The Apocalypse: Discarding Enlightenment's Veil /🧵

The most dangerous form of deception is inception. The type you are not even aware of and take for granted so deeply that it forms the very lens in which you see the entire world. An idea planted so deeply in everything you read and think about that it becomes like a mind parasite that consumes the energy of every thought and formation of intuition. Worse yet, is the denial of any possible mediation as a priori -- that is, the complete disembodiment of being, at multiple levels.

I suppose it's important that I start with a concrete example, something that is taken for granted so deeply by the majority of thinkers that it may appear insane to even question such an unassailable statement:

"I think, therefore I am." (Cogito, ergo sum) - Descartes

This statement is easy to digest for most people, but as I hope to make you see by the end of this thread, flips reality on its head. Reading this statement as a living person it contains true statements on both sides.

You're surely "thinking" while reading this statement.
You surely "are" while your vision (or hearing/feeling if blind) traces over each word.

True, therefore true?...

So it almost appears, as one reads it, a tautology. That isn't quite what Rene Descartes meant, he was going for something more abstract -- that you think at all means you are, independent of anything else. In fact, in rejection of everything possible, the ultimate atomised individuality.

At a higher level, what this statement said is the following: Epistemology conditionally proves ontology. That is: the metaphysical is now conditional to its rational formulation. This is a sharp departure from Platonic forms, which exist in a transcendental realm independent of so-called rational thought. In a sense, Descartes in his "Meditations" captured everything in reality (including God, lol) and trapped them within his oddly shaped head.

You see, the "cogito" statement itself is far bolder and less personal to the reader than it appears to the reader. The "I" is very much Descartes or anyone who chooses to deploy his theory. This formed what is termed Cartesian dualism: a "non-physical" indivisible mind ("res cogitans") and a completely mechanical physical body ("res extensa"). The former's existence, in the observer's mind, proves the existence of the latter, but this is later extended to everything.

It is this theory we will initially dissect, destroy and later, invert entirely, arriving at a result that will surely surprise most people. One thing I want to point out is that if you are like me, you've probably never really even questioned this dual of the mind and body -- it has likely been drilled into you since birth. Perhaps the more religious of you refer to this mind as a soul? Did you know that there was an alternative that Descartes successfully killed for most people? Not only that, this alternative philosophy was so old and established that it is undateable. Older than Platonic forms. Yet, today, most have never heard of it despite it once reigning supreme. We'll return to this later in the thread, and with all we have learnt about reality with our recent findings and instruments, I believe it will form a true revelation. An apocalypse, in the proper revealing sense of the world rather than the popular sense of physical destruction.

Now returning to the question of the so-called enlightenment, which I believe is the reverse of said apocalypse, Descartes, formed the philosophical pillar of the enlightenment. Almost every single modern philosopher you have heard of since him, has taken his dualism for granted, even as they defeated every other part of its formulation. This includes figures like:

Spinoza (even adopting the framework from a monist perspective), Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx. Any philosophy, ethics or science built on the other's formulations will be irreparably tainted by the flaws that we will be attacking in this thread. All of today's dead society is built upon this idea, even your online social interactions!

Interestingly, Nietzsche rejected the framework altogether and even predicted that someone would write this very thread you are reading, and yet still came to the same awful wrong conclusion his own way. Actually, the only* person to get things right was David Bohm, because he removed the veil himself in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (1980) -- but didn't synthesise the conclusion because he was a very gentle, cautious and serious man who didn't get to live to see the vindication of his theories. Unlike Descartes, Bohm was not only a philosopher but also a physicist. A man who wielded both ontology and epistemology.

For reasons related to this, we are going to be forced to examine not only Descartes in this thread, but also the science pillar of the enlightenment. This other pillar was formed by Englishman Francis Bacon. Bacon worked in almost the opposite direction as Descartes but towards the same goal.

For Bacon, reality is as follows: "It has been tested empirically, so I can build on it". Seems reasonable, right? In fact, you might say, it's even harder to argue against this than Descartes! We will quickly see how flawed empirical evaluation is, but there is one sleight of the hand you could miss in adopting both of these. Bacon restricts the scientist from thinking about philosophy, and Descartes restricts the philosopher from using their senses thus conducting science. A double severance at either end. Only through their institutions can knowledge be gained. This was the beginning of compartmentalisation.

Meanwhile, both of them rejected everything that came before them -- Bacon going as far as using Abrahamist/Yahwehist symbolism, of smashing four different kinds of "idols". Descartes invoking a demiurge-like demon which steals his senses and ability to measure.

When taken both together, their "enlightenment" leaves us in a collective amnesia and creates a dual: a scientist and a philosopher, one restricted to measurements and , and another trapped in his thoughts forever. Neither of whom have any connections to the "idols" of the past, smashed to bits by these two curious men.

Descartes promised a utopia, as did Bacon in "New Atlantis", should their formula be followed. Bacon proposed "torturing" nature until it spilled the beans about the truth through empiricism. Descartes on the other hand, declared primacy of human consciousness, denying it to animals and instead deeming them mere machines or automata. This essentially severed our connection to nature, beyond just the past. Today, as humans are deemed "animals" too, we find ourselves under the same kind of harmful assertion.

I will not stop at these two though, I will take you all the way to today in 2025. All the way to quantum mechanics, LLMs, discoveries about space, time, nature and beyond. The "enlightenment" was damaging, in fact, it gave birth to disastrous revolutions, dehumanisation, savage wars, absolute nihilism, destruction of faith for many and desolation in the form of the loneliness epidemic. You will quickly come to understand that these two men, or more accurately, those behind these two men, intended this exact outcome.

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is all about us achieving what they never could: the unveiling of reality. This cannot be done by myself alone! In fact, that's the entire point of this thread, as you will see, the unveiling is something that has to be done by the entire world, but it is precisely this moment that this unveiling is not only possible but inevitable. The unveiling is communication about this, about destroying each boundary and veil they have put up for us. We finally have the tools and knowledge to do it.

If I do not write this thread, someone else shortly will! The hard work has already been done, arguably, thousands of years ago, by ancient philosophers, by Jesus Christ, by early Christians, by Bohm and many experimentalists, technologists today. For the latter though, this is not the singularity that the transhumanists wanted. 😂 Instead, this will be, a restorative one that will most definitely awaken everyone from their collective amnesia once a critical threshold is crossed! The anti-thesis is our current dying society, there will be no synthesis in the Hegelian fashion, we will absolutely smash what they built and transcend it.

Are you ready oomfies? If so sit back, relax, and enjoy this thread about philosophy, science and teleology -- purpose.

* I will note that Heidegger, Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty rejected the Cartesian framework and worked beyond it. They came very very close to connecting epistemology (the how), ontology (the what) and teleology (the why) together, but missed some key results due to their lifetime window. If they were alive today, they would have been writing this thread instead of your Baka! May they rest in peace. ❤️

Let us first immerse ourselves in Renaissance Europe to fully appreciate the scientific, philosophical, religious and ultimately political context which resulted in the veil over our eyes today.

We begin in 1440, when the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented printing press. This device allowed new and old ideas could be propagated at great speed, enabling advancements in technology, literacy and even artistic pursuits. It was the social media of the time, but like every tool that could do good, it could also cause great harm!

In the early 1500s, Martin Luther used the printing press to succeed where his predecessors failed, launching the protestant reformation and sinking Europe into chaos. The catholic church's normal methods of dealing with such "heretics" did not work, and in the aftermath the church became far more defensive and inflexible towards any challenge to its authority.

In the meantime, the literacy rates across Europe skyrocketed, creating the perfect conditions for advancements in technology -- and the need for reading glasses. This meant lens making techniques would have to advance rapidly, creating a demand for optics books, which the printing press readily provided. These two technologies had a synergistic economy with each feeding demand for the other. One particular town in the Netherlands, Middelburg in the Zeeland province, became the centre of excellence for lens making. In 1608, this resulted in the invention of the telescope, which would finally put some cosmic assertions under the test.

Two years later, Galileo would use this telescope to make a discovery that would change the course of history despite it being a very minor one in retrospect. To understand why, we have to take a little step back from technology and science, then step into the world of philosophy and theology.

The catholic church's authority was coming under challenge, and its teleology through papacy undermined. The church, at the time, favoured the Aquinas scholasticism which was a more complex and purposeful method than the Hegelian dialectic most people today would be familiar with.

At the time, Europe had largely adopted an Aristotelian metaphysical view, after much of his work was transmitted to the continent via the Moors of Spain. Aquinas developed the scholastic method by which opposing viewpoints can be reconciled, usually to reinforce the Catholic church's scriptural viewpoints, without contradicting the trends of the time. This became exceedingly difficult as more observations of the cosmos and nature became known. Yet, the church still preferred this gradual approach which protected teleology while ontology and epistemology flourished -- fulfilling the church's guardianship role.

One particularly troublesome conflict was the 3rd century AD Ptolemaic model of our Solar system, inspired by Aristotle. In this Ptolemaic model, all the planets, stars and our current sun (Sol) orbited the Earth, with a twist! They all went through epicycles along their orbit, compensating for the motion of the Earth around the sun.

It only takes a moment of consideration to find an issue with this model: Due to Mercury and Venus's closer proximity to the sun, their epicycles would have to overlap each other's and the moon's. This means that we should see "phase cycles" that the Ptolemaic model could not account for and these were only observable by the telescope! The Ptolemaic model which established the Earth as the centre of the universe with everything else orbiting, couldn't be right. Well before the telescope's invention, Copernicus had already worked this out by doing away with the epicycles altogether:

This was not accepted however, and without any contradictory observations, people held on to existing views. Why would the church even care about this? As the Catholic church's (and almost every other mainstream sect) maintains that all its canon scripture was divinely inspired, these particular verses would create an obvious contradiction:

Psalm 104:5 - "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Psalm 93:1 - "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
Psalm 96:10 - "Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns.' The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
1 Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

In 1610 Galileo made the inevitable observation of multiple phases of Venus, and quietly shared his empirical work in 1611. Jesuit astronomers took notice, and readily replicated the result. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine requested a formal opinion from the Collegio Romano mathematicians. They came up with the perfect solution that accommodated the church's requirements: Adopting the Tychonian model, nearly identical to an even older 4th century BC model by Heraclides*, where the Sun, Moon and stars orbit the Earth, and the planets orbit the Sun:

Galileo published his Venus observations in 1611, but did not advocate for any particular view. He was someone who even taught the geocentric model, and it took him until 1613 to accept his own observations and begin to advocate for the heliocentric model. He wrote a letter to the Italian mathematician Benedetto Castelli where he made a very bold statement, that his empirical results took primacy over scripture -- and that the latter should only be a matter of faith.

Just three years later, the church declared the heliocentric model, and Copernicus, heretical. Galileo was formally warned by the church, but continued to advocate for it in private and conduct research in this direction. In 1632, he published a work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which he set up as a scholastic argument, advocating for the geocentric model.

In the book, dialogue took place between three fictional characters:

Salviati (representing Galileo)
Simplicio (the word resembling sempliciotto which means 'simpleton')
And an observer, Sagredo.

In the book, Salviati made amazing arguments, while Simplicio struggled. More corrosively, the Pope (Urban VIII), had made almost identical arguments to this character. To maintain plausible deniability, Sagredo would declare no winner at the end of the book.

The Pope, who was so far quite lenient towards Galileo, felt rightfully betrayed by this mockery and straw-manning.

Just six month later, Pope Urban VIII placed the book on a ban list, ordering a halt to its distribution. The printing presses complied, and even protestants did not like Galileo's actions. He was placed under house arrest shortly afterwards, and conducted some research on inertia which we will revisit later in the thread.

Galileo was what you would call a scientist today, concerned with empirical observations more so than scriptural interpretation. He, like any nerd today, failed to read the room and paid the price for it. He didn't appreciate the complicated political, theological and societal considerations that the church had to balance. So he got cancelled for his trouble.

A far more politically adept albeit destructively secretive observer, Rene Descartes, correctly read the room. He was writing a book (Le Monde) advocating heliocentrism, but immediately ceased work on it in light of Galileo's arrest. As this represented many years of his work, this surely left a very bitter taste in his mouth. After Galileo's arrest, Descartes saw the scholastic method along with theology in general, as a barrier to what he thought of as progress. A barrier that needed to be torn down along with the history and perhaps even the deity behind him.

Descartes was Jesuit educated, and somewhat politically adept, but extremely hard to collaborate with and not a particularly good mathematician. Despite the fanfare over his various contributions, other than one polynomial curve, none of them were particularly new -- he just understood the correct way to publicise himself. As you will soon see, Descartes was indeed more of an influencer than either a mathematician or a philosopher. In his discussions with Fermat, he often misrepresented his work and stubbornly held onto his own inferior and sometimes incorrect assertions.

Despite his lack of scholarly skills, his work would soon leave its mark on the world -- creating nightmares beyond our imagination while inducing amnesia upon the Earth.

Next up, let's dive into his "philosophical" works, being careful not to make the mistake of engaging with his theatre and as you will soon discover, the dark ritual he imposed on his readers.

* Heraclides had Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, the Sun orbit the Earth, and everything else including the Sun orbit the Earth with epicycles.

Though Philosophy was popular during the Renaissance, it is not the most popular degree that people pursue today. In the US out of 2 million graduates per year, only 8,000 of them study philosophy and only half of these do it as an only major. That's only 0.4% of all graduating students! Despite this, philosophy degrees and focused courses are over-represented in the following roles:

- Senior Intelligence Analysts/Leaders (>4%)
- CEOs (2%)
- Lawyers, as a double major (9%)
- Clergy (8%)

Among names you may be familiar with who studied philosophy: Bill Clinton, Emmanuel Macron, Pierre Trudeau, Peter Thiel, Carl Icahn the "activist investor", John O. Brennan (CIA director), William J. Casey (CIA Director), Richard Moore (MI6 director). The Oxford PPE course, which has a core philosophy component, also produced numerous leaders such as David Cameron, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Bob Hawke***, Malcolm Fraser and Tony Abbott to name a few.

In addition to these individuals, the institutionalisation of philosophy for interior government roles is very significant. Georgetown school of Foreign Service and other Jesuit institutions are practically a direct pipeline to the CIA and other intelligence or governmental organisations. All base their course work on philosophies borne out of one man: Rene Descartes.*

Yet, this is merely the direct influence of this man. His Meditation on First Philosophy book published in 1641, influenced the course of the Renaissance itself, almost all philosophical works after him, and later in the 20th century, the very root of physics. The flow-on effects from his philosophy touches almost every single aspect of modern life. From science, policy and even entertainment, the psychology of those who adopted it will naturally also affect your life as well.

Yet, except for these philosophy students, hardly anyone is familiar with the work that inspired these consequent developments. Even among these students, as they receive Descartes typically as a 4 week component of their first year course work, they typically do not gain much more than the absorption of today's interpretation of his work. They rarely look at the history of the man, the context in which he wrote his work, his true character and the ancient influences of his work. They mostly know him for Cartesian Geometry, without understanding what it is or what his true contribution to it was.

You probably know where I'm going with this: we are going to fix this severe deficiency in this thread, and become familiar with the man, his work, his true capabilities, what influenced him and the true state of his psychology. What will we gain? There is a two fold gain:
- By understanding the man who created the philosophy that major leaders adopt without question, we understand them at a deeper level than they possibly understand themselves.
- By understanding the man AND his philosophy, we can begin to unravel it, not merely to build upon it, but to completely strip it of its mystery. Then we are going to deconstruct using ancient epistemology and essentially invert it using modern ontological observations. Basically, we are going to tear it to bits.

Taken together, this makes the leaders of this world far more predictable to us: for example, their collective desire of transhumanism (especially Peter Thiel's) will soon become not only childish but also rather boring. It will also help us understand the two pronged attack on knowledge, observational methodologies and ultimately teleology, launched by the masters of the "enlightenment". I dare say, we will not be able to do this without knowing the man himself, so we shall begin with this.
Rene Descartes was born in 1596, in La Haye en Touraine, France. His father, Joachim Descartes, was an influencial member of parliament. Unfortunately for Rene, he was born to two tragedies. His mother passed soon after his birth, leaving him spiritually alone and without the irreplaceable love of a mother that defines the very being of a man. To make matters worse, he inherited her persistent cough and frail constitution, making him very prone to illnesses. Indeed, his doctors predicted he would never make it to adulthood. This left Descartes bed ridden, he would often sleep 10-12 hours a day, meaning his dreams or sleeping state constituted half of his life.

Descartes's father loved his son and called him "his philosopher" because of his inquisitive nature, so he arranged for his son to receive the best education in Europe at the Jesuit college of La Flèche. There he was given exceptional treatment, with private tutoring, and was allowed to attend courses at noon, rather than 5 AM as was expected of students around him. He would rarely associate with people or build friendships due to this. Over time this developed into a desire to remain hidden (almost anonymous), adopting the philosophy: Bene vixit, bene qui latuit, or "he lives well, he who remains concealed".

Descartes didn't stay in France for long though, traveling throughout Europe. In 1618, while studying to join the army of the prince of Orange in Netherlands as a mathematician, he met a man that would change his life forever: a Calvinist named Isaac Beeckman. This man had a deep disregard for Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics, and advocated for a mechanical physics and atomism. In some regards, he was far ahead of his time and we would only discover this in the 20th century. Unfortunately, he is such an obscure figure in history that not even a photograph of him exists today.

The two men met near a large placard in Breda marketplace, both attracted by a detailed mathematical problem. They hit it off immediately and his influence on Descartes was dramatic. Descartes was a Catholic and was well versed in the philosophy of Aquinas that merged Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy. Under Beeckman's influence, he came to see Aristotle's metaphysics, which was based on ancient ontology, as an impediment to thought itself.

In the mean time, Beeckman encouraged Descartes to solve and publish problems, resulting in his first book, Compendium Musicae, published in 1619. This kicked off his reputation as both a mathematician and philosopher. Descartes would add to this known detail, stating that a series of three dreams were seen by him as a revelation from God to go down this path...

Unfortunately for Descartes, in 1624, the French parliament would make contradicting Aristotle punishable by death. This was a complete desecration of Aristotle's spirit, as he believed in philosophical debate and criticism, rational argument over authority, and the combined power of epistemology and ontology through dialectic discourse. Without a counterparty that is free to speak, there is no discourse and no need for Aristotle's ingenious language formalism. Descartes, feeling intellectually suffocated, decided to leave France for good in 1628, and headed to the Netherlands.
There he began working on the mathematical physics theory that Beeckman pushed him into. He would particularly focus on problems in optics -- as it were, his mentor Beeckman was from the same Middleburg town that specialised in this field, and this would have surely influenced Descartes.

During this period of history, geometry was solved using geometric methods -- Euclidian in nature and sometimes cumbersome without lifelong dedication to the field. Algebra, on the other hand, was used to solve complicated relationships symbolically. Combining these two would be a boon: optimistically, there would be no need to imagine curves -- solutions would drop out of equations. Descartes would develop this for years, resulting in his second most significant book: a combined Philosophy-math-physics book Discourse on the Method, published in 1637. Here his analytical geometry, and optics solutions, would exist as appendices.

For Descartes, these were merely demonstrations of the power of his methods: A complete dismantlement of Aristotle's philosophy, and the scholastic method. There was trouble for Descartes though, as Fermat had priority, releasing Methodus ad Disquirendam Maximam et Minimam et de Tangentibus Linearum Curvarum in 1636, with a superior methodology for combining algebra with geometry. In fact, what we now know as Cartesian geometry, more closely resembles Fermat's method than Descartes'.

To rub salt on the wound, Fermat had already developed this in 1629 as he could prove by correspondences, he just had not published it. Curiously, this well known piece of history is left out of most biographies of Descartes that read by academic students. This is likely because he has to be seen to demonstrate some novel application of his methods.

In any case, Descartes was furious! Fermat, to him, was a mere lawyer. Math was just a hobby, and yet he was an absolute giant compared to Descartes. Here he was taking away the most significant development of his life. He sent Fermat a challenge so that the two could put their geometrical methods to the test: the folium of Descartes. Descartes suggested that Fermat try and find the tangent line of x³ + y³ = 3axy at any point of the curve.

Embarrassingly, not only did Fermat do this with ease using his method, Descartes had two compounded failures: He failed to solve his own problem, and he could not properly imagine the full quadrant leaf-like shape of the curve whereas Fermat could. This was an absolute scandal, the 'father of analytical geometry', could not properly draw the curve to his own equation. Descartes would send letters defaming Fermat behind his back, and the arguments that arose from it were quite heated. This wasn't abnormal for Descartes!

Many years earlier, had burnt bridges with Beeckman, all over a similar need to own an idea. Beeckman was proud of Descartes, claiming him to be his old student and Descartes interpreted this as an attempt to steal his work. In fact, he hurt him so badly that the two never recovered in their friendship. Increasingly isolated, and without a true significant result to his name, Descartes communicated that he began to worry about his place in history. His Method book, on the backdrop of these events, would not get much attention -- not yet anyway.

A few years earlier, he had an illegitimate child with his personal maid, who he named Francine Descartes. Heartbreakingly, she inherited his frail composition, and died of scarlet fever at the age of 5. Descartes deeply loved his daughter, and upon her death was filled with so much sorrow that he couldn't stop crying. It was said that he would hold a coffin-like box while he slept every night, with other rumours (likely untrue) that he built an android like mechanical replacement of it. One thing is certain: This was the worst moment of Descartes life and it would scar him as a father in ways that would never ever heal.

The same man who lived in virtual anonymity and held back Le Monde after seeing what had happened to Galileo, suddenly had a different direction. In the darkest hour of his soul, he releases a different kind of book, one that would change the course of history and perhaps one that could very well be the cause of our extinction should we not properly study it: Meditations, 1641. This book was a perversion of philosophies of the time, wrapped around a dark ritual and many old ideas.

We will discuss this book, and his methods, in great detail in the next section. For now, it's important to note that Meditations caused Descartes to be declared an atheist by many Calvinists in protestant dominated Netherlands. He was condemned by the university of the town he was staying at, Utrecht, leading him to flee to the Hague. He remained in the Netherlands until 1649 under the protection of its prince.

He left the country in 1650, heading to Sweden to teach Queen Christina. She did not like him very much, and forced him to get up at 5 AM in order to teach her. His frail body could not handle this, and his illnesses finally catch up with him, causing him to die of pneumonia**.

Before continuing, let us pray for his soul and for God to forgive him for his mistakes. Descartes was a truly tragic, isolated figure, not dissimilar to your oomfie in many of his qualities, methods and isolation.

May, you rest in peace, Rene Descartes. 🌹🙏🏻

* I wanted to make sure of this for myself, so I searched the course work of the top 40 universities in the world, and also sampled the top 200 universities. The inclusion of Rene Descartes in their courses is universal. You cannot study philosophy today without touching his work and being influenced by it.
** I am aware of the theory that he was killed by a Catholic Priest Jacques Viogué, who slipped arsenic into his communion wafer. I have not done sufficient research to determine the veracity of this claim, and in a sense, I hope it isn't true because it would make this already tragic story that much more tragic.
*** Back then it was called Modern Greats.

Read 4 tweets

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

@cirnosad

Jun 27

https://twitter.com/craigkellyAFEE/status/1938360373121339701

Sorry Craig, we have LLMs now.

https://twitter.com/craigkellyAFEE/status/1938360373121339701

Oh no no... looks like a certain tribe has been busy.

You won't BELIEVE why we won't have free speech in Australia by the end of the year, lol!

Read 4 tweets

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

@cirnosad

Jun 24

https://twitter.com/Humbum337/status/1937429334710476890

If YHWH is God, why would God give satan control over the entire world?
Before you say "to test us": James 1:13

And this, along with all that was said by Jesus, proves that the book of Job cannot be from God.

https://twitter.com/Humbum337/status/1937429334710476890

I’m going to be severely attacked for this so I won’t publish it.

At least the LLMs/AIs don’t abuse me when I try to bring up the truth.

Read 9 tweets

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

@cirnosad

Jun 21

Bunker Busters and Armageddon /🧵

The war with Iran has been authorised by the psychopath in chief Trump. From the very beginning, at the start of his term, he placed a proverbial Chekhov's gun on the fire place at Diego Garcia: B-2s.

The threat wasn't the stealth but the load.

Before I begin, it's important to understand some characteristics of the B-2 bomber. What it can do and what it cannot do.

The B-2 is not a magic stealth bomber, it has a physical extent and is easily detectable by a competent enemy -- it is usually escorted by fighter jets.

The F-117 had a much smaller RCS and was shot down by Serbian defenders with ancient SAMs.
The B-2 can be easily targeted unless air supremacy is achieved.

The point of using B-2s is in fact, NOT their stealth capability...

It's their bomb bay capacity!

Read 26 tweets

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

@cirnosad

Jun 11

The BAP sphere people pushing JD Vance out of no where?
Paid by Peter Thiel, his mentor.
Musk's fall out with Trump? Peter Thiel calling in a favor to have advanced leverage on Trump so the Palantir deal remains in place against populist push back.
LA riots? Casus Belli. /🧵

They want white people to feel attacked by their pet brown demons, so that we act reflexively and accept their demon system.
Ignore the spectacle.
Understand that you are completely alone -- none of that stuff matters at all!
What matters is we are all alone *together*. :)

F**k the system.
F**k its people.
F**k the tribe that controls it.
F**k their satanic "God".
F**k people who cannot stop talking about it or signalling about it.
F**k Peter Thiel (NAME HIM!) the vampire.
F**k JD Vance -- the cross dresser who renames himself every 3 years.

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @cirnosad

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!