How to Stage Sudden Spread in Less Than 4 Weeks:
1. Find a sequence in people with pneumonia.
2. Develop a protocol to "test" for it.
3. Pretend that 2 or more "contacts" who test positive is evidence of "transmission"
the tariff formula:
It’s simply the nation’s trade deficit with us divided by the nation’s exports to us.
Yes. Really.
Vietnam: Exports 136.6, Imports 13.1
Deficit = 123.5
123.5/136.6 = 90% https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/6d589c8af8166925b17f809f03241e5115528c1146ed9c41db5d6abbbdfdbf96/3650bdcf91913e829a78b0fbd69b730c6d33ed8f8d0e1acc36143295e716f6c6.webp
Ben Shapiro says it doesn’t matter who kills Kennedy because it happened a long time ago.
He says the same thing about whether Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty.
But if you dare mock or question the Holocaust…
Chuck Schumer: Calling Gaza a genocide is antisemitic because it makes Israel look bad
Reporter: That’s what UN reports call it
Schumer: The UN is antisemitic
Ukraine should aim to become the Austria of Eastern Europe—a neutral, sovereign state focused on prosperity rather than military entanglements.
Fairness is for suckers.
Government? Party? Democracy? Justice?
None exist.
Only thing that exists:
people with their own interests. Any so called IDEAL is a cover for a scheme; and there are people with blood and flesh who benefit from it.
Was October 7 Avoidable?
by Dan Steinbock
https://original.antiwar.com/dan_steinbock/2025/03/09/was-october-7-avoidable/
Rigging elections to ensure that nothing gets in the way of war with Russia. The EU-NATO military dictatorship drops the mask.
fuck #Zelensky
The EU leaders and Zelensky having fancy dinners while men die in trenches.
How many parents will never see their son again?
How many children will never see their father?
EU = collection of US vassals that has participated in many of the recent imperial adventures of Washington which resulted in enormous destruction and death.
Just name a few: Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Gaza slaughter and the senseless Slavic civil war, Ukraine. https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/6d589c8af8166925b17f809f03241e5115528c1146ed9c41db5d6abbbdfdbf96/5788ae633ab2e05473ea8faec67a982f1f55d0cf1cf12a3eda018e4597f816cf.webp
Epstein’s blackmail is currently in the possession of the foreign middle eastern nation that he worked for.
And we all know who it is.
Frankenstein’s creature
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, published in 1818, explores the consequences of unchecked scientific ambition. Victor Frankenstein, the novel’s central character, creates a being reminiscent of Adam, the first man made by God. However, Frankenstein’s obsession with generating life results in the creation of a creature (often called a monster), a force that ultimately spirals out of his control. Frankenstein highlights the dangers associated with the pursuit of modernity and unrestrained scientific curiosity. It can also be interpreted as an allegory for the state—where a man-made force turns against its creator.
Spooks are abstractions and ideas that individuals create. At times, these abstractions become so powerful that they dominate and subjugate the individual. By analyzing Frankenstein through the lens of spooks, we can express the trajectory of this story from its beginning to its inevitable conclusion. A person’s folly can be understood as a spook, or a fixed idea: religion, state, God, political dogma, etc. However, it's important to clarify a distinction: "humanity" is an idea, an abstraction, a spook; whereas "humans"—actual, living beings with flesh and blood—are not. When we refer to humans in this essay, we mean unique individuals, not abstract concepts.
Human history can be told in many ways, but one interpretation goes as follows: the heathens or ancients had gods that were tangible, made of wood or stone. Then came the Christian God: an ideal. Heathens strived to idealize the real, while the Christian God sought to materialize (incarnate) the ideal. The "child" or pre-Christian mind viewed gods as natural forces. His imagination was underdeveloped, and he expected rain (and thus life) from clouds, warmth from the sun, and nourishment from the earth—real, tangible powers. Even abstractions familiar to the modern mind were, to the pre-modern mind, earthy and natural. For instance, family for a pre-Christian was not an abstraction or a sacred institution; it was a blood bond with people he knew intimately, like his kin or clan. Society, as far as it existed for the pre-modern person, consisted of his neighbors—people he had direct contact with.
Over time, the divine became more "other-worldly" (as Max Stirner notes), and the abstraction of worldly matters grew until the ideal overtook the real. The modern mind, therefore, pursues the idea, not the real, rejecting the latter in favor of establishing the former.
While the pre-modern sought to idealize the real, the modern tendency is to materialize the ideal. For example, consider the actual family, made up of unique individuals bound by blood—let us call it "family" with a lowercase 'f'. The modern ideal of "Family" (with a capital 'F') is an abstraction, rejecting reality. In the modern’s eyes, the real family is no longer existing or real; rather, it is the divine, the idea of Family, that is perceived as real.
This process—where the ideal consumes the real—leads to the subjugation of the real by the ideal. The ideal, in the end, seeks to materialize itself, to become real. This is the trajectory of history, and this is the final step. As Albert Camus writes in The Rebel, "effort is embarked in attempting to materialize the idea. The passion of incarnation takes the place of purification [abstraction] and devastates the world." This purification—this drive to incarnate ideas—can be devastating.
The effort to idealize the earthly reminds us of Frankenstein’s Creature. Frankenstein used science and technology to create a being, which turned vicious and murderous. This parallels modernity’s creation of the modern state and its tools for managing society and individuals. The modern state, with its public health, managerial class, central banking, modern armies, and welfare programs, is a monster of its own creation, consuming everything in its path.
One might argue that while the modern state is oppressive, the despotic pre-modern state was no less brutal. So why is the modern state more consuming? In the pre-modern mind, God, the king, or the master was always an entity outside the individual. Pre-modern people had no illusions about where their king, God, or master stood—above them, external to them, often exploiting or torturing them. They might have accepted this fate, but they knew their interests were not the same as their rulers’. The modern state, however, transformed this relationship. Now, the state claims to be us, and we are said to be the state ("we the people", the usual absurdity). The state becomes ideal (the benevolent democracy, the "good God") and consumes the real. What's more sinister is that the individual accepts this subjugation more readily, making the bondage even more complete.
Humanists thus created a monster, much like the creature of Victor Frankenstein. It turns back against its creators, becoming anti-human and ultimately ending human. This is the historical step that Stirner did not explicitly articulate, but hinted at. All spooks are traps of the mind that capture the individual and lead them to destruction. Humanism is the last spook. It progresses to the point where abstract ideas overtake the actual concerns of real humans. One precise example of this is the late-stage environmental movement. The proponents of this latest phase of modernity do not hide their hatred of humans and their love for nature, even without humans. They wouldn't even understand the absurdity of saving nature/the planet at the cost of eliminating the human race. It is clearly insane; what is nature without humans? Nature is an abstract idea that lives in our minds; without us, there is no nature. There will be molecules that interact, compose other molecules, and create larger chunks of molecules that occasionally grow and sometimes eat each other. There will be water and skies, but Nature?
Spooks capture and subjugate the individual, and this is never good for the individual because the cause of the abstraction is always at odds with the individual’s interests. When a nationalist dies for his nation, he is consumed by the spook. Humans, unlike abstractions, are tangible beings who exist in time and space. But humanity and humanism are ideas, and the dogmas of human rights and egalitarianism often serve humanism, not humans.
In the historical dialectic, we see a progression: the "child" under material bondage (the pre-modern age), then the "adolescent" under the ideal age (modernity). According to Stirner, the synthesis—the outcome of this dialectic—is The Unique. The Unique represents the victory of the individual over modernity. Stirner believed that the state would eventually collapse as a result of the spread of egoism. As individuals reject the law, the "ship of state" would be "scuttled."
However, in the 170 years since Stirner, we have not seen the strength of the egoist prevail. Instead, we see an age dominated by spooks—powerful abstractions that control almost everything. Individual freedoms have been shrinking, and the modern state has effectively "killed" the unique. The only remaining expressions of individuality exist at the margins of society.
We’ve explored two possible futures and one interpretation of the present. The optimistic scenario follows Stirner’s dialectic, where The Unique triumphs over modernity. The more pessimistic view reflects the actual developments of Western society, which suggest the opposite. Perhaps, however, this battle is not historical but timeless—a constant struggle. At any given time, all three stages of the child, the adolescent, and the mature could coexist.
Finally, there is another possibility: the case of the unique. Perhaps there is no ideal or material, only our own creations. What we create is what will be. The future is unpredictable and unknowable; it will be shaped by what the unique creates.
Jeffrey Sachs just told the European Parliament that Jake Sullivan privately admitted what he refused to acknowledge publicly—a simple truth about NATO that could have averted the Ukraine war. Utterly damning. Everything Sullivan touches turns into chaos, destruction and misery.
