DROPPING TRUST IN SELF-DRIVING CARS
Great positive changes are underway at every level of our reality. They began in earnest in 2012, and have been increasing in speed and magnitude. I began writing this series of articles, entitled “Positive Changes That Are Occurring”, in July of 2013.
These historically-unprecedented positive changes are being driven by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices based on the work of Wilhelm Reich and Karl Hans Welz. Since Don Croft first fabricated tactical Orgonite in 2000, its widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution has been unknitting and transforming the ancient Death energy matrix built and expanded by our dark masters, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. And, as a result, the Ether is returning to its natural state of health and vitality.
One of those changes is that populace has recognized that technology has been weaponized against it, and that includes self-driving cars, which have an accident rate twice that of those with human drivers.
Most consumers in 2013 said they would not purchase or utilize a driverless car. In 2016, most said that auto trackers were not worth car insurance discounts.
There’s an international news blackout in place on the public’s abandonment of technology, including self-driving cars. The strategies, techniques and tactics of the blackout are described as I review the news accounts documenting the phenomenon, and it is my hope that reviewing successive examples of the same tactics from different purportedly-independent news outlets down over time will awaken a subset of readers from their programmed impression of legitimacy of the sources putting forth the propaganda.
In 2016, trials showed that Uber’s self-driver cars posed a threat to cyclists. In December 2016, backlash from San Francisco cyclists drove Uber to move tests of its driverless cars from California to Arizona.
As of 2016, 75% of Americans were said to be “afraid” to ride in a self-driving vehicle. In March 2017, jalopnik.com reasoned that “Maybe Americans Have No Idea What They Want In Self-Driving Cars”.
Jalopnik is a State propaganda outlet pretending that they don’t know that people want self driving cars that do not have an accident rate twice that of those with human drivers.
In 2016, Time Magazine explained “Why You Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Drive”.
That’s an example of what is known as a “fait accompli”.
Fait accompli - noun - a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.
In 2016, Driver’s Alert widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Will Self-Driving Cars Eliminate Accidents***?***
Suggesting that self-driving cars with an accident rate twice that of those with human drivers will “eliminate accidents” is what is what I have dubbed a Satanic inversion, and what George Orwell called “doublethink”.
The propagandist knows that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
In January 2016, Newsweek explained “What the World Will Look Like Without Drivers”.
That’s an example of what is known as a “fait accompli”.
Fait accompli - noun - a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.
In August 2016, slate.com pretended to be skeptical and asked “Tesla says autopilot is saving lives. Should we believe it***?”***
The article contains as many plausible-deniability excuses as to why Tesla might be telling the truth so that the subconscious of many or most readers will. Have numerous straws to grasp to get themselves off the hook of personal responsibility.
In September 2016, iotworld.com shook its bony finger and expalined “Why Putting the Brakes on Self-Driving Cars Is Reckless”
Saying that putting the brakes on self-driving cars with an accident rate twice that of those driven by humans is “reckless” is an example of what I’ve dubbed a Satanic inversion, and what George Orwell called “doublethink”.
The propagandist knows that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
In September 2016, the hilariously named reason.com explained why “Chicago’s Proposed Ban of Self-Driving Cars Is Dangerous and Protectionist”. Proving that the fix is in from the top, in 2017 Congress and the auto industries moved to ban cities from regulating self-driving cars.
In November 2016, Popular Science said that humans “don’t know how to drive self-driving cars.” Where “operator error” is brazenly asserted to be the cause of an accident rate twice that of cars operated by humans.
An article from 2017 from the Drive, headlined “What Motor Trend Gets Very Wrong About Self-Driving Cars”, goes on to say “ The Silicon Valley-based self-driving community erupted on Twitter with mockery”.
Motor Trend dared to say something against self-driving cars…I’ll put a bookmark here and research the story when I have time.
(Self-driving cab, Total Recall, 1990) (From “Magic”, 1978)
In 2017, an article I’m now unable to locate described “Silicon Valley’s crappiest year on record and the backlash against self-driving cars”.
In January 2017, the Toyota Research Institute said that fully autonomous cars were “Not Even Close”. In November 2017, the Seattle Times said that self-driving trucks “may be closer than they appear”.
The Seattle times is a State propaganda outlet, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In May 2017, MIT said “People Losing Faith In Self-Driving Cars”.
Can you see how they spun faith that has already been lost in self-driving cars as people merely “losing” faith?
(Self-driving cab, Bladerunner, 1982)
People have lost faith in self-driving cars because they’ve seen all of the Terminator movies, and because they know that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of those with human drivers.
In May 2017 the nanny-state-entitled “mindyourdecisions.com” presented the brazen Satanic inversion of: “How Reckless Pedestrians Could Ruin Self-Driving Cars”.
India banned self-driving cars in 2017, ostensibly “to protect jobs”. In July 2017, the Washington Post explained “Why India’s ban on self-driving cars is misguided”.
In 2016, Trucks.com spoke of “Autonomous Trucks: A Future Truckers Should Embrace”. In August 2017, extremetech.com bitterly vowed “Union May Win Battle Against Self-Driving Trucks, But Not the War”.
In July 2016, it was said that “Mercedes Defends Itself Against Critics of its ‘Self-Driving’ Car Ads”. Mercedes-Benz stopped running driverless car ads in April 2017.
In October 2017, the laloyolan.com presented a fait accompli with “Self-driving cars are a necessary evil”.
In October 2017, theconvesation.com widened its eyes to simulate honesty, said “gosh!”, and asked “Are self-driving cars the future of mobility for disabled people***?”***
That’s called a “rhetorical question” and is also an example of a “fait accompli”.
Rhetorical question - noun - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Fait accompli - noun - a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.
In October 2017, the U.K.’s Daily Mail stated that “Humans will be banned from driving within next 25 years”.
That’s an example of what is known as a “fait accompli”.
Fait accompli - noun - a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.
In June 2017, despite knowing full well that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of those with human drivers, Wired widened their eyes to simulate honesty and explained that “Self-Driving Cars Will Teach Themselves to Save Lives”.
In November 2017, a self-driving bus crashed on its very first day at work in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In November 2017, Wired urged that “To Save Lives, Deploy Self-Driving Cars As Soon As You Can”.
Given that we know that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of those with human drivers, we know that Wired is a State propaganda organ, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In November 2017, RAND explained “Why Waiting for Perfect Autonomous Vehicles May Cost Lives”. We know that’s an example of a Satanic inversion, because we know that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of those with human drivers.
(From “The Terminator”, 1984)
In December 2017, ScienceMag.com said “People don’t trust driverless cars. Researchers are trying to change that”.
People don’t trust driverless cars because they saw all of the Terminator movies, and beause they know that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of those with human drivers. ScienceMag.com is a state propaganda organ masquerading as a Science publication. Can you see how “researchers” is general? As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
In January 2018, the Verge said “Americans still deeply skeptical about driverless cars: poll”.
Where “DEEPLY skeptical” is general. It’s used to blunt any specific insight into the magnitude of the trend. The author has “compartmentalized” the phenomenon, as sixty to seventy readers only read the headlines, as the propagandist well knows.
Being a skeptic is not a positive thing. It reads quite differently if written “Americans have a deep distrust of driverless cars”.
The author tacked “: poll” on the end to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, but that was just one poll!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers are eager to grasp any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
The article continues: Self-driving technology could be a “vaccine” to the epidemic of highway deaths, said Jack Gillis, director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America”.
Jack takes care not to mention that it’s technology that’s driving the only-generally described “epidemic of highway deaths”, which is being directly caused by smart phones. Smart phones drive higher accident rates than driving drunk, and the impairment on the driver is the same even when hand’s free technology is used.
The article continues: “A new poll was released today basically repeats data that we’ve seen in previous surveys: Americans still don’t trust self-driving cars, and are nervous about the coming onslaught. Asked how concerned they’d be to share the road with a driverless car, 31 percent said they’d be “very concerned,” while 33 percent said “somewhat concerned,” according to the poll which was just released by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
A majority (63 percent) said they would not support “mass exemptions” from federal motor vehicle safety standards for self-driving cars, and were not comfortable (75 percent) with automakers having the power to remotely disable vehicle controls, such as the steering wheel, and brake and gas pedals, when the autonomous vehicle is being operated by the computer.”
There a strict rule in journalism that you use the highest numbers or percentages first, and then the rest in descending order. Here the author has brazenly inverted it, doing what they can to hedge and defray against leading with “75% not comfortable with automakers remotely disabling controls”.
Here’s Jack’s picture, using purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gestures:
(Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs, Consumer Federation of America)
Now, not all Directors at the Consumer Federation of America might not be generational Satanists, but those quoted in mainstream news articles certainly are. Given the influence of the position, it’s quite possible all of them are.
You can’t recognize them by their appearance, beyond their almost-continuous use of supposedly “secret” hand signs.
You can only recognize them by the codified, highly-repetitive way in which they speak, and write.
They’re hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth, figuring the rubes would never notice.
You know them only-generally as “the One Percent”. They are the distinct and separate race that we know as “Neanderthal”. They’re all genetically related to one another. It’s a bloodline thing. As any middle schooler knows:
August 5, 2012 - 12 Year Old Girl Discovers All US Presidents Are Related to King John of England
They’re related through the maternal bloodline.
Here’s what you’re supposed to think a Neanderthal looks like:
While this is what a Neanderthal actually looks like:
(King John I of England, the guy all the US Presidents are related to through their maternal bloodlines)
Apr 17, 2001 — Research leader Dr Rosalind Harding said: ‘It is certainly possible that red hair comes from the Neanderthals.’
2020 - “ScotlandsDNA believes that everyone who carries one of 3 variants of the red-hair gene is a direct descendant of the first redhead ever to have it“
January 31, 2008 - Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor
It’s how the few have controlled the many, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.
It’s why the ruling bloodlines of all the nations have the lightest skin.
We’re obviously going to have to recognize and come to terms with this if we’re going to make progress as a species.
But they say that the hardest part of a problem is realizing that you have one.
Jeff Miller, Brooklyn, New York, January 7, 2020
If you’d like to be added to this free mailing list, or know someone who would be, please send me a note at [email protected]
You can access these articles online at https://forum.orgones.co.uk/c/positive-changes-that-are-occurring/
