Coronavirus Economic, Cultural, Political Ramifications

Leonard D Neubache

Gold Member
The standard European honeybee is basically defenseless against these wasps.

The native Japanese honeybee has the bizarre defense mechanism where they use their bodies to cover the wasp in a literal ball of bees then vibrate their bodies to create enough heat to cook the wasp alive.

I don't know to what extent those hornets pose a threat the European honey bee in general but with bee populations plummeting the last thing they need is another predator.


I heard about the Japanese Giant Hornet years ago. Horrifying stuff. Apparently it's venom destroys tissue and causes large cavities in the skin where you are stung. It also only takes a dozen of them to kill entire colonies of honey bees. I remember hearing that they were already in France and other parts of Europe in recent years, and there was speculation if they would come here.

Here's a story from a municipality in China where these things killed 41 people in 3 months.

This article claims they were spotted in the US as early as 2013.

This is probably being pushed out through to media now to convince people it's dangerous outside and accelerate the climate change agenda.
China starts major trial of state-run digital currency

China will begin trialling payments in its new digital currency in four major cities from next week, according to domestic media.

In recent months, China’s central bank has stepped up its development of the e-RMB, which is set to be the first digital currency operated by a major economy.

It has reportedly begun trials in several cities, including Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu, as well as a new area south of Beijing, Xiong’an, and areas that will host some of the events for the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.

State-media outlet China Daily said it had been formally adopted into the cities’ monetary systems, with some government employees and public servants to receive their salaries in the digital currency from May.

Sina News said the currency would be used to subsidise transport in Suzhou, but in Xiong’an the trial primarily focused on food and retail.

A screenshot purported to be of the app required to store and use the digital currency has been circulating since mid-April.

Some reports also claim businesses including McDonald’s and Starbucks have agreed to be part of the trial, however in a statement Starbucks told the Guardian it was not a participant. McDonald’s been contacted for comment.

Digital payment platforms are already widespread in China, namely Alipay, owned by Alibaba’s Ant Financial, and WeChat Pay, owned by Tencent, but they do not replace existing currency.

Xu Yuan, associate professor at Peking University’s national development research institute, told broadcaster CCTV that because cash transactions were offline and transaction data from existing payment platforms was scattered, the central bank was unable to monitor cash flow in real time.

“Although there is little change from the perspective of user use, from the perspective of central bank supervision, future forms of finance, payment, business and social governance etc, this is the biggest thing ever.”

On 17 April, the digital currency research institute at the People’s Bank of China, which is developing the system, said the research and development of a digital renminbi was “advancing steadily” and top-level design, functional research and development, and debugging had largely been completed, according to a CCTV report.

Progress on the digital currency was reportedly spurred on by Facebook’s announcement in June it intended to launch one itself.

The sovereign digital currency, which will be pegged to the national currency, has been under development for some years but in August the bank said it was “almost ready”. However, the following month, the bank’s governor, Yi Gang, said there was no timetable for release.

“A sovereign digital currency provides a functional alternative to the dollar settlement system and blunts the impact of any sanctions or threats of exclusion both at a country and company level,” last week’s China Daily report said.

“It may also facilitate integration into globally traded currency markets with a reduced risk of politically inspired disruption.”

A decline in cash usage is expected to continue amid the growing popularity of digital payment platforms and as people avoid physical contact during the coronavirus pandemic.


Leonard D Neubache said:
I don't know to what extent those hornets pose a threat the European honey bee in general but with bee populations plummeting the last thing they need is another predator.

We have asian giant hornets here, and apparently it is a different subspecies than the japanese one ?
Anyway yes it is a big problem for the bees, but there is a native black chicken specie which eats them, so it seems it's more a problem of ecosystem imbalance I would say ?
Like often on a farm, if you start having some animals you pretty soon need all of them, because they are a consistent chain, each helping the other.
Unfortunately this knowledge is being lost more and more with time :(

the high

I hear non-asians are being treated very poorly in Asia now, anyone on the ground to confirm?

Though I think it is extremely arrogant to be a westerner in Asia and not wear a mask, as I hear some have done.
Women complaining about being a mother:

‘I feel like a 1950s housewife’: how lockdown has exposed the gender divide


During the lockdown, Anna Bosworth, a freelance marketing consultant, has given up on her career so that her husband can concentrate on his. “There isn’t a second I can work, from 5am until my kids go to sleep at 8.30pm,” she says. “I can’t do anything productive.”

Like many working mothers, Bosworth is self-employed and went part-time after she had her first child. Meanwhile, her husband has a full-time job at an advertising agency. He is continuing to work normally, except for one day a week which he is taking as holiday. “He’s doing everything to help with the children, but I feel lucky he still has a job,” says Bosworth. “The priority for us is to keep our house and pay our bills, and his job is the most straightforward route to that.”

They have an eight-month-old baby and a five-year-old girl, and normally get help from grandparents and a childminder so that they can both work. “I’m a feminist and believe in choice,” she says. “But because of the pandemic, my choices have been taken away. I feel like a 1950s housewife.”

She is not alone. During the lockdown, mothers in the UK are typically providing at least 50% more childcare as well as spending around 10% to 30% more time than fathers home schooling their children, figures analysed by the Observer show.

It doesn’t matter whether a woman is working from home, working outside the home or not working at all: the research reveals she is typically spending at least an extra hour-and-a-half on childcare and home schooling every day, compared to the average man in the same circumstances.

The research, carried out by economists from the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and Zurich between 9 and 14 April, indicates that a woman who is at home – whether or not she is formally working – is affected by this gender divide. Both employed and unemployed mothers are typically spending around six hours providing childcare and home schooling every working day. By contrast, the average father at home is only spending a little over four hours on childcare and homeschooling each working day, regardless of his employment status.

“Whatever situation you have, on average it’s the woman doing more, and it’s not because she’s working less” says Dr Christopher Rauh, an economist at Cambridge University.

The gender divide is even larger in high-income households. A mother who earns over £80,000 and is working from home is typically doing 3.3 hours of home schooling and 3.8 hours of childcare each day – over seven hours in total. A typical father who earns over £80,000 only spends 2.1 hours home schooling his children and 2.3 hours on childcare each working day – less than 4.5 hours in total.

“The higher the household income, the more time women are spending home schooling compared to men,” says Rauh. “People come up with explanations – like women are better at taking care of their children due to evolution – but if that were true, it shouldn’t apply to home schooling. Yet we also see those differences here.”

The amount of home schooling children are receiving in lockdown appears to be particularly affected by the income of their mothers, with the lowest-paid women spending 2.1 hours a day educating their children each day (over an hour less than the highest-paid women). Fathers earning £0 to £20,000 are doing even less homeschooling (1.9 hours), but that’s still roughly the same as the higher-paid men.

The starkest gender divide among low-paid parents, however, is around childcare. Like the highest-paid women, those women earning £0 to £20,000 are doing 3.9 hours of childcare each day. By contrast, the lowest-paid men are carrying out just 2.4 hours of childcare each day.

In other words, a woman earning over £80,000 and working from home is typically spending 60% more time (an extra 1.4 hours) on childcare each working day than the average man earning £0 to £20,000.

Mary-Ann Stephenson, director of the Women’s Budget Group, thinks this may be because women are more used to having to juggle looking after children and work than men. “It may be that in an emergency the woman takes on more of the childcare work,” she says.

Children may also be more inclined to go to their mothers than their fathers, she says. Similarly, if their father is paid more, it might be seen as more important that he doesn’t lose his job.

The home-learning platform Atom Learning says that since the lockdown began, more than three-quarters of parents who have registered their children for free online lessons and set them schoolwork were female.

At the same time, there is evidence that women’s contributions outside the home are decreasing. There has been a drop in the number of solo-authored academic papers submitted by women, while submissions by male academics have increased. Similarly, at the Philosophy Foundation, the majority of the organisation’s work is now being carried out by men. “This is because most of our female philosophers are having to focus on childcare and home education” says co-CEO Emma Worley.

Working Families, which runs a legal advice service for parents and carers, has seen a sixfold increase in inquiries since the lockdown began, 80% of which have come from women. “We have seen evidence from mothers that they’re being penalised and not being supported to work from home because they have children. We’ve also seen mothers having to take unpaid leave or being dismissed.”

There are concerns about the impact of all this on women’s mental health. Research from King’s College London shows that, since the lockdown began, 57% of women say they are feeling more anxious and depressed, compared to only 40% of men. More women than men also report that they are getting less sleep, and eating less healthily, than usual.

“In a large number of cases, women are doing the vast majority of the caring for small children and the home educating work,” says Stephenson. “The men seem to be able to lock themselves away in a study, while the women are working at the kitchen table – and also trying to home-educate”

Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, says the wider implications of the lockdown gender divide are clear. “This shows that the default assumptions about who does the caring for children fundamentally haven’t shifted. It defaults to women. There’s still an expectation that women will make their jobs fit around the caring, whereas a man’s job will come first.”

‘You don’t feel like you’re performing 100%’


In lockdown, Lizzie Harrop had been experiencing the same anxiety levels she felt when she was suffering from postnatal depression five years ago. “In the beginning, my child was making me feel like a prisoner again. I was trapped in my own home, with responsibility for a five-year-old and a huge pressure to teach him, but I had a job to do as well.”

She works full-time in a senior role at a well-known company – and for the first week was having to conduct almost every single meeting with her son, Barnaby, on her knee. “I called him my shadow. He was very excited about having me around all the time. But it was relentless, seven days a week.”

Her stress levels rose. “Even though the business was being brilliant around not expecting parents with children at home to do all their usual hours, as a hardworking person you don’t feel like you’re performing 100%. As a consequence, you feel like you’re failing. And failing is just a shit place to be.”

She and her husband both work full-time and earn equal salaries. “But if I am at home, my child will always migrate to me –and that’s a bloody nightmare.”

She began to argue with her husband about whose job was more important, resulting in some major rows. “There were moments when we were like: we’re probably not going to make it through this lockdown together. We had a couple of really difficult conversations.”

But now, she says, they are in “a really good place”. The key change was deciding to “own” her situation in lockdown. “You’ve got to boss it. You can’t let it boss you.”

That’s where the framework came in: a shared calendar that shows who is the primary carer for their son every minute of the day from 6am until bedtime, with each parent expected to do equal amounts of childcare and home schooling during that period, ideally in scheduled three-hour chunks. The timing of work meetings – and exercise – must be diarised and agreed between them, days in advance.

“What I’ve now observed is that my husband is brilliant with Barnaby, who has turned into a different, more confident boy with both of us being there for him at home. And as a couple, we’ve gotten much closer together. I think we had to have a rocky bit to come out the other side.”
British public turn to prayer as one in four tune in to religious services


A quarter of adults in the UK have watched or listened to a religious service since the coronavirus lockdown began, and one in 20 have started praying during the crisis, according to a new survey.

The findings of the poll reinforce indications of an increase in the numbers of people turning to faith for succour amid uncertainty and despair.

The Church of England has said that unexpectedly high numbers of people are tuning into online or broadcast services, and 6,000 people phoned a prayer hotline in its first 48 hours of operation. Other faiths have also reported surges in people engaging with online religious activities as places of worship have been closed during the lockdown.

The survey of more than 2,000 people, commissioned by the Christian aid agency Tearfund and carried out last weekend, found that a third of young adults aged between 18 and 34 had watched or listened to an online or broadcast religious service, compared with one in five adults over the age of 55.

One in five of those who have tuned into services in the past few weeks say they have never gone to church.

The most frequent subjects of prayers since the lockdown has been family (53%), friends (34%), thanking God (24%), the person praying (28%), frontline services (27%), someone unwell with Covid-19 (20%), and other countries with Covid-19 (15%).

A separate poll, commissioned by Christian Aid, found that The Vicar of Dibley, the Rev Geraldine Granger, the BBC TV character played by Dawn French, would be the public’s choice of screen priest to lead the UK through the coronavirus crisis. In second place was Sister Evangelina, played by Pam Ferris, from Call the Midwife … with Father Ted Crilly, played by Dermot Morgan, from Father Ted taking third place.

Lazuli Waves

"Manspreading has crossed over to the realm of running, and it’s not OK"
"Taking up space in the world seems hardwired for men – but right now, it reeks of selfishness, says Helen Coffey"

But it is striking how many men do the opposite. They choose to plant themselves, instead, in the middle of the path, arms and legs pumping, striding flat out. They make no allowances, no exceptions, seemingly unaware that the person they’re approaching is doing a frantic parody of a Viennese Waltz to try to adhere to the, under such circumstances, impossible 2m rule. It’s no concern of theirs. They’ve picked their lane and they’re going to stick to it, thanks very much. Wide-legged stances and an unwavering trajectory, as if following invisible tramlines, send the clear message: “This space is mine. I dominate. Better give me some room, love.” All others must leap out of the way, grateful for the small toehold they’ve been granted.

Normally, this kind of behaviour is amusing, bordering on preposterous. Exasperating, sure, but more something to roll your eyes at and bitch about over a coffee later. But now? It feels selfish. It feels scary. It feels borderline dangerous. As they pass, limbs moving like pistons, chugging forcefully out through the mouth like an unstoppable steam engine, I think about how I would feel if I lived with someone vulnerable or was vulnerable myself. I think about the courage it would take to get outside, and the fear I would experience every time I stepped out of my front door – fear that I could catch the virus and take it home. And I think about the menace I would feel if a 6ft sprinter was bearing down on me, making no concessions to social distancing, no effort to slow down, his audible “CHUH” of exhalation triggering a surge of panic as his spittle flew towards me through the air.[/quote.



Gold Member
"Manspreading has crossed over to the realm of running, and it’s not OK"
"Taking up space in the world seems hardwired for men – but right now, it reeks of selfishness, says Helen Coffey"

At this point I think we need a few more seasons of COVID-19 and a complete crash of the world's economy to sort of 'reset' our collective culture. These are not issues that any sane women would have even thought about 100 years ago.

That said - the older I get the less any of this SJW insanity touches me. Starve the beast! It's time to stop paying the nutheads any attention. Life's too bloody short.
Coming up on Sunday was supposed to be a big celebration for French Catholics: Joan of Arc day.

Quarantine rules will still be in place, therefore no celebrations allowed. This is a big deal.

Joan of Arc was a 16 year-old peasant woman who inspired a revival of France in the fifteenth century.
At the time, large parts of France are under British rule, and the French kingdom as a whole is in shambles. Joan of Arc goes through English-occupied parts to find Charles VII, the French heir who has not been crowned. She then kneels to him and suggests he goes through enemy lines, to reach the city of Reims (where all the previous French kings have been anointed for five centuries). The operation is successful and Charles VII is anointed, he now has the legitimacy from the Church and it will be a major change in French history, as the country rises up to fight and kick the British out. Joan of Arc leads troops and liberates the city of Orleans, but is then captured in Compiègnes. She was judged and ordered burnt alive by a French bishop.

Joan of Arc is a symbol of the French Catholicism and monarchy.

This year is also the centennial of her canonization by the Pope Benedict XV. And, it's the centennial of the Barrès Law, which instituted this national day. It was a law obtained after les Camelots du Roi (militant royalists) spent thousands of days in prison.

One last word: the very next day, on Monday, will be the end of the quarantine. That day coincides with a jewish celebration of the end of a pandemic ("Lag BaOmer" look it up).
Last edited:


"Manspreading has crossed over to the realm of running, and it’s not OK"
"Taking up space in the world seems hardwired for men – but right now, it reeks of selfishness, says Helen Coffey"

We must pray for her, she's obviously having a hard time and is hoping for a strong man to come into her life. Women go insane without discipline from a man, and she's in quite a desperate stage.


Gold Member
South Dakota Considers First State Bill To Outlaw All Vaccine AND Medical Mandates
Who owns your body?

A growing number of legislators in South Dakota believe you do.

They have introduced a bill to not only end vaccine mandates in the state, but all future medical mandates that my be introduced in generations to come.

One hundred and fifteen years ago this month, the US Supreme Court made a decision that because there was a deadly smallpox epidemic, the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts was allowed to charge a pastor five dollars to opt out of a city wide vaccine mandate. The law didn't apply to children.

That precedent has been the basis for the mandate of dozens of now liability-free vaccines for children and adults, where no epidemic (or even one case) exists, at the costs of thousands, or even hundred of thousands, per year to opt out. It is even the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled that women can be force sterilized, for the good of themselves and society, of course.

Bad precedent, plus a century, has resulted in the legalization of actual war crimes.

The current vaccine mandate enforcement drive by Merck and Friends has driven our community, and those who never questioned vaccines before now, back to a basic question at hand here.


The knee jerk reaction , and normal human response for Americans is, "I do."

But that is not what most governments believes. Even under our Constitution of individual liberties, governments strive to control even your medical choices, and if they can't, they will find a reason to justify it, and the means to carry out their will.

In 21st century America, there are no deadly epidemics of communicable disease, despite the fact that we are subject to constant fear campaigns that one is coming. In fact no such event has happened in my lifetime. If the fear mongers want to scare you into fearing deadly epidemics, they have to go back more than a hundred years. So the circumstances for the justification of the government's actions in Jacobson v. Massachusetts exist only in the history books.

So in this age of medical tech, including vaccines, that most people want, why do mandates still exist? And if Jacobson can justify the sexual mutilation of women, then what else can it justify as medical technology progresses over the next century and beyond?
What new medical interventions and body tech will The Gates Foundation invent and convince (bribe) governments and NGOs to force people into utilizing? And where will the battle to end coerced "medical care" begin.

I submit to you that it has begun in South Dakota. Today.

South Dakota House Majority Leader, Representative Lee Qualm (R), has introduced HB 1235 An Act to Revise Provisions Regarding Immunizations.

The bill repeals ALL vaccine mandates in the State.

South Dakota would be the first US state to have no vaccine mandates at all, joining other governments like the UK, Japan and Canada, in uncoerced vaccine decision making.

But the bill goes even further. IT ENDS MEDICAL MANDATES ALL TOGETHER. It adds new law that reads:
"Section 5. That a NEW SECTION be added:
334-22-6.1. Discrimination-Immunization
Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization."
The State of South Dakota would function under the truth that YOU OWN YOUR BODY, and codifies into law that YOU make our own medical decisions. And no one can coerce your choices or discriminate against you because of them.

This is the real conversation that we should be having now. Begging the government not to take away our right to bodily integrity, or trying to claw back religious and philosophical exemptions that give us "loopholes" that "allow" us to make our own decisions about our own bodies is becoming an outdated conversation that is based on a lie. The lie that we have no right to bodily integrity in the first place, and government is doing us a favor by giving us even a medical exemption.

Cambridge, and the turn of the 20th century courts didn't care that Pastor Jacobson protested the violation of his body (and his bank account) based on his arguments that vaccines were not safe, that both he and his son had previous vaccine reactions (Jacobson himself was injured in childhood) and they violated his religious conscience. SCOTUS didn't care that Carrie Buck was a woman of sound mind who wanted to retain her ability to have children after she was raped and impregnated by a family member.

They declared her intellectually disabled, an "imbecile," even though there was never any evidence that she had any disability. They then forced her to be sterilized.

"Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization"

The state did, of course, have a stated compelling interest, as they always do, when they seek to violate the civil rights of Americans. This was it:
"in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
And that justification was based on the existence of vaccine mandates.

This is dead thinking. It is unconscionable in the 21st century that such logic is allowed to stand in the law books, but Buck v. Bell is still law, as Jacobson is still law.

South Dakota will now consider the rejection of the lie that you do not own your body, the laws that can allow the state to do what it wants with your body.

It is time for America to decide who owns a person's medical choices. Is it the state, or the person in the body who must live (or die) with the consequences of those medical choices?

I urge you to change the conversation in your state. Take the SD bill to your legislators, tell them about Henning Jacobson and Carrie Buck, and ask them who they think owns your medical choices.

Because if governments have the right to coerce vaccination for Henning Jacobson, they also have the right to remove Carrie Buck's reproductive organs. And yours.

Who owns your body?



Gold Member
The only talk around Taiwan were people lamenting lockdown measures blasting:"BuT tAiWaN iS sTiLl OpEn No DeAtHs"

They're quiet when you point out the complete eradication of privacy rights in their effort to fight it.

(of course in addition to other measures, being the first country to take action in January as the CCP allowed their team into mainland China)