That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. How many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else's thought process is similar to your own. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB are doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. How many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else's thought process is similar to your own. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. How many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else's thought process is similar to your own. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... It reminded me of a husband who beats his wife and gaslights her afterwards, that it is she who is guilty and it is he who's teaching her some kind of valuable lesson or something. Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. How many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else thought process is similar to your own. Perhaps on a different level, but the basic process is assumed to be similar. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... It reminded me of a husband who beats his wife and gaslights her afterwards, that it is she who is guilty and it is he who's teaching her some kind of valuable lesson or something. Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. About how many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else thought process is similar to your own. Perhaps on a different level, but the basic process is assumed to be similar. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... It reminded me of a husband who beats his wife and gaslights her afterwards, that it is she who is guilty and it is he who's teaching her some kind of valuable lesson or something. Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. About how many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else thought process is similar to your own. Perhaps on a different level, but the basic process is assumed to be similar. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, this mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... It reminded me of a husband who beats his wife and gaslights her afterwards, that it is she who is guilty and it is he who's teaching her some kind of valuable lesson or something. Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.

That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. About how many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.

That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.

Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else thought process is similar to your own. Perhaps on a different level, but the basic process is assumed to be similar. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.

So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.

This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.

Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.

It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.

I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, this mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.

Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB is doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... It reminded me of a husband who beats his wife and gaslights her afterwards, that it is she who is guilty and it is he who's teaching her some kind of valuable lesson or something. Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.