tinfoilhatter

If only the majority of our congress wasn't also corrupt and busy enabling people like Anthony Faucci and his friends...

What was trivially disproven again?

I don't own a truck, but by all means please continue being an asshole. You're doing a wonderful job of it!

Not if you need to tow a trailer / camper. Maybe there's a reason different kinds of vehicles exist? To fulfill different requirements of their drivers?

They don't require commercial licenses though, because they're not large enough to and don't serve a commercial purpose when transporting families / their things. Plenty of families have the need for third-row seating and the ability to haul things around.

Plenty of minivans also have tall hoods. I assume by combi you're talking about a station wagon, and in that case you're trading cargo capacity and the ability to tow boats / trailers / campers / etc... Ego has nothing to do with it - utility does. You can fit more people and things in a larger vehicle, this isn't rocket science.

> I will give them whatever they want to get past the hurdle and use the service.

Why? Why not just hold firm to your principles and sacrifice convenience for your personal sovereignty. When you don't, you make the situation worse for everyone else as well by normalizing this bullshit.

Please stop saying we - because many of us didn't ever desire or contribute (outside of having our code / data / IP stolen) to these models or the companies developing them. Many of us weren't willingly singing up to use AI - we were essentially forced to by our employers. Not everyone is more productive now because of AI - many people spend the extra time they save writing code, reviewing code produced by AI.

How can you pay attention, as a student, to a historical event that isn't being taught to you in your history class? Please explain.

Who defines what is extremist propaganda? The people who win the propaganda war and get to label the other side as extremists is the answer.

I just said what I meant - what we are taught about WWII and Weimar Germany in school isn't anything approaching the truth. For example: https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/katyn-massa...

No, the argument for distributing it would be that other propaganda is widely distributed without question, so if one wants to arrive at anything even close to an objective account of what transpired during that time in history, all propaganda should be examined and learned about. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, and we certainly aren't getting to it by blindly accepting one narrative over another.

I think the optimum level changes based on whether or not citizens are being actively brutalized by an authoritarian government and their police forces en masse. When that happens, the optimum level is a lot and when it's not happening, the optimum level is probably orders of magnitude less. Unfortunately, we can't accurately predict when these things will happen.

I guess my point was - you're one of the people you're complaining about if you're not revolting yourself. I also am not of the opinion that violent revolution would fix anything for the better, but that's not really relevant.

Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn’t, we can be more deliberate and hence more successful, in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled… nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That’s the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there’s no restraint and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behave—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises.

- B.F. Skinner

What would you suggest people do about it?

Voted on by the people, and yet in 2026 we have no way to actually confirm our votes are counted or factored into who gets elected. Every single US president is related, sans Van Buren, but there's no way our elections are rigged! Not sure how many corrupt politicians have to take office before people will start questioning the legitimacy of elections.

I wish people would stop saying we created this hell, as if everyone had a choice as to whether or not they grew up in this increasingly dystopian reality. Blame the people that are actually to blame, not everyone else. It's a tired tactic to shift blame from those who are actually accountable for these systems and technologies.

The Gnostics were essentially a mystery school, but they are often framed as a heresy of Christianity led by St. Thomas. They taught that the material world was fundamentally flawed and created by a deity (not God) that they referred to as the Demiurge. They posited that salvation is achieved through Gnosis and that would allow one's soul to escape this flawed realm and enter the divine realm. The moves The Matrix and The Truman Show are very heavily influenced by Gnosticism.

Theosophists brought reincarnation and karma into the fold, but were also essentially a mystery school. Helena Blavatsky is probably the most famous person related to the Theosophy movement, and she was also rumored to be an intelligence asset.

I haven't done much research into the relationship between Alice Baily and J. Krishnamurti, but they are both a part of the same Luciferian new-age movement, and were members of Masonic secret societies, which date back to antiquity (in the forms of different mystery schools / orders / socities / etc...)

Without going too deep down the rabbit hole - yes I believe both of these people were Luciferians and while they do I believe speak some truth, ultimately I believe they are attempting to steer people down the wrong path. You clearly have some discernment based on your question, and I think that's the most important quality a person can possess and hone on their spiritual journey. If you'd like to chat more, or if you have any questions regarding my reply, please feel free to email me at fragworks@proton.me

I would agree with you. I think people are searching for something and attempt to find it in all sorts of forms. The truth is, nothing was missing all-along it just takes some self-realization / actualization to realize that, and that takes time and lived experience. In the West, with all of the materialism that is shoved down our throats from a young age, we very much grow up disconnected from ourselves.

Probably about as safe as trusting the people editing Wikipedia that also are attending Wikipedia Zionist editing conferences I imagine.

I like how Wikipedia is referred to as the world's encyclopedia, while stuff like this goes on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

What are the penalties for not doing so? I'm always amazed at the willingness of Europeans to follow rules like these, regardless of their impact on personal sovereignty. People in Finland were the most extreme example of this behavior that I've ever encountered. People would look like you murdered a child for jaywalking in Helsinki.

Yeah, who cares that there's a group with the goal of establishing a new world order featuring a totalitarian one-world government and a one-world religion that enforces Noahide law. Sounds lovely! /s

This logic is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Should we have cared about Hitler? Maybe he was just a bad guy with good ideas - after all, he helped to create the Autobahn.

If you haven't read about what Alice Bailey believed in or other theosophists and you're just saying who cares because you hold the impression that the United Nations is some benefactor to humanity, okay. I don't hold that viewpoint regarding the UN and I find the fact that it is actively advised by a group of Luciferians that espouse the kind of crap Alice Bailey did, quite troubling. Nor do I consider the Vatican a benefactor to humanity, just to set the record straight.

> In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time.

Interesting, considering that the U.N. has its roots established in the ideology of Luciferians. [1][2][3]

Surely the Pope and the Vatican are both aware of this fact.

[1] https://archive.is/D27Jr [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_mysticism

Luciferian is not an esoteric epithet. The UN is and was advised by Alice Bailey and the Lucis trust she created, which used to be called the Lucifer trust. You're simply displaying your ignorance and on top of it, acting like a complete asshole, because of your fragile ego and worldview. That's par for the course on this website though.

If the UN is actively being advised by self-described Luciferians / theosophists, do you think it's impossible that there are other Luciferians in powerful positions around the world? It's definitely possible and not only is it possible, it's the truth, whether you want to admit it or not. Clearly you don't read what these people write, or know the history and associations of the people you talk about. You're a know-it-all that knows nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust

https://www.lucistrust.org/about_us/support_un

https://www.theblaze.com/return/what-the-un-isnt-telling-us-...

The context of the original post was that people should check the sources they are sharing with others, and Snopes was suggested as a source worth sharing. I disagree that Snopes is a reliable source of information or has any interest in presenting a fair and balanced narrative, because of the conflict of interest created by who / what groups fund them. Same with Politifact, or any other fact-checking organization.

Where did I attack you lol? The only time I said the word demonstrate, which you put quotes around, is when I said that I could demonstrate they receive funding from big / tech and philanthropic organizations whose narratives they promote.

They only have a good track record if you believe in the lies peddled by the groups and people they receive funding from. If you can't perceive a conflict of interest that exists between a fact-checking company receiving funding from Zuckerberg that is employed on a social-media network he owns, I don't know what to tell you.

IMO it's because people have fragile egos / worldviews they don't want shaken. Pretty much any opinion I type on this website gets instantly downvoted, unless it reaffirms the popular / mainstream narrative, because I happen to see the world differently than most.

This website is quite awful, and I also don't know why I spend any time on it. It's definitely not a website intended for meaningful discourse. It's a website where you can reaffirm whatever opinion is already established, and if your opinion is at all controversial or even just out of the box, you'll be punished for it.

I never said you should trust my links, you should do your own research. What I did say is that bias is impossible to avoid and I implied that believing that there's a source of objective truth on the internet because it's been deemed to be so by some authority, is misguided.