It has definitely felt like a distraction from something. The US Summit of the Future was also last week or the week before.
They've always got events warmed up and ready to go when they need them. The diddy thing has been building for a year or two. Sometimes they are distractions, and sometimes they are a part of advancing the agenda (problem->reaction->solution), but this one definitely feels more like distraction.
It's likely more due to the ability to patent the synthetics, and business deals and lobbying for government subsidies, etc.
Also probably taking advantage of economies of scale to find more uses for synthetic garbage they are already manufacturing to put it in more stuff, and thus be able to take advantage of cost efficiencies of manufacturing on a larger scale.
Everything ok? You don't have to believe anything. I'm just pointing you to information if you want to research. Going outside on a clear morning and watching the trails expand and eventually fill the sky is a pretty easy thing to do.
The hostility is a little strange.
I'd just clarify that tech is fully infiltrated by CIA, Tavistock, etc. Yes, the engineers are tools, but the organizations are a primary vehicle of the agenda.
Can't use cars because they are affecting the stratosphere and ionosphere. Can't do that with exhaust on the ground.
Go outside and watch on a perfectly clear morning. Watch planes go back and forth across the sky. Watch the trails keep expanding and by late afternoon it completely covers the sky, completely overcast.
In a way, I get it, I used to think chemtrails were stupid and too far until someone made me watch a plane one morning. Watched one plane go back and forth across the sky, moving up from the horizon on each pass, and a perfectly clear sky turn completely overcast from it.
Worth watching if you want to learn:
When the time comes, they will already have significant percentages of immigrants in the military and police, probably even majorities in urban areas. Tough to say how that will affect the outcome. It will make the government side far more willing to kill Americans, but it could also make gun owners more willing to use theirs.
I know this is used often, but I'm not sure Katrina is a comparable scenario to large-scale gun confiscation. While obviously unconstitutional (as if that matters to them), if you look at what was actually happening, it's not quite what it's generally painted to be. The troops were tasked with essentially maintaining peace in a crime-ridden area that was 95% abandoned, heavily damaged, and difficult to navigate.
That's why they enter buildings guns blazing. And they weren't going around trying to find weapons in your house, they were confiscating weapons if you had them on your person. Still illegal and unconstitutional, but need to accurately report the scale.
What Katrina, the Boston marathon lockdowns, plandemic lockdowns illustrate is the phase one that they have been conditioning us for. It's not going to start with door-to-door gun confiscations, it's going to start with an "emergency" (plandemic, power grid or other cyber attack, riots, food shortages). That will "justify" lockdowns. There will be unrest, and that will "justify" national guard, military and police patrols, checkpoints and other means of enforcement. Unrest will continue and that is what will eventually lead to confiscating weapons.
That's easy to do in urban areas. Not as easy in rural areas. That's why I always say the way out of this is to get as rural as you can, become as self-sustaining as you can, and build local and regional networks of like-minded people for redundancy and safe travel. And DO IT NOW, as it's already close to too late.
Nothing else will work. Thinking you are going to take on the system head-on is not realistic. They will just lock cities down and start drone bombing rural areas. (They can't get everyone, though, not even a majority. They will go after the higher profile targets to send a message.)
lost what? besides time wasted watching a troll throw a fit
Entitled much?
I don't give a fuck one way or another about Torba or Gab, but the entitlement of implying that Torba owes you something, and that he shouldn't charge users but should instead use ad support or donations from wealthy benefactors is just really strange.
What's the conspiracy? That the owner of a website is trying to make money?
If it was about Gab being an intelligence collection tool or something, that might be interesting, but the whining and entitlement is stupid.
What's with the daily spam on this? I don't understand the argument.
Are you saying he should not be allowed to make a profit? Or that he should only seek donations from wealthy benefactors? Or that he values profit more than freedom and thus should not be trusted?
You don't have to use Gab. I've never used it and I'm pretty sure I'm fine.
Like CrazyRussian implied, you will never really have freedom with a large centralized platform. You need to put in the work to create and participate in decentralized networks, and accept the tradeoffs in ease of use and effort involved.
EDIT: I believe it is unlikely that the Harris campaign would have engaged with this if they believed it was an AI-generated letter.
Wait, so you actually believed that the Harris campaign received a hand-written letter in the mail, and that they found it so genuine that they decided to post it to their twitter account? That they didn't just create this themselves as a publicity stunt?
Are you tarded or something?
It's a tough one. Like everything else, they were created to protect those with money and power. However, there is a legitimate need to protect the large investment of money and time that it takes to develop something new and novel. If someone could just come along and make a cheap copy of what you spent years perfecting, there would be no motivation to do that work.
If patents were much more rare, for truly novel inventions, and they were much shorter-term (i.e. max of 5 years), they would actually be beneficial to society.
Obviously the system has been gamed to protect the powerful. Every system always has been and always will be. The only answer is periodically starting fresh. The problem is this fake, controlled reset they are building up to is not organic, and is also meant to protect and permanently solidify the power of those that already have it.
This is the right outlook.
The other piece to be aware of though is blockchain is a central piece of the digital carbon economy/control grid that they are trying to move us to.
No, I wanted to know what the person I was responding to was referencing.
That was like15 years ago. That was O'Keefe's big break that made him famous. Not to take anything away from that, but he was a kid just trying to do crazy stuff to get famous. It was Hannity that made the story big, and other organizations that jumped in to take that event and go after Acorn.
What has happened since then, though? That's my point. Most controlled opposition is legit (by some definition of legit) when they start and then get co-opted to serve the agenda when they reach a certain level of popularity (sometimes not even something they are aware of).
It's hard to not at least question O'Keefe at this point. The pattern repeats over and over and over. Big whistleblower story and they only put out a short video. Then they say much more coming soon, implying the initial video is just the tip of the iceberg. Then nothing, until the pattern repeats again.
Like what, specifically? What it usually looks like to me is a 10-minute video released, a little bit of a firestorm created on right-leaning and conspiracy site, a promise of "much more to come", and then nothing.
If you have time, watch the Project Whistleblower doc on rumble. It could be a psyop also, who knows, trust no one, but it does line up with what I've noticed. O'Keefe just seems like a person meant to capture and neutralize whistleblowers.
Who knows though.
Programmable money means that transactions execute via smart contracts. If the required criteria for the transaction are not met then the transaction fails.
So, for example, let's say each wallet (a wallet is tied to a person's digital ID) is allowed $50 per month in "carbon fuels". You gas up one time on July 3rd, for $43. On July 10th, you try to gas up again. You put your card (or fob or face scan or whatever) in the pump, it checks to see what your remaining monthly carbon fuel allowance is for your wallet. It finds that you only have $7 remaining for the month. You start pumping fuel, and after two gallons the pump stops. You cannot pump anymore until August 1st because your monthly allowance has now been reached.
Similarly, you can set tokens to have an expiration date. So, you get your monthly paycheck as a federal employee of $5,000 on July 1st. Anything leftover from that July paycheck at midnight August 1st disappears because it is set to expire after one month. This takes away the ability to accumulate savings.
And they control the transaction processing, so they can change the rules whenever they want. e.g. Start blacklists where people who don't follow the rules cannot make any transactions.
Yeah, probably a different one. The 2016 iteration was largely around Hillary's server and special access programs.
A month or two before the election was the "fbi_anon" stuff though, which started all of the two more weeks suspense. It always felt to me like qanon grew out of that original larp (or op).
This is how they control the discussion. It keeps the people who ask questions occupied arguing over the things that aren't really relevant, while ignoring the important pieces. You can't keep digging deeper when there is constantly new "facts" to argue about and look into.
They do it until the hype dies down, as that is the point the story becomes solidified in the general public's mind, and conspiracy talk after that is easily marginalized.
They want the general public thinking it was just incompetence that allowed it to happen, and they want conspiracy folks thinking the SS looked the other way for a few minutes and allowed a lone wolf to do his stuff.
They don't want anyone pursuing the questions of how deep does the rabbit hole go, who was actively involved in planning, who was actively involved in execution, who had knowledge of the plans in advance, how many people were actors, etc.
I'm not sure if you're asking in good faith, but assuming you are, btc specifically has a ton of issues. Cryptos in general do as well, but there is much more nuance when speaking about the entirety of cryptocurrencies and blockchain.
Bitcoin is not really private, not really fungible. Every transaction can be traced if you have enough visibility (which, e.g., large tech companies, large banks, large governments generally do). Compare this to cash, or even better to gold (which is truly decentralized money).
Bitcoin is not as decentralized as most people believe it is, either with respect to price or with freedom to collect and use it unfettered. Blackrock, large banks, Coinbase and governments largely control it already, and if it does become officially supported and adopted by governments and/or central banks then it will be forked to add the same total control that CBDCs would provide (i.e. smart contracts facilitating the ability to shut off access to any wallet at any time, and enforcing that wallets be tied to real world identities).
Couldn't happen? Yes, it could, and if it becomes widely accepted by the multination corporations, central banks and governments that run the world, it will happen.
Gain mass adoption. Have a series of "terrorist" events, or similar, that make it clear "we must have some common sense controls on bitcoin, and must tie it to real identities". Put forward a plan for the forks which are already designed. Pass laws that make it illegal to do commerce without using the accepted fork. Any legitimate business will then only transact in the new fork, so the old fork will go the way of BCH.
Now you've got the essence of CBDCs in place without ever needing to force it on people. They will have chosen it because they never thought it would happen this way, but it always happens this way.
Look also at Cardano, Solana, Polkadot. They all work very closely with regulatory bodies, governments, corporations to ensure they are able to guarantee the compliance that these institutions require.
In general, the more electronic something becomes, and the more convenient something becomes, the more it restricts actual freedom.
Yes, there are cryptocurrencies and blockchains that offer more true freedom. No, they will never be allowed to become mainstream by the institutions that run the world.
Moderna has been a company since like 2006, and went public around 2010, and had never successfully gotten a product through FDA approval. Until 2021. They needed it to get MRNA through, or it probably never would have happened (because it's dangerous and ineffective, to such a degree that it could never get through trials).
There was also the imminent economic implosion that required money printing on a level never seen.
The biggest reason for it, though, was as a part of conditioning and transitioning the population for digital passports, travel restrictions and the absolute control grid that the carbon credit economy requires.
This is the right question. Why across the board, right now, all at once?
IMO it has to be either that or a setup for another J-as-victims event (Holocaust II - this time we get the East). It's so over the top and intense the last few years. Not only are they openly running everything, but they are openly and brazenly saying you can't notice or criticize or you will be imprisoned.
It's so much that it has been making normal people take notice. It's not even just at the elite levels, it's across the board in smaller town governments, in smaller company executives.
Still not sure which way it will go, but it seems to clearly be one of those two options.
Whenever I take pictures of aurora on my phone, the pictures come out multi-colored like that, but in real life it's always just shades of green.
I didn't read this story, but usually "minor battery issue" means replacing the proprietary battery. This not only requires a battery from the manufacturer, but also are often extremely expensive.
With electric cars, for example, replacing the battery is generally more than half the price of buying a new car. In other words, this stuff is all designed to be disposable (planned obsolescence). It's for the environment.