Yeah, I absolutely agree. All of that is happening. But the big questions is: What do we actually do about it?
Spreading info is one thing and that's good, but are there some other things that could be done to avoid total digital prison... or at the very least slow it down or dilute its effects?
I don't know...
What I do know, though, is that I'm not really ready to live in the future they are preparing for us. If they really go on with it I'll probably end up as a total loner staring at the wall all day. I'm already preparing myself to leave all social media when they make ID mandatory to log in to your account. I'm not yet sure what will I do when the next steps come... In any case, with each passing day it seems more and more like a good hill to die on.
Probably... we'll see. There's also an option to divide your life in two. If they really force you use completely cotrolled and monitored device, then it should be used only for official government business and nothing else at all. Everything else should be done on a different device and from different accounts. This is not optimal, just one of the possible options that comes to my mind.
Damn, I've read so many of his books... His earlier stuff is kinda ok. Except some weird stuff here and there, of course. Lately, however, he's gone downhill pretty heavily. Especially since the scamdemic started. Now, I'm wondering: Was he always like that? What does it say about other - let's call them - content creators? He wasn't really that political before 2000s. It was quite easy to overlook some weird bits here and there and consider him a somewhat sane human being.
Could be three. Likely not 14.
Will we be legally obliged to own a smartphone? I do own one, but if some clerk or official asks, I do not, because my main calling phone is not a smartphone. Also, I do not have any government or official apps installed even on my secondary phone.
If government makes smartphone ownership mandatory, I'd like to get it for free, please... and if anyone wants to make me buy one myself, then sorry, I'm veeery poor and simply can't afford it (wink, wink). (That said, of course I understand that they do have their ways to force people. This is just an idea of a strategy one might try to use when the time comes.)
Yeah, I've come to this conclusion as well. Many people are still clinging to the notion that tech is just a tool, that it is neutral and all that. Well, it's probably not. Some are hoping for social networks to spread the message, some others are seeking for digital salvation in open source, crypto, blockchain etc, etc. Of course, that's nice and all, but I'm not sure I believe in tech solutions anymore. Tech was never meant to liberate or help people. TPTB see tech only as a tool of control and nothing much more.
Hell, maybe that even was one of the main reasons why UK left the EU. So they could test run this digital prison in a single "independent" country before they impose it on the whole continent.
Quite possibly. I, for one, didn't know who he is until the event. Sure, I'm not hardcore conservative and I don't follow all their speakers, but still... shouldn't I at least be aware that such a person exists? If no one outside conservative bubble knew him, was he really such a significant figure?
It's possible that AI will be the true downfall of our culture and that same critical thinking this video is talking about. Right now it might not seem that way yet, but if we extrapolate a little, the overall picture is quite terrifying.
For example, I do like to read some books from time to time. Now, what is the probability that any book released after 2024 will be at least partly generated by an AI? I guess it's pretty high. So, my interest in reading anything released after 2024 is pretty low. As a conclusion any literature after 2024 basically goes out of the window. The same goes for music. Even if some piece is being performed live, what is the probability that those people actually did write it by themselves? Yep, I think it's pretty low. So, any new music automatically becomes background sound at best.
In other words: art and culture is pretty much dead. Real creativity as well. Currently it all still somehow goes on using some leftover fumes from ages past, but for how long would that be is anyone's guess. What we are left with is an AI generated slop everywhere regurgitating the same music, words, thoughts etc over and over again in different various combinations and the longer it goes on the emptier it all becomes until finally nothing will mean anything and no one will pay attention to nothing.
That's a contradiction. If you can't know anything for sure, you can't know this for sure either.
I think you're just splitting hairs now. There's no need to absolutise everything. I meant this more like a general direction. Like an overall guideline. We can't know anything. Who knows, maybe all this is simulated? Maybe I'm dreaming all this. Or maybe I'm just a hallucination of the God. However, if I see that it rains outside, for all intents and purposes, I do know that it rains outside. There are various levels of truth and reality.
The only Church that meets this criteria would be the Eastern Orthodox.
Well, I'm not in that camp although I do live in a country where Eastern Orthodoxy has significant amount of followers. That said, even Eastern Orthodox is not quite monolithic. There are Old Believers and there are general Eastern Orthodoxy, different countries practice differently, it is influenced by politics and so on, and so on.
Then you can't have any knowledge apart from empirical knowledge of things you witnessed yourself (and even then you have to trust your senses and evaluation).
That's correct! We can't know for sure anything. We can only assume. We've been indoctrinated almost 24/7 for all our lives. This we know of. But what if we have been indoctrinated not only on cognitive level, but on a deeper level as well? Who's to say what's real and what's not at this point?
Where do they get their beliefs from? Believers in what exactly?
That's a good question actually. So, your assumption is that only official Church has the monopoly on truth. Ok, which one? Catholic? What about Orthodox? Which one of those is correct?
How do you have knowledge of what true Christianity is or who the Christian God is then? It's most likely the Bible, right?
But even Bible is not something that simply appeared in its current form. It was compiled relatively recently from various texts by various authors. Different confessions have different canons. Which one is the correct one? Catholic, Protestant, maybe Ethiopian one? And what about apocrypha? Why some texts were included and some weren't? Who exactly do we trust on this?
You see, everything a human hand touches is marred by lies, omissions, half-truths and whatnot. We cannot trust anything coming from human beings. There is no sure way to determine what is true and what is not. That's just how it is in this sorry world.
Christ Himself affirms the authority of that institution (the Church being His body) and sends the Holy Spirit to His apostles...
As other commenter has already stated, I think this is probably meant as a whole body of all believers. Not some particular institution with some particular people a the helm, but the whole collective of Christian believers.
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
Not quite. At no point did I imply that belief in God or Christ is false. I do have my issues with the institute of it though. See, that's what the elites do. They take something good and then they twist and turn and manipulate it until it serves their interest. By adhering to the good in people and by manipulating it they make people submit to them, submit to their nonexistent authority, which, again, is the root cause of all this shitshow, in my opinion.
In any case I do prefer traditional values over modern ones myself and this has been a very interesting discussion at the very least.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification (which would be believable enough for the peasants) of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
I do suspect that the internet was never meant to be free to begin with. That it was a trap from the very beginning. Smartphones as well. Piracy is also probably just a government psyop. They have lured people in with various goodies, free stuff, endless entertainment, shopping and whatnot else, but the real purpose of the internet (and smartphones) was digital slavery from the very start.
I'm old enough to remember life without internet. I'm getting ready for that life to return. The internet will still be there, of course, but it'll be so restricted and controlled as to be essentially useless. Kind of like google has already become. Sterile, prepackaged truth, government propaganda and nothing much else.
People should really wake up and see this for what it is... instead of constantly getting distracted with bullshit story of the week that doesn't matter anyway.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
If you place personal liberty above everything...
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
It's radical liberalism...
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
...regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it...
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
Could be. I haven't looked into this subject a lot, but you could be right. General idea of New Testament seems to be not that bad, honestly, but I can see how it could be used in order to gain power and control. I've no illusions in that sense. Old Testament, on the other hand, really is quite frightening. I completely agree on that. I wouldn't want to live in a world where OT is the arbiter of truth, morality and all the rest of that.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
People (even here of all places) very often are too happy to jump on various distractions, rage baits and hype trains at the same time loosing sight of bigger picture almost entirely. And the bigger picture is that all of this is about power and control. Mass control and power over individual in particular. Their goal is to create completely controlled world. Predictable, without free speech, without individuality, with masses serving only as a kind of a natural resource or a cattle for the elites and nothing much more.
I absolutely agree with you: People need to wake the fuck up until it's too late. Digital ID, CBDC (or whatever new name for it they'll come up with), AI etc. All of those are building blocks of planned digital concentration camp without any individual freedom to speak of.
While even conspiracy minded people are all too happy to invest their time and energy into something that won't matter in two weeks time, a literal hell on earth is slowly being constructed in the background all around us.
But that's the actual goal here! To make citizenry as much dependent on the state as possible. They'd love to get masses trembling about power outages and internet disconnections as much as possible. That would mean that ordinary normies would be supportive of state control even more!
Currently you could survive without state support at least for some time. There's cash, there's gasoline cars, there's independent gardening, decentralised heating etc... It would be hard, but doable. With all digital, however, you'd be completely dependent on the state. Totally. Your survival would quite literally be dependent on state power. It's incredibly evil plan actually. The state and corporate power is the greatest evil there is. Especially when state and corporate powers merge, which they basically already have.