Well, I specifically posted to point out that they can't, and not that they they won't, and I find insisting on it otherwise to be erroneous and counterproductive. But everyone is free to believe what they choose, and they freely choose they do. I have also found arguing about it to be entirely pointless, which is another thing I learned about how people actually think.
But on the extreme outside chance anyone reading this actually wishes to research the idea further, a psychologist named Julian Jaynes came up with a key insight regarding it almost half a century ago. His work was just a small part of the overall picture and he got important parts wrong, but it's close enough to lead to the next step.
A decent description of his idea (again, incomplete, flawed and out of context) is in the wiki on what he termed bicameral mentality:
In this theorized state, individuals lacked self-awareness and introspection. Instead of conscious thought, they heard external voices or "gods" guiding their actions and decisions. This form of consciousness, devoid of metaconsciousness and autobiographical memory, persisted until about 3,000 years ago when societal changes led to the emergence of our current conscious mode of thought.
I would suggest that the ultimate cause is more subtle and thus easily misinterpreted. It has to do with the true nature of human consciousness, but for purposes of discussion can be formulated roughly as, "How do people determine what Reality is?"
The first observation should be that we do not all do it the same way. The unstated idea that we all do it the same way--the only difference being that some do it well and others poorly--is totally incorrect and should be consciously rejected.
To be brief and put it in very primitive terms, what makes "normies" "normies" is their in-built way of deciding what Reality is, and generally it is from those they consider "authorities".
This mechanism can overwhelm even first-hand experience. All reasoning and even facts will give way to it. With close attention to their "reasoning", they will often invent "facts" outright to support their views. To be more precise, they begin with their conclusion and reason backwards to necessary facts.
I've seen it here plenty. I think many of us have.
Everyone can fold this anomaly into whatever theory they have about the guy:
Gov. Gavin Newsom pans talk of banning Donald Trump from presidential race in California (LA Times 12/28/2023)
If it causes anyone to change their mind because it contradicts what they already believe, be sure to reply because that would certainly be news.
The article focuses only on DC and takes pains to draw attention to how it's not associated with the shutdown, but in a way this is all misdirection (or, on the outside, abject ignorance. The phenomenon of progressives making deserts of cities they run is widespread and devastating.
All the way on the opposite coast, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the shutdown, San Francisco is one such wasteland. A guy has even posted a series of startling first-person videos from SF and surrounding cities with such titles as: "every store is CLOSED on van ness San Francisco", "every restaurant is CLOSED in San Francisco", and "every bank is CLOSED in San Francisco". You get the idea.
His channel is here: METAL LEO
Haha, turns out I actually did mean "diluted"!
What I was trying to convey was that there was a time, not too long ago, when there were very few conspiracy theorists. If you were into it at all, you were really into it. You'll most commonly find that classical type among JFK researchers, where they'll write up a two page-long post on what LHO did at the embassy in Mexico City or whatever.
Fast-forward to the present and the typical "theorist" just links to a story about Bill Gates or posts an insulting meme about Klaus Schwab. Hey, great to get the word out, to be sure, but can that in any way said to be "theory"?
So over on r/conspiracy, the influx has diluted theorists and theories down to about 98-2. I use it for what it has become: a news feed filtering out mainstream propaganda. And even that comes with a hard rain of paid trolls and angry, basement-dwelling dipshits, further washing out theories.
But yeah, most of them are also deluded too, except it's about a set of things different from those about which the normies are deluded. Sadly, that deludes them that they're superior in some way.
Thanks for the Saint Floyd info! Another good example of how prevalent you see this phenomenon to be once you start looking for it.
There was a huge pulse of alt-right "pay-triot" types that came in right as Trump was leaving office in January 2021. I suppose that constituted part of the strategy to put the final nails in Trump's coffin.
On the one hand there were the high-profile ones like Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn, and on the other there was a flood of "insiders" (or whatever they're supposed to be) constantly on podcasts. That would include guys like Juan O' Savin, Michael Jaco and Mike Gill.
Because I'm really lazy, I almost never get around to researching their backgrounds. I just do what evidently almost no one else does: I listen to them talk while thinking, "Does this sound like a normal person who happens to have more information and expertise than I do and wishes to pass it on, or might this person just be another disinformation agent giving out nothing that will lead me further?"
That sounds like it would take some sort of special training or innate talent to discriminate, but not at all. It's like telling the difference between overhearing two people talking at the next table in a restaurant and hearing two people talking in a restaurant in a movie. No one needs to tell you which is which. Anyone can tell in 30 seconds (or less) because the two actors just do not talk like ordinary people.
But, again, the frightening thing is how everyone thinks that movie dialogue is real.
You know what I find really interesting is that if you have the idea in mind that MLK was an asset who became a liability in a larger social engineering program, your hindsight becomes sharp enough for the faultlines, as the one you mention, to come in to focus.
If you go back to MLK's most famous speech, 1963's "I Have a Dream" given during the "March on Washington", you can see the one on economic issues. If pressed, the progressives might mention that King himself said he had come to "cash a check". But what he said was:
In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check.
Explicitly metaphorical. A bit later he adds:
So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
IDK if he had it consciously in mind, but he recognized that prosperity is the result of freedom. They he was asking for freedom--only as we all have a right to--and the prosperity would then come on it's own.
But on the flip side, the full name of the event was the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom". It was put on by A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, a couple of socialists.
We can guess without even needing to research that these two were just another couple of change agents. One of them was a commie and the other was a gay commie. It all seems so familiar, doesn't it? BLM is just a reboot of the franchise.
Later, we see from King what no black person would be allowed to say today and remain uncanceled:
In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.
If you read his full speech, it is possible to feel that some sort of economic repairs might indeed be consistent with the "reconstitution" of black people, sort of putting them back on their feet, a real check for his metaphorical check.
What I find notable in the present day is this: the last person to suggest such a thing was Donald Trump, with his "Platinum Plan" that has been flushed from consciousness. So with MLK as an asset, they shuffle him off the stage and he remains a (silent) hero. With DJT not an asset, harsher measures are in order and they will do anything to silence him.
The evidence was never strong against him as to whether he was actually controlled opposition. Virtually always with those types there are red flags clearly visible but I never came across any with Assange.
His case and others have created for me a more subtle concept of how "They" actually implement their plans through agents such as one might suspect Assange was. That is, it's nothing so crude as that you'd find his name on the payroll of the CIA or WEF. Rather it's through handlers and influence, like how a magnet attracts or repels but never needs to touch.
So we might believe Assange was one of these "lifetime actors", but the crucial point is that they're also free-range. While living it, one cannot help but absorb at least some of it, and I think that every now and then one of them wanders clear out of the pasture.
MLK Jr. was a perfect example of one of those, and virtually no one sees the nuance of his career. Did he begin as a phony-ass commie with Jew handlers and so forth? Sure. But over time, he became what he portrayed, and began believing war was bad, and that all people could and should live in brotherhood. Unacceptable, of course, and he was retired with a fake assassination.
With Assange and Wikileaks, though, I saw a couple of factors I felt were decisive on the controlled op question. One is that he brought up the very radioactive subject of Seth Rich when he didn't need to. The other was that there was a rash of mysterious deaths involving several of the key Wikileaks personnel just before Assange himself was disappeared. So even if WL was controlled at the start, it got out of control and had to be shut down by forceful means.
Personally, I never followed the doings of Wikileaks because I'm very lazy and figured it would filter through eventually if it was really important. And in the meantime, I found that all the important truths about the world--the things people really needed to know about just WTF had been and was going on--was already out there somewhere. Almost everyone was either not interested or actively rejected it.
So that observation was kinda the ultimate secret revelation.
Oh yeah, I completely agree. In fact, I'd say you hit on what I have found to be the biggest universal stumbling block to people receiving the truth.
This is all in hindsight after I put a lot of the big pieces together. I'm no one special and I did it, so why hadn't many others already done the same thing? After all, even though it was a complex picture the pieces were relatively straightforward.
I ended up studying people's reactions to this information, their counterarguments, their evidence or lack thereof. I came to realize that all of this truth was deeply, atavistically disturbing to people. It made them very uncomfortable and frightened. Further, it was all subconscious and they had no awareness it was happening.
The autopilot would steer the ship away away from these stormy waters and back to the smooth sea, where the brave and skillful captain could once again assume command. But then, the captain had never not been in command, at least according to the captain.
It's funny to me that this practice still goes on even though it was directed to be spiritual rather than physical even in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 4:4 KJV):
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem....
The more I study the Bible, the more I realize that the people that say they study the Bible (and shout to everyone else about it) apparently never actually read the fucking thing.
Jeremiah was supposedly around starting 627 BC, so maybe they all just haven't had time to give it a close look.
If anyone was wondering if Nick Pope was disinfo, this is your decider. To my knowledge, he's never mentioned this before even though he's had three decades to do so. In any intelligence analysis, you must ask the question, "Why now?"
"They" are doing everything to get Their ghetto-ass Project Blue Beam off the ground and nothing is working. I suspect lame and ludicrous shit like this is all we're ever going to see of that project, so forget about motherships--real or holographic--floating above world capitals.
Here they kick it up a notch. Not buying creepy Bob Lazar's tales of alien engineering? Fine. How about demons then? We'll get some of the frightened and misguided Bible thumpers with that. Those dickheads are always looking to tell everyone in earshot how "they knew it all along and you better find Jesus".
Final note: No one should conclude this is my way to throw cold water on the idea of aliens and demons.
On the contrary, I fully subscribe to and research the idea (fact, in my view) that aliens (one race, anyway) was and is on the Earth, and that over the course of history their presence has been purposely obscured by rewriting parts of it into what we are supposed to take as the separate concept of "demons". So there's most certainly a relation, although--surprise!--you're being lied to about it.
Whoa, the Irish shit on them?! Pretty low on the totem.
I take back what I said because actually the most racist thing I ever heard is that at one time an insult to black slaves was to refer to them as "smoked Irishmen", this being a reference to all the Irish slaves that have now been vaporized from history.
Like, you know how Rihanna has a unique look? She's part Irish. When she got here from the Caribbean and they were teaching in school about slavery, they never mentioned the Irish. She was like, "Wut?"
A lot of this--I mean a lot--is very relative, and also it's very easy to make incorrect assumptions about all kinds of facts and circumstances. As you describe, people do it all the time and thus have all kinds of erroneous ideas.
Like Genghis Khan, classic Asiatic, right? Wrong. Tall white guy, light-colored eyes. Mansa Musa, richest guy that ever lived, from the Mali Empire. Black like DMX, right? Nope, another white guy. Everything is so far off it actually blocks an understanding of history, just sends it off the rails.
As far as the relativism, I came across something from Ben Franklin about immigration to the US. He said something like, "English, you bet. French, I guess so. But Germans? Forget it, we don't need that kind of pollution." Most racist thing I ever read, relatively speaking. The guy probably thought Swedes had too much race-mixing with Laplanders and were practically Finns.
"Co-opt Jesus"? Your type clearly thinks you own Jesus. Fuck me, maybe you think you are Jesus. Revolting.
For any sentient humans still reading this crap, let me take the opportunity to illustrate something. You see the mindset, how impervious it is? It didn't reason it's way into this and will surely never reason it's way out.
Take a step back and think about the Gaza Nakba. You ask yourself, "How could such an inhuman mass murder possibly be taking place, causing untold human suffering? How could anyone possibly be in support of it? Do you think it's all just down to campaign contributions and secret tapes of politicians fondling little boys? Of course not, that's absurd.
The real answer is simple: it's the pure thoughts and heroic deeds of the brave soldiers of the Almighty who are carrying out the will of God on the Earth and upholding His Law. They have not the slightest doubt that's exactly what they're doing, and that they will be blessed for it.
Imagine this brave warrior for Christ parked in front of John Hagee, getting pumped full of the Spirit of the Lord about blessing Israel. Why would anyone question themselves? God has commanded them and moved the souls and the hands of the Righteous. Now imagine 70 million such Christian Zionist fanatics just in the United States.
People wonder why Trump doesn't speak out against Israel. Look what I dealt with. Do you think it would be easier for Trump to suggest to those Zionist minions they just might possibly not be quite 100% on the money on an item or two?
Of course not. You can;t fix a fractured and malfunctioning persona with a tweet or two, or several social media posts as we have seen. This freak surely is now even more charged up, having suffered persecution in the name of Jesus. See how it works? See the problem we all have?
Anyway, I've never once used the "block" feature on any social media site in many years. If I have to use it now, just let me know.
We probably all understand the "culture creation" program where Christmas was "invented" in consciously directed ways, piece by piece, over time, and I recently ran across one of those pieces. What was compelling was the identity (and associations) of who invented it.
It came here, in "A Mayflower Christmas":
The Pilgrims celebrated a Mayflower Christmas in 1620 with holly, ivy, plum pudding and a gift exchange with Indian children – at least according to a romanticized version written by suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton of all people.
The preposterous Christmas on the Mayflower story was published by Woman’s Journal in 1900. Stanton had done plenty of writing by then — speeches, books, documents and letters, all serious stuff.
I included that last sentence as an indication that this wasn't something some old granny just happened to come up with. "They" put it out through this prominent woman to make sure it would get attention. It's a prime example of how They create culture.
Did you recognize the name? In addition to suffragism and abolitionism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was perhaps the main progenitor of what came to be called Second Wave Feminism, beginning in 1848. Again, do you see how our culture is created? Yes, they were doing it a century before the CIA and Netflix ever came along.
I will close with mention of a woman only infrequently noted publicly even though she was Stanton's partner in that Seneca Falls Conference: Lucretia Mott. Well, Mott was almost certainly the one behind this creation of culture that is still the source of much social engineering.
You see, Lucretia Mott was born Lucretia Coffin, on Nantucket Island. Always note mention of that place. From there, we can connect far more directly than you might imagine to Benjamin Franklin, the (fake) Salem Witch Trials, the (fake) Manson murders, Starbucks coffee, Folgers coffee, the theft of Hawaii, the Underground Railroad, the (fake) Lincoln Assassination, the (fake) Vegas massacre, and many other topics.
Intriguing? I find the connections of the very tiny group that shapes the world in which we find ourselves to be fascinating, illuminating, and damning, but I fear it's not quite spicy and TikTok-y enough for most.
Stories for another day, perhaps.
No one owes a fanatic an explanation about anything. Indeed, requiring one of others is a demonstration of that very fanaticism. What kind of maniac would think he's convincing anyone of anything with any of your "doctrine"?
Going to lecture others about repentance or some such, but cannot follow the one simple instruction to leave in peace? How very characteristic of the aggressively deluded. Far too egocentric to listen, only to hear how correct you are in your own sight. Other people don't really exist to you, only props in the drama playing out in your head where you are the hero.
It's frightening and disgusting. God save us all from such people as are certain they are saved. What shall they see as fit to do with others they judge as not? What have they seen fit to do throughout history? Indeed, Satan himself finds good tools of such "Elect".
Jesus told others to depart as I told you, yet you did not. We all see how far from Jesus you really are, one who proclaims to show others the way. What a sick joke.
(Print all this out and show it to your pastor to demonstrate your saintly and brave campaign of lunacy and certitude on behalf of whatever you consider God. You won't.)
You display a distinct incapacity for self-reflection. Here you are insisting on winning a dumb bullshit argument on the Internet to protect your own ego, casting stones all along the way. Quite embarrassing.
It's such a completely ridiculous display. No wonder people get so turned off to Christianity, getting pontificated to by pompous jerks. Who wants that message or that messenger?
All the leftists and the Jews and the commies and the atheists that everybody around here complains about were all just as certain as you are of their correctness and superiority, which makes you all exactly the same. You should find this disturbing but you will not.
You don't see the problem, and I suspect you will not because you cannot. Know for a fact that you have nothing to offer someone like me, and we will all see if you can simply depart in peace.
I forbid you to read anything I post in the future.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
It's like people don't actually read this book. You'll have to guess which one I got it from. People just like to beat each other over the head with it.
Regrettable, and I reject such action. And don't bother replaying with, "That's what you just did!" because it will just make everyone laugh.
The way I see it, this current round even more so than the others, has little to do with technology and nothing to do with scientific principle. The old saying is, "spot me one miracle and I can prove the rest".
The LLM tech and anything else they care to point their fingers at are only to dazzle the population long enough to get that one free miracle. If you can get headhunters to believe that your Bic lighter is the power of fire given to you by the gods, the real power that gives you is limited only by your imagination.
The key observation of the miracle is apophatic: they carefully fail to define what "AI" is, and never even describe it's distinguishing characteristics. "AI" is that which they point to when they say "AI", having those properties that they declare it to have at that time. None can say differently by definition because, recall, there never was a definition.
So many people talk about occult magic: symbolism and dusty old books and what various fake-ass personas had to say. But they fail to see magic being done right before their eyes in 2023. Seriously, does magic need to be more "real" than what I just described?
80% of what doctors, lawyers and accountants do
You may want to look into the history of what were termed (<- past tense because no one talks about them any more) "expert systems":
Thus, in the late 1950s, right after the information age had fully arrived, researchers started experimenting with the prospect of using computer technology to emulate human decision making.
Here we are three-quarters of a century later. I sure didn't get a discount from my lawyer because he was using an expert system plugged into the wall doing the work for him.
I recall a professor talking a little about the development of these systems. Specifically, they would ask experts about their thought process and then replicate that in the machine One of the phenomena they uncovered was that the more proficient an expert was, the less able they were to articulate it. That suggests that, in principle, machines would never be able to do what people did. Time has borne that out.
They avoid writing it up in an explicit way, but expert systems were the fallback after the complete failure to develop artificial general intelligence. They spin the long history of failure as "AI winter", blaming it all on "lack of enthusiasm". It's pathetic.
Just like the Big Lie technique, these grifts are always more audacious than anyone suspects, and that's a big part of why they get away with them.
I'm just waiting for the day BidenBot 3000 whips out what appears to be a Magic 8 Ball, turns it over, and says America has to bomb Iran. Then everyone turns to each other and says, "What, are we not supposed to do what Artificial Intelligence tells us?"
Anyone who thinks that the Rockefellers, George Soros, and Bill Gates call any shots and actually set policy has not done nearly enough research. It's so far off it can be considered disinformation at this point.
An elderly Hungarian Nazi-collaborator Jew billionaire thinks Black Lives Matter goes to the top of his list of things to take care of before he kicks it? It's laughable.
You're absolutely thinking of the same things I did as I moved along in my investigations. Perhaps I could offer another couple of key observations you can keep in your back pocket as you try to put the pieces together.
The first is that you have to recognize these are all the same people you grew up with, went to school with, worked with, and lived next to all your life, and until very recently you never noticed a problem with them at all. D's and R's, blue and white collar, rich and poor and middle class. If someone a decade or two ago asked you to point out all the normies you wouldn't even know WTF they were talking about.
But now there are stark faultlines, seemingly out of nowhere. I would suggest that those faultlines were not created but simply revealed. The normies were being told, well, relatively normal things, and that's what they accepted. We all just assumed from the outside that they arrived at those conclusions the same way we would have. Now they're being told all this crazy stuff, and that they accept such is evidence that no, no one would arrive at those conclusions through the conventionally accepted processes of reasoning.
The other phenomenon I would point to highlights the commanding role of the unconscious in their behavior. When you were a child, did anyone tease you by saying that you were adopted? You freaked out, right? Got angry, told them to take it back, and so forth. It was deeply upsetting.
Pretty much the same thing is going on when you tell a normie about 911 or COVID or the Moon landings. First, their subconscious determines that what you're saying is possibly or likely true. (If you tell them something ridiculous, like a guy you knew growing said he had a Dobby in his house, they won't react negatively at all. They may even want to know more.) But if what you say is true then that means all the people that control their world (the government, media, scientists, doctors, etc) are a bunch of fools, liars and murderers.
This is intolerably upsetting and their psyche has to find a way out. By far the easiest way out is just like it was when you were 9 years old: get increasingly aggressive until the claim is retracted. Voila, "safe" again.
The true nature of human consciousness is one of the biggest secrets I'm aware of, and that's because it's the main pathway to manipulating us. It's easiest to win a game if your opponents don't know they're playing, let alone the rules.