I do wonder if the true purpose of the world wars was to kill off the strongest, both physically and mentally, so that 21st century society could be rebuilt with the same parasite class at the top but a much more docile and accepting under class. Impossible to know but it’s convenient that the same old money families kept and extended their wealth and power whilst the best of our people were churned up in meatgrinders for no purpose whatsoever.

The good news is we don’t need a majority to oppose this tyranny though, 5% will get the job done. If 5% grok it fully, they’ll supplant the incumbent parasite class eventually whether peacefully through hyperbitcoinisation or by turning the people against their governments when they try to send us in to the next meatgrinder.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

yes fuck the pigheads sitting on iron thrones doing nothing but enslaving the crowd.

I only speak of what I’ve verified… or at least I try to do that to remain humble.

Is hard for me to believe there was a purpose further than the gain of POWER from those such as the ā€œwealthy familiesā€ or self fulfilling systems like governments… as far as I know non of them have the power to see the future, but they have the power to indoctrinate and maintain a rhetoric that gives them more power; in the case of the government (opposed to the ā€œfeudal familiesā€), there is a necessity to oppress and control the population to remain viable under the ā€œunconsciousā€ statements of ā€œdivide and conquerā€ and ā€œkeep the people ignorant and afraid and control and power becomes a detailā€.

The individual works in a very different way than the mass.

I’m a simple man.

I’m not freedom, but I’m one of those who tries to make it possible. I’m part of the 5%.

That’s an interesting theory. Although I don’t think it was done with such forethought, the meatgrinder became a boon for the wealthy at the top.

But it’s also good to remember that the survivors of the war were stronger than the ones that perished(on average). So I don’t know if it had such a bad impact in the US. Of course, it’s a different story in Germany.

Consider when central banks and income tax were introduced, also look into changes in both education and welfare in various countries around this time.

Obviously I don’t know for sure, it’s not like there’s minutes from the meetings of the parasite class of the time that we can cross reference here. But a lot of ā€˜infrastructure’ was put in place at that time that would inevitably lead to centralisation and big government.

There’s a lot of dots that connect but I’ve not had the time to read enough of the background to really see how plausible the theory is.

But why would they have done it? To make more money of course. If you were fortunate enough to be in their shoes, would you have taken the righteous path?

note13uxxfyca5hjh2829nrv73hvctmzd2jnk537s7wmvumf5cy970h0sz8yp7w