#Education #Marxism #Socialism

#Milei #Quote #Freedom #Liberty

Suggestion for Nostr devs. 1. Problem. I want to follow a lot of great people and profiles. When they post many posts per day my following feed gets clogged up. Unfollowing them to help clear up my feed is not ideal. 2. Possible solution: Add an extra viewing mode. "Compact Mode" If the Compact Mode is selected, I will see 1 post per person from those that I follow. The selection process could be the newest of their posts or the most interacted post. Not sure which option would be best since interactions can be botted. Optional: show an information box below the post, stating that X number of new posts from that profile are available. If I click this option I can see all the new posts from this profile. This optional part is not necessary of course, I can just click on their profile to see their last posts. In this manner I can follow a large number of accounts and have their content compacted in my feed. Expected problems with the *optional* suggestion: there may be vertical reformatting problems resulting from this feature. #Nostr #Dev #Suggestion #Feedback

As some voice hope for a Kamala Harris pivot toward a pro-Bitcoin stance, I find this implausible and will explain why I believe this. Below I will have a look at Kamala's stand on taxes, energy and climate. First a glance at the Biden-Kamala constellation. On March 9th, 2022, Joe Biden signed a document that involved the US government exploring CBDCs. The only way I can interpret this is as a plan to develop and implementing CBDCs. R&D does involve the 'd' as in development. Source 1: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/09/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-innovation-in-digital-assets/ Next, it can be instructive to have a look at Kamala's tax policies from 2020, which are also largely mirrored in her 2024 position. Here we find that Kamala had listed capital gains taxes on her policy document in 2020 and still support them in 2024. Not very bitcoin-friendly at all and a disaster in terms of the erosion of private property rights. Source 2: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/kamala-harris-tax-proposals-2024/ Next up we have the subject of energy and climate. As expected, the more aligned a candidate is toward the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, the more climate alarmism and de-industrialization policies we find. This applies to the US, Canada, France, Australia, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway and a host of countries that are pro-Agenda 21. Not a coincidence. Ironically, Kamala's negative stance on US energy will likely boost Trump's campaign and he has been consistent in his pro-American energy position for 8 years, in spite of the coordinated MSM backlash. Source 3: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/climate/kamala-harris-on-climate-energy/index.html In conclusion, considering the ideological foundation of the Democrats, grounded in the UN Agenda 21 climate alarmism, and with 6 years left to reach the Agenda 2030 climate goals, we can expect Kamala to reduce the US energy capacity of oil, coal and gas in favor of environmentally questionable solar and wind energy, resulting in a de-industrialization and possible energy rationing. Since CBDCs are necessary tools to implement carbon allowances and social credit score systems, we can expect that any political candidate that is on board with climate alarmism, also see CBDCs as useful tools in herding (forcing) consumers toward eating less meat, using less gas, driving fewer miles with cars, travelling less with planes and using less energy in general, which, under her policies, there won't be sufficient energy anyway. Bitcoin mining under this kind of energy rationing scheme would become pointless due to the skyrocketing costs of energy. De-industrializing a nation while also embracing bitcoin mining is not a compatible match. Can't work, won't work. Trump's energy maximization plan however, is compatible with bitcoin mining at low costs. Without the climate alarmism ideology, Trump doesn't even have a use case for CBDCs, which by the way he is vocally against. Trump doesn't believe in social engineering applied by central planners to pressure people to stop eating meat or stop driving cars. He has rejected climate alarmism consistently for 8 years, in spite of global demonization and recently, an assassination attempt. The deep state has shown itself aligned with climate scaremongering and this is the lithmus test I use to determine who is aligned with the deep state and who is not. Are they pro energy or not? Are they anti UN or not? Are they anti CBDC or not? Are they anti capital gains taxes or not? Are they for individual liberties or not? Are they for private property rights or not. Are they pro bitcoin or not? These are the questions we must ask. #Kamala #Harris #Donald #Trump #Bitcoin #Mining #Taxes #Climate #Alarmism #Energy #Policy

#Meme #Memes #Climate #Communism #Alarmism

A few reflections from the recent 3 hour talk with Elon Musk and Donald Trump on Twitter/X. Trump's main strength in my view is the energy sector. With a potent and competive energy sector, without unnecessary red tape regulations, electricity becomes cheaper to produce. The pricing of all goods, services and transports are heavily impacted by the cost of energy. This is also a sector where Trump has no competition, except Vivek Ramaswamy who quit the presidential race. Both Kamala Harris and RFK jr both have a bad record on energy policy, related to beliefs in global warming doomsday scenarios. Regarding Trump we have an 8 year historical record his support for the US energy sector, in opposition to the UN Agenda 21 policies that are fueled by irrational climate alarmism. Overiew: 2017. Trump pulls the US out of the Paris climate accord. He says that it is "designed to kill the US economy". 2020. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump opposed the anti-energy policies that the WEF have an obsessession with implementing. Trump referred to the climate alarmists as "prophets of doom". 2021. On January 20, 2021, Biden signed the US back into the Paris climate accord. This was done on his first day in office, indicating that this was a high priority matter. 2023. Trump was critiquing Germany for closing its nuclear power plants and implementing harmful climate alarmism policies. 2024. February. Trump announces that he will not allow the creation of a CBDC. In light of the above, it is reasonable to assume that Trump takes energy policies seriously and is willing to sacrifice his own reputation in the media in order to secure American energy interests. Without energy there is no civilization. My main disagreement with Trump is his positive outlook on the mRNA vaccine development. First I would like to clarify that I think it is a terrible idea to inject mRNA spike proteins into the human body. Yet, as far as I understand Trump's position, his general stance is embracing medical competition and production, in an assumed societal environment where individuals can access medical treatments under informed consent and under a climate of free speech. His support for Hydroxychloroquine in 2020 demonstrated an openness for experimental approaches on a voluntary basis, in spite of the demonization and ridicule from the mainstream media. I do support medical freedom and my starting point is that all kinds of medicine should be available for purchase, including experimental treatments. If someone is seriously ill I can't deny them the option to choose an experimental treatment provided that they are aware of and have access to data that can reveal the risks involved. The key issue here is to have a societal climate where free speech is in full effect and individuals can find and share opinions, experience and research that highlights the potential risks of any particular medication or treatment. This failed catastrophically during Covid due to online censorship and demonization campaigns. The failings during Covid were legion and in particular related to central planning. I will here highlight two out of many points of failure. 1. Governments purchasing millions of doses of experimental vaccines for taxpayer money. This is not how a free market operates. In a free market individuals buy their own medications based on their own personal judgement and estimation of risks to their health. This also requires a genuine free market where all medications are available to consumers so that potential working solutions can be tested and spread via word-of-mouth recommendation. Banning certain medications or treatments is not a free market policy. 2. Presidents and government officials pressuring the public to take experimental vaccines. Add the demonization of critics and those who do not consent to a particular treatment. Justin Trudeau is one noteable example of presidents during Covid that abused their position to stigmatize critics and create a climate in favor of mandated experimental vaccines. These political pressures in turn caused corporations to fall in line with the government pro-vaccine position over inflated fears, both of the virus and also fears of government fines against companies that would not cooperate with government policy. We saw mandated vaccines as a result with devastating effects on individuals living under immense pressure to take a treatment that could harm them, or face losing their livelihoods. I could write more in depth here on these Covid-related horrors of central planning but I will leave all the deeper details for now. It is entirely possible to support experimental treatments while at the same time not agreeing with tyrannical central planning mandates and accompanying censorship. Allowing for experimental medicines comes with both risks and possibilities. Having a free market, based on indivudual liberties and informed consent, is fundamental. Hence the importance of free speech. Without proper information of risks and a genuine ability to reject a treatment, we have no basis to formulate consent. #Talk #Trump #Elon #Musk #Energy #Climate #Vaccine

The deeper problem with "free" government education. All government power rests on public perception. As a result we can predict that every government is keen on controlling education and media. #School #Education #Liberty #Homeschool #Meme #Memes #Government #Schooling #Propaganda

Thoughts on the breakdancing spectacle at the 2024 Olympics. By critiquing "ableness", a performer does no longer have to compete via skill. At that point it becomes a competition about being politically aligned (correct) toward the establishment. In other words: woke. Rejecting the idea of objectively measurable performance and skill has been a theme in postmodernism for a century. If our ideology involves rejecting "ableness" or the idea of agreed-upon achievement rankings, then skill becomes irrelevant and ideological correctness becomes the only "game" hierarchy. At that point we are asked to compete in ideological purity, not achievement. This being said, I am not against abstract art and competitions that involve some amount of subjective evaluations. Even abstract art is impacted by aesthetic considerations. Within every art genre we compare the quality of competing contributions. We rank competing submissions based on creativity, skill, vision, beauty and artistic achievement. We want the most impressive contributions within a genre to rank over the less impressive contributions. In short: meritocracy. Or at least some approximation of it. Meritocracy is delibarately deconstructed under the banner of postmodernism. While we can debate which of two abstract paintings is more impressive, and while our criteria for a ranking an achievement can differ from person to person, we can only create *meaningful* genres of competition where we agree on the overall ranking criteria. Every sport and competition requires vocalized and agreed-upon ranking criteria. If those ranking criteria involve ideological purity and not some acknowledged and demonstrable achievement then we have just made political correctness into a sport that trumps all other forms of achievement. Let there be as many genres of competition as we can imagine, but let's not determine someone's achievement by their alignment to some ideological system. Peers compete against peers. #Meritocracy #Postmodernism #Sport #Art #Achievement #Competition #Woke