I have been spending quite a bit of time on this topic over the past few years, and I've come up kind of on the fence.
On one hand, there are some very clear BS fakes in the nuclear bomb footage archives. There is also many photos and videos of military stacking piles of TNT the size of buildings to simulate nuclear explosions and test things. Whenever you see somebody wasting that kind of time that it would take to stack hundreds of thousands of sticks of TNT just to supposedly test the effects of something completely predictable it makes you wonder "are the supposed nukes actually TNT explosions as well?
The other day somebody posted Bill Gates comments about how the vaccine should be thought of similarly to the Manhattan project and the Apollo missions. Well, we know that at least one of these was completely fake (the Apollo missions), and if Bill Gates is comparing these three things, it's fairly easy to also see that the vaccines were about control. If we know that the Russians have never cast public doubt on the Apollo missions, but there is no doubt in any of our minds that the Russians knew they were fake, then it's very easy to imagine a scenario where both countries put the fear of God into their populations by making them think that we were always on the verge of sending missiles back-and-forth that would clear the planet of fauna for centuries. If we know that the Apollo missions caused people to start focusing on television, and we know that the Manhattan project made everybody afraid that we were always going to be at risk of nuclear war, and we know that the ostensible vaccines are being used to create digital ID/social credit systems, then it's easy to come to the conclusion that all three of these are fake in the exact same way, and by that I mean 100% fake.
However, the reason I still remain on the fence about nukes is because of certain governmental/military initiatives, such as the efforts and money put into keeping doomsday planes in the air and deep underground nuclear bunkers, etc.
Pertaining nuclear energy in general, it is highly plausible that generating nuclear power is totally a thing, and the only thing that is bogus is the notion of runaway nuclear reactions, a.k.a. critical mass, the thing that is required to cause all of the energy to be depleted in nanoseconds, resulting in huge explosions. It's possible that we have tried to do this and failed, but then used the efforts to convince everybody to be scared. It's also possible that they knew these things couldn't be done to begin with but they still wanted to scare people into submission.
I remain on the fence.
The Mars rover is real, insofar as it is really imaging things on Baffin Island in Canada and then its images are run through a filter to make them orange whereafter they are uploaded to the NASA website for consumption.
It was only in recent years that I realized every single country was part of the global cabal and there was no actual conflict between nations, just ritual murder in the form of mutually agreed-upon battlefields where upon the alpha males of each nation would be sacrificed.
Before this I used to think the same way, but looking back it's very obvious that Russia knew it was fake also, but Russia and the United States both reported to the same global leader.
A logical hypothesis is, by definition, developed a priori.
If a man enters a room known to have only one egress, and you are watching that egress, and have not witnessed the man exit the room, then you could easily develop a hypothesis that he has not left that room. In the same analogy, if the room has a secondary egress, but it is far more difficult to use (e.g., a fire escape through the ceiling), it would still be reasonable to develop the same hypothesis.
Theorizing about things based on what seems likely and what seems unlikely, given whatever knowledge you do have, is perfectly reasonable within this kind of framework.
The "Egyptians" didn't build the pyramids. Those mongrels didn't do anything of note, aside from draw mongrel graffiti all over the relics amongst which they lived.
The Great Pyramids, Luxor, and the Sphinx were built around the beginning of the Younger Dryas by some pre-bronze age civilization.
I do, however, agree that the pyramid blocks may have been molded by some means.
Here's the full documentary series:
Are you saying you think 'rights' are more than just a popular meme?
Everything can be reduced to some abstraction level where it is apparently meaningless, but in the context of a group of people living together (in close enough proximity as to encounter each other during the ordinary course of their monthly activities), the group will need to agree on some things that we can do without question and some things that we can't do without question. The existence of a "right" is predicated on the existence of some form of limitation (law, regulation, etc.).
Think of rights as a limited blacklist rule system. Things that are rights are acceptable, except for certain things within a narrow blacklist (speech is free in the US, but screaming "fire" in a theater and threatening to murder people are both blacklisted as not acceptable).
Things not enumerated as rights can be thought of as a combination of blacklist and whitelist rule systems. For example, it is generally illegal to kill somebody, but you may be allowed to in self-defense. One could claim (in my opinion, rightfully so) that we have a right to self-defense, but because this is not enumerated as a right in the constitution, it is a debated topic.
it's clear, based on all of this, that "rights" is, at the very least, a useful abstraction when defining rules. As long as at least some rules are needed to maintain order in a collection of people living in close proximity, then it should follow that the "rights" are useful in helping to define those rules and the limitations placed on making such rules. In fact, unless you were advocating for anarchism, one could argue that the existence of "rights" is the only possible way to live in a system that has rules and still be guaranteed to not be harassed by the state for doing some basic things (like speaking your mind). Without the rule of law, rights don't matter, which is why states like California and New York coincidentally both limit your rights that are protected under the constitution and also do not enforce basic laws (like arresting shoplifters, etc.). These places both exhibit traits of a failing states, such as lacking adherence to the rule of law. These are examples of broken and corrupted government; nothing is perfect and maintenance of government, in order to prevent it turning out like these examples, is surely not an exception to that.
You had me in your explanation of population density directly correlating to real freedoms, but I feel like the rest is non sequitur. Also, if the population bit is true, which I think is 100% the case, then why would we need such a "third position" after a major depopulation event?
This is just another kind of communism.
Trying to pretend to be some kind of light version of communism doesn't change the fact that none of this is possible without removing individual rights. Imagine trying to manage some kind of fucking bureaucracy where you have to figure out how to create rules and guidelines for determining whether or not a company is "treating its employees fairly"… that sounds like big minimum wages and forced benefits.
The answer to all of our problems is individual freedom, and not treating a corporation as a person.
https://files.catbox.moe/gf4jd1.jpeg