Oldman / Oldman is on Nostr

pro: basic human rights,freedom of opinion,social responsibility, decentralized finance, bitcoin con: nanny states, banks, KYC-exaggeration, career politicians

Last Notes

2024-08-27 20:31:25

I cannot understand why people still vote or lean to the Liberals or the NDP in Canada.
Elections are not about casting the nicest guy or voting for an ideology. Voting is not about following the own path without looking for the direction.
Voting is about the future.
Voting is about the core areas of our life
Voting is how we want our taxes spend
voting is about peace and peace of mind
voting is about freedom
voting is not a beauty competition
voting is not a statement that you like all of the party platform
voting is not a choice for ever just for a few years
voting is a choice of direction regarding the core points
My emphasis is peace, anti Globalism (WEF/UN 2030 goals), against mass immigration and pro security - but nothing in life has value without free speech (that's the reason why I cannot vote for PierrePoilievre and the CPC, because they vote mainly in favour of Bill C-63 which is a deal-breaker to me
#election #Canada #Liberals #NDP #CPC

2024-08-17 15:55:06

That are the priorities Canada and most other western states needs:
1) stop mass imigration, deport illegals - that solves the house shortages and the crime problem
2) Reduce regulation and cut federal bureaucrats by at least 50% - that solves the budget problem
3) stop all spending outside Canada and quit international organisations like Nato, WHO or UN and bring our soldiers home, they have no business in Europe, Africa or Asia
4) Reduce income and corporate taxes not only the senseless carbon tax - that grows the economy and solves the budget problem
5) Add Bitcoin to the treasury and make it equal to the CAD - that restores trust in the Canadian government, increases the value of the CAD and reduces the prices of all imported goods

2024-08-15 15:44:11

- reply

Of course it's not okay, but travelling to russia if you run away a few years earlier isn't smart either

2024-08-13 18:19:51

Media Check
The current conversation between Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk is the ultimate test for the integrity of the media you normally trust. It may cost you 2½ hours to listen to the discussion on X, originally on Twitter, and then compare it with the coverage in tyour preferred media.
I guarantee it's eye-opening and unbelievable!
Is it worth 2½ hours for you to check your information sources for truth and fairness?

2024-08-13 12:45:35

Misinformation
When I read this word, my stomach turns. There is no such thing as neutral information, because every reporter has their own opinion and even if they try to avoid letting it influence them directly, their perspective is shaped by their own opinion.
Let's take a photo of a politician: If I like him, I'll photograph him from the same angle, at eye level or slightly below. If I don't like him, either slightly above or extremely below. The image is influenced by my opinion. Not to mention which moment I capture – there is no "neutral" information.
Or take England: of course, I can make photos/videos of a peaceful park scene and claim everything is calm. Or I film protests from one side that I want to discredit. It's the same for Ukraine: I could also take holiday beach shots on the Black Sea or maybe shoot dying soldiers or civilians, depending on the message I want to convey.
In an article, the language/formulation already determines the effect of the – supposedly identical – content.
But if there is no neutral information, then there can be no "misinformation" either: it's always opinions paired with facts or lies. There is also no "misspoke" like the Democrats now claim about Walz's statements to his unexecuted war campaign. You say the truth or you lie; that's how simple it is.
A slip of the tongue can happen in German between "two - zwei" and "three - drei", a false statement remains a lie.
The right to free speech and opinion presupposes that I have access to ALL statements in order to form my own opinion. But if a government claims to keep certain opinions from me, this is always CENSORSHIP and violates my fundamental rights.
Whether it's the European "Digital Service Act" or Canada's "Bill C-63 Online Harms Act", they give the government the power to determine which information/opinions I receive and, more importantly, which ones I am allowed to express. Such restrictions cannot be justified by referring to child pornography or similar content, as criminal laws already prohibit such activities and therefore no further regulation is necessary.
They serve only to censor publications and address offenses inadequately.
I don't mind reading articles from right-wing weirdos like neo-Nazis or left-wing wackos like Antifa or extreme environmentalists. However, violent actions by these groups must be condemned and prosecuted under criminal law.
Otherwise, I want to form my own opinion from the entire spectrum of statements available.
I will always advocate for everyone to be able to freely express their own opinions – even if I completely disagree with them. It is an essential part of a democratic society that there are different opinions.
In this sense, I appreciate decentralized protocols like Nostr and support Elon Musk's efforts to protect X from censorship. It's an effort to defend human rights against corrupt and ideologically blinded governments and bureaucracies.

2024-08-13 12:39:04

Missinformation
Wenn ich dieses Wort lese, dreht sich mir der Magen um. Es gibt keine neutrale Information, denn jeder Berichterstatter hat seine eigene Meinung und selbst wenn er versucht, diese nicht direkt einfliessen zu lassen, ist sein Blick durch seine eigene Meinung geprägt.
Nehmen wir ein Foto von einem Politiker: wenn ich ihn schätze, fotografiere ich ihn vom gleichen Standpunkt aus, auf Augenhöhe oder leicht von unten – wenn ich ihn nicht mag, entweder leicht von oben oder extrem von unten. Die Bildwirkung ist geprägt von meiner Meinung. Ganz abgesehen davon, welchen Augenblick ich festhalte – es gibt keine „neutrale“ Information. Oder nehmen wir England: natürlich kann ich Fotos/Videos von ein gemütlichen Parkszene machen und behaupten: alles ist ruhig. Oder ich filme Proteste einer Seite, die ich diskreditieren will. Das gleich gilt für die Ukraine: ich kann auch urlaubsgleiche Strandaufnahmen am Schwarzen Meer machen oder halt sterbende Soldaten oder ggf. Zivilisten aufnehmen, je nachdem, welche Botschaft ich transportieren möchte.
In einem Artikel entscheidet schon die Sprache/Formulierung über die Wirkung des – vermeintlich gleichen – Inhalts.
Wenn es aber keine neutrale Information gibt, kann es auch keine „Missinformation“ geben: es sind immer Meinungen gepaart mit Fakten oder Lügen. Es gibt auch kein „misspoke“ wie die Demokraten jetzt über die Walz-Aussagen zu seinem nicht durchgeführten Kampf/Kriegseinsatz behaupten. Man sagt die Wahrheit oder man lügt; so einfach ist das. Ein Versprecher kann im Deutschen zwischen „zwei“ und „drei“ passieren, eine falsche Aussage ist und bleibt eine Lüge.
Das Menschenrecht auf freie Meinungsäußerung und freie Meinung setzt voraus, dass ich ALLE Aussagen kenne um mir eine eigene Meinung zu bilden. Wenn aber eine Regierung sich anmaßt, bestimmte Meinungen von mir fern zu halten, ist dies immer ZENSUR, und verletzt meine Grundrechte.
Ob es nun der Europäische „Digital Service Act“ oder die kanadische „Bill C-63 Online Harms Act“ ist, sie stellen es ins Benehmen der Regierung, welche Informationen/Meinungen ich erhalte und vor allem, welche ich äußern darf. Solche Einschränkungen lassen sich auch mit dem Schutz vor Kinderpornografie oder ähnlichem nicht rechtfertigen, weil bereits Strafgesetze solche gesetzeswidrigen Aktivitäten verbieten und daher keine weitere Regelung erforderlich ist.
Sie dienen daher ausschließlich dazu, Veröffentlichungen zu zensieren und Verstößen unangemessen zu begegnen. Die Anti-Pflichtimpfungskampagne in Kanada mit dem Trucker-Convoy hat gezeigt, wie Regierungen gegen freie Meinungsäußerungen vorgehen: Verhaftungen, Kontensperrungen, Durchsuchungen usw.
Es stört mich nicht, wenn ich Artikel von rechten Spinnern wie Neonazis oder linken Spinnern wie Antifa oder Umweltspinnern lese. Gewaltaktionen dieser Gruppen müssen natürlich unterbunden und strafrechtlich verfolgt werden. Das gleiche gilt für Aufrufe zu Gewaltaktionen.
Ansonsten möchte ich mir aus dem ganzen vorhandenen Spektrum von Aussagen meine eigene Meinung bilden.
Ich werde mich immer dafür einsetzen, dass jeder seine eigene Meinung frei äußern kann – auch wenn ich diese Meinung ganz und gar nicht teile. Es ist elementarer Bestandteil einer demokratischen Gesellschaft, dass es unterschiedliche Meinungen geben muss.
In diesem Sinne schätze ich dezentrale Protokolle wie Nostr und achte Elon Musks Bemühungen, X vor Zensur zu schützen. Es ist ein Einsatz für Menschenrechte gegen korrupte und ideologisch verblendete Regierungen und Bürokratien.

2024-08-13 11:28:05

- reply

Of course the monetary inflation was high under Trump as well, but the combination with failed energy politic and overregulation speed up the consumer prices

2024-08-13 00:25:08

Massive DDOS attack on X to crash the Trump Musk conversation

2024-08-12 22:49:14

- reply

Freedom of speech and opinion is garantued in the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected
The Digital Service Act reduced these right to the state opinion

2024-08-12 21:18:45

- reply

2024-08-12 21:15:30

The European DSA violates basic human rights

2024-08-12 21:07:47

Brainwashed people be mad when you ain't brainwashed.

2024-08-12 21:03:35

Artificial Intelligence? First, we need to conquer natural stupidity!
The current western governments - regardless of their labeling - are all socialist/communist oriented. How can you recognize this:
- Freedom of speech is restricted; laws enabling censorship are passed
In collaboration with the government-controlled press, a "polarization schema" is built, in which politically dissenting individuals are branded as anti-democrats, fascists, or even Nazis in Germany to create social pressure that prevents them from joining the opposition. Additionally, the fear created leads to accepting drastic measures because "the alternative would be worse"
- Expenses explode but are not used for maintaining or improving infrastructure
The administration/bureaucracy is expanded
Schools (even kindergartens in Canada) are misused as indoctrination centers to spread genderism and socialist/communist ideology instead of general education
Taxes are increased
Energy costs are increased by political decisions
Immigrations are enabled/promoted to obtain new voters dependent on social benefits
Wars are supported because the enormous expenses and resulting mandatory tax increases bring more people into dependence on social services, thus suppressing resistance
Extreme minorities are portrayed as normal; even unhealthy sexual preferences like pedophilia are trivialized and normalized as "diverse" - sometimes governments overdo it, as shown by France's example with the Olympic opening
In America, the "Democrats" are neither liberal nor democratic (how else could they simply decide their candidate against the member vote?). In Canada, the "Liberals" are not liberal, as evidenced by their violent approach to Covid critics (who were actually right) around the world. In Europe, most established parties have agreed on a censorship law (dubiously called the Digital Service Act). All governments allow mass immigration, expand bureaucracy, and let energy costs explode due to poor decisions.
Trump, elected with a broad majority of Republicans as a candidate, is accused of being anti-democratic. The German AfD is ostracized as a "Nazi" party, even though between 10 and 20 million Germans support their government-critical politics.
As long as almost half the citizens in these countries don't recognize this, it's more important to tackle natural stupidity through enlightenment than to create artificial intelligence, because I wouldn't want AI and KI to be programmed by moral free communists.

2024-08-12 21:01:10

It is important to express one's opinion under any circumstances and not be discredited as an outsider, radical, right-wing, or even a Nazi for criticizing mass immigration, transgenderism, and the indoctrination of our children in schools. It is also legitimate and legal to demand consequences such as resignation and prosecution from politicians who have lied to us during the pandemic and caused serious psychological harm to our children for political reasons, or to call on politicians who have enriched corporations at their own (or family) expense to resign.
The majority of our citizens appreciate and respect our culture, and we should not be dictated by small minorities. The often-cited tolerance was derived from the Latin "tolerare," meaning to endure or bear – tolerating trans figures is tolerant, but not celebrating and normalizing them! What we must endure does not have to be taught in schools.
The developments in England and Ireland show how mass immigration from foreign cultures that do not intend to integrate into our Western culture leads to the decay of our own values. Radical adherents of Islam who want to enforce Sharia law here destroy our community and should not be tolerated either. Our courts have determined that there is no reason to grant asylum, for example, to Syrians, so we can deport hundreds of thousands of illegal and application-holders without having to feel guilty.
That our government financially supports left-wing groups to discredit patriotic movements should give us all pause... The slogans and humanly contemptuous goals adopted by incompetent politicians and champagne Communists from the WEF will never prevail in the long run against people who love their homeland.
George Orwell already said, "Patriotism is mostly a matter of hating one's own class, but always of hating foreigners."

2024-08-12 20:58:07

Gedanken zu Europa
Es begann mit dem Römischen Vertrag 1957 als sich sechs Staaten zu einer Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft zusammengeschlossen haben. Die bereits bewährte 1951 gegründete Kohle und Stahl Union wurde ausgeweitet, um nationale Regelungen anzupassen und den Außenhandel zu erleichtern.
Zu diesem Zeitpunkt waren die Mitgliedsstaaten noch souverän und die Erleichterungen nutzten allen.
Erst der Maastricher Vertrag, der 1993 in Kraft trat, hat das Bürokratieungetüm wie wir es heute kennen installiert um den Bedenken Frankreichs ein vereinigtes Deutschland könnte sonst zu dominierend werden entgegen zu kommen – die EU war also von Anbeginn darauf ausgerichtet, Deutschland zu schwächen. Ob der damalige Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl das nun in Kauf genommen oder begrüßt hat, weiss man nicht.
Es gab nie eine kulturelle Gemeinsamkeit Europas – abgesehen von den Grundfesten des christlichen Abendlandes. Im Laufe der Zeit wurden aber so viele Länder in die EU aufgenommen, dass es keinerlei natürliches Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mehr gibt: Ein Estländer aus Talinn hat weder mit einem Basken aus Bilbao in Spanien noch mit einem Malteser irgendeinen Brauch oder eine Historie gemain. Eine Irin aus Cork findet keine historische Übereinstimmung mit einer Bulgarin aus Warna oder einer Zypriotin aus Strovolos.
Die globalistischen Ideen basieren also nicht auf gewachsener Geschichte oder übereinstimmenden Brauchtum sondern nur auf politischem Kalkül.
Wenn wir ganz ehrlich zu uns selbst sind, ist schon Deutschland mehr ein politischer Zusammenschluss, der lediglich schon solange besteht, dass wir einen gewissen Patriotismus entwickeln konnten. Ein Westfale hat kaum Gemeinsamkeiten mit einem Franken, eine Ostfriesin kaum mit einer Erzgebirgerin, oder?
Sozialisten und Kommunisten haben aber immer ihren politischen Bund dem regionalen Zusammenhalt übergeordnet. Und genauso haben sie die Ideologien in das World Economic Forum und die EU-Verwaltung/Regierung übertragen.
Mit dem Wegnehmen des regionalen Zusammenhalts werden die Menschen leichter für Ideologien formbar und die stetige Aufnahme weiterer Länder hat dies bis zur Rückhaltlosigkeit diversifiziert. Hatten die sechs Gründungsstaaten noch Gemeinsamkeiten, so gibt es in dem jetzigen Moloch keinerlei Zusammenhalt der Völker.
Die wirtschaftlichen Vorteile wurden im Laufe der durch die sinnfreie Überregulierung vollkommen konterkariert, so dass es heute nach meinem Dafürhalten keinerlei Vorteil mehr gibt.
Die Nachteile sind aber so gewaltig, denn die Bürokratiegiganten arbeiten mit der Programmatik des WEF – also gegen den Normalbürger für eine kleine elitäre Gruppe (in Amerika würden wir Deep-State sagen) und scheuen auch nicht davor zurück, uns in den dritten Weltkrieg zu führen.
Mit der bewusst herbeigeführten Masseneinwanderung fremder Kulturen wurden auch letzte etwaige Ansätze von Gemeinsamkeiten (beispielsweise durch ähnliche Religion) zerstört. Damit ist der Widerstand der Bürger gegen die weiter geplanten Einschränkungen (Ausweitung des Digital Service Act) einfacher abzuwenden, in dem man über die staatlichen oder links-ideologischen Medien bürgerlichen Widerstand (Covid-Mandate, Masseninvasion) als politisch motiviert rechts-radikal abqualifiziert!
Um es zusammenzufassen: Europa hat sich selbst abgewirtschaftet.

2024-08-12 20:57:10

Thoughts on Canadian Politics
Since the ruling party under Justin Trudeau took power, it's hard for me to say "Liberals" because this party has nothing to do with liberalism; instead, they implement the human rights-abusing socialist-communist agenda of the World Economic Forum or UN 2030 plans. Yes, since then, Canada has been going downhill. During the last election, Trudeau received votes from fewer than 20 percent of eligible Canadian voters, yet he managed to hold onto power thanks to the Canadian electoral system and the support of the socialist NDP.
The policies of open borders, suppression of free speech through emergency declarations and censorship laws, drug legalization, genderism, war-mongering and war support, and most notably the increasing efforts to shift child education into state hands (indoctrination from kindergarten, transgender affirmation) - coupled with a record level of debt - have taken Canada so far away from its people that over two-thirds of Canadians want change.
The NDP recognizes this too, but continues to endorse Trudeau's coalition government, which has extended the election time to secure higher pensions for many parliamentarians. Corruption and irresponsible handling of taxpayers' money have become so brazen that even caught culprits are not held accountable.
The Conservative Party (CPC) naturally profits from this development and has good approaches in specific areas like reducing taxes (carbon, food), tackling corruption, deregulating certain sectors.
However, the critical observer will unfortunately find that CPC only offers a lesser evil; they don't provide genuine solutions on the crucial issues such as ending and reversing extreme mass immigration (Canada leads globally on a percentage base in this regard), which has triggered a housing crisis, bankrupted social programs, and doubled crime rates.
Manipulation of children against their parents' wishes, neglect of children's welfare for ideological purposes, supporting foreign wars and international organizations despite severe budget deficits, and one of the world's highest tax ratios - these are just some examples where CPC lacks an authentic alternative. Their leader Pierre Poilievre even voted with half of the conservatives in favor of a censorship law.
The "Bill of Rights" apparently matters only to the CPC when it suits them. Sadly, 40% of Canadians now support CPC because they wish changing parties.
The only party consistently addressing these crucial issues is the Peoples Party (PPC), which split from CPC five years ago. Their recent convention in Montreal demonstrated clear stances and opposition to WEF agendas, but they cannot hide that with just 2-3% supporter backing, even a doubling of votes would make parliamentary entry unlikely.
Sadly, their leadership persists in permanently attacking the CPC, adopting the same level-less style as the ruling coalition. A shame indeed.
Canada will surely leave the wrong leftist path with CPC, but it will be hard to find real solutions.

2024-08-12 20:39:40

https://nostrcheck.me/media/f1e82d08ffa6a5dca23af6aa379972f9a982421edff49053725401eb483bdf13/b56073786d509a5fe14b6245813a6cb669e7a11e63fe2fca5da32d076490d1bc.webp