5
Slyver 5 points ago +5 / -0

Again, not a chance. A poll of CA would NOT return a 22 point advantage to Harris. In the same vein, Biden did NOT get a 29 point advantage over Trump in 2020. All of these polls are fabrications. They aren't real. Suggesting that "Harris is doing worse than Biden" using these polls is just playing their game. The polls are made up.

I live in a pretty blue area of CA. If I had to guess, I'd guess the real numbers are at worst 50/50. I'd go so far as to say I think the real numbers would likely give Trump a 15-20 point advantage.

This poll, like most others, and most of the media, are pure theatre. It's nothing but an illusion designed to push a narrative. If you push the poll as if it were real, you are helping to push the fabricated narrative. Please don't feed the trolls.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

There is zero chance that Harris is up 22 points in CA. ZERO CHANCE.

This poll is a complete fabrication having nothing to do with reality.

11
Slyver 11 points ago +11 / -0

Does anyone really say "nothing ever happens" anymore? All I see are people saying "too much crazy is going on." It seems to me that everything is happening. Rather than "nothing is happening" it's more like Everything, Everywhere, All At Once.

Frankly, this movie has more than enough action scenes and Endgame feels really close.

7
Slyver 7 points ago +7 / -0

Several of the quotes used in the tweet are either unverified (possibly false quotes) or out of context. This one from Woodrow Wilson is one of those that is out of context. Mr. Wilson wrote these things as part of his 1912 Presidential campaign propaganda. In other words, he wrote this a couple years before he signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.

That doesn't mean there is nothing interesting to say about this quote. It just means that it was NOT in response to the creation of the Fed, and is thus a false attribution. What IS interesting about this quote is that he wrote it because he had been a Rockefeller employee for a few decades before running for President. In addition to being President of two Rockefeller controlled Universities, he was also a founding member of the CFAT, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the sister organization to the Rockefeller Foundation (both directly controlled by Rockefeller). He served on the Board of Directors for this Rockefeller enterprise for almost a decade before he ran for President.

This is just the beginning of his connections to Rockefeller and the Banksters. He was deep in their pocket his whole life prior to running for President. It was because of these deep ties that he wrote the article being quoted. It said effectively, "I'm sorry I was a Bankster shill. I promise not to be one anymore. Just elect me President and you will see."

5
Slyver 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think it may be far worse than your list. I think our reality may be more like Hellraiser, with underground cities containing human farms. Who those humans might be food for I don't know (blood for the elite? blood for actual vampires or aliens? spiritual food for extraplaner entities? Soylent Green? all of the above?).

My investigation suggests there is a fair bit of evidence that our reality is so far removed from the illusion that it's reveal wouldn't just be "shocking" or even "mind blowing," rather I think it may be so bad that it would utterly destroy 99% of the brains of those who learn how bad it really is.

18
Slyver 18 points ago +18 / -0

The problem with property tax isn't that it's thievery, but that people don't realize it is thievery.

An act of war is any direct violation of someone's inalienable rights. Thievery is an act of war.

The solution then, is to simply declare war on Bill Gates and take all his shit. That's how Sovereign entities have been doing it since the beginning of humanity.

There is nothing wrong with war. It is a perfectly natural thing. If one entity has horded all the resources there are consequences. Those consequences are that other's will declare war on them and take the resources back.

The problem is that people don't understand that they are Sovereign entities. ALL PEOPLE (including Bill Gates) are Sovereign entities. They have the inalienable Right to defend their property, no matter how they got that property. Bill Gates did not get his farmland without fuckery, but he still has the Right to defend it. We The People can decide that he shouldn't have that land because of the fuckery he employed to gain it. We can then declare war on him and take it.

As Sovereign entities, we have the right to declare war. Such a declaration, and the intended result, are direct violations of another's Rights, but that is not always a bad thing (or rather, it is sometimes a "necessary evil" for social cohesion). Indeed, societies violate individuals Rights all the time. Every time someone goes to jail, or pays a fine, or pays taxes, or a thousand other things we think are "totally normal", that is exactly what is happening: direct violations of someone's Rights AKA acts of war. We push the responsibility of those violations of Rights off to "the government," or "the law," but they are still acts of war from one Sovereign entity onto another.

The shifting of responsibility is the fraud. The responsibility is on us. We are the people who violate another's Rights when society puts someone in jail. Such an act is an act of war, from We The People onto the Sovereign entity that is put in jail. We say, "they deserved it" if we believe they do in fact deserve it, but whether they do or not is irrelevant for this discussion. It is a direct violation of their Rights, no matter what justification we use for that act of war. Such acts of war may be necessary for social cohesion (put a murderer in jail to prevent future murders e.g.). The point is that we must learn to understand that we are the ones responsible for those acts of war, and that the person who is the target of such acts is just as much a Sovereign as those doing the acts. All men are created equally Sovereign.

The same rationalization that we use to put a murderer in jail can be used for any act of war, including taking the farm land from a globalist pedophile who lied, cheated, stole, and murdered his way to his land ownership.

The problem with our systems of law and government is not that they are "bad"... well, that is a problem, but it's not the real problem. The real problem is that our systems of law and government obfuscate who exactly is responsible for actions, specifically these acts of war.

People don't understand what Sovereignty means (Ultimate Authority). They don't understand that they are Sovereign (every single one of us). They don't understand what their Jurisdiction is. They don't understand what their inalienable Rights are (such as the Right to Defend their property). They don't understand that there are always consequences for actions, no matter what the law is. Most importantly, they don't understand that the system of "law" that we have is specifically designed to ensure that the greedy can avoid consequences by hiding behind the scam we call "law" and "government".

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

The value is all of the energy consumed to create the Bitcoin, but also all the energy required to try and attack or hack the nodes and algorithm.

This is a lie. This energy has no value. A thing has value if it is usable. In this case, all of that energy has already been lost to heat. It's all gone. It is non-usable energy. These arguments for Btc being "energy based" take a shit all over basic physics (specifically our ideas of entropy). ALL OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR BTC IS USED UP!!!

It stores no energy. It stores no value. It is WORTHLESS except as a technology. But it is infinitely divisible (effectively). As a technology 0.0000001 Btc is just as valuable as 1,000,000 Btc. So as a technology, it has value. It can be used to create things, like say, a real asset backed currency (though there are better block chain techs than Btc, so it's really not a very good one in that regard). But it's value is not tied to the number that you have, thus it has no measure based intrinsic value.

We are already at the point where all Bitcoin miners and users worldwide would have to work together to pooling ALL of their energy to even try to attack the Bitcoin network.

This is an argument for it as a technology, not as a valueless currency.

Like everyone else, all of your arguments for Btc are either completely false, or are arguments for it as a technology. These arguments completely ignore the fact that it's usability as a tech is just as valuable no matter how much you have.

All non-asset backed currencies are worthless. We have been trained to believe in them. Once the scam is fully revealed, and we allow ourselves to have access to other means of economic exchange, not a single person will hold on to Btc et al. Not one. Why? Because it is a scam, pure and simple. Eventually that will be obvious to everyone.

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

Most correctly it is CONVERSION from energy to a infinitely divisible, but finite quantity software (digital) asset that can be moved to any cyber or physical location with nearly zero cost.

This is the description of a technology, not a currency. I agree that the technology can be used as an aid to create a currency. It can be used to create all sorts of currencies. It can even be used as an accounting device (currency) to back actual assets. The confusion comes from conflating a technology with a currency. Btc is not a currency except through the beliefs created by a literal ponzi scam that convinces people that it is.

This may be as close as we ever get to actually carrying around a packet of actual energy

Completely false statement. Btc is not a storage of energy. No matter how you are carrying your crypto, you are NOT carrying energy. This statement is utter nonsense and has not one iota to do with reality.

Direct conversion back to energy is possible if one uses Bitcoin to buy physical assets that have energy resources

That is NOT "conversion back to energy," that is convincing someone who has batteries for sale to take part in your scam.

If I hold silver and I find someone who wants the physical properties that silver has (for electronics, or making jewelry, or heat conduction engineering, or they just find it pretty, etc.) I don't have to convince anyone of anything, they will just trade me for it. The value is already there.

Btc doesn't have a single drop of that type of value; it is utterly worthless. Just because you have True Believers drinking the Kool-Aid doesn't mean the Kool-Aid isn't poison. The MOMENT there exists a crypto that is backed by a real asset and it really works as a real asset exchange, with all the necessary conveniences for a currency, Btc and all of their ilk will crash as fast and hard as a 3 year old trying to drive a semi.

Btc and their ilk fulfill a need and they use a technology to do it. That tech is cool stuff. I am a proponent. But the tech can be tied to real assets. Once that happens, people won't have to lie to themselves (and everyone else) about it's value.

11
Slyver 11 points ago +11 / -0

What is it tangibly backed by?

Energy.

To be "backed", a currency must be directly tradable with whatever it is backed by. That is what "backed by" means. It is common to make the claim that Btc or crypto in general is backed by energy, yet none of those currencies can be exchanged for energy. (not counting paying your electrical bill or buying batteries) Indeed, none of them can be exchanged for anything at all unless both people believe it can be.

In the case of an actual asset, like PMs, there is no worry about whether or not your PMs can be exchanged for something else because they have intrinsic value (value having nothing to do with belief, but rather value that has been given to an asset by Natural Law or the Universe itself). This is not a complicated concept, yet because Olympic level mental gymnastics is required, and the brainwashing so well developed for the True Believers, this concept is very difficult for any Btc proponent to understand, yet the easiest thing in the world for everyone else. The problem is, those who have invested in Btc or other such useless currencies must create belief to justify their often "all in" investment, and thus must miss out on the simplicity of this concept. It is because of this contrived belief that one allows themselves to make up such nonsense as:

Btc is backed by energy

No it is not. Not even in the slightest little bit, or under the most wild contrivance of definitions. You can't trade your Btc for energy in any direct way. There is zero "energy value" there.

What is petrodollar backed by? Oil, a.k.a. ENERGY

Well, I disagree that the "petrodollar" actually existed in the sense this idea is used. It was only a useful concept for countries, not people, and even there, it was total bullshit. Regardless, even assuming that the petrodollar really was backed by oil, the key there is, the petrodollar is backed by Oil, not "energy". Oil has an intrinsic energy property (as the basis of all organic chemistry, it has a lot more value than just "energy"). This energy value, and all of its other chemical properties that make it useful chemical stock for actual physical goods (plastics, pharmaceuticals, tire rubber, etc., etc.) are properties given to it by the Universe. Those properties can't be taken away by changing belief. They are fundamental AKA intrinsic. Btc on the other hand has no properties like that, nor can it be directly exchanged for something like that ("backed by").

Do you see the difference? The petrodollar is backed by actual physical usable assets. Btc takes energy to make. That energy is lost to entropy forever. There is no backing there. You can't get it back to do future work. The mining of Btc is the work. That work is now done and lost. We had energy, which was positive, the mining happens, and the "total energy column" is now a loss. That loss is called "backed by" by Btc proponents. That is what mental gymnastics looks like, in this case a lie that a loss of a thing is a gain, or storage, of a thing.

It is utter nonsense, and yet smart people are still confused by this simple concept.

That is the power of bias; the need for black to be white because of the potential for personal loss . When you build your house on sand, you need to believe the ocean, sitting 50 feet away, will never rise high enough to take out your foundation. It doesn't matter that that's not how things actually work--eventually there will be a storm--what matters is the investment. The cost of being wrong is so high that people literally stick their head in the sand to try to protect themselves from their inevitable doom.

6
Slyver 6 points ago +6 / -0

There are a few claims that are inaccurate

They make quite a few mistakes. This is not uncommon for these types of "exposures" because there is a constant underlying social refusal to acknowledge the intentions, or even the existence of the Cabal. Thus most of these types of exposures make quite a few errors trying to fill in the gaps left by the refusal to admit what is really going on (that there exists a single effective entity pulling all the strings).

Having said that, this documentary was an excellent introduction for me to spring board my own investigation. If not for this show and the things it got right (which are quite a few) I wouldn't have had the framework required to have done a thorough enough investigation to know how rife with errors it is.

7
Slyver 7 points ago +7 / -0

This poll only has 231k votes. That is only 80% of the registered voters in this demographic. That number doesn't account for the non-registered voters whose voice is just as important as the actual American citizens who just so happen to have the unfair advantage of still being alive. Dead people and illegal aliens are people too, and we mustn't forget that in our socially trained bigotry and innate prejudices.

I think if we close the poll, then do some proper after hours counting on our Dominion machines, you will see that the real numbers are far more favorable to Heels Up Harris and will almost certainly find her in the lead.

In other words, this poll is obviously a far-right conspiracy theory and fake news.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

In the last plandemic they tried to force us to wear face diapers and stay 6 ft apart. So this time around, is it butt diapers and 6 inches (+/- 3 in) apart?

I can't wait to see how they play that one out in the propaganda.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

If that goes according to plan I'll actually make money on the deal

It's entirely possible it will work out that way. Since I first started investing I have done a little bit of selling --> buying. I have made money on these deals (or rather, I have more shares than I would have if I had just held the shares), but I have kept this to a minimum because a) you never know when the stock price is going to turn and b) I feel like not playing that game is an important part of what's going on.

Nevertheless, I have done this a few times over the past couple years. It can certainly work.

I think it's currently on a downward trend. I personally would sell a few shares (a couple hundred maybe), store that as cash for a bit, then buy warrants when it goes down. Play that game a few times. Doing it immediately is, I think, a lot less likely to be as fruitful. I usually don't hold it as cash for more than a couple weeks at a time.

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

They may be selling at less than the $11.50 strike price, but now is still not a good time to sell. I think it is entirely possible, probable even, that at some point the price of the shares will top $100. Hell, I think it's likely to happen within the year. It could even go to twice that, who the hell knows. If the short sales fuckery is taken care of, it could go to ten times that.

Let's say it goes to $101.50/share (for math convenience). Then the warrant price would almost certainly be $90/share. If you sell your 2000 warrants then you will get 180,000, from which you can then buy 1773 shares. That is FAR more than 1280.

Even if it only goes to $61.50/share (which it was at not that long ago), that's still $50/warrant, which would net you 1626 shares if you sell/buy at those prices.

Frankly, it makes zero sense to sell now. Think of it in terms of percent of price rather than total price difference. The math makes a lot more sense that way.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

A corporation is, by definition, an entity that is only defined within some legal system, AKA a legal fiction. Within any system of law there are two types of entities, corporations and Natural Persons. Natural Persons are Natural Persons by authority of Natural Law, which supersedes all other legal systems.

To incorporate means to make Corporeal WITHIN SOME LEGAL SYSTEM.

Of COURSE the US Govt is a corporation. It is an entity that does not exist except within its own legal system. The US Govt can't take your things, or tell you what the law is, or do anything at all. People can do those things, and then can, and usually do, do them in the name of the US Govt corporation.

The US Govt corporation was created in 1787 by means of the Article of Incorporation we call The Constitution. It is an entity that has no causal input into the universe. It exists ONLY within its own legal framework, and it was incorporated by Natural Persons (39 of them, most Freemasons). It is designed specifically to act as a legal shield behind which actions can be taken by Natural Persons. It can sue and be sued (the definition of a legal entity), thus acting as that shield for peoples actions, like all corporations.

The Constitution incorporated the US Govt corporation under the authority of the Natural Persons that signed it, because ONLY NATURAL PERSONS can have such authority. All of the people who did NOT sign the Constitution are not legally bound by it. But try telling that to the coercive force designed to ensure compliance.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

There is a difference between a "Stock Market" and the ability to invest in a company by buying stock in it. I agree that a Stock Market as we understand the term should not exist. It's design purpose is fuckery. It was designed to be used as a casino where the House Always Wins. It has fulfilled that design for over 400 years.

Investing in a company however makes a ton of sense. It allows for an entrepreneur to get funding for their idea and potential products by promising shares in the profits (dividends).

This is what "stock" was originally designed to do: a democratization of ownership (really it's very similar to the Socialism Economic Design Model as applied to a company, not a nation). It was originally a scam, but only because the Market has always been controlled; i.e. we have never had a Free Market. Not even for a second.

If we can decentralize and streamline stock purchases and ownership, and get rid of all the internal Casino fuckery (options e.g.), we can have a Free Market. Just imagine what humanity can do when there is a system in place that allows for all ideas to have the potential for funding.

10
Slyver 10 points ago +12 / -2

Rebuttal? It wasn't even watchable.

Other than the screaming, it assumes that crypto is being compared to Federal Reserve notes. I don't really know anyone who suggests that FRNs are better than crypto. The comparison is usually between crypto and an asset backed currency, or something that can be immediately used as currency, like silver.

If the internet goes down, it doesn't matter what nukes may be flying at Russia, you can still buy bread with silver. That will always be the case.

This "rebuts" an argument that doesn't really exist.

14
Slyver 14 points ago +15 / -1

Pretty much everything wrong with the entire world's financial and monetary systems can be done with one simple fix. Tie DJT and GME to NFTs; each stock it's own unique identifier, easily tradeable without any need for the DTCC, NYSE, etc., no short sales, no options, no fuckery; decentralized and usable as an asset backed currency.

Watch the stock market try to match the stocks for these companies to the correct number of unique identifiers. Do this to just these two stocks and watch what happens.

This action would cause the beginning of a cascade of events that would lead to the end of the world as we know it. (But I feel fine!)

8
Slyver 8 points ago +8 / -0

If there is a civil war then Q is not on our side but is controlled opposition. If there is any meaningful war at all then this is the case (actual hot WWIII e.g., with lots of death where we kill each other). That doesn't mean there can't be a nuke or something, What I mean is if we are running around in the streets (anywhere on the planet) killing each other on a large scale, then we have lost.

We The People of every country are not the enemy. The entire point of the GA, at least on this level, is for We The People to see who the real enemy is. If we still see "other countries" as the enemy, or "the left" or "the right" as the enemy, or any division of We The People as the enemy then we have lost the real war.

We MUST see who the real enemy is, world wide. If enough people see that our neighbors, no matter what they believe, are not the actual enemy, then there will be no motivation for that type of war. This is the only possible victory.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

In this case it would be:

"We're pretending to be from the government and we're here to help."

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

I've seen enough scifi space station movies to know that there's nothing wrong with having a Donner Party in space.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +2 / -1

Look, you are welcome to find use in these statements. I find a lot of use in them. They are useful. What they are not is statements of What Actually Happened. These ideals were NOT what was written into law. They didn't make it into the Constitution. The Constitution did NOT apply to all people equally. It wasn't even close. It was never intended to do so.

Am I saying there were no people who felt that way? No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is no way to know how a person actually felt. It is impossible. I am saying that when you take off your rose colored glasses and stop focusing on your ideals and what you "need" to be true, and investigate in earnest, you find all sorts of shit that you did not expect. The most important being the laws we actually got.

You can choose to ignore that if you wish; make appeals to pathos ("those that sacrificed"), ignore logos completely, ignore what actually happened, ignore the actual laws that led to where we are today. That is within your purview. You are welcome to choose anything you wish. But if you do, and you ignore all the shit that actually happened, you do NO ONE a service by espousing the evil that actually exists because of what choices were actually made by the people who created our government.

The Constitution was SHIT. It laid false claims on the individual's life, liberty, and property, straight up, in multiple places. It ensured that the power structure remained in the Aristocracy. The reason that we see a world today where people own nothing, and are ruled by the same Aristocracy is because it was designed to ensure that happened.

So at least acknowledge the shit that is there so we can fix it instead of lauding your heroes, who may or may not be as deserving of your praise as you think, at the expense of what We The People actually need to fulfill those flowery words as reality.

view more: Next ›