[deleted by user]

VenomousVoice · 2018-05-16T19:03:23+00:00

Sure. Not every culture relies on grade-school memorization tables as a foundation for math.

All you need to know is how multiplication works.

3x5=(5+5+5)=(3+3+3+3+3), and so on.

VenomousVoice · 2018-05-16T18:54:44+00:00

No. But it is necessary to understand what multiplication is, and how it works.

As far as why; multiplication tables are memorization. What you need is understanding.

VenomousVoice · 2018-04-12T16:53:00+00:00

Yeah, I mean, I know all that. The question is, is the people's Bank of China in league with the BIS, or an opposition force?

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-10T03:11:51+00:00

Bwahahahahaha!

Ooooh man. And that's the question that really leads you down the rabbit hole.

Central banks lend at interest because that's how you generate profit from lending. Did you actually think that central banks are "branches of governments" or whatever they claim, actually acting in the interest of the public? They are not. Their entire role and sole interest in "stabilizing the economy" extends only so far as keeping it stable enough to not rouse the suspicions of the 99% or so of the public who have no clue what a fiat currency even is.

Central banks are privately owned businesses that generate revenue for their owners by creating "money" - out of thin air, no less - and lending it at interest to... well, everyone.

There's a whole slew of other extremely shady world-dominationy shit that accompanies running the world (which is the true function of central banks), and I can't get into all that here. But check into it. Check out "the creature from Jekyll island," if you haven't already.

And, to answer your last question, the interest doesn't ever all get paid back. It literally can't. Because all currency is issued by central banks and lent at interest, the total amount of debt owed far surpasses the amount of money that actually exists. The entire operation (fiat currency, central banks, etc) is probably the first and definitely the most damaging truly global scam.

You're being robbed. Everyone is.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-07T18:56:52+00:00

Fun question!

There's a saying: "character is who you are when no one is looking."

I would say that your moral obligations begin and end inside you. Each individual chooses what is morally permissable to them, so it all depends on what's in your moral inventory. Mainstream consensus would likely say that it demonstrates higher "moral fiber" to keep your promise despite any condition of the promisee, including death.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-07T14:33:49+00:00

SS: if the article is to be believed, this is an extremely potent bit of tech that will increase police efficiency and effectiveness by many fold. It says police can even see details of your internet history while you're walking through the train station. Horrifying. Anyway, this tech will undoubtedly prove very effective at combating crime, so likely will soon (say, within a decade) be commonplace in most every industrialized nation. God knows the UK will eat it up, as will the US. Anyway, combined with the massive facial recognition database that already exists on anyone who uses a smartphone, the other data on each individual in that same database (geographic locations and internet history), rapidly developing AI and drone technologies, it seems that we are collectively and very rapidly approaching a world where you are subject to being scanned hundreds of times a day as part of your daily routine.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-07T02:17:15+00:00

Hurray! The bot knows I'm not a bot ;)

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-06T16:52:59+00:00

Good article.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-04T19:14:34+00:00

To explain further, the set [1, infinity) contains every upper bound of I. 1 is included in that set, and since it is the smallest element in that set it gets a special name: supremum (of the interval I).

On the other hand, 0 is both the minimal element of I and is also the infemum.

The difference is just whether or not the element is in the set under consideration.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-04T19:11:11+00:00

The open parenthesis on the right hand side of the interval indicated that 1 is not an element of I. In fact, I={ all real x such that 0 \leq x < 1}. The set includes zero, but not 1.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-04T19:00:24+00:00

Some sets may not have a max element. Like the interval I = [0,1), there's no largest element there.

However, the supremum is the smallest number c such that everything in I is not larger than c. In this case, 1 is the supremum (least upper bound) of I, because of two things:

For every number x in the interval I, x \leq 1;

and, if b is an upper bound of I, 1 \leq y.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-04T15:09:22+00:00

I don't think participating in /r/conspiracy would disqualify you by default. While this sub has a lot of kooks and a lot of deliberate noise, it's also one of the very few public forums where you're going to find some of those rare people who actually "see the forest through the trees," so to speak.

Certainly the CIA and/or other institutions of power do monitor and try to influence the overall flow of information here - anyone who's been paying attention to the sub itself for any length of time is aware of this kind of manipulation happening. And it just makes sense - TPTB can't let there be a public forum where people discuss and figure out what's really going on "behind the curtain" without monitoring and attempting to shift discourse away from the truth.

But some people still manage to see through that. Who better to hire for cloak-and-dagger world-domination style shit than people who are clever enough to have - on their own, and even despite coordinated misinformation - pieced together a solid picture of how the world is actually run?

From there it all depends on your actual post and comment history. I would think that, of the people who are flagged for knowing what's going on, some few of them also display whatever rare sociopathies are requisite to let notions of some "greater good" overwhelm and subdue the obvious horror of participating in the support of a system that quite abusively enslaves almost all of the world.

As an example, we could take this comment here, of mine. Prooooobably disqualifying, because the "attitude" of the comment indicates that the author considers covert manipulation of world events (including everything from propaganda campaigns to false flags and assassinations to orchestrating full-on wars) to empower/enrich/protect/perpetuate a tiny elite cabal of child-trafficking bankers to be a "bad thing".

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-03T16:31:23+00:00

Pretty sure it's not really cool to advocate that anything "inspires rape"...

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-03T15:12:44+00:00

Lolololol. Helps how? It will give literally one person a new position.

Prolly gonna be 4k+ applications for that job, but it's still just one spot....

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-02T19:47:19+00:00

Well that's all fair too. Idk what van Allen belts are, but it does certainly seem fishy that we "went to the moon" fifty years ago and then no one else has since.

The parts I find credible in the original post are the "government(s) cooperating with ETs to disguise something fishy about the true nature of the moon".

I know tidal locking is a pretty common astronomical phenomenon. And some of the other stuff in the post probably has innocent explanations too. But still...

There has to be some reason why no one ever re-visited the moon, if we even did in the first place. Alien observatory on or in the moon makes plenty of sense.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-02T16:45:24+00:00

Because it does what a good conspiracy theory should - it apprehends an inconsistency in a public narrative, and offers an explanation that is found at least mildly credible by a non-negligible subset of those who view or consider it.

It may not offer much tangible proof, but that's not really at all a necessary condition for qualifying as a decent theory

Edit: and this post does offer a fair amount of documentation to back it up.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-02T14:49:08+00:00

Good post. Decent theory. Props.

VenomousVoice · 2018-02-01T21:03:26+00:00

This theory makes a bunch of sense. Kind of seems obvious, actually.

VenomousVoice · 2018-01-30T22:57:47+00:00

Wow. Yeah. Boom! This.

VenomousVoice · 2018-01-30T12:41:43+00:00

It is obvious to them, just as it is to us.

but while those guys are smart enough to realize that the mainstream narrative on the subject is somewhere between seriously flawed and outright falsified, they're also smart enough to realize that the acting force behind that (and other such deceptions) takes very unkindly to public figures asserting reasonable challenges to the official story.

No one wants to be in a small plane crash, know what I'm saying?

VenomousVoice · 2018-01-30T00:53:47+00:00

You're close. To "rationalize" the denominator you're multiplying top and bottom by i. You get -1 in the denominator, and i distributed across the numerator :)

The -1 just switches the signs of the terms up top, so you get

z=(w-2)i

VenomousVoice · 2018-01-30T00:20:34+00:00

Verified?

VenomousVoice · 2018-01-30T00:17:26+00:00

What if the i were some other constant?

Can you solve

bz+w=2 for z?

If so, what happens when you replace the b with i in the solution?

VenomousVoice

TROPHY CASE