So about that whole who-would-you-kill-if-you-had-a-time-machine thing...
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
He definitely didn't say it homie. Its just that people ALWAYS say Adolf Hitler as the answer to that question. And even before I actually knew, I thought I knew that was the wrong answer to this question. Worse still, just like today, the people ACTUALLY responsible are in the shadows and are completely unknown. Gatesie is a hype man. That's it. The Flavor Flav of eugenics.
Link it. Don't you think they can make videos to support narratives.
Why would he say it?
A) Somebody can Time Travel, certainly it was being committed towards, it was a hot topic since H.G Wells, everywhere, novels, comics, research, Einstein.
B) Because there's a former record, in all that former press of jewish persecution.
C) He was going to kill them.
D) It's for today's narrative. What was the full context? If he said it, you have literally turned the translation into Hitler's greatest quotes. Why, how, what is the entire speech?
Yea you're D, supporting a narrative, B, for C. Well A. See you've made time travel happen. Mandela affect.
I should stay away from this. The past has occurred. No changing it.
The past has occurred. No changing it.
Ahhh but interpretation by future generations is up for grabs!
Gatesie is a hero to himself and philanthropist of murder!
Is that how history books are going to put it though? Doubtful.
Can only change the future. Never the past. The past has occurred. Rewriting the past changes the future. It's a conundrum. There is the present, it loops, replaying the past, or it splinters going forward into a new version of events, or it continues on its path. But the past has happened. Changing it, changes the future.
What are you even changing? A narrative. Yawn. It's there because the past has occurred. By changing it, what future do you forsee?
Hence the Mandela affect. A narrative that erases the past to dominate the present, causing its future to remain intact.
Ultimately it won. It can say what it likes about the past. Who are you to argue with it. You can only point out the irregularities of it inserting itself or its version of events. They will only lose like it did in that past. Or do win against it, and create a new narrative. In doing so you've replayed the past. What does it mean?