Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Several of those who received prison sentences had their sentences cut short, and were imported to the US to become top people in our government, education, and science systems.

There might have been some fuckery there.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

there’s no doubt there to anyone who understand blockchain technology

I don't really have any doubt that there will be currencies tied to blockchain tech that are the future. They will not be currencies that aren't tied to real assets however. Once people see how our monetary system really works, what our concept of non-asset money really is, and where it comes from, any non-asset system will fail completely and never recover. They are based on faith. Once faith is gone (upon revelation of how they really work), they are based on nothing.

No one wants to save or store up nothing when they can save and store up something.

In other words, there will be blockchains tied to real assets (NFTs tied to stocks, or metals, e. g.) and there will be blockchains tied to unicorn farts (like Bitcoin et al). The unicorn farts will inevitably dissipate in the wind once people realize what real money means, and the real asset linked currencies will be snagged up to become the de facto intermediary of exchange for barter.

The flaw with thinking Btc et al "is the future" is in not appreciating that the same "blockchain tech" can be tied to real assets, which will automatically win if people are offered a choice between the two.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's a lot to go through. I apologize. It's tough to have conversations like this. Each post makes it bigger and bigger. LOL.

I do appreciate your responses however, they are thoughtful.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.

It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)

Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much archeological and contextual validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

your response attempts to reinterpret the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve's story...

You have correctly interpreted my "interpretation."

this interpretation diverges from traditional Christian teachings

Correct. However, I suggest that "traditional Christian teachings" diverge substantially from the source material (Torah), and diverge even more when compared with original versions of that material (or as old as we have found, Nag Hammadi, DSS, etc.). Indeed, when actually looking at that evidence, digging into the broader context of information available in the region (stone tablets, hieroglyphs, etc. from Canaan, Babylon, Egypt, etc.) and reading those older texts in the original Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic translations as the case may be), the "traditional Christian teachings," which are derived exclusively from the Latin Vulgate, written upwards of a thousand years after those older versions, deviate substantially on some very important points, especially in the broader context of evidence.

It was within a more period context in which I was paraphrasing the narrative, not the modern day justification, which itself is based, at least in part, on provably faulty interpretations (when compared with older texts), and Catholic Church, or Reformation (extra-biblical) additions to the dogma.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Elon has demonstrated that he is standing up for many good things

According to the official biblical narrative (the modern day interpretation of it), "the devil" tempted Eve and thus began the process of "sin" by encouraging her to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. What is the Tree of Knowledge? It is an understanding of the nature of things. It is free will. In other words, according to that story, prior to Satan "tempting" her with an appreciation for a broader scope of information, "God," or the PTB (at the time) had Adam and Eve's understanding of things in a box. Satan, according to the story, encouraged opening the door on that box to the larger truth.

Elon is providing information that is otherwise forbidden by the PTB. Elon is opening the door on our box to the larger truth.

Which is "good" or "evil"? Well, it depends on the intent. Evil is in general not an action by itself, but an action coupled with an intention.

What are Elon's intentions? I have no idea.

I am holding onto the hope that he is a force for good.

Why? Why "hold onto hope?" Why is that important? Who cares if his intentions are good or evil?

I love the Elon character. He is probably my favorite in this movie. I don't know if he will turn out to be the hero or the villain, but he is definitely fun to watch. By not "holding on to hope" I lessen the chances of blinding myself to evidence through my bias. Hope is too often blindness. I'm not suggesting "letting go of all hope." I am suggesting that the need to hope for one thing or another (or "the need" for any specific belief) only serves to keep us from seeing the evidence. It keeps us from the full scope of the GA. It serves the continued victory of the entity that has had humanity in a box for a very, very long time.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”

And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.

The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”

Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).

Not a good foundation to build your argument on

Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).

Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.

Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.

Association is not the same as guilt.

Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.

You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know what happened. I don't know who is really in charge of what or who is working for whom. I don't know that there are "two sides" to "flip" to, now or ever.

I do think it is entirely possible that is the case. Indeed, if the Q narrative is true, it would have to be the case that there are insiders at every level (except maybe the top) that have flipped sides. I even think it is likely that at least AJ has flipped.

Carlson maybe. There is just so much Cabal in his blood. He was born to it, but maybe.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

“Alex is a lunatic” is a subjective statement.

It's not my opinion. I don't think it's true. That is what the world see's (that link is just one of a thousand hit pieces on AJ’s particular brand of crazy). Any article on him talks about how crazy he is. He talks about truly whacked out shit all the time and he is quoted on it all the time. Suggesting that statement is controversial in the broader public view is just being willfully blind.

You say he discredits the truth so nobody will believe it, yet millions credit him with waking them up.

I am looking at what actually happens as a result of his actions. It isn't about what I want. I don’t think AJ is a lunatic at all. I think he is a really smart and gifted actor. What I am talking about is the actual effect he has.

Yes, after people start to question their reality, they get a lot of good evidence from Alex Jones. Then they go around trying to red pill their friends. Then they show their friends Alex Jones’ work, or they quote AJ, or they talk about some of the things he says that don’t have any evidential support (as supplied by him, or in general). Then their friends think that Alex Jones is a lunatic, because he acts like a lunatic, and sounds like a lunatic, and says things attributed to lunacy (the human body is just an alien antenna e.g.). Then all the good evidence he shows gets discredited by association with his crazy talk. The most important thing to appreciate here is that by "crazy talk" I specifically mean those statements he makes that are not believable (even if they are true) for which he shows no supporting evidence. Such statements make a person look crazy. Even if they are making statements of the most profound truth, it doesn't appear that way. I suggest that is intentional.

What actually happens is that Alex Jones “wakes up” very few people. The millions that find him, find him because they are already questioning their reality and he is the largest voice speaking the truth. When they find him, they can’t use him as a source, because he has no credibility. His lack of credibility is due not to the really good reports he puts out, but to the other things he says that act to discredit him, and thus the truth.

The truth needs an outlet. If that outlet is not believable by someone who already doesn’t believe, then the truth remains hidden. If, on the other hand, you do already believe something, and AJ is giving further good information on it, you will be a fan of AJ, thus separating you from the other people you wish to show “the truth” to by your association to AJ, either by quoting him, showing his work, or just sounding like him. What actually happens is that he creates division between the truth, those that want to talk about the truth (Truthers) and the rest of society. He helps to create boxes for people to sort themselves in to, thus the division. Whether that is intentional or not, that is what actually happens. That is the AJ effect.

It also happens to be how the C_A is noted to control information in their takeover of other countries (see the details of Operation PBSUCCESS e.g.).

He is not alone. All Truther leaders do the same thing. They all talk about whacked out shit (which may or may not be true) and provide no evidence for it. They also all have provable or stated direct ties to the C_A.

Also, you have no evidence they are or ever were on the CIA payroll.

Alex Jones explicitly stated that his father (and other members of his family) was on the C_A payroll. True or not, it is a stated direct connection to the Agency. Q explicitly stated that AJ was a Mossad agent as shown in the link above. Mossad and the C_A are the same agency.

Tucker Carlson spoke at a rally on his campus about the C_A recruiters there, defending them. He then later is explicitly stated as having gone through the application process for the C_A. He is then stated as having been rejected.

Immediately afterwards, his father, who is easily proven to be a member of the Cabal, is appointed the head of the Voice of America by George H. W. Bush and the Carlson family moves from California to D.C.. VoA is the C_A’s media front and Tucker Carlson's father became the head of a major arm of the C_A right after Tucker applied to the C_A. George H. W. Bush, who personally appointed Mr. Carlson to head an important C_A organization right after his son applies to the C_A, is the former head of the C_A. GHWB was the head of the C_A during the Church Committee hearings and ran interference for the C_A there when the Senate investigation outed the C_A as having hundreds of American media talking heads as their agents.

When his father took over the VoA, Tucker then immediately began working as a “editor and fact checker” for the Heritage Foundation, which is itself just a front organization for the C_A. “Fact checkers” are one of the C_A’s primary tools for controlling information. Tucker then became a media star, basically instantly. In his early career he ran interference for the C_A regarding Iran-Contra, one of the most blatant C_A corruption scandals ever (that made it to the public), that no one ever talks about or knows the details of.

You find patterns like this everywhere. Numerous threads leading directly to the C_A/Cabal in the biggest names in media, on all sides, going back to their origin stories. This has always been the case. What are the odds that that pattern exists in all the big names purely by chance? I suggest somewhere in the range of zero, especially given the explicit statements made by numerous people (including the Church Committee) that all big media people work for the C_A in some fashion. It isn’t that the C_A subverts top level media stars, it’s that you can’t make it big unless you are already working for them. All evidence suggests that the media is completely controlled.

Now those may not be enough pieces of evidence to convince you, and that's fair, but it's just a start, and it is supporting evidence for the assertions, so not "no evidence."

Q said some disinfo is necessary. The Q movement couldn’t be the “Alex Movement,” therefore, that disinfo was necessary.

Citing the "some disinfo is necessary" statement to cover every thing you don't want to be true is not using reason, but justifying belief. Look at the actual facts contained within the Q statements. Look at all the evidence of connections between AJ and Mossad/C_A. Look. Don’t be a True Believer. That will not help you uncover the scope of the deception.

Slyver 9 points ago +10 / -1

If they ever worked for the CIA I’d suspect it was for the White Hats in the CIA.

First, there's probably not a whole lot of "white hats" in the C_A. The C_A is an agency designed by the Cabal specifically to be their black hat "social control agency." It was created by marrying the Rockefeller created OSS with the Rockefeller funded Nazi intelligence agency (Gehlen Organization).

Second, what evidence makes you think that Tucker and AJ were "undercover white hats" in an organization that only recruits black hats, or people who are clueless who they work for?

Let's look at AJ. First, Q specifically calls him out as a Cabal agent (Mossad controlled opposition agent), so there's that. But far more importantly, what does he do? He gives some really good evidence of fuckery. But he also acts like a lunatic. What does that do? It associates the good evidence he shows with his lunacy. If you try to show the evidence through one of AJ's reports, a person will look at it and say, "OMG, it's Alex Jones. You are a crazy conspiracy theorist, just like him! Look at him, he think's he's an alien abductee. He thinks lizard people are eating brains and Rich people are murdering babies and drinking their blood. Where is the evidence for that?"

And that's the thing. The really crazy stuff, even if it's true, he provides zero, or really poor evidence for. ALL of his actions discredit the good information he provides. The good information and evidence is associated with "crazy," thus it remains hidden. That is exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like.

The Truth needs an outlet. AJ is that outlet, and he makes the truth look false to anyone who is skeptical by association with his lunacy.

Now lets look at Carlson. His father has Cabal written all over him. He himself has decades of work presenting the "Conservative view." What is the "Conservative view?" It is the OPPOSITE SIDE of the "Liberal View." He gives the truth (but only part of the truth) and says constantly that "The other side is lying." What does that do? That drives division. What is the primary purpose of Controlled Opposition agents? To create social division. It isn't about what is true or false. BOTH SIDES present the truth, but only part of the truth. That makes people believe them. Then, on each side, the agents say "the other side is lying." And it's true. It's ALWAYS true. The other side IS lying by omission. And both sides are getting part of the truth (but not the whole truth). The Left and The Right have both been controlled by the Cabal since their beginning.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself, why are there "two sides?" You put 100 people in a room and ask them their ideas on something and you will get 100 different responses. You put 100 people in a room and force them to put on a blue shirt or a red shirt and you will get 2 responses. When people are forced to pick a side, they will choose whichever one they align with best, and then, to ensure "their side" wins, they will concede whatever they have to, give up whatever they are forced to, to ensure "victory." So if you want to control the narrative, make two boxes, force everyone to join one or the other, and feed them both the truth in scope, then say "the other side is lying." Tucker has fulfilled that role perfectly for decades.

Exactly as he was self-admittedly trained at the C_A to do.

Slyver 5 points ago +5 / -0

The way the Biden family have things set up, I think the Big Guy will automatically get at least 10% of those counts.

Slyver 4 points ago +12 / -8

Tucker Carlson is (or at least was) a Cabal agent, working for the C_A as a media voice for the "Conservatives," part of the Controlled Opposition scheme.

Alex Jones is (or at least was) a Cabal agent, working for the C_A as a media voice for the "Truthers," part of the Controlled Opposition scheme.

Who are they working for now?

That is a really good question.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Irrelevant. If there were "two German armies" then they were both Cabal. All of the allies were also controlled by the Cabal. ALL sides, in every war, are run by the same people.

EVERYTHING in history that is big enough to make a blip is controlled opposition, all controlled by the Cabal. Even if something doesn't start that way, before it gets big enough to matter, it has been taken over by the Cabal. That is how they operate. Control Everything.

And they do.

It's not impossible that there have been Cabal faction wars that look like real opposition. Indeed, there are a a few instances I have found where I think the Rockefellers and Rothschilds have done exactly that, fighting amongst themselves for dominance of some resource (Baku oil fields 1917, Iran 1954, Katanga 1961, etc.). I think of these scuffles (where many people die) as "Gentlemen Bets," like in the movie Trading Places. However, within these potential faction wars, the larger narrative is never challenged. No matter who wins, We The People always lose, because even the good guys are bad guys.

The same bad guys.

Slyver 23 points ago +23 / -0

I appreciate anyone who fights to protect others. However:

If we would not have stop that evil it would be a very different world we would be living in today.

This has nothing to do with reality. The war was run, both sides, by the same people (the Cabal). It was all theatre. Millions of real people died, but that was part of The Show. Indeed, thinking that "the Nazis lost the war" has nothing to do with reality. They won. We are living in their regime. The problem is, the Nazis weren't really the Nazis, that was also part of the theatre. The Nazis were just the Cabal dressed up in Nazi clothing.

All the World's a stage, and we are not the players. We are the background setting. Background settings get destroyed in any war movie. That's their job. We do our job nicely.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup. Exactly as I suspected. That is exactly what controlled opposition looks like.

Each side gets pieces of the truth, with all the best counter points left out.

There is no doubt plenty of electric vehicles are supported by fossil fuels. There is also no doubt plenty of electric vehicles never touch the stuff, and are completely supported by energy from the sun. Most probably fall somewhere in between, since the same demographic that would buy EVs also buy solar, but that same demographic is often suburban (grid tied, not off grid). That particular brand of solar is usually supported by fossil fuels.

There are plenty of problems all around, both with EVs/Solar AND with fossil fuels (which is really a misnomer, but it's an easy term to use). Ultimately solar is probably the best path, since the energy is literally free. The problems with it currently are mostly that both the solar panels and the storage solutions (Li-ion batteries) are both designed specifically to fail (as is everything we use) to increase consumption, without any good recycling infrastructure in place. These are issues that are engineering problems (AKA solvable), not inherent with "getting energy from the sun".

On the opposite side, fossil fuels DO have some serious pollution issues, even if the CO2 and "oil crisis" narratives are bupkis. That doesn't mean that they too can't be solved by some engineering, but we aren't there yet.

However, all the "controversy" is created specifically to drive division. Neither side sees the whole truth. Neither side can have any meaningful discussion about it, because each side gets the narrative overlay that says "the other side is lying."

Both sides are correct; the other side is lying by omission; the primary tool of controlled opposition.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I haven't seen any. All the ones around me are solar. That doesn't mean there aren't any, and solar has it's own issues, but it's not as bad as it is portrayed by the "opposition."

Slyver 5 points ago +5 / -0

Actually built walls are only 99.9% efficient. But imaginary electric chargers are 100% efficienct.

The choice is obvious.

Slyver 15 points ago +15 / -0

"...and if you're someone who likes to smoke, you're a fagfag."

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Our representatives must not infringe on those rights. They have no power to do so.

Legally speaking, they have all the power to do so. It's even written into the Constitution. It can easily be argued that is not truly the power to do so, and I have done so many times, but legally, by enforcement through coercion, and a Treaty which we did not sign and for which there is no exit clause (the Constitution), they do.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is why we are a republic instead of a democracy

We are a republic instead of a democracy because the people who created our system of government were aristocrats, and they wanted to stay that way. The Constitution has built into it explicit statements of their sovereignty over us. See the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that anyone in the military does not have any rights if the PTB so choose. And the military is not optional (questionable now, not questionable at the time). It also states explicitly that all property belongs to them at their whim.

The system was designed such that women weren't even allowed to participate at all. Most men weren't allowed to participate either. Only land owners could participate and only 6% of the population were land owners (the aristocrats or aristocrat adjacent).

That was the design of our wonderful Democratic Republic. The power remains with those who already have power. By design.

The problem with all such systems of government is that they claim sovereignty over the individual. They claim that they can make decisions on what we can or can't do. Even if we have the power to "vote them out" (which is questionable even in the most honest system), that still becomes "majority rule" and the lag time ensures those who make the rules aren't questioned for long enough to make substantial difference in the lives of the individual. Again, the problem is that they claim that they have that power AT ALL.

Every system of government that is designed such that it can lay claim to the individual is fraudulent. If adhering to the rules isn't optional (compliance is enforced by coercion, and there is no exit clause), it is a tyranny, no matter how many flowery words you add to it.

Slyver 7 points ago +7 / -0

We didn't get to vote on whether gas powered cars would be banned, we didn't vote for vaccine mandates, we didn't vote for lockdowns, we didn't vote for banning of meat.

"We didn't get to vote..."

We don't vote on taking away people's choices on how to live their lives. That is just the tyranny of the majority, which is controlled by the information systems, AKA the media.

Suggesting that "voting" on these things is the solution is exactly what controlled opposition looks like. If we agree to a system of government where we vote on these things, that is the definition of a tyrannical socialist government. And that's if it's an honest system. Regardless, in all cases, the Cabal wins. It is only when such actions aren't even a concept that the Cabal doesn't win. It is essential that people understand, on the most fundamental level, that they are the ultimate authority in these decisions, not some State, majority vote, oligarchy, meritocracy, etc.. In each of those systems, if they have jurisdiction over your personal life choices in any way, the Cabal wins.

That is how victory has always been achieved. It's not where the different isms disagree, that's the distraction. That keeps the plebs fighting against each other for their preferred system of control. Rather, it's where the different isms agree where the real fuckery lies.

They created them all for that exact purpose.

Slyver 6 points ago +6 / -0

Note that it explicitly states "by force or violence" at the end of each statement of "what you can't do." You can legally do all of those things. You can try to overthrow the government, local, state, or federal. You can completely dismantle that which exists, and the government itself does not consider that illegal. You just can't employ violence or "force" to do it. In other words, you can convince people to make the change by any method you desire that is not "violent" or "forceful".

By definition, convincing people to make change is propaganda. The word means "information designed to change beliefs." It is through a change in belief that governments are overthrown.

Importantly, it is through propaganda, this change in belief, that all governments have been overthrown, excepting of course those that have been just wiped out. Even these "propaganda wars" required violence, because those with power do not give up their power. But the sequence of events is, you put out propaganda that changes belief, and if those beliefs lead to violence which overthrows the government, legally, you have done nothing wrong.

This is exactly how every revolution in the "Enlightenment" was conducted. Propaganda changed belief which itself encouraged violence. AFTER that happened, then there were dissidents who would have broken this law. The point is, starting a revolution, even a violent one, requires first changing belief, which is accomplished through propaganda. When propaganda is on a large enough scale, we call it a "psyop."

Every war is won before the first shot is fired.

Welcome to The Show.

view more: Next ›