Please provide your personal view on an ideal future set over the next 20-25 years.
If you could 'reasonably' have a future of your liking without ignoring the past which cannot be changed, and keeping in mind that you are god and cannot change things are will either. What would your ideal future look like?
Feel free to go further too, but first flesh out that 20-25 years.
This doesn't have to be too practical either, and as long as it is technically possible, feel free to include those ideas, but I am interested in hearing all your various views on an ideal future.
Preferably go into detail on any systems that change from today
To start off discussion. I would envision a world which works towards the establishment of new cities that can avoid many of the design decisions of the past. I think a new infrastructure economy is the key to success in the future.
Building the cities of tomorrow is the theme I would like to see. That means literally building them....not converting and gentrifying the existing ones.....leave the heritage and culture and let both exist.
The new cities should be forward thinking and incorporate our future abilities as well as our current ones. We will have far more capabilities to grow and harness biology in the future. We should be focusing on establishing cities with the merger of biological tech (not tracking btw) as in the ability to look into biodegradable facilities, full-life-cycle farming, medicine grown in house, circuits we can farm...etc.
By Establishing a strong infrastructure economy we can push through and establish new large innovations. We would need to focus on financing such capital through new instruments that are different from the exist debt
Deeds and entitlements will need to be secured for individuals at all levels of the economic spectrum
By focusing on new developments you avoid upsetting those who would not like to partake in the future....which is fine....and for those who desire it, you need to get them buy in and get them ownership
Cars are not to be part of the future design (they should not be integrated into the cities....) We need rail, high speed, and 'corridors' of transportation and commerce. The main highways should be replaced with smaller ones and real infrastructure should be incorporated.
Additionally, independent vehicles should get dispersed such that there are not more vehicles in an area than people except on major corridors.
While ownership of cars is still valid, they should not be relied on as means of daily travel, instead the world should be made more around communities which enjoy their own way if doing things and have means to get between sources without crazy taxes or centralized control.
We need a district hub based system with national and international protocols for interchange.
I have concluded it's not possible even to formulate an educated guess. People fantasize and fear, but that's about it.
You see, I've come to realize that the Satanic agenda weights over the globe like a person wearing a full set of knight's armor, and underneath it a bodysuit made of those lead dentist's X-ray drapes. It's like asking, "How fast can this person run a mile with some training?"
Pressing the same analogy without all the extra weight, it's still difficult to tell. Younger people won't remember this being a live question, but it was doubted by many that a human being could ever run a four minute mile. Then someone finally did. The odd thing is that now talented high-school runners can do it.
Thats fair. Thats why I want to see idealized opinions. I want to try and remove the armour from people and just have a some stream of conciousness discussion on what could be.
A good future is one in which control of the world has been wrested away from the jews, leading to the end of tikkun olam. In that future, nobody is telling us to reduce our carbon footprint, be more inclusive, or to hand unlimited power to experts and authorities who have demonstrated malice.
I don't want Islamic Jihadists running this place either mate.....Jews over jihad any day haha.
Let's be real....both groups have a problem....but the laws of the jews are much more aligned with our Christian laws..... jihadist and Sharia is shit.
Like the other points though. They seem more aligned with reason than religious nuts
Jews consider all non jews to be animals, and their end goal is total enslavement of all non jews. That's the "you will own nothing" world of walkable cities and rail networks.
I don't intend to be anyone's slave. Living in a log cabin and having to subsistence farm like my ancestors would be better than being a slave in a gleaming high tech city.
They ascribe to Noah's 7 commandments....that is their 10 commandments....they must abide by those....that is required to be a moral Jew.
Also you are just rehashing 15 minute cities like that is the only option......small minded imo....it you cannot see the benefits of fast rail....you haven't travelled much.....
Have you done a real road trip...? Like honestly....drive for 24 hours somewhere......yeah that's the best we got eh? C'mon man. Stop being so gullible.there is a line between 15 minute cities and rail infrastructure that is miles wide....
The Talmud promises every jew 3,000 slaves, and says it's okay to worship gods like Moloch who demand human sacrifice. I've driven far more than 24 hours, and I can't imagine how that can be worse than not being allowed to make the trip at all because I said something true about women, niggers, or jews 10 years ago and my social credit score still hasn't recovered.
Can you provide a reference to that claim. The Talmud is a bunch of rabbis writing things down, but it is not the word of god but rather human fallible interpretation based on rabbinic law....and frankly. Sharia is not much worse than Rabbi law imo. Don't let some random dudes with vices and power write laws based on their random interpretations.
I am saying that you can travel far faster with a rail line than on a car and it will not take 24 hours but instead you can get some work done, relax, read, etc - which provides you the benefit of your hands for 100% of the journey in exchange for some random scenic detours (which almost no one does because the gas stops are all along the main roads....)
I am not disagreeing with you on social credit which has nothing to do with my idealised infrastructure economy
Also, you could still drive in my future, just it would be less ideal than the rail
a) If good, then vs bad aka a conflict of reason among those destroying each other within.
b) ENTA'IL, noun - "to fix unalienable"...cannot exist within a moving system.
c) Consenting to suggested future (what will be) tempts one to ignore "being will".
Aka suggested idealism (ideal) and nihilism (cannot) tempting one to hold onto suggested, while ignoring that perceivable cannot be held onto.
Systema (to set) implies setting solid (life) into fluid (inception towards death). In other words...systems can only exist within change.
I like that I am a target of your Botting attempts....it's kinda nice to feel stalked....thanks for nothing
Is there any mistake in what I wrote? Is there any lie; deceit or contradiction in what I wrote? How could one be targeted by nothing?
Have you ever perceived anything but "now"? How could anytime from now be future, when one still exists within now?
More like a big helping of non-sequitors....My statement has nothing to do with your assessment of gramatical etymological relationships...I am asking about a hypothetical future where you can define new terms that have yet to be established which is not something a bot like you can do.
;)
a) Can one follow (sequi) nothing (non)?
b) If being (life) within (inception towards death) follows along, then...less of being.
c) What if suggested past; present; future isn't a sequence to follow, but ones presence as resistance within velocity?
d) What if the path of least resistance implies being (life) ignoring to resist path (inception towards death)?
e) What if seeking help from others distracts one from being (life) within delivery (inception towards death)? What if there's a difference between natural assistance (perceivable inspiration) and artificial assurance of assistance (suggested information)?
a) Three sentences; each utilizing "nothing" as the foundation to argue from. Why?
b) What if nothing (Latin nihilo) implies suggested nihilism by others and ones consent to denial perceivable when consenting?
c) If one denies; would one be aware thereof?
a) yours vs mine implies a conflict of reason over ownership.
b) what if suggested state (to fix) and assess (to fix amount) tempt one to ignore that MENT (mind/memory) implies momentum of ongoing motion, hence a tool to process flow-state input (perceivable inspiration)?
c) Notice memory loss within elderly? Can memories be yours or mine if outside (inception towards death) dissolves inside (life)? What if one is being tempted to want to hold onto memories (information); while ignoring the need to let go of continuous input (inspiration)?
Notice the child-like relieve among elderly when the burden of holding onto memories is being lifted from them, then notice the industrialized burdening of youth with suggested information to memorize (education)...
What's the relation (connection) between ships (solid vessels apart from one another)? Its water aka fluid (inception towards death) outside solid (life) vessels.
ETYMOS (actual aka perceivable) + LOGIC (fictional aka suggested)...the former is being utilized to contradict the latter.
a) ...to seek answers (suggested), which ignores solution (perceivable) to problems (perception).
b) "ask and you'll shall receive" tempts one to want to receive answers from others, yet without asking one (perception) already receives all (perceivable), so the rhetoric is simply used to distract from that.
Mankind permits itself to be tricked to seek from one another (suggested information), more than reality offers (perceivable inspiration).
c) What if ones claim to hold onto self (me; myself and I) tempts one to view other ones as "YOU"? What if this behavior results into a mine vs yours conflict of reason?
HYPO (beneath; under) THESIS (proposition aka suggestion)...consenting to any suggestion places oneself under another. Asking for hypothesis tempts others to answer a pyramid scheme by consenting to a place themselves under a chain of command. The more are consenting to submit under; the higher those suggesting are permitted to rise above them.
Meanwhile in reality...being implies presence (life) within absence (inception towards death). Consenting to hold onto past memories or shape hypothetical futures within ones mind/memory, permits others to shape present, while oneself ignores to express presence.
a) YOU aka ye - "second person" represents suggested spell-craft tempting the only one to ignore self for others instead of discerning self as PERSON (per sonos; by sound), which implies SEC (seco; to divide) aka a division of sound (entire) and each one instrument (partial) by sound.
b) two does not exist within nature. Each one partial implies whole "too", because only within whole can there be partials.
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...U2 aka YOU (divided by sound) TOO (in addition).
Being one implies addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole).
c) If bot; then why address as second person (you)? If person; then why address as bot...unless wanting to dehumanize another?
tl; dr: Thanks for inspiring with your presence, and may you resist that which is yet to be (future) for being within that which is.
u/SicilianOmega - no rebuttal? No claims...no receipts??
Figures....your a dumb idiot working for some jihadist losers who think the Jews are the only problem meanwhile they have a religious issue that they cannot seem to acknowledge......trans rights is pro Islamic extremist.....so keep your trannies loser
LOL. Trannies are entirely a jewish creation, straight out of the Talmud and its 8 genders. And it's jews who are flooding the West with sand niggers. Nice try, kike.
Where is this Talmud information??? I have never found it in the bookstore....do you have a good reference...I am not familiar with it haha
It's hard to gather sources on mobile, but the full text of the Babylonian Talmud is on the Internet, and there are many articles pointing out the interesting bits. Use Yandex to get around search censorship.
Yeah but without a common translation and reference to original script will not mean much.
It's like asking for the weather from a bunch of different people online. Today it rained...somewhere, but not here etc.
Even with the bible we always need references to the version and ideally the actual passage so that you can compare against other translations.
For all I know someone translated the Talmud poorly, or they already thought they knew what it meant, or they massaged it to fit their message.
But even then, the Talmud is not the word of God nor is it the Law of God. It is Rabbinic law which is not the same thing.
It's like a treatise of writinga over the year. Have you read things written back in the past about different groups or history from congressional records....did every law get applied? Did some get repealed....etc.
It's like a book of minutes from different people over centuries....I wouldn't assume anything in there is 100% accurate and no one who studies the Talmud thinks its the law....it's dialogues.
When I read the dialogue of different philosophers and something says a statement doesn't make it the word of god.