It's a pirates life for me

[Macnamara]

On 10/15/2022 at 2:46 PM, Green Dragon said:

We have fledgling projects geared to our collective freedom. I’m gonna be posting stuff about this in the next few weeks

 

if you want to drop some links in this thread and have cleared it all with the mods then feel free to post it here as off grid and food self-sufficiency is definately in the spirit of this thread

[Macnamara]

How To: Make Your Own Meths Burner

Captain Paranoia shows you how to make your very own drinks can meths stove...

31st July 2009

 

There are many sets of instructions on the Web, such as at ZenStoves or AntiGravityGear. Whilst the ZenStoves and AGG pages are useful to get an idea of how drinks can burners are made, I think they both present fundamentally flawed designs; both have joins in the middle of the burner which results in a weak structure. It’s far better to use the strong structures of the can to form a robust joint that requires no glue. I also find the instructions over-complicated, using templates, plaster-cast moulds and inelegant construction methods.

Here is my method for making a simple, Trangia-style, open-pot, top-jetting burner. It requires no epoxy glue, no flue tape, and needs only a Stanley blade, a craft knife, a straight edge and a thumb tack to make. It deliberately avoids using templates, etc. and takes measurements from the can itself, so that, provided you can remember the steps, you can make it anywhere. With practice, it takes about 15 minutes to make.

Nb. These instructions assume you know how to use and handle sharp tools safely, and how to use opposing muscle tension to control the movement of tools whilst applying cutting force, and what protective equipment to wear; knife blades can snap…

In case you can’t guess from the photos, I’m left-handed. You might want to re-arrange things if you’re right-handed.

As with all things, it’s worth reading through and understanding the instructions before you start.

read in here https://outdoorsmagic.com/article/make-meths-burner/

[Green Dragon]

On 10/20/2022 at 2:05 PM, Macnamara said:

 

if you want to drop some links in this thread and have cleared it all with the mods then feel free to post it here as off grid and food self-sufficiency is definately in the spirit of this thread

I’l do so soon; Sotapanna is undergoing a website change so I’l post a link when the new site is up and running, and post stuff about related projects along with it in one fell swoop. 

[Macnamara]

On 5/22/2021 at 2:40 PM, Macnamara said:

Book Review Part 1:

The People V's the State, Using Jury Nullification to Defeat Unjust Laws by Luke Von Trapp

 

This book was recommended by the gentlemen at the UKColumn in their 'A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution' series. The author has his own podcast 'the uncivil liberty' in which he discuss the topic of Liberty. It's a bite sized book that can be knocked off in an afternoons reading and is clear and easy to understand although it needs a bit of editing as there are some small errors but then i can't talk as my grammar is terrible (it's the info inside that matters!)

 

The author is based in the US but the concept of jury nullification is historically rooted in British common Law. It's definately worth a read and I'll post some excerpts from it below to give a flavour of what Luke is trying to get across to the reader:

 

WHY IS JURY NULLIFICATION SO IMPORTANT?

 

'If you've heard about it and are not fighting for it to be implemented in our system, then something is wrong for sure. It is one of the core fundamental rights provided to us by the Constitution, and we have an obligation to use it to invalidate bad laws ratified by corrupt politicians in legislative bodies. Jury nullification is one of the rare ways to fight against the abuse of power, primarily by the law enforcement and the corrupt legal system they support.'

 

'Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows jurors to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law' (CopBlock)

 

'Simply put, the jury holds the most power in determining the validity of the law and whether it has the right to stand. Furthermore, jury nullification prevents unjust laws from being enforced even if the person standing trial has admitted to committing the 'crime'. It sends a message to the legislative 'masters' of the people that they do not agree and refuse to convict as the law is unfit to stand. Jury nullification is a vote of non-confidence on the credibility of the law and those who profit off making these laws and the courts despise it.'

 

Von Trapp gives real world examples of jury nullification and makes the point that people who feel that certain drug laws or abuse of police power are affecting certain sub sections of the population disproportionately, should learn about jury nullification as the solution to these problems for example if a person is on trial for distributing marijuana then the jury could acquit him if they believe that a non violent act that is technically illegal but which causes no victim should not result in a conviction.

 

This method of allowing a person to be judged by a jury of their peers is an ancient tradition going back 700 years in british common law history and the book does cover that.

 

The book stresses the need for jurors to act out of conscience to ensure justice and not to simply follow the letter of the law as the judge may demand. It also contain a good quote from Martin Luther King:

 

'I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good'

 

How prescient in our current covid-hysteria predicament

Nicola Sturgeon's plans to abolish jury trials in rape cases are 'a threat to democracy' and risk comparison with Hitler's judge-only courts, Scotland's most senior female lawyer warns

• Senior lawyer hits out at plans to abolish jury trials in rape cases in Scotland
• Ministers looking at the proposal amid concern jurors have outdated attitudes
• Frances McMenamin KC drew comparisons with China – and even Hitler's regime

By Danya Bazaraa For Mailonline

Published: 10:43 GMT, 14 November 2022 | Updated: 12:22 GMT, 14 November 2022

Nicola Sturgeon's plans to scrap jury trials in rape cases have been compared to Hitler's courts by Scotland's top female lawyer who warned the proposal could undermine democracy. 

Ministers are looking at the proposal to abolish jury trials in rape cases amid concern some jurors have outdated attitudes towards alleged victims, leading to low conviction rates. 

But a senior lawyer and government adviser fears Scotland's judicial system may soon, if proposals for judge-only trials go ahead, be on the verge of a misguided and dangerous misstep.

Frances McMenamin KC stated her grave concerns about the plans and drew comparisons between judge-only trials and regimes such as China. She even likened the proposals to Hitler who in 1933 abolished trial by jury and set up the People's Court.

McMenamin, the most senior woman at the Scottish Bar, urged for more be done to defend women asked to give evidence in harrowing trials and warned of the corrosive effect on justice caused by the relatively poor pay of criminal lawyers in the legal profession.

She told The Sunday Post: 'China's new national security law, aimed at suppressing Hong Kong's democracy movement, is abolishing trial by jury. 

'A comparison to China is not one which Scotland should court by removing the current jury system only for sex offence cases.'

She added: 'Even worse, Scotland should not risk further comparison with Hitler who, in 1933, in response to his dissatisfaction at the Reichstag fire trial, in which all but one of the accused were acquitted, abolished trial by jury and set up the People's Court.

'This was a special court set up outside the operations of the constitutional frame of law, whose president almost always sided with the prosecution and in which there was no presumption of innocence.' 

McMenamin, a member of the Scottish Government's Governance Group, said: 'Democracy is not just about parliamentary and local elections. Democratic participation is wider than this.

'Jury service ensures that the citizen - who does not have to vote but does have to respond to a call to jury service - is part of the delivery of justice. 

'The removal of juries for sex offence cases affects the rights not only of any accused charged with such an offence but equally affects the rights of every citizen in Scotland.

'Jury service gives a central role to the public in the criminal justice system, of which serious sex offence cases form no small part in Scotland.

'Even other countries not so historically associated with democratic traditions and institutions are turning towards a jury system such as Argentina and Bulgaria.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11425203/Nicola-Sturgeons-plans-abolish-jury-trials-rape-cases-compared-Hitlers-court-lawyer-says.html

[Macnamara]

Mike Lee: The Adversarial Legal System Is the Safeguard to Liberty

November 13, 2022

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) stressed the need to protect adversarial procedure in the American justice system, saying, “If the adversarial system doesn’t work, you will lose your rights, you will lose your liberty, potentially culminating in a full loss of life, liberty, and/or property.”

The adversarial system is the one that presumes innocence and requires both sides of a lawsuit to conduct their own investigations, bring witnesses, affords the ability for cross-examination, and safeguards defendants against government bias.

Lee was addressing the Federalist Society’s 2022 National Lawyers Convention in the nation’s capital, warning of an increasingly powerful government and its potential to crush the liberties of the American people.

“We neglect the fact that [government] is just force,” he said. “Government is force, and like fire, it’s dangerous and it has to be controlled — should never be trusted.”

The adversarial system “is itself absolutely essential to safeguarding our individual liberties, because if, after all, you get hauled in by this entity whose sole purpose … is to exert force on you — to coerce you into doing or not doing a particular thing — if you don’t have adequate representation, the adversarial system won’t work,” he argued. “If the adversarial system doesn’t work, you will lose your rights, you will lose your liberty, potentially culminating in a full loss of life, liberty, and/or property.”

The adversarial system is contingent upon both plaintiffs and defendants having strong legal counsel — a point of contention brought up several times during the three-day convention, as lawyer intimidation for unpopular clients and the refusal of law firms to represent them is a growing trend, particularly for conservative clients.

“We’ve seen enormous pressure brought to bear on another number of institutions, including and especially our profession, where you’ve seen some prominent law firms, including some in this town, doing everything they can to shun certain clients,” Lee said. “Doing everything they can, in some circumstances, even to shun outstanding, remarkable lawyers, based solely on their prior employment experience, including many who worked in the Trump administration.”

The push to diminish the freedoms of speech and association from the left is a chief contributor to the degradation of the adversarial system.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Lee explained, said, “Something bad happens when we can’t tolerate speech, when we can’t tolerate views that differ from our own.

http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2022/11/mike-lee-adversarial-legal-system-is.html

[Macnamara]

On 1/29/2022 at 11:49 PM, Macnamara said:

Helps breatfeeding women with mastitis too

Don’t forget about the cheapest, most effective remedy we have available against viruses: garlic

January 28, 2022 1:19 pm by IWB

We know about the flu basics: vitamins A,C,D, zinc and quercetin, and maybe ivermectin if you need it.

But there is something in everyone’s fridge that is extremely potent and cheap as hell.

Years ago I got very ill from parasites, the bloodwork showed I was heavily infected with all kinds of shit in my bloodstream, yeast, amoebas, flagellates, the works. I was loaded. And my liver couldn’t tolerate oral antibiotics. So I looked for alternatives online while we waited on some injectable antibiotics. I decided to try garlic, even though it sounded too good to be true.

I chewed one large clove every morning and evening for a month. Then did bloodwork again. All gone, every last one. It’s not just parasites, garlic will work against anything. It’s a good thing I tried this because the injectable antibiotics never showed up.

It burns your mouth like hell if you chew it, just crush it up real good into a paste and mix with a little bit of honey. If you don’t have a cast iron stomach you want to do it after some food or it could burn and make you uncomfortable.

 

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32836826/

“Key findings and conclusions: Pre-clinical data demonstrated that garlic and its OSCs have potential antiviral activity against different human, animal and plant pathogenic viruses through blocking viral entry into host cells, inhibiting viral RNA polymerase, reverse transcriptase, DNA synthesis and immediate-early gene 1(IEG1) transcription, as well as through downregulating the extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK)/mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. The alleviation of viral infection was also shown to link with immunomodulatory effects of garlic and its OSCs. Clinical studies further demonstrated a prophylactic effect of garlic in the prevention of widespread viral infections in humans through enhancing the immune response. This review highlights that garlic possesses significant antiviral activity and can be used prophylactically in the prevention of viral infections.”

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16035690/

roserambles.org/2022/01/26/garlic-six-easy-ways-to-use-it-to-protect-against-viruses-bacteria-infection-and-cancer-january-26-2022/

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/dont-forget-about-the-cheapest-most-effective-remedy-we-have-available-against-viruses-garlic/

 

Unpeel your raw garlic cloves and put them into a jar of RAW HONEY. The moisture in the garlic is what begins the fermentation process. Each day you can fish out a clove and eat it. The honey removes much of the smell and makes the garlic palatable as otherwise eating raw garlic is pretty unpleasant.

How to harness the healing power of garlic: It's good for blood pressure and may fight colds. But what about the odour? And how much do you need?

• For thousands of years garlic has been considered one of nature’s health foods
• Studies show it improves blood pressure, cholesterol levels and immunity
• Garlic’s health benefits derive from the many natural compounds it contains
• Aidan Goggins assessed some of the latest products, which we then rated

By Caroline Jones For The Daily Mail

Published: 01:56 GMT, 15 November 2022 | Updated: 01:58 GMT, 15 November 2022

A 2018 review of studies by the University of Nottingham said that these benefits are ‘rooted in the sulphur compounds the plant absorbs from the soil which break down into around 50 different sulphur-containing compounds during food preparation and digestion’, which are ‘biologically active’ inside our cells.

Specifically these compounds seem to boost the body’s production of gaseous ‘signalling’ molecules, key to cell communication. Low levels of these molecules are associated with serious conditions including heart disease.

Indeed, a review of trials in the journal Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine in 2020 found that patients with high blood pressure given 600-900 mg garlic supplements for three months experienced a drop in their blood pressure that was similar to the effect of medication known as ACE inhibitors.

It’s thought that allicin stimulates the production of nitric oxide — which dilates blood vessels — as well as inhibiting ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) activity; this relaxes blood vessels and reduces blood pressure.

Laboratory studies also suggest allicin and other compounds in garlic have anti-viral properties.

However, Dr Jenna Macciochi, an immunologist at Sussex University, says there are only two ‘robust’ human trials: one found that people taking 180 mg of allicin for three months got fewer colds than a placebo group.

A second showed that taking 2.56 g of aged garlic extract improved immune cell function, which could reduce severity of cold and flu symptoms.

‘We can say that garlic does appear to play an immune-supporting and anti-viral role and may contribute to the reduced severity of colds, although eating a small amount as part of a meal might not provide enough of a dose to improve virus symptoms,’ says Dr Macciochi.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11428433/How-harness-healing-power-garlic-good-blood-pressure-fight-colds.html

 

[Macnamara]

Veganism being pushed by the elites as part of their agenda....the pressure on this front is only going to grow. Yes the treatment of animals in the industrialised meat production system is horrific but i don't believe the answer to that is doing away with livestock altogether. I think the solution to that is localised, smallscale farming where the animals are treated well, fed well and lead a good life. How to slaughter humanely is another issue that needs addressing.

Posted by JULIAN ROSE Posted on 14 December 2022

Green New Deal and Vegan Bullying

Perhaps some vegans would agree with the World Economic Forum’s attempt to sell the idea that only a dictatorship can ensure that methane emitting cows, real food supporters and mixed farmers will not disrupt the path of global salvation set out by the proponents of a ‘Green New Deal’.

Whatever opinions may be held, the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘Green’ diet is not being decided by common sense oriented consumers of pro-ecological foods.

Amongst the fake foods being pushed forward as ‘world saving’, synthetic beef is already in production in Israel, Holland, Indonesia and the USA. 

The motivation to create such a product centres around the story that cows give off methane thereby contributing to global warming.

This piece of so called ‘science’ has given a boost to the vegan argument that mankind should adopt a purely vegetable, grain, fruit and nut diet – and that farm animals should be phased-out of agricultural practices altogether. 

The more thoughtful ones rightly point-out that some 70% of all agricultural grains are used to feed livestock instead of to feed human beings direct, thus producing a huge imbalance in global food availability and efforts to eradicate poverty and starvation.

This argument, widely adopted by the vegan lobby – should be recognised as valid – provided it is seen in the context of a long, gradual evolutionary transformation of farming systems and human dietary trends. But not as reason to force veganism on a generally omnivorous global human family, overnight.

Veganism has already advanced quite rapidly in the ‘health conscious’ segment of modern Western society; but it is riven with confusions and extremism.

Most of the younger generation know absolutely nothing about food and farming, plant processing or modern food production methods. 

They can’t make an informed distinction between ‘grass-fed’ (no grains), low stocking density, free ranging well cared for livestock – and cereal fed, highly intensive, high stocking rate ‘coral’ based animal concentration camps.

Starting from here, the vegan goes only by what he/she is informed is a ‘healthy meat free diet’, via the heavily slanted projections of corporate advertising.

But is it healthy?

Unfortunately not. Unless organically grown (a tiny minority), the vegetables, fruits, nuts and grains  that form the typical vegan diet are all the product of intense agrichemical farming methods that use synthetic nitrogen, carcinogenic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and monocultural (non rotational) soil depleting field management methods. 

Such foods are also grown by ‘hydroponic’ methods. Here vegetables are grown in large vertical greenhouses using no soil at all, just water drip fed with chemicals. The mechanics of this system are largely robotic.

The majority of vegans have no idea about any of this. They judge all by the words of the propaganda machine which pumps out glossy photos of perfect looking veggies being eaten by perfect looking people in perfect looking homes and perfect looking restaurants. 

The sales pitch for vegan is as brutal as any other corporate backed global market promotion.  It is hugely misleading, deeply divisive and increasingly political. It conveys the sense of ‘purity’ on one hand and ‘degenerate’ attitudes on the other; when of course the reality is neither.

There is a clear moral statement behind vegan and vegetarian, but it only becomes a broader force for the good when it involves eating such foods grown caringly, organically and locally.

The rest is simply about supporting the centralisation, globalisation and ‘devitaminisation’ of the food chain. The hypermarket/supermarket New World Order.

This takes us straight back to the deeply deceptive WEF Green New Deal agenda for a fascistic, corporate ‘Zero CO2’ food and farming future ‘To save the world from global warming’.

If we want to be on the right side of the laws of nature – then we must feed ourselves via human scale, ecological and time honoured methods of environmentally friendly farming.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher.  He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside and Co-founder of the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology HARE. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is strongly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info 

https://davidicke.com/2022/12/14/green-new-deal-and-vegan-bullying/

[Macnamara]

crunchy game night

 

[Bombadil]

MOD NOTE: Hi all. So you are aware I have hidden a few posts. As a result some of your replies and likes became non sensical. No agenda!

[Certified Green of Heart]

 

On 1/12/2023 at 8:24 PM, Bombadil said:

MOD NOTE: Hi all. So you are aware I have hidden a few posts. As a result some of your replies and likes became non sensical. No agenda!

 

I'm sure you did what you thought was needed, I don't post here enough in this thread to worry.... but.... 

Could you elaborate some bit Bombadil??...

I don't understand as well, yesterday was 6th of Feb, not 12th of Jan when you posted the above.... What? ? does this mean there are TWO Pirates life for me threads? **[CONFUSED]**

 

I made a couple of SHORT posts here only yesterday which I thought innocuous (sts), but what it is the most non-sensical thing, if you care to mention?

I guess my follow the money one had not enough relating to Biden, or had not direct correlation to Biden documents for example but I was following the money in my post anyway more in general, as I quoted that guy in video commenting on that Biden stuff, so simply my follow the money post by comparison (if thought of like that) was an analysis on that more in general by SandiAdams (the person helping follow whatever money). So, stuff like so for example is it, and as well as that I just wanted to check it's not just me? 

 

This said, maybe Biden was not relevant here too, as I see that gone now too as well as the video of that follow the money stuff.

Edited February 7 by Certified Green of Heart

[Macnamara]

New Hampshire’s Free State Project – How Freeing a Single State from “Government” Could Free Us All

Could New Hampshire be the 1st U.S. State to Kick Out "Government" and See its Economy Flourish?

Etienne de la Boetie2

Feb 18

By Etienne de la Boetie², Founder of the Art of Liberty Foundation and author of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed!

People around the world are organizing various efforts to secure an area with political sovereignty to implement societies free from the control system of “government.” The largest and most exciting is the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

The Free State Project has organized over 24,000+ activists who have pledged to move to New Hampshire and campaign actively for its political independence. The group has already moved and organized over 6,200+ in the state, with more arriving every week and has spent over a decade successfully rolling back laws, getting libertarians elected to office, and building the political and social networks needed for societal change. I believe if we free New Hampshire, then we, ultimately, can win freedom everywhere, as we demonstrate, through a single “laboratory-of-liberty,” that you can have harmony and prosperity without “government.”

The Free State Project started in 2001 when a political science student, Jason Sorens, then a Ph.D. student at Yale, published an article highlighting the failure of libertarians to elect any candidate to federal office and outlining his ideas for a secessionist movement, calling people to respond to him with interest. That response led to the organization on the Internet, and the Free State Project was born without a specific state in mind. 

https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/new-hampshires-free-state-project

[Macnamara]

Mature compromise in order to work together to build and maintain something bigger than yourself = an anti-woke position. Wokeness is about putting your own subjective feels above and beyond everything and everyone else even if ultimately it is not actually the best course for yourself either (in other words remaining in an ego-centric, childish state of arrested emotional development

 

Great article:

I lived for years in a sexually liberated lesbian commune, but only found true peace and equality when I married a man and became a devoted mother... from a leading feminist author comes a book guaranteed to enrage the sisterhood

By Mary Harrington For The Daily Mail

Published: 23:08 GMT, 24 February 2023 | Updated: 23:08 GMT, 24 February 2023

Up to the point where I got pregnant, I’d taken for granted that men and women are substantially the same apart from our dangly bits.

The experience of being a mother blew this out of the water.

Until then I’d bought uncritically into the idea that individual freedom is the highest good, that bonds or obligations are acceptable only inasmuch as they are optional, and that men and women can and should pursue this equally.

Then I went through the wonderful and disorienting experience of finding my sense of self partly merged with a dependent infant. The kind of absolute freedom I’d accepted as an unalloyed good was suddenly a great deal less appealing to me because I actively enjoyed belonging to my daughter.

It was obviously not in her interests to go on insisting that my obligations to her were optional. Where, pre-baby, I could do more or less what I liked, as a mother I couldn’t refuse to get up and feed my crying newborn at 3.30am just because I didn’t feel like it.

Her interests mattered more than my once-treasured autonomy.

It meant a fundamental break with my past way of thinking. I was in my early teens when I started to notice how Mum would cook dinner and after we’d all eaten, my dad would get up and leave her to clear the table. Then my two brothers began to follow his example. This seemed unfair, to say the least.

It left me with a dilemma. As the household’s other female, I felt a clear solidarity with my mum. But I also believed I had equal status with my brothers. Should I exempt myself from these petty chores like they did?

And if I did, what did that say about how we all saw my mum? In turn, as another female, what did this imply for me when I reached adulthood? Trying to answer these questions led me to feminism and a world in which women were creatures in our own right, rather than second-class support humans.

But I soon learned that membership of the feminist club comes with small print. You cannot pursue feminist goals without signing up to a larger bundle of commitments under the banner of ‘progress’, such as climate justice, racial and gender-minority rights, wealth redistribution and so on. Reject those, and you will be excommunicated from the coalition of the righteous.

I tried living my adult life according to those ideals, pursuing low-carbon life, non-hierarchical social forms and maximum sexual freedom, in a culture hell-bent on individualism and fluid relationships.

By the end of my 20s, however, I had found that being determinedly counter-cultural was taking a great deal of emotional and intellectual effort, for questionable returns. I concluded that sexual freedom brings alienation and that too little interdependence, rather than too much, is actually precipitating a collapse of social life.

A website I co-founded with four others imploded, turning out not to be the harmonious co-operative I’d envisaged but beset by muddled objectives and bitter interpersonal conflicts in which I lost my best friend and my social circle.

Around the same time, I also discovered that the supposedly egalitarian and sexually liberated all-lesbian community I lived in was in fact hierarchical and riddled with competition. Whether the issue was who was cleaning the kitchen or who was sleeping with whom, excluding males from the household did not vanquish rivalry and exploitation.

Even as I wrestled with these discoveries, I met the man who became my husband. Even as my life was falling apart, I had already started to rebuild it — in a different form.

Some years into our life together, I have found more peace and equality, not to mention more freedom from futile power games, in the countless ways we co-operate building a home and family than I ever achieved in my progressive 20s, trying to run away from commitment and constraint.

It turns out that accepting some limits is liberating, not restrictive. And getting to grips with how we divide the countless little jobs that keep a home going hasn’t stuffed me into a patriarchal box at all. Rather, it has produced a set-up that looks fairly conventional but is well adapted to each of us and our shared goals.

As I’ve set about trying to square these discoveries with my previous beliefs, I have come to rethink my previous belief that patriarchy is a mass conspiracy to oppress women. Instead, I have come to see it as the result of historical human efforts to balance the conflicting interests of the two sexes.

Admittedly, that result hasn’t always been perfect. You can point to plenty of abuses and injustices, many targeted especially at women. These are rightly to be condemned. But the solution is not to be found in some state of perfect symmetry between the sexes — because this can’t be had. The sexes are not interchangeable.

Take premarital sex as an example. The truth is that it carries much greater risks for women than for men. Marriage as a precondition for sex benefits women (and children) — and it’s not clear to me that feminist efforts to smash the norms around this have delivered greater happiness for women.

Don’t get me wrong. My aim is not to stuff feminism back into its box. I have no wish to be banned from voting or working, any more than I want my political agency to be subsumed into that of my husband.

Nor do I want to return to a pre-1960s understanding of marriage, and with it the ‘traditional’ relationship in which women serve as home-makers, while relying on their husband’s goodwill and good character to offset the loss of agency this implies.

As if such a thing were even possible. Such a notion ignores the downsides that drove women to abandon this model in the first place. And in any case, those material conditions are long gone. Dual-earner households are now the norm and the ‘two-income trap’ means supporting a stay-at-home parent is economically unfeasible below a certain earning threshold.

But sex continues to be politically important. Men and women will continue to exist, and certain basic facts about us will remain true. Most of us want children; most want a life lived in common, usually with a member of the opposite sex.

Same-sex-attracted men and women exist, of course, but heterosexuality is still the default.

Humans can’t change sex. The shape of our bodies still matters, despite everything the modern world has done to minimise those disparities.

But that doesn’t leave women powerless. We can and must work out how men and women can be human together, opting for certain constraints which are in fact beneficial and help us live well.

Happily, there already exists a vintage social technology we can deploy, if we can only upcycle it for the 21st century: marriage.

It’s not a magic bullet to solve every challenge. Nothing will ever do that. Nor, as even happily married people will tell you, is every marriage utopian. But the fact is that women who are mothers flourish in a society where their role is more clearly defined — and married family units are essential to creating stability.

I recognise that this puts me at odds with the prevailing feminist culture in our society. But I’m not alone in thinking this. Many who grew up in the post-1960s world of autonomy and self-actualisation are now rebelling against the culture of absolute self-centredness and seeking and sustaining marriage as a kind of radical solidarity.

The bleak ‘liberated view’ is exemplified by the U.S. writer Honor Jones, who wrote last year about how she loved her husband — but still divorced him, because their marriage wasn’t self-expressive enough and he was an obstacle to her personal fulfilment.

From perspectives such as hers, marriage is tantamount to prostitution, a fake contract that enables exploitation of one sex by the other. Far better to deregulate relations between the sexes altogether and let everyone embrace their own needs. Ironically, you hear this from both feminists and anti-feminists.

And the cost is loneliness and mutual hostility — which is in no one’s interest.

I spent 15 adult years living as a single entity before I married. I have done all the things Jones lists as upsides of the atomised life. But from where I’m sitting, what she characterises as stifling isn’t a bugbear. Rather, the closing down of limitless options is actually liberating and what I do every day is meaningful to the extent that I have been willing to accept constraints.

I’m not claiming either that everyone must get married. There have always been women who don’t want to be mothers, who don’t want relationships with men, or who don’t want relationships full stop. But especially in today’s uncertain climate, a more stable society is an urgent feminist issue — especially if you’re among the great majority who want kids. And the simplest, most well-tested route to more widespread social stability is more marriage.

And this means I am also opposed to easy divorce. Lest anyone mistake me, this isn’t a conservative argument. With only two marriages for every divorce, there is very little left to conserve. Nor am I arguing that anyone should remain in a violent or otherwise abusive relationship ‘for the sake of the children’.

My argument for marriage is about loyalty. It’s not to be treated as a contract — a business arrangement that you drop if it stops being win/win. It’s a covenant. And as such it should be indissoluble.

Choosing one person means continuing to choose them: that is, opting to ignore all the ways the grass might be greener somewhere else — and continuing to do so, even when things are a bit rough. Every marriage has ups and downs, and some of them can last for years. But in most cases this isn’t an argument for calling it quits.

According to sociologist Dr Paul Amato, ‘high-conflict’ marriages are characterised by heated argument or even violence, and in these cases divorce may be beneficial for children.

But around half of divorces are in what he calls ‘low-conflict’ marriages: that is, the relationship was not perfect but they muddled along well enough. For 55-60 per cent of couples, he says, ‘these are not bad marriages. They are just not ecstatic marriages’.

And where things are not ecstatic, which is to say for most marriages at least occasionally, the reactionary feminist emphasis has to be on absolute, unshakable loyalty. You can get a long way on stoicism and common purpose —but to do so, you have to foreclose separation as a possibility.

And those who wish to do this are up against a modern belief that if a partnership isn’t perfect at all times, like a consumer product, you should take it back to the shop. Backing out of this destructive illusion won’t be easy. Every millennial couple I know with young children struggles with the gap between ideal and reality, especially where parenting disrupts the relationship: new resentments, new asymmetries, sometimes simmering tensions.

But it’s exactly in functional but less-than-perfect families that statistics show children are most deeply hurt by divorce — because, actually, it was good enough for them. In many cases, little more than a change in attitude can make it good enough for us as well.

Lest anyone accuse me of arguing against women’s emancipation and wellbeing in the name of family stability, studies show that a third of men and women who get divorced subsequently regret it. More freedom doesn’t always equal more happiness.

And sticking with an imperfect-but-functional partnership doesn’t self-evidently mean never-ending misery. Life is long, and I have seen even extended rough patches in relationships smooth back out into affection, respect and intimacy.

We just need to tilt the scales back towards erring on the side of stability rather than that of freedom. By shifting our focus from emotional fulfilment to long-term thinking and the practical work of building together, we can reclaim marriage as a post-romantic covenant between two willing partners that gives all of us infinitely more opportunity to thrive.

But what use is it telling women to get married, if there’s no one to marry? In just contemplating this we run the gauntlet of every feminist who has ever conceived of women’s interests as necessitating the total exclusion or defeat of men. In my vision, women operate alongside men. Where, though, have all the good men gone?

Part of the answer is that, outside the elite and labouring classes, they are increasingly out-competed by women.

This has resulted in a devastating loss of purpose and dignity that has disproportionately affected working-class and lower middle-class men. Over recent decades, there has been a steady rise in ‘deaths of despair’ — from suicide, drug and alcohol abuse and other self-inflicted conditions associated with loneliness and lack of hope.

Male friendship is on the decline. This leaves many men dependent on a partner for social connection and wider friendship, which in turn leaves them desperately vulnerable if the relationship ends.

The highest-risk group for suicide in the UK is divorced men, followed by widowers.

Yet should any straight white man show signs of distress, liberal feminism will dismiss this as further evidence of aggrieved entitlement and misogyny.

When a U.S. senator called last year for policies to restore the well-being of lower-class men, The Washington Post accused him of ‘prejudice’ and Rolling Stone magazine interpreted his plea as a return to the days when men could indulge their masculine urges ‘by groping women and worse’.

And yet the wellbeing of working-class men is straightforwardly in women’s interests — specifically, the interests of those women who might form families with such men. They would also benefit from more and better jobs for men: more dignity; less porn and video games; more responsibility.

I maintain that there’s nothing anti-feminist (at least, not for a reactionary feminist) about defending men’s interests as distinct from those of women. And even if the big economic picture is tricky to solve, there is one thing we can help to address: the death of male friendship.

Spaces where men socialise without women are increasingly rare — and this is partly thanks to feminism. Men’s private clubs are seen as beyond the pale, prima facie evidence of patriarchy. The Garrick, for example, one of the last all-male London members’ clubs, is currently subject to a legal challenge by women demanding admission.

But it’s all very well for barristers to demand access to elite men’s clubs. What happens when that travels down the social scale? When one of the last all-male working men’s clubs, in Shropshire, sought £50,000 funding for repairs to its Grade II-listed building, it was turned down by the National Lottery on the grounds of its sex-discriminatory membership policy.

Four years later, its members voted overwhelmingly to close down rather than succumb to institutional pressure to admit women who were not the wives of existing members.

No one talks about what might be lost, for ordinary men, when their spaces go mixed-sex. Harvard evolutionary biologist Dr Joyce Benenson argues that women and men socialise in distinct ways, a disparity structured around evolved strategies for survival.

Human female survival strategies turn on excluding other females in the search for mates, then enlisting peers and elders to help with the care of dependents. In contrast, males tend towards social patterns in which they co-operate with peers and compete with those they see as opponents.

This means men find companionship with other male peers in ways that often don’t make sense to the opposite sex.

Sometimes, out running with the dog, I pass a field where two or three (always male) figures stand hundreds of metres apart, scanning with metal detectors. It’s obvious to me that for these men, what they are doing counts as socialising, even if they’re not exchanging a word.

You often read concerned women saying that men would be less lonely if only they’d spend time in groups or talk about their feelings more — but really, that just means telling men to be more like women.

What if, actually, men socialising together looks like nothing women would want to do? What if it’s not possible in mixed company?

Last year, woman farmer Lisa Edwards faced a fierce backlash when she accused the 94-year-old Liverpool Agricultural Discussion Society of sexism for restricting membership to men and excluding her.

A senior member told her: ‘There are conversations that are different between men and women. To take away a space to chat is wrong.’

I agree. If we want a world of good men, we need to accept that good men are formed not by women but by other men — and be willing to let that happen without us.

Of course, this carries the risk that male mentorship will take forms that women find uncomfortable. But if you look at the popularity of so-called ‘king of toxic masculinity’ Andrew Tate, you’ll see that this is still happening, even when men’s opportunities for single-sex social life are heavily scrutinised for anti-feminist wrongthink.

If we don’t grant good men space to be themselves, we will get more Andrew Tates: not good men but isolated, bitter ones who blame women for their suffering.

This is not the world I want my young daughter to grow up in.

It might seem perverse for a feminist to make the case for men being freer to exclude women. But we cannot wring our hands about men’s ailing mental health while reacting with fear and hostility to every fraternal organisation that focuses on practical activities and produces, as a side-effect, more confident and well-adjusted men.

If we want to see more of these men in the world, women need to step back a little and give them space.

Doing this might also have a bonus — returning a measure of mystery to the opposite sex, which in turn creates more space for desire to flourish.

• Adapted from Feminism Against Progress, by Mary Harrington, to be published by Forum on March 2 at £16.99. © Mary Harrington 2023. To order a copy for £15.29 (valid to 11/03/23; UK P&P free on orders over £20), visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3176 2937.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11791181/I-lived-years-sexually-liberated-lesbian-commune-true-peace-married-man.html

[k_j_evans]

I think there should be men-only spaces and women-only spaces. I'd also bring back single sex schools as the norm, as I think they are better for both sexes. Can't say I've ever been tempted by the idea of having children, but a good lesbian friend of mine took up with what we all thought was a gay man and they had a great relationship, which suited them both, until I lost touch. I don't know if they actually married or not, but I suspect they did - so not entirely new. People are what they are and no sense in trying to label them, but, being the token lesbian jewish marxist here, I don't think any one way is necessarily better than another - just don't try to impose what works for you on everyone else or you are just a guilty of authoritarian hatred as the PTB.

[Macnamara]

3 hours ago, k_j_evans said:

I think there should be men-only spaces and women-only spaces. I'd also bring back single sex schools as the norm, as I think they are better for both sexes.

 

there was this girl who used to sit in front of me in biology class at high school and she was really hot and she never wore a bra. As a hormonal, teenage lad i found that very distracting in class. I think her tits did real harm to my end of year grades.

 

3 hours ago, k_j_evans said:

Can't say I've ever been tempted by the idea of having children, but a good lesbian friend of mine took up with what we all thought was a gay man and they had a great relationship, which suited them both, until I lost touch. I don't know if they actually married or not, but I suspect they did - so not entirely new. People are what they are and no sense in trying to label them, but, being the token lesbian jewish marxist here, I don't think any one way is necessarily better than another - just don't try to impose what works for you on everyone else or you are just a guilty of authoritarian hatred as the PTB.

 

yeah i doubt most people here have any issue with peoples sexual preference. I think what adults do in their own space and time is their own business. The issue that people in the conspiracy arena have is with the exposure of content that is not age appropriate to children in order to socially engineer them. I believe children should be left alone to be children. What we are currently seeing going on is the thin end of the wedge aimed at ultimately overthrowing all societal taboos in order to normalise pedophilia and that is not acceptable.

[Macnamara]

Meeting People is Easy - #SolutionsWatch

Corbett • 04/12/2023

 

Here on #SolutionsWatch we've looked at Building Community as a key part of the solution to the issues that we face . . . but how do you find that community in the first place? Today on the de-program James goes through just a few of the many, many, many different ways you can start finding, meeting and connecting with like-minded people in your area and around the world.

 

SHOW NOTES

Building Community - #SolutionsWatch

How to Meet Like-Minded People - #SolutionsWatch

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms

Proxy Party Platform

Lynette Zang interview

Campfire Properties

http://www.carriewigal.com/

Freedomcells.org

PrepperNet.net

www.itavministry.org

LocalResistance.org

P.A.Z.NIA home page

A Stand in the Park

Stand in the Park - #SolutionsWatch

Libertarian Drinks (#ThirdWednesday)

 

https://www.corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-meetingpeople/

[Macnamara]

Meat is crucial for human health, scientists warn

Close to a thousand experts unite behind statement that rejects ‘zealotry’ of plant-based diets and promotes livestock farming

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 29 April 2023 • 7:04pm

Meat is crucial for human health, scientists have warned, as they called for an end to the “zealotry” pushing vegetarian and vegan diets.

Dozens of experts were asked to look into the science behind claims that meat eating causes disease and is harmful for the planet in a special issue of Animal Frontiers.

They warned that it is difficult to replace the nutritional content of meat, arguing that poorer communities with low meat intake often suffer from stunting, wasting and anaemia driven by a lack of vital nutrients and protein.

In recent years, there has been a widespread societal push towards plant-based diets, with schemes such as Veganuary and meat-free Mondays encouraging the public away from meat.

The major Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factor Study, published in The Lancet in 2020, also suggested that a diet high in red meat was responsible for 896,000 deaths worldwide, and was the fifth leading dietary risk factor.

But researchers argue that unprocessed meat delivers most of the vitamin B12 intake in human diets, plays a major role in supplying retinol, omega-3 fatty acids and minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as important compounds for metabolism, such as taurine and creatine.

‘Fatally scientifically flawed’

In one paper published in the issue, experts found no good evidence to support red meat being dangerous below intakes of 75g per day, and argued that the link between red meat and disease vanished when part of a healthy diet, suggesting it was the rest of the diet that was fuelling health problems.

Dr Alice Stanton, of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, one of the authors of the review, said: “The peer-reviewed evidence published reaffirms that [the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Risk Factors Report] which claimed that consumption of even tiny amounts of red meat harms health is fatally scientifically flawed.

“In fact, removing fresh meat and dairy from diets would harm human health. Women, children, the elderly and low income would be particularly negatively impacted.”

The NHS also advises that red meat – such as beef, lamb and pork – is a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals and can form part of a balanced diet, although it warns that eating more than 90g per day can raise the risk of bowel cancer.

The new edition includes a declaration signed by nearly 1,000 scientists across the globe arguing that livestock farming was too important to society to “become the victim of zealotry”.

The Dublin Declaration includes signatories from the universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Bristol, Belfast, Newcastle, Nottingham, Surrey as well as several scientists from Britain’s world-leading agricultural and farming university Harper Adams.

“Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets even among those populations with higher incomes,” the declaration states.

“Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations.”

The researchers warned that those who need to eat animal products included young children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults and the chronically ill.

‘One-size-fits-all agendas’

Dr Wilhelm Windisch, a farming nutrition expert at the Technical University of Munich, said: “Farmed and herded animals maintain a circular flow of materials in agriculture by using and upcycling large amounts of materials humans cannot eat, turning them into high-quality nutrient dense food.

“One-size-fits-all agendas, such as the drastic reductions of livestock numbers could incur environmental and nutritional consequences on a massive scale.”

The intervention was welcomed by the National Farmers Union (NFU) who were this week promoting Great British Beef Week.

Richard Findlay, the NFU livestock board chair, said: “This peer-reviewed research confirms what we’ve always known – that red meat is a quality, nutritious protein that plays a critical role in a healthy, sustainable balanced diet.

“During Great British Beef Week this week, we can celebrate the sustainability of British beef and the environmental benefits our grazing herds deliver.”

The Global Burden of Diseases team had not responded at the time of publication.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/29/vegan-diet-meat-scientists-british-beef-livestock-farming/

[Macnamara]

The boycotts are working: Keep PUNISHING “woke” corporations by denying them your financial support

Not long after Anheuser-Busch decided to make a mockery of women by honoring transgender male-in-drag Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light sales fell by 26 percent. This is proof that voting with your wallet really does work to punish companies for going “woke.”

The same is true of Fox News, which lost half of its viewers in the 8pm nightly time slot after it canned conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. In the days after Carlson was let go, that same time slot saw more viewers watch Chris Hayes at MSNBC.

Keep in mind that with Carlson on board, Fox had more viewers in the 8pm time slot to watch him than the National Basketball Association (NBA) did during the playoffs – that is how popular Carlson was and is. Now, Fox will likely go the way of MSNBC and CNN, both of which are barely watched except on the television screens at airports.

These are just two examples of the power of boycotts. We the People may not think they hold any power to make change, but in cases like this, choosing not to buy or not to watch can make or break a company or media outlet, which we are now witnessing with both Anheuser-Busch and Fox News.

 

Conservative Americans are also moving to “red” states to escape woke politics

Beer drinkers who used to drink Bud Light are now choosing Coors Light or Miller Light instead. And people who watch Carlson will follow him wherever he goes since their loyalties are to him and his beliefs, and not to Fox News.

 

Fox and Bud had better learn from this if they hope to keep their respective companies afloat. Some evidence exists to suggests that infiltrators at these two companies may be intentionally trying to drive them into oblivion, which appears to be working.

Whatever the case may be, voting with your remote and your wallet are two powerful ways to hold woke companies in check. Carefully choosing which products to buy and which networks to watch will also help bring more support to other companies and media outlets that have not gone woke.

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many Americans are also now voting with their roots, as some have chosen to leave “blue” states and move to “red” states – and vice versa for leftists.

Division is never a good thing for a country that is meant to be united in strength, but with the leftist takeover of companies, media outlets, and other institutions, there is little alternative for conservatives who want to live and raise their families without all the perversion and corruption.

“As far as that thing with Dylan Mulvaney goes, all conservatives should ban and boycott any company that chooses to support what we all know is wrong,” one commenter wrote about how conservatives have a duty to support what is right and reject what is wrong.

http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/05/the-boycotts-are-working-keep-punishing.html

[Macnamara]

On 5/1/2023 at 7:47 PM, Macnamara said:

Meat is crucial for human health, scientists warn

Close to a thousand experts unite behind statement that rejects ‘zealotry’ of plant-based diets and promotes livestock farming

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 29 April 2023 • 7:04pm

Meat is crucial for human health, scientists have warned, as they called for an end to the “zealotry” pushing vegetarian and vegan diets.

Dozens of experts were asked to look into the science behind claims that meat eating causes disease and is harmful for the planet in a special issue of Animal Frontiers.

They warned that it is difficult to replace the nutritional content of meat, arguing that poorer communities with low meat intake often suffer from stunting, wasting and anaemia driven by a lack of vital nutrients and protein.

In recent years, there has been a widespread societal push towards plant-based diets, with schemes such as Veganuary and meat-free Mondays encouraging the public away from meat.

The major Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factor Study, published in The Lancet in 2020, also suggested that a diet high in red meat was responsible for 896,000 deaths worldwide, and was the fifth leading dietary risk factor.

But researchers argue that unprocessed meat delivers most of the vitamin B12 intake in human diets, plays a major role in supplying retinol, omega-3 fatty acids and minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as important compounds for metabolism, such as taurine and creatine.

‘Fatally scientifically flawed’

In one paper published in the issue, experts found no good evidence to support red meat being dangerous below intakes of 75g per day, and argued that the link between red meat and disease vanished when part of a healthy diet, suggesting it was the rest of the diet that was fuelling health problems.

Dr Alice Stanton, of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, one of the authors of the review, said: “The peer-reviewed evidence published reaffirms that [the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Risk Factors Report] which claimed that consumption of even tiny amounts of red meat harms health is fatally scientifically flawed.

“In fact, removing fresh meat and dairy from diets would harm human health. Women, children, the elderly and low income would be particularly negatively impacted.”

The NHS also advises that red meat – such as beef, lamb and pork – is a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals and can form part of a balanced diet, although it warns that eating more than 90g per day can raise the risk of bowel cancer.

The new edition includes a declaration signed by nearly 1,000 scientists across the globe arguing that livestock farming was too important to society to “become the victim of zealotry”.

The Dublin Declaration includes signatories from the universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Bristol, Belfast, Newcastle, Nottingham, Surrey as well as several scientists from Britain’s world-leading agricultural and farming university Harper Adams.

“Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets even among those populations with higher incomes,” the declaration states.

“Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations.”

The researchers warned that those who need to eat animal products included young children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults and the chronically ill.

‘One-size-fits-all agendas’

Dr Wilhelm Windisch, a farming nutrition expert at the Technical University of Munich, said: “Farmed and herded animals maintain a circular flow of materials in agriculture by using and upcycling large amounts of materials humans cannot eat, turning them into high-quality nutrient dense food.

“One-size-fits-all agendas, such as the drastic reductions of livestock numbers could incur environmental and nutritional consequences on a massive scale.”

The intervention was welcomed by the National Farmers Union (NFU) who were this week promoting Great British Beef Week.

Richard Findlay, the NFU livestock board chair, said: “This peer-reviewed research confirms what we’ve always known – that red meat is a quality, nutritious protein that plays a critical role in a healthy, sustainable balanced diet.

“During Great British Beef Week this week, we can celebrate the sustainability of British beef and the environmental benefits our grazing herds deliver.”

The Global Burden of Diseases team had not responded at the time of publication.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/29/vegan-diet-meat-scientists-british-beef-livestock-farming/

“Veganism is Bad for You and I’m Embarrassed I Promoted it – Now I Only Eat Red Meat,” Says Bear Grylls

by Will Jones

12 May 2023 11:50 AM

“I was vegan quite a few years ago – in fact, I wrote a vegan cookbook – and I feel a bit embarrassed because I really promoted that,” the 48-year-old said in an interview with PA.

“I thought that was good for the environment and I thought it was good for my health. And through time and experience and knowledge and study, I realised I was wrong on both counts.”

“I’ve found a counterculture way of living, of embracing red meat and organs – natural food just like our millennia of ancestors would have eaten for hundreds of thousands of years.

“And out of all the different things I do for my health, I think that’s probably been the biggest game-changer, in the sense of improving my vitality, wellbeing, strength, skin and gut.

“It’s just been getting away from the processed stuff and making the predominant thing in my diet red meat and liver and the natural stuff – fruit, honey, that sort of thing. It’s just about finding a more ancestral way of living,” he said.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/12/veganism-is-bad-for-you-and-im-embarrassed-i-promoted-it-now-i-only-eat-red-meat-says-bear-grylls/

 

[Macnamara]

 

Engineers Design Water Filtration Method That Permanently Removes Toxic “Forever Chemicals”

May 8, 2023

 

AUTHOR Rebekah Brandes

A team of engineers at the University of British Columbia have developed a new method that can permanently remove toxic “forever chemicals” from drinking water — technology that its lead developer compared to a Brita filter, “but a thousand times better.”

So why do we need it? While no one wants to gulp down a serving of harmful compounds with their drinking water, more than 200 million Americans may be doing just that. A 2020 study found that potentially risky levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are likely present in all of the United States’ major water supplies. 

Called “forever chemicals” because they take hundreds of years or more to break down, PFAs are present in many consumer products, including sunscreens, food packaging, cosmetics, and cleaning supplies, and can eventually end up leaching into the environment. PFAs have been linked to increased risks of cancer, decreased fertility, and a “reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections,” among other adverse health effects, per the Environmental Protection Agency.

n fact, nearly two years after the 2020 study, the agency announced four drinking water health advisories and an eventual $5 billion in grant funding “to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water, specifically in small or disadvantaged communities.” And this past March, the EPA proposed first-of-their-kind regulations on the chemicals. 

UBC chemical and biological engineering professor Madjid Mohseni led the development of the new water treatment, which relies upon a “unique adsorbing material” that can trap and hold all the PFAs present in a water supply. The chemicals are then destroyed using “special electrochemical and photochemical techniques,” per a UBC news release.  

There are other treatments currently used in homes and industrial settings, such as activated carbon and ion exchange systems, but they’re either not as effective in capturing all PFAs or can take longer to work, according to Mohseni.

“Our adsorbing media captures up to 99% of PFAS particles and can also be regenerated and potentially reused,” he explained. “This means that when we scrub off the PFAS from these materials, we do not end up with more highly toxic solid waste that will be another major environmental challenge.”

https://nicenews.com/innovation/new-water-treatment-removes-forever-chemicals/

[Macnamara]

Woodlander Initiative

 

[Macnamara]

Tips on Opting Out of the New Big Tech Communist Network

https://vaccineimpact.com/2023/big-tech-communism-has-arrived-amazon-sidewalk-joins-the-helium-network-to-connect-all-internet-of-things-iot-devices/

[Macnamara]

But Mac this article from the Icke's headlines page today is an article explaining the process of systemic collapse so why are you posting it in your solutions thread?

Well the solution for what the article details is for the competent to start stepping out of the system in order to build their own parallel economy made up of people who actually care about what they are doing and who gain satisfaction from doing things well and seeing things running well. Let the old system wither on the vine and a new system flourish:

What Happens When the Competent Opt Out?

Charles Hugh Smith

June 5, 2023

By this terminal stage, the competent have been driven out, quit or burned out.

What happens with the competent retire, burn out or opt out? It’s a question few bother to ask because the base assumption is that there is an essentially limitless pool of competent people who can be tapped or trained to replace those who retire, burn out or opt out, i.e. quit in favor of a lifestyle that doesn’t require much in the way of income or stress.

These assumptions are no longer valid. A great many essential services that are tightly bound to other essential services are cracking as the competent decide (or realize) they’re done with the rat-race.

The drivers of the Competent Opting Out are obvious yet difficult to quantify. Those retiring, burning out and opting out will deny they’re leaving for these reasons because it’s not politic to be so honest and direct. They will offer time-honored dodges such as “pursue other opportunities” or “family obligations.”

 

1. The steady increase in workloads, paperwork, compliance and make-work (i.e. work that has nothing to do with the institution’s actual purpose and mission) that lead to burnout. There is only so much we can accomplish, and if we’re burdened with ever-increasing demands for paperwork, compliance, useless meetings, training sessions, etc., then we no longer have the time or energy to perform our productive work.

I wrote a short book on my experience of Burnout. I believe it is increasingly common in jobs that demand responsibility and accountability yet don’t provide the tools and time to fulfill these demands. Once you’ve burned out, you cannot continue. That option no longer exists.

For others, the meager rewards simply aren’t worth the sacrifices required. The theme song playing in the background is the Johnny Paycheck classic Take this job and shove it.

Healthcare workloads, paperwork and compliance are one example of many. Failure to complete all the make-work can have dire consequences, so it becomes necessary to do less “real work” in order to complete all the work that has little or nothing to do with actual patient care. Alternatively, the workload expands to the point that it breaks the competent and they leave.

read the rest of the article here https://www.activistpost.com/2023/06/what-happens-when-the-competent-opt-out.html

 

[Macnamara]

I don't know what to make of this one. Is this a form of communism in disguise? I'm going to post it up anyway as its an example of different ways of doing and thinking so even as an exercise is alternative thinking its an interesting read:

 

https://stroudcommons.org/about/

 

Stroud Commons is a group of Stroud residents who have come together to build the ‘commons’ economy in Stroud, and to document everything so that it can be implemented in other towns too.

The commons economy is an economy in which the essentials of life – housing, energy, land, food, water, transport, social care, the means of exchange etc. are owned in common, in communities, rather than by absentee landlords, corporations or the state. More on ‘commoning’ here.

We’re working with Mutual Credit Services, the Credit Commons Society, Lowimpact.org, Island Power and Local Loop Lancaster & Morecambe to help build commons institutions. 

NEW IDEAS

New ideas are emerging that allow us to take infrastructure into common ownership without incurring debt – which I think is the main reason that (much as we love them) co-ops / mutuals aren’t challenging the current system, and are now being absorbed into it. Also, these ideas work well for working-class communities, which is essential for real change. 

Below is an outline of these new ideas (just strapline and ‘elevator pitch’, with links to more info). The groups above will run co-design workshops in any town in the UK (and via zoom if overseas) and are happy to answer questions face-to-face or online. 

1. Credit clearing

Strapline: reducing the need for money and banks.

It’s something the banks do, to reduce the need for money to pay debts. But we can do it too. Imagine A owes B £10; B owes C £10; C owes A £10. If everyone has all the information, it can just clear, without needing money to pay debts. For networks of trading small businesses, this can be done with algorithms, covering larger and larger areas.

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/credit-clearing (put questions for specialists into comments).

2. Mutual credit

Strapline: the means of exchange in the commons economy.

A way for small businesses to trade without needing money or banks. Members get an account, set at zero. When they sell, they get credits, when they buy, they get debits. There are limits to how far anyone can go into credit or debit. It’s a means of exchange, but not a store of value, so it can’t be extracted from communities and concentrated.

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/mutual-credit (put questions for specialists into comments).

3. Use-credit obligations (UCOs)

Strapline: the means of storing value in the commons economy.

Allows infrastructure to be brought into the commons without incurring debt, by issuing vouchers sold at a discount. Imagine a community energy group wanting to put up a wind turbine. At the moment, to get the funds, they need to go into debt or give away equity (which means the infrastructure will be in the hands of capitalists before long). Instead, they issue energy-credit obligations – vouchers denominated in kWh, not £ (which makes them inflation-proof). People will want them because they’re sold at a discount, and they provide a store of value – interest-free security for old age or sickness. UCOs can work in every sector of the economy (starting with housing commons, because everyone needs housing, and the housing market is so broken).

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/use-credit-obligations (put questions for specialists into comments).

4. Credit Commons

Strapline: going global.

All these monetary projects can be connected together via a protocol – a ‘language’ that they can all speak that allows them to trade between each other – but in a federation, with no centre. Each local group retains full autonomy, but in a way that can form the basis of a new global commons economy. Everything is interoperable – so people can pay their rent, energy bills etc. (and get paid) in mutual credit.

More info: https://creditcommonssociety.org/about-the-credit-commons/

5. Global commons economy

Doesn’t require money, banks, interest, debt, corporations or the state. The essentials of life, including housing, energy, food, broadband, transport, employment, credit, care and governance can be owned and controlled in common.

The ‘rock’ on which all this can be built may well be the housing commons – everyone needs a home, houses are relatively non-technical and the housing market is in a mess. 

[Bombadil]

12 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

I don't know what to make of this one. Is this a form of communism in disguise? I'm going to post it up anyway as its an example of different ways of doing and thinking so even as an exercise is alternative thinking its an interesting read:

 

https://stroudcommons.org/about/

 

Stroud Commons is a group of Stroud residents who have come together to build the ‘commons’ economy in Stroud, and to document everything so that it can be implemented in other towns too.

The commons economy is an economy in which the essentials of life – housing, energy, land, food, water, transport, social care, the means of exchange etc. are owned in common, in communities, rather than by absentee landlords, corporations or the state. More on ‘commoning’ here.

We’re working with Mutual Credit Services, the Credit Commons Society, Lowimpact.org, Island Power and Local Loop Lancaster & Morecambe to help build commons institutions. 

NEW IDEAS

New ideas are emerging that allow us to take infrastructure into common ownership without incurring debt – which I think is the main reason that (much as we love them) co-ops / mutuals aren’t challenging the current system, and are now being absorbed into it. Also, these ideas work well for working-class communities, which is essential for real change. 

Below is an outline of these new ideas (just strapline and ‘elevator pitch’, with links to more info). The groups above will run co-design workshops in any town in the UK (and via zoom if overseas) and are happy to answer questions face-to-face or online. 

1. Credit clearing

Strapline: reducing the need for money and banks.

It’s something the banks do, to reduce the need for money to pay debts. But we can do it too. Imagine A owes B £10; B owes C £10; C owes A £10. If everyone has all the information, it can just clear, without needing money to pay debts. For networks of trading small businesses, this can be done with algorithms, covering larger and larger areas.

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/credit-clearing (put questions for specialists into comments).

2. Mutual credit

Strapline: the means of exchange in the commons economy.

A way for small businesses to trade without needing money or banks. Members get an account, set at zero. When they sell, they get credits, when they buy, they get debits. There are limits to how far anyone can go into credit or debit. It’s a means of exchange, but not a store of value, so it can’t be extracted from communities and concentrated.

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/mutual-credit (put questions for specialists into comments).

3. Use-credit obligations (UCOs)

Strapline: the means of storing value in the commons economy.

Allows infrastructure to be brought into the commons without incurring debt, by issuing vouchers sold at a discount. Imagine a community energy group wanting to put up a wind turbine. At the moment, to get the funds, they need to go into debt or give away equity (which means the infrastructure will be in the hands of capitalists before long). Instead, they issue energy-credit obligations – vouchers denominated in kWh, not £ (which makes them inflation-proof). People will want them because they’re sold at a discount, and they provide a store of value – interest-free security for old age or sickness. UCOs can work in every sector of the economy (starting with housing commons, because everyone needs housing, and the housing market is so broken).

More info: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/use-credit-obligations (put questions for specialists into comments).

4. Credit Commons

Strapline: going global.

All these monetary projects can be connected together via a protocol – a ‘language’ that they can all speak that allows them to trade between each other – but in a federation, with no centre. Each local group retains full autonomy, but in a way that can form the basis of a new global commons economy. Everything is interoperable – so people can pay their rent, energy bills etc. (and get paid) in mutual credit.

More info: https://creditcommonssociety.org/about-the-credit-commons/

5. Global commons economy

Doesn’t require money, banks, interest, debt, corporations or the state. The essentials of life, including housing, energy, food, broadband, transport, employment, credit, care and governance can be owned and controlled in common.

The ‘rock’ on which all this can be built may well be the housing commons – everyone needs a home, houses are relatively non-technical and the housing market is in a mess. 

Number 2 seems very similar to the systems currently being “tested.” Social credit score lines.

[Macnamara]

1 minute ago, Bombadil said:

Number 2 seems very similar to the systems currently being “tested.” Social credit score lines.

 

yes and there is that word 'global' in there which means they intend to scale it globally

 

what does it all mean for individual freedom also?

 

is it some sort of part of the 'great reset'?