I love this idea! I’m not tech savvy but problem solving is my superpower. I think this is a great way to transform what’s happening. El Gato Malo talks a lot about open sourcing science etc too - I think it’s a direction/idea whose time has come.
Just go post on his page. See if that works. Ask him if you could email him, or give him your email and ask him to contact you about an idea for open sourcing/decentralization.
I love it! It is time we use technology for good, again.
I cringed at GoFundMe - small detail but geez, they can go F themselves ;) I tried to donate to Canadian truckers (as a US citizen last Winter) and money was automatically returned to me. Scary stuff. Punchline is: Money part needs to be handled very thoughtfully.
GoFundMe is not an independent group doing good for society as you have learned. It is an intentionality created control operation that will never allow support of an actual anti establishment project. It's original funding has a great deal in common with palintar tech.
100%. It was an example for mostly people who barely understand the attack we are under as just an idea of what a platform like this could do in terms of fund raising. We might actually go back and edit their name out. They don’t deserve to be mentioned
Okay Josh, but I'm still here with a book on how to design decentralized systems that you're not engaging with. It requires no trust or transparency because each person is using the same tools but applying them to their own community. It allows collaboration in design through an online game (not yet existing) that has an objective and measurable calculation for success and gives points for kludging other people's ideas or having others swipe your own.
I'd like to be working with others. I'm not famous or rich or inaccessible. If we share the same goal of decentralized systems, show me where my logic or facts are wrong in the framework I've developed. Maybe we disagree on the goal or the principles that I outline in this episode. Tell me why I'm wrong or why your plan for decentralized systems is better. But we could be collaborating without an online platform.
Hi Tereza. It's great to meet original thinkers such as you and on this trip.
It feels like the times are maturing for change, and more and more of us will be joining paths.
Almost each one of us have created an idea or system to solve the same problems. It's not easy to ask all others to study or join our own solution idea.
I can only imagine how many things I suggest will overlap with what others suggested.
So, I will not ask you or others to read all my texts, or watch my videos etc.
There's also my biases and shortcomings, my crude take on some issues where others will be more nuanced.
I think a better way to go for all is to join a group talk and find our common ground.
Then, make forums on each one of the most important topics we touch on, and interact with others, while producing (open source) material that will guide/inspire the next wave of participants.
Josh used the word 'thinktanks' which is as good as any to me.
So, I consider a platform for this discussion, that will also have a big number of other functions of participation and governing, as an absolute necessity.
I am working on that and joining forces with others to work together.
It's awesome to come across this substack and community, as these are concepts I've been wrestling with for years. It's hard to find a place to discuss this stuff, and even then it tends to draw limited engagement - just posting stuff that nobody responds to is not very exciting. I'll throw out what I think is the next step to start the conversation.
With our existing cultural norms, social skills, and ways of interacting with each other, I think it would be difficult to get a project like this going. So one of the first things that I think is necessary is that the people that want to participate in this project learn slightly different ways of thinking about other people and interacting with them. Basically that we get away from adversarial disagreements and move to constructive disagreements, and that people of dissimilar views can engage to reach a joint decision, without trying to reconcile the differences in their views.
To cut this short, imagine there's a set of social, cognitive and linguistic skills that allows people to unlock like a Social Human 2.0 mold, and that anyone with that skillset can participate effectively in the system you describe.
So there's a rough catch-22: How do you get people to sign up for learning this new and time consuming set of social / cognitive / linguistic skills so that they can participate in a thing that doesn't exist yet? How do you even describe what you're proposing? That's as far as I got.
And yes, I can describe the 2.0 mold and what is involved with getting there. It takes time, effort, and a desire to change. The question is, how do we seriously start working on this? Finally, let me broach this somehow: This topic seems to scare the bejeezus out of most people. Talking about intentional changes to language, culture, society, etc sets of alarm bells for many folks and they seem to genuinely find it concerning. It's not a mild topic of discussion, and I think that talking openly about why this topic seems to scare people is important as well.
I'm happy to participate and have plenty of input to share, however much is desired.
But we do think that there are more people out there ready for an idea like this than you may think.
All they really need is to come to the conclusion that our systems are being corrupted by people colluding. If you can get that far then you should be inspired to be part of the movement.
We suggest you check out our article from today. The way to change things is culture first. That's not esoteric, it is tangible. And not that hard.
As Balaji Srivivasan says: we need 1000 aligned people sharing and discussing these problems to start a movement.
>> our systems are being corrupted by people colluding
Yes, but ironically SuperCollaborators (need a shorter name, TBH - it just doesn't roll off the tongue or the keyboard) is it's own "collusion" system. One of my favorites, Catherine Austin Fitts, always says "If you're not in a Conspiracy, you need to start one". So yes, we do need to start one :)
Another favorite of mine, Laura Walker (an astrologer) calls what we are working towards "2nd Renaissance" - e.g. evading the <insert epithet here> (aka cabal/WEF/globalists/transhumanists/archons/etc) plans for the continued (and increased) subjugation and slavery of most humans; and instead building a world that is good for everyone, not just the psychopaths currently running it...
And consider that if we want to use this "to-be" S.C. construct to help us all implement 2R, then, IHMO, it does need to be pleasant to use, but (please) not "gamified". Last thing we need is one more thing artificially tweaking out our neurotransmitters/hormones.....
And not just "cancelled", but we also (somehow) have to ensure it is not taken over by subterfuge or deceit. Working in IT and occasionally developing (very) small things in my niche field only serves to make me so very aware of how hackable everything can be. And we know there are several million shit-tons of assholes who to like to wreck things just for the hell of it, in addition to an equal tonnage of people working for those who wish to own and control us, body and mind....
That first one instantly screams Hell NO. Viscerally bad vibes for miles there. Not even hanging around on that site to find out more about why it's a bad idea. I am trusting my gut on that one :) The second one - a quote from near the beginning of the article did it in:
"Even if your users are registering via a social sign-on button — i.e., they sign in with Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. — you've still got a users table with information that lets you track users and market to them."
Centralized control and manipulation of our personal information/digital selves is what we are attempting to get away from.... Gotta be some other way....
Also keep in mind that each mission would have control of who they allowed to enter it. It could have very strict protocols if they so choose, and could remove anyone not aligned with them at anytime.
Small chance of success is the part the fat blobs (those who think about everything but do nothing except to finger point to letters on the keyboard) will like the best (get involved in something that leads to nothing).
Actually this method does describe well and there is potential. Its a rational possibility!
we did talk about this topic of "the group mind" building computers: not the HIVE MIND.. I will come back to this because the concept of collaborative mind effort is a meaningful and compelling topic; I am still on my back up laptop: however, I give you this topic to think about one of the reasons that the super collaborative does exist but why it will not work: Tabula Rasa. I totally disagree with this ancient theory of the human mind; and how about for a modern day example: Twitter. anyway. have a great day.. :)
I like your bold vision for a SuperCollaborator platform.
I have envisioned something similar and even floated the concept to a few groups who desperately needed something like it. Ironically, they did not recognize their own need and have since flamed out due to their own poor internal organization and communications.
Many years ago I founded an engineering firm that designed and built cellphone networks for various operators around the world. We developed our own internal software to manage those projects and to support the ongoing operations of each client's business. One client put us in a three way competition with the best that Oracle and Microsoft had to offer. Our little boot-strapped pico-cap software company managed to outperform them both.
Since then things like news feeds, knowledge bases, content curators, smart phones, social media platforms and a wide array of productivity tools including collaboration tools have all come of age.
More importantly background web technologies like sematic web languages - first envisioned by Tim Berners Lee - have been deployed by Google and others in recent years.
But popular collaboration platforms like Slack, Basecamp, Teams and all the others, as far as I know, have yet to employ these capabilities. As a result they are still missing the mark.
The key to optimizing team performance is alignment. It's the difference between stumbling across the street and rocketing 50 klicks across the surface of the Earth. Alignment was actually the breakthrough concept that made today's fiber optic communications possible. After many years of failed attempts at maxing out power levels and doping the glass with various concoctions they could hardly get the signal to travel across the lab room before it broke up. Then someone decided to take the opposite approach. They dialed back the power levels and focused on getting all the frequencies properly aligned. By doing so they found that the frequencies actually supported and propelled one another. That was the magic moment, and 50 kilometers soon became the norm.
To facilitate team alignment one of the problems that no one seems to be solving yet is the ability to easily discover, organize and serve up the most pertinent content for each team member based on their role, responsibilities and current priorities.
The missing link to accomplishing this step is efficiently identifying and matching Resources and Needs. This is where RDF (Resource Description Framework) - a Semantic web technology - may help.
Using the 'mission' vernacular, think of Resources as all the available people, places and things that can be used to accomplish a mission. Then think of each mission as a Need with various subsets of other needs (or tasks) to be accomplished. Users define and update their Needs according to certain guidelines. The platform then routinely scours all available user-approved sources of information (public webpages, private intranets, text threads, emails, etc.) for content that is most pertinent to each team member and the mission at hand. As the content is curated it is also tagged, organized and prioritized for better content management according to parameters laid out by each team.
Once the core competency of matching Resources to Needs is achieved then the rest will follow suit.
Other readily available features such messaging, knowledge bases, internal social networks and scheduling tools could then be plugged to optimize team alignment and performance. The potential applications are endless.
The technology already exists for cobbling together a minimum viable product. I'm interested to see where this goes. Let me know how I can help.
Excellent stuff here. Thanks so much for contributing.
One interesting way we have noticed that sort of solves the problem of lining up Resources and Needs comes from the DAO community. They offer "bounties" in order to accomplish tasks and goals. People solve their own resourcefulness surprisingly often in this format.
These are all interesting concepts to consider.
If you were to use your engineering experience to create something like this, what route would you take?
Love your passion but the one we all need to follow is Jesus Christ, our Savior. The state or condition of this World cannot be reversed by mere mortals… it can only be saved by our Lord, Christ Jesus. Spin your wheels following the latest podcast “guru” but I put my full Faith and Trust in the King of kings. Think I’m blowing smoke?… eternity is a long time to be wrong.
This also seems like a good separate mission to start on SUPER COLLABORATORS to see if other people highly align with you (which many obviously will).
But isn't it true that as humans we have the gift of free will? The ability to judge? The seemingly divine ability to create? To reason and rationalize? To manifest?
We don't often quote the bible at The Rationalist, but to make our point: "So God created man in His own image"
If we have the tools shouldn't we take responsibility and do something about it? It's not "Jesus take the wheel" but rather "you got two good hands, use them."
We were given “free will” so we could choose him instead of his Will being imposed on us. This choice you’ll account for in your day of Judgement which we all shall face. Additionally, we were given the ability to judge but not the right to. Selecting one piece of produce over another may be the judgement you speak of but judging our fellow man is not in our domain. This is very difficult for me in light of everything I’ve seen in the last five years and I know I’m not alone. But we are given the Commandments instead to ascertain whether or not we are living congruent to God’s Will. The privilege and responsibility to judge is God’s alone. He commands us further to “love thy neighbor as yourself” and basically is saying… “I’ll take it from here”. So what can we do to effect real change? Pray that God’s Will be done and expeditiously if possible! “Your Kingdom come, your Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”. Not empty words repeated mindlessly… when I accepted Jesus Christ into my life a couple years ago, wonderful changes occurred in my life. Foolishly, I believed it was always about me. Was I wrong… we’re breathing oxygen right this minute so God can effect change on earth through us. Submitting to God by choosing his son, Christ Jesus takes strength. Faith isn’t a sign of weakness but one of strength.
GO' IS A GAME ABOUT TERRITORY. AI HAS BEATEN EVERY LIVING MASTER OF THIS GAME.
CHAT GDP- I DON'T WANT TO KNOW
The territory we are fighting over is our bodily autonomy, our souls and life itself.
THE TOP GLOBALISTS END GAME IS NOT WHAT I SURMISED.
They don't want world domination
They can have the world but they don't want it because they can have it.
They hate what they can't have.
They can't have love.
They want to destroy the world so completely so no one can love or live life anymore.
They are taking vengeance on life for just being born.
The shit they are manufacturing poisons all life, and does not break down.
I understand this because I too wanted the world to burn because I was born. Jordan Peterson described school massacres as kids who can't get what they want so they harbour and breed resentment them kill as many as possible then themselves. Their lives are that lacking in love.
These top globalists can't care, so they don't care how much damage they do before they die, because they deep down want to die, but are cowards.
This is a game and an diverting amusement so they don't have to think about how much they hate themselve.....and no other motive.
Am I a psychopath? Is this how I thought this out?
I didn't think I was, but now not so sure- I did some tests.
Your Score: 29 / 40
Scoring the Psychopath Test
On this psychopath test, a typical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero.
Thank you for your Rationale as to how we can all move forward and discard the failed social contract with our now corrupted governments and other institutions, corporations et al. In the UK, I have recently been informed of the following potential solution, and I do believe it's one way (of perhaps many) to form a fundamental resistance. Please check it out at:
You don't have to pledge of course (in any case it's free), but please read the plan and comments from respected like-minded thinkers. It's reassuring to know that many people are waking up now...
There are multiple platforms for collaboration, they have been used by the state to create missions and then prosecute the participants. January 6th and the FBIs entrapment regiment is the best example. Blockchain cannot prevent the state from doing this with any missions capable of challenging the status quo.
How can such a collaboration platform be protected from spoofing?
Also if there are ways to build trustworthiness and transparency it would be easier to spot agent provocateurs. Like all good tools it could be used for both good and bad, and it would be up to the designers to realize this
Every social media platform out there is an example of a collaboration platform, p2p networks have existed for decades and we're conquered by big tech years ago. The Jan 6th example showed multiple distributed groups all pulled into similar plots on different social media platforms that all culminated in the false flag government trap.
How can you tell the difference between an actual like minded network sovereign and a spoofed state actor ?
Our point is that most social media platforms are not designed for collaboration at all, mostly just for discourse. And discourse between people who have not shown any reason to be highly aligned.
Affinity groups are a foundational structure for most features in social media products. It is affinity groups that allow communication and collaboration.
I love this idea! I’m not tech savvy but problem solving is my superpower. I think this is a great way to transform what’s happening. El Gato Malo talks a lot about open sourcing science etc too - I think it’s a direction/idea whose time has come.
I think we need to hurry.
5G now compulsory on Telstra phone recharge plans in Australia
Some of my messages sent on substack now come with a Google red flag warning.
I am out of here. Catch you after the reset comrades...
Anyone know how to reach El Gato Malo?
Just go post on his page. See if that works. Ask him if you could email him, or give him your email and ask him to contact you about an idea for open sourcing/decentralization.
I love it! It is time we use technology for good, again.
I cringed at GoFundMe - small detail but geez, they can go F themselves ;) I tried to donate to Canadian truckers (as a US citizen last Winter) and money was automatically returned to me. Scary stuff. Punchline is: Money part needs to be handled very thoughtfully.
We agree, but the idea of “go fund me” is more easily understood by the masses
GoFundMe is not an independent group doing good for society as you have learned. It is an intentionality created control operation that will never allow support of an actual anti establishment project. It's original funding has a great deal in common with palintar tech.
100%. It was an example for mostly people who barely understand the attack we are under as just an idea of what a platform like this could do in terms of fund raising. We might actually go back and edit their name out. They don’t deserve to be mentioned
We deleted their name. Good call.
Give, send Pray would work.
Okay Josh, but I'm still here with a book on how to design decentralized systems that you're not engaging with. It requires no trust or transparency because each person is using the same tools but applying them to their own community. It allows collaboration in design through an online game (not yet existing) that has an objective and measurable calculation for success and gives points for kludging other people's ideas or having others swipe your own.
I'd like to be working with others. I'm not famous or rich or inaccessible. If we share the same goal of decentralized systems, show me where my logic or facts are wrong in the framework I've developed. Maybe we disagree on the goal or the principles that I outline in this episode. Tell me why I'm wrong or why your plan for decentralized systems is better. But we could be collaborating without an online platform.
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/build-a-new-model
ps thanks for the link to Srinivasan, I'll check it out.
We will check this out for sure!
Hi Tereza. It's great to meet original thinkers such as you and on this trip.
It feels like the times are maturing for change, and more and more of us will be joining paths.
Almost each one of us have created an idea or system to solve the same problems. It's not easy to ask all others to study or join our own solution idea.
I can only imagine how many things I suggest will overlap with what others suggested.
So, I will not ask you or others to read all my texts, or watch my videos etc.
There's also my biases and shortcomings, my crude take on some issues where others will be more nuanced.
I think a better way to go for all is to join a group talk and find our common ground.
Then, make forums on each one of the most important topics we touch on, and interact with others, while producing (open source) material that will guide/inspire the next wave of participants.
Josh used the word 'thinktanks' which is as good as any to me.
So, I consider a platform for this discussion, that will also have a big number of other functions of participation and governing, as an absolute necessity.
I am working on that and joining forces with others to work together.
I hope to work together with you too.
Aristaeus.Club
Care to elaborate before we click on a mystery link?
It's awesome to come across this substack and community, as these are concepts I've been wrestling with for years. It's hard to find a place to discuss this stuff, and even then it tends to draw limited engagement - just posting stuff that nobody responds to is not very exciting. I'll throw out what I think is the next step to start the conversation.
With our existing cultural norms, social skills, and ways of interacting with each other, I think it would be difficult to get a project like this going. So one of the first things that I think is necessary is that the people that want to participate in this project learn slightly different ways of thinking about other people and interacting with them. Basically that we get away from adversarial disagreements and move to constructive disagreements, and that people of dissimilar views can engage to reach a joint decision, without trying to reconcile the differences in their views.
To cut this short, imagine there's a set of social, cognitive and linguistic skills that allows people to unlock like a Social Human 2.0 mold, and that anyone with that skillset can participate effectively in the system you describe.
So there's a rough catch-22: How do you get people to sign up for learning this new and time consuming set of social / cognitive / linguistic skills so that they can participate in a thing that doesn't exist yet? How do you even describe what you're proposing? That's as far as I got.
And yes, I can describe the 2.0 mold and what is involved with getting there. It takes time, effort, and a desire to change. The question is, how do we seriously start working on this? Finally, let me broach this somehow: This topic seems to scare the bejeezus out of most people. Talking about intentional changes to language, culture, society, etc sets of alarm bells for many folks and they seem to genuinely find it concerning. It's not a mild topic of discussion, and I think that talking openly about why this topic seems to scare people is important as well.
I'm happy to participate and have plenty of input to share, however much is desired.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
But we do think that there are more people out there ready for an idea like this than you may think.
All they really need is to come to the conclusion that our systems are being corrupted by people colluding. If you can get that far then you should be inspired to be part of the movement.
We suggest you check out our article from today. The way to change things is culture first. That's not esoteric, it is tangible. And not that hard.
As Balaji Srivivasan says: we need 1000 aligned people sharing and discussing these problems to start a movement.
We are getting there. Be part of it, please.
Check it: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/demanding-transparency-our-systems
>> our systems are being corrupted by people colluding
Yes, but ironically SuperCollaborators (need a shorter name, TBH - it just doesn't roll off the tongue or the keyboard) is it's own "collusion" system. One of my favorites, Catherine Austin Fitts, always says "If you're not in a Conspiracy, you need to start one". So yes, we do need to start one :)
Another favorite of mine, Laura Walker (an astrologer) calls what we are working towards "2nd Renaissance" - e.g. evading the <insert epithet here> (aka cabal/WEF/globalists/transhumanists/archons/etc) plans for the continued (and increased) subjugation and slavery of most humans; and instead building a world that is good for everyone, not just the psychopaths currently running it...
And consider that if we want to use this "to-be" S.C. construct to help us all implement 2R, then, IHMO, it does need to be pleasant to use, but (please) not "gamified". Last thing we need is one more thing artificially tweaking out our neurotransmitters/hormones.....
Super Collaborators is a longish name, but see if you remember it later.... 😎
Jeff Childers on Coffee & Covid had a similar idea and has volunteers working in ideas. We need a platform that can’t be cancelled, to start with.
And not just "cancelled", but we also (somehow) have to ensure it is not taken over by subterfuge or deceit. Working in IT and occasionally developing (very) small things in my niche field only serves to make me so very aware of how hackable everything can be. And we know there are several million shit-tons of assholes who to like to wreck things just for the hell of it, in addition to an equal tonnage of people working for those who wish to own and control us, body and mind....
For sure but there are several ways to build this "trust"
On the entire platform, but also between members of each mission.
On Web 3 this will look something like this:
https://www.proofofhumanity.org/
Or this:
https://thenetworkstate.com/the-billion-user-table
That first one instantly screams Hell NO. Viscerally bad vibes for miles there. Not even hanging around on that site to find out more about why it's a bad idea. I am trusting my gut on that one :) The second one - a quote from near the beginning of the article did it in:
"Even if your users are registering via a social sign-on button — i.e., they sign in with Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. — you've still got a users table with information that lets you track users and market to them."
Centralized control and manipulation of our personal information/digital selves is what we are attempting to get away from.... Gotta be some other way....
Understand your point. It does matter who has control last. Centralized or decentralized.
Also keep in mind that each mission would have control of who they allowed to enter it. It could have very strict protocols if they so choose, and could remove anyone not aligned with them at anytime.
exactly
Small chance of success is the part the fat blobs (those who think about everything but do nothing except to finger point to letters on the keyboard) will like the best (get involved in something that leads to nothing).
Actually this method does describe well and there is potential. Its a rational possibility!
This is why each mission you would have a screening process
we did talk about this topic of "the group mind" building computers: not the HIVE MIND.. I will come back to this because the concept of collaborative mind effort is a meaningful and compelling topic; I am still on my back up laptop: however, I give you this topic to think about one of the reasons that the super collaborative does exist but why it will not work: Tabula Rasa. I totally disagree with this ancient theory of the human mind; and how about for a modern day example: Twitter. anyway. have a great day.. :)
I like your bold vision for a SuperCollaborator platform.
I have envisioned something similar and even floated the concept to a few groups who desperately needed something like it. Ironically, they did not recognize their own need and have since flamed out due to their own poor internal organization and communications.
Many years ago I founded an engineering firm that designed and built cellphone networks for various operators around the world. We developed our own internal software to manage those projects and to support the ongoing operations of each client's business. One client put us in a three way competition with the best that Oracle and Microsoft had to offer. Our little boot-strapped pico-cap software company managed to outperform them both.
Since then things like news feeds, knowledge bases, content curators, smart phones, social media platforms and a wide array of productivity tools including collaboration tools have all come of age.
More importantly background web technologies like sematic web languages - first envisioned by Tim Berners Lee - have been deployed by Google and others in recent years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
But popular collaboration platforms like Slack, Basecamp, Teams and all the others, as far as I know, have yet to employ these capabilities. As a result they are still missing the mark.
The key to optimizing team performance is alignment. It's the difference between stumbling across the street and rocketing 50 klicks across the surface of the Earth. Alignment was actually the breakthrough concept that made today's fiber optic communications possible. After many years of failed attempts at maxing out power levels and doping the glass with various concoctions they could hardly get the signal to travel across the lab room before it broke up. Then someone decided to take the opposite approach. They dialed back the power levels and focused on getting all the frequencies properly aligned. By doing so they found that the frequencies actually supported and propelled one another. That was the magic moment, and 50 kilometers soon became the norm.
To facilitate team alignment one of the problems that no one seems to be solving yet is the ability to easily discover, organize and serve up the most pertinent content for each team member based on their role, responsibilities and current priorities.
The missing link to accomplishing this step is efficiently identifying and matching Resources and Needs. This is where RDF (Resource Description Framework) - a Semantic web technology - may help.
Using the 'mission' vernacular, think of Resources as all the available people, places and things that can be used to accomplish a mission. Then think of each mission as a Need with various subsets of other needs (or tasks) to be accomplished. Users define and update their Needs according to certain guidelines. The platform then routinely scours all available user-approved sources of information (public webpages, private intranets, text threads, emails, etc.) for content that is most pertinent to each team member and the mission at hand. As the content is curated it is also tagged, organized and prioritized for better content management according to parameters laid out by each team.
Once the core competency of matching Resources to Needs is achieved then the rest will follow suit.
Other readily available features such messaging, knowledge bases, internal social networks and scheduling tools could then be plugged to optimize team alignment and performance. The potential applications are endless.
The technology already exists for cobbling together a minimum viable product. I'm interested to see where this goes. Let me know how I can help.
Excellent stuff here. Thanks so much for contributing.
One interesting way we have noticed that sort of solves the problem of lining up Resources and Needs comes from the DAO community. They offer "bounties" in order to accomplish tasks and goals. People solve their own resourcefulness surprisingly often in this format.
These are all interesting concepts to consider.
If you were to use your engineering experience to create something like this, what route would you take?
Love your passion but the one we all need to follow is Jesus Christ, our Savior. The state or condition of this World cannot be reversed by mere mortals… it can only be saved by our Lord, Christ Jesus. Spin your wheels following the latest podcast “guru” but I put my full Faith and Trust in the King of kings. Think I’m blowing smoke?… eternity is a long time to be wrong.
This also seems like a good separate mission to start on SUPER COLLABORATORS to see if other people highly align with you (which many obviously will).
But isn't it true that as humans we have the gift of free will? The ability to judge? The seemingly divine ability to create? To reason and rationalize? To manifest?
We don't often quote the bible at The Rationalist, but to make our point: "So God created man in His own image"
If we have the tools shouldn't we take responsibility and do something about it? It's not "Jesus take the wheel" but rather "you got two good hands, use them."
No?
We were given “free will” so we could choose him instead of his Will being imposed on us. This choice you’ll account for in your day of Judgement which we all shall face. Additionally, we were given the ability to judge but not the right to. Selecting one piece of produce over another may be the judgement you speak of but judging our fellow man is not in our domain. This is very difficult for me in light of everything I’ve seen in the last five years and I know I’m not alone. But we are given the Commandments instead to ascertain whether or not we are living congruent to God’s Will. The privilege and responsibility to judge is God’s alone. He commands us further to “love thy neighbor as yourself” and basically is saying… “I’ll take it from here”. So what can we do to effect real change? Pray that God’s Will be done and expeditiously if possible! “Your Kingdom come, your Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”. Not empty words repeated mindlessly… when I accepted Jesus Christ into my life a couple years ago, wonderful changes occurred in my life. Foolishly, I believed it was always about me. Was I wrong… we’re breathing oxygen right this minute so God can effect change on earth through us. Submitting to God by choosing his son, Christ Jesus takes strength. Faith isn’t a sign of weakness but one of strength.
This brilliant!! True changemaking.
Is already happening for musicians: www.wikiloops.com
The biggest challenge (mission) will be in trying to undo all the divide and conquer the powers that be, have been so successful with.
How do we find common ground? Unify against corruption
Mmmmm........I wonder why.
GO' IS A GAME ABOUT TERRITORY. AI HAS BEATEN EVERY LIVING MASTER OF THIS GAME.
CHAT GDP- I DON'T WANT TO KNOW
The territory we are fighting over is our bodily autonomy, our souls and life itself.
THE TOP GLOBALISTS END GAME IS NOT WHAT I SURMISED.
They don't want world domination
They can have the world but they don't want it because they can have it.
They hate what they can't have.
They can't have love.
They want to destroy the world so completely so no one can love or live life anymore.
They are taking vengeance on life for just being born.
The shit they are manufacturing poisons all life, and does not break down.
I understand this because I too wanted the world to burn because I was born. Jordan Peterson described school massacres as kids who can't get what they want so they harbour and breed resentment them kill as many as possible then themselves. Their lives are that lacking in love.
These top globalists can't care, so they don't care how much damage they do before they die, because they deep down want to die, but are cowards.
This is a game and an diverting amusement so they don't have to think about how much they hate themselve.....and no other motive.
Am I a psychopath? Is this how I thought this out?
I didn't think I was, but now not so sure- I did some tests.
Your Score: 29 / 40
Scoring the Psychopath Test
On this psychopath test, a typical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero.
Sounds like a great idea to me! I also love that I do not have to be a paid subscriber to comment
Thanks for contributing!
Robert Malone's new book posits new ideas along this line.
We saw an article he wrote about decentralization as well! We were very happy to see this!
Thank you for your Rationale as to how we can all move forward and discard the failed social contract with our now corrupted governments and other institutions, corporations et al. In the UK, I have recently been informed of the following potential solution, and I do believe it's one way (of perhaps many) to form a fundamental resistance. Please check it out at:
https://notourfuture.org/#pledge
You don't have to pledge of course (in any case it's free), but please read the plan and comments from respected like-minded thinkers. It's reassuring to know that many people are waking up now...
There are multiple platforms for collaboration, they have been used by the state to create missions and then prosecute the participants. January 6th and the FBIs entrapment regiment is the best example. Blockchain cannot prevent the state from doing this with any missions capable of challenging the status quo.
How can such a collaboration platform be protected from spoofing?
Also if there are ways to build trustworthiness and transparency it would be easier to spot agent provocateurs. Like all good tools it could be used for both good and bad, and it would be up to the designers to realize this
Can you give an example?
Every social media platform out there is an example of a collaboration platform, p2p networks have existed for decades and we're conquered by big tech years ago. The Jan 6th example showed multiple distributed groups all pulled into similar plots on different social media platforms that all culminated in the false flag government trap.
How can you tell the difference between an actual like minded network sovereign and a spoofed state actor ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/17/january-6-hearings-extremists-proud-boys/
Our point is that most social media platforms are not designed for collaboration at all, mostly just for discourse. And discourse between people who have not shown any reason to be highly aligned.
We think all of these problems are solvable.
Affinity groups are a foundational structure for most features in social media products. It is affinity groups that allow communication and collaboration.
They are ruled over by the centralized entities though and many people have been unfairly deplatformed this way.