2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

People (who reproduced) have always had a lot of kids historically, it's only now it's changed. Now they want people to have more kids because otherwise the economy will collapse. The technocrats have no need for an extremely robust population they want a slimmer more pliable populatikn

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

Your previous argument seemed to be bad people want to do bad things to kids so having kids is bad which would lend itself to extinction. You're saying AI will be removing jobs so we should have less people, without realizing that's the actual end goal here

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok. So let's say some people will be forced to have kids, because likely people will be forced into all kinds of behaviors. What is your solution? Total human extinction?

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

No one is forcing people to have kids. Also, it sounds like you do not believe that there is value to life, in which case we will not agree. I would like for humanity to have a future, that is not possible if there is no humanity left. Bad people want to do bad things to other people, that doesn't mean there is no value to life. Absurd proposition

3
VeilOfReality 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just because people may push for certain things that doesn't make them directly related. I push for gun rights and also organic foods, that doesn't make those inherently related

3
VeilOfReality 3 points ago +4 / -1

Who do you think you're talking to? Also how do birth rates have anything to do with technocracy? You're getting unhinged

3
VeilOfReality 3 points ago +4 / -1

I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I would like humanity to both have a future and have it be free from those who would like to enslave us

5
VeilOfReality 5 points ago +5 / -0

Brought to you by Trump and his friends at Palantir.

Of course, for the direction brained, that's not to say "Kamala would be better!!!" Just that, Trump was the one chosen to usher in technocracy. Probably because the conservatives who should be against it in principle will lap it up if it comes from Trump since he's been built up as their hero and the majority of people cannot evaluate actions or ideas without putting it through the tribalist lens of "my team, your team"

6
VeilOfReality 6 points ago +6 / -0

"I'm going to do everything necessary to implement agenda 2030"

"W..WHAT?!?!"

"Don't worry, they're not 15 minute cities, they're 'freedom cities'. Don't worry, normalization of paramilitary on the streets, but you'll love it. Don't worry, real value of your money collapsing but I'll keep talking about the S&P 500 and you'll eat it up. Oh and the new FED chair? Bilderberg alum"

"Oh yes daddy Trump!!! Own those libtards!!!"

7
VeilOfReality 7 points ago +8 / -1

Trump is totally going to drain the swamp though guys

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

As if the others options aren't deep state creations

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

He's clearly aging in these photos, well aside from the first 2. I guess he deaged and is reaging

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is quite a bold claim. While I agree it's quite likely that Musk is both of those things (though it's all second to him being the face of technocracy), to make a claim of equivalence like that is a bit unhinged

1
VeilOfReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unintentionally based

3
VeilOfReality 3 points ago +4 / -1

It was like this in the past too. Post would go up and then get the exact same number of votes on all communities except some of the more active ones where it might have one or two more. He disappeared for awhile but it was really obvious. When called out he would just say things like "I must have fans"

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

And they said "nah he's one of ours, just keep up the theater for now"

2
VeilOfReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

Need those data centers for the AI governance system. China's social credit score is about to look like Candy Crush

0
VeilOfReality 0 points ago +2 / -2

Trying to discuss the point brought up

Must be jewish!!

1
VeilOfReality 1 point ago +2 / -1

Baby chairs are not that high, so did they hold it in the air? Did the one sacrificing the baby levitate so they could all see?

Look no matter what happened down there it's super bizarre and unhinged - and that's the most charitable reading of events, but somehow, this being a ritual to bring back their Messiah and thus entire families would want to be present and have a place to put their babies makes more sense than they were using a baby seat as a prison (how does a baby need to be held in place? Babies can't go anywhere) and a display piece for killing the baby.

Is it possible? Sure. As an operative assumption, it always seemed more like ragebait to me, even then. The blood on the mattress was much more suspect and it's still very possible this guy is lying, but this explanation does make more sense for the presence of the baby chairs

0
VeilOfReality 0 points ago +2 / -2

Did I say anything close to that? No, but you need to make a wild claim to avoid addressing the central point that's scoped to this specific instance because you can't. Very pilpul of you

1
VeilOfReality 1 point ago +3 / -2

I mean, if they were sacrificing the baby why would they have the baby chair down there? This explanation, crazy as it sounds, actually makes more sense than that one

4
VeilOfReality 4 points ago +4 / -0

We absolutely should not consent. It worked with the vaxxes, enough people stood strong that the passes had to go away. However, that was all likely preparation for this so the digital ID push will be harder. We can do it though if (and this is a MASSIVE if) enough of us are unequivocal in our refusal

view more: Next ›