Today's science: 1. You have numbers a, b and c that you have no way of verifying. 2. You do some perfectly valid math with your magic numbers. 3. You make conclusions that take for granted that a, b and c are what is assumed. This of course is perfectly fine if you make it clear that your conclusion is only valid IF a, b and c match your assumptions, however, today's scientists aren't allowed to question the official narrative, so they present their houses of cards as facts. If you question them, they tell you: "But the math matches". In other words, 1 Unicorn + 1 Unicorn = 2 Unicorns, math checks out, therefore Unicorns exist. Then other "scientists" use your house of cards conclusions and built on that. Most people want answers, they don't want a nuanced, objective discussion and the "scientists" are funded very well to give the people the answers that best serve the establishment.

The most interesting clip of our time is when Bill Gates said that they hope to reduce the world's population by at least 10-15% with vaccines, "health" care and reproductive services. I'd like to have seen the camera angle switch to the public because at least a few of them were probably wondering: "Wait, what? Did he mean what he just said?". It's interesting if it's some revelation of the method ritual or if Bill really believes he's saving the planet by killing the people. In Bill's Reddit AMA from 13 years ago he said that the only thing left on his bucket list is "Don't die", so I'm guessing it's me and you he's looking to reduce and not himself or his family. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/18bhme/comment/c8ddqpx/?context=3 You have to wonder why do the supervillains of our time have to look like the pregnant man emoji (Bill Gates, Henry Kissinger, etc). It's either these trogg-looking motherfuckers or faggots like Peter Thiel and Yuval Noah Harrari. They had to add the humiliation ritual to the senseless killings. You show this clip to anyone and their reaction tells you everything you need to know about them. Most people are too mentally weak and will try to convince themselves that he misspoke, didn't mean what he said, it was just a big misunderstanding. It's like the guy who walked in on his girlfriend naked in the bed with another guy and constructed the perfectly logical explanation that they are just friends and the guy had to take his clothes off because it was too hot and then he slipped and fell into the bed. If your brain knows you can't handle the truth, it will shut down to protect you and will come up with all sorts of excuses, plausible deniability type stuff. However, you can train your mind just like you can train your body. It's a personal choice.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, so if I told you I went to Pluto yesterday, you'd probably ask: "Where's the evidence of that?". And then if I told you: "My dog ate my homework.", you most likely wouldn't believe me. But what if I were the government, then most people would take it on blind faith because governments are so trustworthy. The cope gymnastics of the moon landing enthusiasts are best summarized in this Matt Walsh logical analysis (starts at 11 minutes). This one is more dense:

It's kind of obvious at this point that most jobs can be automated with the current, publicly available, scuffed AI. If you've worked in an office building, in a relatively big company, it's kind of evident that most people don't do much, if anything. Probably a third could take a week off and it wouldn't impact the business in any way. The question is what are these people going to do once their companies have to lay them off to be competitive with fully automated companies. The obvious answer is that they'll want to be saved by Big Daddy Government with Universal Basic Income. Governments are very threatened when the people are free and independent. Of course in a UBI society, the people are not free or independent, but they still have way too much time on their hands. If you're the government, you'll essentially want to turn the people into Zombies. Kind of makes you wonder if all these Zombie TV shows were a big predictive programming campaign. Governments just wouldn't last in a society where the people didn't have to work for the majority of their waking hours, even with UBI. So they'd need wars, "natural" disasters, pandemics, mass surveilance and very strict control guidelines. In other words, we'll be going back to full on communism, at that, in a time when governments can control everyone and everything with very advanced technology (Palantir anybody?). Aldous Huxley was right again: 'Men do not learn much from the lessons of history and that is the most important of all the lessons of history.'

It's interesting to think about how many people are conversing with AI bots on social media unknowingly. You even have only fans whores training their custom AIs to pretend its them when chatting with SIMPs. It's also interesting how AI got let out of the bag at a time when most people started losing faith in centralized, mainstream media outlets. The decentralization of information didn't last long as people now "fact-check" each other using government-approved AI. I'd imagine that governments have had access to AI for a very long time and have used it to censor opposing views, amplify the official narrative and just generally sway (and analyze) public opinion. Similarly, right now governments have access to much more advanced AI than the plebs do. It is very rare for a technology that frees humanity to be let out into the wild. Bitcoin is an anomaly and its incentive structure could not have been better for everyone but the people with access to the money printers. As the price of querying government-approved AIs trends towards zero, I predict that the amount of Nostr cute girls with somewhat intelligent takes and flirty attitudes will skyrocket. Instead of chatting up Nigerian princes or Indian Royalty, who may or may not have double-digit IQ, you will have the opportunity to chat with much more intelligent lines of code.

It's kind of funny when men and women argue if women should be allowed to vote. It's like "let's argue who should be allowed to pick everyone's master". Tell me you are a slave without telling me. And of course you have very limited, pre-selected options to select your master from, and the script doesn't meaningfully change either way, so you're just selecting the actor you'll see on TV. You have people voting their whole lives, selecting different masters, nothing changes for the better and they just keep trying because the next master has the best campaign promises. They just have to keep voting forever, as it gives them some illusion of choice and freedom that they mentally couldn't do without.

It's interesting to observe how when some very intelligent people get triggered, their logic switch gets turned off. Rather than trying to find the truth, they then try to be right at all costs. Their subconscious notices how their argumentation is flawed and causes them to spiral, getting madder. It's very easy to fall into this trap and freeze your progress on the subject, especially if you have a high opinion of yourself. It all comes down to: "Do you prioritize self-improvement or your Ego?".

For most people the difference between a fact and a lie is the source.

People like Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlsen and Alex Jones only tell the truth about something controversial when it is no longer controversial. When the cat is out of the bag, they can keep denying and discredit themselves but then they are of no use to their masters. Their masters are playing the long game and there's very little damage to be done when you admit to something everyone already knows. And of course, they tell partial truths, it's a limited hangout after all. Being a good gatekeeper is how you make the big bucks in media.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair It is difficult to: - get doctors to understand that they are hurting/killing people by pushing only Big Pharma allowed treatments, when that's how they make the most money and keep their jobs, - get "scientists" to understand that they spend decades, if not centuries publishing pseudoscience papers and researching in a wrong direction, when that's what gets funded, - get politicians to understand that you can't fix the system from within the system, when enslaving their constituents is how they make the big bucks, - get financial advisors to understand that you can just buy and hold Bitcoin and outperform almost everyone, when they make more money by over-complicating things, - get journalists to understand that the official narrative is not always (almost never) true, when they get paid to peddle establishment propaganda, - get teachers to understand that they spend their entire adult life brainwashing and indoctrinating kids into slavery, when that's how they get paid, - get soldiers to understand that they aren't serving and protecting anyone, except for corrupt, blackmailed politicians when they go and kill innocent people on the other side of the World, when that's how they make their money. I'd like to think that most people are good and don't want to steal, kill, rape, enslave, hurt, etc, however, the human brain is very complex and has protective mechanisms that defend the host by e.g. justifying their evil actions. Perhaps soldiers are the ones whose brains most often short-circuit as they are engaged in the most direct form of evil (killing innocent people). This of course assumes that most wars are started under false pretenses and are completely unnecessary. It is easier for other professions, such as doctors, scientists, politicians and teachers to justify their evil acts as the consequences of their actions are more indirect. And of course, over time these evil deeds are normalized in the eyes of the public, so it takes a strong-minded individual to unplug from the Matrix. (Of course, I am generalizing, as there are good doctors, scientists, politicians, teachers, soldiers, etc, but you get the point.) You then have to ask yourself: Are human beings that complex, or are we as simple as the quote "show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome". There is no shortage of soldiers, politicians, scientists, teachers, etc, and when there is, you can just offer more money for the position and the problem is solved. So the quote from the Controllers' side is: "Create a good enough incentive and you can dictate the outcome". Even if this means convincing people to commit atrocities. Then the question becomes: "Well how do you create a good enough incentive for everyone all the time?". Of course the answer is convince everyone to work for money you can infinitely print out of thin air. Then you are playing a game you can never lose and they are playing a game they can never win.

So the US introduced the income tax in 1913 (with the creation of the FED) but they had built many State Capitol buildings in the 1700-1800s. Many of these Capitol buildings look like palaces. Assuming that the official narrative is true, how did they get the money to build these capitol buildings 🤔 I guess governments were very frugal and efficient back then. It is also possible that these buildings were already there from a previous civilization, but when I look at what we're building today, with the most advanced technology ever, these old buildings pale in comparison to today's magnificent boxes. Montgomery, Alabama - 1851 Sacramento, California - 1874 Denver, Colorado - 1901 Hartford, Connecticut - 1879 Washington, DC - 1829 Atlanta, Georgia - 1889 Des Moines, Iowa - 1886 Here are some other examples:

Business Insider

Gold domes, historic statues, and nods to state flags: Photos show what the capitol looks like in every state

Every state has a capitol that houses its state legislature. Many are domed buildings similar to the US Capitol, but others are more unique.

It's very interesting how people don't get mad when you tell them that birds don't exist or that cars aren't real. However, they very often get mad when you ask them to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball, viruses exist and nuclear weapons exist (the atom has been split), etc. Birds clearly exist. You can watch birds, feed them, you can even maybe own one. Cars obviously exist as you can own one and drive it. However, how would you prove that the Earth is a spinning ball, the atom has been split, and viruses exist? Usually people try to with endless appeals to authority/popularity, shifting the burden of proof, or other fallacies. - "Well, here is a picture of Earth taken by NASA - clearly it is a spinning ball". Even though these images have been admitted by the artists who created them to be CGI composites, often cloud patterns are reused, small countries seem to be larger than continents, etc. - "Well, the United States used nuclear weapons in Japan on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore the atom has been split. It is impossible that they just dropped large bombs, they had to have dropped atomic bombs because the news said so." - "Well two people who live together got sick at the same time, so viruses exist, even though one has never been isolated". And the more questions you ask them, their subconscious recognizes that all they have is appeals to authority, aka blind faith. This is when most people experience cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously. This discomfort often motivates individuals to change their beliefs or behaviors to achieve consistency and reduce the unease. And as Mark Twain said "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". What percentage of the population has the mental strength to admit that they've been fooled? In my experience, the number is very low. Most people just reply with "Well, why would they lie?" (appeal to motive) or "Well, you aren't an expert, so you don't know what you're talking about" (appeal to authority). - In other words, "If you are unsure that God exists, go to a Seminary school or a Church and the Priests will tell you all about him". At least the subconscious of these people works very well. They recognize that all they have is blind faith, which makes them mad as you proceed to ask them questions they don't know the answer to, but they just don't have the mental fortitude to go one step further and examine the evidence objectively. Subconsciously they know the evidence could lead them somewhere they aren't willing to go.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed." - Mark Twain Of course, what he said also applies to: - Search Engines (Google, Bing, DDG, etc), which are all heavily controlled and censored. - AI assistants (Grok, Chat GPT, etc). Imagine what a goof you have to be to "fact-check" people using government-approved AI. - Social media influencers (controlled opposition liars get amplified, uncontrolled truth seekers get censored, aka freedom of speech, not freedom of reach). - Video hosting platforms (e.g. Youtube) - I've seen so many goofs think that if a video gets millions of views on Youtube, it means it's high quality and has surfaced to the top "naturally". Instead, all of the videos are transcribed and only what amplifies the official narrative gets boosted. - It's similar to a book being a "New York Times" best seller. You do realize that all these news outlets are in the position they're in because they bootlick the authorities, so they only amplify official narrative information. If you look hard enough, you're gonna be able to find a couple of competent truth seekers on the internet, but in the end, the only think you can rely on is your ability to critically think and spot logical fallacies. As Austin Witsit says "What's popular is rarely true, and the truth is rarely popular".

It is crazy how much of your mind space is freed once you no longer have to worry about being able to buy food, have shelter and pay your bills. In my experience, it boosts your cognitive skills by at least 69.420%. That's why the Controllers don't really like people being independent, growing their own food, taking care of animals, being able to trade or sell their produce, being able to fix and create things, etc (e.g. like the Amish). I went to a small village yesterday to visit distant family members and it felt like playback speed was set to 0.3. They have a school (a musical school lol), but don't have a doctor or a dentist. The place was clean, chill, food was cheaper and tasted better, people smile and laugh more, stress less, the women were feminine, a good chunk of the people probably don't even lock their doors. My mom's sister teaches young women how to weave very complex patterns on carpets in her house. The craft that has pretty much gone extinct here. Kinda makes you think where would we be if we didn't get psyoped into spending the majority of our young years getting brainwashed and working for fake money that has no backing and can be created out of thin air. What would our clothes look like? What would our buildings look like? What would our relationships look like? Over a very short period of time, we normalized the abnormal and abnormalized the normal. You put a bunch of humans with their backs against the wall and they'll either create something great (e.g. Bitcoin) or they'll stray so far away from the right path that they'll become unrecognizable.

I wonder why they don't teach us in school that if you had just invested your money instead of contributing to Social Security, you'd have retired 10 times over. Nobody told this guy about Bitcoin, otherwise, he'd have to plug 30-40% instead of 5%. Unfortunately, the math is even worse where I live in Europe for high income earners.

Are the normal people the ones who are perfectly adjusted to an abnormal society (vast majority) or the ones who refuse to adjust to an abnormal society (minority) 🤔

The system thrives on people who react and suffers when people act. You are constantly bombarded with preselected, most of the time irrelevant stories to react to. If you aren't paying attention to the man behind the curtain, then it doesn't matter what you're paying attention to as long as you spend your time and energy doing something unproductive that doesn't threaten the system. Even if the story is relevant, you are only allowed to choose from wrong answers. Would you rather be a Republicrat or a Demopublican? Even though it's a distinction without a difference. Would you rather vote for Trump or Kamala? Even though these are just the actors you see on TV and not the decision makers. Was Covid invented in a lab or when a pangolin kissed a bat? Even though there is 0 evidence viruses exist. Are MRNA Vaccines safe or unsafe? What about other types of Vaccines? Well, Viruses literally don't exist, so why the fuck would you inject yourself or your pet with heavy metals. Should we bomb Iran's nuclear program or should we negotiate with them? Even though there is 0 evidence nuclear weapons exist. Should central banks aim to keep inflation at 2%, 3% or 0%? Even though we should have ~5% deflation compounded. Would you rather us steal your money by flooding your country with Blacks, with human-caused climate change (0 evidence it exists), tranny surgeries, killing people on the other side of the World, or all of the above. Shit, I guess climate change. Would you rather get kicked in the head, or the nuts? As long as you pick one of the preselected options, the controllers are happy. As long as you keep playing a game you can never win, it's fine. So how can you act in your own interest and not react in a way that was preselected by the Controllers? Your participation in the system feeds it. If only/mostly unproductive NPCs are left playing this predetermined game, it will start to look more and more like the movie Idiocracy (as it has) - practically the jews and their retarded slaves will be left playing. The Bitcoin community will be the Worldwide alternate system. Basically like the jews, but the opposite. The best piece of advice always is - focus on improving yourself. Be fit (physically and mentally), be as anti-fragile as possible and stack Sats. Eventually we'll have to exit the system with a tax revolt + rejecting fiat and we'll have to use Bitcoin as money. Are we gonna be ready for the fight that will ensue? Or are we gonna move to the Outerlands (e.g. beyond Antarctica) and leave this place to the retarded NPCs?

Women love negs even though they'll tell you otherwise. In short, negging is about being a cheeky cunt. NOTE: don't read if female, might be triggering. To pull it off, you have to be confident and witty, or at least be a good actor. You would fail miserably if you come off as an imposter. Context matters, so negs usually work better on more confident, outgoing women. I would not spam-neg a shy girl without her being comfortable in my presence first. Here are some examples, obviously it's best to not follow a script to a T like in pro-wrestling. The examples are just that - examples. --- When she asks you to do something together, say: "I'll have to think about it and I'll get back to you." --- --- You: Being "XYZ" (e.g. her profession or something else difficult she does) must be really easy. --- --- Introduce the girl you're on a date with as your sister to someone, e.g. the bartender. E.g. when ordering drinks "...and one coffee for my sister." --- --- When a girl you've been on dates with calls, say: "Who is it?" She: "It's Alexandra" You: "You'll have to be more specific, I know a lot of Alexandras". --- --- When she asks you how she looks, or asks you how the date went: "It could be worse.". --- --- When a woman complains about another woman and you don't want to hear it, ask "At least, is she hot?" --- --- After a girl does something good, say "I take back everything I said about you to my other girlfriend." --- --- You: "You are smart... for a woman." When she gets mad, tell her: "You don't know how to take a compliment, I told you you were smart." Then she replies: "...for a woman" And then say, "Well you are a woman, ... right?" --- --- After she complains about something, say: "You are proof that everything that doesn't kill us makes us stranger. You are definitely the strangest person I've met." --- --- E.g. on your 3rd date, You: "I have something to tell you." She: "What?" You: "I forgot your name." She probably gets mad. You: "I was just joking, I didn't forget your name." She: "OK, what's my name?" You: "Can you call me? I lost my phone." --- You get the point, it's about being a cheeky cunt and having fun. If she has the hots for you, it pretty much doesn't matter what you'll say, and if she doesn't, then you'd probably want to find a woman who does. IMO going full send is better than playing it safe but it's all very contextual. The context is the difference between witty and cringe.