Who decided
Those who implemented the social credit system. And it is not based on merit or competence.
Whatever ultramodernity places under the dominion of signs[,] postmodernity subverts with virus. As culture migrates into partial-machines (lacking an autonomous reproductive system) semiotics subsides into virotechnics.
Virohyping sweeps through the advertising industry.
Everyone will be doing it.
General principle for viral take-overs in the media: the more unsophisticated the contagion, the bigger the splash (diversionary tactics excepted).
K-war derives its sole coherence from the unity of its foe.
— Nick Land, Hypervirus, 1995
Count Zero rigorously formulates cybergothic interlock, condensing the digital underworld onto the black mirror. Human neural-to-infonet uploading and Loan infonet-to-neural exactly correspond as phases of a circuit, amalgamating travel and possession. In the irreducible plexion of the interchange hacker-exploration = invasion, 'K-function'.⁸⁷
It is not a matter of theorizing or dreaming about the loa, but of succumbing, or trying to run. As K-viral social meltdown crosses into its China-syndrome, self-organizing software entities begin to come at you out of the screen. Viruses drift toward the strange attractor of auto-evolution, spread, split, traffic programming segments, sexuate, compile artificial intelligences, and learn how to hung. Voodoo on the VDU [visual display unit].
In the Voodoo, the living. These principal economic flow of power takes places through armament and drug exchange. The trading arena, the market, is my blood. My body is open to all people: this is democratic capitalism.⁸⁸
⁸⁷ Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 88-9 (see below)
⁸⁸ Acker, Empire of the Senseless, 55
— Nick Land, Cybergothic, 1998
The transcendent evaluation of an infection presupposes a measure of insulation from it: viral efficiency is the terminal criterion.
Intelligent infections tend their hosts.
Metrophage: an interactively escalating parasitic replicator, sophisticating itself through nonlinear involvement with technocapitalist immunocrash. Its hypervirulent terminal subroutines are variously designated Kuang, meltdown virus, or futuristic flu. In an emphatically anti-cyberian essay Csicsery-Ronay describes the postmodern version of this outbreak in quaintly humanist terms as:
[A] retrochronal semiovirus, in which a time further in the future than the one in which we exist and choose infects the host present, reproducing itself in simulacra, until it destroys all the original chronocytes of the host imagination.⁶
The elaboration of Csicsery-Ronay's diagnosis exhibits a mixture of acuity (infection?), confusion, and profound conservatism:
[N]ot thinking about 'increasing the human heritage' ... dams up the flow of cultural time and deprives future generations both of their birthright as participants in the life struggle and attainments of the species and the very notion of history as an irreversible flow encompassing generation, maturation, and the transference of wisdom and trust from parents to children, teachers to students. The futuristic flu is a weapon of bio-psychic violence sent by psychopathic children against their narcissistic parents.⁷
It's war.
⁶ I. Csicsery-Ronay Jr., 'Futuristic Flu or, The Revenge of the Future', in G. Slusser and T Shippery (eds.), Fiction 2000: Cyberpunk and the Future of Narrative (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1992), 26.
⁷ Ibid., 33.
— Nick Land, Meltdown, 1994
There are variables of content, or proportions in the interminglings or aggregations of bodies, and there are variables of expression, factors internal to enunciation. Germany, toward November 20, 1923: on the one hand, the deterritorializing inflation of the monetary body and, on the other, in response to the inflation, a semiotic transformation of the reichsmark into the rentenmark, making possible a reterritorialization. Russia, toward July 4,1917: on the one hand proportions of a state of "bodies" Soviets-provisional government, and on the other the elaboration of a Bolshevik incorporeal semiotic, accelerating things and contributing to the action of the detonating body of the Party. In short, the way an expression relates to a content is not by uncovering or representing it. Rather, forms of expression and forms of content communicate through a conjunction of their quanta of relative deterritorialization, each intervening, operating in the other.
We may draw some general conclusions on the nature of Assemblages from this. On a first, horizontal, axis, an assemblage comprises two segments, one of content, the other of expression. On the one hand it is a machinic assemblage of bodies, of actions and passions, an intermingling of bodies reacting to one another; on the other hand it is a collective assemblage of enunciation, of acts and statements, of incorporeal transformations attributed to bodies. Then on a vertical axis, the assemblage has both territorial sides, or reterritorialized sides, which stabilize it, and cutting edges of deterritorialization, which carry it away. No one is better than Kafka at differentiating the two axes of the assemblage and making them function together. On the one hand, the ship-machine, the hotel-machine, the circus-machine, the castle-machine, the court-machine, each with its own intermingled pieces, gears, processes, and bodies contained in one another or bursting out of containment (see the head bursting through the roof). On the other hand, the regime of signs or of enunciation: each regime with its incorporeal transformations, acts, death sentences and judgments, proceedings, "law." It is obvious that statements do not represent machines: the Stoker's discourse does not describe stoking as a body; it has its own form, and a development without resemblance. Yet it is attributed to bodies, to the whole ship as a body. A discourse of submission to order-words; a discourse of discussion, claims, accusation, and defense. On the second axis, what is compared or combined of the two aspects, what always inserts one into the other, are the sequenced or conjugated degrees of deterritorialization, and the operations of reterritorialization that stabilize the aggregate at a given moment. K., the K.-function, designates the line of flight or deterritorialization that carries away all of the assemblages but also undergoes all kinds of reterritorializations and redundancies — redundancies of childhood, village-life, love, bureaucracy, etc.
— Deleuze & Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1987
Read about it back in 2019. Epoch Times had it in 2005 and the speech itself was allegedly some time prior to 2003.
https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
I linked to the blog because Epoch has a paywall. Pretty wild stuff.
It's funny, I get called a 'nut' irl for bringing up stuff from 20 years ago.
Interesting tidbits from a quick skim of that section.
11.4.2
In addition, the Occupying Power may not compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to become its nationals or otherwise to swear allegiance to it.
11.6.1
The population of an occupied territory, like other protected persons under the GC, are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats of violence, and against insults and public curiosity.
11.6.2.1
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile State.
11.8.3
The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent State cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts that would be unlawful if performed directly by the Occupying Power. Acts induced or compelled by the Occupying Power are nonetheless its acts.
11.8.6
It is immaterial whether the government over an enemy’s territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war.
11.20.1.1
The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces. No pressure or propaganda that aims at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.
This one seems like it could be a big deal:
11.22.2.1
Contributions may not be levied for other than the needs of the occupying forces and the administration of the occupied territory. For example, contributions may not be levied:
• for the enrichment of the Occupying Power;
• for the payment of war expenses generally;
• for the purposes of collective punishment; or
• for the purposes of impoverishing the population in order to pressure the enemy to sue for peace.
Also important:
Under 11.22.5
The Occupying Power’s powers to regulate currency must not be used to confiscate private property. For example, intentional debasement of currency by the establishment of fictitious valuation or exchange rates, or like devices, as well as failure to take reasonable steps to prevent inflation, with the result of enrichment of the Occupying Power, would violate international law.
Doesn't require belief. Mark Esper warned people about DEWs on live TV during the Trump admin.
I posted the video a while ago so I'll search for it here again after I'm off work. He was crystal clear about it.
Further reading:
From Deleuze & Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1987:
... the face or body of the despot or god has something like a counterbody: the body of the tortured, or better, of the excluded. There is no question that these two bodies communicate, for the body of the despot is sometimes subjected to trials of humiliation or even torture, or of exile and exclusion. "At the opposite pole one might imagine placing the body of the condemned man; he, too, has his legal status; he gives rise to his own ceremonial... not in order to ground the surplus power possessed by the person of the sovereign, but in order to code the lack of power with which those subjected to punishment are marked. In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man outlines the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king."5
…
In the signifying regime, the scapegoat represents a new form of increasing entropy in the system of signs: it is charged with everything that was "bad" in a given period, that is, everything that resisted signifying signs, everything that eluded the referral from sign to sign through the different circles; it also assumes everything that was unable to recharge the signifier at its center and carries off everything that spills beyond the outermost circle.
*5 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1975
From Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer, 1998:
For a long time now, scholars have approximated the figure of homo sacer [sacred man] to that of the devotus who consecrates his own life to the gods of the underworld in order to save the city from a grave danger.
…
Why does the survival of the devotee constitute such an embarrassing situation for the community that it forces it to perform a complex ritual (see below) whose sense is so unclear? What is the status of the living body that seems no longer to belong to the world of the living? In an exemplary study, Robert Schilling observes that if the surviving devotee is excluded from both the profane world and the sacred world, “this happens because this man is sacer [sacred]. He cannot be given back in any way to the profane world because it is precisely thanks to his consecration that the entire community was able to be spared the wrath of the gods” (“Sacrumetprofanum,”p. 956). This is the perspective from which we must see the statue that we have already encountered in the emperor’s funus imaginarium and that seems to unite, in one constellation, the body of the sovereign and the body of the devotee.
The complex ritual:
From Reason and Violence, R.D. Laing & D.G. Cooper, 1964:
The survival group is first a practical invention in each of the permanence of a common unity through each other. It is freedom wishing to become inert, praxis seeking a way of metamorphosing itself into exis. When a multiplicity of freedoms makes common praxis in order to find a basis of the permanence of the group, it produces by itself a form of reciprocity mediated by its own inertia. This new form of reciprocity Sartre calls the pledge. The pledge takes different forms. The historical act is not the necessary form of the pledge. It can be seen as the resistance of the survival group against separationist action, whether of going away or differentiation; as guarantee of the future through a lack of change produced in the group by freedom. Paradoxically, as provision of stability, as promise of permanence, and so forth, it affords the basis of all separation and differentiation. The pledge, however, is not a social contract, in Rousseau's sense, but the necessary passage from an immediate form of the group in danger of dissolution to another more reflective permanent form.
The pledge, as an invention of praxis, is the affirmation by the thirds of the permanence of the group as negation of its permanent possibility of negation through the multiplicity of alterity. The threat to the permanence of the group is, of course, not necessarily the physical extermination of its members. By the pledge the group seeks to make itself its own instrument against seriality, which threatens it with dissolution.
The pledge is not a subjective determination. It is a real modification of the group by my regulative action. It is my guarantee to the others that it is impossible for serial alterity to be introduced into the group through me. This guarantee cannot, however, annul the permanent possibility that I can 'freely', that is, by my individual praxis, abandon my post, go over to the enemy. Treason and desertion can never be annulled as possibilities, but I have sworn my loyalty, I have given my pledge as guarantee against this exercise of my own freedom. I seek to utilize my own and everyone else's presence in the group as a third, as regulator, as my common-being, as a fact that cannot be transcended. I seek to convert my free being-in-the-group into an exigency that there is no way through or round, by the invention, as far as it is possible, of an inorganic, non-dialectical, rigid future. This rigid substantiation of my future is endowed with the triple characteristics of being the exigence, container, and ground of all my subsequent praxis. But there is no new dialectic.
Now, thus far two developments of the group-in-fusion have been distinguished for clarity—survival group and pledged group. We must now consider more closely the intelligibility of the pledge. The individual and the group praxis of the group-in-fusion have been seen to be comprehensible. Is the re-invention of the pledge in defined circumstances a process that is dialectical and comprehendible? The pledge becomes intelligible as the common action of the group on itself. We said above that the group undergoes a transformation in and through the common action of the pledge. How then does the unity of the group-in-fusion compare with that of the pledge group? The former is a fusion in the face of material danger. In this fusion, real work is done. In the pledge group, on the other hand, nothing material binds the members, the danger is not real, it is only possible. The origin of the pledge is anxiety. Once the real menace from outside has passed, the danger to the permanence of the group is from dispersion and seriality. A reflexive fear arises.
There is not enough to fear to keep the group together now that the danger seems remote. The condition of the permanence of the group is thus the negation of the absence of fear. Fear must be reinvented. The fundamental reinvention, at the heart of the pledge, is the project of substituting a real fear, produced by the group itself, for the external fear that is becoming remote, and whose very remoteness is suspected as deceptive. And this fear as free product and corrective action of the group against serial dissolution is terror induced by the violence of common freedom. Terror is the reign in the group of absolute violence on its members.
The essential basis for this transformation is the risk of death that each runs at the heart of the group as possible agent of dispersion. The pledge group is a common product of reciprocities mediated under the statute of violence. Through this form of unification, the being-in-the-group becomes a limit that can be breached only with the certitude of dying.
Traced back to original praxis, man is in the position of absolute power of man over man. But in the vicissitudes of alienation, God can be substituted for the guillotine. The pledge, the oath of loyalty, backed up by violence, is the original free attempt to strike terror into each by each, in so far as it must constantly reactualize violence as the intelligible negation of individual freedom by common praxis. This is the pledge. Its intelligibility is complete, since it is a question of a free transcendent of elements already given, towards an objective already posited. My pledge offers him and them a guarantee and invites violence as his and their right to suppress me if I default. By the same token the unmitigated pledge creates Terror, and invents treason, since there is now no excuse for defection. While the circumstances are not particularly constraining, I can remain on a level where violence-terror, loyalty-treachery, are not experienced in ultimate form. But the fundamental structure of the pledged group is violence-terror since I have freely consented to the possible liquidation of my person. My right over the other is my obligation to them, and contains in itself, implicitly, death as my possible destiny.
It's happening in many places. This just happened on the first of this month:
"It's just for driving" they'll say. Nope. The question about if the ID's are legitimate for use during voting will be a momentary contention and they'll say, "Well, they already have ID, they're already here, why not let them vote?" Republicans will look like uNeMpAtHeTiC mOnStErS if they say no and will inevitably give in and every state where this process occurs will delegitimize the legal immigration process entirely.
Also, you know why Nadler and pals wear those masks? Once any amount of hell breaks loose from their policies, they will claim that they never said what they said. They'll counterclaim that the transcripts were maliciously altered (no one will care nor remember he said it due to the media interference) and instead they'll claim that they are the victims of some ruthless republican plot to undermine democracy.
Expect upticks in illegitimate calls for 'mental health checks' for anyone to the right of Marx.
This is where punitive medicine comes into play. Those abroad should not know that there is resistance in the USSR, our fellow citizens should not be inspired by the example of these units, and the truth about the USSR should not be heard either abroad or within the country. But organizing trials is too noisy, killing without trial is too scandalous. And another way out was found - to declare political opponents mentally ill.
Accusing dissidents of mental inferiority is to some extent subconscious and a priori in nature. Who among us has not, upon seeing the action of a person whose motives are not clear to us, exclaim: “Crazy!” The social behavior of dissidents goes beyond the strictly defined norms of social behavior of Soviet people. This behavior is dictated by other moral categories that are not normal by Soviet standards. The Soviet authorities and, it must be admitted, a significant part of our society, if they do not consider dissidents to be violent madmen, then in any case regard them as unusual, strange people, deviating from the norm. Here lies the possibility of a subtle transition from the concept of unusualness or non-triviality to the concept of madness. If crazy people are assessed by medical categories, then unusualness and abnormality are assessed by universal human, everyday ones. With the light hand of the Snezhnevskys and Luntsy, these criteria, and the concepts themselves, became almost adequate and equivalent.
During the revolution of 1917, governments did not need such a sophisticated punitive measure as isolation in mental hospitals. If the tsarist government did not abuse punitive psychiatry, then under the Provisional Revolutionary Government (March-October 1917) this was unthinkable. Democracy in Russia then reached the highest level, which was not seen either before or since. Terror began only after the October Revolution with the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, more precisely, in the spring of 1918, and from September 5 it was legalized as “mass”. The communists dealt with political opponents simply and quickly. Those dissatisfied with the regime were executed administratively. The revolutionary tribunals handed down death sentences without lengthy judicial delays and formalities, guided by revolutionary legal consciousness. The idea of isolating someone in a mental hospital, apparently, could not even come to mind, the punitive measures against dissidents were so harsh and unambiguous.
Any indignation, protests and resentment over forced hospitalization will be regarded by psychiatrists as evidence of mental illness. The situation here is truly hopeless. This machine grinds everyone. It is impossible to defend yourself because you are declared mentally ill, or to protest because you are not arrested, or to appeal because you are not convicted.
— Alexander Podrabinek, “Punitive Medicine”, 1979
Verbocracy and Semantic Fog—Talking the People into Submission
After the First World War, we became more conscious of our attitude toward words. This attitude was gradually changing. Our trust in official catchwords and clichés and in idealistic labels had diminished. We became more and more aware of the fact that the important questions were what groups and powers told behind the words, and white their secret intentions were. But in our easygoing way we often forget to ask this question, and we are all more or less susceptible to noisy, oft-repeated words.
The formulation of big propagandistic lies and fraudulent catchwords has a very well-defined purpose in Totalitaria, and words themselves have acquired a special functions in the service of power, which we may call verbocracy. The Big Lie and the phones slogan at first confuse and then dull the hearers, making them willing to accept every suggested myth of happiness. The task of the totalitarian propagandist is to build special pictures in the minds of the citizenry so that finally they will no longer see and hear with their own eyes and ears but will look at the world through the fog of official catchwords and will develop the automatic responses appropriate to totalitarian mythology.
The multiform use of words in double talk serves as an attack on our logic, that is, an attack on our understanding of what monolithic dictatorship really is. Hear, hear the nonsense: "Peace is war and war is peace! Democracy is tyranny and freedom is slavery! Virtue is vice and truth is a lie." So says the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's grim novel, 1984. And we saw this nightmare fantasy come true when our soldiers who had spend long years in North Korean prison camps returned home talking of totalitarian China with the deceiving cliché of "the people's democracy." Pavloviaon conditioning to special words forces people into an automatic thinking that is tied to those words. The words we use to influence our behavior in daily life; they determine what thoughts we have.
In Totalitaria, facts are replaced by fantasy and distortion. People are taught systematically and intentionally to lie (Winokur). History is reconstructed, new myths are build up whose purpose is twofold: to strengthen and flatter the totalitarian leader, and to confuse the luckless citizens of the country. The whole vocabulary is a dictated set of slowly hypnotizing slogans. In the semantic fog that permeates the atmosphere, words lose their direct communicative function. They become merely commanding signs, triggering off reactions of fear and terror. They are battle crimes and Pavlovian signals, and no longer represent free thinking. The word, once considered a first token of free human creation, is transformed into a mechanical tool. In Totalitaria, words may have a seductive action, soothing or charming their hearers, but they are not allowed to have intrinsic meaning. They are conditioners, emotional triggers, serving to imprint the desired reaction patters on their hearers.
— Joost Meerloo, 1956 - The Rape of The Mind
Population-wide uptake of antidepressants.
The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary … The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. … Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.
— Joseph Sobran (April 1997)
Just saw 'protesters' flying the Hamas flag in Minneapolis on twitter/x.
The 'protesters' surrounded some poor old white dude's car and were beginning to kick at it and trying to break the windows.
Don't even know what to say anymore.
Worse. Idiocalypse: The Reidioting.
Thank you. Thought I would never find it again.
I remember the one parliament member (forgot which country and can't find the video anymore) but he tested a fresh can of soda, on live tv and in front of the body, and it came up positive.
Might as well just send every american a fuckin coin and if it lands on tails, they're positive.
Uh, what else we got here…
[Breathes deeply]
Good luck searching for Al-Qaeda on the internet, you’d have better luck going next door and asking them in person.
Uhh, what else we got here… You are not gonna like that one. Nobody’s gonna like that one.
Let’s do this here.
Can we get one final pat on the back everybody? Pat yourselves on the back. Please do it. You are gonna be the future, that’s a good thing. You’re going places kid… You’re going uh… [Whispers “man, we’re so screwed”]
2070, Israel, straight up ripped off the map. [In Jewish accent screams “BYE! BYE BYE!!! BYE!!!”] Not my choice, it’s… probably what’s gonna happen. Okay.
— Sam Hyde, "2070: Paradigm Shift" TedX speech in 2013 at Drexel University
Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine its policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliamentary system or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
— Hermann Goering
Was this an admission or an accusation?
We just went through three years of what amounts to the mandates of 1933 (text is German), what else is stunningly similar?
From today's perspective, the "Third Reich" began with a surprise: in 1933, the vaccination practice, which had been liberalized shortly before, was not only retained, but even politically codified. Since the "seizure of power" there has been a noticeable skepticism about vaccination, even a rejection of coercive measures, which Winfried Süss rightly expressed astonishment about: "In a country [...] that [...] since the [...] seizure of power the individual rights to bodily self-determination in favor of the health of an imaginary 'national body' and thus increased the chances of such a vaccination being enforced, [...] this development can come as a surprise."60
How could the reticence in this important area of public health care be explained? Why was it that in 1933, of all things, were government claims to power abandoned when it came to providing for the “national body”? The ongoing debate about the Lübeck vaccination scandal offers an initial explanation for the concerns at the time. A second factor is rooted in the NS ideology itself, since vaccination raises serious problems from a “racial hygiene” point of view. Finally, immunization against disease is in sharp opposition to the idea of hardening and selection.
This was at least emphasized by numerous opponents of vaccination, who sensed the dawning of the dawn since the "seizure of power", especially since they were able to refer to authorities from the NS leadership in their criticism. The reference to a statement by Julius Schleicher, “Vaccination is a racial disgrace” 61, or the assertion that the Reich vaccination law “demonstrably was passed by the Jewish deputies Löwe, Lasker and Eulenburg, who called themselves the 'fathers' of this Law of April 8, 1974," 62 as the "German anti-vaccination medical association e.V." warned in October 1935. Rather unusual, however, was the rhyming form in which the “Vaccination research sheets” published at the end of 1933 declared the “elimination of compulsory vaccination” as a “basic condition [...] for the development and advancement of people and humanity”: “German people, have ' Nothing in common with vaccinations, / It is a mockery of all true health care, / And you don't want to be your gravedigger yourself, / Then you resolutely commit to the anti-vaccine nation!”63
…
This story is also a story of social change that has been gaining momentum since the late 1920s. At the end of the Weimar Republic, the attitude of state actors to coercive measures was already changing cautiously, but the "Third Reich" heralded the transition from coercion to voluntariness: while Weimar relied on state authority for vaccinations, politics took hold in the "Third Reich". Beginning that could be continued seamlessly after the end of the war133. Corresponding continuities can be found in the Federal Republic both in the fundamental voluntary nature of all programs - with the exception of smallpox vaccination, which remained compulsory even after the end of the war - and in the appeals with which participation in vaccination programs was called for. Up until the 1970s there was talk of an obligation, albeit less frequently for the “national community”134 than for “public health”. An instrumentalization of fears also continued after 1945. Vaccination was still promoted, sometimes quite drastically. One example is the Lower Saxony medical administration, which in early 1967 recommended all “parents who do not bring their children to oral vaccinations” via the “Bild-Zeitung” to visit a “home for paralyzed children”: “There they will come to their senses when they see the poor little ones walking with sticks or barely able to move.”135
Continuities can also be found in the expanded range of preventive measures that were established in the Nazi state. In addition to smallpox vaccinations, diphtheria and, where available, typhus vaccinations have been included in the preventive arsenal since the 1930s. During the war, the scarlet fever vaccination and finally even the controversial tuberculosis vaccination were added, which was expressly introduced as a voluntary measure in January 1945, especially since fears of vaccination damage were still an issue 15 years after the Lübeck vaccination scandal. Consequently, the Reich Ministry of the Interior, in its decree introducing vaccination in 1945, expressly pointed out "that the Lübeck accident" is not to be blamed on the vaccination technology "but was based on an unfortunate mix-up"136. Admittedly, these vaccinations were only used on a large scale in the immediate post-war period, which, from an epidemiological point of view, took on more catastrophic features than the Nazi era.
In the long term, the expansion of the range of vaccinations in the "Third Reich" paved the way for health policy since the 1950s, with the Federal Republic and the GDR proceeding differently. Smallpox vaccinations were compulsory in both Germanys. However, while in the West all further vaccinations were voluntary, in the East they soon went back to compulsory. Prophylaxis was too deeply enshrined as a basic principle of a new society in the GDR for people to want to take the risk of careless immunizations. The ubiquitous motto "Socialism is the best prophylaxis" also applied in reverse.
Ever wonder why people are being called 'nazis' for merely following the Nuremberg Code?
Very good point.
The Dialectic aims itself, through its agents, at any 1: non-approved group or 2: dissenting individual to attempt to 'split' the entity apart (1: oppositional parties or 2: an alienated schizophrenic) to disperse any contention against Urstaat power.
Chapter 12: 1227: TREATISE ON NOMADOLOGY—THE WAR MACHINE
(p. 360) We are compelled to say that there has always been a State, quite perfect, quite complete. The more discoveries archaeologists make, the more empires they uncover. The hypothesis of the Urstaat seems to be verified: "The State clearly dates back to the most remote ages of humanity." It is hard to imagine primitive societies that would not have been in contact with imperial States, at the periphery or in poorly controlled areas. But of greater importance is the inverse hypothesis: that the State itself has always been in a relation with an outside and is inconceivable independent of that relationship. The law of the State is not the law of All or Nothing (State societies or counter-State societies) but that of interior and exterior. The State is sovereignty. But sovereignty only reigns over what it is capable of internalizing, of appropriating locally. Not only is there no universal State, but the outside of States cannot be reduced to "foreign policy," that is, to a set of relations among States. The outside appears simultaneously in two directions: huge worldwide machines branched out over the entire ecumenon at a given moment, which enjoy a large measure of autonomy in relation to the States (for example, commercial organization of the "multi-national" type, or industrial complexes, or even religious formations like Christianity, Islam, certain prophetic or messianic movements, etc.); but also the local mechanisms of bands, margins, minorities, which continue to affirm the rights of segmentary societies in opposition to the organs of State power. The modern world can provide us today with particularly well developed images of these two directions: worldwide ecumenical machines, but also a neoprimitivism, a new tribal society as described by Marshall McLuhan. These directions are equally present in all social fields, in all periods. It even happens that they partially merge. For example, a commercial organization is also a band of pillage, or piracy, for part of its course and in many of its activities; or it is in bands that a religious formation begins to operate. What becomes clear is that bands, no less than worldwide organizations, imply a form irreducible to the State and that this form of exteriority necessarily presents itself as a diffuse and polymorphous war machine. It is a nomos very different from the "law." The State-form, as a form of interiority, has a tendency to reproduce itself, remaining identical to itself across its variations and easily recognizable within the limits of its poles, always seeking public recognition (there is no masked State). But the war machine's form of exteriority is such that it exists only in its own metamorphoses; it exists in an industrial innovation as well as in a technological invention, in a commercial circuit as well as in a religious creation, in all flows and currents that only secondarily allow themselves to be appropriated by the State. It is in terms not of independence, but of coexistence and competition in a perpetual field of interaction, that we must conceive of exteriority and interiority, war machines of metamorphosis and State apparatuses of identity, bands and kingdoms, megamachines and empires. The same field circumscribes its interiority in States, but describes its exteriority in what escapes States or stands against States.
Chapter 13: 7000 B.C.: APPARATUS OF CAPTURE
(p. 427) We cannot, however, assign this schema a causal meaning (the authors cited do not do so). In the first place, the war machine explains nothing; for it is either exterior to the State, and directed against it; or else it already belongs to the State, encasted and appropriated, and presupposes it. If the war machine has a part in the evolution of the State, it is therefore necessarily in conjunction with other internal factors. And this is the second point: if there is an evolution of the State, the second pole, the evolved pole, must be in resonance with the first, it must continually recharge it in some way, and the State must have only one milieu of interiority; in other words, it must have a unity of composition, in spite of all the differences in organization and development among States. It is even necessary for each State to have both poles, as the essential moments of its existence, even though the organization of the two varies. Third, if we call this interior essence or this unity of the State "capture," we must say that the words "magic capture" describe the situation well because it always appears as preaccomplished and self-presupposing; but how is this capture to be explained then, if it leads back to no distinct assignable cause? That is why theses on the origin of the State are always tautological. At times, exogenous factors, tied to war and the war machine, are invoked; at times endogenous factors, thought to engender private property, money, etc.; and at times specific factors, thought to determine the formation of "public functions." All three of these theses are found in Engels, in relation to a conception of the diversity of the roads to Domination. But they beg the question. War produces the State only if at least one of the two parts is a preexistent State; and the organization of war is a State factor only if that organization is a part of the State. Either the State has no war machine (and has policemen and jailers before having soldiers), or else it has one, but in the form of a military institution or public function. Similarly, private property presupposes State public property, it slips through its net; and money presupposes taxation. It is even more difficult to see how public functions could have existed before the State they imply. We are always brought back to the idea of a State that comes into the world fully formed and rises up in a single stroke, the unconditioned Urstaat.
— Deleuze & Guattari, "A Thousand Plateaus | Capitalism and Schizophrenia" 1987
it already started in the city, suburbia will be just as easy
Just was told by a yet another person, "I hate white men" in the last few days.
About three people have said this to me in public recently as if I should automatically agree with them.
Blue areas are not safe.
Be advised: the left is openly looking for scapegoats to relieve themselves of heavy cognitive dissonance.
Having lived with a narcissist for decades, I'm sure that dear old dementia dad probably was forcing him to 'save face' for the family more and more up to the point where drugs, hookers, guns and a missing laptop full of secrets were more preferable options to dealing with an asshole like him for a single minute longer.
The boy was ~3 years old when pop entered into the senate. His entire life was dominated by his father's craving for power and status.
There would be no way out but a total collapse of the entire deck of cards because of him being an integral instrument to his father's ego.
Honestly, I pity the guy if father/son narcissism scales or multiplies at greater levels of prestige.
What could he even do? His fate was sealed when he was only a toddler.
But I didn't read the part about that statute of limitations...
Probably difficult to determine. Underlings often just 'do as they're told' so I imagine that it begins higher up. Potentially a systematized or automated allotment program. 'Enter patient's name' -> 'Pick up vial x-t-5391' sort of thing. The specific administer is none the wiser. Adds another layer of plausible deniability. Just speculation though.
I had some run-ins with several people close to both the testing industry and public health who seemed to have not-so-great intentions with me. 'Ominous' would be undercutting the sense I had regarding their demeanor. 'Threatening' would be closer. Everything I have read in the last few years leads me to more red flags, I've had a lot of time since I've been wholly ostracized from every social group in my life besides church.
This (youtube) also didn't sit right with me after a PH nurse said how much she hated white men fairly regularly when I was around her.
If you dig into the notion of 'medical equity' - which is a tenet within many of the industry's current 'social' programs - it starts to appear pretty grim if the OP has even a kernel of truth.
Something is definitely going very wrong in any case. Sorry for if the post seems low-effort, I'm just really tired of dealing with these people and wish they hadn't destroyed my life over a fricken shot.