I believe the thinking that I'm laying out here will save some lives at some point.

Background

In particular, people in this community and, in general, suspicious minded people Tend to work with some abstractions and suppositions based upon these abstractions, and among these are things like "the powers that be are evil", etc.

To a large degree these abstractions and suppositions lead to more efficient thinking and intuition. For example, as an analogy, if you know that government agencies do more harm than good, and you are quickly scanning through new stories and come across one titled "CIA thinks we should have Amazon Alexa devices in all of our houses", based on the supposition that the CIA is evil or at least does more harm than good, we can immediately surmise that "We do not want Amazon Alexa devices in our houses at all".

However, the knowledge of the existence of this kind of thinking can easily be used against us, in a manner no less humorous than what was illustrated in the poisoning scene from The Princess Bride (look up that short scene on YouTube, if you've never seen the movie - it's important to know how the scene ends in order to understand the rest of this post).

For example, if the powers that be wants to distract conspiracy theorists from discovering their true motives, which might involve gun confiscation, etc., they can feign a cover-up in the subject of aliens and UFOs, and many a conspiracy theorist will focus all of their attention on trying to prove that aliens and UFOs do, in fact, exist.

When applied to Whitehat theories (like Q), we often deride this kind of thinking as "4-D chess", etc. I believe this derision is the correct reaction, because it's a logical mistake to assume that a group of people smart enough to take over the world is not smart enough to uncover a plot against them that is, otherwise, obvious to us Internet conspiracy theorists.

However, it would also be a mistake to assume that such a powerful group of people would not use this kind of complex "4-D chess" logic against us, unbeknownst to us.

What I propose, as a solution to this risk, is a system of principles that is based on some very high-level suppositions but which does not prescribe automatic (and, thus, predictable) logic, in response to each bit of information we receive.

Theoretical Examples

A good example of such a principal might be "don't trust any bit of information completely", while a bad example would be "every school shooting is a false flag perpetrated by the FBI".

The former example makes us pay attention to the details and look for corroborating information while also looking to uncover clues that might serve too prove the information true or false.

The latter (FBI) example could be true 100% of the time, but if just one part of it is incorrect, then it serves no purpose and could be used against us as a form of character attack. For example, imagine a scenario where a real shooting is actually perpetrated by whatever bad actors are behind the scenes, and they create perfect evidence for this scene by filming the whole thing, but then they make it ostensibly a false flag with all kinds of conflicting and confusing information on CNN, etc., and then after all the conspiracy theorists point out that it's a false flag and publish all kinds of conspiracy documentaries and information, then suddenly the video evidence is released of the shooting and makes us all look like idiots. Another contrive scenario one can imagine is that there is actually a Cabal behind the scenes doing these FF attacks, but it turns out to be a "conservative" group who is doing it to make conservatives afraid that they were going to take guns so that more conservatives will buy guns as quickly as possible. Even if this is not true at all, I'm sure that by the time you finished reading that last sentence you were already thinking "I could see that", so if you could imagine that being the case, then you could also imagine how such a story could be contrived and sold to the sheep over CNN's airwaves.

In the end, what we are left with is a scenario where we have limited real information and gratuitous amounts of false information, potentially from the powers that be and potentially from ourselves. When we stick to principled thinking and limited suppositions based on known facts, we will uncover the true plot more accurately, or we will at least know to what degree we are ignorant of the true plot, instead of ever blindly believing one dogma or another and taking incorrect action based on that dogma.

Personal Example - "COVID Vaccines"

I don't take any vaccines and I definitely would not take any form of medicine that was new in technology (mRNA vaccine) and new in general (COVID "vaccines"). Because I didn't take these "vaccines" and I never will, I might be predisposed to one or more dogmas related to my sentiments about these "vaccines". One such sentiment is that the "vaccines" were created to directly kill a large number of people (e.g., for population control). If I've based what I perceive to be my principles on this supposition, then I am struggling to maintain my principles after most of the people who took the vaccine did not die. If I have based my principles on lower level actual principles, such as "I don't just inject random shit into my veins because Gubment said so", then I could care less about what happens elsewhere in the world. I just do not inject random shit into my veins, period. Another thing that happens when you allow a dogma, like that example, to slip into your thinking, is that you don't consider the unknown unknowns. for example, one thing that I have only seen seldom discussed in conspiracy forums since the beginning of all this is the idea that, perhaps, the vaccines were designed to kill everybody who didn't take the vaccines (allowing the recipients to live with evolved viruses that will spread to the rest of us and kill us while allowing them to live). If my principles are "I don't inject random shit in my veins" then I have to accept that they may be trying to kill me still. It doesn't change whether I want to take the vaccine or not, but it's one more thing to consider. For example, if I'm trying to decide what my preps look like and I am considering a scenario where some form of violent disease will emerge from vaccinated people to kill me, I'm going to prepare for that scenario. If I'm just waiting for all the vaccinated people to drop dead like flies, then I'm not going to prepare for that scenario.

Another problem with this thinking is that we tend to prepare for the scenarios that are most believable and, often, most survivable (e.g., simply don't take the vaccine and wait for everybody who did take it to die), while not considering that, if seriously powerful and evil players were planning this behind the scenes, they would not offer us the most survivable scenario that we could prepare for easily. And this does not even take into account that we do not even know the true motives behind the plan that is unfolding.

The bottom line is that there are unknown unknowns, and for everything that we think we know but we don't actually know for sure, there are many unknown unknowns that we will not prepare for, until it's too late.