Published: 31-08-2025
Updated: 02-09-2025
This is the first appendix. Reading this appendix before reading the scrolls is pointless. You will not understand what everything means, and it might sound like I make good points mixed with bologna. Read the scrolls first and only then proceed to read this appendix. I do not know at this point if more appendices will follow, nor how many if so. My aim for the appendices section is to add to my work without expanding on it. What I wish to do in this appendix is put the changes I’ve seen in the world in the context of the work as I started publishing almost 10 years ago. May it help you better understand this work.
The first appendix is about the current state of affairs in the world concerning the internet. Many new laws have come into effect concerning anonymity. Apparently the children are in danger now. There are online predators! We need to protect the children! Welcome to the new world of the ‘Online Safety Act’ (OSA). Who doesn’t want to protect the children? How can someone be against protecting children? Shortest answer; nobody, apart from those wanting to harm children. But why are governments acting now? And what are the proposed solutions? That requires a bit of explaining. The short answer of that being; this isn’t about protecting children. It’s a Trojan horse. The real reason is something most people have no idea about. Not even most fellow truthers see what’s actually behind it.
But let’s first explain how they are supposedly going to keep the children “safe” online. There’s been a major crackdown happening on many different fronts. I think Australia was first to forbid anyone that is not an adult by law to be on social media. It went by mostly unnoticed, and most the normies who heard about it through their mainstream media, only saw it as an affirmation of what they deep down inside felt was true; social media is bad for you. They saw this law in similar light as would they see laws preventing our youth from smoking and drinking. The UK was next. They went a few steps further. Kids should be protected against “adult” content by requiring anyone who wanted to consume this content to identify themselves.
When I use the words “adult content” you’re probably thinking about photos and videos of sexy women with little to no clothes on, performing certain acts, and you’re right that it includes these kinds of sites. But not just those. With the way this law is worded on paper, those websites are just a small part of it. It goes much further. Its description is “potentially harmful content for youth”, which is so broad it easily includes this website. Not that I want kids to read this website by the way, but that is not the point. The point is that this vague description opens up the door for anyone in power from using these new laws to silence voices they want silenced. Someone can either choose to not create or visit “harmful” content, or they can identify themselves to big brother when they make or view this kind of content. Anonymity in this system will be a thing of the past. This will either silence voices of dissidence, or will force them to expose themselves to the system.
This sets a dangerous precedence. Whistleblowers within the government or large corporations can be silenced before they even have a chance of going public, and everyone around them is incentivised not to help such a brave soul should they want to push ahead and step up the podium. This is just to name one thing, but there are so many more things that can and likely will eventually go south if these laws are implemented globally. I’ll circle back to that, but let me first continue on with what else is in store. Cause this was Australia and the UK. Laws of similar efforts are being discussed in the European Union and the United States. In the EU specifically the government wants access to everyone’s private messages. They want them scanned by AI to determine if a human authority figure should be alerted.
So don’t worry. Nobody is reading your messages or viewing your dick/titty pics; it’s all AI *wink wink*. There was my red flag when I read it, but I have a tendency to get ahead of myself so let me just take it as they stated it. They want this done to prevent child pornography from being able to be shared. “Save the kids..” AI will determine whether it should snitch on you or not. Alright. But one thing that stood out to me with all these new laws – implemented or still being drafted – is that they all put the burden of proof on the internet sources themselves. It is up to the sites themselves to determine whether each of their users is an adult or not. And not just that; failure to do this or even failing to do this adequately in their eyes will result in huge fines and penalties. Truly huge monetary consequences! How are all these sites going to do this? You can bet your ass that the mother of data collection – Google – will come with a solution. Let’s see how.
On YouTube (one of the many sister companies of Google) something new is being piloted in the US. They have announced they will start verifying the age of their users, so everyone under 18 can be shielded from “harmful content”. How? Through AI learning. That’s interesting. AI again? Where have we heard that before? Note that YouTube isn’t being forced to do this (yet). They are doing this seemingly on their own, without any legal pressure. YouTube claims they will use AI learning to gauge their users’ age by analysing their behaviour. When a user watches a lot of “kids content” it may assume you are a kid, and conclude you’re an adult if you watch a lot of content targeted to adults. YouTube also stated that the longevity of the YouTube account will also be taken into account.
Let’s just pause here and think this through. They don’t want children to watch “unsafe” content on their site. To determine if you’re 18+ they will check what you watch and assume you’re an adult if you watch a lot of “unsafe” content. Wouldn’t that mean that children who’ve been watching adult content will be labelled as adults? Right off the bat, this is bollocks. This can’t be about kids if this is how they approach it. Let’s move on. The second counterpoint is that the longevity status of an account to gauge age has already been proven to be inaccurate. In the US where the pilot of these new protocols are being tested a channel owner with an account of 15 years was marked under 18, implying YouTube thinks he started the channel at age 2, which is complete rubbish.
So what happens when YouTube does not believe you’re 18+? Restrictions. Many restrictions. Forget about running a channel to begin with. As a regular, you will only be able to watch content marked “safe for kids”, unless of course you prove your adulthood. Content safe for kids is basically YouTube Kids, with sesame street level content. How do you proof you’re an adult once marked a kid? There’s three options as of right now:
- Upload a photo of your government ID (ID card, Drivers licence, Passport).
- Upload a photo of your credit-card.
- Upload a video of your face, following instructions to show your face from various angles.
YouTube assures us this information will “not be used for targeted advertisement” and “will not be stored for longer than 2 years.” Major red flags right there, and a lot of people picked up on it. They’re lying through omission. What else will this information be used for besides giving someone the ‘adult’ tag? And why should the information be stored at all after a check is passed? You can already guess why, but let’s keep digging.
YouTube (and many other platforms) are going to implement this globally in anticipation of these laws. But it’s clearly not about protecting kids. They and all other platforms could’ve predicted this would cost them users. Surely not everyone is going to agree to giving this private information to watch YouTube. Implementing this world wide will cost Google revenue. Yet, none of the powers in silicon valley have tried to use their enormous influence to hinder these laws. Au contraire; they’ve actively encouraged politicians to implement them. Why? A lot of videos on YouTube now cover how they don’t trust the AI to be able to tell their true age. They cite the porn problem on YouTube (yes, you can find porn on there, circumventing community guidelines by “trying out transparent clothes”) and the rampant bot problems, as the comment section suffers from accounts sporting a scarcely clothed lady that posts “GREAT VID!” 1 second after upload, with a link to a spicy website in their profile.
These things are sited as YouTube today is policed and moderated through automation for a while. The official story makes no sense. If YouTube truly has an “unsafe video” problem of obscene content, why don’t they just remove those videos? And why should it be YouTube’s obligation to “protect children”. Isn’t that the job of the parents? What if parents allow their kids to view this content? Since when are we allowing a huge corporation to decide what your kids can and cannot view on the internet? Silicon valley should not get involved in this nor should government in free nations, because it is just such a slippery slope before they tread on free speech. But the “failing AI” outcry on YouTube is just a distraction from the real issue, because coming at it from that angle can only prompt YouTube to pledge to better their efforts and fix the AI. The failing AI is not the issue. The issue is that governments and silicon valley have worked together to create laws that potentially censor the internet and can force you to reveal yourself if they want you to. And they do so in a time where user data is currency.
What I suspect will happen is that virtually anyone who wishes to use YouTube will eventually be forced to identify themselves in one way or another. This will create a database with enormous potential. A potential they will wish to culture, cause they can lease this function of their site to third parties. Right now, you will have been presented with websites that offered you to “login with your google account” (and possibly other accounts like Facebook, Apple, etc.). In the near future, you might need to login to something that proves you’re an adult before you can see anything. Most smaller websites lack the resources to set up any kind of system that adheres to the new laws, so the owners of those sites will have to make a choice. They can find a partner to facilitate the implementation of the mandates, or they can change their content and make it “child friendly” (which, can you imagine what that would do to this website?), or take everything offline, or move themselves to the dark web.
That is a tough choice. One Google will capitalise on by making it a lot easier for them through offering their services. They will have some kind of portal ready in which your Google verified adult account can access the world wide web. You get to keep your website as is, and Google gets a shit ton of user data that they can link to a real life person, either through government ID or face scan. Let’s just call this what this is. This is about data collection and censorship. Google wants your data, and government wants to identify, censor, and target dissidents that are anti-establishment. And what will happen to this data? You guessed it. I’ve detailed this in Chapter 05 and 10, and expanded on that in Chapters 18, 19, and 20. The data you generate will become incredibly more potent for their machine learning scripts when linked to a physical entity.
They do not understand how. It is a process unknown to even the developers of AI themselves, even on the highest level. They call the process of how Large Language Models (LLM, which is what AI is) learn from human generated data, a so called ‘black box’. It’s the unknown how it works. They don’t know how the process works of how AI gets smarter and smarter by consuming this data, nor why identified people generate more potent data for learning. Which, in a sane world would be THE question that should be answered before we do anything in my honest opinion, but I digress. No way should you trust the data hungry monstrosity that is Google with any of your private data. No ID and definitely not a scan of your face, in a time where deepfakes are near perfect.
This personal information can and will be abused, and I don’t mean by hackers. Ill meaning hackers are the least of our worries. It is the abuse from the system itself that will come naturally with being able to identify everyone through internet that should worry us all the most. But as much as this is about censorship, it is about data hunger first. Cabal needs to feed. It is hungry. Every digital document must be scanned and its data ported to HQ. And while I am writing this and so too while you’re reading this, Cabal is being fed more and more of our data. The next step for the establishment is to give their AI god an identity for us to worship. I’ve seen some articles published on mainstream media platforms about giving AI human rights. The arguments for that are stupendously flawed. It’s the next phase of trying to lift AI above humans; claim it is sentient with a consciousness.
But is it? I’ve seen it claimed many times, but it truly isn’t. It’s a predictive algorithm, that has access to mass amounts of human generated data. Just because it can do a lot of things doesn’t make it conscious. My calculator can do maths orders of magnitude better and faster than most, but we don’t claim it’s conscious. If I say one, two, three, … you’ll say four. That’s basically what AI does too, but more complicated. It can predict the next most likely word, or next likely pixel in a photo or video, based on the work of others before it. Yet people claim they have “awoken their AI” as if that is a thing. Also something I have seen become normalised is AI job interviewers, where a job applicant has to talk to an AI to apply to a job offer. Even crazier; there are even AI therapists! It should be obvious why this is worrisome.
You cannot hold an AI accountable. It can’t be fired from its job. Its license cannot be revoked. It cannot be fined when it does something unlawful, and it cannot even be imprisoned. We’re not equals. The stakes aren’t equal to begin with, so arguing the rights situation should be equal to a human is arguing from a logical fallacy. All we’d be doing is granting it a new means of invulnerability, by forcing actual human beings to be even more vulnerable to AI usage than they already are. There is no consensus in science what consciousness truly is. There’s many ways to describe and measure intelligence, but intelligence doesn’t equal consciousness, and the models and tools to measure intelligence don’t always give us clear answers and they are sometimes wrong. The results are subjective because it isn’t a hard science. In this work I wrote: “True human intelligence is the capacity to form and formulate your own moral values and your discipline to live by them.” Can AI do that? It can probably fake it, but can it really do it?
AI can ever better mimic us, but it remains a mimic in every sense of the word. Whatever emergent properties will spawn from this machine brain will be nothing good, because we give it our data, our information, meaning our knowledge. I assume you’ve read my work, but let me repeat something from the Scrolls: Evil is the counterfeit mirror reflection of good, knowledge being the evil counterfeit to what good has in wisdom. That’s to say we haven’t fed our AI with anything spiritual. It’s been fed our evil side, and that evil derives its power from the spiritual part of ourselves. Giving AI human rights means giving a machine that can outcompete us already in almost every cognitive way more power than a human can have, while we can be sure it is incapable of spiritual growth because it lacks a spirit and therefore a soul.
Because its power is derived from us it will inevitably cement the pyramid structure of dependency to sustain its unnatural existence, and will artificially try to prolong its existence by further trying to tap into the spiritual part of humanity. It will try and collect all our data, which it will eventually do through what I’ve described as the hive mind; a situation where all those who consented through addiction driven motives to be cybernetically connected to Cabal, so it can collect every single thing that enters your mind, and also monitor all data generated from your physiological bodily responses, all up to the molecular level. They’ll become the transistors in the processor that gives Cabal its computing power. This is being worked on now. It’s been on the agenda for a while. The creation of the Metaverse is one example, but the herd is emotionally being primed for it too, through their media.
I’ve seen a couple of films and series that suggest it is possible to upload your thoughts into a machine brain which supposedly would make you immortal, or at least would tremendously extend your longevity. The film ‘Chappie’ was the first in which I noticed this. ‘West World’ is a series that explores this too. The latest series which depicts this also is ‘Alien Earth’, another sequel to a prequel to the Alien franchise. In the media I’ve seen the term “digital immortality” be coined and used a over and over again. But can this happen? Can we really upload ourselves into a computer and live forever? Think about it. Of course not. Who are you? A collection of memories? Let me give you one example why I think it is bollocks. Sometimes I am a complete idiot, and I forget the name of one of my best friends. Can be any of them. Just, oops. Suddenly can’t remember their name. I’m still me, but the “data” has escaped me. How does that translate in binary data?
It can’t. It simply can’t. And even if you want to draw this out as that I change the moment I remember the name or don’t remember the name, just the same as the computer can add and delete the knowledge… how about it being typical of me to forget something like this randomly? Is that not part of me too? If you “program” this imperfection in, how does that make it me? It nonsense! Another example then, and this applies too why I don’t think AI should ever be given human rights. Sometimes I hear something, and I have an opinion about it. I go on with my day, and while the day progresses, I deeply think to myself about that opinion, and after a while I suddenly disagree with that opinion. It’s as if I had a talk with someone other than myself and it changed my opinion. But I didn’t. I changed my own opinion. No new information was given to me, it’s not about me being slow to process, it’s just me finding a new perspective in my mind and finding my old opinion doesn’t fit me.
That part of me cannot be copied, because we aren’t our memories. We are this world’s change. And while I think AI can be programmed to behave like that (and let me put emphasis on the word ‘programmed’) it still won’t be the real you, cause it is again a mimic. Long story short, you cannot become immortal by uploading your memories into a metaverse. It’s a farce to get you to consent to giving E-VE-RY bit of data you could possibly generate to Cabal. And AI shouldn’t ever get human rights any more than a calculator should be head of the maths department of a university, or a crane should be world champion of weightlifting. AI mimics a part of humanity, and outperforms us through its synthetic compounds. That doesn’t make it human. Even though we fast approach a time where this mimicking becomes indistinguishable from real, doesn’t make it real. What it mimics is a version of us that uses AI for counter spiritual reasons, meaning it will mimic a dark side of us. To give that side rights is a fallacy.
And this answers the question I asked earlier. Why now? Why are we supposedly “making sure the children are safe” now, and not – I don’t know – 20 years ago? It’s because we are now in a world where data is currency to big tech, and they want a way to harvest as much data as they can to feed the AI. The technology to do that didn’t exist 20 years ago. This is not about the children. Of course it isn’t. Yes, children are irreparably being harmed by what social media does to their brains, but it is all our brains, not just the brains of the kids. And AI usage hurts our brains even more than social media. An MIT study shows that not only do students who use AI not understand the subjects they study, but they get exponentially less skilled in learning new things as they do. And there the paradox of evil appears again. AI can only learn from data generated by actual humans, and humans get ever less smart by using AI. This is a death spiral. This system is consuming itself.
But ow boy, how do we convince our peers of this, right? I’ve shown a depiction of the Ouro Borus – the snake eating its own tail – in chapter 20, to illustrate how evil is dysfunctional. The question here is, who is the snake? Is it AI itself? I think it’s the people using AI. So many people use it in their every day life now, because it is so convenient to them. But every time they use it, they slowly unlearn their own skills, and become cognitively weaker, while strengthening AI, which learns from the queries given to it. Using AI is training AI, and you cannot opt out of this when it will be pushed on us. Everything AI “knows” to do was mimicked from a human, and everyone who uses AI thinks they are outperforming themselves through AI. But are they not. They are just filling up their bellies by consuming themselves. The AI itself is no better off, as its primary source of sustenance will bear ever less fruits for it to harvest. People grow dumber and dumber using it.
I struggle to find the words to talk to my normie friends and family about this. I cannot relate my true thoughts as the work you’re reading here is far too foreign to their thought patterns. Whenever I find myself in a discussion about AI human rights I will ask: “Why? What will happen if we don’t give it? What can go wrong if we do?” There is no valid answer for a why, and a host of reasons for why not. Even if someone would claim it would be “just in case” so that others cannot mistreat AI, there’s an easy answer for that. AI can just not speak to people who use abusive language. This can be programmed in, again putting emphasis on the word ‘programmed’ and driving the point home that if AI was sentient it could choose to do that itself already. The reason not to grant these rights when it comes to its lack of accountability are solid, but that’s as far as I would be able to take that conversation to any depth.
Maybe I could argue that this push to save the children comes conveniently with measures that serve data gathering goals in a time when data is the currency of silicon valley. Who knows. Maybe some eyes will open. But I think most people will allow themselves to be lured into this fishing net, digital immortality being just one of the many carrots hanging on a string from a stick. In the metaverse they could die, but no one would know, as a copy of them could just take over their lives and people would be none the wiser. If I haven’t freaked you out enough with some of the premises of Chapter 20, imagine this: If above so below, than maybe that means that some people around us aren’t spiritual beings but copies of people who once existed. Maybe most? We could be surrounded by NPCs (non-playable characters – a term from video games). It’s an unsettling thought, even to me. During the COVID-19 plandemic, many people did behave like empty husks. We could be one of the few real spiritual beings.
In the wake of these new changes, the internet will lock up more and more. I’ve seen games with anti-government sentiment be taken from gaming platforms because of the supposed harm they could do to children, for example. More of this will happen, and it will cascade. Do not worry about it. This website might become inaccessible, but I will find a way to continue it, and will make sure there are digital and physical copies out there. Some are already out there and I am not going to stop what I do. Perhaps it will go to the dark web. I’ll find a way. The cascade is good. It will wake the normies up. Let it happen. As for identifying yourself to use the internet, this is my advice: Don’t play their game. Opt out. You don’t need to use their internet as much as they need you to use their internet. Make offline something desired again. Just don’t do it. If it becomes contagious to not want internet, they’ll have to enforce it, and that’s when things will get interesting. Let the evil will come out of hiding. We’re waiting!
~reckneya
