I'm not saying there wasn't useful information on the internet that you could learn from. There is now but the internet is making people dumber anyway. You could have learned lock picking, hacking and other things without the internet - there are books on these subjects. You may say you wouldn't have because you would never have become interested in those things in the first place. But then you would have pursued other things with your time, made better real life relationships and learned other things, perhaps things that would have been more useful in an internet-free world than the things you learnt are in the world of the internet. Of course you might also have wasted your time on TV and movies, but that's just showing those were a bad idea as well as the internet.

Magic often meant science at the time of the renaissance. Renaissance magic included ceremonial magic and natural magic. Natural magic is what we call natural science, the attempt to harness natural forces, while ceremonial magic is basically what is called sorcery today.

Alchemy for example was just their name for chemistry but was considered a type of magic. Astrology was their name for astronomy and herbology was basically making medicine (potions) from plants. They would usually attach spiritual significance to each of these fields of study, which is the main difference between natural magic and science today. Both are empirical/experimental ways of studying how things work, but one leans towards spiritual hypotheses of explanation while the other has become exclusively naturalistic and mechanistic.

I don't think the internet ever made people smarter. It wasn't as bad as now but it was always a substitute for real conversation or reading a book and had a lot of useless bickering and insults. Back then people would read longer essays and forum threads, but it was natural as the internet became more popular there would be information overload and shorter content to distract you and make you feel like you didn't have time to read longer things.

Also don't pay attention to court decisions until one side is no longer able to or has said they aren't going to appeal the decision. So much news about court decisions is presented as the final result and the new precedent, which ends up being false when it gets overturned on appeal. Also when someone gets sentenced to X years in prison they usually don't serve that amount of time, especially if they're favored by those in power (e.g., they have friends in high places or are part of an "oppressed group").

But how does one accept and internalize this understanding? You must know it is very difficult for people to do this. Even if they see what you say is true and tell others to question everything, they are likely to still get mad when you argue with them. Is that just showing they failed to internalize it? I don't know.

I think you're right. Do tell how you think this type of fear can be prevented.

Thanks for pointing out the additional connection between Polymarket and Palantir. I think that supports what Corbett was saying, so how is it a sign he's misdirecting people?

3 minutes is not much time to judge from. I'm not saying I stand by the video's accuracy, but you didn't disprove anything that was said. They aren't claiming that all quakers are bad, but that their views led to ways of thinking similar to wokeness and that wokeness today is still supported by big quaker groups.

Has nothing to do with promoting personal agendas and is more about following the spirit of god that exists in all of us.

"Following the spirit" is a common excuse for supposedly religious people to impose their personal agendas. The video talks about that.

Yes.

Thanks. I'm catching up on their videos.

Video embed wasn't working so had to link to the mp4. The video page is here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2aKlmk9pv6c

If the video isn't working, try these links:

• https://cdn.videy.co/8f2f25e11.mp4
• https://streamable.com/0xj1ni (slightly better quality but only up for 2 days)

Clipped from full hour long video (around 49 minutes): https://www.bitchute.com/video/jmhFAjqbxnQ

Europol report: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/The-Unmanned-Future-Report.pdf

Not only does this word salad make no sense but that image looks very dull and depressing. It also looks like a video game not totally realistic.

I'm not suggesting it was a hallucination but that you could have both seen an illusion created by the light and shadows. If the light didn't change then perhaps it disappeared as your eyes adjusted. There are optical illusions where you can see a person one second then see a different figure and lose the person and have difficulty seeing it the first way again. Or it could have been a ghost for all I know.

I see. So is it possible there were just some shadows and things that looked like a boy in the dark? Until there was a change to the electronic light, trees casting shadows moved or you and your girlfriend moving?

How dark was it?

I think you meant cult, not occult.

That's what I'm talking about. There's only a few that are controlled by governments who put measures in place to prevent misuse. (Although several times they were still almost launched) If instead everyone had them then we'd be extinct real fast.

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because only big governments have access to nukes and none of those are dumb enough to risk annihilation in using them. If everyone had nukes or even 1% of people had personal nukes it would be a completely different story.

I think if you live in the middle of nowhere and there isn't something like nuclear fallout preventing health crops and rainwater then you can make it without even a lot of preparation. Humans never needed anything more than stone tools to get by in non-extreme climates unless there was a famine or war. If you don't live in the middle of nowhere you are basically going to be in the war scenario unless you manage to get to nowhere and either know how to hunt/forage or have seeds and are fortunate enough to get there at the right time of year. But of course if there are killer robots or a genetically modified virus to deal with that changes the equation.

I'm not disagreeing with you (assuming your bunker is noticeable or you told people about it) but you spoke as if you've been through the apocalypse several times before

always the first ones to get looted and die

How many times have you done this before?

Time to relocate to private and anonymous systems only or move offline and start preparing your underground bunker and food supplies and building a small community doing the same.

I'd much rather have my clothes lightly patted than be taken aside for questioning. I don't support any of it though. Normally a warrant is needed before a search and we have innocence until proven guilty. There can be a choice between flights with invasive security checks and those without, but governments like force not choice. That would also expose the fact that security checks do practically nothing.

Carlson is free. He was only briefly pulled aside for questioning it seems. If it was routine procedure as Israel are claiming we should be still be against government questioning, especially as a frequent procedure forced on ordinary people.