xianc78 @xianc78@gameliberty.club

@Bernard @bricsnews

Another datapoint that this is part of a greater uniparty theatre to push the financial reset through energy shortage and famine.

sigh..... i have to go see this movie now i guess.

Now it's time for the most important meal of the day: pizzabeer!

I think it was an intentional long-con. The hard-left/hard-right are like a quarter of the population or less. There are way more independent/libertarian/whatever in the middle. There are plenty of people who don't want Iraq Part II: The Iran Boogaloo. But fuck if they're going to stand next to pro-Biden people who want to allow hormones put in kids and mandatory experimental medication. On the other side, those people don't want "nazis" and "fascists" at their anti-war rallies either.

2016~2020 was one of the largest MKUltra-style experiments ever carried out against the world population. Even people who stand together against war can no longer stand together because of literally everything else.

The psyche of the world has been fragmented. It's a form of collective trauma that's separated the population in absolutist and totalist terms.

Think of the children nutters just won their first lawsuit against Facebook for not 'doing enough' to protect children (as if they had ANY obligation to do so in the first place!):

If you think Facebook is so dangerous because of a few bad apples then don't hand your kid an internet connected device and point them at Facebook. I've been on the internet since the internet came into existence and there have ALWAYS been bad apples on it. In fact BEFORE the internet there were also bad apples in the real world, on the school playground, and on BBSs.

The threat of the internet on children is so over exaggerated. While it's undoubtedly true you can setup fake 'child profiles' and get predators to send you inappropriate materials/messages and so on... it's hardly the typical experience. Minors are far more likely to get bullied by PEOPLE THEY ACTUALLY know from the offline when going online than be sexually harassed by the equivalent of creepy men driving 5 mph in white trucks without windows.

Statistically it's dad, mom, or someone in the family that's going to sexually abuse a child, not some creepy person on the internet.

And if the concern is algorithms... that's just pure fear mongering. There use to be this thing called parenting. If your kid was spending too much time watching TV you click the off button on the TV and told them to go play outside.

I hate to break it to you psychos who think it's always someone else's problem... but you can still tell a child no. You can still choose not to give your [at least actual children, teens will undoubtedly get around your stupid control freak parenting] 10 year old a cell phone.

To the 20 year old 'victim' take responsibility for your own choices, your 20 for christ sake.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/meta-loses-trial-after-arguing-child-exploitation-was-inevitable-on-its-apps/

Starting to look a little desperate...

I include all kinds of links, even links to theories or analysis that brings me to certain conclusions:

https://battlepenguin.com/politics/

I think it makes a pretty massive difference when writing news summaries. Not only can others easily see exactly how you've drawn your conclusions, but I've often found I had thinks incorrect, or found only misleading sources when I try to drill down certain stories or narratives. It does improve the quality of the analysis. James Corbett has been doing it for decades.

CERN: First successful road transport of antimatter.

https://home.cern/news/press-release/experiments/base-experiment-cern-succeeds-transporting-antimatter

https://rumble.com/embed/v75cw9w/?pub=1h5b6y

Content managed by ContentSafe.co

Fyi, I'm now accepting guest posts for the Libre Solutions Network moving forward.

So basically, when the US government makes a law, it's kind of considered like "Putin makes a decree".

Nobody spends a whole lot of time asking themselves if it's constitutional or not because 80% of the federal government is unconstitutional, the only real "law" in America is law of the strong.

There is this whole court battle circus side-show that's constantly going on over what the judiciary is willing to tolerate and what they're not. And this is totally arbitrary based on the judges feel is "reasonable" - and since we've already fully departed from anything related to the written word of the law, that's entirely their personal discretion.

I imagine there probably IS some kind of a secret system by which powerful people settle disputes - and it probably projects its decisions onto the de-jour system by pressuring judges one way or another.

Who knows how it actually works, I only surmise that it probably exists because a system which depends entirely on the mood that a judge is in today would probably have already collapsed in on itself.

A lot of American law basically boils down to "fuck you gonna do about it"...

The US Constitution is in fact extremely strict about what the federal government is allowed to do. Stuff like income tax, food and drug regulation, narcotics laws, gun laws, etc are ALL ILLEGAL.

And they basically just ignore the law, and then play childish word-games with the meaning of things like "commerce" (wickard v filburn) so that they can just re-interpret the Constitution into saying whatever they want it to say.

A good reminder that what is dominant now doesn't necessarily need to be so and will likely fail to endure long term.

#business #culture #tech

RT: https://noauthority.social/users/Killer_Mule/statuses/116249958577769136

Rigel does not exist #AIArt #midjourney