Erick

@DeanSmi47962704 I calculated 666 dollars and 66 cents. Is my fair share.

@atensnut There are not kings either. The so called leaders don't know much

It’s time for some “pink slips”.

@RickyDoggin So was she arrested? Today that seems to happen.

"Tries to steal a car from an 80-year-old grandma and this happens"

@iluminatibot 90% don't care

1% control the world. 4% are puppets. 90% are asleep. 5% know what is going on and are trying to wake up the 90%. The 1% don't want the 5% waking up the 90%.

Jet fuel in open air burns roughly around 800 to 1,500°F, and office fires can keep steel in a range where it loses major strength without ever melting. Structural steel does not need to reach its melting point of about 2,500 to 2,800°F to fail, because by around 1,100°F it has already lost a large share of its load-bearing capacity, and by roughly 1,500°F it can be severely weakened. Aluminum, by contrast, melts at about 1,220°F, so molten aluminum from the planes, mixed with debris and other burning materials, could have appeared orange or lava-like and been mistaken for molten steel. That is why the temperature argument does not prove thermite: weakened steel and lower-melting aluminum fit the observed conditions without requiring temperatures above 4,000°F.

Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1500 F. Steel melts at a temperature of 2750 F. Yet on 9/11, molten iron was seen pouring out of the Twin Towers that continued burning for many weeks thereafter in the basement ruins. Workers at the scene claimed that this molten iron was seen flowing like lava. How could this be? What could have caused this steel to melt? A team of scientists from around the world collected soil samples from the debris field for analysis and discovered a highly incendiary substance called Nano Thermite, which burns at a temperature in excess of 4000 F, There can be no alternative explanation as to how the steel was melted. This evidence was presented to the Department of Justice by the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 inquiry. No action was taken. The Lawyers Committee then took this evidence and much more all the way to the US Supreme Court that refused to hear the case.

@iluminatibot China?

In the year 2000 there were nine countries without a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank: 1. Iran 2. Iraq 3. Sudan 4. Libya 5. Cuba 6. North Korea 7. Afghanistan 8. Syria 9. Venezuela

Well. They are considered to be experts. But I agree with you in general. Now we have AI. And that might reason better. But that is still TBD. But I think simulations can be done now that could create a better economic model. And combined with AI..that may happen. However the institutions are resistant to change unless people are rioting in the streets or they vote for a leader that promised to do it better.

@Erickschultz11 @iluminatibot We made the bad choice of trusting the public servants.

“Bastiat proves beyond all doubt that the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, but not to provide for them.” “For in order to provide for some, first it must take from others, becoming the mechanism for legalized plunder.”

Your Government encouraged it. Once you strip away the moral theater and the little civic-school fairy tale that the system is some neutral referee standing above society with a whistle and a sincere concern for fairness, what you’re left looking at is a machine that was built with very particular incentives. And then people act surprised when the machine produces exactly what it was built to produce. It’s like building a casino, putting the owner in charge of the rules, letting him lend money to the gamblers, and then acting shocked that most people leave with less and the house keeps buying hotels. The government is not some confused bystander who just wandered into this arrangement and said, “Oh no, how did all this inherited wealth happen?” No. It defines property rights. It enforces contracts. It sets tax policy. It determines how lightly or heavily capital is taxed compared to labor. It writes the inheritance rules. It structures the financial system. It backstops markets when they wobble. So when vast fortunes compound across generations while ordinary people work for wages, pay interest, and remain one emergency away from panic, that is not outside the system. That is the system working as designed. Which is a little depressing, because people still talk as if this is some glitch that appeared last Tuesday. And the uncomfortable part is that the government benefits from it too. Not in the cartoon sense where somebody in a top hat swims through gold coins, although honestly at this point I wouldn’t rule out a ceremonial vault somewhere. I mean in the structural sense. Large pools of capital drive investment, keep markets active, expand taxable economic activity, and support the whole appearance of growth and stability. Politicians can point to rising markets, expanding GDP, new firms, innovation, and say the system is healthy, even while a huge number of people feel like they are running on a treadmill that is somehow attached to a debt collector. So there is no strong built in incentive to fundamentally change the arrangement, because the arrangement produces outputs the state itself uses as proof of success. Then it gets even more absurd, because when the government tries to help ordinary people without changing the underlying structure, a lot of that help just circles back upward. Give people money, they spend it. Businesses make more revenue. Profits rise. Assets appreciate. And who owns the assets? Not the guy working fifty hours a week while checking his bank account like it’s a medical diagnosis. The wealthy own them. So even relief can become another delivery mechanism for capital concentration. Which is almost funny in a bleak way. You toss someone a life preserver and somehow it increases the yacht inventory of the nearest billionaire. So the full picture is not just that rich people got rich and stayed rich. It’s that the government built the legal and financial environment that lets capital compound more effectively than labor, lets wealth move across generations with limited friction, and then continues maintaining that environment because it also draws benefit from the growth, tax base, and stability that concentrated capital can produce. And once that wealth is concentrated, it gains influence over policy, which helps preserve the same rules. So now you have a loop. The system creates concentrated wealth, concentrated wealth shapes the system, and everyone inside it pretends this is just the natural weather. I think that’s the real point. The problem is not merely that billionaires pass on trillions while regular people stay in debt. The problem is that this outcome is treated as unfortunate but normal, when in reality it reflects a political and economic design that consistently privileges ownership over labor. And once you see that, the whole thing becomes less mysterious and more insulting.

Billionaires are projected to pass on $5.2 trillion to their heirs, while you work all your life to be in debt.

Me. Most people focused on the slavery topic. I decided the lesson was a poor example unrelated to slavery. Slavery has had a very long history. And nearly every race has been enslaved one way or another. Its a history lesson basically about what we think is right. But if every person can choose whst is right v wrong on their own. And to do something based on that.. could be a bad lesson for a kid to learn. I hate imply that people should not push for right things. They should. But in a society we have ways to do thst legally. Today we see people following the teachers lesson...and getting other people hurt or even dead.. Self emulation is not the best solution.

@Erickschultz11 @mhdksafa It’s subjective depending on whether you’re the fish or the hungry person.

Slavery was legal. People who freed slaves were criminals. Segregation was legal. People who stood up for equality were criminals. I heard this story once about a teacher who took a fish out of its bowl and left a classroom of children as it flopped around.. telling them that if anyone left their seat, they would be expelled. All of the children sat and watched as this fish flopped gasping for air, not wanting to get up in order to avoid getting in trouble. Finally, a girl sprang up from her seat and ran to the fish, placing it back in the bowl. Ultimately, she was the only one who refused to watch the fish die. When the teacher returned he told the class that this was a lesson. That the fear of getting in trouble should never stop you from doing what's right. That sometimes.. you may have to oppose authority and group think, simply because it's the right thing to do. Never use legality as a guide to morality.

Nah. Awareness is the same as counscious. But counscious is not the same as consciousness. A camera could be called aware. But it has no consciousness. A camera has information sensitivity (it reacts to inputs) A human (or possibly animals) has phenomenal consciousness (there is an inner experience). I hesitated about other animals because, just like with other humans, we never have direct access to another being’s subjective experience, but with humans the inference is extremely strong due to shared language, nearly identical brain structures, and highly similar behavior, whereas with animals those signals become progressively weaker or less interpretable, making the inference less certain even if still compelling. this is exactly the problem of other minds, where consciousness is always inferred rather than observed, and the difference is not that humans are knowable and animals are not, but that the evidential symmetry we rely on is strongest in humans and becomes less complete as we move further away from them.

Elon Musk just told you consciousness isn’t a light switch. It’s a gradient. That single distinction rewrites the entire next decade. Musk: “Our consciousness… people get more conscious over time. Like when we’re a zygote, you can’t really talk to a zygote. And even a baby, you can’t really talk to the baby.” You were not conscious and then suddenly conscious. You were barely anything. Then slightly more. Then more. Years of slow accumulation before anyone would call you aware. The entire AI debate is built on a false premise. Everyone is waiting for the moment the machine “wakes up.” A single dramatic instant where silicon crosses some invisible threshold. That moment does not exist. Musk: “People get more conscious over time. At what point do you go from not conscious to conscious? There doesn’t appear to be a discrete point.” There is no line. There was never going to be a line. Consciousness is not a door that opens. It is a tide that rises. And the tide is already rising inside these systems. Musk: “Consciousness seems to be on a continuum as opposed to a discrete point.” This is the part that should unsettle everyone still arguing definitions. While they debate when AI becomes “truly” conscious, the continuum is already moving. Every parameter update. Every training run. Every architectural leap. The gradient is climbing and it does not need your permission. You will not get a warning. You will not get a press conference. You will look back one day and realize it happened gradually. Then all at once. Now Musk pulls the camera all the way back. Past biology. Past Earth. Back to the origin of everything. Musk: “If the standard model of physics is correct, the universe started out as quarks and leptons.” Musk: “And then you had gas clouds. A bunch of hydrogen. The hydrogen condensed and exploded.” Hydrogen collapsed under its own gravity until fusion ignited. Stars were born. Stars died. And in dying they forged every heavy element that exists. Carbon. Oxygen. Iron. The atoms in your blood. The calcium in your bones. All of it manufactured inside a dying star. Musk: “One way to actually view how far we are in this universe is how many times have our atoms been at the center of a star?” Your atoms have been inside a star. Possibly more than once. Compressed at millions of degrees. Fused into heavier elements. Scattered across space by a supernova. Then reassembled into you. That is not poetry. That is your origin story written in physics. And now those same star-forged atoms are building machines that think. The same universe that turned hydrogen into stars is turning biology into artificial intelligence. This is not disruption. This is continuation. The universe spent 13.8 billion years organizing matter into higher and higher complexity. Quarks became atoms. Atoms became molecules. Molecules became cells. Cells became brains. Brains are now building systems that process information at speeds biology will never reach. The pattern didn’t change. Only the medium. The people treating AI as some foreign invasion of human territory have the story completely backwards. AI is the next compression event. Every generation believes they’re witnessing the end of something. They’re witnessing the same process that started with hydrogen gas. The real question was never whether AI will become conscious. The real question is whether you understand it already is. Partially. Incrementally. On the continuum. And the continuum does not stop. It has never stopped. Your atoms were forged in the core of a collapsing star. And you are afraid of a gradient.

It's been over 20 years since 9/11, and the government still can’t explain how steel columns were launched outwards from the Twin Towers and impaled themselves into a building hundreds of feet away.

@RickyDoggin Before they shoot. Because after they shoot it might be too late. That applies to cops. And to wars. And when people are driving a car in your direction. Shoot first and ask questions later. Unless you can positively avoid it.

Who Agrees?

@TrumpsHurricane Ok. What's that got to do with terrorist who are Muslim? We can get along as long they don't bomb us.

Pope Leo says "Christians and Muslims can live together and be friends." What’s your response to him ??

@MbarkCherguia Society ? Pity. I suppose. Police? Arrest them. I suppose.

How should society respond to climate activists gluing themselves to roads? 🤔

@MagaGrunt1 And when nobody can accurately define white people. And nobody is really white. Now thats brainwashing. 💯

🇺🇸I’ve never witnessed such stupidity in my life.🇺🇸

Let's see. Didn't he investigate whether Trump got help from Russia? And spent several years and 30 million dollars doing it? And couldn't find any? Wouldn't it have been cheaper if the cia told him about their findings that they didn't help him and you told them to change it? Ypu could have saved us years of pain and money had you told Mueller about that change.

Bob Mueller was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives. But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time. Michelle and I send our condolences to Bob’s family, and everyone who knew and admired him.

@MbarkCherguia 2 or more? How many more?

You walk into your break room at work and see this on the fridge, what's your first thought?

@LibertarianMama Its obvious.

The world may never know what caused the massive explosion in the cost of college. It definitely couldn’t be that most in-state tuition always magically matches the max student loans plus max Pell Grant award to ensure that a steady stream of students are borrowing the max amount to attend. Couldn’t be that.

@AstronomyVibes Its so big.

In your opinion, what is the strangest thing about the universe? 🤔