>>9811683

my imagination of it has been through almost nameless voycherization of 'benifits' to 'recipients' and that if 'cashed' by the 'providing agency' for a 'credit' which can probably be auctioned off in some foriegn auction and then they take a payout and walk off with money in a foreign account.

something like that.

oh, and the people don't have to be real, but they can vote and get welfare and have a mailbox.

this kind of scheme as a fiction has existed for a long time. Never had any hard evidence of it. but it just seems like it wouldn't be hard to pull it off for the criminal minded. they would need courts and post office to go along with it for the addresses of all the clients, and where all the mail goes.

>>9811790

sure he can. you just won't agree. that's different than what you said.

>>9811835

in a shit post you can't solve the issues of the meta languages being used to muddy up the clean waters of the ideas of those who discuss what is good and what is bad.

the assertion that 'good and evil' are relative is a polemic of your kind of arguing, which isn't to discuss the limits of sharing of ideas, but instead to assert a false (fake) information dominance.

the fact is that people do know what actions are good and which are evil, as they see it, in their understanding.

some definition of it that you control is not a real idea except in your head.

the impossiblity of sharing these concepts is the thing that you conflate with the notion of 'no one has the capacity to understand these things'

that is false. People have the capacity.

the meta language you use gives you away as someone who isn't interested in finding the commonality of moral codes, but instead to just damn them all, curse them, be the ethno dominant with the only point of view.

>>9811937

cringe-shill

>>9811955

newbie shill larper

>>9811981

NOTABLE

if not already noted

>>9811966

noone normal is going to have that url