Has consumer technology destroyed us?

[TetraG]

Absolute class Steven Tansell ! =)

 

never thought I'd say that about you, (j/k)  but you got it in spades there with those 4 images!

 

especially this one.... Thanks! (I've downloaded them all to save in my human extended memory bank as backup, -I mean my Laptop- in case any more tech unfamiliar to me introduces itself and I perceive as new threats to my existing bio-tech <<< in a way exaggerating slightly there by going heavy on the irony of tech as SUPPOSED enabling thing!)

 

[LastOneLeftInTheCounty]

Wokism. Wasn’t wokism created as a coverall term for super far left communist style brainwashing done through universities so insane billionaires and academics can get their hands an infinite supply of tranny teens? Like- no one loves each other anymore families betray each other friends sell out their friends, it’s like the American model for drug dealing just stay in your house don’t talk to anyone Super Stasi style. it’s just cold hard reality no spirituality or religion or family, even sustained eye contact could be deemed assault.                     Some of the things I just wrote may not be correct or politically sound.

[LastOneLeftInTheCounty]

On 10/14/2022 at 9:12 AM, Macnamara said:

 

it is because people are not simply trying to create art anymore.

 Your reasoning is cool I like it, and yes that’s right, everything’s already been done so sit back and let your consumer technology provide you with that warm satisfied feeling you’d get from TV or drugs and alcohol etc.   Buddhists destroy the meticulous sand art they’ve spent the last 9 months creating for a reason. 

[TetraG]

Brilliant answers LastOneLeft. Your above 2 posts are Pretty Accurate Sounding it seems to me.

[Macnamara]

1 hour ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

Wokism. Wasn’t wokism created as a coverall term for super far left communist style brainwashing done through universities so insane billionaires and academics can get their hands an infinite supply of tranny teens? Like- no one loves each other anymore families betray each other friends sell out their friends, it’s like the American model for drug dealing just stay in your house don’t talk to anyone Super Stasi style. it’s just cold hard reality no spirituality or religion or family, even sustained eye contact could be deemed assault.                     Some of the things I just wrote may not be correct or politically sound.

 

well if you were playing a board game where you had to build up a civilisation you would want certain things in order for your society to grow and thrive. You would for example want the society to produce children that were healthy and educated and motivated to succeed. For this you need certain building blocks in place. To produce the children you need heterosexual men and women to be able to pair up and to be fertile and horny enough to procreate. Then you need those people to be intelligent enough to be able to guide those children to maturation with the tools that they need to succeed in life. This would require the couple to stay together to form a stable family environment as then the child gets masculine and feminine input from both parents that then shape that person into a balanced human able to form their own lasting and stable relationships.

 

If however you are playing a board game where the goal of the game is to break down  society to create a weakened and failing slave class that will be dependent on your central control then you have to disrupt the family unit, lower IQ, degrade fertility, destabilise children, ruin their reproductive capabilities and make it hard for men and women to stay together in order to provide a stable and nurturing environment in which to raise children....that's where wokeism comes in

[LastOneLeftInTheCounty]

2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

well if you were playing a board game where you had to build up a civilisation you would want certain things in order for your society to grow and thrive. You would for example want the society to produce children that were healthy and educated and motivated to succeed. For this you need certain building blocks in place. To produce the children you need heterosexual men and women to be able to pair up and to be fertile and horny enough to procreate. Then you need those people to be intelligent enough to be able to guide those children to maturation with the tools that they need to succeed in life. This would require the couple to stay together to form a stable family environment as then the child gets masculine and feminine input from both parents that then shape that person into a balanced human able to form their own lasting and stable relationships.

 

If however you are playing a board game where the goal of the game is to break down  society to create a weakened and failing slave class that will be dependent on your central control then you have to disrupt the family unit, lower IQ, degrade fertility, destabilise children, ruin their reproductive capabilities and make it hard for men and women to stay together in order to provide a stable and nurturing environment in which to raise children....that's where wokeism comes in

Classic!!!

 

[TetraG]

Here I think maybe some hope, ya know why, I like this guy, (Master Shi Heng Yi) not the only one but a good one to follow... I've seen quite a few of his vids... Enough to know what's good... & included I like Kung Fu....

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by TetraG

[Doc]

This all has a lot to do with morals and willpower as well as all the good points made above.

 

Right willpower is something the PTB would like to see gone from the general population imo.  Being on a smartphone looking at the most banal shite all day when your kids are crying out for a parent who is present and available is morally wrong and a responsible adult should have the willpower to recognise that and put the phone down.

 

This is where wokism and rampant individualism comes in. The smartphone mom has been told it's ok to be on your smartphone all the time and it's ok to be selfish and that kids are a massive inconvenience and you have to put your life on hold because of them!?!?.

 

People have been made to see their own lives as compartmentalized (the work you, the parent you etc, you see it all the time in TV shows and advertising) instead of one, all encompassing experience. Like Mac says, it's all intentional on the part of the PTB.

 

For the record, I f**king hate tech. I do have tech for music stuff and I do have and use a smartphone but I use it as an adult should. As said earlier in the thread by @Ethel it's a tool and yes, it is almost as dangerous as a chainsaw. Except a chainsaw will only mess you up physically if you don't pay due diligence but a smartphone can cause untold damage in ways that we are only just beginning to find out.

[Ethel]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

  Being on a smartphone looking at the most banal shite all day when your kids are crying out for a parent who is present and available is morally wrong and a responsible adult should have the willpower to recognise that and put the phone down.

 

Exactly. Its heartbreaking. Imagine this generation of children when they get to their 20's and beyond. Then imagine the strain on the mental health service. My God where are we headed?

[Mikhail Liebestein]

The Silicon chip inside your head (or in your hand)

 

 

[Macnamara]

On 10/14/2022 at 12:59 PM, TetraG said:

 her work could be revealing Richard III guy as an almost entirely different person from the one portrayed by others "findings", especially in movies re-enacting the believed but false Richard lll hence practically fictionified version of him in that way

 

he was always blamed of murdering the 'princes in the tower' wasn't he?

Was Richard III INNOCENT of 'Princes in the Tower' murders? 'Da Vinci Code'-style clues suggest king may NOT have killed his nephews but instead sent Edward V to live in secret as 'John Evans' in a rural Devon village, researchers say

• Researchers have spent four years exploring clues as to what happened to the 'Princes in the Tower' in 1483
• Edward V, 12, and his brother the Duke of York, 9, were locked in Tower of London by their uncle Richard III
• Historians have always thought pair were murdered by Richard III so he could take throne instead of Edward V
• But now researchers believe Edward V may instead haver been allowed to live in secret under a false name
• Evidence suggests he was sent to a rural Devon village as part of a deal between his mother and Richard III
• There he may have lived as 'John Evans' and built a chantry at St Matthew's Church in Coldridge, experts say
• Clues include a rare glass portrait of Edward V and royal Yorkist symbols that were found carved in the church

By Rory Tingle and Ryan Morrison For Mailonline

Published: 11:57 BST, 29 December 2021 | Updated: 16:00 BST, 29 December 2021

King Richard III may not have killed the young 'Princes in the Tower' more than 500 years ago but instead allowed the older boy, Edward V, to live in secret under a false name in a rural Devon village, researchers have said.

They believe Edward's mother Elizabeth Woodville made a secret pact with Richard III, who historians have always thought murdered his nephews so he could claim the throne for himself in the 15th century. 

Richard III's brother, Edward IV, died unexpectedly in 1483, leaving Richard as Lord Protector in charge of his nephews, Edward V, 12, and nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.

Edward was due to assume the throne but before he could be crowned king the brothers were declared illegitimate and Richard had them locked in the Tower of London, never to be seen again.

A narrative handed down by Tudor authorities and popularised by William Shakespeare suggested that the king had the brothers murdered, just in case anyone tried to dispute his power and seek to put Edward on the throne.

But despite a pair of skeletons being found in the Tower in 1674, 200 years after their supposed death, no evidence of Edward and Richard's murder has ever been discovered — and now researchers believe a series of 'Da Vinci Code'-style clues suggest it may be because they were never killed.

The findings are part of the Missing Princes Project, led by Philippa Langley, the historian responsible for a dig that found the remains of Richard III in a Leicester car park in 2012.  

Langley and colleagues followed a paper trail including medieval documents that led them to Coldridge, where royal Yorkist symbols are carved into the local church, St Matthew's.

The findings hint at a secret deal struck between the boys' mother and Richard III, that allowed Edward V to live his life under the fake name 'John Evans'. 

In the church there is also an effigy of 'John Evans' gazing directly at a stained glass window that depicts Edward V, suggesting they were one and the same person.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10352189/Richard-III-INNOCENT-Princes-Tower-murders-study-claims.html

[TetraG]

10 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

he was always blamed of murdering the 'princes in the tower' wasn't he?

 

Dunno mate sorry, but of the time (if Tudor was it), I guess it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility if that style of family protection  was how the inn-keepers (sts) of Top Ranking Hierarchy kept their own safe by pretending to kill them. Yep that sounds like good politics,  even if one is accused of murder, that still sounds reasonable to me, just like killing off a prime minister these days ((((in essence)))) but please don't anyone LOCK ME UP for saying that you lawyer bastards, I am part jesting & part court jestering OK!!!! that's why I said IN ESSENCE for a bloody reason okay to deliver myself from evil in case history has me going down the same path, as if I would want to be King! ... oh & LEASE ARK HERE RICHARD, thankyou, that way we can find you UNDER "R" in 2012.(that's R for Redacted until found, sorry I mean £Reserved) at a blooming luminary cost of a sum only the Leicester local council can fix a penalty notice big enough to serve the fine unto the incumbent & indeed deceased plus interest) Sooooo Nevermind or not whether he was guilty of speculatively murdering someone which I was not there to witness (perhaps b/c I too was dead???).... So yes just as ridiculous I was with the Princess THE WHOLE TIME , whoever she was??? What? Can one not have a romance with ghost??... ahem!!!!.... Excuse me, can't you see, I am testing a VISION here, NOT REAL LIFE PEOPLE, CALM DOWN.... or okkkkkkkkkay, call it TUDOR HALF LIFE then (not at all like the SIMS of today).....Who could possibly cope with real life, and TBH, that's probably what she thought, APART FROM WHO AM I she doth proclaimed in mad regurgitation to herself, what I have done to deserve this dominating her mind?--- And in our eyes of today whoever this mysterious maiden was locked away in a Turret WITH 2 BOYS (or not??... That to me is the most disturbing part) ...... Anyway, by what vision I SEE, (yes, *try not to be jealous please everyone*) I was trying to extricate myself from being held against my will in the same tower as the Princess before RIchard III would come and check on us to make sure we were still dead, only he couldn't find us (well, not knowingly) he trod on us in the dark you see, whilst we were still pretending to be still dead and dead still. ...Well okay, only my ethereal conscience was what I sent in the vision and which was therefore metaphysically present, but apart from that perfectly dead (almost). I mean I try to stay true to any historical re-enactment, even when I am not involved in a shit-making, nevertheless there I lay waiting for the 'citadel key holder' to cart us off either to the morgue or to live in infamy, known to no-one as per the arrangement allegedly set forth by Mom of Richards 2 children....

 

Still, to be serious~ the point I am trying to make IIIISSSSS I note said "princess" has gone largely unmentioned as for her wherewithall, so how she climbed or got hauled into the narrative is of itself a mystery.... and WHO WAS SHE (thanks Nicky off Big Brother, your patented words exactly -almost).... Indeed WHO WAS SHE WITH this Princess, if anyone, was she put away alone or did Richard III only have 2 MALES put away in hiding AKA his 2 SONS in one single Tower or what?.... 

 

So to help, I know you're dead darling (or we assume so), but if that Princess could own up to where is her OWN Skeleton that would be grand.... (don't mock, maybe she too survived and is still with us today having been in a coma).... Never the smarter, we still in addition have WHOSE other 2 skeletons  were said to be believed found and what remains were they that were found if not those 2 young lads said to be a future threat to the King or something?  

And also~~~ worth a mention~~~ Had they never heard of legitimate PROGENY in those days? or Self Preservation By Consent or something?  ((Thankyou My Lord, I will make myself scarce now in the Tower of your choice!, feel free to drop in on us at any time My Good King))

 

Sorry, serious.....

Although to be found under a carpark is noteworthy in a mildly amusing way especially under R for Redacted or RESERVED TRUTH could it be? J/K pulling a leg...

But no the whole story since the 2012 dig, I cannot say I've followed closely, where my nose was already on the ground and could not excavate any further with that alone,  but I have taken some note of this HISTORICAL STORY, (No not Michael Jackson, LEAVE!!!) without too many intellectual confusing side-effects thankyou all for asking!.... so nevermind, better late than *permanently late* TBH, so errr anyway that podcast I mentioned in my Page1 post (without a weblink, yes- sorry), is where my ears pricked (*SPOK would be proud*), hereto where we are now in the present of recently this month, where my aforementioned interest only really shone forth at that point by looking at things a little more closely, so this month I plead because of hearing woman on radio, and all quite credulously, I found her convincingly modest and intelligent, as she gave her side to what her investigation of Richard III story has brought to bear to appearing to be the truth. I think also this investigator was volunteer?... not forced to uncover any bones, or recital of texts etc, and this made her seem more genuine with no evidence of her not seeming genuine.

 

So of that lady, if it was Phillipa Langley of said reporting I heard, then I will say she gave absolute proof positive genuine depiction, despite how she might be assumed only a hobbyist (I don't know), but at least by how she came across as having the credentials of research to my best listening ear! (ears, I have two)..... Anyway there we presumably have it that Phillipa Langley was that lady that Mail Online piece mentions I guess... and btw, I did find her name kept coming up in the short search I did this week, trying to track where I heard the radio program. (on a talk radio belonging to the BBC, probably findable on SOUNDS)

 

 

ETA: I've just realized after a long haul (*make it sound dramatic, TRUSS LEVEL OF EMBARASSMENT here folks*)...
Mac may not have meant LITERALLY a princess. but then again what other than TOAST gets put in a TOASTER one should add!.... Lol.

Edited October 20, 2022 by TetraG

[Macnamara]

10 hours ago, TetraG said:

Dunno mate sorry, but of the time (if Tudor was it), I guess it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility if that style of family protection  was how the inn-keepers (sts) of Top Ranking Hierarchy kept their own safe by pretending to kill them.

 

Not quite tudor at that point. It was the 'war of the roses' between the house of york and the house of lancaster and the person who emerged from that scrap with the crown on their head was henry VII who then went on to found the house of tudor

 

Certainly two skeletons were discovered in the tower so if they weren't the princes they had to be someone else in that places long and bloody history. I guess its plausible that a deal was cut to save the princes and to stand aside for richard III as he was a grown man in a violent world and they were just boys who could not have been anymore than someones puppet. Who knows? it's an interesting theory

 

I do think that some people have their deaths faked so that they can be spirited away into hiding usually to avoid having to go to court. That is what i believe happened to jeffrey epstein and possibly to greville janner and leon brittan. Israel is often used as a bolthole by criminals such as the gangster meyer lansky

Edited October 20, 2022 by Macnamara

[TetraG]

10 hours ago, TetraG said:

I found her convincingly modest and intelligent, as she gave her side to what her investigation of Richard III story has brought to bear to appearing to be the truth.

This bears repeating since I did not mention it was my impression, I actually CANNOT attest to any of her evidence, as I have NOT got to that stage of personal enquiry or general oversight... Nevertheless she seemed alright to me, and I have a very keen ear to those whom are WAY less canny with the truth than she by my opinion.

10 hours ago, TetraG said:

So of that lady, if it was Phillipa Langley of said reporting I heard, then I will say she gave absolute proof positive (*to be verified or at least proof read by reason*) genuine depiction <MY IMPRESSION, despite how she might be assumed only a hobbyist (I don't know), but at least by how she came across as having the credentials of research

 

I must stress this was ONLY my IMPRESSION.  Thankyou all for noting. (and thanks Mac for the clarification on what time period this was all going on.)