Honestly this, for me personally.
I know that if we resist with overt hostility first, we will be branded terrorists, isolated, rights deprived and made out to be the villains and further solidifying their "see we are the right cause" message.
They know this, and are hesitant to pull the trigger, so they're still trying to boil the frog while avoiding giving anyone a clearcut reason to rebel.
It's been happening slowly in the UK too. Its either all held by globo Estate agencies, or you just have to know someone.
For example anywhere on the northern line of England, assuming its not got loads of land or "vistas", a mortgage for a 3bed is around 450-550/m. Rent for said place, is around 750-900. That's assuming the house doesn't get "renovated" into three bedsits and then they're charged at 350/m a room each , with the bathroom/kitchen being shared.
It's simple. It started over "who was there first". The UK had defacto rule over it since 1833. The Argentinians claimed they had defacto rule over it as they "dibs" d it first two years earlier.
The UK claims their rule is stronger because they had a settlement on the islands as early as the 1730s odd with there being no contest from Argentina for over 100 years.
The social elite probably could, but I do nt believe the end goal is extermination for population reduction. Simply self terrorising to keep the populace in that placid state you refer to.
Human lives have been a commodity for centuries and they've now perfected a way to make financial gain off a person merely by them existing.
Technologically we could solve a large bulk of the world's problems if money wasn't a barrier (where communism gets peoples le hooked), if they'd allow it (where peoples fail to see communism is bait). But really they just want as many people in the lower class as possible to farm as cheap labour and tax income. Hence the middle squeeze.
"Not enough people are taking the jab. We've tried bribery, we've tried blackmail. Ideas?"... "We could just repeat it all. Over again?".
They are so blatantly obvious at this point. Even without the unlikely killswitch theory, this is clearly a push against anti vaxxers by abusing the middle skeptics who have just reasons to avoid.
They're going to make it incredibly hard to do ANYTHING for the next two years without their potentially dangerous jabs. I reckon they want as large an uptake on the jab so they can claim its a late covid reaction, and not a side effect of the jabs.
They can be. Usually if bought straight from farm. There's plenty of people who have found "red eggs", half grown chicks or even managed to full grow chicks.
And even in those cases, we don't consider a fertilised chicken egg, a chicken.
"we are NOT telling you what to do here, we are making a business decision and letting the market decide,”.
But I thought letting the market decide was baaaaad /s.
This is also legally extortion based on discrimination? They wouldn't be allowed to do this based on any other medical status. We need gov to clamp down on this behaviour, but unfortunately, they're complicit.
Not linked. They're all the same thing.
Virtue has been retconnd to mean someone of good morals, but really it meant someone who followed their code, didn't falter and were seen good because of it. Their intent and moral could actually have been absolutely heinous. But virtue is akin to having a spine, sticking to your guns, your personal moral.
Virtue builds into both beauty and truth, without virtue, you have no compass or desire to improve your attractiveness, maintain it, nor any desire to tell the truth, even if it harms.
All three are also meritocratic. You can rank them, not with absolutes sure but it is obvious when someone is a liar or truth ful, when they're attractive and making effort or slobbing out.
Without virtue, you get sjws.
I bet they already knew how it would play out, didn't bother serving it and relied on the arrest plus media denigration to do the actual damage. This "apology" and the inevitable lack of correction/retraction has done the damage.
I never understood that concept. "this one guy did me dirty now I bat for the other team".
Either you were already Bi, or you're being spiteful to yourself.
I guess it then becomes a misguided "they're a woman too, so they know what I want" but then that's no different to having housemates... So what's the draw.
Percentages also don't mean anything without a solid base figure to work from and both figures have to work from the same base.
They could easily argue 20% rise because an additional 1 in 5 women are committing suicide, compare to a mere 3 in 100 men.
In reality 3x as many men is the increase, but the percentages are switched because the base numbers are off.
Read the fine print, it's not that the law has changed, just that they won't enforce it.
As the twitter poster mentions ned all they're doing is opening themselves up to class action suits, both employer and osha.
As we all know here tho, it's finding a judge. Guarantee you it's a case of holding out as long as possible until an obvious death wave of non covid symptoms happens AND gets leaked.
For most western nations yes they were MEANT to, but very rarely did the wife's family pay dowry to the male. Especially if the male was poorer than the entire family the wife came from.
Asbangbus said, it was effectively a gratitude token and a legal seperation of daughter from estate, with the amount being sent in dowry her equivalent worth or cut of the estate.
If the male was poorer, that dowry either didn't get paid or the marriage didn't go ahead for "reasons" (ooh no I conve ient she's gone to a nunnery!), this was to prevent lazy male leeches attaching to the family estate.
It worked to both hobble thots and simps from the off.
Even without marriage the entire social care system is woman orientated. There's a difference between "runaway dads" who pumped and dumped in the 60s and the men now who are at the other end of the spectrum.
Were in a society where a man who isn't even the father of a child is on the hook for 18years, even with proof. We're in a society where a sperm donor can face the same fees, fines and maintenance charges if the mother demanded it.
They've dropped all these conditions and restrictions on the male component socially, financially and legally that its not worth the time effort or money to jump through the excessive hoops, only to then spend a further quarter of a million raising a child who will only become indoctrinated to either hate you, or themselves.
Lastly they've also completely ignored the medical reasons for low birth rates. My dad was a sibling of six, because three of them fecking died before age 10. Even in the UK housing sanitation didn't really clean up until late 60s,70s and big families were a continued thing because of poor medical advances.
Were now at a point where we HAVE to put everything in just one or two children. We can't afford to keep more and the medical services are at a state where we don't need to "breed in the spares" any more.
They're arguing that being at a replacement rate of 2 is bad... When really it's the opposite. Higher replacement rates generally mean lower quality of life. 2.4 children is the stereotype for a reason. It's the optimal number with some bucking the trend.
THIS is partly why I understood the need for brexit. Sure the paperwork and movement of goods was easier, but all the taxes still existed and worse it was taxed in EACH country.
People here in the UK still haven't learned that buying local should save you a ton of money, but even the local companies are price matching upwards for profit, rather than considering the tax chain losses they aren't suffering.