THE COLLAPSE OF SELF-DRIVING CARS
The folks in charge are fighting a furious rearguard action against the collapse of the great Ponzi scheme known as “Technology”, and they’re choking, fuming, pissing, shitting mad about it. And that collapse includes self-driving cars, which are in fact a research and development platform for the Terminator robot program.
The funniest part about the whole scam is that we live in a society where the populace actually believes that google became the premier Terminator robot development company Earth by selling ads in the margins of web pages. On Don Croft’s old forum, someone once hilariously said “Google is the N.S.A.’s clown name”.
Google formally dropped their “Don’t Be Evil” motto in 2018. An agent who was active in the Orgonite community back in its early days once said “the rule of Evil is it has to be in your face.” You have to know you are making a deal with the Devil, and sign it anyway. So Google is being straight-up.
The press for a robot-controlled society is furious and unceasing. In February 2016, Organ of the State “Time Magazine” patted your little head and explained “Why You Shouldn't Be Allowed to Drive”.
In October 2017, the U.K.’s Daily Mail assured “Humans will be banned from driving within next 25 years”. It’s called “social engineering”. It’s what the folks in charge call “The Great Work of Ages”. 25 years is not a long time to them.
The great news is that everyone knows self-driving cars are Evil. That’s why a headline from May 2017 reads “Self-driving cars, 2017 – the technology no one wants”. While another, from the same month, reads “Consumers Don't Really Want Self-Driving Cars, MIT Study”.
In the second headline, they ended it with “MIT Study” to give your subconscious the thin straw of “oh, but that’s just one study!” to grasp. Some percentage of readers will fall for it, every time, a fact that the propagandists know and depend upon.
The honest way to write it would be “MIT concludes consumers don’t really want self-driving cars”, or even “MIT study concludes consumers don’t really want self-driving cars”.
In September 2013, Forbes looked down their nose and snidely said “Most Consumers Say They'll Steer Clear Of Self-Driving Cars, Survey Says”.
Where, as with the previous MIT example, “survey says” gives the subconscious the “but it’s only one study!” straw to grasp. Propagandists know 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.
The author used the general “most” consumers to cover up the far more impactful statistic, which, in journalistic parlance, they’ve “buried” below.
“According to a survey of 1,000 adults conducted by ORC International for the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, only 18 percent of consumers queried said they’d purchase an autonomous vehicle.”
Did you notice that they’ve Satanically inverted it? The headline spoke generally about how many would “steer clear” of self-driving cars. Now, in the first sentence of the article, we’re suddenly talking about how many would purchase one. They figured the rubes would never notice.
The far-more-impactful statistic they gymnastically avoided writing is that 82% of consumers won’t buy a self-driving car.
As an Organ of the State, Forbes has done everything it can to hedge and defray in defense of the hellish, completely-Evil technology that is autonomous vehicles.
An article from June 2015 is headlined “Just Say No to the Driverless Car”.
A Bloomberg.com article from December 2015 deviantly proclaimed “Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw”. The article says “the self-driving car, that cutting-edge creation that’s supposed to lead to a world without accidents, is achieving the exact opposite right now: The vehicles have racked up a crash rate double that of those with human drivers.”
Where “achieving the exact opposite right now” is a quibble that soon those minor glitches will be fixed! “Racking up” the score is a positive thing, positive spin for crash numbers that are, well, piling up.
In January 2016, 45% of people said auto trackers were not worth car insurance discounts.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “unclear”. That’s why an article from January 2016, from the Atlantic, headlined “The Decline of the Driver's License” reads “Fewer people of all ages are getting them, and it's not quite clear why.”
Where “decline” and “fewer” are both general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
In January 2016, mashable presented a fait accompli and intoned “Uber, Lyft drivers know they will be replaced by self-driving cars”. We are the great and powerful Borg.
The same month, Newsweek used the same funereal tone: “What the World Will Look Like Without Drivers”.
In March 2016, huffpost.com shilled “Self-driving Cars and an Underappreciated Impact They Will Bring”. Can you see how “an under appreciated impact” is general? It’s hoped you’ll greedily turn the page, gobble it all down, and have one more box in your pro-self-driving-cars column checked.
In March 2016, AAA wrote a spectacular hit-piece entitled “Three-Quarters of Americans “Afraid” to Ride in a Self-Driving Vehicle”.
Buried way, way down in the article, we learn that 84% of drivers cite trusting their driving skills more than the technology, and “only one-in-five Americans say they would trust an autonomous vehicle to drive itself”.
The author has done what they can to hedge by inserting the general “one in five” in place of the far more impactful “20%”. Further, they’ve Satanically inverted it: the headline of the article is “afraid to ride in a self-driving vehicle”, and here the author has flipped it to “would trust an autonomous vehicle.” They figured the rubes would never notice.
In the headline, the author used the general “three-quarters of Americans”, and the first sentence of the article reads “Three out of four U.S. drivers report feeling “afraid” to ride in a self-driving car, according to a new survey from AAA.”
Where “three out of four” is, once again, general, put forward as a hedge in place of the far more impactful statistic, 75%. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
The headline used the lowest of the anti-technology statistics, and also picked the one they could use in a sneering tone. Pussies are afraid to ride in a self-driving vehicle…
In May 2016, autospies.com waveringly asked “The Technology No One Wants? Study Shows 4 Out 5 People Do NOT Want To Ride In A Self Driving Car”.
That question mark is enough plausible-deniability to immediately pull some percentage of mouth-breathing, wholly-credulous rube readers to conclude that people do, indeed want to ride in a self driving car. The author has hedged by using “4 out of 5” in place of the far more impactful statistic, 80%.
The rejection of self-driving cars is occurring in all the nations. An article from July 2016 said “No one wants to test self-driving cars in Ontario, Canada”.
In July 2016, “Fleet Owner” gasped in disbelief “What if no one is ready for self-driving vehicles?”
In July 2016, “medium.com” thundered “No One Can Stop Driverless Cars — Here's Why”.
“Resistance is futile, we are the great and powerful Borg.”
In July 2016, Fortune wrung its hands and cried “ Mercedes Defends Itself Against Critics of its 'Self-Driving' Car Ads”.
Which was, hilariously, followed by this headline, also from July 2016: “Mercedes-Benz to Stop Running “Self-Driving Car” Ads”.
Put a fork in them, these guys are done.
An article from August 2016, from slate.com, earnestly asks “Tesla says autopilot is saving lives. Should we believe it?”
The long, tedious, queasy hit piece goes on, and on, back and forth on the issue, pretending to be neutral. The story ends with a self-driving car saving a life, and will save some subset of readers from lucidly discerning “Tesla is lying”. It’s how propaganda works. You’ll think think you read a balanced piece, and will in actuality have been led by the nose. You’ll have been manipulated into What To Think, without even knowing it’s happened.
Leaving the fact that the crash rate of autonomous vehicles is twice that of those with human drivers unstated, a June 2019 article from Wired assured that “Self-Driving Cars Will Teach Themselves to Save Lives”.
An article from September 2016 scowls and scolds “Why Putting the Brakes on Self-Driving Cars Is Reckless”.
In September 2016 the hilariously-named propaganda organ “reason.com” slapped its hand on the podium and thundered that “Chicago’s Proposed Ban of Self-Driving Cars Is Dangerous and Protectionist”. Something must be done!
In October 2016, trucks.com described “Autonomous Trucks: A Future Truckers Should Embrace”.
Trucks.com is a State-controlled propaganda outlet, disguised as an independent entity. They are multitudinous, and are used to “shape public opinion”. They tell you “What To Think”, and you believe them.
An article December 2016 widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Will Self-Driving Cars Eliminate Accidents?” When the truth of the matter is that the crash rate of self-driving vehicles is double that of human drivers.
In December 2016, bicycling.com said “Backlash from San Francisco cyclists, and a lack of permits, prompts Uber to move tests of its driverless cars from California to Arizona.”
Where the author has inserted the fraudulent “and a lack of permits” to water it down, to take away the gravity of “Backlash from cyclists prompts Uber to move”.
Every publication, every media outlet a Mouthpiece of the State, a pyramidally-architected organization with a bloodline generational Satanist sitting at the top of it. Welcome to History.
In January 2017 Toyota’s Research Institute said that fully autonomous cars were “not even close”. While in November 2017, State-organ the Seattle Times assured that “Self-driving trucks may be closer than they appear”.
In March 2017, jalopnik.com floated the trial balloon “Maybe Americans Have No Idea What They Want In Self-Driving Cars”. Sickly holding out the hope for conditioning and programming to bring the collapsing situation under control. Jalopnik. Such a cute, not-gummint name! You know, like “google”.
In April 2017, The Detroit News said “Consumer trust in self-driving tech drops”.
Where “drops” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
Self-driving cars have an accident rate twice that of human driven vehicles. Everybody knows that. In May 2017, the witchily-named “mindyourdesicions.com” Satanically inverted it to “How Reckless Pedestrians Could Ruin Self-Driving Cars”.
In July 2017, India announced that they would driverless cars “in order to protect jobs”. They’re not allowed to say anything like “because Terminator robots are the obvious next step, here”, or “due to non-ionizing radiation concerns”, or even “because driverless cars have an accident rate twice that of human-driven vehicles.”
In July 2017, the Washington Post clutched its chest, dropped to a fainting couch, took a pinch of snuff and cried “Why India's ban on self-driving cars is misguided”.
In August 2017, extremetech.com shook its fist and warned “Union May Win Battle Against Self-Driving Trucks, But Not the War”
Because we are the great and powerful Borg.
In August 2017 the generational Satanists at the top of the control pyramids knew the game was collapsing on them, which is why a usa.streetsblog.com article is headlined “Congress and Auto Industry Move to Ban Cities From Regulating Self-Driving Cars.”
In October 2017, washingtonpost.com wrote of “Silicon Valley’s crappiest year on record and the backlash against self-driving cars”.
It’s a hit-piece that singles out “self-driving cars” as a what propagandists call a “lightning rod”. They’re trying to keep the collapse of technology “compartmentalized”, here to just self-driving cars.
In October 2017, venturebeat.com wrung its hands and described “Silicon Valley's year in hell: Harassment, hacks, and hate speech”.
“While it's hard to measure such things precisely, a pretty good argument can be made that 2017 is Silicon Valley's crappiest year on record. And the global tech hub has only itself to blame.”
Where “while it’s hard to measure such things precisely” and “pretty good” are both hedges, put forward to give your subconscious a straw to grasp, however thin. The whole piece is drastically pro-Silicon Valley, in that no one gets harassed, is hacked, or is victimized by hate speech for any legitimate reason. So, therefore, Silicon Valley is the victim. Until you get to the “only has itself to blame”, the Satanic inversion at the end. By that time, your subconscious has moved on, having gobbled one of those earlier hooks.
While controlling the media organs of all the nations in lock-step might at first appear an impressive achievement, it only ends up making things worse for the conspirators when someone such as myself points it out.
In November 2017 the Los Angeles Times warned that “The driverless revolution may exact a political price”. Where “may exact a political price” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
We quickly learn that the State propaganda organ is hedging because “if the White House and Congress don't start addressing the disruption that self-driving vehicles and related automation will cause, economists and political scientists warn Washington may one day face the kind of voter backlash seen in the 2016 election.”
Hedging again, even as they explain it. What kind of backlash, pray? There’s no mention. It’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.
In November 2017, Wired steadfastly ignored the fact that the crash rate of autonomous vehicles is double that of human driven ones and urged “To Save Lives, Deploy Self-Driving Cars As Soon As You Can”.
That same month, RAND explained “Why Waiting for Perfect Autonomous Vehicles May Cost Lives”.
That same month, Popular Science tutted psychotically that “Humans don't know how to drive self-driving cars.” And the scariest thing is that most readers are so ensheepled and self-ashamed that they’ll believe it.
You can see how all the different supposedly unconnected media organizations are working together behind the scenes to work the larger campaign, in this case supporting the Terminator robot development program.