There's a lot of pseudo-knowledge and pop-nonsense accepted as factual and imagined valuable by the sort of readers of summaries of summaries of summaries of summaries that the English language produces these days. Like this idiot. Let's endeavour to dispel a couple of the more egregious tenets of this cult of intellectual laziness, and then see perhaps to some conclusions.
Modern medicine and quality of life. People, intelligent or otherwise, who've not bothered to think about the matter, readily imagine that life expectancy means something it doesn't, simply because statistics are so god damned easy to get wrong and so god damned hard to get right. On this fundamental misunderstanding the impression is then built (mostly by niggers) that "modern medicine" or "science" has made it so that instead of living to be 35, people live to be 70.
This is patently false. For one thing, longevity is not a modern phenomenon. It is an ancient phenomenon. Seneca lived to be 94. You won't live to be 94. The reason the "life expectancy" of the people of antiquity seems to be significantly lower than the "life expectancy" of the people of modernity is simple statistical fraud : the figure includes all the idiotic children that shouldn't live to maturity in any case. In the antique period, they did not. In contemporaneity they unfortunately do, much to the detriment of everyone's quality of life. So yes, it's true that on average someone living twenty five centuries ago lived to be 35. This is because out of a crop of 10 people, one lived to be ninety, two more lived to be seventy, and seven died on average at age 17 : about half close to birth, about half in the early maturity, as war fodder. Which is to say, idiots got cut very short, back then, which further means all the idiocy they could have produced over a full lifetime never happened. Meanwhile today, every last fucktard is happily churning away, expanding wikipedia, reddit and every other collection of contemporaneous braindamage. Perhaps this is easy to ignore, thanks the Internets. But their stupidity being easy to ignore does not actually make it go away. You know what else is easy to ignore ? Garbage. So do you take it out or don't you ? Garbage feeds cockroaches (the very niggers in question above) so ignoring it is not really all that smart a strategy. You'll get sick if you do, and then suffer. Better take the garbage out.
For another thing, "modern medicine" properly understood is moreover detrimental to human life. It's how we ended up with patent nonsense like the DSM-V, and the DSM-IV before that. It's how we ended up with margarine and JIT process, and synthetic fibers to cheaply replace linen and so on and so forth. The contribution of "modern medicine" or "science" to your life is to take something good out of your hands and give you a replacement, that is allegedly "just as good", but yet somehow
cheaper more affordable. Guess what! The point of your life isn't to make it easier for other idiots to get the stuff you get. The point of your life is for you to get good stuff. There's a complete disconnect between the interests of humanity, as composed out of the interests of individual, live humans, and the interests of "humanity" as depicted by niggers and "modern science".
For the final thing : the significant lowering of mortality was achieved through sanitation, which is neither modern (the Romans used it) nor "science", in the bullshit touchy-feely pseudoscientific sense niggers use that term. It is engineering, a different matter altogether.
So : no, "modern medicine" and "modern science" did not in fact extend your life or improve its quality. Quite the contrary : they actually and significantly lowered the quality of your life.
The benefits of democracy. This is perhaps the most amusing case of Stockholm syndrome in the history of victimising idiots. For one thing, the bloodiest wars in the history of humanity, and the only wars to ever rival the destruction wrought by pandemics, were fought by and among democratically elected governments. Sure, some of those democratically elected governments (the victors) conveniently claim that some others of those democratically elected governments "didn't count". And you're buying this, right ? Well done.
For the other thing, the alleged benefits of "democracy" are entirely illusory, and strictly flow from the latter day changes introduced by monarchy. Specifically : as the Louis dynasty was coming to an end in France, France itself was a patchwork of dozens of different little states, which ran on their own private legal systems, which had actual customs checkpoints between each other, which in point of fact used different units of measure. Not entirely, but not predictably either. Imagine the job of a merchant, getting salt from Germany and fish from Sweden, then mixing the two and delivering the salted fish to London for England to feed its navy. Why, that's at least five hundred different jurisdictions his supply chains cross over about as many miles. Many of these actually require measurement conversions, many of which are not even specified. You are better off going by fish count, and swallowing nature's variation as to what it means to be a "fish" than going by weight, volume or any other objective measurement! Because errors compound!
Louis' ministers started the mindblowing process of getting rid of all that shit, over everyone's rabid objections. Single people, these, arbitrary powerful, based on absolute authority with no justification. That's, incidentally, how Blackstone's law dictionary came to be, too, and Napoleon's code, and fucking Linux. Everything worth the mention, and usable, and good in this world comes exactly the same way : out of the unilateral, absolute and unjustified authority of a single person. A sovereign of some sort.
Sure, the "revolution" continued these movements, while at the same time wrecking everything in sighti. But mere continuation of something they were too dumb to even notice does not constitute any sort of grounds to claim it as their own, exactly like should a roam of buffalo overrun a settler's homestead, trample everything (including the settler and his family) underfoot and shit everywhere, should they somehow neglect to destroy one begonia forgotten in a pot out of the way they don't get the title of "best florists in the midwest" on account of the accidentally overlooked plant finally flowering. Things just don't work that way.
So, no. The "benefits" of democracy, such as they actually are : Stalin, Hitler and Obama. And Bush jr. And Bush Sr. And the supreme imam of Iran, and the idiot clan of Best Korea. And so on and so forth. Meanwhile what you misrepresent as the benefits of democracy are the benefits of cardinal Mazarin. Nothing absolutely to do with democracy.
In conclusion : get off the idiotic demokick. It's not that democracy is "the worst system except for all the other ones we've tried". Democracy is absolutely the worst system conceivable, and in point of fact worse than absolutely any alternative, without exception in each and every single implementation, at all points in time. Alleged proof to the contrary comes from wilful or ignorant misunderstanding as to what a begonia is, and who planted it.
Put those two together, sprinkle some fake "global warming" pseudo-"consensus" arrived at by bureaucrats posing as "scientists" because some other people who weren't the bureaucratic results of democracy built up a lot of prestige for that particular termii and you get a pretty decent idea of why Bitcoin's not going to either empower or actually tolerate any of that crap.
Yes, over the rabid objections of everyone. So ?———
- Hey, the third largest loss of life was... also caused by "democracy", and the fourth largest too, and so on and so forth. [↩]
- Think about it, if the men in question had called themselves soup cooks, then the grant-chasing nobodies of today would also be trying to convince the world they're certified, cereally and for reals soup cooks. That never even as much as tasted soup in their life, but what's that matter when there's paperwork. [↩]