Elons Little Plan

Puff_Dragon

Puff_Dragon

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Of course it is about control, why else would he have bought the company? Because he got a good shave?

On the Millennium Syndrome, provide links or it will be viewed with a raise eyebrow. I happen to be pretty good with medical papers, read many over the past ten years. Would love to read about these 300 year cycles. Can you give examples of time periods. Also do these periods take in the whole world? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...
I told you, as best I could, this is a quiet study.
Unless you have access (the public have no access) to the right medical libraries; as it is internal to the medical community and certainly not for public consumption (especially, at the moment). You'll understand the idea of 'skewing results'.
The public will only be told, well after the study has concluded.

I was involved with the study, back in the 1990's. Which is why I'm acutely aware of societal changes over that time.
Hopefully ..its going to be a long study.

Peace.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
captainmorgan said:
Thought it was time to see if most people know about Elons plan. I think he wants to be the worlds most powerful man, genius often means crazy. He controls tesla,telsa solar,tesla powerwalls and he can control and communicate with all 3 with his tesla satellite internet network. He will become a electric utility provider for the grid in every country on the planet if he is allowed. He will control the power flow from solar panels to car and home batteries with his satellite network and use super computer AI to manage the surplus for sale to the grid. The beauty of the plan is the public pays for the infrastructure upfront.
Click to expand...
He is a bad person. No good will come of this.
 
Puff_Dragon

Puff_Dragon

Well-Known Member
HGCC said:
I would have to question it as there would only be a handful of instances in recorded history that you would be using. I do appreciate different perspectives so glad you put it out there.
Click to expand...
No problem. I hope it gives some avenues of thought to ponder.
Because it is a running medical study, I had/have to be vague (if you will). But, its all being peer reviewed by the highest authorities in these fields.
And your right, there are no conclusions to be made at this point.
Its been more a case of; watching if society (from around 1990) started to 'radicalise' into distinct opposing/aggressive social groups. Towards and over the millennium. And how it corresponded to similar events in history globally :)

Peace.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
Apparently I did. I'm not familiar with the implication.
Click to expand...
A news corporation (The Fourth Estate) questions the government for the good of the people. Without the financial power of The Corporation the people reporting of the news could not do their job. The only way we believe what The Fourth Estate tells us is by them having a credible history. They may not get everything right all the time but time constraints of us wanting to know 'who what where when why' in a reasonable amount of time gives them a little leeway. They can come back and give a retraction when we discover the news was wrong, if they get it wrong a lot they are not considered credible and we pick another source.

The advent of the internet has sped up the news cycle, the average person can have some input in holding the news organizations to task. Fact checkers can come from the news organizations and we have the ability to fact check the fact checkers. If they get it wrong much of the time they would lose credibility and other fact checkers would take their place.

So the point of the picture? Trump said that he had the Greatest Crowd Size EVER!!!

But comparing his crowd to Obama's, well he does have small hands after all. And it was the news media that fact checked Trump. They have the resources to do it and it is their job. It is their place in society. You may not agree with them but some of the theories that you buy into have less credibility and rely more on belief rather than facts.

There, feel better?
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Puff_Dragon said:
I told you, as best I could, this is a quiet study.
Unless you have access (the public have no access) to the right medical libraries; as it is internal to the medical community and certainly not for public consumption (especially, at the moment). You'll understand the idea of 'skewing results'.
The public will only be told, well after the study has concluded.

I was involved with the study, back in the 1990's. Which is why I'm acutely aware of societal changes over that time.
Hopefully ..its going to be a long study.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Which medical libraries? I have a number of in's to the medical community and have worked in a hospital/teaching/research complex for ten years. I can look up studies that are taking place all over the world. I am fairly well versed in how the medical community operates. Give me a title of the research, who is doing it. I will find out the rest.
 
Last edited:
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Musk says he’s against ‘censorship that goes far beyond the law’
Elon Musk said Tuesday that he is against “censorship that goes far beyond the law” as speculation grows about how the Tesla CEO will run Twitter, which he is set to acquire for $44 billion.

“The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all,” Musk tweeted without specifying to whom he was referring.

“By ‘free speech’, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law,” Musk added in a later tweet. “If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

The remarks come one day after a deal was struck for Musk to buy the social media platform.

He said in a statement on Monday, “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.”

The news of Musk’s Twitter takeover has been cheered by Republicans who see the SpaceX executive as a proponent of free speech, in comparison to Democrats who slammed the billionaire’s purchase while drawing comparisons to what he reportedly pays in taxes.

Still, it is not clear how Twitter will change under Musk, including whether certain officials and politicians banned on the platform, most prominently former President Trump, could have their accounts restored.

Social media platforms have struggled in recent years to moderate and police content, with advocates saying not enough is being done to remove misinformation and hate speech.
thehill.com

Musk says he’s against ‘censorship that goes far beyond the law’

Elon Musk said Tuesday that he is against “censorship that goes far beyond the law” as speculation grows about how the Tesla CEO will run Twitter, which he is set to acquire for $44 billion. “The e…
thehill.com thehill.com

So now does Trump take a trip to kneel and kiss Musk's ring?
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
It's a topsy turvy world in the 2020's when Republicans hail freedom of speech, while Democrats are hailing freedom of corporate censorship. In all of my many years of voting Democrat, I never thought it would turn out this way.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
printer said:
A news corporation (The Fourth Estate) questions the government for the good of the people. Without the financial power of The Corporation the people reporting of the news could not do their job. The only way we believe what The Fourth Estate tells us is by them having a credible history. They may not get everything right all the time but time constraints of us wanting to know 'who what where when why' in a reasonable amount of time gives them a little leeway. They can come back and give a retraction when we discover the news was wrong, if they get it wrong a lot they are not considered credible and we pick another source.

The advent of the internet has sped up the news cycle, the average person can have some input in holding the news organizations to task. Fact checkers can come from the news organizations and we have the ability to fact check the fact checkers. If they get it wrong much of the time they would lose credibility and other fact checkers would take their place.

So the point of the picture? Trump said that he had the Greatest Crowd Size EVER!!!

But comparing his crowd to Obama's, well he does have small hands after all. And it was the news media that fact checked Trump. They have the resources to do it and it is their job. It is their place in society. You may not agree with them but some of the theories that you buy into have less credibility and rely more on belief rather than facts.

There, feel better?
Click to expand...
No. My original statement still holds water.

What the Fact-Checkers Get Wrong

The language of Politifact and its peers doesn’t match their project
archives.cjr.org archives.cjr.org
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Puff_Dragon said:
imo - It seems to be a perspective thing.
The public have no idea what people like Elon Musk think. But, after hearing 3rd party information. Seem to know whats what with Elon.

The umbrella corporations, vilifying Elon Musk/super villain/mad boss head.
Ironically, will support people just as 'shady' as Elon Like, Bill Gates/receiver of the most free 'fly miles' on Epstein's Lolita Express plane.

Its all about manipulating the narrative/perspective.
He who controls the narrative, controls the people ..well, that seems to be the hope.


FYI -
I think, both 'sides' (if you consider them as two sides) are in the wrong.
And that, our modern societies are suffering from a lesser known effect called Millennium Syndrome.
Don't google 'Millennium Syndrome', it won't come up. Its an internal, medical/psychoanalyst term.

Its about how humans, every thousand years (every millennium) become extremists/irrational (for approx. 300 years).
Before, returning to a 'normal' state.
This has happened every millennium, since human records began (across the whole globe).
Its actually one of the ideas that birthed the psychoanalyst field (inspiring Sigmund Freud to start the field).
Before, this syndrome had only been quoted by philosophers.

There are suspicions about what causes this syndrome to occur (both in the social and physical worlds).
But, this milenium ..is the first where medicine are actually studying the syndrome ..in Live time.
The internet, has allowed medical staff to examine this syndrome globally :)

There is still no 'one answer' as to what causes it.
My opinion, some of the factors connect to the internal workings of the planet. And changes there, actually effect human consciousness.
But, thats a pet theory of mine (and others).
Our leaders are worried about it, because ..now more than ever we have the ability to destroy everything/each other.
Add an unnatural amount of radicalism to that equation. Thats why countries globally funded this 'quiet' study (started back in the 1990's).

Peace.
Click to expand...
When did this current 300 year period start? I have a theory.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
PJ Diaz said:
It's a topsy turvy world in the 2020's when Republicans hail freedom of speech, while Democrats are hailing freedom of corporate censorship. In all of my many years of voting Democrat, I never thought it would turn out this way.
Click to expand...
Republicans are very much against freedom of speech. Consider reproductive and voting rights, and mentioning the vast inequities of the corporatocracy.
Show me the Republican support for opposed free speech.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Puff_Dragon said:
Its about how humans, every thousand years (every millennium) become extremists/irrational (for approx. 300 years).
Before, returning to a 'normal' state.
This has happened every millennium, since human records began (across the whole globe).
Click to expand...
link to articles or monographs treating of this hypothesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top