Unless you have an archival quality copy of a book printed on acid free paper, you are out of luck.
Modern paperbacks and most hardbacks are printed on paper treated with aluminum sulfate. Over time the aluminum sulfate reacts with water in the air (humidity) to become aluminum oxide and sulfuric acid. The acid turns the pages yellow and eats the glue that holds the binding together. Single pages start to fall out, and eventually the paper becomes too yellow to read.
How long the process takes depends on the humidity of the environment, but almost all books will be heavily damaged after 20 years.
Almost all books go out of print forever after the death of the author. Only a tiny percentage of books stay in print after the author can no longer advocate for the books and is not writing more to make their back catalog relevant. 99% of all writing just ... disappears after a generation.
Want to change that? Start scanning books. Sort them by category and upload them in a Torrent. Textbooks, fiction, SF, whatever. You can fit a thousand OCR books in a torrent, and hopefully it will be persistent.
https://www.amazon.com.au/IRIS-5-PRO-Iriscan-Desk/dp/B07VGTG6ZG/
Australia increases the taxation on cigarettes regularly. It is about AU$40 a packet or so, depending on the brand. That works out to about $1 a cigarette.
All cigarettes are in the same coloured brown packets with regulations on the markings and font on the outside. All the packets and all the cigarettes look the same.
The Australian Taxpayer has to pay for end of life medical care. The government just keeps raising the tax to pay for the two years of cancer treatment and/or heart failure treatment for smokers. The high taxes on cigarettes just about covers the direct costs now.
The opportunity cost of smoking is really high. People roll their own tobacco (which is slightly cheaper, especially if they roll them very thin) or they quit.
I can imagine that it would be a lot harder to enact this strategy in countries that did not have such effective border control.
Gingercide is real.
There is a charity on the corner up the block than hands out free meals for breakfast and dinner.
The result is addicts as far as the eye can see. They spend 100% of their government payments on their addiction, and they all sleep in nearby parks.
At what point is charity enabling poor behavior?
Guy, you learn the difference between Civil Law and Criminal Law in civics class. Or perhaps "Legal Studies" In high school.
It is a distinction that has profound impact and is very much germane to the issue at hand.
You know that you are making a semantics argument, right? Then arguing for a definition that is literally wrong.
Or he could found a new company, poach Veritas' donors and get back on mission. It is an either / or.
So when the choices are Take Action or Take it Like a Bitch,
which one are you espousing?
I've been very patient with you Tony.
[REDACTED]
I respect women just fine. I certainly don't think they are a universal evil.
But to turn a blind eye to their faults is beyond stupid. I am done making that mistake.
France, as a whole collaborated.
Bullshit.
The Germans could not have occupied France with ten times the troops. If the farmers had just sat down and refused to work, it would have been insurmountable. Even the tiny, tiny French Resistance made a real impact.
The French Police helped to deport French Jews to their deaths.
Is the Smithsonian a good enough source for you?
The Vichy French Authoritarian Government made use of the German Occupation to advance their own political goals and to consolidate power. In the beginning they had popular support.
I am certainly not painting French women in any better light than the French men of the time. However choosing to sleep with and have children with Nazi officers to gain social standing and resources is particularly odious to me. French women are certainly not unique in history in this regard.
So debate the points. You don't get to write off Imp's claim just because he used hyperbole.
France, as a whole collaborated. Many women were notable in that the were keen to collaborate for social position and resources.
Collaboration certainly ran a spectrum, and there were literally war trials after the French liberation to have the worst of them face repercussions for their behavior.
Certainly Coco Chanel was a gleeful collaborator, and she escaped trial because she fled to Switzerland.
I am not going to look up French war trials for you. I am not going to baby-step you through examples to have you complain that they are not good enough.
The Imp is pointing out a trend in female behavior that pre-dates the Romans. Women like winners and are often motivated by hypergamy, even to the extremes of collaborating with enemies.
Plus dozens of other popular articles, just a single web search away.
Tony, it really is a matter of public record. The French make a big deal about their resistance, but the vast majority were collaborators. The most prominent collaborators were women.
Coco Chanel, who launched the brand Chanel, was an enthusiastic collaborator. She slept with a Nazi officer and leveraged her vast network of social contacts to help the Nazis play politics. In return her fashion business did very well.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/coco-chanel-traitor-nazi-spy-4744650
It is easy to find pictures of French women being marched through the streets for sleeping with Nazis.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-female-collaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/
I'd settle for people starting to notice that mothers kill their children at a much higher rate than fathers ever do.
Revoke the Tender Years Doctrine. Give men custody by default. Let women negotiate for access.
Imp is clearly MGTOW. He seems to be building his financial position and advancing career.
I think he realizes it takes a consistent effort to overcome the base nature of men and to treat women as the social equivalent of toxic waste.
I mean, if you don't want to have sex with women, and you have no interest in a relationship, why would you even bother to throw rocks at them? The chances of a positive outcome from any interaction is basically zero; and women have both the motivation and the power to ruin a man's life forever.
Sure he is bombastic, but so what? It is infinitely preferable to one more fucking simp or apologist.
Or perhaps he is noticing that every facet of society, every minute of our life is influenced by the dominant social paradigm and the 50 % of the population (men and women) who advance that cause.
Imp is over the top, but is he wrong? We are in the process of literally sacrificing the most successful countries on earth to appease the female need for special treatment.
Pair Bonding has been going on between men and women for literally a million years. It is now untenable today in most English speaking countries.
Is he really overreacting? How hurt and angry should he be?
Society is demonstrably gynocentric. Women and the happiness and comfort of women is a major motivating factor in the way that society is arranged. In the past women were a protected class. Today women have all the rights of men and special treatment in many, many circumstances.
Feminism states that:
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments
It goes on to call "Tyranny" the financial support of women by their fathers and then their husbands; seeking to bring about and end to both the nuclear family and traditional marriage.
Feminism is the DOMINANT political paradigm in the west.
So not only is society arranged mostly for the benefit of women; at the same time women have convinced the world that they are the victims of total subjugation and have worked for nearly 130 years to destroy the very foundations of that society; with much success.
ALL women benefit from this. None I have seen are keen to hand back any of the power or benefits that the political movement has granted them.
So Imp is insane for noticing?
Why Not Both.gif
There is no such thing as "hermaphrodites" in the human race, there is not a single case documented where an individual had both functioning gametes, ever.
Yes there is. I can think of one.
A female presenting African had a womb, vagina and one (probably) functioning testicle.
I saw it on a TV documentary following a surgeon who was in Africa doing humanitarian work.
The young lady was almost certainly a chimera, and her egg had been fertilized (unevenly) by two sperm or something similar. Perhaps a twin was absorbed at a very early point in cell division? Who knows.
The operating surgeon was utterly surprised, and commented that if her plumbing had been slightly different she might have fertilized herself.
It was a phenomenally unlikely development, with a chance of billions to one against. She didn't have two working sets of genitals. Her puberty was being messed up by having a testicle, and they corrected it by removing the aberrant gland so she could finish her puberty and go and get a husband and have a family.
So you are correct. There are effectively no hermaphrodites. There has been the vanishingly rare case of a freak of nature that has been non-viable. In this singular case it was a cluster of cells from a literal different person that had grown as a part of a fairly ordinary female, and required removal.
Universal suffrage is shit because as soon as you get honest elections the political organizations discover that the best way to manufacture votes is to import voters.
Immigration becomes first and foremost about importing the correct voting demographic to ensure the "correct" outcome of elections.
Rofecoxib was (at the time) the largest single out of court settlement in the history of the world.
It was literally taught in universities. It is a textbook fuck-up.
It was thousands of times safer than the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. It affected a few percent of a specific demographic, in aggregate. The effects were only detectable by use of actuarial techniques applied to the entire population.
I guess the thing that Big Pharma learned is to get the law changed before it is applied.
I agree with all points.
This is failure by Biden in his role as Commander in Chief. He should be impeached for this.
High resolution footage of the flyover states without atmospheric interference could easily reveal the location of US ICBM silos.
The decision to not shoot it down over Kansas (or whatever) was a cynical decision of politics and optics over strategic interests.
As this isn't the first such probing attack, there is not reason for the Air Force to have a policy to deal with these balloons. They could easily be dropped into the arctic ocean on every occasion; well before they make landfall.
It is an opportunity to send a message: Most countries could not shoot down a high altitude balloon, but the USA can.
Draw a parallel with the U2 surveillance planes of the 60s.
In that case I agree.
It was a feat that could have easily been achieved should the Chief of Staff had the political will and the willingness to drop a few million bucks on a sortie of modern air-superiority fighters and ordinance.
I'd go further, and say that the reason they didn't shoot it down in flyover country is because of the splash it would have made on the internet.
12% of the Italian deaths were found, on investigation, to have been from COVID as a primary cause.
The rest COVID was a complication to the actual cause of death.
For example: It turns out that if you have a chronic heart condition and kidney failure, then you are susceptible to viral infection.
HCQ was most effective as an early treatment. HCQ given with Zinc as a cofactor increased the survival rate by something like three times.
The thing is that it was fucking trivial to look at the demographics that were most at risk to death by COVID19. People who died (on average) were 81 and had three co-morbidities.
HCQ and Zinc could be given as a prophylactic to the highest risk demographics, with the doses increased at the first sign of infection. This would have been trivial to do. It still isn't being done.
Even if HCQ has been superseded by Ivermectin as a more effective treatment, it was definitively known in Feb 2021 that HCQ would be a lot better than nothing.
https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/journal-of-medicine-says-hcq-zinc-reduces-covid-deaths/
This is very clearly a better population wide care protocol than the clot-shots or shitty ICU "last gasp" respirator protocols.
COVID killed George Floyd.
Here in Australia, in my state the only treatment protocol for the vulnerable (eg, anything more than just IV fluids and rest) is the Pfizer anti-virials. One course only.
Doctors were prescribing the fourth jab, which was effectively meaningless against Omicron. Because they feared the consequences if they DID NOT prescribe Clot Shot #4 for the elderly.
They medical establishment had absolutely no fear of consequences of any kind for death as an injury from the Pfizer therapeutic. There is an explicit agreement from the bottom to the top of the (state run) hospital to minimize the cause of death and to shield the doctors responsible.
The politicians, at the top, are getting all of their information from Lobbyists. They are absolutely, completely convinced that they can hush-up any malpractice. They are desperately afraid of being seen to do nothing. Medical companies, specifically Pfizer in this case, have turned up to offer a turn-key solution. "Hey! Here is a complete set of treatment protocols that we know works. Put it in place, and you can be seen taking immediate, effective action!"
Computing Forever had an excellent series of videos on YouTube, before his channel was canceled, which showed that both the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation had been waiting since H1N1 Swine Flu (COVID19 - 10 years) to seize the opportunity of the next pandemic.
The immediate projections (computer modeling) that came out immediately on the discovery of COVID19 (then the Wuhan Virus) overestimated fatalities by more than two orders of magnitude. They were later shown to be produced by a Democrat CPAC funded think tank. The initial figures were beyond trash; they deliberately, willfully misleading.
All of the policy has been set at the political level; with the political leadership (at the state level) dictating to the media and then to the medical apparatus.
Any doctor who spoke out was ruthlessly canceled. Doctors were canceled for trying to publicize inexpensive, effective prevention and treatment protocols.
The Media establishment has been complicit at every step.
If you want the most excellent, most relevant modern example of fascism, here you are. Truth is a function of politics. Science is a function of politics. Actions leading to literal deaths of tens thousands are irrelevant. There is no boundary that can be drawn between political parties and the media apparatus, nor the medical institutions. They have effectively been a single, monolithic unit; all working together to deliver political outcomes.
So flack is launched from Anti-Aircraft Artillery. Got any laying about? How about AAA with the capability of hitting targets at an altitude of 35 km?
As for proximity fused cannon shells; cool! you are shooting at a cloud. Proximity to what?
Two fighter jets strafed the balloon with anti-aircraft cannons and it didn't care. It was eventually shot down with an air burst of a guided missile. That would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of ordinance.
The array was an insignificant target compared to the balloon, which was about the size of a football stadium at that point; Moreover shooting the array would not bring the balloon down.
Even with paying for a neighbors health, Australia has a tax spend of less than 1/2 per citizen than the USA.
The USA has state funding for emergency life-saving care for everyone, even non-citizens. Hospitals are required to give care to emergency patients and then sort out the funding later.
What happens is that people who can't afford preventative care or even timely treatment wait until they are almost dead. Now it is an emergency. They present to hospital, and care is given. It is the most expensive care and the most serious interventions. The hospital provides just enough care that they won't die in the next day or so. They are discharged from hospital. They leave.
They come back. It is an emergency again. More of the most expensive treatment is provided. This continues until they literally die. The bills are sent to the state government.
Right now you are getting the worst of both worlds. Medical care is being provided to everyone, just in a way that is most profitable for hospitals and the worst way for taxpayers.
Canada has found a way around the treatment loop. They just euthanize people who present too often for emergency care.
The way Australia does it allows tax dollars to be spent on GP care, which is less than 1/4 of the cost of hospital care for the services that GPs provide. It allows public health programs, like vaccinations (actual vaccines, not Phizzer "therapeutics") contraception and dental care for grade school kids.
The Aussie system isn't perfect, but it (right now) gives a lot better value than the tax being taken from your wages.