WonderingAbout

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Grok

[illuminatibot @iluminatibot]

Prohibition wasn’t about stopping people from drinking alcohol, it was about stopping farmers from creating their own fuel for their machines.

Making hemp illegal wasn't to keep people safe, it was to maintain the petroleum Monopoly.

[Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 @mtgreenee]

It’s not an antisemitic conspiracy theory when a foreign lobby openly brags that they bought two congressional seats with candidates who will be loyal to Israel.

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

Here’s an idea…

Rather than the government mandating digital ID on all of us, we should be mandating digital ID on the government to monitor exactly where they spend our tax money and the meetings they have with corporate lobbyists. We don’t serve them. They serve us.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

No one should have to beg the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right anywhere in the country.

Thank you @RepBost for cosponsoring HR 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act.

[QINTELPRO @QINTELPRO_]

When the Civil War began in 1861, Abraham Lincoln needed money to fight it.

He approached the private banks. They offered loans at 24–36% interest - terms designed to bankrupt the government and hand the bankers permanent leverage over the republic.

Lincoln refused.

Instead, he did something no American president had done before: he had Congress authorize the Treasury to print $450 million in government-issued currency - the greenbacks. No private bank involvement. No interest payments. No debt.

The greenback was a direct threat to every private banking interest on earth. If a government could fund itself without borrowing, private bankers become unnecessary.

The London Times responded with an editorial that read like a declaration of war: “If that mischievous financial policy should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

This is a primary source document. The London Times, 1865. 🧵

[Axel Savage @LibertySavage01]

Does anyone know when WWI will be over so we can get rid of the temporary federal income tax?

Asking for a friend

[Eric Weinstein @ericweinstein]

It’s extremely hard to “do a little disclosure” and avoid the tight scientific/societal questions. The only way this has worked has been starving smart technical people for any detail at all.

What I will be watching:

Everyone: “Did the government psy-op us all with BS? If so: Why????”

Biologists: “You said the government has alien biologics? Do they have eukaryotic cells? If so what do we know about their histones, matrilineal mitochondrial dna, hemoglobin atp synthase??? What is their placement on the phylogenetic tree? Tetrapods??? Isolates?? If not eucaryotic, how are their cells/tissues organized? Do they use proteins?? What are their body plans??”

Linguists: “What is the structure of their communication schemes? Can it be mapped onto a generalized human grammar? Or are our languages not expressive enough to cover their languages? Do they use sound or light or some other wave to transmit/receive? Do they have an analog of music??”

Physicists: “How do the standard model and general relativity appear as effective theories/lagrangians of the alien understanding of the cosmic waves, media and fabric for lack of better terms? How many dimensions are there, are they engineering accessible and how many new ones are temporal? Are there new forms of energy corresponding to these new degrees of freedom? Is the speed of light gameable?”

Civil Libertarians: “How many innocent lives were ruined keeping this secret? Did we fake a lot of this?? Who authorized the lying, discrediting and possible wet work?”

NatSec: “Are we owned by an unknown force? Will it now be trivial easy for everyone to make WMD from new discoveries?”

Etc.

This is not going to stay controlled if it is at all specific. As soon as there are any specifics I guess that the game changes character instantly and goes into high gear with totally different players.

[Crypto Tea @Cryptotea]

10,000 years of eating bread

and suddenly in one decade everyone is gluten intolerant

3,000 years of gold as money

and suddenly in 50 years everyone is poor

[Your Friend Andy @YourFriendAndy]

Agree or disagree???

[Meredith @Opportunitweet]

There is no legal requirement to have an email address, nor is there a requirement to have a cell phone or use certain apps. But our government and far too many corporations behave as though this is the case.
It's a tremendous problem.

[Rep. Keith Self @RepKeithSelf]

If our Founding Fathers heard about CBDCs, kill switches, FISA, and geofences, they would probably overthrow the government all over again.

Protect the Fourth Amendment at ALL costs.

[MW4Liberty @MW4Liberty]

Them: "Taxation isn't theft because we have the “consent of the governed” through the vote.

Me: "That is an interesting definition of consent. Tell me. if a group of five people encounters a lone traveler, and four of them vote to take his bag, does the vote make the taking an act of “sharing” rather than “robbery”?

Them: "No, that’s just a mob. We have laws and a social contract."

Me: "Ah, so the number of people involved doesn't change the nature of the act? If the mob grows to a million, is the traveler’s bag still his property?”

Them: "Well, yes. But we vote on things we all need! It’s for the common good."

Me: "I see. Let us test the “common good” logic against the most private property of all: the body. If a crowd of men decides, by majority vote, that a woman’s body should be used for their pleasure or “the common good” of the tribe, does the vote grant her consent?"

Them: "That’s a horrific comparison! No! That is a violent crime because her body belongs to her, not the crowd."

Me: "So we agree: A person’s body is theirs by right, and no amount of voting can transfer that ownership to the majority?"

Them: "Obviously."

Me: "Then tell me - what is labor? Is it not the use of one's body and time over a day, a month, or a year?"

Them: "I suppose it is."

Me: "If I own my body, I must own my labor. And if I own my labor, I must own the fruit of that labor - the wages I earned. If the crowd cannot vote to take my body, by what logic can they vote to take the product of my body’s work?"

Them: "But how would we fund things? How would we protect the poor? Without income taxes, everything would collapse!"

Me: "So, the theft of labor, ie one’s body, is necessary because you cannot imagine a better way to pay for things?"

Them: "It’s not theft! It’s the price we pay for society!"

Me: "If a man steals your car but uses the money to buy bread for the hungry, has the theft vanished? Or do we simply have a thief with a good excuse?"

Them: "You’re being impossible. It’s just how the world works!"

Me: No, it is you being impossible. Impossible in that you wish to fit two opposing ideas into the same. The “consent” you speak of is merely a mask. You do not believe in the vote; you believe in the utility of the haul. You are a man who claims he hates violence, yet asks his friends to vote on which neighbor to rob for dinner. Oh, and it doesn’t have to work this way. But it will as long as people think the way you think…

[redpillbot @redpillb0t]

What do you think?

[David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz @JoelKatz]

All disagreement with official truths will be considered by those in government to be deliberate misinformation.

Some of the most important public political debates of the past decade (for example, around vaccine mandates) involved each side vehemently accusing the other of spreading deliberate, harmful misinformation for financial gain.

We saw many governments punishing and limiting speech on precisely that basis even though the speech was on the very most important political decisions of the time, directly impacting elections.

Nobody saying something like this could possibly believe in freedom of speech. What they believe is much more sinister. They believe it's important that people *think* others have free speech so they are convinced that they are hearing all sides of an argument while *they* retain control over what political viewpoints are and aren't permitted to be advanced.

We see this playing out even today around the most important political issues of the day. For example, immigration policy.

[Christy 💕 @Christy4Change]

The first Jewish President of Mexico is the first to also try to kill cash, making it mandatory to use electronic payment at tolls and gas pumps. No cash, they need to see what you’re doing and where you are.

This is the trial program for digital ID.

DO NOT COMPLY.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Il y a une phrase que j'adore : "Je suis communiste avec ma famille, socialiste avec mes amis, libéral avec mon pays, et capitaliste avec le reste du monde."

Cette phrase est brillante parce qu'elle résume l'erreur numéro un que font les gens quand ils réfléchissent aux systèmes économiques : appliquer ce qui marche à petite échelle à grande échelle sans comprendre que la complexité des systèmes change tout.

Le communisme avec ta famille ça marche. Tu partages tout, tu ne comptes pas, chacun donne selon ses capacités et reçoit selon ses besoins. Et ça fonctionne. Parce que tu es 4 ou 5 personnes, que tu connais tout le monde intimement, que la confiance est totale, que la tricherie est impossible à cacher, et que l'amour remplace les incitations économiques.

Le socialisme avec tes amis ça marche aussi. Un groupe de 20-30 personnes. Tu partages les restos, tu aides un pote à déménager, tu files un coup de main sans compter. La réciprocité est naturelle parce que tu connais chaque personne et que ta réputation est en jeu.

Mais dès que tu passes à l'échelle d'un pays, 68 millions de personnes, tout s'effondre. Pourquoi ? Parce que la complexité des systèmes est non linéaire. S'organiser à 5 c'est trivial. S'organiser à 50 c'est difficile. S'organiser à 50 millions c'est un problème d'une complexité fondamentalement différente. C'est pas juste "plus dur". C'est qualitativement un autre problème.

À grande échelle, tu ne connais plus les gens. La confiance disparaît. La tricherie devient invisible. Les passagers clandestins prolifèrent. L'information nécessaire pour coordonner 68 millions de personnes dépasse la capacité de n'importe quel planificateur central. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises (1920) et de l'information dispersée de Hayek (1945). Un cerveau central ne peut pas traiter l'information que des millions de prix de marché transmettent en temps réel.

C'est exactement pour ça que le communisme produit des familles heureuses et des pays morts. Le modèle ne scale pas. Pas parce que les gens sont méchants. Parce que la complexité des systèmes rend la coordination centralisée impossible au-delà d'un certain seuil.

Et c'est l'erreur de jugement fondamentale que font la plupart des gens qui adhèrent aux thèses marxistes. Ils prennent leur expérience du partage en famille ou entre amis, un modèle qui marche à 5-20 personnes, et ils l'extrapolent à 68 millions de personnes en ignorant complètement l'émergence de la complexité. "Si ça marche chez moi, ça devrait marcher pour le pays." Non. La physique des systèmes complexes dit exactement le contraire.

Le marché libre c'est le seul système qui scale. Parce qu'il ne dépend pas de la confiance personnelle, ni de la bonne volonté, ni d'un planificateur omniscient. Il dépend de prix qui transmettent l'information, d'incitations qui alignent les comportements, et de la concurrence qui corrige les erreurs. C'est un système conçu pour fonctionner avec des inconnus, à n'importe quelle échelle.

Sois communiste avec ta famille. Socialiste avec tes amis. Et libéral avec tout le reste. Parce que la taille du système détermine le modèle qui fonctionne. Pas tes bonnes intentions.