@RandomRanger's banner p

RandomRanger

Just build nuclear plants!

4 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 00:46:54 UTC

				

User ID: 317

RandomRanger

Just build nuclear plants!

4 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 00:46:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 317

for having the ethnic group that controls international finance and global media on your side

What do they do with international finance and global media, exactly?

Finance has busily furthered DEI, deindustrialization of the West, financialization of the economy, toxic housing bubbles and rapid development of China.

The media whips up racial hysteria, worsens relations between the sexes and spreads grossly misleading racial narratives about policing. They've spread panic about climate change that has had all kinds of horrible effects, mental illness, people refusing to have kids 'for the climate'. Not to mention popularizing energy and environmental policies that have wrecked industry. Everyone constantly complaining that enforcing borders is fascism, that's the fault of the media. The media problematizes national myths and culture, delegitimizes identities like 'white' in favour of 'Black' or 'POC'. And the media goes out of their way to insult and humiliate white men. See here: https://x.com/StupidWhiteAds

If the argument is 'American Jews control finance and media, therefore they shouldn't be upset since they're bringing in more than they cost' then the premise is wrong because finance and media are not helping out. International finance and world media have been massively toxic and aggressively unhelpful for at least the last 30 years. They've been especially opposed to Christians and conservatives. A disproportionate amount of these sectors are Jewish (Blackrock and NYT for example), much is not.

What has the 'conservative intelligentsia' actually done for conservatives? Have they brought huge victories, or did they just help implement mass immigration, Pride as civic religion, diversity quotas to achieve their real goals - tax cuts and regime change in the Middle East?

I would much rather have my financial sector run by some honest, hardworking midwit who tries to advance national interests and develop our industries, than a 160 IQ financial genius who uses his vast talents for private profit, asset-stripping, offshoring and demanding share buybacks over investment.

I would rather have patriotic journalists with tedious prose and limited abilities than charismatic, excellent writers who hate me and attack me and my ancestors, systematically pursuing my disempowerment in society.

One of the wisest things the US could do is to crack down on media and financial elites, put patriots in charge of these key institutions so that they're coordinated to further US interests. That goes for whoever's running America. But it should be 10x more important for conservatives/MAGA to recognize that these people are, (generally speaking), not their friends!

Oh so suddenly you take issue with my stance of deliberately choosing bad sources, which I explicitly explained was what the original article you chose was effectively doing and is a strategy that could without-doubt prove the whole human media was a joke... curious.

If I had the resources to get human experts to rate the media, selectively choosing the credulous outlets, and imposed my own standards of truthfulness, I could easily prove that human journalists were grossly inferior.

You are constantly demanding ridiculous proofs while you offer absolutely nothing at all, while you ignore or mischaracterize evidence with these word games like 'oh its not record high (it is)' or misread the difference between primary response and primary legislative response, or suddenly introduce arbitrary standards. It's pathetic and far beneath the performance of any modern AI, which will at least try. They have some kind of relationship with the truth. They're aiming for truth and miss sometimes. You're aiming for sophistry.

The burden is on you to produce proof that it's still running and you can't.

It is still running, since I showed that Project Pegasus is part of Opal and Opal is still running. QED.

If I had the resources to get human experts to rate the media, selectively choosing the credulous outlets, and imposed my own standards of truthfulness, I could easily prove that human journalists were grossly inferior.

Your claim is that >45% of all news articles have major errors.

Shameless to complain about goalpost-moving when this is what you're doing.

OK, here are some links (which is just tedious work since 10 or 10,000 links out of a gazillion articles has no statistical meaning). But since you seem to be dead set on this and love journalists so much...

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/ (this whole thing is retarded if you know anything about aviation, incredibly misleading)

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/rafale-or-f-35-why-indian-rafale-jets-are-as-dangerous-as-stealth-5th-generation-f-35s/ (same kind of stupidity)

https://www.newsweek.com/india-overtakes-china-in-world-air-force-ranking-10882624 (even more retarded, I don't know how anyone can believe this, just check the squadron numbers lmao)

Here is a whole article about Indian media organizations inventing fake news, bombings of Karachi for example: https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/3188

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus (this was just a fantasy)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/abc-news-issues-corrects-bombshell-michael-flynn-report.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-3018945/New-study-reveals-eating-chocolate-doesn-t-affect-Body-Mass-Index-help-LOSE-weight.html

https://www.allsides.com/blog/story-week-media-misfires-covington-catholic-story (Covington kids...)

https://web.archive.org/web/20060523081219/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534 (this was just made up)

The whole Washington Post Steele dossier, the legendary pissgate: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/581347-washington-post-removes-large-portions-of-two-stories-on-steele/

I'm surprised to find that there are two Project Pegasuses but I observe that the anti-theft Pegasus is a part of Opal, who are also still continuing their work.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14920/html/

https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/work-of-npcc-committees/Crime-Operations-coordination-committee/opal/

So even if my link was wrong, my point still stands. Pegasus is still a thing in practical terms. You are the one who produced the idea that it had shut down, seemingly from nowhere. What source did that come from? How can you legitimately have known this info?

Since the number is actually falling on a rolling average, the AI is quite misleading

But theft is at record levels? What, we have to wait for the nano-top or regurgitate secondary sources like wikipedia? Sonnet could easily observe 'ok I know about past historical theft levels, this is higher therefore its at record highs'.

Then pick out 10 articles of your choice in an area you know about.

When I see some bad journalism I don't add it to a big list of bad articles, same with spelling errors tbh. But you can take your pick from Russiagate, spruking the case for the invasion of Iraq or suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, or this euphemism treadmill where journalists eagerly create a racial narrative if a white does something bad to blacks, whereas they bury the reverse case, mentioning race only at the very end of the article. Those are cases of deception and misleading news from 'real journalists'.

I think that the real trouble with fear and shame is not that it doesn't work in principle but that it can't be effectively wielded today.

Just imagine the amount of shaming and bullying that the 1950s guys would've been deploying against this stuff, against even the tamer /d/ threads. Metric tonnes of shaming! And that largely worked. But shaming is not something modern society is actually good at anymore. Huge resources are thrown into shaming racists yet there are a lot of racists around. Nobody cares so much anymore. In the 70's and 80's, shaming didn't stop gays from buggering eachother anonymously in bathhouses, making a human petri dish for diseases that would then kill so many of them (and others besides). If you read the infamous Salo thread, you can see the attitude of the scientists and doctors, how limpwristed and weak they felt in the face of an obvious public health emergency, like they'd be like 'please stop having sex and killing all these people' and then gays would bitch and complain that closing their sex/drugs bathhouses was like the Holocaust: 'Today the baths; tomorrow the ovens'. Ironically the would-be shamers felt more ashamed for even trying to shame than the ones who ought to be ashamed. As far as I know, the gays decisively won, Reagan is considered somehow at fault for HIV/AIDs and they continue on doing their thing now with expensive state-funded Prep drugs to hold off the consequences.

(rather confronting but since we're on the topic of confronting material) https://web.archive.org/web/20200618004225/https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/patient-zero-and-the-early-days-of-hiv-aids.3167/

After the examination, as Dugas was pulling on his stylish shirt, Conant mentioned that Dugas should stop having sex.

Dugas looked wounded, but his voice betrayed a fierce edge of bitterness. 'Of course, I'm going to have sex,' he told Conant.

'Nobody's proven to me that you can spread cancer.'

'Somebody gave this thing to me', he said. 'I'm not going to give up sex.'

And I see the same thing here. The Harpers journalist staring in at these people feels way more ashamed than the actual men involved. Total mismatch in willpower and determination.

Trying to use shame in the modern Western world today is extremely difficult.

To achieve success, you have to make a 'normal relationship' more cost-efficient than 'gooning'. Odds of success? Realistically, nil. What new relationship technologies have been developed in the last 100 years? No-fault divorce is scarcely even technology so much as relationship-sabotage.

Whereas in the techno-sexual sphere there are endless innovations! Television! Internet browsing! Photoshop! Livestreaming! Japanese weirdness! VR! AI waifus and chatbots!

If one side in a conflict is innovating while the other remains static, the former is sure to win. Even if the latter has all the good-coded stuff like 'having a normal one' and 'the power of love', then that only affects timelines, not the end result.

I thought the Saturn V was just outright cheaper and more powerful than SLS (at least the SLS in current condition)? I guess it's more complicated if you consider the Apollo project as a whole but on the other hand, there would also be cost savings from experience going to the Moon and doing all that stuff for the second time and not the first time. $35 Billion for the project and a billion per launch, inflation adjusted, for Saturn V, whereas SLS 1 has already cost just as much to develop and is more expensive to launch, while providing less lift.

Sounds like an epic case of grifting and laziness on behalf of trad aerospace companies. Then again, I'm not really a space guy so there may well be more to it.