What a week lies ahead!!!
The Silent War Rages On
Time is almost up
Justice arrives for those who hid in shadow.
Targets are painted, 1, 2, 3.
ERROR, ERROR
Their Plans Lie In Ruin.
The Time Has Come To Expose Them 04:00
530
WELCOME To The END
Q GAME OVER
The term “1% Motorcycle Club” is commonly used to describe outlaw motorcycle clubs such as the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, the Bandidos Motorcycle Club, Pagans Motorcycle Club or the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, as the other 99% of motorcycle riders are law-abiding citizens.
As you can see 1%ers are an international business.
Some of the most well known 1% motorcycle clubs include:
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club– Founded in 1948 in California. Well known for the likes of Oakland chapter founder Ralph “Sonny” Barger and was also the subject of a book by Hunter S Thompson.
Bandidos Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1966 in Texas.
Pagan’s Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1959 in Maryland.
Outlaws Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1935 in McCook, Illinois. Outlaws MC is one of the largest one percenter motorcycle clubs in the world.
Warlocks Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1967 in Florida.
Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1956 in California.
Mongols Motorcycle Club – Founded in 1969 in California.
Zulus Motorcycle Club (known for being one of the only black clubs) – Founded in 1969.
https://onepercenterbikers.com/
But maybe Q was just being symbolic about the analogy of 1% being OUTLAWS/criminals
Transhumanism – the world's most dangerous idea
By Francis Fukuyama
For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. They want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints. As "transhumanists" see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution's blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species.
It is tempting to dismiss transhumanists as some sort of odd cult, nothing more than science fiction taken too seriously: Witness their over-the-top Web sites and recent press releases ("Cyborg Thinkers to Address Humanity's Future," proclaims one). The plans of some transhumanists to freeze themselves cryogenically in hopes of being revived in a future age seem only to confirm the movement's place on the intellectual fringe.
But is the fundamental tenet of transhumanism that we will someday use biotechnology to make ourselves stronger, smarter, less prone to violence, and longer-lived really so outlandish? Transhumanism of a sort is implicit in much of the research agenda of contemporary biomedicine. The new procedures and technologies emerging from research laboratories and hospitals whether mood-altering drugs, substances to boost muscle mass or selectively erase memory, prenatal genetic screening, or gene therapy can as easily be used to "enhance" the species as to ease or ameliorate illness.
Although the rapid advances in biotechnology often leave us vaguely uncomfortable, the intellectual or moral threat they represent is not always easy to identify. The human race, after all, is a pretty sorry mess, with our stubborn diseases, physical limitations, and short lives. Throw in humanity's jealousies, violence, and constant anxieties, and the transhumanist project begins to look downright reasonable. If it were technologically possible, why wouldn't we want to transcend our current species? The seeming reasonableness of the project, particularly when considered in small increments, is part of its danger. Society is unlikely to fall suddenly under the spell of the transhumanist worldview. But it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnology's tempting offerings without realizing that they come at a frightful moral cost.
The first victim of transhumanism might be equality. The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal," and the most serious political fights in the history of the United States have been over who qualifies as fully human. Women and blacks did not make the cut in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration. Slowly and painfully, advanced societies have realized that simply being human entitles a person to political and legal equality. In effect, we have drawn a red line around the human being and said that it is sacrosanct.
Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the world's poorest countries for whom biotechnology's marvels likely will be out of reach and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.
Transhumanism's advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process – products whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we weren't violent and aggressive, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves; if we didn't have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn't be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt (and transhumanists are just about the last group I'd like to see live forever). Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome.
Nobody knows what technological possibilities will emerge for human self-modification. But we can already see the stirrings of Promethean desires in how we prescribe drugs to alter the behavior and personalities of our children. The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.
Satanic Transhumanism: The Future of Reason?
https://medium.com/@petermclarke/satanic-transhumanism-the-future-of-reason-79b673ce57d0
ranshumanism can’t escape the fact that it has religious undertones. The core of the movement involves a desire to overcome death, which inevitably aligns with religious worldviews. So, no one should be too shocked that religious organizations are starting to become attracted to transhumanism. But for secular futurists, who want transhumanism to hold strong as a science-based movement, the religious undertones are a problem.
One solution is to just ignore the religious undertones and carry on promoting advancements in science and technology. This seems reasonable. Many transhumanists, I’m sure, take this view by default. But there is one downside, in that this approach inevitably allows religious groups to control the narrative over the mythical and spiritual aspects that are inherent to the movement.
Arguably a better solution is to thoughtfully incorporate the symbolic language of religion into transhumanism while adhering to a strict code of rationality. This approach would not only thwart the agenda of faith-based transhumanists, but would also help the transhumanist movement embrace the long history of pagan mythology and esotericism that led up to modern transhumanism. It turns out, this project of embracing ancient symbolism while maintaining a fully science-based view of the world has already been assembled. It’s called Satanism.
Satanism isn’t a monolith, but in general it is a modern, nontheistic movement that’s simultaneously pro-science and pro-symbolism. The symbolic aspects of Satanism, even when employed ironically, are effective at tying modern human dilemmas to ancient myths and eternal snippets of wisdom. This is especially true for The Satanic Temple, which has recently become the most visible satanic organization in America. The Satanic Temple leans heavily on symbolism while staying grounded in a science-based worldview and promoting tangible human rights activism.
Physiologic and other effects and compliance with long-term respirator use among medical intensive care unit nurses
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655313005920
Background
Long-term use of respiratory protection may be necessary, but compliance may be low, and physiologic effects have not been well evaluated.
Methods
Ten nurses participated; physiologic effects, subjective symptoms, and compliance with wearing an N95 alone or with a surgical mask overlay were assessed. Longitudinal analysis based on multivariate linear regression models assessed changes in outcome variables (CO2, O2, heart rate, perceived comfort items, compliance measures, and others). Analyses compared changes over time, and compared wearing only an N95 to wearing an N95 with a surgical mask overlay.
Results
Most nurses (90%, n = 9) tolerated wearing respiratory protection for two 12-hour shifts. CO2 levels increased significantly compared with baseline measures, especially when comparing an N95 with a surgical mask to only an N95, but changes were not clinically relevant. Perceived exertion; perceived shortness of air; and complaints of headache, lightheadedness, and difficulty communicating also increased over time. Almost one-quarter (22%) of respirator removals were due to reported discomfort. N95 adjustments increased over time, but other compliance measures did not vary by time. Compliance increased on day 2, except for adjustments, touching under the N95, and eye touches.
Conclusion
Long-term use of respiratory protection did not result in any clinically relevant physiologic burden for health care personnel, although many subjective symptoms were reported. N95 compliance was fairly high.