Using the left weapons against them, quickly and swiftly. Big tech downfall included
Q: What does a lefty needs to do in order to climb the lefty hierarchy ladder? A: Step over, in one way or another, other lefties
Q: Can he confront them directly to prove he should be higher in the hierarchy? A: By doing what, call them racists, fascists, women haters?
Q: Ye, that's an idea. A: Are you crazy, they'll call him right back those very things and both might suffer greatly. They could be stamped for life as such and lose any chance of being anything worthy amongst lefties, which is usually all they have.
Q: Sensei! are you telling me lefties basically kind of hate each other but just can't show it, so constantly fighting each other indirectly, by accusing righties of those very things they would happily use against themselves, but can't? A: Yes.
Q: Is that why they become so extreme so quickly and keep breaking new records in hatred and accusations? All that just so they can beat the other guys/girls in that infinite excruciating hierarchy climb? A: It is.
Q: Will we become as bad as the soviet communists, as bad as in the Stalin era? A: Well ye, worse – we have better technology now, thank godless.
Q: But should I still become a lefty, trying to climb the ladder day after day? A: If you are stupid and talentless then yes, of course. What else could you be in this world (Spoiler: There are also few other reasons for being lefty)?
Q: But what if righties will find out that sacred secret, the one that leads to all those indirect battels? A: That will never happen.
Q: Why not? A: They had forever to use our, extremely simple weapons against us, yet didn't even come close to recognize them. Don't worry, it should stay that way.
Q: But just for intellectual curiosity, could, for instance, a white man accuse a black one for being a racist? A: Well of course kohai, many blacks actually are. Think how they use other blacks, mislead and brainwash them for their own political and monetary purposes. A person could easily hate himself so could, even more easily, hate any group you can imagine, which includes of course ones he belongs to.
Q: What about women, could they be accused of hating women?
A: Never!! Relax kohai, of course they can. In fact, many women who accuse men about women hatred are women haters themselves. They envy many aspects of genuine and kind women and usually are much uglier and more masculine than them, so in many ways they also envy men – for not being one themselves – and thus can kill two birds with one stone – destroy as much trust between good men and good women, making everyone as paranoid and defensive as possible.
Q: And how would you respond if a woman will ever accuse you in such matter, or if you were to become righty?
A: First I would just accuse back, telling her she is a women hater. No reason needed, the saying is what's important. Then, if she is relatively high-hierarchy, would tell that she behaves like a man, that she's vulgar and extrovert like a man – because what real woman accuses a man of hating women? – and actually adore men and try to hide it by accusing men for hating women, but that everyone can see that about her, she's not fooling anyone.
Then I would question her followers (indirectly, via the public/social media correspondence with her) as being suspected of women hate as well. And if she's in some sort of organization, I'll question the donors and sponsors of hating women and ask “Does the donors know about you and your hatred for women? Do they hate women too? Does anybody know who they are, it needs to be published that they hate women and give money to people who hate them too”. Hopefully righties who will follow that correspondence will understand and join me in the accusations, but the damage to her will be done either way.
Q: But sensei, her whole lefty career could be destroyed. A: It will be destroyed. This will at least be a clear beginning of that destruction. In addition, once the vultures from the left smell that potential carcass, they won't be able not to try and take her place, and would have huge advantage if weren't accused themselves in women hatred, yet.
Q: It is very strange. How come this is so effective? A: Things starts from what we want. They don't start at justice. Righties got pretty confused by their political affiliation name, and instead of primarily wanting to win, they rather be right.
According to the use of the word “racist” by lefties, we are all racists. Any time something against a black person happens and you don't condemn it, at least, you proved you are a racist. Any time you support a non-black when competing or confronting a black person, you could easily be marked as racist.
Those would be great news for righties, if they could see it. Humans can't care deeply about more than 100 other humans, and also can't engage directly with many at the same time. Long story short, you can blame anyone, constantly, for being a racist for million reasons, and all you have to do is pick one.
You are racist if you are here listening to me, instead of donating your western salary to the starved in Africa, or doing something for the unfortunate blacks in your own city. Neglect even one black person and I'll easily make you a racist, if and when I want.
Q: Interesting. A: The funny thing is that lefties are much more vulnerable to such accusations.
Q: I like funny A: An even funnier thing is – you don't need that theory. If someone comes to your house to kill your family and you have a gun, are you going to decline using it because it's not the right color, or you think it's too early in the day to use guns? You'll use it because it works.
Same with “racist”. As long as it works, use it.
Q: Will at least the media be protected from you? A: No jokes are allowed in this lesson, kohai!
Q: But what would you do? A: How many crimes where blacks, women, minorities and so on are the victims, happens every day in our country?
Q: Thousands. A: How many are covered by the media news anchors?
Q: Very few, sometimes almost none.
A: So all one has to do is pick one against a black person, then pick ONE news anchor from CNN or the likes and accuse him/her, time and again, of being a racist for not covering that crime. Or a women hater for not saying a thing about a certain crime against a woman that happened that day. Then accuse the network for the very same things. Then the viewers of that network for watching such racist/misogynistic network. It should be very clear to you by now, don't pretend otherwise.
Q: Yes sensei. But what of big tech, the likes of Facebook and Twitter. They somehow all chose the left over the right, even though it is easy for everyone to see, and at least half the people lean to the right more than left. Did they make a mistake? A: What world are you referring to? In this one where I am high-hierarchy lefty, they have made the correct choice. In the imaginary one we've been talking about, where I am righty, they made a terrible mistake.
Q: How come, what would you do? A: After all you have just learned, you are still asking?
Q: I would accuse those companies, their biggest shareholders, CEOs and other important figures associated with them of being Trump supporters, and of helping him all along – before the election and after, despite the results being so obvious – while acting as if they really helping the left.
I would accuse they were the ones who helped him procure alleged evidence of fraud, all while pretending to really belong with the left by doing meaningless actions, like deleting posts and blocking tweets – which only drew more attention to them – for perception only, to deceive us, lefties.
I would mention the fact that never in our history such massive actions against election results could have been taken, and that the only possible explanation is continual behind the scene support by big tech. Giving Trump money and gathering intelligence about key influential figures, even judges, who have the influence and power to retroactively change the results. And like you taught me, I would concentrate the attack at one individual or company at a time, not groups of people.
A: Good. But you can push much further, since now any lefty who'll try and defend them will automatically be blamed for being Trump supporter himself, by lefties and by righties. I'll give you a hint, the right answer is the embodiment of that perfect mistake – choosing the wrong side – left, as far as they are concerned.
Q: I will push toward nationalizing them, claiming they must belong to the US government because of all the damage they proved they can do, because of, when given the chance, they will always side with the right. And many other simple and intuitive reasons, most has to do with equality and tyranny.
That should be relatively easy since, probably for the first time ever, righties will genuinely agree that this huge accumulation of money and power by those big techs causes by far bigger damages than the taxes they pay, and will happily support nationalizing them, or at least sending them to anyone, any country, who is willing to have them.
A: Speaking of countries, our European brothers tried many times to officially define Facebook and Google as monopolies, but always lost to their big lobby. Now we can push everyone here to help them, instead of resisting the idea, as if it's against American interests.
One idea we can suggest them as well as ourselves, is to stop the expectation, or at least the demand that they shouldn't be monopolies. Instead let's embrace the fact that they are, and demand that everyone should enjoy that fact, not just them. And so, if you are, and as long as you remain a big tech monopoly, you should pay huge sums of money to governments in areas where you operate. If sometime in the future you'll stop being a monopoly, for whatever reason, everyone, including you, will stop enjoying that fact, and you'll be relived of those extra enormous payments.
Q: Yes speaking of countries, what about the likes of South Korea, Denmark, Switzerland, maybe Germany, New Zealand. Those countries where citizens grabs their government by the balls to some extent, instead of the other way around, as is in here. As far as my knowledge goes, as soon as we collapse so will they, since all western economies are so deeply entwined. Can they do anything to prevent it?
A: Yes but don't tell, we might benefit too from actions like that. They should stop that deep ridiculous game of honor they play. One where in order to become their citizen, you must get married to a citizen, prove, for years, you're still together, not leave the country for long periods and other terrible bureaucratic deeds one must perform.
If they do, and will happily, and relatively easily, welcome the rich and very proficient people, those will come. They will leave countries that need them much more and hence those countries will be forced to do something about it, like get much better or keep seeing such people leave.
For instance, if Switzerland will announce something similar regarding French citizens, the French will lose their rich and highly skilled in demanded professions at dazzling speed. The ensuing envy, anger and shame alone might make even the French consider whether keep rolling directly to hell is actually worth as much as previously assumed. And if they do nothing significant, well, at least the ones still standing (Switzerland) will have bigger chances of surviving.
Q: And what about the most important and popular global currency, the US Dollar. How can those countries save themselves when we collapse if it will collapse as well? A: It will and they won't, not by then if they haven't changed the main currencies their economy is depended upon into something else then US Dollar and Euro. Any fiat currency actually, since like you said, all western economies are deeply entwined.
Q: So what then, Bitcoin? A: I'm no expert regarding that, but could be Bitcoin or some other known, popular and secure cryptocurrency. Maybe few of them. Giving them the status of money should be a crucial first step. Most countries won't, since, well, they have governments, and those, with very rare exceptions, won't give up the power their own fiat currency gives them, no matter the cost to the citizens.
To make myself clearer, let's assume you read a post by a talented crypto employee or entrepreneur, where he complains about how hard and bad the government makes the situation in the US regarding crypto. Then he compares the situation to that in Germany. You should comment that he is doing no one here any favor, and actually making himself part of the problem by staying here instead of leaving to Germany.
The US government is probably one of the biggest addicts to its own fiat. And like with the rich and proficient, when those still-worth-to-live-in countries will completely accept some cryptocurrencies as money, they will draw huge money and talents and force the remaining countries to face an unthinkable choice, give up the forced monopoly of your fiat currency over your citizens or, possibly, everything else.
Q: But is there already solid infrastructure for everyday use of cryptocurrencies on one hand, and ability to store big amounts safely and conveniently, which include drawing big amounts from where they are safely stored, easily and conveniently. A: Probably not. Not for the average, tech-wise, citizen.
Q: Why not? A: What prevents your bank manager from stealing your money?
Q: He’ll probably get caught. A: So?
Q: He'll be sent to jail and the money will be taken from him. A: So ultimately, it's the power of the state and the reliability of its enforcement in regard to specific, defined actions. That's what prevents bank tellers and managers from stealing our money. Usually. There is nothing of that kind I'm aware of regarding crypto.
When and if, a country will deliberately build a banking system for that alone, successfully, that will be a game changer. But, unlike left-right issues, it's only an opinion.
Q: So back to left-right, is stupidity and inability to do anything with yourself is really the only reason people become lefties?
A: No. There are those who aren't very harmful (unless it's voting time). They are usually psychologically weak with an ego that is heavily invested at their, already left, political affiliation. Most of them are quite old (left wasn't always what it is today) and are constantly bombarded by fake media – their only source of political data – with the idea that they belong to the smarter and more enlightened group.
The harmful ones are different, more interesting story. Let's assume you wanted to destroy your family, make your wife hate you and your children miserable, how long will it take?
Q: No time at all, if that is really what I wanted. A: Now let's say outsider wants to destroy your family, how long will it take him?
Q: Probably years, if at all. A: Right, he'll need almost a perfect plan and a lot of time and flexibility in executing it. In other words, those things hardly ever happen, even when an outsider does wish you and your family harm.
Q: But what are you saying? A: That an insider has enormous influence compare to an outsider, particularly if destruction is what they try to achieve. And that is the fuel that drives lefties. A permission to destroy from the inside gives you huge power, influence and ability to take actions about it. Soon you get addictive to those and the associated feelings, if you let yourself. Obviously, the main problem here is the end result – destruction.
Q: Do lefties know that this is their fuel? A: No, they can't know. The behavior we see from about 98%-99% of “active” lefties – the low hierarchy climbers – is mostly a manifestation of their desire to die.
Q: Ha?! A: There are huge psychological forces that prevent one from killing himself. Lots of them are societal, and are enhanced by the individual survival instincts and other things. For every suicide there are more than 1000 reported cases of failed suicide attempts. Therefore, the only real option a person who wants to die – and is willing, or even wants, to take everyone else with him for that purpose – is to do it indirectly. If you destroy the whole world, for instance, you'll succeed.
Add to that the hope and inspiration they get from high hierarchy lefties. Maybe, along the way of destruction, they'll become ones themselves. Then life might be different. Cult leaders are, on average, much luckier than their followers.
Q: So how can one change lefties? A: You must ruin their source of power and motivation, if you were to ever change them.
This goes hand in hand with pushing them as fast as possible to their most extreme versions, by using their own weapons against them like you've just learned. You can also congratulate them, publicly as always, for infiltrating and impostering as lefties, while actually being a righty. And when they panicky deny, answer they shouldn't have to worry about you tweeting or posting it, since lefties will always be too stupid to realize such a thing, and will keep believing no matter what.
But remember, you have limited time – you must do so before they'll devour everything.
Q: So all those righties who blame lefties in things like hypocrisy and dishonesty really have no clue of what they are dealing with, is that true? A: Yes
Q: Are inside enemies always worse than outside ones, this time I ask about the contamination of their soul, the degree of evil that possess them. Outside enemies, after all, don't attack their own. A: This question is too general. Outside enemies might attack their own as well, so can be both.
Q: I was always curious who was worse and if there really is a way to determine, the Nazis or the Soviet communists in the Lenin and even more so, the Stalin era. It’s seems like Nazis are considered much worse. A: Nazis atrocities were done mostly to outsiders, many millions of outsiders, and those consider them worse. In addition, the Soviets helped beat the Nazis, and so we westerners normally regard Nazis as worse.
Q: Shouldn't we? A: I can't be the judge of that. What I can tell you though, is that it's not extremely relevant today.
Q: Why not? A: You can't conquer the world with your tanks anymore. Many countries have enough nuclear weapon to flatten the whole world. If you were to make atrocities, you'll have to keep satisfying that hunger by doing it to your own people.
Q: Sensei, you suddenly look nostalgic, even melancholic, what is happening? A: I'm thinking about 2016, and how little fraud we pushed and applied relative to the 2020 elections. By now we could have destroyed it all, I mean it. I guess I just can't wait for January 20 to arrive.
Q: Is it that bad?
A: Back then no one really suspected, but even if we were suspected for committing such frauds, the key figures, including even conservative judges, would be completely oblivious to the consequences, and so would prefer to certify the results than have somewhat messy outcomes for declining to do so.
But now, it seems they have at least some intuition of what's to come. Some vague understanding they could lose their children, spouses and everything else dear to them. I don't see how those idiot can even grasp a situation where any mean justify the end (Saving their children), but it worries me that psychologically they are closer to that realization.
Q: Sensei, may I try and comfort you with a little destruction we can apply right now? A: Go ahead, what are you intend to destroy?
Q: A fake search engine. A: I wasn't aware there is one. The only one I know is Google SE.
Q: Funny, that is the one I was referring to. A: But how is it fake, I'm getting great results there?
Q: That is what I intend to destroy. A: How?
Q: By emptying their revenue from it, so they'll have to drastically reduce their investments there. A: But how are you going to do that?
Q: With a lecture A: Can you give it to me?
Q: Say you have a perfect search engine, can you think of a reason to click an ad after getting your search results? A: Not really, not at the moment. Maybe if I was an ad junkie, but nothing practical comes to mind.
Q: So we established the fact that the better a search engine gets, the fewer the incentives users will have to click its ads. A: It makes sense at the moment, but users do click ads there. Plenty of times actually, even I do.
Q: Because that is a fake SE. You get great results when no ads appear, like when you search for very specific things, or things that are unlikely to produce a revenue from the searcher, but once you see an ad or four, along with the results, you can be certain you're getting shitty results. Real shitty results. A: I see.
Q: Beyond that, they also apply what can be called “One hand washes the other”. Part of the “shitty-on-purpose search results” algorithm is to include results that send you to the same url the ads will. They really have no other choice if they want to maximize revenue. This gives more incentives to the advertisers and consequently they pay more, which results in even worse results.
A: So the good results where no ads appear are really just a hidden advertisement, to lure users to believe they're always getting good results? What can one do?
Q: Depends on what you mean. If you mean getting better search results on Google when ads appear, you can add the name of a famous forum – Reddit is your best choice usually, or QA site to the end of the search. This will usually produce somewhat better results, sometimes much better. You should play with it yourself and see. The moment you'll get no ads, be sure you just improved your Google search results.
If you mean what can be done to destroy the fake search engine, which is what I assume you mean, there are few things. The first is to give the same lecture you got so far to others.
Another important one, which includes monetary incentives to whoever will produce such a thing, is “Ad search engine”. The basis will work the following way: A user drags Google ad to that SE, then the results he'll get will be other, similar ads from the web.
And so, if he searches Google and in return gets results that include ads, he can then choose one to drag into that SE search box. Here he'll at least get bigger list of ads, and probably more targeted, to choose from. That SE can add real results to accompany the ads. It can also “ask” the user what search he inserted into Google that produced that ad. There are many ways to make money from a thing like that. Over time, this will drastically reduce what advertisers are willing to pay Google.
Another and a very simple one is an add-on for browsers. This add-on will allow users to insert percentages (right column) to a table where inside the left column are search engines names. Now say you adore fake SEs. In this case insert 80% or so next to Google. Other users will give much more weight to more distinctive, specific and sometimes just weird SEs, like music, science fiction, legends or weird stories, specific animals, art… You name it. A click for the search will randomly choose your SE according to the % and the correspondent SEs.
This will produce a cycle where builders of SEs will allow themselves to specialize at just a few subjects, instead of trying to contain the whole world. In return, users will have more fun and mystery when searching the web. They won't always need or want to be very specific in their search terms. Altogether you'll get a much more distributed search engine market.
A: Nice, almost makes me sorry I'm not a righty, because then I would heavily short Google and immediately post all that info for everyone to see.
Q: I already did that A: What?!