Hollywood y los MKUltra, Illuminatis y más conspiraciones PARTE III

[laila]

Las redes sociales son peligrosas, si no se es prudente, mas que por lo que espié el CNI, o la CIa, (que segura le damos igual y a los que no importamos nada), porque abrimos nuestra vida, si somos imprudentes ,a cualquier desconocido , cuyo estado mental, o grado de maldad, envidia, etc desconocemos, por ello hay que ser prudente, hasta las conversaciones de wassap con los amigos, puede que alguno de ellos no sea tan limpio como creemos, o cuando deje de ser amigo, por algo, haga uso de lo que le contemos, para enseñárselo a otro amigos o pareja etc...e igual eso nos puede hacer daño....nada de iluminatis ni todo eso, simplemente maldad, venganzas, etc entre nosotros mismos. Por ahí si hay que ser prudente con lo que se dice.

 

[Arianne]

Las redes sociales son peligrosas, si no se es prudente, mas que por lo que espié el CNI, o la CIa, (que segura le damos igual y a los que no importamos nada), porque abrimos nuestra vida, si somos imprudentes ,a cualquier desconocido , cuyo estado mental, o grado de maldad, envidia, etc desconocemos, por ello hay que ser prudente, hasta las conversaciones de wassap con los amigos, puede que alguno de ellos no sea tan limpio como creemos, o cuando deje de ser amigo, por algo, haga uso de lo que le contemos, para enseñárselo a otro amigos o pareja etc...e igual eso nos puede hacer daño....nada de iluminatis ni todo eso, simplemente maldad, venganzas, etc entre nosotros mismos. Por ahí si hay que ser prudente con lo que se dice.

Eso también. Pero, independientemente de que uses o no RRSS, a mí no me gusta este Gran Hermano en que vivimos.

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

Illuminati TV Commercial reveals Anti-Christ (2017).

This follows recent newspaper articles that suggest 'tech billionaires', who are convinced we live in the 'matrix', are funding scientists to 'get us out'. This is all Luciferian propaganda, Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved from sin, death and enter into heaven.

Article: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/tech-b...

Tech billionaires think we live in the Matrix and have asked scientists to get us out
Arjun Kharpal | @ArjunKharpal
Friday, 7 Oct 2016 | 5:37 AM ETCNBC.com
5.1K
SHARES

Warner Brothers | Getty Images
Two of the technology world's most powerful billionaires are concerned we are living in a Matrix-style simulated world and are working with scientists to break us out.

In an article in The New Yorker, writer Ted Friend explains that the idea of the "simulation hypothesis" has been on the rise among tech's elite.

"Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation," Friend claimed.


Neither of the billionaires were named in the piece.

The idea has gained traction in recent years with the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.

Earlier this year, Tesla boss Elon Musk said that there's "a billion to one chance we're living in base reality", meaning the billionaire thinks the odds are that we are living in a computer simulation. Musk argues that some technology is becoming indistinguishable from real life. He took the example of the game "Pong" which has evolved over 40 years into advanced gaming and virtual and augmented reality.

"If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said.

And a Bank of America Merrill Lynch report from last month suggested that there was a 20 percent to 50 percent chance we are living in a simulated virtual world.

Friend's claim in the The New Yorker came in an article based on an interview with Sam Altman, the president of Y Combinator, a start-up accelerator helping companies get off the ground. Altman echoed some of Musk's worries over the advancement of technology.

"These phones already control us," Altman declared. "The merge has begun—and a merge is our best scenario. Any version without a merge will have conflict: we enslave the AI or it enslaves us. The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I'd love that."

"We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!"



Arjun KharpalTechnology Correspondent

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

El artículo que hace mención el autor del vídeo:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

New arrival: but if his parents earn more than £60,000 each he will lose his Child Benefit from January Photo: Alamy


By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012


The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

 

[MIN]

Este nuevo vídeo de Katy Perry me dejo helada!!!
que opinan cotillas?

 

[La Adivina]

Este nuevo vídeo de Katy Perry me dejo helada!!!
que opinan cotillas?

Asquerosa , sátanica ,repugnante ... spirit cooking como su amiga Marina Abramovic.
Esta tipa y todas y todos los que son como ella ,espero que ardan en el infierno !.
Lo indignante es que mucha gente pase esto por alto o no vea el trasfondo ... o lo acate sin pensar .

OM AH HUM VAJRA GURÚ PADAM SIDDHI HUM .Mantra del gran Buda Padmasambhava vencedor y subyugador de
todos los demonios .

 

[La Adivina]

Asquerosa , sátanica ,repugnante ... spirit cooking como su amiga Marina Abramovic.
Esta tipa y todas y todos los que son como ella ,espero que ardan en el infierno !.
Lo indignante es que mucha gente pase esto por alto o no vea el trasfondo ... o lo acate sin pensar .

OM AH HUM VAJRA GURÚ PADAM SIDDHI HUM .Mantra del gran Buda Padmasambhava vencedor y subyugador de
todos los demonios .
Ver el archivo adjunto 514156

OM AH HUM VAJRA GURÚ PADMA SIDDHI HUM . EL mantra ,disculpas me he equivocado en la transcripción .

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

Control mental

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

El octágono satánico y las masónicas elecciones francesas https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2017/05/11/el-octagono-satanico-y-las-masonicas-elecciones-francesas/ vía @tecn_preocupado