The chief problem which arises when we apply our theories to any particular situation in the real world. A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts. Once we succeeded in this there should be no particular difficulty about deriving testable predictions. But there are way to many unknowable facts, and further the real danger consists in the ascertainment of the particular facts after the events have happened to comport to our theories beforehand.
Example: "OF COURSE Biden's vax mandate was all a ploy, never meant to be implemented."
You don't know that, what you're doing is taking information after events have happened and reinterpreting them to comport to your theories afterwards. You backwash your reasoning to fit current events. This way lies charlatanism and worse. Make your testable theories up PRIOR to events, or, at the very least, stick to analyzing events as they happen or after they have happened to try to ascertain what is the most objective truth.
Actually, the ones who modeled it are historians.
You can take your atrocities in a positive light, but you can't hide it completely.
Survivorship bias. A shit-ton of things were predicted by conspiracy theorists, much of which turns out to be bunk. Like the CEO who gets rich with a good idea, we remember that guy and laud him for his wisdom and foresight, and not all the others who failed along the way.
And if you're predicting obvious as the day is long stuff, like death and taxes and untrustworthy governments, what use is that to anybody?
Predictor or prediction? A good prediction would be more like what you hear in sports..."if Jordan scores 20 or more points, the Bulls win". Or, at least a set of agreed upon assumptions laying out a hypothesis. For example, if X happens, then Y should happen, all else being equal.
All I'm asking for is a little Socratic humility about the limits of our knowledge, but most especially, for people to stop saying that "X was predictable" (when they didn't predict it) or that "they predicted Y" when either (like death and taxes, it was inevitable) or that they reinterpret what actually happened to fit their pre-conceived theories. For example, the Soviet Union falling apart caught all the so-called experts off guard. Later, they said "of course, it was inevitable, since we KNEW containment theory would work and we contained them."
Exactly.
A simple example will show the nature of this difficulty. Consider some ball game played by a few people of approximately equal skill. If we knew a few particular facts in addition to our general knowledge of the ability of the individual players, such as their state of attention, their perceptions and the state of their hearts, lungs, muscles etc. at each moment of the game, we could probably predict the outcome. Indeed, if we were familiar both with the game and the teams we should probably have a fairly shrewd idea on what the outcome will depend. But we shall of course not be able to ascertain those facts and in consequence the result of the game will be outside the range of the scientifically predictable, however well we may know what effects particular events would have on the result of the game.
This does not mean that we can make no predictions at all about the course of such a game. If we know the rules of the different games we shall, in watching one, very soon know which game is being played and what kinds of actions we can expect and what kind not. But our capacity to predict will be confined to such general characteristics of the events to be expected and not include the capacity of predicting particular individual events.
The "Grand Finale" 1 month lockdowns are way more plausible than the vaccine mandates as the kill card.
Unlike vaccines, anyone I talked to about this will instantly know me as a "Schizo" even anti-vaxxers.
However, remember this.
Illuminati history, starting from the Roscurians and apexed by the Jacobins, had only ONE pattern. It follows the same principles, but just simply swapped their narratives.
The narrative/outcome you treated as the lesser of the two evils or even IGNORED -- that's the attack that will KILL you.
Okay, fair prediction. But in America, further lockdowns aren't going to be done because some states will do them and some states won't, as the same for vaccine mandates. We still have the ghostly remnants of the Founder's Republic and states still have power in this regard.
As for you're bit about illuminati history, I'm not sure I 100% understand. It's kinda like saying "why do you always find what you're looking for the last place you seek it" Well, that's because that's where you find it. Likewise, ignored attacks that AREN'T successful won't be the one to kill you, until one does, otherwise they could be safely ignored.
And if the world locks down bar several states, they're basically cornered for good.
It really depends. For example, aliens or Planet-X could be easily ignored until they happen. Then you get to Nazis and Communists where NOBODY will imagine that stuff were a part of the plan (or even take full control of the country), at least during the time where they are active. It's simply impossible to safely ignore the presence of Communists and Nazis during the early 20th century because they are too visible for your own good.
Covid World (decade long lockdowns) follows the same thing. You CANNOT safely ignore it because the warning signs were all there. (WHO planning to name variants over constellations, Singapore returning to pandemic mode despite 80% vaccinated and nobody being serious ill, Havard Business School moving to online classes)
But we have 4 maybe 5 Western European countries, like Denmark, Norway, Finland all dropping all lockdowns and restrictions. Eastern Europe never had any to begin with. There are cross cutting trends. The whole world ain't locking down.
What's happening is entrenched politicians not admitting they were wrong.
It's not because they are denying that they were wrong. What they are doing is deliberate for the sake of control -- a type of destructive control that will not stay long, but will cause as much damage as possible, both psychologically and physically during the window it is allowed.
Here’s a prediction: every forum eventually turns into the low effort meme shitposts
With enough repetition, a verified hypothesis becomes an agreed upon law. Let's see what happens. It happens elsewhere.
Therefore, let's call this the "KiloRomeo's Theory of Memes".
Lol okay. To be fair i want high effort predictive activities to occur but acknowledge that this will have to happen as an emergent consensus across meme shitposts
The best memes use a mostly visual encapsulation of complex idea, usually with few words, often to portray incongruous ideas/reality. That's why leftists can't meme, they don't care about intellectual consistency.
They are entertaining, and memes will have to occur with the predictive activities because, well, we can't be serious all the time.
What if it’s also a means of sense making. Leftists can’t meme because they’re using the dialectic not the dichotomous as a way of lensing.