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?
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.