There are no perfect systems, humans are flawed, we are most likely destined to be subjugated by something until we become extinct… yeah I know, positive and uplifting
I think democracy would be preferred by most people, especially compared to what the great resetters have in mind.
We don’t have to just lay down and become extinct
…at least not yet
This also discusses Covid
The way they are counting positive cases is a scam. If you come into the hospital within 14 days of your second jab, and you’ve tested positive, you are counted as being in the hospital for Covid. No matter why you are there. You could have cut your finger and need the emergency room. You’ll be counted as covid positive and hospitalized for covid. The hospital gets 13k for each positive case. 4 times this if you put someone on a vent. Remember if you are in for respiratory illness and you test positive normal treatments that are known to work are forbidden. This means you’re allow to become more ill without treatment of methods known to work. This is another way the get more ventilators and more serious effect of covid. They don’t treat them and then blame covid. Unreal!
If you are vaccine damaged and are within the 14 day period you’ll not be counted as being harmed from the vaccine. You are unvaccinated. If you have been vaccinated and it was over three months ago you’re considered unvaccinated. This is how they are hiding vaccine damage in the stats.
The way this is being run is just bullshit. Why can’t they be upfront and honest? What would that reveal? Why would we trust those that are manipulating the data on anything else they are saying or pushing?
The mRNA vaccine companies were seeing the light and investing in Africa and other impoverished areas of the world, the report added, after presumably realizing how much economic opportunity awaited them there.
They can’t wait to get their product in to the veins of undeveloped nations. He’s bragged about making 20 billion of supposed vaccines this year alone. He’s a criminal and would be in jail if it were not for Microsofts limited liability. He running MS, was found guilty of abusing their competitors.
Remember he’s paid millions to create a new persona of a caring philanthropist. Another scam!
Once these freaks start poisoning undeveloped nations with their products they will claim the fallout is another pandemic and ask for more power, corporate state partnership (fascism).
the full document sent to all members of the European Parliament:
Technocracy requires a technostructure - as they define it … this is a large centrally planned entity - could be a big business like an automotive manufacturer … or could be a large centralized government … as we are talking about government here, I will argue that it is NOT a local government or AnCap possibility.
You keep making what appear to be assumptions … give examples - why would I accept these empty statements you treat as fact with no evidence?
No, democracy has been evolving to serve the oligarchy. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to think … look at the voting machine hacking and all the other things the State does to manipulate the vote. Also not sure if this is evolution either, it’s being engineered and IMO it’s a complete joke at this stage.
Are you making my case or yours? Appears you are agreeing with me overall about democracy with that statement. I will disagree that it hasn’t been “realized” … as that is a matter of perspective. I think the oligarchy has realized their aims with it quite well. They’ve convinced the masses for some time that they have control over the political process, when in reality they don’t.
edit: will also add that on a very local level it is realized for the voters - e.g. a private business board room votes for what they want to do.
Preferred over what? The opposite of democracy isn’t tyranny as democracy itself is a form of tyranny (of the majority) … The opposite of Tyranny is freedom. So you think that most people prefer tyranny over freedom? I agree that the majority is easily bamboozled into giving up their freedom for supposed power over others (exactly what democracy promises) … but that is a highly immoral stance.
I think the problem is there is no political system that can fix all problems. To some, what we call Freedom would be anarchy.
The freedom of someone should always stop at the freedom of somebody else. As a flawed race, humanity only has imperfect solutions that will never satisfy everyone.
We live in an imperfect world and as much as we think our idea of Freedom would be an Oasis for everyone, it would most likely trample on the rights of somebody in the end.
Even communism had great ideals and lofty goals of equality… the implementation ended up in a nightmarish version of reality.
There is no easy solution, as much as we all think we have the perfect answer, we simply do not…
This Technocracy is a worldwide organized power grab by the globalists. They would subvert local governments or anything local much more easily than the national governments that they have already subverted.
Yes decentralization doesn’t always apply and I’ve given examples before of natural and historic sites for tourists that can’t be broken up or moved around and have to be shared as they are and where they are. Another example is the very controversial medical research we are talking about. It can’t be done in somebody’s basement, it has to be very strictly controlled and have layer on layer of accountability, and needs some centralization for that.
Many wars have been fought that evolved democracy. Many peaceful but long and difficult struggles with power have also been carried out to advance democracy. If you told those who thought they were fighting for freedom that they were serving the oligarchy they would scoff. All those struggles had lasting consequences and give us freedoms we enjoy (so far) today. They were not freely granted as tokens of appreciation.
Yes, its true that much of what remains of democracy and freedom has been smashed by this Technocratic oligarchy. What must be done is to stop the damage, and turn the tide to expand democracy and freedoms again. That doesn’t mean democracy and freedom were widespread before, far from it, but they have and do exist and they come at a high price in struggle and courage.
Democracy and freedom have never been widespread or accessible to the majority in any country. That is the task that we all have, not to turn to small technocratic elites (aka oligarchies) or robots.
Of course I don’t agree that democracy is tyranny. I like being able to walk down streets free from crime. I like to be able to travel around and rely on safe food and water. The list goes on. Those things have to be accomplished with rules and laws that people have to abide by, and those laws have to be imposed in a way that makes sense morally, economically, etc. The only way to ensure that on a wide scale is with democracy.
They spend a fortune subverting centralized governments … they don’t have the funding to subvert every local government + with people switching to crypto and collapse of tax base - where is the incentive? What do they get out of the expenditure? Local governments can’t do big spending projects … there is no incentive and the costs are exponential.
Companies do this research all the time and the tech is getting cheaper and easier - people are literally doing CRISPR research in their basements.
No, it doesn’t. In a decentralized world, if you don’t like the research or the manufacturer -nobody is going to force you to take it. Further there are groups now that monitor the quality of products of various companies - “consumer reports” as one example. In a decentralized world these companies that monitor other companies would be everywhere and doing good business.
I don’t understand your historic site example. These can and are often run by local groups.
No they wouldn’t - they sought to be the oligarchy and they succeeded.
No the freedoms you have today exist because of the fact that there was very little government (almost all local as a percent of $$) and because gov and taxes were so low, capitalism created great wealth and built up a huge middle class - and it has been the wealth of this middle class that has granted you freedom. But at the same time, that wealth attracted more sociopaths to come feed upon it through taxation and counterfeiting.
The oligarchy isn’t monolithic and they aren’t all managers of technostructures.
I don’t understand what you are saying here … in the early days of the US they had a pretty fair representative democracy … but it was taken over by the sociopaths and the oligarchy grew more powerful. This is inevitable as the majority of humans are not smart enough to know when they are being lied to - so democracy of any sort always fails.
Minority oppression (with guns if required) is absolutely tyranny. Please explain how it is not.
It’s a crime to coerce people with guns to obey laws you disagree with, so you are never ever free from the crimes of democracy (oppressors of minorities) or of the State.
To think you need a democracy for that makes no sense. The quality of food and water is determined by businesses - always has been. Ask any business person how they deal with gov. regulators and they will tell you it is often done with $$ … you are living in a dreamworld I think.
The state does nothing unless it empowers those at the top. those laws and rules you think are protecting you, are in truth protecting the oligarchy from competition and maintaining their power - all at your expense and the expense of everyone in society.
You still haven’t justified why this has to be on a wide scale and not simply a local scale … you want society to be homogeneous in standards for your own convenience? Yet that homogeneity is antithetical to the need for diversity to preserve life from the ravages of nature and mankind himself.
Decentalization for the win.
They could spend far less per local government and subvert many for the same cost.
Also you say local governments can’t do big spending projects, but sometimes big spending projects are necessary, so the local governments might pool their resources and the plutocrats would have an incentive to subvert them if they didn’t like the project or wanted control of it.
Crowdsourced medical research, drug trials and approvals might be possible but it doesn’t sound like such a great idea. Anyway, there are other examples of things that need to be centralized, like landfills or industrial projects like mining ore.
There may be some groups that don’t want to share a site that should belong to all humanity.
Disagree there. For example all the parents who fought long and hard for rights for the disabled for their kids, they wanted to grab control over others?
Not true. As an example, many rights were direct consequences of struggles during the depression of the 1930s: Social Security, FDIC, and others including banking laws that were later repealed when the ruling class was less scared of the working class and its power. The civil war itself is another example of a conflict that expanded rights, although Jim Crow laws were instituted with the approval of northern industrialists who wanted downward pressure on wages. Jim Crow was finally defeated in the 60s amid many protests.
Thats true, I think the hard core great resetting eugenecist transhumanists are a minority of the oligarchy, but they seem to be more committed and organized.
In the early days of the US, in order to vote you had to be a landowning white male, a minority of the population.
It isn’t that a majority are not smart enough. They don’t have access to uncensored information, they are subjected to a lot of propaganda, and they are atomized by every kind of strategy for dividing them.
There has to be some arbiter of morality, and since that is the case I would prefer it to be a majority and its representatives. I think the majority gets a bad rap because its never really ruled. Human nature, absent abuse etc., is kind.
Not quite sure what you are saying here. A crime has to be defined in law, and if the democracy is functioning and I’m in the minority, yes I have to go along.
The days of Tamany Hall were ended when people got tired of it. There are laws about food and water quality and they do have an effect.
It is not unknown to have actual public servants in government, even at the state and national level.
I don’t want society to be homogeneous. As mentioned before, tyranny will overwhelm local governments and it will take democratic local, state, national and (legitimate) global governance to prevent tyranny. I think your dream of complete decentralization is impractical.
Its also worth noting that people often want to be part of something larger, a people, a nation. That’s part of what self determination is.
Sounds a lot like Ivermectin, at least from here on my high horse.
There you go again with the assumptions. Why do you assume that big projects CANNOT be taken on without pointing guns at people and demanding their money. I am beginning to think you are simply evil and don’t realize it.
No. Many private landfills - this is actually better as no problem of the commons when everything is privately owned.
Name one government managed industrial project or mining project that didn’t become a toxic waste site. Seriously - read some history here. Even the private companies hired by governments to mine or refine ore (e.g. uranium) end up shitting all over the place as they get special treatment from the State.
Should is a swear word. This is completely absolutely SUBJECTIVE, and the only way to resolve such is via individual ownership. You are demanding now to point guns at people in order to display something you personally care about for all of humanities sake … great, the gov. should fund my dick-pics in all school books. Your morality and viewpoints can’t be the basis for the use of coercion on everyone.
This example is a for a different argument - these parents didn’t create the State … they just lobbied it.
That is so much BS I don’t even know where to start.
- The wealth of the middle class was being built up in the 1800’s through land ownership and early industry.
- There were no new rights given in the 1900’s, they were only eroded.
- Social Security is a coercive program that locked people out of investing in their own businesses - thus EMPOWERING the oligarchy by blocking competition.
- FDIC was created to deal with the consequences (bank runs) of government protection of immoral banking activity that made the oligarchy super-rich - “fraction reserve banking”. And who has to pay for FDIC? That’s right - you, the sucker.
- The civil war did not expand rights. The end of slavery was coming regardless … read history. Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves (he said as much too - look it up), he wanted to coerce the Sub-States into accepting the federal gov. edicts - it was a great centralization of power and killed huge numbers of people.
Well true enough, but that lessening of the power of the mob wasn’t a bad thing overall … democracy isn’t any panacea … power though was much more locally controlled, not even local States or the Federal gov. had much relatively speaking … things were well distributed and the heads of families were assumed to be the ‘voters’.
Morality ends where the gun begins - this is basic ethics 101. It’s just really sad that more people don’t see the gun, when it’s cloaked in majority rule. This is why the oligarchy has been so successful with it.
The more removed the official or bureaucrat is from the wrath of the public the more they are subject to the power of the oligarchy. In other words, centralization == failure.
Yes you do - you want the same laws everywhere - that drives homogeneity.
This is not an argument against. I’ve explained in detail how central governments can’t work long term. You merely say that tyranny will overcome local governments … but what is tyranny on a local scale where individuals are armed and able to exert local pressure on businesses and on local politicians. There is nothing for that, except for the politicians and the oligarchy to push for centralization and hence isolating the politicians from the people.
You’ve pulled this out of your own imagination and it’s not an argument based in fact, just an opinion.
Not evil. How did you get pointing guns out of that? Local governments could agree voluntarily to take on big projects, and then globalists would subvert them.
Crowdsourced medical research, drug trials and approvals not a good idea? Probably for the same reason I don’t think people should have personal nuclear reactors.
Ditto for personal nuclear reactors
I would rather have a government (hopefully) accountable to the electorate manage a mine for the same reason I want the post office to be publicly owned, not because they are great at it, but because at least to some extent they are accountable. Anyway, things like mining are probably too big for local governments and probably would have to be centralized in some way.
Not pointing guns, negotiating, like maybe asking the Taliban not to blow up ancient statues in return for not bombing them. So you want the Taj Mahal or Notre Dame to be individually owned? Like maybe by Disney shareholders?
Don’t bait me with talk of your obscene pictures. If you want to end this conversation, then do it respectfully.
The example was about parents of disabled kids organizing for improved rights for the disabled. Sure they are creating state agencies, and lobbying existing ones.
The wealth was built up in the 1800s with the help of protective tariffs, which was a centralized publicly owned function.
Many new rights were won in the 1900s. Child labor was (for the most part) outlawed. Women were given the vote. A social safety net of sorts was established. Jim Crow was ended. The Vietnam war was ended.
Social Security didn’t lock people out of anything or empower the oligarchy. Proof of that is that the oligarchy takes every opportunity to try to end it.
Its good that FDIC prevents bank runs. Of course banking needs a lot of changes.
Are you saying that the struggle to end slavery did not expand human rights?
If your solution is local control of everything, then does the majority control the locality? If not, then who?
I agree that local control is preferable, where I disagree is how practical it is.
No, I want states and nations that respect local decisions. That does not make everything the same everywhere but it might for example prohibit polygamy in Utah.
I don’t want to live in 1870s Dodge City. I’m not very quick on the draw.
Yes I guess I have imagined that people want to be part of something larger than themselves or their own possibly well armed little town, but I think a little research would bear it out.