You’re leaning hard on belief and personal loyalty, but you’re not offering anything that would convince someone who isn’t already inside that bubble. Saying “there’s proof 10x over” doesn’t mean anything unless there’s actual, verifiable evidence — not YouTube videos, not someone’s blog, not Armstrong’s claims about himself.
You also keep repeating the same pattern:
- “Hate Putin because…?”
- “Hate Trump because…?”
- “Love Israel because…?”
But instead of addressing the actual reasons people have — policy choices, public statements, corruption cases, authoritarian behavior, geopolitical aggression — you reduce everything to “Google brainwashing people.” That’s not an argument; it’s just dismissing anyone who disagrees.
And this idea that Armstrong is some persecuted genius with a magic Source Code that governments begged for, can solve wars, predict the universe with PI, and holds $18 trillion under contract — it sounds more like promotional mythology than reality. If someone claims to have the “only true AI since the 60s,” revolutionize finance, possess a world-changing peace plan, AND be the target of global conspiracies… they should be able to show something more concrete than stories and fan videos.
You keep telling others they lack “common sense,” but common sense includes questioning:
- Why does all the extraordinary evidence come only from Armstrong himself or his followers?
- Why are there no independent audits of this supposed $18 trillion?
- Why do his predictions only get highlighted when vague hits occur, but ignored when they miss?
- Why is the “movie coming soon” always part of the pitch?
You’re treating belief as proof, and personality as evidence.
If someone doesn’t buy into the Armstrong mythology, that doesn’t mean they’re blind, brainwashed, or “turning far left.” It just means they expect real evidence — not stories and self-promotion dressed up as revelation.
If anything, common sense is being skeptical when a man claims to have a secret AI that governments fear, can solve global conflicts, and predicts the universe… but can’t demonstrate any of it publicly in a verifiable way.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof — and repeating them louder isn’t proof. |
