There's no reason I can see to use something like Face Pay when the aim of a cashless transit system can be achieved by a simple swipe card which can be purchased anonymously. First the goals: 1. Eliminate the potential for employee theft. 2. eliminate the problem of handling large amounts of cash in small denominations. 3. improve …
There's no reason I can see to use something like Face Pay when the aim of a cashless transit system can be achieved by a simple swipe card which can be purchased anonymously. First the goals: 1. Eliminate the potential for employee theft. 2. eliminate the problem of handling large amounts of cash in small denominations. 3. improve data collection on ridership for planning purposes. None of these goals is nefarious by intention, even Face Pay can be rationalized as a way to eliminate the costs associated with maintaining a retail system for swipe cards. As someone who once worked for a transit system I can assure you, the costs are eating us alive, and any potential solution to the problem is taken seriously.
The trouble is that any system that collects user specific data can be used for nefarious purposes. This problem also exists with cash in the form of embedded security codes which are used to prevent counterfeiting. That same technology can be extended to where the individual currency note contains a history of every transaction it's involved in, so cash itself may be subject to the same conditions and abuses.
One of the main points of arms control as applied to intermediate range missiles is that they are dual use technology that can have defensive or offensive capability simply by a change of ordinance. Extend that dual use principle to every aspect of the modern world as governed by digital cash, cell phones, licence plate readers, face recognition, biometric ID systems, satellites, all of it. It ALL has the potential for misuse.
But step back for a moment and ask yourself, what features do ALL governments have in common? First the need to collect tax and other revenue, second to monitor the population for planning purposes, but also to control criminal activity. Given that ALL governments share these objectives, I see no reason to suggest that they're all acting in concert to execute some master plan. They may well be, but the fact that they have common goals does not by itself imply that.
Russia has long standing issues with control of immigration, money laundering, and systemic corruption at all levels. This problem did not go away with the removal of the oligarchs - it is still present in every aspect of society, an unfortunate inheritance of the Soviet system and of human nature itself. That the current government would adopt means to address the issue does not in itself imply collusion with some overarching international agenda, but simply that they, like every other government on Earth, have adopted similar solutions to similar problems. In other words, correlation is not causation.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of the Putin as WEF agent theory. First, it has not, to my knowledge, been a constant theme over many years but only recently surfaced in connection with the pandemic and SMO, and it's constant repetition on social media only adds to my suspicion. What better way to sow doubt among supporters of Russia than to suggest her leader is part of some grand global conspiracy? Second, the guilt by association fallacy that all WEF alumni are somehow part of some master plan. This negates individual motives in associating with that institute. Belonging to a club has certain advantages, but it doesn't imply that we're acting entirely on its behalf. The old adage, keep your friends close but your enemies closer may apply here. Third. How many of us here hold the same beliefs we did in our youth? Personally, mine have shifted 180 degrees in the time Putin has been around. Is he the same guy he was 20 or 30 years ago, or has he learned something in the interim?
Therefore, I'm agnostic on the assertion that Putin is one of "them." It bears investigating, as does every aspect of our current situation, but to draw that conclusion on the basis of relatively limited data which may have a more benign explanation has the potential to seriously mislead us, which may actually be the point. We're hearing a lot of nonsense stated as fact where it relates to Russia these days. Why should this be any different?
All the technologies you mentioned are very detrimental for the health of all living thing. Ontologicaly, inherently because the frenquencies they use have been proven to be a danger for all life forms, be they insects, birds, mammals. All those techs also implied geopolitical aspect, think Musk promoting coup d'état to get ressources like lithium... and what is going everywhere rare earth are coveted to rationalized and eliminate the costs.
"Why should this be different?" Read this blog more deeply. I think it gives real data.
There's no reason I can see to use something like Face Pay when the aim of a cashless transit system can be achieved by a simple swipe card which can be purchased anonymously. First the goals: 1. Eliminate the potential for employee theft. 2. eliminate the problem of handling large amounts of cash in small denominations. 3. improve data collection on ridership for planning purposes. None of these goals is nefarious by intention, even Face Pay can be rationalized as a way to eliminate the costs associated with maintaining a retail system for swipe cards. As someone who once worked for a transit system I can assure you, the costs are eating us alive, and any potential solution to the problem is taken seriously.
The trouble is that any system that collects user specific data can be used for nefarious purposes. This problem also exists with cash in the form of embedded security codes which are used to prevent counterfeiting. That same technology can be extended to where the individual currency note contains a history of every transaction it's involved in, so cash itself may be subject to the same conditions and abuses.
One of the main points of arms control as applied to intermediate range missiles is that they are dual use technology that can have defensive or offensive capability simply by a change of ordinance. Extend that dual use principle to every aspect of the modern world as governed by digital cash, cell phones, licence plate readers, face recognition, biometric ID systems, satellites, all of it. It ALL has the potential for misuse.
But step back for a moment and ask yourself, what features do ALL governments have in common? First the need to collect tax and other revenue, second to monitor the population for planning purposes, but also to control criminal activity. Given that ALL governments share these objectives, I see no reason to suggest that they're all acting in concert to execute some master plan. They may well be, but the fact that they have common goals does not by itself imply that.
Russia has long standing issues with control of immigration, money laundering, and systemic corruption at all levels. This problem did not go away with the removal of the oligarchs - it is still present in every aspect of society, an unfortunate inheritance of the Soviet system and of human nature itself. That the current government would adopt means to address the issue does not in itself imply collusion with some overarching international agenda, but simply that they, like every other government on Earth, have adopted similar solutions to similar problems. In other words, correlation is not causation.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of the Putin as WEF agent theory. First, it has not, to my knowledge, been a constant theme over many years but only recently surfaced in connection with the pandemic and SMO, and it's constant repetition on social media only adds to my suspicion. What better way to sow doubt among supporters of Russia than to suggest her leader is part of some grand global conspiracy? Second, the guilt by association fallacy that all WEF alumni are somehow part of some master plan. This negates individual motives in associating with that institute. Belonging to a club has certain advantages, but it doesn't imply that we're acting entirely on its behalf. The old adage, keep your friends close but your enemies closer may apply here. Third. How many of us here hold the same beliefs we did in our youth? Personally, mine have shifted 180 degrees in the time Putin has been around. Is he the same guy he was 20 or 30 years ago, or has he learned something in the interim?
Therefore, I'm agnostic on the assertion that Putin is one of "them." It bears investigating, as does every aspect of our current situation, but to draw that conclusion on the basis of relatively limited data which may have a more benign explanation has the potential to seriously mislead us, which may actually be the point. We're hearing a lot of nonsense stated as fact where it relates to Russia these days. Why should this be any different?
Hi,
All the technologies you mentioned are very detrimental for the health of all living thing. Ontologicaly, inherently because the frenquencies they use have been proven to be a danger for all life forms, be they insects, birds, mammals. All those techs also implied geopolitical aspect, think Musk promoting coup d'état to get ressources like lithium... and what is going everywhere rare earth are coveted to rationalized and eliminate the costs.
"Why should this be different?" Read this blog more deeply. I think it gives real data.
Respect