I agree, it's too vague, but it is at least some common ground with the normies. Kind of a conversation starter if you like. It's completely socially acceptable to say that there are corrupt politians who take bribes and steal. Once that is established, there may be some ways to advance discussion further into something more substantial.
An interesting video. It's basically an AI simulating a video game. Not just playing it, but also generating all the graphics etc. The bit on reward function got me thinking what kind of reward functions are built into other AIs.
For example, ChatGPT may have a reward function tuned in a way that left wing propaganda has a higher reward than right wing one. It's basically like an artificial bias. You don't need to tell AI exactly what to say and what to not say. You just tune it's reward function in a way that it will by itself determine leaning of particular statement and will naturally tend to choose those that have higher reward points. To be used as a propaganda tool an AI does not need to be top-down controlled. All it needs is in-built programmable bias and it will do the rest by itself.
Sometimes it feels like our whole reality is fake. History as well. Like it all is just some kind of AI generated bullshit. That would explain all name and date coincidences and all the rest of the bullshit happening.
Other possibility is that they're just fucking with us. I just checked out Reddit and seems like they're pretty much back at left/right paradigm and most of them think elections are real (on some level they probably are, but definitely not in the way media presents it). Then again, Reddit is full of bots and shills so all of that may not mean much anyway...
...it is stunning that you are not aware that Russia is a largest European country...
Haha, of course I know that Russia is a European country. I just assumed for some reason that you meant Western Europe. Like France, Germany and such...
...was completely prohibited by Alexander I...
Didn't know such details about Russian masonry. Interesting stuff. I've heard of Griboedov, but haven't read him...
...he was nominant for Nobel prize, but got nothing...
Interesting detail. You might be right about him not being in the club.
I don't know if it is available in English...
No need for English. I read them in Russian ;) I'm from post-soviet country :) Anyway, yes, I've read Methuselah's Lamp. That was some while ago, but I remember liking it. It's probably not the best of his, but a good one nevertheless.
Almost all of his books are highly relevant to actual real world happenings. Take iPhuck 10, for example. Or SNUFF, for that matter... which almost seems like some kind of prophesy or something...
I like his more spiritual texts as well. Like Yellow Arrow and the Fuji novel.
All in all I'm too a constant reader of his stuff :)
WEF, UN, WHO, etc clowns...
Yes, I do not really believe that Tedros or Klaus are actually deciding anything. Most probably those are just figureheads, who do what they're told... just like everyone else... In short, it's a question of levels. Is the publicly visible layer (with all the presidents, heads of various agencies etc) the very top level or is there some level(s) above it? I think it's the latter.
Probably. Actually my consolation while reading those classics is that probably back then masonry wasn't so bad as it is today and also the possibility that the really nasty shit starts only on higher levels. So, many of those authors might have been well meaning and honest. They just didn't know the whole picture and didn't foresee how it'll all turn out.
Yes, could be you're right. Fake writers is a whole another subject. For example, was Harry Potter really written by Rowling? I have my doubts. Also, the way it got popular doesn't quite seem organic. Most probably it was made popular, not became it.
I see freemasons as a purely European phenomena.
Here you go: "Alexander Pushkin was Initiated in 1821 at Lodge Ovid, in Kischinev, Russia." That said, I agree with you that freemasonry is mostly a European thing. Was Pushkin a jew, mayhap?...
So they create and made that masonry popular among elites and get what they want.
You could be right. To think about it, I do know of the term "judeo-masonry", but haven't given it much thought previously...
Of course not. It is a direct depiction of brain contents of elite and their leaders of that time.
Which kind of brings us back to the original question: how much of our cultural codes have been manufactured and how much have occured naturally? Also, is being part of the elite a prerequisite to becoming famous? Can anyone at all become famous without being approved and vetted by the elite beforehand? Or is it just a one big club and if you're not part of it, you won't even get close to being famous or well known no matter how talented you are?
Even occasionally looking at commercial ads, you will find some of them are really great and obviously created by a talented person.
This reminded me of Pelevin's novel Generation P, haha. It has a lot of creative ad examples as well as ruminations on the structure of our society, consumerism, fake politics and more. A really recommended read, if you haven't read it already.
Pretty good method to hide real shit in the clear sight.
I've read somewhere that on some level masonic lodges really are just a bored gentlemen's clubs. That lower level masonic initiates are not getting any secrets revealed and nasty shit starts only at the higher levels. So you could be right about the perfect coverup. On the lower levels you have naive initiates, public masonic museums, some charity here and there, stuff like that... while the actual shit is happening away from the public eye hidden in plain sight.
Ivan Hoe? Hmmm... Not only freemason, but also Russian shill. :)
Haha, good catch!
I see no problems do them in Golf clubs or even private fitness.
Well, yeah, probably, but wouldn't you agree that it is kind of strange that so much of our classics are written by members of one single particular bored gentlemen's club? So it just happened that so many talented classic authors coincidentally were freemasons without any reason whatsoever? Also, purely coincidentally those works and characters became globally recognized cultural icons such as Dracula, Holmes etc... Is it all just a coincidence? As I mentioned in my OP, even if we discount all mason related conspiracy theories, it is still strange as hell...
At least Mark Twain is good and interesting for me and I think deserve title of classic regardless of masonic membership.
Yes, sure. One does not exclude the other. Even if it was coordinated and guided deliberately, it does not mean that there was no real talent behind it... I guess, it all boils down to the question, whether classics were created and made popular artificially or did it all happen without any delibarate guidance and were driven by popularity and talent alone?
As for Hollywood, I think it is much more Jewish thing than masonic.
Could be... I meant it as an example that book reading back then was just as much, if not more, influential as watching Hollywood and Netflix movies are today.
I think some of the events are. There is no way they didn't know and didn't anticipate shitshow that would start with the whole female boxing situation. Was Italian boxer (who gave up after 40 seconds) also in on it? Probably not... but the overall situation was definitely scripted.
Also, I'm quite sure that large part of winner positions are known beforehand. Probably not all, but at least some of them definitely are.
All in all as u/turtlebam says, it's the bigger picture that matters. Opening and closing ceremonies, agenda pushing, propaganda, outrageous security protocols (which probably won't go anywhere after the games are over) etc, etc...
Yes, I know about those. Of course it wasn't a coincidence. The question is though why those articles are appearing all of a sudden on mainstream media? What is the real purpose of those disclosures? Also, will any real action follow? Or nothing will happen at all?
My guess would be on Revelation of the Method. They are telling the masses what they did and masses will do nothing about it. That's the actual goal. It's like telling us "Look what we did and look how you'll do nothing about it!" If no real action follows it'll only make them stronger and masses will become even more apathetic and resigned.
I think they probably are deliberately releasing this info bit by bit. They can't hide it forever after all. So they're releasing info in small managed doses to get masses acquainted with what they are doing to them.
It's the same old frog being boiled gradually tactic. If it's successful, in a few years time everyone will know that chemtrails are a thing and no significant resistance will follow because everyone will be already used to it.
I kind of suspect that much of electronic and pop music is being generated already. Most of it is incredibly unoriginal and uniform. You have to plow through mountains of shit to find something even remotely listenable and worthwhile your attention. Sure, vocals are still performed by real people, but the music itself - if not entirely generated already - might as well be. With quality standards as these, we won't notice a difference.
They just don't give a fuck anymore. At this point they're just fucking with normies. And you know what? They can do whatever they want - show any amount of hypocrisy, openly laugh in our face, anything... Normies still won't get it!
On the other hand, maybe that's what they want? Maybe they want even most dense normie to actually get (at least to some degree) how heavily they are being fucked by TPTB. Maybe it's some kind of revelation of the method thing...
It's not really about separating information from the source... It's more about intent and purpose. What he tells here is true. Sure. We all know that. Why do you assume those politians do not know that? They do.
It's not about knowing as such. It's about intent and what comes next... and next, I imagine, there's a lenghty debate divided along political lines during which large part of society will become totally in favour of social credit score, while the rest will know no better than to simply follow the herd. And thus, step by step, those things are being done... I wouldn't be too surprised if all the contracts are already sealed and the necessary software is already being in development if not fully developed already.
We have the same goals. Of course social credit score is an abomination and of course it should be stopped. It's just that some see in Peterson fake/controlled opposition while others assume he is genuine... I do not know which is it, but my first thought was of Overton Window, so here you go...
Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.
It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.
Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.
It goes something like this and consists of several phases:
-
First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)
-
Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.
-
Next step is making it technically possible, but still widely unacceptable.
-
Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where we are at now and quite possibly the very purpose of Peterson's speech was to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.
Following phases are as follows:
-
Generally acceptable.
-
Encouraged and favourable.
-
Mandatory.
In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. Or, to simplify a bit, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.
Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.
Yes, exactly. It's not like this is some super hidden secret information. The internet is a product of the establishment. Everyone knows it. And still people believe it's like some spontaneous thing that kind of appeared out of nothing without any specific purpose or reason.
Yes, that's a good point. Not having a smartphone in 2010 was not a big deal. Even in 2015 not having one was ok. Not having one today, however, is a whole different matter. You can't simply not have it anymore. These days not having it means a statement.
It was techies expanding the world.
I think, that's a very naive way to look at it. Sure, at the bottom levels it might seem like that. Hell, I was one of them too - one of those naive souls who believed tech is cool and making the world a better place. However, at the top levels it is never that simple. Quite the opposite. It's about long term plans and in particular: influence, control and wealth. It is never about simple and naive ideas like better future or such.
As u/SmithW1984 has already mentioned, it is all about the goals of those at the top and not about beliefs or values of those at the bottom.
In other words, bottom level engineers and developers were duped as well. Yes, in a bit different way than general public, but duped nevertheless...
Well, if you yourself do not have any specific goal in mind, then yes, it might be hard to see where your invention leads. On the other hand, if you do have a specific goal in mind, it's not that hard to steer things in certain direction, to reach that specific goal. It's not so much about predicting events as consciously and deliberately steering them in a certain direction.
I already mentioned smartphones. Those almost certainly were designed as control and surveillance devices from the very start, but from the viewpoint of average person in 2010 it might have not been that obvious.
I don't see any reason why the internet could not be planned as a control and surveillance grid from the very start. Look backwards from today's standpoint and you could see it quite clearly. You could even divide it in approximate phases. Like development phase, introduction to the public phase, voluntary and fun phase, optimistic phase, mandatory phase, oppressive phase etc. Currently we are at the very end of optimistic phase and entering mandatory/oppressive phase. When fun and games are not quite over yet, but you can already feel and smell all the shit ahead of you.
When were smartphones ever "fun and games"?
When they were just rolling them out. Somewhere about 2010 or so. Society was still happily living without them - you know - with real human contact, in person conversations, empathy and all that stuff. Smartphone was just this cool new gadget to show your friends and play with occasionally. Basic mode of interaction with the world was still mostly grounded in reality. Since then all of that has changed significantly.
My point being that, of course, it was a con from the start. The coolness part was just a bait to lure people in and I see the same with the internet. The endless and free information part was just a bait. Nothing more. As soon as it started to get in the way of control an oppression, they have started to gradually turn all of that off.
Yes, I agree. It is not a case of simply removing some bad politians and installing some good ones. It is the system and its incentives we're up against.