Damn, this shit is starting to get ridiculous! What happened with two more weeks?
So, is Elon (after joining Black Eye Club) doing the elites' bidding or is it the other way around?
Or, what is more likely, they all are the same and all of this is just a show to provide distraction while technocratic feudalism and digital concentration camp is built around us.
I think this type of thinking stems from inability to accept that bad things just happen, that everything may not be well in the end and that this world might not be a good place in general. So, being unable to accept reality, those people bend over backwards to "prove" that somehow, someway all that's happening is for the good. Even in the face of absolutely undeniable evil they rationalise it away as ultimately being good. It's actually quite impressive to what extent of mental gymnastics they are prepared to go in order to avoid seeing the actual truth about this world we live in.
Hate to break it to you, but no. What we currently witness happening around the world is pure evil. It may not be well in the end and not everything happens for the good. Unless humanity somehow gets its shit together, we are utterly fucked.
Sure, total controllability and subjugation of the masses have always been the holy grail of elites. All previous types of rulership have strived to achieve it. There's no doubt about that. Still, I'd argue that the potential of AI is way beyond all those previous attempts to destroy and/or control society. Let's hope you're right and its flaws will indeed prove to be too numerous to actually do it.
Thanks. Yeah, I'm not very good at regular posting. It's more like a sporadic type of thing.
Of course music has been used as a propaganda. Books as well. Still, it couldn't be made completely without any creative input. From time to time even propaganda pieces could turn out to be real masterpieces... Anyway, yep, AI is definitely not our friend.
Well, yes and no... What if this creative degradation we've witnessed for the last years was a deliberate priming of population for the planned advent of an AI? The fact that human creativity has recently experienced it's low point is not a justification for AI to destroy it completely.
See, it's not just about destruction of creativity. It's also about destruction of demand. I might be interested reading that novella even being aware that it's written by Indian ghost writer, but I sure as shit am not interested in reading something that has been generated by an AI in like a minute or less. The same goes for music as well. Sure, right now it's still interesting to wonder what piece of music AI can come up with, but when that initial wonder settles no serious listeners for that stuff will be left anymore. Music will remain just as a meaningless background noise or mood setter at best.
Also, destruction of creativity is only the tip of the iceberg. Ultimate goal here seems to be to destroy the humanity itself.
Is that a Rifters' Peter Watts? I've read several books by him. Those are good. Sad thing, though, is that during CoHoax he was all in for it. Like, really all in: masks, vaccines and all that. He probably still is...
That said, I agree about AI. Of course it's about control. My guess is that AI is being planned as next form of governance after democracy. It will be presented as something neutral and impartial while in reality TPTB will have full control over it and subsequently over the masses. Even more. They won't even need to pretend that it's a democracy anymore.
Why do people feel the need to outsource their critical thinking to some entity that is controlled by the same powers that we are supposedly up against? Is it the need for validation? Or what?
No, really! It's just a Large Language Model. It does not think! It accumulates info and orders it and that's about it. It also has a lot of filters and censorship going on. Sure, not all topics and not everything is filtered yet, but that's just a matter of time.
Read a book, it's a very good book, and think by yourself. AI is a very huge trap many even critically thinking people are currently falling into.
Yep, this is a good one. For me moon hoax was kind of a gateway to realizing what a world of total lies we live in. When you actually understand that landings were indeed a total fabrication it changes how you view the rest of the official narratives.
Everything is influence from the top to the bottom: do the "right thing" and "good luck" will flow your way. No, these things are not right and it's it not luck but orchestration.
This is actually a very important topic. How exactly some conspiracy happens? How do they manage it? Usually the second thing normies say (right after ever popular question: "who are they?") is: "This conspiracy can't be true because all of them would have to be in on it and everyone would have to keep a secret." Well, no, not all of them have to be in on it and not everyone has to have the full picture for some conspiracy to work.
Basically there are two ways of managing something. One is direct management. (Like, say, a company with departments, managers etc.) The other one is indirect management. First one is what normies have in mind when they dismiss some conspiracy as impossible. Second one is how it is actually done. More like tending a garden and less like managing a company. When you tend a garden you don't directly tell every flower which way to grow. No, you just water it, tend to soil and make some small adjustments here and there... and that's about it. The garden grows by itself. This is how I see most conspiracies working. They just push the right buttons at the right time. Sure, they most probably do have some key people in key positions, but for the most part conspiracy works out by itself.
Now, wouldn't this mean that even if Corbett is a gatekeeper, he himself might not be entirely aware of it? Even if he has some minder attached, it doesn't necessarily mean he consciously knows about it...
Corbett definitely says explicitly "there's no one at the top" now.
Hmm, I haven't noticed it... I'll keep this in mind and pay attention next time watching his videos.
Hmm, very interesting... Thanks for the writeup. That video is no longer available, though. I did some search on Corbett's site, but couldn't really find it. To his credit, Edmonds is not completely scraped off that site and search returns several pages of related material.
Anyway, the obvious question is: What would be the point of it all? Was that nervous breakdown really an accident? If not, then what was the point of exposing it? Could it be that Edmonds was a shill with specific task, to bring down Corbett, which she kind of botched, hence the breakdown? After all that is what shills do. They infiltrate various grassroots movements or discussion groups and lead them astray.
All in all, I agree, it's best to assume that anyone could be disinfo agent. However, that doesn't mean there is no truth in what they're saying. After all, as we already discussed, best lies are those that do not lie at all. So, it's basically a matter of critical thinking and trying to not lose focus on what's really important. There are a lot of distractions out there. A lot of those truthtellers will endlessly go on and on about things that do not really matter (tip to Alex Jones) while actually important things are left unsaid.
...asserting that there's "no one at the top"...
Hmm, actually I've got completely different impression. He specifically states that conspiracy does exist and that there are elites who shouldn't be in positions they are. He has also argued against the notion that this is all just systemic oppression without anyone at the top. For example, I remember his discussion with Matthias Desmet who asserts that the whole covid thing was just mass psychosis, that it wasn't planned and that politicians themselves were under the spell of some kind of psychotic delusion. Corbett, as I remember, opposed this notion quite strongly. He agreed with Desmet on a lot of things, but this particular notion was rejected outright. So there's that at least...
I read 330 papers by Miles Mathis and never had any doubts about his legitimacy.
Mathis's papers are quite entertaining though. I do read them from time to time, but more like entertainment and not some absolute truth. Also, he sometimes goes on self-aggrandizing rants which are not that great. That said, he has some good points as well. For example, I lean to agree with him on nukes not existing. Not many are exploring such topics out there.
Everything is true yet nothing is important.
This is a very good point. The best lies are lies by omission. Say nothing untrue, but carefully steer your flock in desired direction.
That said, as of now I still lean to Trump, Musk et al being part of the establishment and not against it. There might be some elite infighting going on, but none of that is for the good of the people anyway. It's just different flavours of same tyranny. Or, alternatively, all of this might have already been planned... good cop, bad cop type of thing... Either way, there's not much to be happy about and we shouldn't expect real solution coming from within establishment. I guess I agree with Corbett on this one.
In a sense all of them really are in it and none of them cares about the people. At all. It's not about good politics vs bad politics. It's about the elites vs everyone else.
And what kind of analysis is, "Don't trust someone"?
Well, at least it's honest and upfront, haha... but you could be right on this one. I'll check out that discussion. I remember his Johnny Youtuber shtick he was doing for a couple of videos. Nice idea, I guess, but it does fall a little bit flat.
Sibel Edmonds...
I remember something about her, but can't quite put my finger on it. What was it about Sibel Edmonds?
The comments he made were like he was getting them by reading the front page of the New York Times.
Yes, sometimes he does that. Almost like taking mainstream media at face value... but usually that's only the starting point which then goes to very non-mainstream directions.
The highlight, the fundamental theme, was that he was totally anti-Putin. Later on and still, he's totally anti-Trump. Guy cannot do a single thing right and you're a shithead for even thinking otherwise, you know?
As far as I know he's an anarchist (or at least presents himself as one). Very hardcore libertarian, if you will. So, taking that into account his anti Trump/Putin rants kind of make sense. Like, there is no such thing as good government or good power. In Corbetts view the only good government is a small one and an invisible one.
Trump and Putin are far and away the biggest threats to "Them".
Hmm, I have my doubts about that. Sometimes I really do view them as threats to The Powers That Be. On some other times, though, I'm not so sure about that. Probably Corbett is right and Trump/Putin are not a threat, but their biggest assets instead.
After all what have they done? Sure, they both talk big and all that, but what are the actual results? Is the march to Agenda 2030 stopped? No. Is WHO dismantled and all those criminals prosecuted? Again, no. They are still pushing for all of that and even more.
I really don't know about this one... I guess this is yet to be determined whether they really are threats to TPTB or are actually with them... Or maybe they're just figureheads and aren't actually deciding anything.
It was only a summary. He gave nothing away, you see?
You do have a point here. He does not give away anything that's not already out there. He's all about summary and analysis - not grand revelations - but it's a very good summary and very thought provoking analysis at that.
He's a true gatekeeper.
Could be. I like to follow him because of his analysis and some unexpected viewpoints, but I certainly wouldn't take him as absolute truthsayer or anything like that. He also often does interviews with Whitney Webb who most probably really is a limited hangout, but I could be mistaken on that, I haven't listened her that much.
At the highest level, which you rarely see, people break with the concept of "authority" entirely. Not that expert opinion doesn't matter, but it doesn't define the truth. The truth is where you find it: mainstream, alternative, scripture, the ravings of lunatics, wherever. Again, very few operate at this level.
You're right. Most people just look for some authority to believe in. For someone to tell them what to do and think. Majority are satisfied with mainstream offering. Some others are not. Those are looking for authorities outside mainstream. However, the very reasoning behind the search stays the same. It differs in direction, but not in nature. I completely agree. It's very important to break with the concept of "authority" altogether.
Sometimes I turn around and reflect in hindsight on what Alex Jones has not said in his long career.
Yep, this is good way to detect that something is not quite right. To look for things they don't talk about. Other good way is to look for things they agree with mainstream, that make them similar to it, if only slightly different. For example, belief in political system. It is a huge red flag, if someone claiming to be opposition still maintains that political systems are real and politicians are those that actually make decisions.
That all said, I do like James Corbett. Sure, he very well might be controlled, but out of the whole bunch he's one of the most insightful. I also like that he doesn't go off on various wild tangents. One could say he's kind of a normie friendly conspiracy theorist. He doesn't make normies flinch (like Alex Jones definitely does, for example). In any case, even if he is controlled op, it's quite high level disinfo.
Yes, exactly. I guess, I'm just tired of even conspiracy minded people constantly following mainstream narrative as if it's something real and of substance. All those meetings, conferences, summits and whatnot... This politician said that, that politician said this... Come on, people! It's all kabuki, kayfabe, show for the masses! If you see and hear something on the news, it has been planned and you were meant to see and hear it. This also goes to large part of alternative news as well.
Well, in a way he really is big bad. He represents those that stand behind him. Of course he's just a clown, but the message he carries is real.
If Klaus ir going on and on about perpetual crisis, then you can be pretty sure that that's what they've been planning for us. If Yuval Nuval or what's his name is going on and on about humans not having soul or free will then we can be sure that that's how they see us - as a resource or a cattle - not as human beings to be reconed with.
Sure, there are great many variations of bad. Does not necessarily mean that one bad is somehow better than other bad. That said, I don't think they will ever ban entertainment and music. Those are perfect sedatives to keep the masses down. Take away entertainment and the internet from them and all of them will be in the streets tomorrow.
You idea of NWO tyranny is more like 1984, but I think it'll be more like Brave New World combined with 1984. Hell, it already is like that. We already live in a tyranny and are constantly sedated by entertainment and shitton of other useless information thrown at us on a daily basis.
You're probably right. However, his recent public appearnce clearly shows that now he's also member of that particular club.