11:29PM - William Marshner, “Politique d’Abord” (1970)
Labs raksts. It kā par Draghi, bet patiesībā par tehnokrātisko Eiropu. “The price of Draghipolitik is this: it is consolidation without democracy. Empowered elites with alienated voters.” https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/may-2
Fac et aliquid operis, ut semper te diabolus inveniat occupatum.
"Šobrīd redzu, ka LGBT+ kopienā ir samilzusi problēma un tā ir radikalizācija. No tiem, kurus kādreiz lika cietumos un apspieda, mēs paši esam kļuvuši par apspiedējiem citu atšķirīgā skatījuma uz dzīvi dēļ.
(..) Redzu, ka LGBT kopiena ir ierauta politiskās spēlēs. Mans redzējums – tie daudzie, kuri tēlo LGBT aizstāvjus, tādi ir aiz aprēķina, nevis brīvas gribas vadīti. To es redzu, salīdzinot viņu uzvedību LGBT kopienas vēlētāju priekšā un visu vēlētāju priekšā.
(..) Un nu es pakavēšos pie tā, ko redzu – Latvijā starp tradicionālo ģimeni un homofobiju tiek likta vienlīdzības zīme. Manuprāt, tā ir ļoti slikta ideja uzskatīt kādu ģimenes modeļa pastāvēšanu par homofobisku un LGBT kopienai draudīgu.
(..) Tāpēc lūdzu piedošanu visiem tiem, kurus kāds no LGBT kopienas pēdējā laikā pazemojis vai citādi aizskāris par viņu kristīgo vai tradicionālo pārliecību.
(..) Es redzēju LGBT kopienas naidu un ņirgāšanos par tradicionālo vērtību paudējiem, par viņu reliģisko piederību, uzmākšanos un apsaukāšanos. Tā nevar būt atbilde uz kāda cita pastrādātu homofobisku vardarbību!"
https://www.pride.lv/lv/runajam/art
https://mobile.twitter.com/BarstoolNews
Varam pievērsties sarunai par īstajiem naida kurinātājiem mūsu sabiedrībā. Vairākas dienas Latvijas sabiedrības faktiskais vairākums tika dēvēti par līdzvainīgiem barbariskā noziegumā – ikviens, kas uzskata, ka ģimenes pamats ir vīrieša un sievietes savienība. Par vainīgiem tika nosaukta baznīca, konservatīvās partijas un konkrēti politiķi. Atsevišķi žurnālisti aizmirsa jebkādu “medijpratību”, jo viss taču skaidrs. Kāpēc gaidīt faktus un kaut kādu izmeklēšanu?
(..) Jau iepriekš rakstīju par dīvainībām, kas varētu būt saistītas ar LGBT lobiju. Dīvaini viltus profili, kas pauž neiecietību, pašu izlīmētas “homofobiskas” uzlīmes. Tas, ka notikumi Tukumā, bez faktu noskaidrošanas, momentā tika izmantoti viņu juridisko prasību popularizēšanai, bija tikai likumsakarīgi. Pārsteidz tikai pārgalvība un nekaunība, kurai nav robežu. Pat zemiskums, ja saprotam, ka runa ir par konkrētu cilvēcīgu traģēdiju.
Likumsakarīgi tas ir arī kreiso galvenās politiskās metodes kontekstā – viņi pilnīgi visu dara un pasniedz caur upura lomas prizmu. Tā ir ļoti iedarbīga varas tehnoloģija – tā izslēdz diskusiju, tā liek taisnoties oponentam, ka viņš nemaz nav varmāka, tā automātiski pašus ieceļ morāli augstākā pozīcijā, tā izraisa līdzjūtību publikā. Twitter kreiso pūlis šajā pozīcijā jūtas kā mājās – upura loma ir viņu mobinga, viņu agresijas pamatojums, kas pašiem nekad nešķiet kā agresija, jo viņi jau tikai aizstāvas. Pret tiem tur – apspiedējiem – “konserviem”.
(..) Drošības iestādēm ir jāturpina monitorēt komunisma un neomarksisma ideju un metožu izplatību jauniešu vidē. Tāpat būtu jāizvērtē tādu organizāciju darbība, kas uzskata provokācijas un melus par pieņemamiem līdzekļiem savu mērķu panākšanai. Un jāsper nepieciešamie soļi, lai sargātu valsti un tautu.
Veselību cietušajam, kuram papildus fiziskajām ciešanām ir nākusi klāt visa šī nevajadzīgā uzmanība un iesaistīšana politiskā akcijā.
https://www.austsaule.lv/kurs-atbil
We believe we are in the early to middle stages of a worldwide sovereign debt bubble collapse. The “bubble” which exists today is in debt and the currencies which are backed and supported by this debt. This is a very big deal and does not happen very often. In fact, no one alive today has ever seen a sovereign debt collapse of a large country.
You need to consult the history books to find one, with the last ones occurring in the 1900’s to 1930’s. Because of this, the average investor today is not prepared for what is coming.
Historically, these crises occur when sovereign debt exceeds 100% of GDP as identified by Reinhart and Rogoff in their book This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Presently, the on balance sheet US Federal Debt ($28.1 Trillion) is 130% of GDP ($21.6T). Off balance sheet liabilities (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid) add another $100 to $200T depending upon assumptions.
This debt level could not be serviced (much less reduced or paid off) if interest rates, which are the price of money, were set by a free market. In this respect, the monetary authorities world-wide, through price fixing of interest rates, have broken the financial markets. History proves that price fixing does not work (see USSR and grain prices). The price of money is the most important price in capitalism and messing with it distorts the price of everything. Capital is not allocated efficiently. In a free market system, interest rates balance the needs of savers and borrowers.
With over-indebtedness as a backdrop, history shows us that there are only three ways for a country to deal with a situation like this.
1. Default. Debts collapse to worthlessness as entities fail. Which leads to Deflation.
2. Restructure/Revalue against some superior form of money. Reset. (see Roosevelt 1934).
3. Inflate the currency and GDP versus the Debt. (see US Post WWII).
Option 1 is possible, and perhaps in due course, option 2 could be chosen. However, in our current political structure, we believe the most likely path the US will take is option 3 (Inflation). Therefore, we believe inflation is in our future. Not just a little bit of inflation, a lot of inflation!
When an economy becomes too debt saturated things begin to break, and the government generally intervenes to prevent the natural deflationary cleansing that would occur without intervention. The government intervened in 2008 during the GFC. In March 2020 when the economy grinded to a halt (COVID was the match, but the fire had been built), the government again stepped in (with an unprecedented order of magnitude) to prevent a severe deflation and economic collapse.
(..) As far as we can see, he only has two possible tools: (i) raising interest rates; and (ii) withdrawing monetary liquidity (i.e., reverse QE). Given the levels of national debt, both of those tools would lead to a system wide collapse, in our opinion. To be fair, maybe the Fed can jawbone or threaten these tools to calm down inflation, but they are walking a very thin line. The market has demonstrated at many instances in the past three years (e.g., Q4 2018) that it cannot handle higher interest rates or less liquidity. Some have said: “you cannot taper a Ponzi”.
In our opinion, Powell was bluffing in front of Congress. He knows inflation is coming, so he warns of it. Like Rudolf von Havenstein in 1920 Germany, he is hoping he can control inflation once unleashed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qQRvmH
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/28/us/fruga
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/f
“Abolish the police? Border patrol? Capitalism? Or cancel Lincoln? The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old. The problem is that your ideas are stupid.”
https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/statu
"We are optimistic enough to believe that no administration, Left or Right, is going to impede the education of the brightest"
-The Bell Curve, page 92
Not so fast! Xi Jinping would like to thank the Commonwealth of Virginia for its kind assistance in hindering American advancement and thus abetting ascendant Chinese Communist Party hegemony:
Loudoun County school board member Ian Serotkin announced that the “Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative (VMPI),” is a “a sweeping initiative by the Virginia Department of Education to revamp the K-12 math curriculum statewide over the next few years” by “eliminat[ing] ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade.” The VDOE website says that in addition to improving equity, the change will “[e]mpower students to be active participants in a quantitative world.”
People who engage in protesting care more about politics than people who donate money, and people who donate money care more than people who simply vote. Imagine a pyramid with voters at the bottom and full-time activists on top, and as you move up the pyramid it gets much narrower and more left-wing. Multiple strands of evidence indicate this would basically be an accurate representation of society.
(..) Liberals are in their personal lives more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa across numerous dimensions in the US and the UK. Those on the left are more likely to block someone on social media over their views, be upset if their child marries someone from the other side, and find it hard to be friends with or date someone they disagree with politically.
(..) The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital, though it must to a certain extent be disciplined and limited by the preferences of consumers. Start your own institutions? Good luck staffing them with competent people for normal NGO or media salaries, and if you’re not careful they’ll be captured by your enemies anyway, hence Conquest’s Second Law. And the media will be there every step of the way to declare any of your attempts at taking power to be pure fascism, and brush aside any resistance to your schemes as righteous anger, up to and including rioting and acts of violence.
There’s a way to interpret the data discussed above that is more flattering to conservatives than presenting them as the ideology of people who don’t care. Those who identify on the right are happier, less mentally ill, and more likely to start families. Perhaps political activism is often a sign of a less well-adjusted mind or the result of seeking to fill an empty void in one’s personal life. Conservatives may tell themselves that they are the normal people party, too satisfied and content to expend much time or energy on changing the world. But in the end, the world they live in will ultimately reflect the preferences and values of their enemies.
(..) To put it in a different way, to steelman the populist position, democracy does not reflect the will of the citizenry, it reflects the will of an activist class, which is not representative of the general population.
(..) I’m not suggesting this is the path conservatives should take; they might feel that a stronger, more centralized and powerful government is too contrary to their own ideals. In that case, however, they’ll have to reconcile themselves to continue to lose the culture into the foreseeable future, at least until they are able to inspire a critical mass to do more than just vote its preferences.
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/w
“Pagājušo sestdien tika apglabāts Anglijas karalienes Elizabetes dzīvesbiedrs, princis Filips. Bēres notika, maksimāli ievērojot gadsimtiem senas tradīcijas (cik nu tas bija covid laikos iespējams). Arī pati bēru ceremonija bija atstrādāta un noslīpēta līdz pēdējam sīkumam. Katra karalisko gvardu kustība, katra soļa mehāniskā precizitāte simbolizēja sistēmas nemainību, stabilitāti un mūžīgu nesatricināmību. Proti, tieši to, ko nekādi nevar ciest monarhijas pretinieki un kreisie aktīvisti. Ne jau omīte, sirmā karaliene Elizabete viņus uztrauc un kaitina. Viņus kaitina pati tradīcija kā tāda.”
Pārējais rakstā ir “meh”, bet šis IMHO precīzi.
https://neatkariga.nra.lv/komentari/ben
“More importantly, these "systemic"-based social theories allow for the externalizing of blame, responsibility, and locus of control, which is psychologically necessary to people who can't countenance the fact that smart ≠ valuable or competent in a real economy.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/ConceptualJa
The idea is to let the government control the 'velocity of money'. For example, the US is giving out stimulus checks for COVID - the clear goal is to keep business afloat and people spending, but what if they just put the money into savings or crypto? The government did not achieve their goal. To achieve their goal, they program the money with "must be spent on consumer goods and/or rent in the next 6 months." Then they put a "smart contract" on the money and say "can only be spent if you are drug free and looked for a job in the last 6 months."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7NB1_
Ģimene, izglītība, taupība, personīgs mājoklis, centība darbā un tīrība sadzīvē
https://telos.lv/azijas-vertibas-da
“Conservatives care about things that are close to them; home, family, neighborhood. These are things one can have a sense of control over; a self-agency.
Liberals care about things far away from them; planet, climate, society. These are things out of their control.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/robkhenderso
Uzskatu, ka atsakoties no Kontinentālo tiesību sistēmas (romiešu-ģermāņu Napoleona Kodeksa saimes) un pieņemot t.s. anglosakšu vispārējās tiesības (Common Law), mēs tikai iegūtu.
Kamēr Eiropas Savienība neatradīs savas cojones ("stratēģisko autonomiju"), turpināsim dzīvosim ASV kultūras "atbalsu kambaros", sevišķi Baltijā, kur ASV ir vienīgais "nacionālās drošības un varas turpinātības" garants, gribam to vai nē. Un nemaz neesmu tik pārliecināts, ka, stratēģisko cojón atrodot, ES "atbalsu kambari" solās būt sevišķi labāki.
“Šobrīd konservatīvajiem jārēķinās tikai ar cenzūras, piedodiet, politkorektuma važām, bloķēšanu sociālajos tīklos, atlaišanu no darba un nomelnojošām kampaņām. Ja tā ir kreiso “tolerance”, tad bail iedomāties, kāda ir viņu agresija.”
https://www.austsaule.lv/ko-nedrikst-ig
Sāksim nedēļu ar pozitīvu atziņu! Nav realizējušās Arta Sveces sākotnējās bažas par portālu, kuru "neviens no malas nepieskata". Kā redzams, no malas tomēr pieskata ļoti rūpīgi, varētu pat teikt—skrupulozi, un dažiem tas, šķiet, kļuvis pat par gandrīz pilna laika darbu.
Šeit ir mans svētdienas aicinājums ![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
krishjaanis2 izdzēsties no Cibas:
http://klab.lv/users/wowow/860207.h
Man jautāja, vai ir pareizi melot par to, ka Tu neesi tas, kas Tu esi? Jā, ja nevēlies atklāt savu identitāti, dažkārt vispareizākā rīcība ir melot, acīs skatoties. Tieši vakar iznāca noskatīties "Persischstunden (2020)". Stāsts par ebreju, kas savam oficierim pie līķu bedres (ne)krietni melo, ka ir persietis. Viņš paliek dzīvs, jo oficieris vēlas izmācīties persiešu valodu. Ebrejs viņam katru dienu māca sadomātu persiešu valodu un paliek dzīvs. Tā, lūk. Melot ir labi* terms and conditions apply.
Agnese K*********, Internetā visi drīkst Jums nepiekrist un izteikt iebildumus.
Šādu iebildumu izteikšanu Jūs, protams, drīkstiet ierobežot (izmantojot "ban" funkciju, ierobežojot komentārus utml.), bet to nekādi nevar klasificēt kā uzmākšanos (pat tādās reizēs, kad tas Jums ir sagādājis personīgas neērtības).
"Stalkošana", savukārt, nozīmētu ielaušanos privātajā dzīves telpā. Lai gan cilvēcīgi ir saprotams tas diskomforts, ko šādi uzbāzīgi komentētāji un iebildēji var radīt, šī nav Jūsu privātā dzīves telpa — nevienam nav pienākums glaudīt pa spalvai.
Cita lieta, ka Jūs, iespējams, saskatāt, ka kāds komentārs pakļauj Jūs briesmām, apdraud veselību vai pat dzīvību. Tādos gadījumos noteikti piekrītu tam, ka par to jāziņo kompetentām iestādēm.
Poliamorie desantnieki jau bija ieņēmuši vietas transportlidmašīnā uz skrejceļa, kad interkomā atskanēja: "Pavēle atcelta. Tās ir tikai mācības!"
Trīs tēvu desants no Kalifornijas nosēdās starptautiskajā lidostā "Rīga", lai pieteiktu ultimātu:
Rīgas kungiem tūliņ pat jāatzīst viņu pamattiesības, ja vien negrib laipni uzņemt arī citus desantus.
Kā tas var būt, ka esmu atzīts par ķēniņu uz Marsa, bet šeit manas likumiskās tiesības visi ignorē?
Pieprasu nekavējoties atzīt man pienākošās interplanetārās tiesības, mutatis mutandis!
“Putins jo īpaši neslēpj savus plānus un jau gadiem ilgi runā par to, ka ir nepieciešams dialogs, kura tiktu nosprausta eiropas drošība ilgtermiņā. Tā vietā pa vidu jaucās ASV, kas vispār neatrodas eiropā. Spilgts piemērs ir Putina referāts par 2.pk., kuru es izlasīju smalki. Tas referats ir par nākotnes vīziju un principiem, mazāk par 2.pk. Pamata doma ir ka vācieši uzsāka karu, jo tika čakarēti ar reparācijām un viņu pretenzijas uz “lebensraum” netika pienācīgi ņemtas vērā, kā rezultātā, lai lielvaras vienotos par dialogu ar vāciem, atļautu tiem nookupēt to un šo, dotu to, ko prasa, spēlēja netīras spēles, domāja tikai par sevi, kaitināja Hitleru un rezultātā visiem bija ļoti slikti. Nedrīkst neieklausīties tajos, kam ir spēks, jo eksplozija var būt briesmīga.
Krievi vēlas, lai viņu intereses tiktu ņemtas vērā, tiktu uztaisīja jauna jaltas konference, kurā stiprie sadalīs ietekmes sfēras. Viss. Tad būs miers, družba, komuņizm. Valstij ir tiesības būt par subjektu tikai tad, ja tā ir suverēns – ar spēka projekciju uz ārpusi. Limitrofi(Baltija, Luksemburga, Monako, Melnkalne utt) ir vēstures artefakti, kuriem ir tāda kulturāla un dekoratīva nozīme, tās nav valstis. Tās var būt zem kādas citas valsts protekcijas tikai un vienīgi. Pašas nav subjekti. Tā domā krievi visos līmeņos. Jā, čihuahua ir formali suns, tam ir suņa tiesības, visi to sauc par suni, bet tas NAV SUNS. Un pat pilnvērtīgākas valstis īsti no limitrofiem neatšķiras – skat tos pašus Azerus, bez Turkiem viņi būtu pie citiem saimniekiem.
Tātad par Ukrainu. Krieviem karš nav pašmērķis, bet merķis ir Jaltas konference. Ja to izdosies panākt mierīgi vai ar ieroču žvadzināšanu, – lieliski. Ja nē, tad karš ir NORMĀLA DZĪVES SASTĀVDAĻA, tas ir instruments, kam ir savi + un savi -. Jaltā krievi noteikti prasīs pusi Ukrainas, visu Baltkrieviju, kā arī pilnīgu Baltijas demilitarizāciju no ārvalstu spēkiem. Pretīm piedāvās garantijas(protams, paši krievi saprot, ka garantijas būs tik ilgi spēkā, kamēr tās pašiem būs izdevīgas), ka Baltija varēs bez problēmām uz papīra skaitīties NATO, EU, taisīt dziesmu svētkus vai jebko citu. Bet ne līdz galam. Piemēram, ja pec 20 gadiem Polija kļūs par milzu spēku, kas militāri apdraudēs krievu intereses pavisam reāli, tad Baltija tiks okupēta vai tajā tiks uzbūvētas piespiedu bāzes, bez jokiem. Ja tuvākajā laikā(nedēļas, mēneši, gads?), netiks sasaukta Jalta, tad krievi PIESPIEDĪS citus lielos ierasties. Vainu ar mazāku vai lielāku tesiņu Ukrainā, vai arī ar kādu Daugavpils/Narvas republiku, kas savā ziņā ir pat labāk – sitiens zem jostas vietas un momentāna panika visur.
Ekonomikas sankcijas, visādus nosodījumus viņi uztver nenopietni. Ar katru gadu arvien vairāk pierādās tas, ka spēks ir tas, kas nosaka visu. Viņi uz to visu skatās baigi romantiski un uzskata, ka galvu nedrīkst noliekt un padoties, pat, ja grūti, ir jaturpina savs kurss. Zaldati mirs? Nu un? Krievija nav Eiropa, kur indivīds ir absolūts centrs, bet tikai pakārtots lielajam mērķim.
Iepriekšminētais nav Kiseļovs, bet vidējais aritmētiskais domnīcās, amatpersonās, zinarniekos mūsdienu Krievijā.”
https://varabungas.camp/2021/04/08/dien
"Simply put, the Left wants to dethrone and subordinate traditional Christianity. They wish to prevent it from ruling America’s public culture and force it to obey a public culture, one the Left is busy establishing and enforcing. This is the very definition of revolution: a reversal of power relations.
(..) Thanks to the popular reign of “Christian morality and equity,” Tocqueville observed, “no one in the United States has dared to profess the maxim that everything is allowed in the interests of society, an impious maxim apparently invented in an age of freedom in order to legitimize every future tyrant.”
Seeking to liberate both the individual and the state from the limits imposed by any fixed and transcendent morality, the Left has labored for 70 years to end this favored (but non-coerced and unofficial) status of religion in our public life.
The revolution, however, does not end here. Having succeeded to a considerable extent in their quest to dethrone religion from its influence over the public mind, the left wants to subordinate religion to a new, non-religious morality.
(..) If religion could no longer use the encouragement of government to set the moral tone for the society, it would still be possible for religious believers to influence the moral tone of society, in proportion to their own numbers, by freely living out their convictions as respectable members of the society. Such a settlement would amount to the pluralism that earlier generations of liberals, such as Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls, once defended.
Today’s Left, however, is committed to an extreme form of sexual liberation that requires them to move the goalposts. They hold that individuals have a civil right to create and live out their own sexual identities. This right they understand as a freedom not only from the coercion of the law, but also from any public vestige of traditional Christian morality. Thus they have made clear that they will not be satisfied with pluralism, but that they instead seek to constrain religious practice when it refuses to condone and cooperate with the latest advances of the sexual revolution.
(..) Indeed, the point of the Left’s most recent moves is clearly not so much to protect the rights of some, but to create a public orthodoxy of sexual liberation to which all must conform. This is made clear by the balance of interests: it is much harder for the photographer or baker to pay thousands of dollars in damages or to find another line of work, than for a couple to find a different photographer or baker. The point here, then, is less to protect anyone from any harm than it is to let dissenters know that they will pay a serious cost for acting on their religious convictions.
The Left’s rhetoric in these debates reveals that they regard traditional religious believers as no better than bigots whose consciences deserve no respect. Indeed, while the 2020 platform of the Democratic Party affirms the right to religious liberty, it is careful to add that “[w]e will never use protection of that right as a cover for discrimination.” According to the ACLU, when religious believers do not want to provide services at a same-sex wedding ceremony, or demur at having to pay for their employees’ contraception, they are just using their religion as an “excuse to discriminate against and harm others.”
Where is this all heading? If it is permitted to proceed unchecked, the Left’s project will result in a total reversal of Christianity’s status in American society. Christianity in the 21st century will end up like atheism in the 19th: tolerated, but disreputable. Traditional Christians will be free to think their thoughts, teach their doctrines, and live out their beliefs privately, but not publicly with a view to shaping the culture in any significant way. If they seek to participate prominently in the nation’s social and commercial activities, they will have to leave aside any principles that conflict with the new orthodoxy. Perhaps even their teachings will be deemed “hate speech” and thus “deplatformed.” The country will be unrecognizable to those who founded it and those who preserved it for most of its existence. This is what the Left is seeking and what conservatives must resist."
https://americanmind.org/features/l
Biedram Orlovam pārāk rožains skatījums uz PSRS, bet citādi visnotaļ "funny video":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kySDKES
"Padomju savienībā ekonomiskā sabrukuma stadiju cilvēki vērtēja pēc tā, cik kartupeļu vagas togad vajadzēs pašiem iekopt."
Ja bagātie dalītos savā bagātībā, tad nabadzību, un visus pārējos ļaunumus, kas nāk ar to, varētu iznīdēt vienā brīdī.
"Warren Buffet invested $8MM in Berkshire Hathaway and he is now worth $98B.
Your parents invested $200k in your gender studies degree and you are now worth $11/hr."
"Their review explains why - at the level of societies - monogamous marriage norms have been so successful. Even though 85 percent of documented societies allow polygyny (one man marrying many women) and a very small number allow polyandrous marriage (one woman takes several husbands), societies that only sanction monogamous marriages have thrived. Moves toward institutionalised monogamy have been tied to the ascendancy of ancient Greece and Rome. (..) Polygyny creates conflicts among individuals with far-reaching consequences for the society as a whole."
https://theconversation.com/society-wid
"The leaders of France’s literary and intellectual mafia, suffused with post–May 1968 laxity around sexual ethics, were given free rein to do, it seems, anything they wanted, as long as it was in the name of art."
https://airmail.news/issues/2020-1-11/t
"As many as sixty thousand people in the United States practice polygamy, including Hmong Americans, Muslims of various ethnicities, and members of the Pan-African Ausar Auset Society. But polygamists face innumerable legal obstacles, affecting such matters as inheritance, hospital visits, and parentage rights."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2
Dimitrijs Savvins raksta:
Я ТОЖЕ ПРОТИВ ПРИРАВНИВАНИЯ КОММУНИЗМА К ФАШИЗМУ( ... tālāk ... )
Cilvēki zem 18 gadu vecuma ir bērni, un viņu starpā ir arī LGBT bērni. Vismaz tā tas ir šeit - realitātē.
hederaHoogland had previously discovered that his daughter’s school had been showing her sexual and gender identity education materials known as “SOGI 123,” which the report referred to as transgender “propaganda videos.”
By the 7th grade, the school had changed his daughter’s name in the yearbook without telling her parents, and “socially transitioned” her with the input of gender ideologue psychologist Wallace Wong, who advised the pubescent child to take testosterone.
The report adds that Wong referred Hoogland’s daughter to the endocrinology unit at the local hospital, and that a “treatment” plan was put into action on her first visit.
“Here I am, sitting there as a parent, watching a perfectly healthy child be destroyed, and there’s nothing I can do but sit on the sideline — and according to Justice Boden at the time, cheer it on,” Hoogland said in an interview last year. “I can only affirm, or get thrown in jail.”
“Children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti
Beidzot izveidots portāls, kuru "neviens no malas nepieskata"!
Tagad ir īstais laiks dekriminalizēt marihuānu. Appīpējies cilvēks rūpīgāk ievēro sociālo distancēšanos.
"The erstwhile commitment to free speech and open debate, with the goal of persuasion through reason and the marshalling of superior arguments—the very foundation of the Western democratic tradition—has been replaced by the Leninist desire to annihilate one’s opponent. And so amidst the deepening political chaos in the West, the kto-kogo imperative ultimately means that the outcome is not a reasoned argument but the crude binary: “we” win, “they” disappear."
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2
"Es par savu dzimteni cīnītos līdz pēdējai asins lāsei, bet tikai tad, ja:
1) nebūtu beidzies cukura aizvietotājs
2) ledusskapjos būtu arī sojas, rīsu un mandeļu piens
3) ierakumos mums piedāvātu arī "decaf" kafiju
4) pēc uzvaras mēs aizliegtu visus iekšdedzes dzinējus
5) Baltijas jūrā grieztos vēja turbīnas"
Navigate: (Previous 50 entries | Next 50 entries)
