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.
How do you think Christian zionism started? That's how you control one group. Holocaust narrative is how you control other groups. Blackmail and extortion is how you control other groups.
If you only control one of those groups then you get overpowered pretty quickly.
You can get raw milk legally in most states, see link below.
One note, raw milk does not have vitamin D, that is created via the irradiation process, so you can either get vitamin D or you can get the real nutrients that milk provides, but not both (get sun while you still can).
True, black markets have always existed and always will. But make those black markets bigger by working now. Black markets that reach a certain size can essentially operate in the open, and that's what we would want.
To your question, though, the answer depends, right? Are you willing to risk getting caught? If so, then yes, you potentially have a lot to gain, but it is not without tradeoffs.
Things rarely end up at the extremes of possibilities (though sometimes they do), but the reason for that is because of the people that push back. So push back :)
Fair arguments, but as you state, they currently have a system that they can fully control. Whether cryptos are a trojan horse or not, people with that much power are not going to just watch that power disappear. They will do literally everything possible to keep it.
Using the constitution analogy, most of the patriot act is/was unconstitutional, but they were pretty easily able to get that through with minimal pushback by crashing a few planes into a few buildings.
And as witnessed during the scamdemic, they were pretty easily able to get the overwhelming majority of world governments on board with the lockdowns and restrictions. There were some outliers, but not many.
They just need to scare enough people, and honestly, for most people I don't think it is too far of a leap for them to accept plugging in blacklists for transactions when they are convinced of the threat of "terrorists", or whatever.
All I'm saying is start working now to try to head that possibility off, either by raising awareness before it happens, or by helping to create alternative, parallel systems that will offer a safe haven.
Read my other comment to understand what I mean. Sure, no wallets can be frozen NOW, but what I'm saying is that can very easily be changed, and to me seems incredibly likely that it will.
It won't matter if they are cold wallets or on an exchange. They will add in a requirement to verify the wallet is not on a blacklist to approve the transaction. I would bet everything I have that they will do that, create a false flag event and use it to force the blacklist check. Eventually that will be expanded to integrate a social credit score system.
Forks that do not implement the blacklist checks will not survive because the mainstream system will only recognize the mainline branches with blacklists (meaning you won't be able to use the forks to buy anything in the mainstream system). The same will be true for privacy coins, they just won't be allowed in the mainstream.
That's why I say it is incredibly important to be vocal about this now to try to raise awareness of what they will try before they actually try it. And probably more importantly, start now on creating parallel systems outside of the mainstream system so they are in place and will allow the forked bitcoin and privacy coins, because the mainstream will not be allowed to accept them when the time comes.
It's not about the rich and powerful, though. Of course they won't be targeted.
If you cause problems for the system, though, whether you are elite or not, you will be targeted in the same way they do now.
See my other comment, it is straightforward and imo incredibly likely that they tie in blacklists that essentially freeze the wallets of "terrorists". Over time that would be expanded to a social credit score system, where when your score drops too low your wallet cannot perform transactions.
Yes, it is absolutely possible, and imo very likely. Understand that now and start being vocal to make sure people don't get scared into accepting it when the time comes.
Nodes control the bitcoin network. Nodes run bitcoin clients, the largest of which is bitcoin core, but there are like a dozen popular clients.
The protocol changes over time, and enhancements are regularly made. From small changes to significant changes like SegWit and TapRoot. The "communities" that develop the popular bitcoin clients debate and come to a consensus on changes that will be accepted and implemented in all bitcoin clients.
All that is needed to add the ability to ban accounts is to have a major false flag that scares people enough, a call for emergency measures to implement a blacklist in the bitcoin protocol, and the bitcoin clients to agree to implement that blacklist. They would likely do it in such a way that it would use approved government lists (e.g. from FBI, CIA, U.N., Interpol, etc.).
Once a majority of the nodes on the network upgrade their clients to the newest version containing the blacklists, then instantly blacklists will become a thing. To me, the likelihood of this seems incredibly high. There are already plenty of rumors that Blackrock and Coinbase may join forces to push a fork that would move from proof of work to proof of stake, for example, so certainly a 9/11 style event could easily force something like blacklists.
The only recourse is to hard fork, and those opposed would need to maintain the bitcoin clients that do not accept the blacklists. In general, over time, only one fork will win, and that would probably be the one that is legally mandated in the emergency act of congress that would happen after the false flag.
Remember BCH? How are they doing now?
Similar things have already happened on Ethereum with Circle and USDC freezing TornadoCash accounts.
Not trying to doom and gloom, rather, pointing out that if you want crypto out of government control then you need to get involved, run nodes, build new blockchains or participate in alternatives, spread knowledge, and/or loudly advocate now before the false flags happen.
The idea that the ruling class would just allow themselves to be superseded, and not fight to the death to control any alternatives, is..well, that's not going to happen.
Start preparing and advocating and getting involved now.
Wow, you really are an ADL J-op. I admit, you had me fooled until today.
Not a strawman, dumbfuck, re-read the posts where you explicitly say doing that is a viable path.
And what is it you're doing again? I mean besides demoralizing all day every day with your defeatist shit.
I'm not shilling for anything other than what I said at the start (maybe someday you'll learn to read). I said everyone should be actively working on whatever it is they think is the best incremental path to getting us where they think we should be. If you think direct kinetic conflict is the best path right now, while I completely disagree with that assessment, I still think you should be actively pursuing whatever you think is the best path.
inb4 another retarded reply from your mom's basement.
I'm not the one screaming into the void, friend.
You go organize your friends and wage war against the military. Let me know how it goes. I'll keep doing things that are actually viable.
lol, "literally not even reading" a sentence? You didn't read my prior post either.
Your own point on the previous post proves you wrong ("Every war in the last 60 years..."), but you're too fucking stupid to even realize that.
Those wars all played out exactly as I stated. Those were all against enemies that were both organized and had existing systems already in place outside of the western system.
You have neither of those and still somehow think you are going to directly take on the military, or even indirectly. You are a moron if you believe that even a little bit. You need to have parallel structures and decentralized networks already in place.
If you ever thought things through (and got off your lazy ass and did the actual work), you would have value. But you don't. You waste your potential so you can cry and play the victim.
Wow, ok. Keep sitting at your computer doing nothing but crying then.
Then you’ve already lost and white genocide is complete. You’re psychotic. There are exactly zero other options.
Are you doing anything (rhetorical)? Usually the people pushing for violence against the most technologically advanced military the world has ever known don't actually do anything more than talk.
Maybe I should clarify what I meant by violence, though. The direct kinetic war against the federal government advocated for regularly by fedposters cannot possibly ever be successful. And any kind of organizing effort would be infiltrated, every time.
Yes, asymmetric warfare would likely generally need to happen at some point, but you can't do that before you are able to live independent of the system. And you need numbers. So, yes, decentralization that is difficult to infiltrate and creates an alternate pathway for others wanting to exit is the most viable first step.
Even the types of things you've mentioned before require an alternate system already be in the works, or you just create chaos for them to come in and make order out of.
Secret societies may be another viable option, but that means you must do the same things the bad guys do to ensure loyalty, etc. It's not for most people.
Our knowledge confers us with a duty to act. We refuse to. But the situation we’ve been handed wasn’t our fault; it was the fault of our ancestors–who didn’t act. Do we blame them? The living or just the dead?
If we know and refuse, then we are doing exactly the same thing our predecessors did, so we can't blame (especially considering they probably were less aware of it than we are).
My feeling is everyone should be doing that which they think will actually move towards the thing you want. Whatever that is that in your mind is the best incremental path there, always be moving along that path.
I personally don't think violence is tenable path, I've said a hundred times here but my path is work towards decentralization (become able to sustain outside of the system, help others to do so as well, build networks of such people locally, build regional networks/alliances for safety and trade). I consistently make progress on making that a reality in the ways that I can.
Everyone should be doing the same. Even talking about and raising awareness of this stuff makes progress. Waking up one ignorant bastard at a time does make it harder to advance these agendas. Wherever it is you want to get to, determine the incremental path that you believe best gets you there, and constantly move along that path.
Tentative agreement with the statement, provided we concur not to pin down the definition of the word ‘capitalism’ until there’s agreement upon it.
Be careful with the anti-capitalism stuff. Monopoly is the problem, not free markets. There is no perfect system, and human nature guarantees that the trend will always be towards centralization of power. Socialism, communism, et al, just skip the work and give all power to a central authority. Decentralization (including anti-trust) is what yields individual liberty and a middle class, and meritocracy is the best driver of quality.
Make no mistake, though, no matter what, the trend will always move back towards centralizing power, which means people must always work against centralized power. Once they give up, or stop paying attention, they will lose everything they gained (as can clearly be seen by looking around today).
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.