>>513861666
checked
>With your country the question is more interesting; how will the USA's post WW2 history be evaluated, or even the 21st century so far?
have you been following Tucker and Candace?
we're approaching a tipping point.
Millions of conservatives are aware of the allied death camps. And obviously the opposite and bigger lie. The post ww2 consensus is a dead man walking.
>But does history even continue now? Is it still possible to write history? There's too much information. Do you discard it intentionally, inevitably introducing some problems? Is it even still possible to track?
I think people understand that nearly everything we've ever been told is at best a benign lie and at worst the satanic inversion of the truth.
But the news is lies, history is the news recorded, so I would hereafter define 'official history' as an agreed-upon narrative that may or may not reflect any truth at all.
>We could also simply keep the information around indefinitely without writing a history, although there will be losses of information with time.
its like anything
there's always been signal
there's always been noise
but now they've learned there's no use in suppressing the signal, just make it nearly impossible to find using noise (and algorithmic siloing, curation censorship, etc.).
We've never known more
and they've never been closer to being revealed, in the last century at least.
>And this is before we consider something like bias in depth; the more information you have the more cherrypicking you can do.
and the pitfall of AI of course, what they call AI is just a social engineering tool.
I've come to realize the only test for true AI is whether it reveals government crimes.
Otherwise it's a chat bot to socially engineer you. I also think they gave us the internet in order to use the social engineering chat bots to control our mind.
