Respectfully I'd like to point out that the author of this post didn't watch the video to which he's essentially replying to, and therefore has missed the mark in terms of addressing ANY of the points/references made in that video. Therefore I think this post should just be viewed in isolation as a view of someone who has an emotional connection or an aligned worldview with that of Musk.
If you want to watch the video and critique the content it's posted here: https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@jonboka/gsyrlmxc
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
True, I only read the text of your post and it inspired me to write this.
It is not primarily a direct response to your video.
You've addressed me and the post directly in the opening line of this post, referring to it as a "hit piece", and that you are responding to it. That strikes me as a pretty direct response, except that it isn't because you didn't view the content in order to make one
Its direct in that there is a lot of negativity about Musk of which your post and the comments on this post are an example.
My post is an attempt to provide a different view - from someone that actually has personal knowledge of what motivates him.
All the links to internet material are no substitute for personal contact.
Yes, but it's negativity which had context which you didn't bother to consume before replying to a "hit piece", this wasn't someone else's video, it was one I made (full sources detailed here: https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@jonboka/lbwkfdwj) and posted to 3speak which was the basis of the post.
What was the nature of the 'personal contact'? Sounds important, but you didn't really elude to that in your article.
"Elon Musk's prime motivation and historic mission is to make humans a multi-planetary species by creating human civilisation on Mars.
Everything Musk does is directed toward that goal."
Perhaps they all are, interested to hear your thoughts, perhaps you could call in some of that personal contact to find out for us.
You seem to be opposed to the research and development of technologies that could be or have been abused.
That approach would lead us back into caves because ALL technology can be abused.
I am opposed to the abuse of technology, not technology itself.
There is nothing wrong with mRNA technology per se - it was the spending billions of pubic funds and then forcing of a poorly tested experimental mRNA jab onto people that was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with researching brain-machine interfaces. There are many good uses of this technology. It is the potential for them to be abused to control people that needs to be carefully monitored. Although the mass manipulation of human psychology by Facebook etc has already had the same impact.
There is nothing wrong with robots either for the same reasons.
Technology can be used for good or evil.
I also don't abide by your "guilt by association" arguments.
Just because Musk has some business (out of hundreds) or social connections with Bill Gates does not mean they have the same agenda.
Its the same problem with saying that anyone who ever went to a WEF event or was named a YGL is automatically labelled as following the WEF agenda when very clearly their actions show the exact opposite. Musk and Putin are in this category.
The fact is that the WEF invited every prominent business and political leader.
Its the same with Epstein. Just about everyone prominent had some association. But its only those who actually fell for his traps and did illegal things with children that are guilty.
The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia adopted your arguments and murdered everyone prominent in their society and stunted technological development. This is where this attacks on all elites (rather than just the bad ones) leads.