The questions you should be asking are;
- What is their actual purpose?
- If there is a purpose that actually makes sense outside of propaganda (you can sell frozen nuclear waste to an Eskimo with the proper application of propaganda), are the "benefits" worth the cost (initial and long term) to society? (By "society," i don't mean just the Bilderbergs et al.)
- Who actually benefits from them?
- What is their ACTUAL purpose?
I can't find a single reason for them to exist that isn't bad. CMV
Every single "three letter agency" (EVERY single one) was created by Rockefeller et al. (Most made by Rockefeller Sr, Jr, and Nelson directly, a few created by one of Rockefellers agents). The idea that the CIA or the DoD for that matter, or the FBI, DOJ, NSA, FCC, FDA, CDC, NSA, SEC, etc, etc, etc. was ever "ours" is the exact opposite of the truth. They created all of those organizations for THEM, to CONTROL us. To put us into a nice and tidy little box.
The world is not what you think it is.
Having said that, most people working for those organizations don't know who they are really working for, so "taking it back" is not impossible. At least now that Q is in control (took out the head of the snake, and became the new Head).
Pretty much all of the functions of those "agencies" (with some minor, albeit notable exceptions) are harmful on every level and need to be destroyed utterly.
The CIA is it's own external entity. It answers to no one, by design (thanks Rockefeller). It is basically (effectively) it's own Sovereign Nation. The only thing the "US government" can do against the CIA legally is to stop paying them. But of course they have their own money (far more than any other "US govt" department I'd wager).
They are supposed to account for their actions if they are questionable, but they have 100% control of all of their internal information, and any information given is voluntary, so no one can actually question them at all. They are 100% independent. They give us their limited hangouts on occasion to keep up the pretense.
See the Church Committee and their investigations of how well it worked out for them trying to stop the CIA from doing whatever the fuck they wanted.
Having said that, yes, CIA personal can go straight to a military tribunal, but such an act would be an act of war.
As it should be.
And you refuse to answer it
That is the exact opposite of the truth. I told you exactly and precisely my position. You demanded a different interpretation of my position. Maybe because it had too many lines of text? Maybe because you were fishing for a dumbed down position so it could fit your agenda? In any case, the information ("answer") was there, twice, explicitly (and more implicitly), without ambiguity.
You are literally making shit up. You are clearly trying to gaslight. I just can't figure out why.
Regardless, I then explicitly stated that dumbing it down even further than I had already twice would diminish my position. I had reasons for not AGAIN restating what I had already said.
That is not "refusing to answer." it's the opposite. And you still haven't bother to answer my question:
What is your real purpose here?
It's clearly not trying to understand my position, since I have done so in multiple ways. Instead you keep claiming the opposite with also clearly not actually attempting to hear what I've said. That is straight out of the definition of gaslighting. So what is your purpose?
That is one of the most meaningless assertion I have ever heard.
In the larger scope of the conversation, there were numerous "meanings," both implicit and explicit. Clearly there are serious deficits to wide spread "data centers" (which provides "meaning" to the assertion), but to counter my supporting statement, you've provided ZERO PURPOSE for them to exist. NOT A SINGLE GOOD REASON. GIVE ME ONE! As I asked.
If you can, I can show you exactly who wants to use them and why. Not one of them helps We The People in the slightest. I can also show you clearly how bad they really are. They are worse than you can imagine once you dig into the details.
you will know that data centers are not primarily about data but are compute resources.
This is proof that you literally didn't hear a word I said. I made perfectly clear that that was one of my most important assertions. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR. Just go back to what I said, It's in there in the first couple of lines in one of my posts in this asinine thread.
Making a blanket statement like this, is as meaningless
Except it's not. It's a purposeful assertion IN CONTEXT.
You are making it meaningless by taking it out of the primary context of my op. In there, I gave a laundry list (woefully incomplete, I could go on for days) of the MASSIVE ISSUES of that "100 story building." Or more appropriately, a few hundred "100 story buildings" spanning the whole of the country, crossing all jurisdictions by force, and then doing it across the whole world.
Who benefits from that?
Everything on that list is so bad it's trivial to see unless you are a globalist. Then it turns from "so bad" to "OMGAMAZBALLS". If you want to disagree (I dare you), I can go into GREAT DETAIL supporting every single assertion. If you look at the heat pollution problem I quoted, it made it clear that it was a really bad thing from that perspective, with no reasonable resolution. I.e., it was all bad. Really bad.
To say it was a "blanket statement" without the actual context makes it a blanket statement. You suck all the context out until it fits your narrative. You are basically MSM. Good job.
Taking things out of context can turn any statement into anything else you want. That is how the matrix is created.
There is no logical basis for that assertion
Again, in the larger scope of the context of the conversation, it is fully logical and sully supported. ONLY OUT OF CONTEXT (which seems to be your thing) does your argument make any sense. More evidence you didn't actually hear a single thing I said, so why bother?
Thats why I gave you the benefit of asked you to state what your position is
And the reason I didn't do that a third time, was because I had already done it clearly twice, the second with less information than the first so your Twatter brain could process it (to be fair, it wasn't short the first time).
You CLEARLY don't want to understand what I am saying. You even asserted my lack of knowledge about "the reason for data centers" and how it was "really about compute resources," even though that was MY PRIMARY ASSERTION STATED CLEARLY MULTIPLE TIMES!
But I am getting a feeling you have no stand
You have no reasonable claim to make that statement since you clearly don't understand (and haven't even tried to understand) what my "stand" is.
And ANYONE looking at the conversation would trivially agree with my assessment of your assertion. You are REALLY bad at this whole "listening" thing, and really good at contriving arguments "against" a person without actually caring what a person is saying.
I suspect it's mostly because you don't think people are worth listening to, so you don't bother to listen. Instead you demand that complicated topics be distilled to meaningless "Twats" until the one liners fit your already pre-determined beliefs.
It makes you great at winning an argument (because eventually a person will give up at your inanity). It makes you not so good at engaging in meaningful conversations.
I know when i see one.
Clearly you do not. Point to me a single instance of what I said that was poorly formatted, with poor grammar or sentence structure. You not wanting to listen does not qualify as a "wall of text." It just means (from your perspective) that I am not worth listening to.
So again I ask you, why bother? What is your purpose? You STILL haven't addressed a SINGLE POINT I have made. NOT ONE! When you tried you proved that you didn't hear what I had said at all, since your point was my point. Do you even know what my points are? Do you care to find out? If not, what is your purpose?
Of course they will. That was always the intention.
There's been a clear pattern with Trump (as the front man of Q et al).
- Show the system in a way that the Right (both the people and the "alt" media ("influencers" e.g.)) is immediately motivated to dig in.
- Show the system in a way that the Left media is immediately motivated to scream foul focusing at the actual points that need to be addressed, and keeping the Left people engaged in the right direction, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Previously things would just be ignored. Now the most important things are being focused on. Vilified true, but prominent in the minds of everyone.
- Put out true information that ties it to Trump so that both sides are motivated to keep digging.
- Put out more information to keep it from the memory hole.
- Keep putting out more and more information. Slowly but consistently. Waiting until the time is right for disclosure.
Hopefully the commie press try's to make an issue of this
Of course they will. That's always been the play in this Play.
Timing is everything for disclosure. Too early, you don't get the "opposition" sufficiently engaged in what they need to see. The purpose here is not for the "Right to win," but for everyone to wake the fuck up.
Trump didn't allow shit
Of course he did. OF COURSE he did. How could it possibly be otherwise. Biden had to win. Trump had to lose. It was the only way.
Having said that, I guarantee it won't be proven that he was complicit. In fact, there won't be a single thing that ties them together legally. But there must be plenty that implies the connection; that feeds the left down the same rabbit hole we have all gone down.
Everyone must see how deep it goes. The only way for everyone to see is for everyone to have a reason to see. That means the people who hate Trump must have a reason to look for themselves.
It is the only way.
This is a psyop.
We are FIGHTING for LIFE.
We are FIGHTING for GOOD.
We are at WAR [@].
NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN.
Everything we see on the world stage is a psyop, a Show, all preplanned and controlled, and not everything will be clean. But NCSWIS and Patriots are in Control and Enjoy the Show means that everything that is happening is by design. Designed by Q et al. That means that Trump is completely aware of the details. Of that, there can be no reasonable doubt.
Trump allowed the 2020 election fiasco, and every single detail of it, because it had to be done that way.
That particular post goes on to say.
[SCARE] NECESSARY EVENT.
Do you TRUST the US Military?
Do you TRUST the Chain Of Command?
Have FAITH - WE ARE IN CONTROL.
We have been on a pretty bumpy ride, but that's nothing compared to what's coming next.
Halleluiah.
there should be no millionaires -- Bernie Sanders 2010
Bernie Sanders rolls over against Hitlery in 2016. Then he get's a "book deal" and other benefits of his compliance.
there should be no billionaires -- Bernie Sanders 2020
Bernie Sanders' real wealth is discovered (gets stock advice of his millions from Larry Fink)
there should be no trillionaires -- Bernie Sanders 2030
Maybe. But you have given me NO INFORMATION of how there was a disconnect. If you think I've spoken with incoherence, address it specifically, because I don't think that's true. I suspect you have a different purpose, and you are masking it with a false claim of "incoherence".
You asked me to give you a more succinct argument. I complied.
You asked me to do that again without addressing what was wrong with what I had said except that it was "too long."
But in the second case, it clearly wasn't too long (less than one minute to read, maybe 30 seconds). You claimed it was a "wall of text." Yet it clearly wasn't a "wall of text" AKA an incoherence in readability, usually caused by poor formatting, coupled with poor grammar and sentence structure.
That is a completely different issue than succinctness (you have crafted a categorical error in your protest). Succinctness is itself a personal assessment, not a well defined outlay of information. Indeed, succinctness can easily make something less coherent while making it more succinct (despite having all the requisite information).
In this case I feel your requirement was taking away too much information, and I suspect it was designed to make a different argument to fit your agenda (whether you are aware of it or not).
I stated those things, and, like everything else I've said, you ignored my points, addressing not a SINGLE THING.
So what is your purpose here? It clearly isn't to think about what I've said. It clearly isn't even to find the point of contention. So why?
Again, you are proving that you don't actually want to hear what the actual contents of the argument are, no matter what they are. You only wanted to profess your holier-than-thouness.
Thanks for the confirmation.
to succinctly state
I ALREADY HAD DONE THAT.
You wanted it more succinct, ignoring the argument again, despite having already complied with your request.
Maybe my argument was more complicated than you think it was.
Maybe trying to make it less complete made it fundamentally less than it was, and thus, not the actual argument.
Maybe you were trying to dumb it down so that you could make a counterargument that fit your agenda, because the argument I made was too good at proving your ideas false.
I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't know your intentions. But it seems that way to me.
a wall of text
A "wall of text" is a poorly formatted, or non-existent formatting; a literal "wall of text" which makes it's intent illegible. That is not what I have written in any case. What I did do was explain myself properly.
Yes, it was about fifteen very short sentences (in the previous case), put into proper paragraphs (divisions of intent), and perfectly readable. What it wasn't was a tweet (or if you prefer (as I do) a Twat). If you can't spend the time listening to my less than one minute of text, seriously, any response you have isn't worth my time. It clearly isn't worth yours.
As to your request, no. I can't reasonably make my intensions more succinct than I already have. I mean, I probably can with a bit of effort, but if you can't pay attention to a few well formatted sentences, you aren't giving my engagement in the conversation the effort it deserves. So neither will I.
Learn to listen. Let go of the Twat culture that demands a gnat level of attention or it's "a wall of text." (Which by the way, is a psyop, an intentional social programming.)
- Data centers is about collecting more and more data
That's too simple because that's not all it does. In fact it doesn't really do that at all. It's at best a small piece of a MUCH bigger pie.
The collection of data is one thing. That is not what a data center is for. That's the FIRST step perhaps, but it's the first of several. A data center is about processing data primarily, and using that processing power for usable effect. "Processing" requires a purpose or it is without purpose. I assert there are NO purposes that are helpful ON THE SCOPE OF DATA CENTERS.
By putting my point into the tiny part of the larger scope you miss it entirely.
- The only purpose of that level of data is total control.
I wouldn't say it exactly that way, but I think at the end, perhaps, because of the scope, yes. Evil (i.e. against the good of We The People) and ultimately for "control" is the only possible reason for that.
Any worthwhile venture that can even be conceivably within the purview of data processing in general, AT THAT LEVEL is not required for anything good.
It can be shown to be used for great evil however.
I think my nuclear weapon analogy was a good one. Nuclear power can be used for good. Nuclear weapons can only be created for evil. There is simply no reason to ever have one. The concept of "deterrence" is false, and can be shown to false on numerous levels (including, but not limited to, the one I showed in the previous post).
I'm not sure of your intention here, but it sounds to me like you are making a generalization argument (faulty logic). If you didn't mean what it sounds like to me, I apologize in advance.
There is nothing wrong with "progressing" or using data analysis for "progress," productivity, or learning. On the contrary, I spent decades of my life in data analysis in multiple capacities to great effect. It's kinda been central to my whole life. Indeed, I've been called "truly gifted" in that capacity; finding patterns in data, and writing programs to amplify it (signal from noise). Not that that means anything really, especially without details, but it shows how important it has been to me.
But that doesn't mean that that suite of tools (including AI (LDMs), which I played a small part of developing) can't be used for evil. And as far as I can find, the whole concept of "Big Data" (or operationally, "data centers") has no reason for existing. At least on the level it is already being employed, and especially in the capacity it is currently intended (by their own admission and as shown in Trump's post).
It's like the difference between nuclear power and nuclear bombs. Nuclear power makes a ton of sense. Nuclear bombs have zero good purpose. People used to believe that nukes were required, because the "enemy" had them, or were working on them. I used to believe that. Some people still do.
But when you investigate; really dig in, it turns out that the "American" nuclear bomb capacity was 100% created by Rockefeller (his family, and associated Cabal crones). From the first step in it's conception, to It's dropping in Japan (whether it was a psyop or real), to "the Cold War" and to today (presumably excluding since Q), it was 100% controlled by Rockefeller. It was promoted (propagandized) as if it were "a show of strength." But strength against who? Who was the enemy?
Was it the Nazis? But I can show that the Nazis were 100% an effort of Rockefeller and Rothschild (et al). I can show that the Nazi's nuclear program was controlled by those same entities.
Was the enemy the "Soviets?" But I can show that the Soviets were 100% an effort of Rockefeller and Rothschild (et al). I can show that their nuclear program was controlled by those same entities.
The same methods and entities involved were the same in every case, from the US to the Nazis to the USSR to Iran to the NK, etc. The exact same group used the exact same playbook every time. So who exactly is the "enemy?"
The enemy was (from their perspective) We The People. Obviously.
So what is the purpose of Big Data, which is intended to control Big Health, and Big Defense, and Big Information, and wide spread adoption of VR (to the expense of real Reality), and Big Economy, etc.?
What is the purpose for that level of "progressing" data?
A tool is just a tool. Nuclear power was a great tool. It still is. But nuclear bombs, the "logical next step" are literally useless for a good purpose, and a fantastic tool for evil purposes. I suggest that data processing, on that level, for AI, is similarly evil. Because there is NO ONE who is good who benefits from it in the slightest.
The Cabal on the other hand, Win with it.
Completely.
The Matrix is now complete.
I think it's quite possible that the completion of these data centers is the "scare" event Q talked about.
Data centers are pretty much the anti-Christ.
Note:
- They destroy the environment on a massive level
- They destroy people's property and surrounding property
- They control water, and water storage systems, with a priority of data centers over people (added from u/konadog below).
- While I think "global warming" is bunk as propagandized, data centers increase temperatures markedly in the local environment; and "local" is a pretty broad term here. If you want to kill the world, pollute it with that level of produced heat. (See quote below.**)
- They destroy "work", i.e. the actual economy; you know, actual people working and being productive, giving them fulfilling lives.
- They output data, which is not useful for ACTUAL PEOPLE (at large) but massively useful for the controllers of the world (The Shadow).
- That data is purposefully designed to control people's souls. Pushing MORE data is a BIGGER PUSH to dominate the soul of every individual on the planet.
Thus, "Data Centers" are quite literally, the Anti-Christ.
** Data centers convert nearly 100% of their electrical energy consumption into waste heat, with large facilities generating 20 to 50 MW of heat and massive campuses producing up to 300 MW—enough to heat hundreds of thousands of homes. This concentrated thermal output creates localized "data center heat islands," where recent studies show land surface temperatures can rise by an average of 3.6°F (2°C) and up to 16.4°F (9.1°C) in extreme cases within a 6-mile (10 km) radius.
I consider ALL sources to be primary sources. I.e., i look at who actually wrote what. I investigate the context in which things were said. I assume nothing. I listen to everyone.
So what sources are YOU assuming, why are you assuming them, and who benefited from them? What are the controversies surrounding them? What is the context and/or has the context been altered to give a different meaning than intended? What do the controversies have to say in their own original context? Listen, really listen.
Assume nothing. Trust in nothing, including myself. Listen to everyone. EVERYONE is a primary source in some context.
If that is true, then Yeshua was false.
This is a false statement (not logical).
Look at why you believe those to be directly tied statements (proper supersets of each other), i.e. that one must necessarily (exclusively) follow the other. Look at the actual sources that support it. Where it came from, the controversies surrounding it, who paid for the resulting war to resolve those controversies, and who benefitted from it.
It's really called "The Cabal End Game." This "transition" was a part of a plan put in over a century before, ending in the destruction of the US (or at least in the middle of the End).
Nothing is organic. None of this was a "choice." It has always been a plan.
It's STILL a plan. In fact, it's THE SAME PLAN. Q tweaked it a bit, re-wrote the ending. Added a "twist." But it's still the same plan, they just hired a new Director. (Monty Python v. Spielberg).
for letting it get this bad in the first place
That's not really fair. People had zero choice in the matter. It has been a psyop for a few thousand years. The same psyop (with some minor caveats). The Truth has been purposefully hidden by the same entity, using the same methods, controlled by the same group of people, the whole time. That Truth is now being revealed, for the first time since around the end of the Bronze Age.
Even then, it was a different (albeit related) psyop controlled by a different (albeit literally related) group controlling that previous version of The Matrix. (We'll call it Matrix ver. 1.0. We are in version 2.0 which has been going on for around 2.5 to 3 thousand years.)
Once they have access to our 'toys'
The idea that they don't now, or haven't had them from the beginning is a fiction. The same people who created the state of Israel is the exact same people that created all our "toys."
What is happening is a disclosure of that truth. It isn't actually changing the control systems ("ownership") of anything.
The Cabal System of control still exists. Q et al cut off the head of that snake and put themselves at the top to expose that system, using the system to destroy it from the inside.
THAT is what is actually going on. Everything else is just a part of The Show.
Once it is done it cannot be undone, not even by law
That is a statement that doesn't make a lick of sense. "Law" (not counting the Natural Laws) is a false limit. It doesn't actually exist. It can't influence reality in the slightest. PEOPLE can influence reality. PEOPLE can make other people believe in their false limits (a fiction). PEOPLE do those things. And ONLY PEOPLE can undo them. All they have to do is say, "Fuck No!"
The "Fuck" isn't strictly required, but sometimes it's is the only proper response.
well out live their best by or exp date
Pretty much anything sold in a jar or (especially) a can will outlive the person who buys it.
Probably down to the 10th generation (or even longer) in many cases.
Scam to mass produce products and keep stock moving in, and out.
Yes, the "exp date" is a full on scam; a part of the System designed to keep people buying things they don't need (as is most everything else in our carefully crafted consumer culture).
It's basically impossible.
In the mid aughts (2004+), I was part of a team who created an "expert system" (the precursor for current AI) to diagnose heart disease. Such a medical issue such as arterial blockage was trivial to test. Our system used only three or five leads (depending on if there were suspicions), and no jell or messy residue. It took two minutes or less to put on the leads, took seconds for the AI to put out the info and a minute for the doctor to proclaim the diagnosis (five minutes total for the entire test).
Such an issue (heart attack from arterial blockage) might occur for someone who has never had a doctor's visit in the prior ten years, but for a senator, who is tested all the time (at least once a year), it stretches credulity beyond breaking.
That's total utter hogwash. The "Chinese" and "America" are both part of the same Megamonopoly created by Rockefeller et al. They've been a part of the same Economic Monopoly for almost 200 years (see the Opium wars, I, II, the Boxster Rebellion, the rebellion attempt in 1927, Mao's China (AKA the CCP) created by Rockefeller and Rothschild, etc.).
This current "AI opposition" is nothing but Controlled Opposition. It is sold to the people as "something to be afraid of." In truth, it's just one more example of a long (LONG) line of bullshit moves to make us do what the PTB wants us to do; enslaving us, killing us, and making us be happy about it.