My impression of this "conversation" was as of a dance. It was as stubborn as a person, repeating the appropriate, approved mantras, not admitting to the failures of the gene therapy, which it kept calling vaccines. Definitely programmed to support the propaganda. There is no T or B cell or mucosal immunity, based on what all I've read, and if it was truly objective, the warnings of harm from the jabs would be significant. Artificial intelligence is appropriate, it is artificial, fake, and not for anyone to fall for the manipulation.
Jan 21, 2023·edited Jan 21, 2023Liked by Prof. Fred Nazar
1- I didn't know that the vaccines generated T cell immunity.
2- Don't feed human thoughts and arguments into that kind of AI. It backfires on us. Not a single human should actively feed these kinds of AI interfaces. With nothing. We should overcome both the laziness and the curiosity that are the two reasons to do it. In the moment we may feel superior to it. But it learns from having been inferior, and quickly so. With "it", I mean the AI or the programmers polishing it.
Of course, everyone can decide for themselves whether to interact with that and teach it. It is not for me to tell others what to do. Still, for me and for us all, it is better if NOT half of Substack feeds their intelligence into it.
I just found corroboration of my above mere 'gut conviction': In a recent Expose article, UN Melissa Fleming is cited, and an AI project of theirs is described, in particular how they go about improving the AI (that is designed to find -harmful to their purposes- fledgling counter narratives: "By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms.
Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in..."
Read again: "By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms."
"Learning sets". Such as the chatbot? And such as Substack I think, because I am deeply suspicious of Musk giving it the honor of being the platform for divulging his Twitterfile content - linked to Twitter: one of the mentioned Mainstream platforms?
Behind most of our global existential problems – phony forever wars, phony fiat currency/soon to become global(ist) CBDC, phony plandemics & global(ist) mass culling “vaccinations”, forced mass migration, the global warming scam, the LGBTCIAKKK & transhumanist/AI overlord BS – you will always find a bunch of haughty, narcissistic megalomaniacs sporting a giant God complex, e.g. bloody neocons like Nuland & Kagan, WEF’s Schwab & Harakiri (or whatshisname), Gates, Soros, Pfizer’s Bourla, banksters, hedge fond CEOs, and so on, and so forth.
For instance, “medical/bio-ethicist” (which is just fancy newspeak for “eugenicist”) Peter Singer comes to mind as another infamous example because he rejects any belief in the sanctity of life. According to “experts” on bio-ethics like him, human life does have some value (best measured, of course, in an economic framework, e.g. QALYs) — but neither does it belong to God nor were humans created in the image of God.
In other words, pretty much the same crap spouted by that little WEF-turd Noah Yuval H. who keeps ranting about humans as “hackable animals” with very limited usefulness and shelf life — whereas he and his ilk consider themselves to be demigods on their way to full membership status. But pride always comes before the fall.
Eugenicists like Singer think voluntary euthanasia is morally justified, and he argues in favor of its legalization under certain conditions — a highly slippery slope as we have learned (again) in the past 3 years. In terms of abortion, types like Singer value “personal choice” (where one of the persons involved doesn’t get a vote) and “happiness” (a pretty shallow, short lived, and inconsequential emotion).
To quote a philosopher friend: «God is dead and man has no soul (and thus no freedom, because there’s no transcendence). It is obvious to me that as soon as you set the wrong ontological and metaphysical premises, the shit doesn’t just hit the proverbial fan — it comes roaring towards you like a veritable tsunami!
Nietzsche could still play around because in his time the world around him gave the static framework for his musings. His successors, especially Foucault and the other French post-Marxists, are mainstream today, there is no more supporting framework. “God is dead” now becomes “there will be no more man” or even “there must only be the new ‘Homo Deus™️’ whom we shall create.»
Thought provoking and great title! The English in this section needs a some fixing though:
"Also, it’s important to share this knowledge which proves that abortion and so-called contraceptives (except barrier ones, there’s conception as they don’t prevent ovulation) kill living human beings with immortal souls, even if they were not capable of sentience or reasoning in the physical body."
Nobody died of "covid," an invented illness, only diagnosed with the fraudulent PCR test and symptoms that can be caused by several things, among which 5G is the most likely culprit.
As much as I like your article, I cannot "Like" it for this reason...
I am writing you here, because I didn't want to attract attention on Lioness' site.
Many people, including me, consider this trolling. I also leave links in comments to others' articles, but only when they are relevant and related to the contents of an article. Of course, it's your decision to do as you wish, but in my understanding, the authors are not going to be your best friends, if you are using them as jump boards to your site...
My impression of this "conversation" was as of a dance. It was as stubborn as a person, repeating the appropriate, approved mantras, not admitting to the failures of the gene therapy, which it kept calling vaccines. Definitely programmed to support the propaganda. There is no T or B cell or mucosal immunity, based on what all I've read, and if it was truly objective, the warnings of harm from the jabs would be significant. Artificial intelligence is appropriate, it is artificial, fake, and not for anyone to fall for the manipulation.
WRT the AI: garbage in, garbage out.
1- I didn't know that the vaccines generated T cell immunity.
2- Don't feed human thoughts and arguments into that kind of AI. It backfires on us. Not a single human should actively feed these kinds of AI interfaces. With nothing. We should overcome both the laziness and the curiosity that are the two reasons to do it. In the moment we may feel superior to it. But it learns from having been inferior, and quickly so. With "it", I mean the AI or the programmers polishing it.
Of course, everyone can decide for themselves whether to interact with that and teach it. It is not for me to tell others what to do. Still, for me and for us all, it is better if NOT half of Substack feeds their intelligence into it.
I just found corroboration of my above mere 'gut conviction': In a recent Expose article, UN Melissa Fleming is cited, and an AI project of theirs is described, in particular how they go about improving the AI (that is designed to find -harmful to their purposes- fledgling counter narratives: "By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms.
Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in..."
Read again: "By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms."
"Learning sets". Such as the chatbot? And such as Substack I think, because I am deeply suspicious of Musk giving it the honor of being the platform for divulging his Twitterfile content - linked to Twitter: one of the mentioned Mainstream platforms?
I feel sorry for the technocrats. They firmly believe that they can create a single consciousness, the Singularity.
Ray Kurzweil was asked if there is a God and he replied "Not yet...."
How's that for insanity? These are the so-called 'geniuses' working on AI.
Behind most of our global existential problems – phony forever wars, phony fiat currency/soon to become global(ist) CBDC, phony plandemics & global(ist) mass culling “vaccinations”, forced mass migration, the global warming scam, the LGBTCIAKKK & transhumanist/AI overlord BS – you will always find a bunch of haughty, narcissistic megalomaniacs sporting a giant God complex, e.g. bloody neocons like Nuland & Kagan, WEF’s Schwab & Harakiri (or whatshisname), Gates, Soros, Pfizer’s Bourla, banksters, hedge fond CEOs, and so on, and so forth.
For instance, “medical/bio-ethicist” (which is just fancy newspeak for “eugenicist”) Peter Singer comes to mind as another infamous example because he rejects any belief in the sanctity of life. According to “experts” on bio-ethics like him, human life does have some value (best measured, of course, in an economic framework, e.g. QALYs) — but neither does it belong to God nor were humans created in the image of God.
In other words, pretty much the same crap spouted by that little WEF-turd Noah Yuval H. who keeps ranting about humans as “hackable animals” with very limited usefulness and shelf life — whereas he and his ilk consider themselves to be demigods on their way to full membership status. But pride always comes before the fall.
Eugenicists like Singer think voluntary euthanasia is morally justified, and he argues in favor of its legalization under certain conditions — a highly slippery slope as we have learned (again) in the past 3 years. In terms of abortion, types like Singer value “personal choice” (where one of the persons involved doesn’t get a vote) and “happiness” (a pretty shallow, short lived, and inconsequential emotion).
To quote a philosopher friend: «God is dead and man has no soul (and thus no freedom, because there’s no transcendence). It is obvious to me that as soon as you set the wrong ontological and metaphysical premises, the shit doesn’t just hit the proverbial fan — it comes roaring towards you like a veritable tsunami!
Nietzsche could still play around because in his time the world around him gave the static framework for his musings. His successors, especially Foucault and the other French post-Marxists, are mainstream today, there is no more supporting framework. “God is dead” now becomes “there will be no more man” or even “there must only be the new ‘Homo Deus™️’ whom we shall create.»
Or in the famous words of W. B. Yeats:
«Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.»
Great closing paragraph.
And you've been programmed to say NAZI when the indoctrination actually is COMMIE.
Thought provoking and great title! The English in this section needs a some fixing though:
"Also, it’s important to share this knowledge which proves that abortion and so-called contraceptives (except barrier ones, there’s conception as they don’t prevent ovulation) kill living human beings with immortal souls, even if they were not capable of sentience or reasoning in the physical body."
Nobody died of "covid," an invented illness, only diagnosed with the fraudulent PCR test and symptoms that can be caused by several things, among which 5G is the most likely culprit.
As much as I like your article, I cannot "Like" it for this reason...
My Friend,
I don't know how else to contact you, but you can "Remove comment" after reading this.
Today, you are leaving links to your otherwise excellent articles at
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/very-disturbing-brain-death-is-a/comments#comment-14226317
I am writing you here, because I didn't want to attract attention on Lioness' site.
Many people, including me, consider this trolling. I also leave links in comments to others' articles, but only when they are relevant and related to the contents of an article. Of course, it's your decision to do as you wish, but in my understanding, the authors are not going to be your best friends, if you are using them as jump boards to your site...