Back in the heyday of /r/conspiracy about a decade ago, it was really obvious which topics were worthy of investigation, because you would be aggressively attacked for even mentioning them.
The hot button topics were usually Israel/Mossad, Federal Reserve/$, Monsanto/glyphosate and vaccines. Discussing these issues would get you swarmed by the same sockpuppet accounts.
A similar phenomenon happens on .win, albeit on a smaller scale. Whenever I mention reddit's collusion with the US gov inevitably the same contingent shows up and tells me to "move on" and how "nobody cares."
Well, you clearly care, otherwise why are you so insistent I stop talking about it? I still get PMs on .win from reddit miscreants telling me they're gonna get me in "two more weeks." lol ok.
This is literally a conspiracy forum for wide-eyed, high octane speculation. If you don't like a thread, downvote it and move on. Why are you harassing OP with transparent attempts at intimidation?
For the non-shills who don't care either...you don't have to, but if you were paying attention you'd realize that what happened on reddit is at the heart of the coup of the internet by bad actors that has unfolded over the last few years. Reddit may be only one piece of the puzzle, but it's a significant one, and one that's so blatant that it's among the easiest to unravel, and doing so may ultimately prove to be a catalyst that started with Twitter and eventually will take down the other Big Tech juggernauts too.
The censorship on reddit regarding COVID, elections, etc played a major rule in the brainwashing of an entire generation, and this clearly was by design. It's why I spent 10 years sounding the alarm of vaccine and pandemic propaganda on reddit, and why they had to take me out.
To the shills: you'd do the same in my position. You'd laugh at the absurdity of it, make occasional posts so it remains fresh, and continue the fight elsewhere.
I'm never going to stop talking about it. Stay mad, I guess? I welcome the abuse, it always means I'm right.
Happy New Year, all!
This next year is our moment. Let's rise to the occasion.
R/conspiracy went to fucking shit after you were kicked.
Yeah, it's not about money, and it's not really even about "power" is it? There's something bigger at play here (it's a war for your MIND lol)...exciting times no doubt.
I dunno, having free will means we are free to be evil. Take that freedom away and perhaps we lose. We need to incapacitate evil, with the recognition that "eliminating" it isn't our right. I do feel we are at an all or nothing phase rn...
Deism states that the eternal entity(ies?) do not interfere with finite reality. Theism states that the eternal entity(ies?) do play an active role with finite reality.
Reality might be somewhere in between. Alternatively, we're simply part eternal and part finite and there is no centralized eternal entity(ies?).
What if ones mind punishes itself by consenting to be within a good vs evil conflict of reason? What if consenting to want (good) or not want (evil) whatever others are suggesting, puts one into a want vs not want conflict of reasoning among all those who chose either side?
For example...what if the few suggest "abortion" to tempt the many to consent to want or not want it, by rebranding the sides into good vs evil or pro-life vs pro-choice? What if consent to each side keeps the suggested "abortion" going, while giving those suggesting the power to control both sides of those reasoning over it. What if this control of the few over the many is so strong that a) the many lack to comprehend what's going on and b) that the few can openly mock the many, while communicating what's going on to those with eyes to see, who can discern that pro-life vs pro-choice contains the implication that LIFE equals CHOICE?
The pro-life side uses choice to be pro life; while the pro-choice side uses choice to be against life...both sides are "alive"; while "choosing" to do that...
Using implication (if/then) within perceivable inspiration over reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement; believing vs not believing etc.) about suggested information...allows one to discern self as the perceiving (partial) within perceivable (whole).
You are tempted to reason about what others are suggesting you about this world. What you ignore is that everything was already perceivable before anyone else can make any suggestions about it. You are being tempted to ignore origin (perceivable inspiration) for substitute (suggested information), and your consent gives those suggesting the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested information at will.
Ask yourself about the who, where, what and why of your existence. If you resist the temptation of suggested answers, then you will find the only solution (process of dying) for every problem (living).
a) are you just "on" or "being surrounded by, hence within" something?
b) is life, while being moved from inception towards death "within" something? Could life discern ones own position, while being within something?
c) if matter (life) exists within immaterial (inception towards death), then what separates them from one another? Why is it that one, while being alive, cannot perceive ones own inception and death, only those of others?
d) every definitions others are suggesting represents a fact; a truth; something affixed...what if that not only tempt you to suspect it to be nonfactual; a lie or changing, but also tempts you to ignore being within constant change aka being within motion; being moved by and representing the reaction (choice) to enacting (balance) motion?
Try to discern behavior within motion...even when you believe things to be still or be able to stop...
The foundation of why implies self sustenance.
a) what one perceives represents "free will of choice", what others are suggesting is "free will"...without the choice.
b) what if "free" implies to be within "dominance"...how could choice exist outside of balance?
c) what if good (want) vs evil (not want) represents an imbalance shaped by consenting to want or not want what another suggested, while ignoring the need to adapt to what everyone perceives?
d) consider drinking...is it good (want); bad (not want) or do you have to respond to thirst (need)? Could you be tricked to ignore need for a want vs not want conflict (reasoning) over the suggestion of others like cola (want) vs pepsi (not want)? Isn't it suspicious that drinking either of those makes one more thirsty?
What if the FREE (free will of choice) can be tempted to ignore being within DOM (dominance of balance) for suggested liberties by others who suggest them "free-dom" in exchange for consent to follow their suggested choices?
Was choice ever taken away from those who chose to ignore being/having it?
The masses aren't needed for anything. Stop waiting for the impossible to happen. Hope is for sissies
It seems like there's a small threshold below which forums such as these can succeed at rooting out influence brigades. We're clearly in a 5th gen asymmetrical warfare where not just the landscape but even the players are obfuscated. While what happened to you is an overt example of interference, I'm also concerned about the more subtle forms. The challenge for truther communities is the soy meat theories that distract from constructive truth seeking dialogue.
OCCA'SION, noun (Latin occasio, from oceido) - "to fall"...what if it's about rising (living) within the fall (process of dying)?
If everything represents momentum (balance), then everyone within (choice) shares each moment.
If one read it (reddit) then one consented to suggested, which puts one into the state of ignorance (deep state) within perceivable. Is there a conspiracy among others or consent by ones own free will of choice in-between reading suggested and ignoring perceivable?
What if the first agreement; oath; covenant for treason (a conspiracy) represents ones own consent to the suggestions of another, which implies ones ignorance of perceivable?
a) what if living within the process of dying implies one to be reaction within GENeration?
b) GE'NIUS, noun [Latin gigno; Greek to beget] + BEGET', verb - "to procreate, to generate; to produce".
While comparing those, consider...NATURE, noun - "born, produced".
c) what if everyone (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) represents a genius (generated by), yet choosing to stand under (understand) the suggestions by others, prevents them from growing comprehension within perceivable?
The many willingly put themselves down by consenting to understand each others suggestions. Those who resist the temptation to stand under others are growing comprehension about being reaction (living) within generation (process of dying) aka temporary expressed growth (reaction) within ongoing; impressing loss (action).
In short...I'm just less ignorant than most, and I comprehend that ones choice of want (suggested information) over need (perceivable inspiration) represents ignorance of perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction), which in return allows others to shape fiction for all those who're willingly ignore reality.
Thanks for inspiring me.
a) one needs to struggle to resist both compliments (want) and insults (not want) from others. Living within the process of dying implies one to represent resistance (need) within temptation (want).
b) "I'm not"...to be implies one thing within everything aka partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable). Others suggested "nothing" to tempt one to ignore "everything" perceivable. The few openly mock the many for this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI