The Sun warns… (NSFW)
Or they could just spy on you for Silicon Valley – for Google / Amazon / etc. and THEN report you to the government, or be used to assassinate you if you’re deemed an enemy of the State.
Hey, why do you think the company that makes RealDolls is called Abyss Creations?
From the Abyss, indeed… (Remember what Nietzsche said, that when you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss gazes into you! 😉 )
WTF?
Actress Kate Beckinsale took to social media to boast about a procedure to improve her skin that involves “liquefied cloned foreskins” from South Korean infants.
“After a long flight I do like to lie down and be covered in a mask of liquified cloned foreskins-frankly who doesn’t?Thank you @georgialouisesk for an amazing facial. I especially liked you reassuring me it would be ‘light on penis’ as it was my first time x,” Kate Beckinsale wrote in an Instagram post.
According to Daily Mail, the Pearl Harbor actress “underwent a facial for the first time last week that uses an epidermal growth factor serum containing stem cells cultivated from the discarded tissue of Korean baby boys.”
The article also reports, “Experts claim rubbing these stem cells onto the face activates ageing cells, producing more collagen and making fine lines disappear. The secret ingredient is sourced from South Korea because it has a large supply of foreskins obtained during circumcision, the general custom for young boys.”
The 45-year-old actress is far from the first celebrity to undergo this strange facial treatment. Breitbart News has previously reported on the trend, with Cate Blanchett and Sandra Bullock making headlines for using the cream, which they called a “penis facial” in 2016.
I’m surprised that Israel and the Muslim countries haven’t gotten a ‘piece of the action’ regarding foreskin sales; why only South Korea? 😉
For those celebrating Thanksgiving today, at some point there will come a time where you is simply too full to move. At this point, the sensible action is to sleep it off before rising later in the day, groggy and disorientated, for a second gorging. But what if technology could help? What if, instead of succumbing to your turkey stupor, some sort of chest-mounted robot arm could lob sweet treats into your open mouth? What a world that would be.
We’ve not reached this gravy-soaked utopia yet, but researchers from Australia and India have taken us one step closer with “Arm-A-Dine” — a robot arm worn in the middle of the chest that picks food up off the table and conveys it to you or your dining partner’s mouth.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13463806/robot_arm_eating_take_2.gif)
Technology, aiding gluttony!
Concern is growing that UK firms are considering implanting microchips into their employees to boost security. Biohax, a Swedish company that provides human chip implants, told the Daily Telegraph it was ‘in talks’ with a number of UK legal and financial firms to implant staff with the devices. Apparently, one client has ‘hundreds of thousands of employees’ and probably believes that injecting chips into their workers is easier than issuing them with a security pass. ‘These companies have sensitive documents they are dealing with,” Jowan Österlund, the founder of Biohax, told the paper.
‘[The chips] would allow them to set restrictions for whoever,’ Österlund, a former professional body piercer, said. Naturally, not everyone is on board with this idea. A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry told the Guardian: ‘While technology is changing the way we work, this makes for distinctly uncomfortable reading. ‘Firms should be concentrating on rather more immediate priorities and focusing on engaging their employees.’ Biohax says that its microchips, which are about the size of a grain of rice, cost £150 each.
They are put into the skin between the thumb and forefinger and can be used like any kind of transmitter – to open doors or start a car, for example. They can also be loaded with medical data that can be accessed if the person was ever in an accident. Österlund said bigger companies, like those with over 200,000 employees, could offer this as something optional to make their employees’ lives easier and save the company money. ‘If you have a 15% uptake that is still a huge number of people that won’t require a physical ID pass,’ he said.
Revelation 13: 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Some interesting arguments and observations in an essay about nuclear weapons, NORKs, and the Soviets:
Kim Jong-un’s recalcitrance and unpredictability would seem to make an ICBM-armed North Korea the stuff of apocalyptic nightmares. But before engaging in a gloomy calculation of ballistic trajectories, we should also consider the historical legacies of the world’s most powerful missiles. After all, we have survived for six decades now with the unpleasant sense of wondering if someone out there, intentionally or by mistake, was about to push the figurative button and reduce our lifespans to half an hour or less.
Indeed, it may well be that Kim’s new ICBM portends an era not of chaos and apocalypse, but stability and peace. The possession of nuclear missiles have historically had two overarching effects upon states. First, they provide a kind of existential sense of security, because states understand that no other nation is likely to launch an attack, particularly in a war of conquest, when the response could be even one nuclear retaliation on a city. The costs aren’t worth it.
Second, ICBMs tend to make states wary of going to war at all, at least with other nuclear states and their close allies. Now that it has a nuclear missile, the North Korean regime faces the fact that a war that brings in the United States could become a nuclear war, an event that would mean the violent and immediate end of the Kim dynasty and its grim regime. Without a nuclear weapon, North Korea could fight the United States or another major power, much as Vietnam or Afghanistan did, for years. The stakes now have become infinitely greater.
These two factors—the security of deterrence, and the existential danger that looms if it fails—make nuclear states very interested in stability. Thus, the ICBM, in the greatest irony of all history, has so far been a force for peace. Indeed, the late international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz once suggested that it should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
[…]
Here was the Soviet Union, a nation formally bent upon the violent overthrow of world order and the defeat of American imperialism, now deploying a rocket that could destroy U.S. cities in a matter of hours. In the aftermath of Sputnik, Sen. Henry Jackson called for a “week of national shame and danger.”
But other Americans, including President Dwight Eisenhower, understood that the Soviets saw their new rockets as defensive weapons designed to deter a possible American attack. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev grasped this almost immediately. “We estimate, that the [two] blocs presently possess such means of destruction as to make war unthinkable, if not impossible,” Khrushchev announced in his famous “Peaceful Coexistence” speech of February 1956. It was either a peaceful Cold War “or the most destructive war in history,” Khrushchev said. “There is no third way.” Wasn’t war still possible? Khrushchev believed that nuclear weapons ruled that out. “The danger of a military conflict is absent,” he explained in July of that year.
Khrushchev was so certain that his new weaponry would protect the USSR and make war insane that in December 1959 he opted to unilaterally reduce the size of the Soviet conventional army. The military brass were not amused but Khrushchev believed that in a nuclear age conventional weapons were little more than “old junk, scrap metal, which hangs like pounds of weight on the necks of the people, distracting millions of working hands from creative labour.” Khrushchev argued that large armies were simply redundant, for “how can any country or group of countries in Europe invade us when we can literally wipe these countries off the face of the earth with our atomic and hydrogen weapons and by delivery of our missiles to any point on the globe?”
Khrushchev grasped something that no-one else has wanted to admit: conventional armies are now entirely obsolete, if everyone has nukes.
And THAT, of course, is why the Imperial American regime does NOT want Iran or the NORKs getting nukes. Not because they’re actually afraid of some madman deploying them. But because they can’t bully any nation that has them.
Iraq never actually had WMDs, and the American deep state permanent regime knew it; if they had, America would never have actually gone to war against them. Iran must not have them, either, hence America’s threatening rhetoric towards it.
America hasn’t gone to war against the NORKs, precisely because they have long feared the Kim dynasty either having nukes or having the capacity to develop them. And now we know our fears are true.
If every country on the planet got nukes, we could abolish all the world’s armies.
Think of it: if everyone has nukes, conventional armies become completely obsolete for war between states, because they could never be deployed, without the threat of a nuclear retaliation.
Remember, BTW, that in feudal times of yore, centuries back, there were no standing armies; they were called up as occasion demanded (i.e. as rulers wanted them). Modern-day permanent militaries are a relatively recent development, civilization-wise. And now they’ve been superseded. If everyone had nukes, we could officially abolish armed forces, and just have a force of technicians to drop nukes, chemical weapons and biological weapons, and for internal functions where the army might be used within countries to establish order if there were an uprising, etc., states could simply beef up their police, SWAT teams, etc., for internal matters.
MAD has worked so far; if nukes are a sword of Damocles, I think we’ve learned to forget about that sword hanging over us. Life goes on; our enemies mostly aren’t as batshit crazy as we fear they might be, generally. They want to live, too, generally, after all, notwithstanding some suicide bombers; certainly, the leadership likes living, in most cases.
(I’ve long wished Canada had nukes; then we could have a more independent foreign and trade policy, and not be so closely tied to America. That’s a side benefit of actually being able to defend yourself and not needing to rely on a superpower ally…)
Nukes are not ideal, but their existence hasn’t been as problematic as we’ve feared, thus far.
Of course, we must put our trust not in princes or technology, ultimately, but rather in the Lord.
Dismaying, but unsurprising… (Hat tip.)
Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.
Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.
“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”
Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.
The plans will allow Britain to become “the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet”, the manifesto claims.
It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers’ browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.
The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no “safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online”. That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists’ messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else’s messages, technology companies have warned.
The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn’t published, the manifesto suggests.
The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.
The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. “We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,” the Conservatives write.
So, the choice Britons get in their upcoming election is this:
If they elect Labour, Brexit could be in jeopardy, because Labour can’t be trusted to see it through. (Maybe that’s her aim…)
If they do vote the Tories back in, Brexit may happen, but Britons will also get increased state tyranny as regards what they can see and post online. A deeper Deep State…
Fucked either way…
Why, it’s as if a certain vindictive ex-Remainder wishes to punish Britons for making the ‘wrong’ choice…
*Update, post-Manchester-attacks (hat tip):
G7 Summit: Theresa May to ask world leaders to launch internet crackdown after Manchester attack
Will S.’ Random Weirdness Blog Will S.’ Culture War Blog Will S.’ Sunny Side Blog Will S.’ Anarcho-Tyranny Blog
