Here's how it works: If you publish a book and have a well-connected agent, you get to do the media rounds. I'm not sure about the guardrails for these appearances, but there may be some, such as that they may give you a few hard questions but it mostly needs to be about the book.
You may remember that Don Jr. also went when he had a book out.
A fair point. Imagine the irony if this was really just a coincidence. The people involved would totally panic. "I know we didn't do it, but if people learn the truth they will totally think we did it!" They would try hard to cover it up and would even feel justified in doing so. Some would say they weren't just playing with fire. They were playing napalm at a gas station.
A word on the Disclosure Day movie: I see some critics fumbling over the title and whether it "spoils" the movie to reveal that it's about aliens. I'm surprised that this would come as a surprise to a movie critic, but "Disclosure" is a term profusely used in the UFO community for the event of disclosing undisputable evidence of aliens (either by whistleblowers or by the government itself).
It almost seems like the movie is aimed at the UFO community specifically. I haven't seen it, but reviews mention a lot of UFO community tropes and even some winks and nods.
I think that does disservice to people who actually believe these things. It feeds the notion that aliens will suddenly come as some kind of saviors. It's illogical. Here's one possible explanation why: https://t.co/lBlPygqbzp
I think we have the UFO conversation wrong. Here's the thing: The base question of whether UFOs are real actually may be a low-impact issue. Think about it:
@owenbroadcast I think this may be a joke. Of course, having a family is far from being settled down in terms of activity. Nothing ever seems to settle down with kids around.
But that's obviously not what the expression refers to. It mainly refers to settling down with a single partner.
Abject poverty is the default state of every human being. Prosperity requires constant enormous effort. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, the house you live in, and in extension all the other goods and services are constantly deteriorating or being consumed. Exerting the effort, bearing the pain and sacrifices, of constantly producing them requires powerful, enduring motivation. Not only does communism fail to provide such motivation, it systematically undermines it.
You operate from the assumption of fair elections. But if you operate from the standpoint of corrupt elections, your calculation changes. You don't worry about Pratt OR Raman beating you in an election. You worry about who's going to make it harder for you to govern. Pratt's momentum needs to be stopped. He's giving people ideas. He may move the Overton window and start a movement.
Raman, at the end of the day, is a Democrat. She will play ball. Just like Bernie. Just like AOC.
Of course, we don't have a definitive proof of fraud here. DSA has ground game. They can legally harvest for Raman.
I've been thinking about the whole "whiteness" narrative. It's always sounded artificial to me. It presents a white person as so overpowered, controlling everything, dominating everyone.
The facts seem to paint much less dramatic picture. White people seem to be above average, but not at the top of various distributions. IQ, income, educational achievement.
In fact, the quintessential white stereotype among non-white people seems to be that whites are somewhat dumb. What do they owe their success to then?
I think it's exactly that. White people come across as trusting, even naive. They're not outright stupid, but also not so smart as to feel untrustworthy. They are disarming. It makes them good leaders because others are willing to accept them as leaders. Think about a stereotypical white boss. What kind of person is it? It's just a guy. He may be an idiot, but you can't really say he's a bad dude.
Of course, I may be wrong. What do you think?
@Mike_Pence The republic depends on morality. Big difference from surface-level civility as sometimes what is deemed uncivil, outrageous even, is the moral thing to do.
@FrancaLalic@BNONews I'd certainly like to know what the protocol is for SS when it comes to neutralizing threats vs civilian casualties. Problems with SS definitely predate Trump though.
It's actually much more than just surveillance. It's influence. The whole situation is carefully set up to lead you along to a predetermined position. What you see, who you see, who you talk to, what they talk to you about. It's designed to make you feel and think certain way. And it's crafted to your profile based on your desires (greed, lust, fame, ...). You're supposed to leave with a particular ideas in your head thinking it was you who came up with them on your own based on experiences that felt spontaneous.
I think today, the most obvious way to become a billionaire (by net worth) is to start a company with great potential and then have somebody buy a small share in it that values the entire company at over a billion. Your cashflow may be very low, but on paper, you're a billionaire.