So, Jim Carrey has obviously been replaced at those Film Awards. It's not only about his looks, but also about mannerisms, how he speaks etc, etc. In general, the vibe is seriously off and it is very noticeable.
Which brings up some thoughts on this subject:
-
Are celebrities and politicians being replaced on a regular basis? What are some of the most obvious replacements you know of? Especially cases when changed are not only looks alone, but also behaviour, the way person speaks etc. Those that immediately come to mind are: Biden, Alex Jones (twice), Jeff Bezos, Zuck... Putin? Rourke? So, is this really how the system operates?
-
Is there even such a thing as real Jim Carrey? Or any other celebrity and politician for that matter. What if those are just characters played by actors? A lot of celebrities fall into some specific checkboxes a little bit too nicely. Like, for example, funny and rebellious guy or elegant and environmentally conscious guy, or a guy full of testosterone who leaves gym only when starring in a movie and so on, and so on... It's like they are not even real people. Just characters composed of two or three specific and easily recognizable stereotypes. Real people are more complicated than that.
-
There's also a question of purpose. Why do they do it? What exactly is the purpose of replacing Carrey or Bezos, or Zuck? Is it when originals become too hard to control? Or is there some other purpose behind it all?
Anyway, Carrey's case is a very interesting one, because this time it has spread out even to normie world. Usually this subject does not leave conspiracy bubble. This time it is different. I think it's possible that they really fucked up this one. They've gone too careless and didn't expect so many people noticing the replacement. It seems that now they're doing some sort of damage control muddying waters, saying it was all a prank and similar...
Also, where is real Jim Carrey?
Or... maybe it's all a psyop from the very start. All of it. There's this possibility as well. Engage goys in celebrity gossip once again and distract them from things that really matter. What are your thoughts?
"obviously been replaced"
Meh. Too much and/or bad plastic surgery, combined with being out of the public eye for so long that the difference is immediately noticeable.
"Plastic surgery" is kind of a standard excuse in cases like this one. I don't really buy it. I think it's bullshit. Especially in this case.
Carrey has made his entire carrer making expressions and impersonations. His ability to wriggle face like a rubber is one of his main assets. Plastic surgery seriously limits making any type of expressions. Everyone knows it. He'd be absolutely insane to go for it.
Also, why is it that they always look significantly worse than before? Isn't it a little bit suspicious? Apparently Hollywood is full of hack doctors who constantly botch celebrity faces and yet they still go for it and no one complains? Right?
Why is it that no one talks about it openly. It's just celebrity looking way different than before and everyone just whispers behind their backs or something... I don't know... I think at least some of them would have talked about this or that surgery. It's not like it's a taboo or something. I've seen normies freely talking and even publicly documenting their plastic surgeries without any problem. Why is it that celebrities are so shy on this subject?
All in all, I think this "plastic surgery" thing is a very convenient excuse. Especially for normies.
How many hot Hollywood chicks made their living on their beauty and ruined it by to much and/or bad plastic surgery? Even the "girl next door" romantic comedy queen Meg Ryan ruined her looks this way. Besides, Carrey gave up the comedy stuff the past couple decades since he proved he can do drama movies like The Truman Show. Even in Sonic he's not doing Fire Marshall Bill stuff.
What if all those botched "surgeries" is the moment when they are being replaced? They can't create a perfect copy. So they do the best they can and tell the masses that it's just a surgery, a depression, drug use, aging or some other such bullshit.
Check out this video. Particularly his quick interview after the awards (starting at about 00:17). This is not Carrey. Also, why would he be so nervous about saying few sentences in French? He's an actor, for fucks sakes! That's what he's been doing for all his life. Acting. His whole argument is illogical. Besides, check out at about 00:39, he's clearly saying "I'm dead!" with emphasis. Well, they always tell the masses the truth in one way or another, I guess...
meh
Maybe. High bar for evidence to prove though, and this hasn't met it.
I remember when they replaced Will Smith
Didn't not know about that. When was that?
Great questions. I've been looking recently into body-spirit nature and in particular how we recognize individuals (how did Saul know it was Samuel, how did Peter know it was Moses). Because the current corruption of the physical as measured by quantum redshift drops indicates that we are using much less of our innate human powers than in the past, we may need to resurrect the lost art of recognition via "tells". I have been so overwhelmed by variation in filtered images and artifice that I have despaired of mastering the subtlety of spotting lies in appearances. But perhaps we can have hope and aspire to a humanity that has obtained the physicospiritual power of knowing reliably who is who. If you can tell Tina Fey from Sarah Palin, that may be how you get onto the track of remastering the skill as part of a great awakening. There is much talk here of escaping Plato's cave and if we are able to regain the skills (training our own computers as opposed to cabal computers may help) then we might just laugh at the whole scheme, the actor, the masks, the lights, the cameras, the action. Mock and despise the twin gods of comedy and tragedy as a uniparty, and shine true light on the whole dead sepulchre.
That's a good point. Usually people focus on how someone look and not much else, but those that have this ability can tell that something is amiss. You can feel that this is not the same person. Yes, appearance is an important factor, but it's not the only one.
Replacement aka to respond (re) to position (place) of mind (ment)...acting is used to make ones mind oblivious to obvious (within the way). Nature moves through a being; artifice is held within a being.
Regular/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/regular
Being (life) moved in a straight line (inception towards death) represents the basis...celebrities and politicians are used to shape a superficial layer upon that basis.
Perception for suggestion.
System implies a synthesis aka things put together...being implies analysis aka being set apart from one another. Few utilize suggestion to operate synthetic systems (consensus) into the mind of each analytical being.
Reality does not add names to being...names represent fictitious idols held mentally as ideals.
Name/noun/nomen aka NO MEN...
Nature acts (cause); being reacts (effect)...few suggest acting as the inversion of reacting to manipulate many into play-acting.
If an actor has a director, then that implies REACTING (life) to DIRECTION (inception towards death)...
Fall (inception towards death) specifies rise (life)...few cast many into a lot to prevent each from rising above one another.
Movie implies "moving picture"; picture implies "captured moment"...a movie doesn't go on and on and on, it tempts one to mentally remember and physically rewatch captured moments, while ignoring the ongoing momentum of nature.
a) Being implies apart from one another aka different...few suggest likeness to tempt many together.
b) Being implies singularity (person)...few suggest plurality (people) to tempt many together.
c) Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) of nature...not to one another's fictitious suggestions.
Specific implies special aka different aka set apart from one another...few use character compositions to shape a common consensus among many, as to distract each specific being.
Each specific "chosen one" casts "ones choice" into common lots called consensus...character compositions are used to sell this inversion.
Few suggest questions to tempt many to seek answers...being implies each ones response to origin. If one seeks, then one ignores perceivable origin for suggested outcome.
Purpose aka pur (forth) pose (to put)...being implies the purpose of nature; not quests towards outcome or answers reflecting fiction among one another.
Because a replaced mind does not respond to perception, but to suggestion.
Exact implies ones expression (life) during action (inception towards death)...a replaced mind represses expression.
Sleight of hand from Madonna: "Express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature".
Psyop aka psycho (animating power) logical (circular thinking) operation (influence)...nature animating being implies psycho; beings influencing one another into circular thinking represents the logical operation to distract from psycho.
All cannot be OF (which would imply more than all)...all implies the cause for each effect within. Few suggest "all of" as the sum of things aka mosaic law to tempt many into fixing all by putting as many ones together as possible.
Few tempt many to play "puzzle" within a moving nature, which sets each being apart from one another.
Goyim/gollum/golem - "an animated anthropomorphic being in jewish folklore that is created entirely from inanimate matter"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
Ones mind consenting to any suggestion by another represents en-gage-ment, which fills ones mind with inanimate matter, which permits another to animate it from outside.
Real implies each matter (life) responding to all motion (inception towards death). Sleight of hand... https://genius.com/Metallica-nothing-else-matters-lyrics
I honestly tried. I did.
You're an idiot
Rule 1 is attack the argument not the person. Please remove the 2nd sentence.
I didn't put you on trial. You did.
Idiot/idios - "one's own; private"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiot
Commenting on something makes it public...free will of choice cannot be owned.