the takeover. Hijacking and controlling your opposition is more efficient than destroying it. History has already proven that numerous times, for our age it has became more obvious since Occupy Wall Street.”
So my personal spin on the theme was “Resist Controlled Resistance”.
And you know the only people that would hate this message.
For the execution style I kept spoofing activism of all sorts. Historically, resistance and activist movements go for simple, striking, and practical / easily made visuals. Artistic merits are important, but not the primary concern. So what would be today’s anonymous graphics & print shop? Canva.com was the most obvious answer at the time.
Here are the results, and, as expected, none of the three works were admitted in the competition. My end goal was my own article on my own site, though. But life went other directions after that, until recently, when I’ve rediscovered the files in some archives and felt they aged really well, don’t you think? And it’s probably an even better time to spread them. Feel free to do so, just link back to this article, please!
And to spice things up, I made a T-shirt too! With a nifty back-print logo 😉
UPDATE JUNE 10, 2020: Case in point: the Soros-sponsored fascist organisation BLM burns resources and energies rioting against racism while we go through times of unprecedented theft of human rights and liberties. all that while posing as anti-racists and anti-establishment to legitimize and victimize themselves. Because that’s what controlled opposition does.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Censorship is what happens when people with greater powers than others go from saying “I hate this speech!” to factually suppressing that speech. Censorship IS hate speech enacted. Institutionally. Institutional hate that breeds more hate. And institutions follow an agenda. So there is a hate agenda.
Censorship has never protected anyone from hate. If only hate was just about speech! Censorship actually exacerbates hate through frustration. Most ideologically motivated mass shooters were deeply frustrated that their message was suppressed, and they killed people as a way to make themselves heard, among others.
In establishment’s propaganda, “hate speech” has become speech hated by the powers that be. Stalin and all communist dictators branded any opponent “enemy of the people” and any dissenting speech as “subversive”. Replace that with the more contemporary “conspiracy theorist / terrorist” and “hate speech”, see if it reminds you of anyone.
Censorship means we are paying people to take away our speech and our vision. Collectively, censorship doesn’t happen TO us from an entirely external source. Censorship happens usually when a society abandons itself and the fight for freedom because it’s been bought up with more comfort or, more often, with promises of comfort. And, eventually, that comfort always proves to be less preferable than the comfort of liberty.
So censorship doesn’t really protect the people, but, in almost every instance, it has protected powerful and corrupt people from truth. Even the hate that it breeds fits a control agenda, because it’s divisive and it distracts us from lies, corruption and systemic failures. It robs us of messages of love and help from other people, when they go against the censor’s agenda . It’s just another typical situation of problem sold as a solution to itself. Logical hocus-pocus. That’s why they don’t properly teach logic in schools.
There is no way in which censorship can be beneficial, neither to the censored OR the censor. The latter always ends up suffering a form of strong backlash, because the energies it tries to suppress always find a way through, energy doesn’t disappear, doesn’t stay locked forever, it always transforms and manifests.
There’s no way censorship works for us, but there’s a million ways it can go against us.
Fight censorship simply by not participating in it and not collaborating with censors!
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
…the government. In any country ever. Competed only by Pharmafia, for the past hundred years. Almost every death is premature because of them. And there’s one more plot twist.
THEY PLAN IT WITH THEIR HEADS AND EXECUTE IT WITH OUR HANDS
The most superficial or the deepest study of the most mainstream or most alternative history, any official statistics, they all reveal this; and a simple observation of the world outside our heads confirms it. I just added 1 and 1. I can’t anticipate any factual and rational argument against these notes above. If it comes, I’ll address it, maybe even in an edit to this article. I just hope you realize I’m not talking only gun death. Murder is murder, regardless the weapon. Remember this for later. Now, for the people who like to zoom in once they got the big picture…
I have a good tip
I found it recently and I’m currently digging in. And I’m not saying to embrace this book with everything in it, not at all, it just seems a good start and middle ground for discussions and learning, as it’s coming from the establishment, so establishment dupes can’t argue it. But I will actually make an argument (out of many) against it.
“Death by Government” is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years’ War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World. This riveting account is an essential tool for historians, political scientists, and scholars interested in the study of genocide.
The author is R. J. Rummel , Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, who has dedicated his entire career to this topic – lethal governance. He received numerous grants from NSF, ARPA, and the United States Peace Research Institute. Frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association for having intellectually most challenged the field in 1999; the Lifetime Achievement Award 2003 from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association; and the 2007 The International Association of Genocide Scholars’ Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to the Field of Genocide and Democide Studies and Prevention. So he’s on the payroll for the US Government and a homey for the political establishment, if you’re a frequent buyer of the official narrative, Rummel is it. Of course, with such privileges, there’s always bias. If you can see through it, you can learn more than if you don’t, but either way you learn.
LOOK FOR A REAL SOLUTION, THOUGH!
Coming from a US Government mouthpiece, you can expect the book to be filled with their type of propaganda and misinformation, but if the work seems more balanced in its body, it’s precisely to earn your trust and sell you a twisted conclusion and solution.
What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.
R J Rummel
He bases his belief in democracy on war statistics, gun and violent death statistics and such, from which he draws the conclusion that democracies foster less death.
Aaandd that’s where you’re wrong, buddy!
Nevermind the fact that Rummel’s favorite democracy, the one that pays him to write these things, has been at war most of its history. Nevermind that democracy is not freedom, quite the opposite, it’s the dictatorship of majority over minorities; and that majority is usually dumb, ignorant, easy to manipulate by a few super-rich psychos and their generals. And I could go on, but I’ll skip right to the main point:
There’s 99millions way to die, and he’s covered less than ten. And the government has a hand in 99% of these ways.
From Physicians Weekly
Maybe I forgot a couple, but there’s basically only one governmental
measure I can remember that drastically increased the lifespan of
populations: the push for better sanitation and water access in some
places, not long ago. And even then, governments usually ran various
parallel actions of population-culling, to make sure all this health
won’t make the livestock explode beyond their means of control. Overall,
government activity leads to more premature death than to an increased
life expectation. Whatever they did fine could’ve been done better at
the moment, with the resources available. The difference amounts to
years of life for the average Joe. The government can be associated with, but rarely can be proven to cause more life than death. Look
all you want, you won’t find many exceptions from the general rule I
presented in this article. And all those exceptions will sum up to a
tiny fraction of all the human experience since people started to
outsource self-governance, at gun-point usually.
If you are to start a mass-murderer hunt, in the light of some TV programming, start with the biggest!
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Reddit me this: – If you are a musician, you’re more than welcome to post your Soundcloud and Spotify links in Reddit subs. – If you are a journalist, you’re more than welcome to post links to your published articles in Reddit subs. – If you are a photographer and you want to post a link to your photography website or portfolio, you’re a spammer, you’re scum, your post will be taken down from most Reddit subs and you’re even risking a ban.
Not as many people are as familiar with Reddit as with Facebook or other socials, so here’s a little context:
Imagine Facebook was only made of groups and group admins were the Suckerbergs of their domains. This is Reddit for you. When they’re dealing with photography or graphic design or any type of still images, almost all these admins treat creators as milk cows, using their work to drive traffic, engage audiences, grow their influence and sometimes push a product. But if photographers dare to hope for some minimal support, all they get is a spit in the face! As if we are the scum of the Earth for hoping to get some following if our work is appreciated. No one is asking for money, crowdfunding or any direct material compensation. Most of us are so starving for attention on a super-competitive stage that we’re happy to do it for a few bare page views on our websites. But nah, that’s too much to ask, all we are allowed to earn is meaningless upvotes (likes in Facebook terms) which lead nowhere. Reddit brands itself as the “Frontpage of Internet” but when it comes to photography, it’s just a sinkhole where talent gets exhausted for nothing and quickly buried. This is not going on only in Photography subs (groups, in Facebook terms), but in most of them. Some of the biggest leaches are the Travel subs, where photography can be even prevalent over other types of posts. There, this crazy unjustified double standard is even more obvious: you can post a video that directly links to your Youtube channel, you can post an article that links directly to a news organization (which is for-profit), but photographers are 2nd hand reditters, they don’t deserve same privileges, they are expected to kiss admins’ feet for being slaved and disregarded.
Linking is a matter of etiquette in most artistic communities.
How is a photography portfolio link any different from, let’s say, article links, which link to the business that created them? No one asks people to copy-paste the articles in posts, to avoid spam in favor of the publisher. What if people from music subs/groups asked musicians to upload their music directly in posts and stop linking to their Soundcloud?! I have an even better idea: forget Youtube links, let’s start producing original video content, catered especially for these special Reddit admins, and upload it there, free of charge! Yeah, sounds insane, my point exactly, I mean: where do you draw the line?? The double standard is not just obvious, it’s insane and deplorable. This abusive attitude is not even limited to Reddit, that’s just where I find it almost ubiquitous, but it’s quite prevalent on Facebook, MeWe and other socials too. I wonder who came up with the concept that photographers are lower-class artists and deserve to slave for the benefit of some social media parasites.
How is the Reddit organization regarding this behavior?
In its “guidelines for best practices” Redit states: “We’re not making a judgement on your quality, just your behavior on reddit. Your stuff’s probably amazing and someone would be really interested in it but… If you submit mostly your own links and your presence on reddit is mostly for your self-promotion of your brand, page, blog, app, or business, you are more likely to be a spammer than you think! Read the FAQ and make sure that you really understand that.” Self promotion runs the world in 2019, it drives personal growth, self-sufficiency and self-sustainability. It should be encouraged, not seen as a disease. But many people prefer you dependent on them, otherwise their existence would be meaningless. No one seems to take action when they are flooded with corporate self-promo, even when it’s painted on their chest (t-shirt), because that’s called “advertising” and it’s ok. Meanwhile, the most sour, salty and unaccomplished members of society can’t wait to tax the plebs for attempting to post a mere link to their website because that’s “spam”. However, this is not my main argument here. The problem is that, even if you accept this retrograde, disconnected and mindless stance from Reddit, admins/mods still don’t seem to care about it. They definitely make no distinctions, everyone is a spammer in their eyes, you won’t see anyone excepted for good behavior from their brutal and abusive ruling. Anyone but themselves. “Reddit is different from any other place on the web – first and foremost, it’s about community, discussion, and sharing. Honor that and you’ll love it here”, they brag. In fact, everyone in social media attempts the same thing, that’s nothing original. The only thing different about Reddit is that it expects you to honor it and offers nothing in return, besides contempt and disrespect. At least for photographers and such.
A simple and practical solution in two steps:
Step 1. Be the change we all need to see on Reddit: Make a sub that accomplishes three things: – shows actual love to photographers, – allows them to truly benefit from their contributions, – actively pushes users to support what they use / love
Just limit the number of daily posts per person to avoid abuse, and limit the links to one per post, which has to lead to a portfolio or similar, not photo equipment sales or such. And I bet my ass that you will beget tons of love, the best contributions and some the best photographers. I would do it myself, but I can hardly manage my current online presence, I’m doing more things than anyone has time to hear about. So I’m hoping that someone who has the resources and the good motivation picks up on this idea and invites me to the inauguration. I will reward that sub with all the free promo I can offer! I’m an amateur photographer, it’s not my main activity, not even the second on my list of occupations. But I love the art, I put my soul on a plate when I take and publish an image, I love gifted artists, and I think just treatment should be the default in a healthy society. I know for a fact that all situations we put ourselves in should be win-win, otherwise they are lose-lose. Reddit admins think they should be win-fv#k off. No one really wins when the partner loses.
Step 2. Boycott and protest the leeches, instead of feeding them your work.
Who wants to be the positive character in this dystopia / internet drama and do it right? Now would be a great time for you to act!
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Did you know there’s a weather casino on the global market and each weather report enriches some douchebags? Wouldn’t that incentivize the said douchebagsto rig the casino, let’s say through geoengineering, insider info, or simply by faking the reports?
I eventually turned the post into video format, updated as to July 2023:
HERE’S HOW YOU CAN BET ON WEATHER AND TEMPERATURES
” Weather derivatives are financial products that are closely linked to weather conditions. This product was created with the aim of reducing the variability of margins due to adverse weather events. Weather derivatives are customizable products: for example, if the temperature recorded in Milan in the winter period negatively affects revenues, through weather derivatives conditions can be managed more efficiently and risks reduced. Moreover, unlike other products, this solution allows to have a clear knowledge of economic exposure: the occurrence of certain weather conditions leads to a cash flow defined previously and limited to a maximum and a minimum. Weather derivatives, with a lower expenditure compared to traditional solutions, allow to protect oneself from risks that cannot be managed with other products.” This is how sellers like Enel advertise for their products. As always, the advertising is false. If the dealers’ claims were true, the main outcome of this business would be protection and the main beneficiary would be agriculture. The reality sits at the opposite pole of the spectrum: agriculture is one of the least involved in this market, and the main application for this instrument has been financial speculation and gain for the traders. Speculative trading is also encouraged by the main difference between insurances and weather derivatives: it’s not damage that requires retribution, but unforeseen weather developments. Like a spike in temperatures or a hurricane. Well, hurricanes not so much, since Sandy, they dumped products covering for such events and now it’s almost entirely a temperature-based casino.
“Since the contract is index-based, buyers of weather derivatives do not need to demonstrate a loss. In order to collect insurance, on the other hand, damage must be shown.”
JOIN THE DOTS: WEATHER MANIPULATION + WEATHER BETS = ?
Weather modification and meteorological warfare have been a preoccupation for governments around the world since quite a while now, there’s recorded meetings of the US Congress debating these topics since 1950’s. But recently it’s become a private business too. You can even buy the perfect weather for your wedding nowadays. I also know directly from the crew that worked on the Cold Mountain movie that they had weather modification on emergency call because they were losing production money waiting for a rain that was predicted by meteorologists and never came naturally. So the question in the headline above is a no-brainer, I’m not going to insult your intelligence by answering it. Instead I’m going to quote an witty anonymous comment on Internet:
“So all we have to do is check the CME on weather derivatives to see if there is a spike in purchases & we’ll know if we have a major weather event about to happen?”
IT GETS BETTER… I MEAN WORSE!
There’s a video below with a muppet “expert” from the weather casino claiming you can’t abuse the system with “superior information” because meteorologists can only predict accurately a few weeks ahead. Right. I thought we have computer models that tell us beyond any doubt what’s up in 2030 and we only have 18 months to live on the planet due to Global Warming, blah blah… Is that BS then? If so, no probs buddy, that’s not the only way to predict things, best way is to fulfill your own prophecies. As suggested above. And you can get help from your partners in politics. Barack Obama announced in 2013 that he had signed S. 716, which repealed a requirement of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act requiring high-ranking federal employees to disclose their financial information online. “Versions of the STOCK Act had been introduced for several years, but it was fast-tracked at the Capitol following media reports that suggested members of Congress might have profited from private information obtained during their legislative work. Members singled out in the reports maintained their innocence, but the spotlight spurred quick action on enacting legislation emphasizing that members of Congress be subject to insider trading laws among their disclosure enhancements”, according to media reports. So if you have access to intelligence on weather manipulation and geophysical warfare, as conducted by your own government, you’re in for a new nice villa on some tropical island. And that won’t be unprecedented.
WE HAVE THE MOTIVES, THE WEAPONS AND THE SUSPECTS. HOW BIG IS THE HEIST?
The expert in the video below says that no less than 1/3 of the US GDP is weather dependent. I say pretty much every walk of life is weather-dependent and I got back-up:
Weather is not just an environmental issue, it is a major
economic factor. At least $1 trillion of our economy is
weather-sensitive.
“Weather conditions tend to affect volume and usage more than they directly affect the price. An exceptionally warm winter, for example, can leave utility and energy companies with excess supplies of oil or natural gas (because people need less to heat their homes). Or an exceptionally cold summer can leave hotel and airline seats empty. Although the prices may change somewhat as a consequence of unusually high or low demand, price adjustments don’t necessarily compensate for lost revenues resulting from unseasonable temperatures” – from the same Investopedia article. Bottom line: weather is business and the sky is no limit to how much money you can make.
Monte Carlo Simulation of Temperature for Weather Derivative Pricing
One third of the US GDP is “weather dependent”. You’d expect them to control and monetize that, wouldn’t you?
Don Cyr, Associate Professor of Finance & Dean, Goodman School of Business, Brock University, looks at the use of weather derivatives in managing weather related risks tied to Hurricane Sandy. Video by: Business News Network Original video has been removed from the internet
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
“The simulator may be used to simulate not only sunlight, but also earthlight and moonlight. ”
– NASA
‘Member the news about China’s artificial sun? Did you find it far fetched too, like I did? Well, NASA patented such a system in 1966, it wasn’t nuclear, but much simpler, less risky and more practical. We don’t know how this technology evolved and if it’s ever been applied.
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
A version of this article was originally published on my arts and music blog on Synkretic Network, but since the issue and the angle here are much broader than music, reaching into free speech and economy, I think it has a place on this page too.
How many social protest songs have you seen in the charts this last decade? What does that mean?
There’s
a new generation now that hasn’t really experienced the great raw
energy of a large mass of people united in chanting a chorus that
expresses protest and discontent towards the establishment. “F You, I
won’t do what you tell me!” has been replaced with “F you, I will do
what this other establishment shill tells me!”. I’m an artist and a
promoter in my 40’s and I contemplate the strong possibility that I will
never again witness something like the early Rage Against The Machine,
or even Lenon’s “Imagine”, becoming largely popular. Social lyricism in
hip-hop is in a coma too. And this is how we got here:
Streaming services demonetized protesters
Internet
and streaming services are being used to take away underground’s income
sources and self-sustainability. You keep hearing Spotify or Soundcloud
are not profitable and you keep wondering how do they survive then?
They’ll always find financing, because they deliver all the music to the
audiences without making the artists’ lives self-sustainable. Sales are
a joke now. This way, independent artists become starving artists, and
it’s legal, unlike piracy. Only selected (or fabricated) establishment minions are allowed to thrive. That means only establishment’s messages get through. To the people running the show, this is worth much more money than it costs! A perfect assassination of artistic integrity and social protest.
If you hear anything, it’s sponsored. The 2019 RATM, if they re-unite
as rumored, won’t be anything like the early RATM because now they need
Google and Twitter and Vice and corporate festivals on their side to
succeed, not the other way around. The tables have been switched under
our noses while we were getting high on Facebook likes.
Of course
this new paradigm generated some independent success stories, but what
do they all have in common? They fall in line with what’s acceptable for
the establishment. And when you zoom out and look at the big picture,
which includes all artists, what do you see? I see a huge mass of
talented yet starving artists and a bunch of lottery winners, a few new
happy faces in the media every year keep the scam going. The middle
class in music is dead too.
Social media hijacked the audiences
“Bring
your fans aboard so we can disconnect them from you and connect them to
our establishment-sponsored BS!”. This has been the plan from the
beginning for the mainstream social media. They weren’t here to help
artists, unsurprisingly. They’ve just used artists and popular figures
to attract the masses and fill up their boat, and then they sailed their
own course. Only 5% of your Facebook artist page subscribers see your
posts now, but I bet they all are exposed to a ton of Coca Cola, CNN or
The Guardian posts even without subscribing to those pages. Perfect
heist!
How do we bounce back?
I’ll get massive
hate from corporate slaves for saying this, but there’s only one way I
can think of and I’m already working on what I preach:
More
direct contact with more implication and mutual support from both sides:
artists and audiences. If we don’t act now, tomorrow might be harder or
even too late.
What does that, technically, mean? Cut off
the gatekeepers and middlemen as much as possible, stay in touch
directly, support each other directly. This is coming from a guy who
partly works as a middleman too; but only because there’s still a need
for that, I’ll be happy to focus 100% on my own art when I’m not meeting
any needs anymore! It’s not more simple or more complicated than
building and maintaining a little dedicated fanbase without letting it
get leached and drained out by gatekeepers and middlemen. That means you
can’t use their tools, you have to circumvent them. So now’s the best
time to get creative, I await your ideas while I work on mine!
It breaks down to: Artists
need to invest more in their direct contact with the fans than in
traditional marketing and media plans. Time to get personal, the
industry and corporate media are not doing the job of putting us in
touch anymore, they only disconnect us. I spent a good bunch of time and
money to create a social network
just so that artists and fans of all sorts can freely talk and support
each other directly, without interference. I’ll create more tools and
options for that, but Synkretic Network already offers all the tools you need for this purpose at no cost. Maybe it’s time to populate it. Or start your own.
Fans need
to invest more in the artists that make their lives better, and do it
more directly. If you buy an $1 song from Apple or Amazon, there’s at
least 3-4 entities that will snatch 50-75% of that money before the
artist has a chance to see his share. If you see a donation button,
chances are that the artist will be able to spend about 80-90% of the
sum you send, so drop your dollar there instead of iTunes and such.
Avoid rips and leaches. If you don’t have money to spend, please help
spread awareness, it’s just as helpful. Or help the artists get booked
in your city. Just re-invest back in the scene some of the good energy
you’re getting from your favorite artists and we’ll be cool again! Only
if you want and find it necessary to have a healthy artistic life, for
yourself and the whole society as well.
As a personal example, the
last couple of years I started to make most of my work, past and
present, available for free, because art shouldn’t be for sale in the
first place, this is how the whole problem started. Art thrives from
honest crowd support. Low sales don’t mean people don’t care about
artists anymore, it’s just that they’ve been reprogrammed to care
differently and they lost the habit of paying; older folks aren’t aware
that paying for listening music is a strange concept to most teenagers
in 2019. I know I’ll get even less donations than sales for a while,
but I’ll receive double or triple the percentage and they’ll be
available instantly, not 5-6 months later, as per usual with the
industry. Also fans can’t ever feel cheated as they conveniently donate
whatever they can afford, whenever they can afford it, typically after
enjoying artist’s work; and their conscience is the only one to arbiter
how much they should invest in this. Win-win situation, that’s what
alien pimping is about! Use your money and shares wisely, my friends!
Hopefully I’ll also do a good job at persuading people they need to act as soon as yesterday, and dropping a coin in our digital hats when available can make a difference; so can a few good clicks. I’m becoming a digital busker, as I’ve said before, since I don’t have what it takes to be a good street busker. It’s yet way too early to say how it will work, but I doubt there’s any other way out of this swamp.
So here’s my digital busker hat, I’m already working to thank you: DONATE I mean, for consistence, besides other projects, I already have my next protest song in the works, it will be available for free download as soon as possible, whether you drop me a coin or not.
It took about half a year for life to deliver a final closure to this case. “In response to the outrageous ticket prices a new activist group has emerged called Rage Against Rage Against the Machine”, jokes the satirical site Daily Bonnet, after they found out that the ticket prices for the new 2020 RATM tour are soaring from $190 way up.
THE END
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Most (if not all) ground-breaking discoveries came from people who defied consensus, otherwise you would still spray DDT on kids and have nurses selling you cigarettes to smoke in hospital rooms. Consensus is the ground in “ground-breaking”. Scientific consensus is a logical fallacy that you need to avoid in order to achieve science.
UPDATE: FIVE YEARS LATER, WE HAVE THIS IN VIDEO FORMAT TOO
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Is your info on issues like “global warming” coming from people who can believe 99% consensus is possible among scientists (or any large groups of people), and that’s a good thing for science? Are all arguments for global warming as imbecile as consensus = truth? As fake as a 99% consensus? That would make Stalin proud… You know the only other “thing” on the planet that gets 99% consensus? Kim Jong Un. As far as I dug, these have been the only two methods for reaching 99% consensus in all human experience: 1. Tyrannically silencing anyone who disagrees. 2. Polling an insignificantly small group that you control.
What is the difference between how the global warming “consensus” is obtained and how Kim obtains his? You can’t even poll 100% of scientists, you can’t merely determine accurately who are all the people who deserve to be polled, are you kidding yourself?!! The only claim that has obtained 99% consensus in science so far appears to be “we have to please our financiers!”. Do you know who finances this stuff?
Besides, bandwagoning and appealing to authority are not arguments, they are basic logical fallacies. If you can’t spot obvious traps like these, you have no hope or chance to avoid being duped by people who have a long experience in trapping the ignoramus.
Functional literates be like:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. (…) Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” – Michael Crichton
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” – Stephen Hawking
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” – Richard Feynman
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 
