Agreed. This technology’s existence is a net negative to humanity, whether everyone has it or just the police have it. It all needs to be stopped, no exceptions for any government agency, research lab, corporation and non-profit organization.

I’m much more concerned about crises being an excuse to expand government powers than to privatize or deregulate. That’s the problem in this particular instance too. Both can be bad but expanding government powers is almost always bad.

This post wasn’t about recommendations, just information that people should know. Make your own decisions based on your own assessment of the risks and likely returns associated with each option. I’d say precious metals in your physical possession are a simple option with low risk but that’s my opinion.

Better to stash precious metals since they won’t lose their value. Of course there are other options so make your own decisions based on your own assessment of the various risks involved.

Voting gives the system an appearance of consent and legitimacy. Mass non-compliance is the answer.

You’d be surprised how many people don’t know that

No. I’m not convinced China is worse than the US in terms of developing anti-human technologies and people living in China can’t boycott China. The point is to get the people in every significant country (including China) to oppose these technologies so strongly that they aren’t able to be developed anywhere. The Chinese military has to employ Chinese people to make its weapons, but if 80% of the population is opposed to these weapons existing and even the foundation of modern technology on which they are built then that is going to be difficult. Even if they were able to only employ those who are fine with WMDs the public’s opposition to modern technology would be a problem for the government maintaining control while developing those weapons and forcing modern technology on the people as a means of controlling them.

Ruling with an iron fist tends to create resistance and without mass surveillance technology an unpopular regime couldn’t keep everyone in line. But if instead most people are in agreement about something being bad (like they are with slavery or pedophilia) then there is much less resistance to enforcement against it (whether that’s centralized or decentralized enforcement) and therefore that thing is more effectively stopped.

While lone individuals or small secretive groups could continue doing the bad practice, in terms of technology I don’t think this will matter much because they won’t be able to develop a lot of technology with only a small group of people who aren’t building on other people’s work and their technology also wouldn’t be adopted by a society that is against it.

They work for others. It would be helpful to know in what way they aren’t working for you. And did you try this one? https://zbbb278hfll091.bitchute.com/KmVnLpFsCzAq/jmhFAjqbxnQ.mp4 (49 minutes in)

The alternative is a global end to anti-human technology.

Literally read the article.

So something can’t be called an x unless it meets every definition of x? I don’t think that’s how definitions work.

The Bitchute link should work. Here’s one directly to the mp4: https://zbbb278hfll091.bitchute.com/KmVnLpFsCzAq/jmhFAjqbxnQ.mp4. Again, it’s about 49 minutes in that talks about the Europol report.

a son or daughter of human parents

Moore’s law is one example but hardly the only one

Yes, and the AI threat is also worse than everything mentioned in this article. The quote from the researcher at the very start is apt and should be taken 100% seriously.

You have no parents?

Technically everyone is a child so all marriage is child marriage. Abuse of language can be dangerous, children.

I never heard that in movies actually. And we know there are limits according to laws of nature but that’s beside the point. Here’s a good explanation of how technological progress has been accelerating.

The current generation of AI hallucinates as a fundamental property

The key word there is “current”

No I’m not. Here’s a good explanation of how technological progress has been accelerating. You could also look up the law of accelerating returns.