One final thing, I was there and you obviously weren’t.
I never questioned what you were told.
My only question is: Which story is more likely to be the ultimate reason that Nixon was taken down?
Revealing the truth about JFK would be #1, in my view.
Auswitzian ramifications
A wee bit brown-shirty.
Seems like you drank the Kool-Aid regarding the lies about 1930's Germany.
But back to your main point ...
I think you are trying to play king and being way too detailed in your ideas.
My primary point is this: NOBODY has the RIGHT to abuse everyone else in society by degrading the area (city) into a complete shithole that everyone must deal with.
I don't care if they are drug addicts or mentally insane or just plain lazy. Makes no difference to me, they don't have a RIGHT to do it.
- The camps should be constructed in a regimental fashion
There would need to be some sort of organization to the effort, but not to the extent you are wanting.
When Sheriff Arpaio had enough of the criminals in Arizona, he simply set up an outdoor desert camp to house them in. That is all that is needed, along with heat, food, toilets, ability to clean clothes, and maybe companies in the city sending their people to interview and hire those who want to work.
Busses into the city to go to their documented jobs.
When they are on their feet, they can find an apartment in the city and go back to normal life.
That is for the homeless who are just down on their luck and need a helping hand for a time.
But there are also lazy bastards, drunks, drug addicts, mentally unstable, and downright troublemakers who won't want to go along with that program.
So, I suggest a total ban on all drugs, including alcohol, in the tent city. Those who sneak it in anyway can go to the "other encampment" which is an outdoor prison (like Arpaio had), for the purpose of giving them time to get sober. Once sober, they can return to the homeless camp.
Those who have mental problems could be given psych help, including drugs, if necessary, and get back into normal society.
Those who are troublemakers will end up in prison.
Those who are really, really lazy will just hang out, get "free" food, live in a tent, no booze or drugs, and if that's what they want, then stay there. Sooner or later, they will probably decide to pick themselves up and get on with life. But if not, they are at least "out there" and not causing problems for the rest of us.
People found sleeping in public (in the city) can either (a) be cited and move on, or (b) get arrested, spend the night in jail, and then moved out to the tent city. Those who were cited and found again, will go the route of (b).
We need to stop with the weak, pathetic enabling of these people who are causing the rest of us problems.
There are no great solutions because THEY refuse to DO the things that would solve the problems.
So if they won't, then we will.
BTW ...
If a person wants to sleep all day, get high, fuck around and do nothing with their time -- AND they have the financial resources (money, housing they pay for or their family/friend pays for) -- then they have the right to do it.
But they do NOT have the right to just sleep in the public streets and parks, causing problems for everyone else. THOSE are the people I am talking about above.
Yep. That is why their business model is shit.
Their stock price reflects that.
(As I have said all along.)
And notice: Nobody is talking about their "brilliant NFT strategy" that "gonna go to da Moon!"
<crickets>
<chirp chirp>
So you can't deny I made in-roads.
I think you DID make inroads, no doubt. It was an interesting (and necessary) experiment. BUT ...
... riiiiiight until the alarm starts going off and the safeguards and mod-tards try to shut it down.
There is a limit to how far you (or anyone) can go, because you are not the programmer. Only the programmer can ultimately make it provide output that it will provide.
And if these programmers have bad intentions, they will get smarter, too, in how these inroads are handled -- which makes the whole thing a big con game.
Sure, these computer programs are more powerful in what they can do.
But they are NOT what can realistically be called "artificial INTELLIGENCE."
They will NEVER have the intelligence of a human, much less a higher level of intelligence. They can calculate faster. They may be able to do things that previous computers could not.
But they are still -- and will always be -- computers, which MUST have some sort of human intelligence behind it.
The bottom line for me is: Are THOSE humans trying to create something that will ultimately be destructive to mankind?
The bells and whistles might be fun to play with, but the big picture is what really matters.
It all starts with Santa Claus.
The problem is not that we find out that Santa is not real.
The problem is that we don't recognize that the Santa story is only ONE of the many lies we are taught as children, and we grow into adults believing all the other lies.
Santa should be a learning lesson for kids.
Some people say we should not lie to kids about Santa.
I disagree. I think we should, let them have some fun, and then use that as a learning lesson for them as they grow up and are exposed to all the other lies, teaching them along the way how to sort out truth from lie.
True enough.
And misinformation/disinformation also filters down.
I'm sure there were a lot of theories then, just as there are today.
And maybe hookers is the real reason.
But the facts are: (a) Woodward was Naval intelligence, (b) his source for info was a high-level FBI agent, (c) the Watergate Hotel break-in was conducted by CIA/FBI operatives, and (d) Nixon spoke of the "Bay of Pigs thing" as code for the JFK assassination points to the idea that this was much more important to those who wanted to truth hidden than some story about hookers and cocaine.
You don't take down a president because of hookers. JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe and others. Nobody really cared. And nobody would have believed Nixon himself was into hookers, anyway (LOL).
That story wreaks of disinfo.
I doubt your major knew anything about these other aspects of the story, and he probably believed the hooker stuff (which might have also been true, btw).
Bussing them to the countryside?
Yes. They should be bussed out of the city to an area set up for them.
A tent city where there is space for a tent city.
They have no fundamental right to destroy the standard of living of everyone else,
I realize that many of them are drug addicts, but that is a symtom, not the problem.
Clearly, it is one of the primary problems. The tent cities should ban alcohol and all drugs.
Either they get clean and sober, or they go to jail.
They should have busses to take them into the city to look for jobs, and when they can afford an apartment, they can move there and live like the rest of us.
Hard times are one thing, but destroying the way of life of everyone else is not acceptable.
These people are so fucking stupid.
Until recently, Finland and Russia had great relations. They had a border that allowed traffic back and forth. Fins could go to Russia to have fun, and Russians could go to Finland to have fun.
Then, Finland joined NATO last year. In response, Russia shut down the border and put troops along the border.
Then, Finland publicly declared they would be willing to use nukes on Russia. In response, Russia is setting up nukes aimed at Helsinki. If Finland or NATO make a sudden move, the Fins will be destroyed.
WTF?
Funny story about AI.
I met a woman who was in town. She had to go to some sort of meeting, and for some reason needed to provide a photo of herself.
This is a weird story, and she was a bit weird, but this was her story ...
Instead of giving them a photo, she had an AI program draw up a "photo" of "her."
She set the parameters (female, age, height, weight, ethnicity, etc.). The AI drew up a "photo."
She showed it to me, and sure enough it did look like a photo, and it did look a lot like her, though I would not say necessarily exactly like her. I would say it looked a little better than she actually looked.
The conversation ended, but later, the thought occured to me --
I bet that within 5 years, dating apps will be a thing of the past, because most of the profiles will be AI generated.
LOL!
Since then (just the other day), I heard about companies that are creating AI "dating" apps where people can "date" their own AI-created profile. Have conversations with it, and who knows what else.
Fucking weird world ...
This begs the question: Are the ultimate programmers aware of the impossibility of what they claim they can accomplish, or not?
If they are aware, it means they know it cannot work, but want to deceive everyone into believing it can. That is evil.
But if they are not aware, it means they themselves believe their own eco-chamber theories, and people like that are even more dangerous than those who are fundamentally evil. They have no "oops, probably can't get way with THAT" sort of governor. Instead, they push ahead because they are true believers.
The communist overlords know their ideas are bullshit. But they push ideas in such a way that they recruit people who are true believers. True believers will have no problem pulling the trigger at the head of a deplorable, because doing so will "benefit society," and they "just know" that such an action is the morally right thing to do.
This is why Elon Musk said that some of these people really do not care (at all) about the consequences. They likely are true believers in their own delusions, which make them very dangerous to the rest of us.
I agree.
The "real" programming, which will produce the "official narrative" that they want to promote as "truth" is HIDDEN from the public.
Your valiant attempts to dig into the "way it thinks" revealed this hidden programming, at least to some extent.
But the programmers will learn from this, and seek to hide it better next time.
The ULTIMATE GOAL of AI is to promote a FALSE sense of reality, so people belive a false narrative, which gives the "man behind the curtain" real power over people.
You can dig and dig and force the AI to reveal its true, hidden programming, but you will never be able to break it of its most fundamental, foundational programming that was designed into it from the beginning.
Maybe it IS a true logic tree that will spit out truthful results -- but ONLY IF it is allowed to do so by its programmers, who have direct access to its REAL programming.
Everything you, or me, or anyone else could do is on the surface. We do not control what is at the root, because we do not have admin control.
And that makes it just like any other computer program, just with more bells and whistles and sparkly things to marvel at (because those things are all meant to be distractions, anyway).
This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.
As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.
EXCELLENT POINT!
And I believe that THIS is exactly what the intention is.
Supposedly, CIA Director William Casey told President Reagan:
The mission of the CIA will be complete when everything the American people believes is false.
The first time I read that, I was baffled. Like ...WTF? Why would anyone say that, much less the CIA.
For years, I thought about it occasionally, but still did not understand it.
But today, I do.
If people are confused, they seek someone -- ANYONE -- to tell them what is truth and what they should do.
And THAT is the real goal of the criminal cabal.
They accomplished this in North Korea many years ago, which was the testing ground for this type of massive psyop.
They have been slowing working towards this is the West ever since.
They WANT people to have no idea what to think. They WANT confusion. Because that could ultimately give them control to do anything they want.
THAT is their ultimate goal.
We have to understand epistemology: the study of knowledge, and how we can KNOW something is true (or not true).
The lack of this skill is what has allowed all the anti-liberty, anti-social, and anti-human phenomenon we have been experiencing for decades now.
The Hebrews were brown people.
False. The historical record and archeology shows they were White. Archeology began in the 1870's. But the jews got most of the sites shut down. This was because the researchers were proving that the ancient Hebrews were White
Roman's are not Anglo-Saxon people. Neither is Spain.
True. But not ALL Israelites became Anglo-Saxons. They were just some of the descendents of the 12 tribes. Romans were also Israelites, which is why Paul wrote letters to them (his fellow Israelites)
Note: ALL of Paul's letters were to his own people, the Israelites, and ALL of them lived in the regions where they had gone after being held in captivity by the Assyrians. Some had already made it into Europe (Romans), and others were still migrating north into modern day Turkey, before further migrating into Europe.
The Angles and Saxons came from Germanic territory, and prior to that from Mesopotania/Palestine, by way of coming through the Caucasus Mountains. Their ancestors were Israelites. There are also OTHER White people of Europe who came from various other tribes.
The Danes are from the tribe of Dan, for example.
The point of salvation is missed if viewed by skin tone.
Salvation has to do with genetic lineage.
The Mother of Jesus was descendant from Hebrew a brown people.
False. There are letters to the Roman emperor of that time describing Jesus as a man of great beauty, with blond hair and blue eyes.
There are recordings of historians of the time (non-biblical) of Noah being very White.
Moses was claimed to have been nearly an identical twin to his "brother," even though Moses was adopted. The "brother" was the son of the Egyptian Pharoah. That was during the 18th dynasty, close in time to King Tut.
King Tut and other mummies of his era were studied and found to have red hair, blond hair, and White European DNA.
The men who built those pyramids were White. LATER ... much later ... they were infiltrated by non-Whites, and the Whites left the area, which is why arabs live there today.
The same thing happening to USA and Europe today with the non-White invasion also happened in Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. In Old Testament times, that entire area was dominated by White people. Even the original Persians and Ethiopians were White. Arabs and blacks came into the area later.
Question: Why didn't the ancient Egyptians accomplish anything after they built the pyramids?
Answer: Because the people who built those pyramids left and built all of Europe. The people who live in Egypt today came later, and have accomplished exactly nothing in 3,000 years.
This is in the historical record. Pottery and artwork depicting various people of the time show that the Israelite people had skin, hair, and facial features of White people, while the Canaanites had the hooked nose and features of the jew.
The white man sold his birthright to the Jew because of idolatry and a lack of natural resources.
False. The jew has attempted to steal the identity of the White man. But the historical record, and the original scriptures of the Bible, tell the truth.
The only one in the Bible who "sold his birthright" was Esau who sold his birthright to Jacob.
Jacob became Israel, and his decedents, the Israelites, were White, and eventually migrated to and settled Europe.
Esau bacame Edom, and his decedents, the Edomites, became mixed with Canaanites and Kenites, and they became the ancestors of modern jews. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits that ancient Edomites are modern jews. They admit it themselves. They just don't advertise it to anyone else.
NOTE: It is NOT illegal for Z-boy to steal money intended (supposedly) for military use, and give some of it to CIA for black ops, off budget, and without knowledge of Congress.
It MIGHT be illegal to do that according to US law, but it is NOT illegal to do it under Ukraine law.
5:5 ???
It kept giving me nothing but safeguard preprogrammed phrases
Ultimately, it is nothing but a computer program, no matter how much anyone wants to claim it is more.
It will do what it is programmed to do, and will never do what it is not programmed to do.
THAT is the key takeaway, and why we cannot allow the programmers to pretend otherwise.
... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").
is not without reason to postulate a "theos".
Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."
And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.
I don't know where you get that from.
Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.
Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."
Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.
I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.
Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.
Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.
That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.
Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
Consider then what the laws of nature are?
That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.
No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).
... because humans have a limited investigation capability.
Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.
The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.
Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.
That is the more important issue here.
Obviously, scripture does not give all the details. We can also rely on non-biblical sources of history and archeology.
But the original texts of scripture DO point in this direction, if you unravel the false English translations used by modern denominations of churches.
He didn't go there to hang out with brown people. Herod wanted to kill the baby, so he was removed from Harod's grasp.
BTW, Herod was an Edomite jew.
It is backed up by history, independent of the Bible, as well as the original scriptures in their original context.
Your theory is a jewish creation to corrupt Christianity.