Progressive Christians Don’t Treat The Foreigner Biblically

 ...the progressive Christian actually inverts what the Bible is saying here. They say that to oppress the sojourner is to turn them away from settling in your land, but according to the law, first and foremost, to oppress the sojourner is to keep them in your land for cheap or free labour. Which just happens to be two of the goals of modern immigration policies in our country. Immigration is designed to bring in new settlers and to suppress wages. The way immigration achieves this is by creating more competition for employment, and therefore, allows employers to offer lesser conditions and lower wages. So modern immigration is used to oppress the immigrant and the citizen. The progressive actually inverts what the Bible is saying on this issue. 

To not oppress the sojourner is to treat them well as long they are guests in your land, and then send them on their way. Think of it like this: if you have guests in your house, you should go out of your way to treat them well, honour them, and protect them. But if they won’t leave you can kick them out. To oppress them would be to lock the doors and make them slaves in your house. This is exactly what the Egyptians did to the Hebrews. To say, ok, time for you to go home now, is not only not oppression, it is good, right, biblical and necessary.

Full text:

https://revmatthewlittlefield.substack.com/p/progressive-christians-dont-treat?publication_id=1182452&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=y7h5a&utm_medium=email 

Medical Mafia Exposed - Denninger - (just like DaDOD? - CL)

Full text: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker-Nad 

The problem is that despite parabolic increases in spending all the money spent has not statistically moved outcomes one iota.

In fact outcomes have either been flat or even mildly backward.

Don't think so?

Have a look over here; this is not speculation, it is the actuarial results of a group who analyzes all 330 million Americans and thus mathematically and on a statistical basis is right.  This doesn't mean you might not do better or worse but it does mean that across the entire population it is what it is and thus for any leading cause of death if you claim you fixed or otherwise improved it without the death happening anyway from some other cause, which I remind you if you're the individual dead is dead and why doesn't matter and that outcome will and does inevitably show up right there.

Examples from the current (2021, so pre-clotshot) table compiled in 2021 (and used in the most-recent 2024 trustee report.)  These are the expected remaining years of life at a few selected ages.

30: 45.34
40: 36.58
50: 28.12
60: 20.41
70: 13.69

Now let's look at the oldest table still on that same page -- it is from 2004 during which cancer care "treatment" and costs have skyrocketed in both prevalence and price:

30: 46.58
40: 37.28
50: 28.46
60: 20.36
70: 13.27

Heh ******* (pick one -- doctor, hospital, insurance executive, pharma **********, politician, etc.) how come there has been no real statistically-valid improvement and in fact life expectancy has gone down a tiny bit in several age classes over the last two decades -- not by a lot, but it has, and those that have changed did so by a fraction of a year which is a statistical ZERO.

Remember, cancer gets about 40% of all people more-or-less, right?

Yet despite trillions of dollars spent and, I'm sure, some successes in making someone who has it not have it the overall statistical impact on human lifespan in the United States over the last 20 years IS ZERO.

Here's Why China Is Beating the Pants Off The US, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review

 There are many reasons why China is doing better in this regard that the United States (Special interests, corruption etc), but certainly incentives play a significant role. In the US, millionaires can become billionaires overnight without contributing anything of value to society. It’s just a matter of how adept they are at trading paper assets on Wall Street. In America, the market system is so degraded that companies are allowed to buy back hundreds of billions of dollars of their own stock in order to push share prices higher allowing them to skim hefty profits off the shuffling of paper. These stock buyback transactions are entirely legal even though the capital is deployed in a way that fails to boost productivity, R&D, worker training, innovation or anything else. It is simply a way to fiddle the system in order to enrich professional speculators. In the US, wealth is generated through financial engineering not through productivity, efficiency or innovation. As we said earlier, the incentives are all wrong......

...If the western-style system actually deployed capital to productive outlets of investment, then one would NOT expect the country with the largest and most liquid markets in the world to also have rising poverty, a shrinking middle class, surging homelessness, falling standards of living, and some of the most dilapidated, out-of-date infrastructure in the developed world. But in the US, capital is not deployed to productive outlets of investment, it is recycled into a financial system that functions as a wealth-generation mechanism for voracious billionaires who use their money to buy yachts, luxury mansions and glitzy baubles at Tiffaney’s. Take a look:

Full text: https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/heres-why-china-is-beating-the-pants-off-the-us/#comment-7140070 

....This isn’t a matter of capitalism vs Communism. It’s a matter of good government vs lousy government. Virtually all the profits extracted from our “free market” system go into the pockets of the people who need the money the least and who fail to contribute anything of value to the ‘greater good’. In contrast, the Chinese government is pumping nearly every penny into improvements that benefit everyone and that have transformed the country into a shining example of 21st Century modernity.

Shockingly, our leaders in Washington still think the United States can “out compete” and even surpass China if we just put our minds to it and make it a national priority. But anyone who can ‘do the math’ can see that’s not going to happen. It’s simply a matter of which country has the superior development model, and, in that regard, China has us beat hands-down.

A brief history of the gold standard

 As evidence mounts that major western economies are heading into a banking and monetary crisis due to contracting credit, we face the consequences of unsound money. The era of fiat is drawing to a close and its death will be painful for the highly indebted advanced economies in North America, Europe, and Japan. History and legal precedent tell us that fiat will die, and only gold can provide an anchor to credit values.

As always, there are lessons to be learned from monetary history, particularly in the context of credit-dependent post-feudal economies, when in a post-feudal world gold standards evolved to support mountains of credit in the forms of bank notes and commercial bank deposits.

In this article, I look at lessons from nineteenth century gold standards and the mistakes made. Mostly, they could have been easily avoided, but are lessons for designing tomorrow’s monetary systems

The debate over the return of gold backing for credit is becoming urgent, not just because the fiat currency system has run its course, but because it is increasingly in the developing world’s interests to embrace it. And unless Russia, China, and their spheres of influence moves urgently towards backing their currencies with gold, their economies will suffer from increasing dollar-led fiat instability.

Introduction

We know that from the dawn of monetary history, money is gold, silver, or copper and everything else is credit. And the relationship between money and credit was codified in a series of Roman law pronouncements dating back to Rome’s Twelve Tables in 449 BC. It was the successor nations of the Roman Empire, stretching from the Atlantic seaboard to the Urals which colonised the world, apart from China and Japan. But coincidentally with the Twelve Tables, it was the era of Confucius, who had died only thirty years before, and the flowering of Chinese philosophy which confirmed similar conclusions about money. But since the end of barter, there have been numerous attempts by rulers to fraudulently misrepresent or confiscate money, usually to finance wars or disguise their debts.

The transition from agricultural feudalism to industrialisation was facilitated by the expansion of credit, not money, though above-ground stocks of gold and silver available for coining did continue to accumulate. And with its expansion, banking systems evolved to deal in credit, creating it as demanded. Rudimentary banking dealing in credit had existed in Roman times, which is why jurors such as Ulpian, Paul, and Gaius in the early Christian era ruled on the differences between money and credit.

Full text: https://alasdairmacleod.substack.com/p/a-brief-history-of-the-gold-standard-adc?publication_id=2144370&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=9atnc&utm_medium=email 

Memorial Day: It’s Not About the Dead Soldiers but About Glorifying War – Edward Curtin

 (God answers prayer - "Mr. Curtin - your essay is an answer to a prayer yesterday - literally - as I was sickened by the constant drumbeat on media and in our environs on the celebration of death.....caused by wars - for what? Will someone write please write about reality of war!" - CL)

Although Memorial Day in the United Sates is ostensibly a day for honoring soldiers killed in wars, it is, rather, a day for promoting war. If it were to honor the dead, all its pageantry would be in opposition to war. Rather than being haunted by the ghosts of war, many Americans are very proud of all its soldiers killed while killing foreigners for the military industrial complex and the super-rich who own the country.

For the U.S.A. is a warfare state; it has been waging imperialistic overseas wars for a long, long time, and using its soldiers as cannon fodder. Most families of dead soldiers find it impossible to admit that their loved ones died in vain, even if courageously.

Without waging wars, the U.S. economy, as presently constituted, would collapse. Business goes on as usual.

Remembering all the war dead is like drifting on a ghost ship in a still sea of burning water. Haunted by the eerie silence of their absent presence, if we listen closely enough, we can hear such victims calling to us: Remember me, Remember me, why did it have to be?

“All warfare is ghostly,” writes the classical scholar Norman O. Brown, “every army an exercitus feralis (a funereal exercise), every soldier a living corpse.”

The world is littered with the corpses of wars’ victims, those of the killers and the killed, soldiers of every nation – but the vast majority are innocent civilians who never picked up a gun. The earth is so saturated with all their blood that one would expect the rivers to run red as a reminder. But that only happens in poems, as with Federico Garcia Lorca: “Beneath all the totals, a river of warm blood.”....

Read full text: https://edwardcurtin.com/memorial-day-its-not-about-the-dead-soldiers-but-about-glorifying-war/ 

.....But not all of the wars’ victims die. Vast numbers become “living corpses,” also mostly anonymous and forsaken. Across the world and here at home wherever the American war machine has set its sights, the lame and crippled struggle on, victims of bombs and bullets, napalm and white phosphorous, nuclear radiation, torture, biological weapons – all the grotesque weapons the ghouls of the weapons’ industries have conjured up from hell for their paymasters. Countless living victims, yes, but the weapons industries carefully count their bloody profits, as do those who invest in these companies while turning a blind eye to their own complicity.

Many of the wounds of war are psychological and spiritual. And so many of the victims suffer silently. Wars’ terrors follow them everywhere down their nights and down their days, and they can often find no escape from the nightmare images that populate their minds, flashing in and out. It’s beyond imagining the living hell of children worldwide reliving the sight of the bloodied mangled bodies of their parents at their feet, victims of bombs or death squads or perhaps “collateral damage,” as if any words or reasons could undue their everlasting trauma or cover up the radical evil of those who killed them

We owe it the wounded, dead, and tormented war victims everywhere to memorialize them with the words:

War is a lie, and only truth will free us.

And to stop marching with the drums drumming and the flags flying as if we are proud of the U.S. killing machine.

A Century of Damning Evidence - Vox Popoli - on vaccines

 If, at this point, you’re still vaccinating yourself or your children, you deserve the predictably suboptimal outcomes you are actively injecting into your life:

•Since at least 1933, the medical community has known that vaccines cause infant deaths. To conceal this, those deaths were renamed “crib death” and then “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS), eventually being attributed to infants not sleeping on their backs.

•This revisionism is not supported by the existing evidence nor the historical changes in the frequency of SIDS. Most recently, SIDS rates have had an unprecedented decrease in tandem with the COVID-19 lockdowns reducing vaccination rates.

•The vaccine most strongly associated with SIDS, DPT, was protected for decades by the government despite knowing a large body of evidence around the world showed it killed infants—particularly when an inevitable hot lot was released. Eventually, so many injury lawsuits were filed that in 1986, the government had to give blanket immunity to the vaccine manufacturers.

•This article will concisely review the vast body of evidence showing vaccines cause SIDS and reveal the mechanism modern research has now repeatedly proven causes vaccines to trigger infant death.

We’re always told that vaccines were a medical marvel that safely ended the dark age of infectious disease. However, when the actual records are examined, they often abjectly failed to prevent those diseases, and worse still, frequently caused outbreaks and severely injured many of the recipients.

This in part resulted from the inherent toxicity of vaccines and in part because manufacturing challenges regularly resulted in hot lots being released. Rather than address this, the vaccine industry chose to create a variety of strategies to conceal those issues, such as enshrining the dogma “all vaccines are safe” and giving blanket legal immunity to all the “safe” vaccines.

It’s perfectly understandable that many parents do not want to believe this. But the truth is not only ruthless, it is inexorable.

The incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 1.28 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is at age 2 to 4 months, the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given to a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.

What a tragic and inexplicable 133 percent rise in the number of parents shaking their babies and putting infants to sleep on their stomachs! Clearly more education is in order! More education and more vaccines!

UPDATE: the report got the rate of increase wrong. It was 0.55 to 1.28, not 0.55 to 12.8. Still an obvious problem, but literally one-tenth as glaring.

DISCUSS ON SG

https://voxday.net/2025/05/24/a-century-of-damning-evidence/ 

Preference is not Being Intimidated - by Vox Day

 One theme that is relentlessly pushed by the female-centric mainstream narrative is that men are not approaching women, less interested in dating women, and uninterested in marrying women due to the fact that they are somehow intimidated by the magnificent radiance that blinds them when they gaze upon the sublime glory of modern strong, independent, self-confident women......

......First, the solution proposed is comical....

......Second, this is an obvious lie. Women are neither independent nor self-confident. They might maintain a brave front, but underneath the hard shell of every self-styled “strong independent woman” is a frightened mass of neuroses that is terrified of being rejected, or worse, initially accepted then abandoned, by a man. So the entire frame is constructed upon a false foundation......

......Fifth, female solipsism means that women are intrinsically incapable of grasping that men’s opinions and feelings exist in a space that is entirely distinct from themselves, and take absolutely no account of their own opinions and feelings. Indeed, the very idea that a man fails to factor her situation into his feelings is offensive to women, despite the fact that men do not do that, and moreover, have an absolute right to their own emotional independence.

It’s really not that hard. Most men, and pretty much all good men, have no desire to intrude where they are not wanted. So when women signal, intentionally or not, that they find men unnecessary and undesirable, those men are not only going to refrain from expressing any interest in them, they are going to seek to avoid them entirely......

Full text: https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/preference-is-not-being-intimidated