Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain
55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b
A concrescence of Mind fumbling with the controls of this meat chariot. Nostr onl

Soil being unwell is driven by farming and water use practices. Water tables are falling. No water, no life. People were pointing this out way back when the fear was global cooling. Forests are drier because water tables are lower. Water tables are lower because we've been pumping out of aquifers faster than they naturally recharge. Primary culprit : farming. Not carbon.

After a bit of thinking, I think my criticism could actually have a detrimental effect, if its taken too seriously. I trust that you're firm enough in your beliefs that my words couldn't have such an effect... I'm glad you're here representing Orthodox believers. When more Orthodox join nostr, its good that you're here making them feel at home. There's a bigger mission here, in nostr and bitcoin and Christianity in general, than my criticisms. So... Don't stop.

The purpose of the vaccine was to kill specific people. That's why we had to sign up for the shot online to make an appointment. If it was all the same jab, they could have just let lines form around the CVSs and pricked everyone one with no hassle.

*I say this after surviving a severe health problem caused by that vaccine*

Yes, I wasn't as smart as the rest of you all. I got it. I paid for it. I couldn't breathe after the 2nd dose. It got worse and worse, my doctor gas lit me and said it was anxiety, I took the covid test and I didn't have covid, and one night my breathing was so difficult that I fell down some stairs and then was just saying there trying to breathe and praying desperately. God helped me. I am 100℅ sure that I would be dead now if God didn't help me.

I have more reasons to believe it was a deliberate attempt to kill me, but I doubt anyone will believe two separate miracles. I am sure it was deliberate. If I am mistaken, that only shifts the miracle to something else. As for God.... all avenues of doubt have been closed. He is real. But that's besides the point - the state killed innocent people on purpose.

Exile, imprisonment, forced servitude as a monk while getting to know God... Doesn't matter. Imagine whatever. The only bottom line is that murder is wrong, for several reasons - its so wrong that its wrong from multiple viewpoints. Don't do it. The state is definitely committing murder when it executes someone because that person is already in custody. Not a threat. They are under control. So a jury deciding to kill them is no different than you colluding with your buddy to kidnap someone and then murder them. Its the exact same scenario. You and your bud may think you're entirely justified. Its the same.

This is incorrect. The negatively affected parties are paid compensation. If the murderer isn't able to pay, society pays. Its worth it. I an as anarcho capitalist as anyone, but that doesn't mean we stop having a court system. You can find all sorts of ways of paying for it, it doesn't have to be taxes. But if any tax is justified, its the tax that pays for the judicial system.

Replying to Avatar mister_monster

Psychopathy simply means "mental disease" - 'psych' = mind, 'pathy' = illness. Its probably a spectrum, and probably everyone is a little bit messed up in the head. I do think that stronger meaning of the word applies to people who advocate the death penalty. Maybe some people simply haven't thought it through, but I don't think most people fall into that category.

> I live in the US, and I would emphatically argue that there is no justice in our court system, for many reasons.

I am 100% with you. The way we do it is unjust. I don't think that means that a group putting people to death is unjust though, as I'll explain later, I just think we need a better way of doing it and better reasoning about when it's warranted.

> First, as someone already wrote, if an individual doesn't have the right to kill, for any reason, then a group cannot magically have the right to kill by virtue of being a group or having some higher status.

An individual does have the right to kill though in some circumstances.

> Second, no human is perfect. If no individual is perfect, then no group is perfect. Their judgement may be wrong. Evidence and testimony may be faked. Incentives may reward them for judging wrongly. Power structures may be threatened, and the politics may demand the death of an innocent. None of these possibilities can be ruled out.

Yup, which is why I agree with you that putting people to death the way our society does it is wrong.

> Even if you know absolutely that they did it, its still wrong to kill them.

I am in complete disagreement with you about this. I reason that if someone is a threat to the safety those around them and will continue to be, it is just for a group to kill them.

> Incentive structures are generally out of our control, and they work in positive and negative ways, and they work in both the short and long term. For example, the current monetary system of usury and perpetually devaluing money causes some amount of stress in people. How much stress? Impossible to know. It affects different people differently, and social emergent phenomena could amplify stress more on particular people, and those people will be more likely to break and do something violent. Entire belief structures are built around compensating for felt oppression. For example, both the state and religion are belief structures that relieve people's anxiety - these social structures emerge from fear. And both the state and religion cause people to kill, and they will never define such killing as murder. But would these structures even exist without the constant application of stress on people, subconsciously felt, from the devaluing of people's savings and work? You can see that, at least partially, incentive structures are self perpetuating cycles. The things that motivate behavior are mostly subconscious and out of an individual's control. Its not simply, "he decided to kill, he's just bad." That doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. And if justice boils down to such a simplistic view on behavior, then there's no hope of ever having 'justice.'

There's a lot going on here. I think you're right, there are plenty of social structures that make people behave erratically and violently, often they convince themselves they are justified when they're not. But in the world, we still can't let those people run wild. They present a danger *now.* Ultimately we have to hold individuals responsible for their behavior, and then we have to fix those other issues separate from that.

> This is too long already. I'll reiterate that the death penalty is wrong, and say that there are other options. And I'll reiterate that someone who thinks society should repay murder with murder is a psychopath. Definitely.

I can say, when I talk about the death penalty, I'm saying that when a group is threatened by an individual, either by words or demonstration of intent with action, that group has a right to neutralize that threat. So it's not really repayment, not a penalty by my reasoning, it's more of a self defense measure. But I do believe that groups killing individuals is just in such a scenario.

Why can't we just put a wall around the state of New Jersey and throw the convicts in there? Technically a prison, but we don't need to pay all the upkeep of a prison, beyond making sure the wall isn't breached. The land is decent enough that they can grow food. Its not killing, and it removes them from society. And it fixes the problem of New Jersey existing. That shithole is an embarrassment and should be put to better use.

My point is, all the reasons for killing are moot while there are other options.

The reasons you mention for killing sometimes being justified are really only two scenarios. Self defense and rebellion against oppression. And this is why IMO we should stop violating the 2nd Amendment. Those two scenarios don't carry over to the justice system. Justice is only administered with the defendant in custody, which means they don't pose a threat. The threat is neutralized. Justice can't be revenge.

You are 100℅ a genuine psychopath. You respond with name calling after refusing to read a detailed argument. Clearly you love the death penalty because it provides moral camouflage for your desire to commit murder. There are a lot of people like you.

No one said they would be. That's an assumption, and a straw man argument. And you must either read 10x faster than me, or you didn't read my note and opted to skip to this brainless response. Shame on you for all three things. You must be quite a specimen.

Psychopathy simply means "mental disease" - 'psych' = mind, 'pathy' = illness. Its probably a spectrum, and probably everyone is a little bit messed up in the head. I do think that stronger meaning of the word applies to people who advocate the death penalty. Maybe some people simply haven't thought it through, but I don't think most people fall into that category.

I do agree with you that people have a right to revenge, but this is the only instance I can think of that a right should be denied. Justice is supposed to work better than revenge, so we should ensure that our justice system is actually delivering justice. I live in the US, and I would emphatically argue that there is no justice in our court system, for many reasons.

There are three main problems with the death penalty.

First, as someone already wrote, if an individual doesn't have the right to kill, for any reason, then a group cannot magically have the right to kill by virtue of being a group or having some higher status.

Second, no human is perfect. If no individual is perfect, then no group is perfect. Their judgement may be wrong. Evidence and testimony may be faked. Incentives may reward them for judging wrongly. Power structures may be threatened, and the politics may demand the death of an innocent. None of these possibilities can be ruled out.

Third, similar to how the judge and jury are imperfect and subject to incentives, the same is true of someone who actually did kill. Even if you know absolutely that they did it, its still wrong to kill them. Incentive structures are generally out of our control, and they work in positive and negative ways, and they work in both the short and long term. For example, the current monetary system of usury and perpetually devaluing money causes some amount of stress in people. How much stress? Impossible to know. It affects different people differently, and social emergent phenomena could amplify stress more on particular people, and those people will be more likely to break and do something violent. Entire belief structures are built around compensating for felt oppression. For example, both the state and religion are belief structures that relieve people's anxiety - these social structures emerge from fear. And both the state and religion cause people to kill, and they will never define such killing as murder. But would these structures even exist without the constant application of stress on people, subconsciously felt, from the devaluing of people's savings and work? You can see that, at least partially, incentive structures are self perpetuating cycles. The things that motivate behavior are mostly subconscious and out of an individual's control. Its not simply, "he decided to kill, he's just bad." That doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. And if justice boils down to such a simplistic view on behavior, then there's no hope of ever having 'justice.'

This is too long already. I'll reiterate that the death penalty is wrong, and say that there are other options. And I'll reiterate that someone who thinks society should repay murder with murder is a psychopath. Definitely.

Replying to Avatar Ghost of Truth

BRICS Unleashes Game-Changing Power Play: New Financial System Meets Energy Dominance

In a historic move that could reshape the global economic landscape, BRICS nations have unveiled a comprehensive strategy combining financial innovation with unprecedented energy market control, as revealed in their landmark Kazan declaration.

Financial Revolution Meets Energy Dominance

The alliance is simultaneously launching multiple initiatives that could fundamentally alter global power dynamics:

- BRICS Clear: A new cross-border settlement infrastructure

- BRICS Grain Exchange: Alternative commodities trading platform

- Local currency payment systems: Bypassing traditional financial channels

- Unified energy market: Creating world's largest energy trading bloc

The Energy Superblock Effect

What makes this particularly significant is the emergence of an energy superblock controlling over 40% of global energy production and consumption. This consolidation creates unprecedented price-setting power, potentially putting energy-dependent regions, particularly Europe, in a vulnerable position.

"The combination of alternative financial infrastructure and energy market dominance creates a powerful lever for reshaping global economic relationships," suggests the declaration, without directly stating this intention.

Strategic Implications

The initiative goes beyond mere market mechanics:

1. Financial Architecture:

- New payment systems reducing dependency on traditional channels

- Local currency trading expansion

- Independent reinsurance capacity

2. Energy Market Control:

- Unified pricing strategies

- Enhanced negotiating power

- Direct influence over global energy flows

3. Geopolitical Impact:

- Pressure on energy-scarce regions

- Alternative trade routes

- New economic alliances

Global Market Response

Markets are beginning to process these developments, particularly the implications for:

- Energy pricing mechanisms

- International trade flows

- Currency exchange patterns

- Regional economic stability

Looking Ahead

This convergence of financial innovation and energy market control signals a potential shift toward a multipolar economic order. Energy-dependent regions may need to develop new strategies for ensuring supply security and price stability.

The BRICS alliance also addressed current global conflicts in their declaration, emphasizing diplomatic solutions and humanitarian considerations, while positioning themselves as a stabilizing force in international relations.

This historic convergence of financial reform and energy market control could represent the most significant shift in global economic power since the Bretton Woods agreement. As markets digest these developments, the full impact on global trade, energy security, and economic stability remains to be seen.

#BRICS #GlobalFinance #Energy #Geopolitics #GlobalEconomy #FinancialInnovation #EnergyDominance #InternationalTrade

Most of the world's hydrocarbons suppliers are aligned with Eurasia, or are at best neutral to "the west." Most solar panels are produced by China. Most electronics chips and wafers are produced by countries geographically proximate to China, and the US can only influence them as long as it maintains the most powerful navy.

Here comes bitcoin, energy money, requiring cheap electricity and the best chips. Basically two inputs to be dominant in both energy and finance in the future. And the west is currently lacking both.

Looks precarious.

nostr:nevent1qqs00w082kqrgesser2m83ghjfs7hylqth0nj76fl8ajq8qk3gy7p5cppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsgv0ev24f8d60dwwyn8v80ae4syyzz79hp22waw4tsfzzmsllwrqcrqsqqqqqps6fzgn

For some reason, nearly the whole internet thinks BRICS is a joke. They shill gold while pretending to be strategists. And they've been wrong on both their strategy and their gold for my entire life.