Food is getting more and more expensive. Wait till the markets crash and people begin starving. Bug rations will be welcome then. You forgot the "you will own nothing and be happy" Great reset agenda is about 2030, so ask again in 6 years time. The pieces are still being set on the board and the infrastructure of our enslavement (digital ID and CBDC) is still being erected.
A few more years and they will bust BTC. Extremely fake and gay CBDC will be there to cover the losses.
How bad can Elon be? He just wants to insert nano chips in your brain. It's for your own good though.
The whole "x% of the people don't have inner monologue" is retarded and is most likely a transhumanist psy op to convince people they or others are not fully human. In reality everyone (safe for the severally mentally impaired) has such a voice, but some fail in recognizing and defining it as such. The whole thing is as scientific as the coof science, evo theory or climate change.
It's embarrassing seeing conspiracy savvy folks here taking the bait because it's politically charged: "woke libs are literal NPCs bro - here's the study". No, they are as human as you and me, but their fallen nature allows them to be ignorant, stupid and degenerate. It's a matter of free will ultimately and a moral issue, not a physiological or intellectual one.
It's sus. Why would you need 2 accounts here?
Says the guy with multiple accounts here
Depends on your worldview. I'd say everyone has free will because everyone is made in the image of God. This idea of personhood and free will as we understand it is not even realized outside of Christianity. Yet you claim Christianity is a jewish psy op. In reality, Christianity is the only thing preventing people from being complete degenerates holding mass human sacrifices as pagans of old and modern secular humanists do (through abortions, stabbies, false flags and sex trafficking).
If you're going to be skeptical about history how come you cherry pick what aligns with your theory and dismiss the rest as possible falsifications and psy ops? Of course there were psy ops in Byzantine. There were psy ops in Rome too and since you went into etymology that's where we got the word "conspiracy" from.
If your position is that history is mostly falsified by jews how do you manage to extract the bits of truth and how do you tell truth from lie without presupposing your worldview (jews and christians bad, while pagans for some reason good) to be correct? If you're being consistent you should discard all of history as contaminated with falsehood and go about other ways proving your theory.
They killed him for telling the truth. That's how you tell who was for real and who was controlled.
Sure, but you could see through it all, my gnostic friend. Cunning jews playing 4D chess, propping up a religion that condemns judaism as heretical God-killers and prosecutes it throughout most of its history.
They are called the "Vatican" and are allowed to dictate who lives and who dies inside Europe though.
Have you heard of the Byzantine empire? Or the later Russian empire? Jews were banned from taking any governmental or educational positions there. Usury was made illegal, jews were prosecuted and banished often. After the 11c. there are two main branches of Christianity - Western (centralized and infiltrated by jews, masons by intel agencies) and Eastern (decentralized and infiltrated at times like in Russia during the USSR and Greece by the CIA now). The Vatican is the Western Church. At least know what your criticizing. Adam Green level of bs here.
Isn't it curious the "jewish scam reskinned" - the Orthodox Church - has elders talking openly about the NWO and how jews want to take over the world and bring about the Antichrist? Did you know it was a Russian monk who got hold of the Protocols of the elders of Zion and made the conspiracy known to the world? Isn't it strange the jewish Bolsheviek revolution was brought about to destroy the last standing Christian empire and the subsequent regime was vehemently opposed to the Church?
But ok, I'll grant you Christianity is a hoax - what's your worldview? Who are the "good guys" in history, what should people be fighting for and against and why? Also, what is your basis for any "ought" at all - what is morality based on?
It's retarded because they always knew "the science changes". All the corruption and malevolence aside, how can someone be confident about anything the scientists claim?
It happened during the middle ages and the only thing coming out from it is Serfdom, rat plagues, mass deaths, inquisitions, crusades, destroyed history books, full-blown regression and multiple generations of ape-men in 500 AD to 1500AD. It is the ultimate Jewish Genocide of the Gentiles of Europe, both physically and culturally.
I see you've red a lot of enlightenment propaganda about the "Dark ages". Can you imagine how backwards people were back then? Men couldn't even become women and thought they were created in the image of God and there was purpose to everything. They had huge families with dozens of children (true, many died and death was commonplace - which made people much more resilient, stoic and sober about life - mental illness was not an option and few people were batshit crazy). Abortions and usury was not even permitted by the bigoted church and state. How barbaric. Ironically, the middle ages is the time when the jews were not allowed to operate in most empires and didn't have control of money - it all changed during the renaissance (Venice) and ultimately culminated in Rothschild's takeover during the revolutionary period.
Your entire position boils down to an argument from personal incredulity, because you can't possibly imagine how an experiment 100 years ago could have failed. And if you can't imagine how it could fail, that means viruses aren't real.
It's not just one experiment. There never was a successful one, just like they never successfully isolated a virus. I don't have a good reason to believe in it when the evidence is lacking.
I don't expect anything. I wouldn't inject blood of someone who's sick with the flu either. But I don't pretend to know exactly what's causing those diseases.
If it were caused by a transmissible virus via blood or close contact with a patient they would have managed to get at least one person sick out of the hundreds who took part in the experiments.
So that's why most people today are retarded.
The point retard, was it doesn't have to be "a self replicating virus" in the blood to pose danger because there are other toxic or poisonous compounds that cause pathology without replicating.
How do you know what's in the blood? We're once again at square one - you can't demonstrate there is a virus because you can't properly isolate it. It's either cultured or diagnosed via PCR. What if you can't detect the actual pathogen in the blood? I'm not taking blood from any person who's sick regardless of what's causing the disease. I'd go with the old wisdom, call it "bad blood" and pass.
Does spoiled food have a virus in it? Does snake venom have to self-replicate in order to kill you? It could be a parasite, a fungus or a toxic bacterial waste. I have no clue what it is contaminated with but something is causing the disease so it could be in the blood also.
When did Hitler kill his own people? Call him what you want but he did care for Germany.
leaving the rest mindless drones for the Millennium Kingdom as dictated by the Talmud and the Bible.
The 1000 years or Christ's rule in the Bible refers to the Church and the time the civilized world was mostly Christian. The only kingdom that is to come will be of the Antichrist, it will be short lived and Christ will put an end to our age and judge everyone.
You can check their methodology in their study, but you don't want to look at it for some reason.
Explain why you can't replicate the experiment with HIV blood.
Because it's contaminated. I'd never take blood from a person suffering from a disease like that. How does that prove the disease is caused by a virus?
Oh, I see. I'll concede as soon as you give me a good reason why the scientists couldn't make a single person sick with the flu back in 1919. Seems like the Spanish flu was a rebel and didn't want to cooperate with the lab coats - it was hyper infectious though, just not when people were observing it closely.
I see the problem, you think saying "stating the fact" makes your opinion objectively true instead of subjectively bullshit. 🤣
Do you dispute that? Can you show me an instance where this is not the case? Can you argue meaningfully about something you have no clue about - to the extend you call it "random word salad"? Could I argue in Chinese with a Chinese guy without knowing the language and understand anything?
This is your opinion and the basis of your entire argument.
It's not my opinion, it's just that science doesn't use a single universal method. See here:
Darwin's delay in publishing his theory involved factors other than the stormy political climate. For what he was proposing marked a significant departure from conventional English empirical science. At the heart of natural philosophy in England, as we have seen earlier, was an emphasis on observation and experiment. Even though most scientists did not follow precisely the Baconian emphasis on the primary role of empirical observation, nevertheless, they recognized the crucial importance of experimental testing of particular hypotheses.
This requirement presented Darwin with a grave methodological problem, simply because he was proposing a theory in which direct observation and experiment were clearly impossible, at least in the sense that a biologist could confirm the hypothesis of natural selection by observing it in the action of significantly transforming one species into another. Obviously, the time spans involved and the often minute succession of variations by which one species developed out of a species with quite a different appearance (e.g., reptiles from fish) meant that no direct testing by observation and experiment was possible.
To meet this difficulty, Darwin developed a new scientific procedure, now known as the hypothetico-deductive method. He first developed a theory, relying upon analogy and deduction to organize a plausible explanation, without direct empirical evidence, and then applied that theory to a wide range of facts, to demonstrate the explanatory power of what he was proposing.
The fact they called this a theory and thus equivocated it to legitimate theory that are subject to observation and experimentation (as in hard sciences of physics and chemistry) is ridiculous and the greatest hoax there was. Darwin and his cronies basically redefined what scientific knowledge means so they were able to pass the mythological evo theory for actual science.
You can read the whole paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/
That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.
No, it's not a false dichotomy logical fallacy and you using "fanciful language" doesn't make it so. I literally gave you the definition of a scientific theory and it said the exact same thing. Here's the algorithm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/bin/cbe0010600110006.jpg
Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?
Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.
What? This doesn't follow at all - it's a composition fallacy. What does all arguments being made of letters have to do with the argument being made? "All math problems use some sort of numbers and letters everyone uses so mathematicians shouldn't gatekeep math as we all apparently understand it equally well".
Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".
Are there any alternatives though community wise? I got here after getting axed by the reddit cucks.
Does it matter? Is Andrew any different than Charles? They are all the same degenerate satanists.
William and Kate are as good of a stabby and NWO agenda pushers as Harry and Meghan. It's a family business and they're all in it. If someone wants out he get's Diana'd.
Such a normie take. Biden doesn't control shit.
Here's a book explaining who rules over us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKuVO4JaqBY
https://archive.org/details/stephen-goodson-a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind.org/page/n5/mode/2up
Study real history, folks: Quigley, Mullins, Sutton, Coleman, Ratiu, Goodson