^ And if the feds need money they can figure it out with the states instead of the people.
I've always been bugged by the state of taxation in general; on one hand, some is necessary to facilitate the maintaining of the nation. On the other, with the size of the nation, there's pretty poor representation involved in determining taxation.
Subsidiarity is good.
I think that's all a part of the dangerous game being played. It's all mountains of deception and a web of power.
It poses some interesting questions for the future. If we can eliminate the corrupt chunk of our government, can all secret forces and intelligence services go away? What intelligence is necessary? How to deal with foreign adversaries? and much much more.
How can we EVER restore even the slightest trust in anything once all is said and done? How would we EVER know if they dismantle?
I think regardless a good place to start for restoring things in a better way is just electing people we know and trust, instead of people that can be bought. It won't be perfect; people can be "replaced" invisibly using sophisticated actors, prosthetics, etc.; people can be threatened with violence. So much more.
The problem is that government needs transparency; something that is impossible when the capacity for deception is so enormous.
I think we need to tremendously shrink the federal government. There is NO way to maintain trust in such a large institution; there may, however, be a chance to do so in state and local governments. And even if those are corrupted, the repercussions aren't as large.
He's saying that photoestrogens replace natural production of estrogen but are weaker in effect (as you yourself mentioned). That's why he's suggesting that consumption of soy actually reduces the effects and production of estrogen, just as consumption of a weaker testosterone would reduce the effects and production of testosterone.
I don't know if that's true but his argument follows/carries, so chill out maybe?
Unlike everyone else on this thread so it would appear, I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, if it's true. Do you have sources for me? (on like, photoestrogens replacing estrogen production, and them being weaker?)
I'm lactose intolerant so I've considered trying various substitutes because I used to love drinking milk, but I'm reluctant given stuff people have said about soy in particular.
^ Or (second) darkest timeline, Q is a blackhat operation doing this to... troll us? (I don't really buy the "keep us complacent" thing since we're getting audits done etc.) and Trump and co have just been totally incompetent after all and didn't know what Q was when refusing to denounce it, and have been manipulated every step of the way but through sheer dumb luck, power of will, and the support of millions, they made it this far.
But that answer would require a lot more explaining about real tangible events and evidence we've seen. For example, in such a timeline, how come Trump denounced the rising "patriot party" in like, a week flat, but never Q? How come, after witnessing the capitol hill stuff, he didn't realize Q was a DS operation? How come Flynn, a former military intelligence specialist, didn't know what was up or get tipped off somehow to avoid it (unless he were a blackhat... which would mean the entire "arrest" plot would have to have been staged by the blackhats to gain trust, which feels like a layer of fakery that would have frankly been unnecessary).
Occam's Razor would suggest that that answer is less probable because it requires the most mental gymnastics. For example, "Flynn was arrested" is simpler than "Flynn staged being arrested to gain trust to screw Trump and patriots over for the next 4+ years". Another example would be "Trump is or works with mastermind strategists" versus "Trump and co managed to bumble their way into office despite the fraud and the DS's best attempts to silence him, managed to survive 4 years without getting any real scandals latched onto him, created the greatest economy in US history, somewhat solved Middle East peace, created jobs, and survived two impeachments while winning enough votes he should have been elected a second term".
Occam's Razor should not be taken as a law or an absolute; it's just a probability guideline. Both timelines (and more) are possible, but the one that is the simplest tends to be the most likely true, as it relies on the least suppositions/individual instances of probability.
TL;DR: This is most likely either a coincidence or white hats.
The thing is, it's the tip of the iceberg. Really young people getting cardiovascular complications out of the blue after getting a vaccine makes it painfully obvious, as they're not subject to those problems except for the very rare cases where they may have heart defects etc.
The same problems in middle and older aged people will be invisible, however, because as sad or surprising as it may be, people do get heart attacks and stuff at those ages and especially older; even non-obese etc. people.
So if the deaths amongst young people are too big to cover up, what does that mean for the death total across the board?
I linked the Pilecki report. he was a Polish underground leader who infiltrated the camps and collected info with his fellow patriots for a fair amount of time, and repeatedly smuggled it out to the rest of the underground whom transmitted it to the British, who appear to have kept it pretty quiet.
I presume they did not release or make a big deal about the information to avoid pressure from the public to act on the information for probably two reasons:
- They were a bit overextended already, and detour TO Poland with troops or supplies would be a lot of work
- They didn't want to butt heads with the Soviets, who were clearly looking to grab Poland and Germany (if not more) and who would likely have gone to war with the allies over both, as almost happened with the whole partitioning of Berlin and the airlifts and so on.
Here is one English translation of the report that I have located: https://archive.org/details/WITOLDREPORT/page/n7/mode/2up I don't know Polish so I can't personally verify the accuracy of the translation, however I do have friends that do speak Polish and have verified it.
For what it's worth, the Polish Underground he was a founding member of was one that was in opposition to the other underground organization that was pro-Communist, funded by the Soviets. After the war, he maintained his underground infrastructure and fought the communist regime until they captured him, tried him, and executed him for "fascism". He was certainly NOT a communist.
The original claim is that the atrocities listed here are actually Soviet atrocities that have been attributed to the Nazis. The obvious implication by this is that the Nazis did not do this.
My post is a refutation of that; it includes specific examples of the cultural destruction the Nazis engaged in, as well as violent atrocities, and it also includes wider lists or stats as ported in the Wikipedia articles, with direct links in those articles already to their sources, which are NOT necessarily subject to the same issues with Wikipedia articles. Look at those sources and attack their accuracy, not Wikipedia; at least in this instance.
The Nazis committed profound atrocities and lead campaigns of extensive attempted cultural and ethnic extermination. The Soviets also did this. All players in the war committed atrocities, yes, but there are obvious aggressors and players whose agendas were far more malicious. The two worst by far were the Soviets and the Nazis. Close behind was Imperial Japan, followed by the US and UK (more or less together) with not negligible atrocities themselves, but far from cultural or ethnic extermination. That's my overall view; I'm not fundamentally here to argue all of that because that is an exhaustively large argument, and while I could do it the time involved would be tremendous. As such, I'm only really staking the first part here. The point of the second is to show that I am not trying to hold the Nazis to a unique standard any more than any of the other factions.
Indeed, I do wish the Western European Allies had upheld their treaty with Poland and demanded its freedom from the Soviets. Had the Soviets refused I believe the proper course would be for the Allies to go to war with them; it would have been a bloodbath, yes, but I believe it would have been the right thing to do.
I know multiple Ukrainians personally that lived through the war. They say no such thing and would probably call you out for spouting Nazi propaganda. To be clear, they lost family to the Soviets AND the Nazis. they support neither and see through the lies of both.
They attacked Poland after Poland had been harrassing their border cities for months without any repercussions.
Source. It is not good practice to cite an entire 10 hour documentary for a single event. It was also not present in the first 20 minutes.
Go hear speeches from Churchill and Hitler leading up to the war. Churchill says he wants war, while Hitler says he dont want war.
Churchill was not the leader of Great Britain for much of that time.
Also, of course Hitler wouldn't want war. He would want to take without any resistance. On top of that all, are you not familiar with lying? When the media says there is no election fraud, do you believe that?
I actually watched more than the first 20 minutes, but it was becoming apparent it was a waste of my time because the information was purely presented in a sensationalist manner; it's overwhelmingly a propaganda piece. The truth doesn't require the nonsense included; it's 10 hours long and I just wonder how much of that is footage from various old films about "the jews plotting" and so on. I will likely watch it through over time nonetheless, but I can't help but feel I will come out of it having wasted 10 hours on a well-produced farce.
If it were really a quality source it would have claims with direct explicit sourcing in the documentary; it does some of this in parts, but it is not done in such a way that lends itself to the user digging. A huge list of authors and links is shown at the end, but that is not good practice unless the quotations and such are directly linked to each source.
They also bring on random individuals to speak without really explaining or verifying credentials.
On top of this all, their claims are progressive or sloping; they'll state something, then restate it later a little more inaccurately or aggressively until it meets their message.
Why would the truth need to go through these practices of sensationalism and obfuscation? We see that crap all the time with mainstream media pieces; we do not see it in quality research and the likes.
Around 80% of Warsaw was razed to the ground by the occupation forces before and then during the Warsaw Uprising. This included a campaign of door-to-door civilian executions.
The occupation also featured the destruction or plunder of all kinds of Polish art.
Wikipedia attributes the claim that German officials estimated "over 90%" of art previously in Poland was in their possession to Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Tom II (Politics of the Third Reich in Occupied Poland, Part Two) (in Polish); I cannot verify this as I sadly do not speak or read Polish.
One statue in particular torn down was of Adam Mickiewicz, a 19th Polish poet.
Poland endured attempted cultural extermination, and it is well documented and sourced.
The Wikipedia article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_culture_during_World_War_II
Supplementing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)
See this for a particular event which highlights the despicable nature of both the Nazis and the Soviets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising
Wikipedia is not a perfect source; it does, however, make for a quality source aggregate. This entire article is thoroughly sourced by proper writings and the sorts. Others that have been more objectionable tend to be about modern figures with limited to minimal or low quality sourcing; a chief example of which is the Project Veritas article citing mainstream news as to why Project Veritas is alt-right.
Anyone can list sources. Hell, anyone can write a book. At the end of the day there is only so much you can do to source information; having a wide variety of high quality writers with direct sources goes a long way. If you want to dismiss this information, you should go through each claim that you disagree with and it's sources to rebut it, or find stronger sources that say things to the contrary.
Intelligence was gathered by the Polish underground and transmitted to the allies which detailed gas chambers long before the Soviets set foot on that soil.
The Pilecki report is probably the chief example.
This intelligence was largely ignored. No aid was provided from the Western Allies.
Pilecki went on to fight against the communist regime for many years before being caught and executed. He was no communist, as others have tried to counter with.
Was the truth exactly like the narrative? Likely not. The Soviets committed atrocities of their own and likely attempted to suppress or cover some up as German atrocities, just as the Germans did with the Soviets.
Nonetheless, there is documentation of extensive German atrocities during the war.
Comparing this with voter fraud is a way over-simplification.
Brittain tell Poland to harrass german border cities, tell them that they will help them if Germany does smth.
Source on this? I've addressed others making these claims before, they're pretty routinely found to be holdout war justification propaganda from Germany and not actual events, for the most part.
Easiest reason why this would have been totally illogical: Poland had not even mobilized most of its army when war broke out; they'd been repeatedly told to delay by the Brits, because the Brits claimed they still believed peace was possible.
Chirchill air raids british cities to get british people to be pro war (they were anti war)
Source?
The U.S also knew about Pearl Harbor attack but didnt notify or counter because they wantwd a shitshow so the American people would back a war effort (also first war america only drafted people, guess who got drafted?)
Ah, but how much did they know about Pearl Harbor? Or was it just that they knew some attack was imminent, but not where?
WW2 was just a ploy to give more land to Soviets. Why did Soviets need to take Poland? They were allies, no?
Not exactly, however the Allies did cuck out of their responsibilities to east and central Europe giving them that.
Note how Stalin was, by most accounts, glad to work with Hitler, including partitioning Poland.
Poland and the USSR were never/not allies; it took the majority of Polish patriots and massive amounts of civilians being exterminated/executed/etc. by BOTH regimes for the Soviets to be able to impose communism.
There was a whole war fought by the brand new Polish state to prevent the spread of Communism into the ripe war-softened Europe; the Polish-Soviet war in ~1920.
Hitler brown shirts? Was the answer to antifa back then, just like Proud Boys now.
Proud boys don't use guns or violence for the most part. They've been a bit of a paper tiger, especially after the fuckery in their leadership. Brownshirts ARE still comparable to antifa; there is literally 0 reason there couldn't be two antifa-like groups fighting each other.
No, you can't just point to a 10 hour documentary as "source" for individual claims. That'd be like me pointing to "internet" as a source. IF you MUST find me individual timestamps in the documentary, but I would rather a stronger source than a shoddy obvious propaganda piece.
Have some mercy on them! They just got BTFO!!!