Good good, keep being a nice sheep, youre too much of a snowflake to handle truth.

what made you such a conspiracy aficionado? https://i.imgur.com/38CHSdW.gifv

Its like a rabbit hole, most people never even give themselves a chance to look whats down there, once you do, theres no going back. Simple.

That said, many times i wish i was still a sheep like i was a ton of time ago, its much easier to be a sheep today. But as i said, once you take the red pill, theres no going back.

Most people have taken some time to look at conspiracy theories. Luckily most realize that most of those theories are nonsense.

No doubt there are lots of nonsense theories. First because conspiracy theorists are humans too so they also make mistakes, but mainly because there are conspiracy theories created with the sole intent of discrediting the whole movement, like flat earth.

Some conspiracy theories i believe are true:

- No current era humans have gone to the moon, it was a Stanley Kubrick like film done in the Arizona desert.

- 9/11 was an inside job, planed in advance with many objectives in mind, like creating a police state with the excuse of terrorism, create a reaction in the population to justify the invasion of middle east countries, etc.

- Vaccines cause autism, in fact 100 years ago the same symptomps were blamed on mercury poisoning. The body mistakes mercury with a protein neccesary for creating tubuline (the structure that connects neurons), and the huge weight af a mercury molecule rips the tubulin structure appart, disconecting neurons.

No doubt there are lots of nonsense theories. First because conspiracy theorists are humans too so they also make mistakes, but mainly because there are conspiracy theories created with the sole intent of discrediting the whole movement, like flat earth.

Good what we agree on that.

Some conspiracy theories i believe are true:

- No current era humans have gone to the moon, it was a Stanley Kubrick like film done in the Arizona desert.

- 9/11 was an inside job, planed in advance with many objectives in mind, like creating a police state with the excuse of terrorism, create a reaction in the population to justify the invasion of middle east countries, etc.

- Vaccines cause autism, in fact 100 years ago the same symptomps were blamed on mercury poisoning. The body mistakes mercury with a protein neccesary for creating tubuline (the structure that connects neurons), and the huge weight af a mercury molecule rips the tubulin structure appart, disconecting neurons.

o_0 Why do you think the establishment of science and engineering are all liars and indoctrinate any and all students who study the relevant stuff? Isn't this absurd organizational achievement less likely than... Literally all of them not being liars?

The biggest mistake people make is to assume that somehow everybody has to be "in on it" (911, vaccines, moon landing, pharma/oil cartel, black projects, dumbing down through public education, psyops and pop culture etc). They don't. All you need is a handful few "gatekeepers" in key positions at every level of this malignant structure to muddy the waters in the name of 'order'.
Our whole societal paradigm is based on secrecy, a need-to-know basis where everybody does their part and their part only, whereby the structure as a whole constitutes a heavily compartmentalized pyramid. The further up the ladder you go, the narrower it is and the clearer the "big picture" becomes, the further down - the wider and more diluted. I don't think that's a hard concept to take in.
There is just as much research and studies (studies, NOT theories) available that go against popular belief. Unfortunately, most of these studies are deep under the rug, because they are not adhering to the ‘standards’ of : the "authorities", "accredited" and “peer reviewed” institutions, or are produced by decommissioned folks because they talked and thought too much for their "own good". All of which are nothing more than filtration mechanisms of imposed beliefs with the ultimate one being the msm.
The problem is that they are a threat to the status quOIL that keeps the engine running - the alliance of banksters, media and multinationals, pharma, the church, the military and its black projects fueled by the drug war, the petrodollar, the concept of competition, war, fiat currency, and human misery and fear. Such system doesn't empower people, it keeps them submissive, divided, angry, depressed, locked in a dead-end routine and reduced down to the instinct of survival.
And the effort to suppress, discredit, subvert, ridicule and humiliate any paradigm changing efforts from which everyone would benefit, is something that happens every single moment in every way possible under the guise of "national security" , “patriotism”, “sanity" and "order". But you know, if flat earthers are the epitome of human stupidity, so must be all “conspiracy theorists”. Or a great portion of them suffer from a major cognitive impairment and must be treated. Here’s vaccine…

So you know, why don’t we just promote the idea of flat earth and such to further discredit said demographic?
You want to make sense out of this? Then drop the whole notion of "they do this because they care for me", because the government whether it’s the right or the left, the banks, a corporation or the alphabet agencies, they all work toward their own interests, not yours - the average Joe. It's all about the hegelian dialectic and divide & conquer, both of which and have been operating at full capacity since the advent of homo sapiens. It's how empires are built, and it's how they crumble.
All of it is akin to a dysfunctional human body where organs instead of working toward the maintenance of the body (the common goal), are all competing against each other. It was never meant to work in our (the whole) favor. It’s cancer. Speaking of which: why would you make millions from coming up with a cure if you can easily make bazillions, researching and treating the symptoms? Or, why would you need to come up with any cure for anything at all when you can unleash a said disease for which you have already developed a cure in a form of a pill or a vaccine? A vaccine which will only hinder the immune system and make it vulnerable to the next disease (for which vaccines or treatments will already be in place)?

I couldn’t give less of a shit if you believe it or not, what matters is, is that it’s an insidious but a wonderful business model that will work in perpetuity for the sole purpose of turning the human genome into a docile transhumanistic tincan.
It all eventually boils down to human psychology and the inflexibility of the mind to learn and accept things that go against its preconceptions and core beliefs as it grows older. It believes what brings it most comfort – i.e what it wants to believe. If you suddenly overload it with information that doesn’t align with what’s normal, its defense mechanism is always denial and fear. People should practice skepticism and discernment every day, but if you approach it with the sole goal of disproving a given hypothesis because it sounds outlandish, it’s often to your detriment. Houxley and Orwell are a great introductory material for a good portion the shit unfolding in America and our planet in general right now, but apparently, I’m too deep and edgy for my peers for even suggesting it.

Peace.

Where is your evidence that only a small few "gatekeepers" need to be involved? We operate in an information rich world were a lot of people are all involved in shuffling information around. That's why it takes more and more people involved to pull off the level of secrecy you're talking about. And, ironically, the more people you involve, the more likely you'll have a leaker.

How would just a few select "gatekeepers" manage to keep anything secret when there's so many people poking around? Even at the highest levels of sensitive, classified information, things get leaked (Snowden, Manning, James Comey himself leaked info to the media). Do you really think someone who is part of such a dramatic conspiracy wouldn't leak? Or someone who works alongside of the "gatekeepers", or even interacts with one of the "gatekeepers" in some innocuous way, wouldn't recognize that something was awry? It strains credulity to think so.

I suppose it's inevitable that a conspiracy theorist would suggest there's a conspiracy (flat earth conspiracy) to discredit conspiracies. Well, let me do you one better: I suggest a conspiracy to discredit the flat earth conspiracy to discredit all the other conspiracies. In fact, there are no conspiracies and that's what the elites don't want us to realize! No one is in control but they want us to believe they are. So what they've done is created a conspiracy against the flat earth conspiracy which was an attempt to discredit all other conspiracies. They actually want you to believe in the conspiracy theories so you'll be more scared of the sinister machinations behind everything and you'll be cowed and ostracized for your fringe views, therefore making your opinions irrelevant in normal discourse!

Alright, buckle up.

The personalities you mentioned, even Comey to an extent, all received varying degrees of the same treatment and were pinned on the wall of "treason", because they saw through the thinly veiled scam that is "national security". The willful patsies if you want. It’s because of thousands of people like them that we’re able to discuss such things, people who never stepped into the limelight like the ones you mentioned, because they lived in different times, approached the wrong person, chose a different avenue, were labeled insane, or were simply removed from the picture before they can act. Or they are spreading the word on the likes of youtube, but nobody's giving a shit. Some of them do it because “people must know”, some of them do it for their own agenda, some of them, while having good intentions, are simply regurgitating falsities because they know no better (NewAgers), some of them are planted conduits for lies mixed with truths.

There are just as many gatekeepers as there are unsuspecting "useful idiots" and frontmen that do their bidding for a buck with the most prominent ones being people whose word decides the course of an entire organization, a-list "artists", athletes, crisis actors, (mind controlled) psychopaths on a killing spree and teleprompter readers (w/e a news anchor means today anyway).

You bring up the same old chessnut of being unable to keep tabs on everybody and withhold information of such gargantuan scale and mislead the masses. Information leaks, constantly, it’s just not CNN, bbc, abc cnbc, hsbc, theguardian, shoving it down your throat everyday like they do with the trump-putin fiesta/hearsay. Information (and disinformation) slips through the cracks constantly, which is why we are able to discuss it here, and most of what I said is based on leaks, books, documentation (which you can easily find yourself if you look in the “right” places) and connecting the dots that become obvious only when you take a step back and look at the big picture. If information didn’t leak or flow, the dam would eventually collapse either way. In other words you can’t withhold the flow forever, but you can always slow down the current. You have to let some things out every now and then, albeit obscure them as much as possible.

Sure, the flow of information has increased since the advent of the internet, but so has mis/disinformation. We live in an information, just as much of a disinformation era. You always have to cut it both ways. It is what the whole “order through chaos” shit is based on and it has worked wonders for millennia. You always mix truth with lies and keep everybody divided, confused and busy. It’s how you give yourself space to do whatever you want, while others are busy killing each other, fighting over bullshit thinking they’re fighting the real enemy.

As I said, information will always be filtered from top bottom, until it’s completely unrecognizable from its original state. And when I say the top, I really mean a dozen-at-most guys per organization (the board) that run the charade and have a vested interest with other organizations that seek to dominate the populace. There is no concern for ethics up there, only unlimited funds and a grand vision. The guys directly a level below, will already have a proportionally diluted and watered down version of the “big picture” and they’ll be working with what they’re given. That doesn’t mean they’re “in on it too”, some of them may be, but most will be just doing their job and serving their “country” and believe that they are doing the right thing, or won’t bother questioning their own actions. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. There are good guys, there are bad guys and there are minions just doing their job at every level, with the top or the center (depending on how you look at it) being comprised mostly of crooked and malevolent intent, unfortunately. Which explains the times and conditions we live in. It’s the same model that has engulfed every facet of society, from religion to science.

They’ll slip bits and pieces through documentaries and movies every so often. It’s how the minds are conditioned into acceptance, gradually. They’ll give you breadcrumbs of their ‘plans’, ‘the truth’, the future, the ‘big picture’, here and there that will trigger intuitively your gut feeling, which you will ignore for the most part. The seed has been planted either way. They’ll have you watch crappy blockbusters where the good guys win 99% of the time, because it provides comfort and solace in a world where the picture is completely reverse.
And then they’ll laugh at you because you don’t want to “get it”, which lets them off the hook in a sense as they shift the blame on your apathy and irgnorance and keep doing business as usual. They always operate on principles of astronomy and astrology, subtle energies, rituals, ancient symbolism, nature and its universal laws, which is why they are so successful in what they do. Occult principles which you were never taught in school, because they are passed off as spiritual nonsense. The bigger the lie, the easier people will fall for it. Repeat it enough times and they’ll eventually believe it. The two basic rules of fascist propaganda, adopted by USA’s, Russia’s, Germany’s, Sweden’s, China’s, NK’s finest.

Hollywood is one of their greatest tools. There’s really no shame at all anymore in that department - CIA will openly admit that they've been pushing dope around the globe like it’s nobody’s business. It’s subconscious predictive programing and conditioning in all its glory. But nah, to your conscious it’s just a movie. Denial is a great leverage.

And sure, people may over exaggerate about their ability to exert control over us, for a variety of reasons including bluff, but even so, a great proportion of us feel powerless, which is their primary concern. And the situation with the FCC and net neutrality is a perfect example of the public’s powerlessness and ineptitude. Your votes and written complaints simply do not mean shit and never have. (paraphrasing Twain here).

The guy at the top of the mountain will always have a better view than you at the bottom. He’ll see the general picture (blurry nonetheless), while you’ll be stuck staring at rocks and trees at the bottom. He sees the forest, you see the tree. Pair this simple concept with compartmentalization and you got yourself a working formula. It is how the atomic bomb was developed, where individual scientists had no idea what their work amassed to. They were all segregated into very niche and specific tasks.

People need a prominent daddy figure to tell them how things are; the president, CNN, ABC, the times, Washington post, BBC, RT, the FDA, NASA, NSA, CIA, the AMA, the ACA, the feds, a Dallas sheriff , someone distinguished behind a podium and a teleprompter, a nobel-prized individual, a handicap genius who rose above ALS against all odds, or someone with credentials and certificates, an authoritarian entity, because they just wouldn’t purport lies to billions of people. Or they would, without realizing it. People need an official figure to do the thinking for them. Only then will they budge and openly discuss such matters, because they were given the green light by daddy. That’s how they strip you off your own thinking and power, because you’re simply not qualified enough to have your own opinion. You must consume the news just as you must consume everything else, because you're living in a consumer driven society. If you don't, you're an outcast.

Everybody has suspected the Vatican, Hollywood, Ted Heath, Thatcher, Saville, the royalty, the politicians and the upper echelons in society of fucking children with a sworn allegiance to Lucifer, 911 being the most obscure event in recent history, etc, but nobody will admit it publicly, because there’s simply no “concrete enough proof”, until suddenly there is (heath, Weinstein, surveillance, Saudi connection etc) – you were always a conspiracy theorist for pointing these things out 50 years ago. Pedophilia is how they control each other, which is why is one of the underlying reasons it’s so rampant in those circles. There’s dirt on ‘everybody’ up top . But even when such things are “officially confirmed", people will act like it’s nothing new and move on with their pointless lives. Nothing is new alright, because of constant subliminal conditioning.

And unfortunately, headlines alone are enough to convince people. And even then, these headlines are riddled with words like “allegedly, supposedly, sources say, reports say, sources suggest, it appears that”, because if they don’t use those terms they’re subject to lawsuit for defamation, because a lot of it is simply cooked up or aggressively misrepresented and often labeled as anti-semitic (another front , or brick in the wall).

Vaccines, especially the ones that are free and forced on people are just as much of a sketchy topic that doesn’t revolve just around autism, and it’s something that I don’t really want to delve into personally out of respect (I guess) for your family. All I’ll say is that you can’t pin it all on the needle. It’s a combination of a variety of shit that you put into your body that produces the ‘desired’ adverse effect – for which vaccines are an important ingredient. Which is why there’s so much controversy and confusion around it (ordo ab chao). It is a conundrum, and I’ll let some material speak for itself.

If they care so much for your well-being, why don’t they do something about our healthcare which is arguably the worst among “first world countries” instead of protecting corporate interests by pumping trillions (most of which they can’t account for) each year into military, domestic surveillance projects and the space race? Oh right, those dirty gunloving, gambling-addicted, domestic taliban-like rascals and their inexplicable bloodlust, they probably had one to many marijuanas injected into them. Oh, let’s not forget the resurgence of the “weapons of mass destruction” theme that our overprotective authorities re-attached to the new enemy – a communist driven baby dictator with a fetish for outdated technology in a country where everyone’s convinced that dennis rodman is obama. Go back 30 years and compare how your liberties have changed, study the pattern and see where it’s going.

Saying things like “they simply did not know mercury’s adverse effects on the human body” is just turning a blind eye to an inconvenient alternative. Just like they “didn’t know” the effects of fossil fuels on the climate, just like the didn’t know the effects of smoking, glyphosphate, nylon, hormones, aspartame, fluoride, thimerosal, teflon, roundup, aluminum, emfs etc on the human body. Nestle, Monsanto, Du Pont, J&J, P&C, Unilever and the like, they all, simply did not know. Or it’s all in very small traces that it won’t harm you. Or it’s completely unrelated. Or it’s due to negligence and profiteering, no way there’s a bigger agenda. And then they’ll come out after a century and say: Shit, it turns out you guys were somewhat right. Well…sorry I guess. Nobody will care by then, just like nobody will care about the new JFK “files”, because there’s simply nothing “new” to discuss.

People simply can’t believe that there are others out there that would go to such lengths and do such things. You wouldn’t, they would. They have the funds for a thousand lifetimes, you don’t. They have a grand vision for the future while you are busy making ends meet to put food on the table.

The situation in this thread is the same as it is almost everywhere. People keyboarding their ego just so they can reinforce their convictions, unwilling to take a step back for a second and think about what would give credence to a given hypothesis that doesn’t align with their understanding and preconceptions. They need to prove THEIR point, through snarky and vitriolic means, so they feel that they amount to something better than the person they are addressing. People will only consume what aligns with their understanding and beliefs for reasons I have already outlined. And they’ll mostly respond and latch on things they do not agree with, because they’re convinced even before the discussion starts of having a better understanding. They will refute anything you say with arguments you already know and used yourself in the past. They will be disdained from buzzterms like gatekeeping, luciferianism, spirit cooking, brainwashing, astral projection, the bilderbergers, illuminati, incunabula, the secret space program, the CFR, the skull and bones, black projects, the new world order, reptilians.

They will set themselves apart by labeling you “you people” like you’re some kind of a subspecies trying to drag them down to your level. They will throw stones at you for supposedly nitpicking things that fit your delusional contradictory narrative – as if you made it your life’s work to believe in those things. I never wanted to believe in them, I would resist them with passion until I dropped. They will try to ‘convert’ you (so to speak) back, and if they can’t manage that, they will force themselves to assume that you’ve lost the plot, so they can keep their convictions intact.

Life had other undesirable plans for me, where you eventually reach a point of no return. You either cross that junction and move on, or let the train of subsequent misery run you over. And sometimes I wish I could go back to my cute little safety bubble, but mostly I do not. I’m glad it turned out the way it did.

I was where “you” were a few of years ago. I was willing to listen what people like "me" had to say, for the heck of it. I'd let their imagination run wild and regale my line of thought. It felt like immersing yourself in a good (or a terrible for what it's worth) science fiction movie. I had my laughs. I’d be as polite, but as demeaning and derogatory as I could, because it made me feel great about myself. It was reaffirming. But, I’d eventually get mad at them for even purporting “such thing” and lash out on them for being as stupid or gullible as they appeared to me back then, no matter how sane they were trying to sound. I would constantly remind them that the mind will often fabricate wild theories as an act of desperation and that they’re a living and breathing example of it. I’d go as far as calling them a detriment to society and the reason that the state of humanity is as grotesque as it is. I’d do all that, because I thought I had it all figured out.

Sure, you could argue that I brainwashed myself into this, but at least it helped me make better decisions in my daily life. (Don't about this wall of text, but somebody has to do it). I’m still playing by the rules of the game, because it’s something that you are forced to do as long as you have a birth certificate and a social security number, as opposed to living on a unclaimed desolate island. It’s not necessarily that rules are there to be broken, but they can definitely be bent, and there are loopholes in every single law there is, because it’s designed that way. Through the use of overcomplicated language that only its legislators understand completely, so they can rise above it. The thing that matters is that you won’t care or do anything about the so called ‘truth’ unless it slaps you directly in the face, like it did to me.

No matter how many references I bombard you with, you will always try to find a reason to disprove what I say based on what you already know, because that’s where your convictions are placed and that’s your stance on your government, whether that’s the president, the alphabet agencies, the royalty, the corporations or the (((((deep state))))) – that they simply would not and could not do such thing and have their tentacles so deep in every corner of society. And we will be going in circles.

No doubt there are a lot of farfetched conspiracies that are a result of poor cognitive effort or are purposely perpetrated as misleading bullshit that favors almost nobody, but you simply can’t draw solid conclusions, when you step from the “mainstream” world and into the uncharted conspiratorial territory for the ‘first’ time, read 20 articles and watch 10 documentaries that suggest the contrary to what you thought was the case and render yourself informed on the subject. You will either be unconvinced or poorly informed at best. If that wasn’t the case, we’d all be walking around with phds in a week’s time. It takes much more than that.

Things like these are not something that will convince you overnight; it requires putting aside your ego, re-learning from the past and looking at the distant future which in turn requires discipline, diligence, courage, discernment, humility, lateral thinking, referencing material of which nature you aren’t used to, cross-referencing from all kinds of sources and following the money (things that supposed journalists should be doing), something that people don’t have the time for unless it’s their job or “hobby”.

It only “dawns on you” after a good while. And for that to even begin to happen, you need to put your emotions in the freezer and invest yourself in it on a purely logical basis. You need a good understanding of how the financial system really works and how the fraud of fiat currency thrives on bloodshed and misery. In short, you actually begin to give a shit about what’s really going on in the world. Most people are not ready to do that mainly because of time and apathy. Others are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Here’s some material for your consideration that I can think from the top of my head. But first ask yourself; who really benefits and who doesn’t, from the information presented in the material? And then you can start looking at the source itself. Take what resonates with you, and move on.

Have fun dissecting through it, or don’t. Truth doesn’t set you free, it makes you less fun at parties. It makes you a ‘nut’. It sets your descendants free if they pay attention to it from a young age. A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they’ll never sit in. It’s always easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been duped.

Thanks for reading.

Books:
The secret Teachings of All Ages - Manly P Hall
1984 – Orwell
Orwell quotes
Brave New World - Huxley
Huxley quotes
The secret destiny of America – Manly P Hall
The protocols of the learned elders of Zion
Rise of the 4th reich – Jim Marrs
Rule by Secrecy - Jim Marrs
Pawns in the game - William Guy Carr
The devil’s chessboard
Behold a pale horse – William Cooper Same guy who warned of a major impending attack on USA three months before 911. And yeah he was killed three months after.
Operation Paperclip – Annie Jacobsen
Tranceformation of America – Cathie O’Brien
Good luck making it through this one.

Speeches, interviews & presentations

Kennedy on secrecy and secret societies
Eisenhower on the Industrial Military Complex
Ex Head of FBI on Satanism, Pedophiles, the nwo
Ronald Bernard on the Banking system and the flow of money (mostly)
Ex CIA on the (((shadow government)))
Kay Griggs on the inner circles of the military
Aaron Russo on banking, fascism and the nwo
Vaccines


Documentary
Freedom to Fascism

Trivia
Nikola Tesla
CIA’s very own manual to counter conspiracy theorists (a term coined by themselves)
Conspiracy Theory: Foundations of a weaponized term
Operation mockingbird
Don’t like wiki links? Here’s the detailed document on their own website. Edited to shreds ofc.
An approximate illustration showing the machine that’s running the world. The structure is inaccurate, but what’s important are the names.

Random kek: City of Dickinson in Texas demanding Hurricane Harvey victims not to boycott Israel if they want to receive a repair grant. (term number 11)

Feel free to bump this thread if you ever read even a page from the books I’ve suggested. OR you could disregard everything I have said and watch this instead.

Good bye

Hopefully someone can patch up the botched formatting.

Better image

this is so stupid it dosen't even warrant an answer. You are soo deep into the rabbithole that the rabbit must drink all the laxatives in the pharmacy to shit you onto the light

Oh I'm using this any time I hear about the "rabbit hole" from here on.

it is a hidden gem I hid xd

It's hard to follow most of your post because it's full of substance-less platitudes that could be applied to mostly any other topic but I will do my best to respond. I don't have anything personal against you (how can I? you're anonymous!).

One of the underlying issues you seem to be having difficulty with is that you want everything to fit a very simple grand narrative. Everything is controlled by an elite group or whatever. The result is that, in order to make everyday observations fit this simplistic narrative, you have to do all these mental gymnastics to make it fit.

A good analogy might be Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses. He started with the preconception that the Earth must be the center of the Universe (having been the primary creation of God) and that the planets must orbit in perfect circles (since God's creation was perfect and the heavens were perfect) and devised a really elaborate system to make the mathematics match the observations.

What you're trying to do is very similar. You start with a belief and rather than alter your belief to match observations, you distor the observations to make them fit your belief.

Now, with that being said, let me tackle some of your points one at a time...

Bradley Manning received a presidential pardon and James Comey was the head of the FBI. The two cases are very different; one was low level and the other in one of the highest law enforcement positions in the nation that has had its fair share of drama (remember J. Edger Hoover?!). Surely Manning was not part of the secret societ's plans and so why would he be allowed to get pardonned so he could share more of his stories? Comey certainly didn't think he was a patsy and that's exactly why he leaked docs to the NYT from his friend so that Trump wouldn't be able to make up stories. The facts of these events simply do not fit the picture you paint.

Most people would say Hillary Clinton was the "establishment" candidate. She is so well connected with elites throughout D.C. and internationally that her presidency would have been about maintaining the status quo. I don't think anyone would debate that. And yet, James Comey, Director of the FBI, made a number of choices that undoubtedly affected Clinton's chances to win. She was already a bad candidate to begin with but Comey helped to expose that even further. These should be obvious facts. The reason I explain this is Trump's election does not align with the picture that you paint that only a few "gatekeepers" keep the whole thing in order and there is a powerful, secretative elite that actually runs things.

You're forced to do all these mental gymnastics to make the factual events fit your narratives. I assume the explanation with Trump might go something like this: He's also part of the elite and it didn't matter which candidate won, it's all for show because the POTUS does not have any realy influence and it's just a puppet of the secret society. This is all theatrics to maintain the illusion of democracy. Am I doing it right?

Sure, the flow of information has increased since the advent of the internet, but so has mis/disinformation. We live in an information, just as much of a disinformation era.

I believe you're the victim of the disinformation, not I. I read the news like everyone else but the difference is that I apply common sense whereas you seem to apply your preconceptions.

Information comes from every direction now. Perhaps when information delivery was controlled by news outlets there was a greater ability for "gatekeepers" to control what the public knew or didn't know. Now information comes from everywhere: through family, friends and acquitances on social media; from independent journalists on the ground at some event; from major news outlets; and yes, even from the gov't (I do believe there is some gov't created propaganda that is peddled to news outlets but it doesn't have to be wholesale, everything or nothing, like you seem to believe). Information is coming from all directions and it should seem more obvious now than ever since there's lots more "fake news" out there. No one is fully controlling the flow of information and so you have all this information, misinformation, and disinformation circulating. Our situation has changed from information coming from a few faucets to now gushing in from every direction because of the internet.

I don't doubt at all that the CIA and other US gov't agencies have spread propaganda in the US, especially since WW2 ended. It's very well known. It's so well known that it's parodied in popular movies like Marvel's Captain America (he's used to sling PSA info). But there's a huge gap between that sort of domestic intelligence operation and a secret society that actually controls everything. It could just as well be that the CIA has repeatedly gone rogue and attempted to take control of the country in an intragovernmental civil war between intelligence agencies. Or that the CIA is trying to wrest control of the population from some outside gov't who really has control over the US. That there's a secret war happening between two major powers and no one realizes it.

Vaccines, especially the ones that are free and forced on people are just as much of a sketchy topic that doesn’t revolve just around autism, and it’s something that I don’t really want to delve into personally out of respect (I guess) for your family.

That's very thoughtful of you but, no matter how awful you believe it would affect me, it wouldn't because I'd put the chances of you being correct on this subject (and many others) so low as to be practially 0%. It would be just the same if you told me Santa Claus is real. I'd put them on the same level of believability.

If they care so much for your well-being, why don’t they do something about our healthcare which is arguably the worst among “first world countries” instead of protecting corporate interests by pumping trillions (most of which they can’t account for) each year into military, domestic surveillance projects and the space race?

There's several errors here.

I don't believe "they care" so much for my well-being as they care about my money. I pay for an effective vaccine because it has utility: being vaccinated means I don't have to pay for costly healthcare and suffer the symptoms of the illness I've been vaccinated for. Being the good capitalists they are, they get my money and probably turn a good profit in exchange for an effective product. See? This doesn't require mental gymnastics to explain. It is quite simple. It took me a couple sentences whereas I'm sure you explanation would take paragraphs of confused and contradictory arguments.

Second, the quality of healthcare in the US is the best in the world. It is the best and most advanced. HOWEVER, it is also the most costly and expensive in the world. That's because healthcare providers are paid crap tons of money. A good analogy might be professional basketball. The NBA has some of the highest paid athletes in the world. Whereas, in other countries, their basketball leagues pay much less. It's cheaper to attend a basketball in the Czech Republic than it is in the US. That doesn't mean the Czech basketball players are "better", just cheaper. In fact, talent should naturally, over time, migrate towards wealth. If you are truly talented, you should get paid well for it. Hence why the US has the best paid doctors, nurses, most advanced medical devices and equipment, and why this country spends vastly more money per capita on healthcare than any other country. It's simply better, just a heck of a lot more expensive.

People simply can’t believe that there are others out there that would go to such lengths and do such things. You wouldn’t, they would. They have the funds for a thousand lifetimes, you don’t. They have a grand vision for the future while you are busy making ends meet to put food on the table.

I absolutely believe people can be rotten and that's precisely why I do not think what you describe is at all feasible given people will always do what's in their own best interests. Maintaining absolutely cooperation between ultra-rich, ultra-powerful individuals seems like an impossible feat to me knowing that people are people. Why would anyone that powerful share power with any other member of the secret organization? Why not betray them so you can attain sole power over the world?

Also what is the point? If they're so wealthy and powerful and have no need for thousands of lifetimes, what's the point of what they're doing at all? What motivates a person who is all powerful to live out their finite number of days going through all this effort that makes no appreciable difference in the quality of their lives? I assume they do not need to make 9/11 happen to protect their fortunes and hide their identities since they're already in control of every major bank in the world and own all the sources of information.

Another unexplained issue in the picture you paint is succession. How do you bring new people into the fold as the old ones die off? How does the transfer of power happen? (I assume they're mortal like you and I but maybe that's another "buckle up" post that needs to be written.)

I was where “you” were a few of years ago. I was willing to listen what people like "me" had to say, for the heck of it. I'd let their imagination run wild and regale my line of thought. It felt like immersing yourself in a good (or a terrible for what it's worth) science fiction movie. I had my laughs. I’d be as polite, but as demeaning and derogatory as I could, because it made me feel great about myself. It was reaffirming. But, I’d eventually get mad at them for even purporting “such thing” and lash out on them for being as stupid or gullible as they appeared to me back then, no matter how sane they were trying to sound. I would constantly remind them that the mind will often fabricate wild theories as an act of desperation and that they’re a living and breathing example of it. I’d go as far as calling them a detriment to society and the reason that the state of humanity is as grotesque as it is. I’d do all that, because I thought I had it all figured out.

Well, that's assuming quite a bit. Let me return the favor. I was where "you" were when I was 15 and thought all this secret society stuff was vaguely interesting and being always interested in learning that sort of stuff went down the rabbit hole and realized how none of it adds up. None of it makes coherent sense. Then I started reading more and really trying to understand the way the world works by trial and error. I hold some belief, observe what happens in the world, and then adjust my beliefs to fit the observations. This should be how we come to understand the world. Not by trying to adjust observations to fit the beliefs. That's what religious people do and apparently what conspiracy theorists do.

No matter how many references I bombard you with, you will always try to find a reason to disprove what I say based on what you already know, because that’s where your convictions are placed and that’s your stance on your government, whether that’s the president, the alphabet agencies, the royalty, the corporations or the (((((deep state))))) – that they simply would not and could not do such thing and have their tentacles so deep in every corner of society. And we will be going in circles.

If you have references with evidence and not conjecture, sure, I'll pay attention. And I'm always ready to refine my worldview. I think its' rather you who has solidified your understanding of the world and stuck your head in the sand, so to speak, because you cannot accept that everything happening in the world isn't some grand conspiracy and that no one person (or small group of people) is actually in control.

I've read several of the books you linked more than once. Orwell's 1984 is one of those books I can quickly say had a profound impact on me. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was okay, as well. But if you're a true fan of Orwell's work, then I advise you read "Politics and the English Language". You seem to bamboozle yourself quite a bit because your ideas are unclear even to yourself. And Orwell foresaw that as a developing problem which I think has gotten much worse since he wrote that essay.

At root of my personal philosophy is that ideas should be clear and easily explainable. In Physics, the analogy is the beautiful explanations that Einstein, Dirac, Feynmann, and many other sought. The overly complicated explanations of observations, like the Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses, is an example of what *not* to do.

And yet people fall into this trap of complicating their views and it deceives themselves into thinking they actually understand when they do not. My advice to you is not over complicate things to make observations fit your preconceptions. Take first the observations and adjust your beliefs accordingly. It takes a lot more effort to understand the world this way but it is much more accurate.

At root of my personal philosophy is that ideas should be clear and easily explainable.

It's a dangerous game, sometimes useful, but sometimes quite detrimental. Could prevent obscurantism, but then is also used to dismiss philosophy and social science.

I got to this via philosophy, actually (Wittgenstein, Russell, and C. S. Pearce). Wittgenstein argued that language obscures and is often the source of confusion in problems in philosophy. C. S. Pearce founded Pragmatism with his essay, "How to make our ideas clear". Bertrand Russell said he studied Hegel when he was young but eventually realized the inscrutable language caused more issues than it solved. It was later that Russell made an enormous contribution, the first step towards modern, analytic philosophy, with his essay, "On Denoting" which was an attempt to clarify the use of language in philosophy.

Orwell's essay that I linked above is also along these lines. Politics is especially replete with language that is indefinite and vague. This is also driven by the postmoderns who think language is reality rather than language as a tool to understand reality.

Richard Feynmann believed that eventually our understanding of the physical universe would be roughly equivalent to the rules of checkers and it'd be easy to explain to everyone. This is something I hope is true.

I'll get to those philosophers one day, only read bits and then listened to some content about Wittgenstein. I've always found the Orwell essay striking. Still, having the details that you noted is crucial. You could say the same thing you said before and have complete conspiratards agree with you, and feel like they're in good company. Except they'd be thinking about the philosophers you name as the obscurantists. Look at what the internet thinks postmodernists do, it's close to doublethink. And if you try to give them some proper sources, well, those are obscurantist evil shit.

Edit: I've had people argue the that the opposite is going to happen, BTW. Universe doesn't owe us being simple. So the sciences will keep getting more and more complicated until all specialists will be extremely niche, nobody will see the whole and we will have lost to teach even the basics in standard 12y schooling, or perhaps in bachelor degrees. We'll all be cogs in a machine nobody can comprehend. I think that sounds quite likely, as terrifying as it is.

There's a very stark contrast between your proposed gatekeeper / secrecy model of how knowledge about these things work (lolograde noted that), and your ideas about how science works:

There is just as much research and studies (studies, NOT theories) available that go against popular belief. Unfortunately, most of these studies are deep under the rug, because they are not adhering to the ‘standards’ of : the "authorities", "accredited" and “peer reviewed” institutions, or are produced by decommissioned folks because they talked and thought too much for their "own good". All of which are nothing more than filtration mechanisms of imposed beliefs with the ultimate one being the msm.

These things that you find to be just excuses to dismiss your preferred research are actually things that are used to bring science into the light, involve competent people, involve hundreds of not thousands of them in some cases, and discuss things in a productive environment: literally scientific articles being the statements, rather than... the mess that you seem to prefer in having no peer-review, where you as a layman pick the things you like ignoring scientific consensus. The process current science as it is taught in university educates thousands of students around the world, which is exactly what makes it not some gatekeeped shamanic discipline that you imagine to be, but rather a relatively open and collaborative process.

Quite ironic that the complaints you have about science make it the opposite of what you think it is.

Seriously, I'd agree that states and three letter security agencies can behave like bandits and do wild things, because those things are gatekepeeked in some ways as you said. But then you somehow assume that this applies to science and journalism (a decent chunk of it is still reliable and free), instead choosing to believe things that you... pick out without having the relevant expertise? It's really weird for me how this pessimism in science and journalism somehow enables you conspiracy people to have these strong views about what kind of conspiracies happened and what is to be believed. If I didn't believe in science and journalism, well then I'd admit that I cannot know shit because I either need to trust them to SOME extent, or to not know much of anything. You're radically optimistic about wild conspiracies that happened behind the doors and ones that involve literally thousands upon thousands of people, while completely pessimistic about things that are extremely well scrutinized being... The way they appear.

gay frogs.
companies pay big money to hide the truth if it effects profit.

https://youtu.be/qaPDFcc1EWU

I got vaccinated and both my siblings did. No autism. My son is up to date on his vaccinations. No autism.1.5% of kids in US are diagnosed with autism but vaccinations rates exceed 90% in US. This issue has been so repeatedly debunked it makes me wonder what conspiracy there is to perpetuate it. It's so clearly not true. You can personally do the stats yourself with publicly available datasets collected by various independent groups.

The current research suggests autism is developed in utero due to vitamin deficiencies. When my wife was pregnant, the fetal medicine doctor talked about the stats and how closely associated the condition is with things identifiable in utero as physical traits (shape of skull and neck).

Also, that's misinformation about mercury. First, no one, at least in the US, understood any dangers associated with mercury. In fact, they used to sell mercury as a kid's toy back in the 1950's and it was called quicksilver. My mother had some quicksilver as a kid. Second, autism hadn't even been adequately identified 100 years ago. Lots of the symptoms we're associated more with normal personality differences than anything serious.

It's really painful when they go after the things that put us all under risk, like advocating against vaccines.

I wish they just invented conspiracies about certain foods having more calories than they have or whatever, considering the evidence they have it's just as likely and not nearly as harmful.

Just a source :D

https://spectrumnews.org/news/vitamin-d-defic...tism-risk/

You know what. Lets made up a conspiracy for this. Fucking sun people rule the world and want people to have skin cancer. Or big pharma wants to sell more vitamin D?

I can respect most conspiracy theories no matter how far fetched they are and believing them does not hurt the person or their surrounding community in the long run.

But you are literally scum for believing (and most probably preaching) about the made up link between autism and vaccines. just gtfo....

First you sound open minded, and then the dogma based reaction kicks in the second line.

You can even see it for yourself, even from the people sheep supposedly believes in like Universities, but you choose not to...

Proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tgwh3HpsM

choose? dogma?

just fuck off lol. I already said what needed to be said about what I respect and what is stepping over the line so go play the "100 reply useless convo on esr" game with someone else

OK so you just said what "needed to be said"... LOL

Youre so full of yourself you cant watch a 5 min vid that shows the damage on neurons done by mercury? Filmed with a electronic microscope on an university, because that would mean you need to accept how wrong you are, and that the link between vaccines and autism is true.

Is your hang-up about mercury because of thimerosal? If so, how can you explain that the rates of autism diagnoses has not dropped after thimerosal's usage in vaccines was eliminated? Or the fact that thimerosal was never used in some of the vaccines that people originally argued were the cause of autism?

There have been hundreds of studies comparing vaccinated and vaccinated children in the US and the rates of autism diagnosis is the same. One study had over 95,000 kids in it, including 15,000 kids who were vaccinated, and still no difference was in autism diagnosis rates was observed.

Here are some studies that have debunked the connection between autism and vaccinations:


The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies



Adverse Effects of Vaccines Evidence and Causality


​
On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes



Evaluation of Immunization Rates and Safety Among Children with Inborn Errors of Metabolism



Studies of MMR vaccines:

Measles-Containing Vaccines and Febrile Seizures in Children Age 4 to 6 Years

​No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study

Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association

​Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis

​MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association

​Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California

​Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project

​No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study

Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database
​

​
Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination​

​ A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population

MMR Vaccination and Perva​sive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study

​Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta

​No evidence for links between autism, MMR and measles virus

​No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study

​Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism

​Relationship between MMR Vaccine and Autism

​Is There a 'Regressive Phenotype' of Autism Spectrum Disorder Associated with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine? A CPEA Study

​Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal and Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations

Immunizations and Autism: A Review of the Literature

​No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan

Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study

Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children: A Case-Control Study

Studies of mercury-containing (Thimerosal) vaccines:

Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism

Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association

Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data

Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: Lack of consistent evidence for an association

​Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association

Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations

​Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years

Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

Continuing increases in autism reported to California's developmental services system: mercury in retrograde

​Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism

You're going about this the wrong way my man.

The only question you should be asking him is "are you vaccinated?".

lol

when gsturctor is owned the only problem is that he dosen't learn shit from it
Talks about mercury gets dunked on super hard

poor dude :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLqrdxvCGs

u must have record amount of mercury in your brains to be such a clueless sheep.

I have to admit it, the elite is really good at their craft, creating conflict between common man while hancaping on purpose your life and of those your loved ones, while becoming rich by selling paliatives to the problems they generate on the first place.

GMOs
Pesticides
Antibiotics
Conservatives
Vaccines
Plastics
Radiation
Hormone disruptors
Hormone injections to livestock, chickens...
Flouride in water and toothpaste
Aluminium in deodorants
etc

You really love living in a toxic enviroment, suits your toxic mindset.

Dont you see you have nothing in your hands but a list you yourself made you moron ? :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

here is a list I made for you




there is nothing on it because it is unnecessary to demonstrate any longer how owned you are.
Also I spared using my imagination to come up with useless shit, unlike you.
The guy's not fictive list above is a mile longer than yours and it even has tangible data but that dosen't sway you at all, you come up with an empty list of issues with scary stuff like radiation... boohoo fluoride ooooooo aluminium aaaaa garden midgets buuu
While fucking humans live longer and they are healthier than ever. Good job moron
You are really onto something

Those nasty conservatives, I always knew they were clones born out of tubes, brought upon the US to skew election results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GGn-E607E

last answer to you about this subject and already one too many then what I promised myself, guess my self restraint sucks.

so yeah, fuck off. ignoring the rest

LOL :D THE TRUTH !
I'm happy you are in the possession of such a big concept.
In your estimation how many metric tons of weed should I smoke until I'm not a sheep and "got it"?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

BRB killing myself.

empiricists use empirical method to support empiricism

hmm...

I had a quick scan of that massive TL;DR

I don't know if you're trying to debunk your own thought processes but I honestly can't believe that you're that naive to think that this world is all 100% with zero smoke and mirrors.

He who controls the media will control the world this includes the education system that is still tailored to a factory built mindset, where we potentially just "raise" a bunch of mindless zombies to go do other peoples handy work.

The powers at be, or whatever you would like to call them are just trying to stop people from thinking for themselves.

Unfortunately 90% of society already are stuck with a massive "Group Think" mindset.

I guess people just quantify truths on the positions of power and/or monetary advantages said individuals possess.

(Pretty sad actually.)

I guess us free thinkers need to ready our tin-foil hats and prepare for more bullshit that is going to be passed off as "Conspiracy Theories."


I haz teh dumb;

TL;DR

LOL TERRORISM ISN'T REAL LOL.

Good to be a free thinker and challenge the common perspectives but do you really think people can conspire to such grand levels as the 9/11 false flag theorists believe? You might say don't underestimate the evil and sinister intentions of the world's powerful. I'd say don't underestimate human incompetence and the self-interest people have, even those in the "elite" classes.

For something like a 9/11 false flag to actually get pulled off, while so many people are watching with cameras, and convince a lot of highly educated/skilled/knowledgeable people, would be such a spectacular accomplishment of human coordination and cooperation that'd you'd have to admire it. In fact, I'd be saying to myself, "Shit, these guys are really talented... Glad they're in control!"

EDIT: I don't believe the world is "100%" with zero smoke and mirrors. I'm sure there are some nefarious things happening all over the place but they are small and mostly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I think it'd be rather more comforting if that were the case, actually. Instead, I believe the events of the world are rather more chaotic and while we think we humans may be in control of our destiny, or maybe some think a small group of elites are truly the ones in control, I think the reality is that we are not. No one is in control. That's the truly scary reality. Human civilization is largely rudderless, drifting along by various forces that are not coordinated.

I am the last person that tries to stop people thinking to themselves, but if you lack talent for thinking, even though you are thinking for yourself, the result will be bonkers.
Free thinking is not a fortunate adjective construct, correct thinking is, and seeing patterns in random events and thinking that the ghost is in the machine is nicely aligns with other intellectually abhorrent behavior which ultimately 9999 out of 10000 comes down as really silly shit and the right one there was due to luck and nothing else. xd

https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

here is one for you

https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalComedy/

no way im funny without even trying ? guess i must be super good when i am !!

that is what i call an unwarranted assumption

ha sucker im actually trying to be accidentally funny u turd

not a noble failure you are then

what makes u say

the lack of nobility in your failure

no i mean whats my failure

See, "Talent" has no commonality towards thinking, being able to take in information from your own perspective and processing it, be it correct or incorrect or even "historically accurate." is far better than just allowing a system or society to;

Tell it how it is and then, you accept it and allow it to persist.

With the society, there is a massive lack in the way people would even use their own due diligence to go and fact find or do research on X subject

However, going around slating people for expressing a thought pattern or anything that might not resonate with your beliefs just seems to do more harm than good.

Some people will be wrong.
Some people will be correct.

Subjectively though, if they aren't going to follow the crowd and just sheep their way to their death beds then that's okay.

I still personally believe there are so many things hidden from us, there is no way we'd officially know unless there is some MASSIVE leak that opens up various scenarios.

To keep in context, there has been massive orchestrated cover ups about various things happening in the world and again, I don't think anyone would be naive enough to think it's not possible.

So we also live in a whole catch-22 scenario where we can do and say one thing but then it can actually be completely opposite and it's incredibly hard to prove 100%

Any theories in a nutshell are just theories, until proven 100% correct or 100% incorrect.

Like the theories of evolution, God(s) etc.

A scientific theory is not the same as a "I have a theory about god".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It literally means its repeatable and based in fact.

it is kinda hard to argue with someone that has some many deep thoughts and many of them sligthly incorrect, like the one tbone pointed out. This is the hallmark of a person who reads less than he thinks for himself.
I try to be skeptical, I don't concern myself about what society thinks about what, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't like almost everyone else. I don't vote for example. I don't think based on my activity here I should come down as a conformist. There were many massive leaks in the past years, as I explained , presidents , CIA director() went down , NSA secrets are on the web, a modern fighter specifications were stolen, hillarys emails (which among others hurt her in the elections) etc. I understand that you want UFOs and hidden stargates but that stuff prolly not on the nsa hdds that russia and china rapes repeatedly.

So, to keep in context, there is a massive orchestrated fuck up about various things happening in the world and again, I don't think anyone would be naive enough to think it is not possible.

I like how many of the statements deemed irrational by the authors make perfect sense.

theories that 9–11 was an inside job, that the pharmaceutical industry deliberately spreads diseases, or that climate change is a lie fabricated by scientists

the second is what I would expect pharmaceutical companies to do (they need sick people, it's their consumer base), and I can definitely see how you could hold the third opinion if you're not all too familiar with academia (or maybe even if you are, but then I would more assume incompetence instead of malicious intent on the side of the global scientific community).

“The US government deliberately conceals a lot of information from the public”, and “The US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks”.

the first is definitely and blatantly true, the latter is very well possible.

fictitious conspiracy theories [...] example items are “Red Bull contains illegal substances that raise the desire for the product”, and “The official inventor of Red Bull pays 10 million Euro each year to keep food controllers quiet”

The former is definitely possible and again what you would expect a corporation to do. The latter is unlikely as it's far easier to just buy legislation to make the substances legal, or employ some technical shenanigans à la dieselgate.

ur iron logic amazes me

anyways the statements about the us gov : both true , even the second one to a degree. The french gov also knew about the paris shooters, looking at these people and actually stopping the operation is another realm.
the other quotes and comments where you lost me (except the redbull 2nd statement where you dont realize somehow that your comment about it also invalidates the first one, if they could buy legality then technically it cant be illegal, just harmful, but I also doubt they can buy "legality" globally see pepsi and coca cola light per country composition :legal substance in a country dosen't equal legal in another, also customer pressure could be enough/was to change the ingredients in these beverages) .

Remember when Doctors and Dentists were paid to endorse cigarettes like Marlboro, Lucky Strike and Camel?

oh man, good times.

*wipes a tear*

and remember when other doctors put a stop on it with peer reviewed studies and statistics?
Do you think heroic bloggers and poorly cut crowd sourced documentaries did it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2192501

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(09)70401-2/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/the-study-...ement.html

This is what you are. There were clear efforts leading to the president of the united states desk but because you use television , newspapers silly Hollywood movies and other idiots as sources, you really just base your worldview on the impact of lucky strike commercials and eventually parroting tacky late night news personalities with shows on three digit channels.

now wipe that tear
comb your hair son

There was actually a lot of controversy in the scientific community about whether or not cigarettes caused health problems. There was quite a few very intelligent researchers, including Ronald Fisher, the "father" of modern statistics, who did not believe cigarettes were harmful. The science took a while to reveal the truth since not everyone actually develops cancer from smoking.

And there was indeed some amoral behavior by Big Tobacco to suppress health studies. But the thing is that they did so very sloppily, behind closed doors, and the tide was already turning against them at that point. This is not comparable with 9/11 false flag theories, which occurred in broad daylight with the world watching, and had a myriad of independent studies, and a congressional commission, working on getting at the truth.

To paraphrase Aristotle, we should be able to entertain ideas (even conspiracy theories) without accepting them. But they should be weighed not only the merits but judged in coherence with all previously known facts (a la Bayesian probability theorem).

Just a remarke: once I got into a debate somehow :D with my exgirlfriends father. He was a member of some Adventist Christian Church, the type that makes a big fuss about the bible it was on television every weekend they sang shitty bible songs etc. The pastor of this shit was ofc a very smug guy that was against evolution and generally science.. now this open eyed Christian dude tried their idiot tricks with me, they had a nice leaflet to convert atheists and skeptics. We went into philosophy ofc and logic "if something starts something starts it so god started the universe" and other lols. At the end I asked if there wasnt big bang, why we have a photo of it and he went into his wtf mode..then I showed it and he said: why I dont know about this, why it is not in the news?
These people cant imagine that they miss something while watching the news and talk to other morons (same news reader and watchers) and they live in their very cozy world filled with misunderstandings... The best is when they talk about how they got their eyes opened. Which is what happens with every dumb religion converts.

So you believe in the big bang theory and evolution?

And when I ask evolution;

What kind of evolution are you referring to?

I'm genuinely interested.

yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Dropping wiki links is not very accurate;

I asked what form of evolution do you believe in?

See, evolutionists throw the word evolution out there as if it's be all end all package.

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

^ So do you believe in all or just certain types of evolution?

that link is about biological evolution :D

I certainly respect all established scientific theories but my knowledge varies about them. I don't like the word evolution in other than biological setting but that is a matter of taste. Where are you driving with this
I don't think that believe is the best description, I can readily change what I think given sufficient evidence and facts. But it is hard and requires serious study to have a coherent knowledge of the main theories. Debates usually not fundamental in modern science they are concerned with our knowledges edge.Even though there are plenty of fundamental research goes on all the time and ppl are ready to change their mind: some years ago a mistaken measurement showed that the speed of light varied and there were newspaper articles all over the world xd

He was probably brought up in South Africa which is unfortunately similar to the USA in the way that believing in evolution is still controversial, as people here are either christian or were brought up from a christian view point.

LOL?

If you class being educated in Holland, UK and South Africa as something of an issue then it's pretty hilarious that your assumptions on what I believe is farther from the truth.

I just questioned him on the definitions of evolution, so why don't you get off of your high horse and stop assuming everyone was educated through Christian morals and beliefs?

Sorry I made assumptions, it's just something that I run into a lot in SA and did not overseas. You are specifically talking about evolution like it's something made up that you can choose to believe or not. We aren't having a discussion about the "theory" of relativity or "theory" of gravity. You specifically point out evolution like you can choose it to be true or not, because it's just a made up theory, misunderstanding that it's a set of rules based on observations.

Even your questions of the definitions of "evolution", you are using terminology used by religious skeptics to blur what evolution is meant to cover. Evolution is meant to just cover the process of natural selection, and that's it. It is not meant to answer how life started or how the universe was created, and there are separate theories for this.

Within these areas there is room for some disagreement, but you have to stay within the bounds of the observable rules.

Anyway, you have hardly said anything about what you believe in apart from your original quip that theories are just theories, so one needs to make assumptions to figure out where you are coming from.

Regarding Evolution, I do believe in it, in a sense.

Like I mentioned, the hardcore evolutionists just throw the word Evolution as a whole package.

The only observed one;

micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science.

For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400+ - varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn.

There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related.

Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening.

Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science.

Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.

I could be 300% wrong with my thoughts on the subject.

As for natural selection, yeah that is totally correct, the strong will survive and the weak will die out.

I'm super fascinated with all the Darwinian theories and I'm always keen to find out new things or listen to other perspectives.

It's not the lack of knowledge over all, it's the lack of communication between people who choose to be ignorant or only believe in one thing.

So if I was vague, my bad.

There are huge amounts of evidence showing species change, you may not believe the evidence, but it is there. Why you would believe some evidence and not other evidence doesn't make sense to me. There is tons of directly observed examples of "macro" evolution. DNA very clearly shows a "tree of life" kind of map.

Although for me personally it's pretty clear that things change over time by just looking at the structure of some animals. E.g. Whales have fingers and hips and breath air, none of which would be required to fulfill their position in the hierarchy of the ocean. To say that they were created by some god, would mean that you accept that a god would create animals that appear to have evolved. Which is ridiculous. The next thing would be to say all fossils are faked or were planted by a god to make it appear that animals came to be through evolution, which is also ridiculous.

Anyway, believing in something based on evidence is the very opposite of a "religion". e.g. Describing how a a dog and a piece of corn is related is entirely possible and can be shown using multiple sources of evidence and does not require making anything up. The way that DNA changes over time through breeding is self evident. You can't just ignore certain types of evidence because it doesn't fit with your world view.

There might be a tree of life mapped in relation to how genetically the same things are from a grand scale of things, yeah you can take the hypothesis of common descent in to it as well. Yes well researched by many geneticists/geologists etc.

However; there is still never been a witnessed or documented piece of macro evolution.

Kind of like how I could plant an apple tree and wait and wait and wait for it to produce oranges.

Yeah it might happen after trillions of years, or if something genetically mutates but until then an apple tree will always produce apples.

Then we've got micro evolution, which is clearly apparent, small changes that happen for the sake of adaptation to surroundings such as climate etc.

Prime example;

If you're born in a cold country and you've lived there all your life, then you move and change to a super hot climate, your body will naturally adjust to heat, your body will start to retain water better, your skin will harden and become more conditioned to the climate. then if you do eventually breed, your future kids will again potentially have a stronger genetic structure to handle said climate.

So yeah, changes over time is 100% possible.

Leading to the whole God factor, if he/she/it did put things on this planet as it is, then in general terms, they would've been made like that for a reason, no need to have things evolve in to something different right?

Then if we have to look at fossils and carbon dating, some of it could be true and some of it could be false, especially if they were dated through ice caps.

There are too many variables to throw in to the mix when it comes to science and factual discoveries.

Like I've said many times, I find it super interesting. I'm not favoring Science/Evolution and "God" theory.

I just like questioning things and enjoy listening to people's thoughts and opinions.

You know what I'm saying?

Macro evolution is an emergent phenomena of the genetic-level evolution. You will never find evidence inherent in the physical mechanism of gene selection that demonstrate macro evolution. A fish doesn't evolve into a land-based creature. It evolves into some incrementally different and so forth until, hundreds of millions of years later, it's very distant progeny have legs and start walking on land.

Other emergent properties are like waves of sand dunes or ocean waves. Is there something you can point at in an individual grain of sand that will tell you how waves of sand dunes form or how a single HO2 molecule can form an ocean wave? No, you cannot. These are emergent phenomena that are products of not just the fundamental elements but other forces. In the case of macro evolution, there's not just the genetic mutations from generation to generation occurring, but also broader ecological and environmental factors influencing the evolutionary changes happening over enormous lengths of time.

Actually evolution is even more general than genes, because how did genes arise in the first place? This guy has a nice perspective from condensed matter:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/seeing-emergen...-20170831/

Interesting, I'll take a look.

EDIT: Quanta Magazine is one of the few sites I regularly visit, btw. Surprised I missed this one!

I know what you mean, however if you are going to have a scientific argument, you can't make ridiculous statements and say it like it proves something. Saying that you can't plant an apple tree and wait for it to produce oranges, well of course you can't since DNA only mutates when something reproduces.

A better example would be to plant an apple tree, wait for the seeds of the apple tree, plant those and then see if they are oranges are not. Surprisingly, conducting this experiment you might discover how very much unlike an apple the offspring will look. (It will still be an apple tree, but might be completely unrelated to the parent - apples are extreme heterozygotes) However, we can create something that is totally different from it's parent in a single generation, for example a mule or a liger. An example of species being close enough to breed for a single generation, but not sustainable, and if you go a little bit further away, e.g. a lion and a ocelot, they cannot breed at all.

Your example about moving countries, is completely incorrect. Your DNA does not change if you change climates, you do not pass on beneficial traits, that is not how evolution works. You are showing that you don't understand it at the very basic level.

A more apt example is that 2 people move from a cold country to a warm country, one with light skin and one with dark skin. They both marry and have children. Some of the children of the person with the light skin get skin cancer and die. None of the children with the dark skin die, there are now more dark skinned people than light skinned people. They get together, have children, etc. and eventually everyone has darker skin.

Anyway, onto something more fun, I was thinking about the dog/corn connection, so for example over enough time could you breed a plant to become a dog, or something. How about the reverse, with the help of genetic engineering.

Could we take a dog and genetically engineer it to be a plant? I find the idea hilarious... but considering the rate of gene manipulation, we are scarily close to being able to do such a thing, or even just creating entirely made up plants and animals, will be very interesting in the next 50 years.

IIRC, Monsanto is already splicing animal genes into plants, it's just a matter of to what degree you mix the genes. At what point does it stop being an animal and become a plant? Lots of people mistake coral reefs for plants, for instance. The line may be very gray.

are you religious? the only people who use the word 'kind' in this context that I have seen are christian fundamentalists.

even your other comment about different types of evolution is a standard fundamentalist confusion.

Not religious, but kind is just a more English way of describing things instead of saying breed or type or whatever.

There's nothing fundamentalist about the definitions of evolution though, 1 is observed the rest are just theoretical.

"Kind" is a biblical term roughly corresponding to species. Saying that evolution can't produce new "kinds" is exactly what creationists and fundamentalists say.

Conflating different topics such as the origin of the universe with evolution, and making an artificial distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution are all fundamentalist things.

Its a bit strange that all your arguments are exactly what you hear from religious nutters??

"People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense."

Spoken like a true scientist, I presume?

Science is simply a method for testing observations and hypotheses, by trying to prove them false. It's not a community. It's not a body of work. The whole point of science is to have a method for finding out the truth without compromising based on beliefs or other subjective distortions of reality.

To be frank, science is not 100% correct on anything. Not a single thing. If we choose to believe a current hypothesis that has been tested enough for it to be called a scientific theory (and it takes alot of repeated experiments showing the same results by different competing groups of people every time, for it to reach that status), then yes, that is still just a belief (although one with sound foundation). It is not a religion though, as it is actually based on the results of such meticulous testing, and not just based on ancient writings. But again, yes, it is a belief.

However, what you fail to understand in this context though is the scope of our testing. We can test things with other means than direct observations. We can predict in small scale, observe that what we predict is correct, then try it on a larger scale, and see if it still holds true, by applying the hypothesis over longer periods of time, to see if it still holds up (as a way of trying to prove it false). This is what we have done with what you call macro-evolution. And it proves to be correct in every case we study. We have mountains of fossils to prove this. We have the fossils of a species being on a transitional phase between being one species, and then later, evolving to a new species. We have even observed micro-organisms turning from one species to another (in order to test out how DNA mutates and adapts to new enivornments). In some cases they become totally unrecognisable from the original species, after enough generations. This is a way of testing the theory in an observable way.

The point here is believing in the theory of evolution takes less faith than believing in, let's say, every species being designed by an intelligent creator beforehand, because the latter has no real evidence, and the former has mountains of evidence. If I had to call one of them a supernatural belief, it sure wouldn't be the first one.

Oh and btw, cosmic evolution and stellar evolution, as you call them, have been observed as well. Both using the Hubble telescope.

Dude, the man calls nuclear fusion "chemical evolution". Not to mention a bunch of other bullshit. Do you really think you can undo that homeschooling which taught him to simply dismiss the things he doesn't understand as if everything is just a choice?

You're right. Good point.

Right, where did I ever write that nuclear fusion is chemical evolution, I love how people here write things in a way where they can shitpost a response. Try again next time mate.

Comment #30

Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen

Still haven't seen the word Nuclear fusion?

Yeah, had you used it the post would have been less stupid. Part of my whole point.

Not really, I was just pointing out types of evolution;

There was no reason for me to tl;dr and get int the depths of it.

There's plenty of answers on the whole of the internets, or books written on the subject, however from my observations on this website, plenty of people just follow what's been told to them and take it as the gospel of said subject, more an amalgamation/mixing pot of various things.

I posted it in honest curiosity, yet not a single person could/would of posted anything worth reading in response, like;

"Here dude, here's some cool shit I found about said subject, check it out."

The usual ESR response is:

"Oh you don't believe in MY opinions, well fuck you, you're trash."

So it's just a waste of energy really, I mean I'd get a better response on 4chan at this rate.

There he goes again.

2+2=4 is a FACT, not an opinion.

k

I gave you a solid answer based on research on the subject, with examples. What more do you want?

You defined Science, hypothesis and theories, which is appreciated, however I would like some more tangible articles to read through and digest. Like I said, I'm just looking for more sources, I've read the shit out of Wikipedia, Reddit, new scientist and tonnes of science books.

Nothing fresh out there to read on the subjects I'm interested in.

I was just curious because talks and debates I've had with the strict evolution believers take EVERY definition as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It's nice to hear that you're at least open to new things coming out and not stuck on the one track mind that 99% of the population adheres to.

If you ask about fundamental theories they are well grounded hence they're rigid at the core. Questions remain however inside the framework and in those there are many debates. I did see too much change even in the last decade in exercise physiology for example to be rigid in those important edge cases. But if you read good researchers they are similarly or maybe more cautious / flexible. It is hard to be inflexible there as new directions new data comes in yearly and that will be weighted to the next years research and so on.

There's always going to be a degree of skepticism. I do not believe we can ever know anything with absolute certainty. In fact, we only know what we know by disproving or falsifying what isn't true. That's how science really works: You don't prove anything, only disprove alternate hypotheses.

However, the theory of biological evolution is so thoroughly supported by evidence it is hard to believe it will ever be disproven. You (or anyone) can start with any organism on Earth, sample their DNA, and build a tree of life outward based on how closely related they are to any other organism, and you'll produce the same tree of life that every evolutionary biologist will point you to.

Everyone should have a Bayesian mindset about these things. Evidence is accrued and weighed and either adds to the probability of something or diminishes it. At this point, evolutionary theory's weight of evidence would take some revelations to overthrow that strain the world's vocabulary to describe in terms of improbability.

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter

Nobody means any of these things when they talk about the theory of evolution, what the fuck are you talking about.

Car manufacturers need people to need cars. Does that mean that car manufacturers are responsible for the geography of where people live and work? That someone lives 20 miles from work or 5 miles from a grocery store?

Big Pharma may not be full of angels, but to coordinate on making people ill is quite another thing. My sister works in the biomedical industry and while she has some interesting stories about getting new medical devices vetted by the FDA, the stories I've heard are more about regulatory bullshit than anything else.

These corporations are run by people. Yea, there are some at the top who truly "run" the company. But there's also the grunt lab researchers who work on the drugs, the accountants and lawyers who read and shuffle papers all day, the clerks who mail and deliver packages, etc.. There are so many people involved who do not have the same interests as the "fat cats" at the top. How could this all possibly be kept secret if it were as sensational as making people ill to turn a profit? It just does not seem at all probable given what we all know about human behavior.

Now, if it were some Artificial Intelligence running Big Pharma, that could be worrisome...

Just the food industry alone if responsible for making people ill though, look at all the shit they need to do to the foods we consume to make it last longer and/or be made in masses of quantities to support the massive amounts of people on this planet.

You could boil it down to the talks and theories of implementation of a NWO.

So there will be hidden agendas everywhere, some might not be as visible but they will still be there nevertheless.

Certain foods are engineered to be addictive, even if there is no nutritional value from it, you can blame poor education on food, or the costs of said foods, where in some countries it's cheaper to eat junk food than what it is to eat healthy food.

It's like there's a never ending loop of you can do good and do bad at the same time.

I agree that some companies have made people ill and probably for criminal reasons (negligence being the majority cause) but to go that extra step and say there's some conspiracy between food companies to make people ill or to addict people requires extra evidence.

Some foods are intrinsically addictive for some people like sugars and salts. They taste good therefore people enjoy eating them. And there would naturally be a tendency for people without self-control to binge on those foods and make themselves ill. As a result, those foods would have a higher demand and therefore more companies would produce at greater quantities.

There's nothing nefarious about it -- just simple supply and demand. No need to over complicate it.

It's like a company has one primary goal: to make more money, and one secondary goal: to make more money by any legal means.

For a food company, it turns out the more sugar or other addictive ingredients they use, the more money they make.
Because people get addicted, because they get fat and then eat more.


The more thorough advertising they do, the more money they make. Especially when truth is stretched to the limits, when psychological methods of manipulation are applied, they make significantly more money.

Like, say, suggesting the food is healthy and should be eaten in large quantities (=more money), while it contains mostly only unhealthy, addictive, or otherwise weirdly altered ingredients for easier mass production (= for making more money!).

In the meantime there are laws against straight out lying to and misleading the consumer. So when laws, regulations hinder making more money, these companies try to alter these laws. By any legal means.
Some employees might be as eager to make more money as to secretly use not so legal means like bribery of deciders. But in the whole, every little of those many steps is "legal".

I think that's more or less how the big world-wide food industry became what it is today. Not by bad intentions, but by misguided greed.


At many, many, MANY millions of steps in this process there could have been, and still can be, decisions made for more money AND the well-being of the fellow humans.

But quite apparently that's what happens in unregulated capitalism. The key that turns all that is good in industrialism against the people, is unconfined greed.

lolograde I appreciate a fellow skeptic and rational thinker.
Did you read this book?
https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Reasoning-B...081269578X
I started it but life happened gonna return to finish it later. I find the premise very interesting. Not one open minded science skeptic ever showed up with it :D fortunately because I'd feel hard pressed to answer the questions it raises. It is continuously funny for me that even our best critics come from inside.

I haven't read that specific book but I've read others about Bayesian probability theorem and scientific research in general.

it uses bayesian reasoning against the estabilished methods. Seems really neat stuff.
it asserts that using bayesian probability identifying pseudo science is more clear cut than using normal frequentist methods.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg124168...-p-urbach/

Car manufacturers need people to need cars. Does that mean that car manufacturers are responsible for the geography of where people live and work? That someone lives 20 miles from work or 5 miles from a grocery store?

It's funny that you say this, because that's literally what is the case. American cities and suburbs are explicitly designed to maximize the use of cars as means of transportation. Little amount of bicycle lanes and pavements for pedestrians, lots of parking space, etc. etc. Companies in the automotive and fossil fuel industry sat together, bought up rail companies (in order to shut them down) and lobbied to have their interests served and public funds directed towards the building of roads and highways. See http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/American.htm and www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/20...Sprawl.pdf

There are so many people involved who do not have the same interests as the "fat cats" at the top.

Didn't prevent Dieselgate from happening. Though I guess the amount of involved people required to mass-distribute viruses/bacteria across countries is significantly higher in order for it to be a reasonable scenario. Or maybe it isn't.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Cities are designed that way because people have cars. Not the other way around. Nowadays, cities are being designed to be "walkable". Is that another car manufacturer conspiracy?

Easy answer: almost all medicine treats, the symptoms, not the source of an illness.

While the source of an illness is not investigated, but merely the symptoms treated by isolated medicine, there is no possible way to get healthy again.

So it's like a systemic failure.

Doctors are sadly bought into treating exactly only symptoms. They take an oath to help the people, but that's just sentimental drivel against reality.

u w0t m8? if virus cells cause trouble and you help the body to kill them and improve the persons well being during that process... that's not helping ppl? also there is no possible way to get healthy again without killing whatever leads to the apparence of such virus cells on our world? yeaaaah, right. good approach, socreates.

I get the point, I was thinking of medicine you have to continue taking, but there are some as well that make you better by taking it for a limited time, like antibiotics.

virus cells was kind of a bad example though. There still isn't much medicine against them

>Has a rick and morty avatar picture.

>Calls people stupid.

???

4. profit

*stupid bitch

hue

You can only give people the level of truth they can accept otherwise you are pointing a flashlight into someone's eyes who's been in a dark room their whole life, it stings like hell. Darkness is threatened by light.

Plato's cave allegory is a great example tying with what you said, as it doesn't only render our senses illusory, perishable, malleable and subject to manipulation and evolution, but it also describes the relationship between the government and its people, TV and the audience, the producer and the consumers, the master and the slave. We’re only given so much to absorb and to live by, constantly having our minds conditioned and molded based mostly on what we see or hear.

Having the light of the sun shine on your eyes early in the morning after a 10 hour sleep in the dark and the subsequent pain or “shock” that follows them, because they need time to adjust to the new intensity of light or ..truth.. is no different than the pain of waking up to a shocking revelation or coming to terms with a conspiracy. The mind likes what it’s accustomed to and struggles with radical change.

If you really think about it, every process or event in the universe is an analogy of a neighboring process in a different form, scale, shade, intensity, appearance, harmonic, pitch, vibration, density, consciousness - and human body/emotions are no exception. I wish “modern” science recognized this profound “esoteric, ancient” knowledge/ missing link now more than ever. Everything is connected.

The problem isn't that our senses are illusionary but that we're told that they are illusionary. If you can't trust your own inputs and outputs into and out of the environment what can you trust? There are completely objective things out there but they are easily misunderstood by our subjectivity. Subjectivity is the thing that is easily manipulatable.

Edit: People will say that sounds contradictory but the senses themselves aren't subjective, it's how we react to them that is.

They are illusory in the sense that your interpretation of whatever you experience is more than often subjective, yes. And your interpretation is only as good as the knowledge you have, or you think you have about something. But you're doing yourself a huge disservice if you think our senses are purely objective, imo. A typical illusion where things appear to move or change colors when they don't, they appear to be the same color, length, size but they aren't, is a good examples of the brain struggling with perspective, which produces the illusion. You can't really say that such thing is subjective interpretation; it's just interpretation that is out of your control until it isn’t. And it's all about which angle you choose to 'look' at things from. If it's a flat screen or TV, a 2d surface, there isn't much you can do besides playing with light settings, or 'taking their word for it' when they force themselves down your throat and make you choose between two. So much for freedom of choice.

Senses are 'deceptive', because they respond to beliefs and prejudice more than to perspective or the 'objective' external environment. And beliefs, the stronger they are, the more dramatic the physical impact they'll have on the body.

The fear of mistaking a piece of trash in your kitchen for a rat or a cockroach, is a result of belief.. because you 'thought' it, you convinced your mind of something that 'isn't so' and you suffered the consequences. They coined it as 'law of suggestion', where a strong suggestion (hypnosis) becomes a projected reality. Your mind literally projects something that "normally" isn't there for a brief moment. It is the true power of placebo/belief producing physical effects on your body. Unable to see what's infront of you is the exact reverse process.

The fear you feel from a friend pulling a jump-scare prank on you is another example of mind being unable to respond rationally and quickly, because it operates on the pattern of expectation and faith. When these things change drastically and in an instant, you’re in trouble, because you weren't prepared.

I think that there's a line to be drawn between senses, intellect and - intuition which we were never taught how to cultivate and use. That's why we pay 'tuition' fees instead, because we let others decide what's true for us, which will 'reward' us with a 'certificate' to make a living on if we follow the program. Intellect will only get you so far.

So, believing is seeing and feeling (intuition) is inner knowing.. kind of thing, not just the other way around. It is the shift in consciousness, beliefs, and values that mold our evolution and our senses. We don't see, hear, taste, feel, smell etc, the same way animals or plants or stones or a nomad in the desert, because we have a different set of needs, lacks and values. It is why we only see a small portion of the universe with our naked eyes. Thus we experience, decode and interpret reality differently at every step of evolution. It is what makes humans humans, animals animals, dust dust, cells cells - it is what gives everything individuality and the right to exist as monads within the whole - the one. Everything is a product of thought. And the unseen , the unfelt or the 'impossible' are only temporary inconveniences.

If anything I said has any merit, what's to stop us from performing miracles simply by virtue of focused thought, belief and discipline? You take something abstract that exists as an idea, and use the faculty of logic to materialize the idea into something "concrete" with observable structure. In other words, if you can think or imagine something, you have to assume that it has the potential to exist and that it it is achievable through a myriad of ways, through the right tech-nique which doesn't necessarily entail an external tech-nology.If a single piece of hair, cell, matter, contains the information of the 'whole' by virtue of analogy.. and If man is indeed a miniature of the universe, then all the answers and abilities lie within and it takes a form of art (techni in greek) to unlock those dormant atrophied abilities and not delegate them to an external piece of hardware.

Quite a mouthful and maybe a bit offtopic, but hopefully i gave you something interesting to ponder.

you state that our senses aren't illusory, but there is a wealth of philosophical content that challenges this notion. look into descartes's demon, solipsism, the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, etc. i'm not saying that any of these is "true", but that we can regress from empiricism.

empiricism is a faith-based belief system.

edit: here are some links for your convenience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I agree and those are good examples. However, to call a healthy degree of skepticism "faith" is a stretch. There's orders of magnitude greater certainty in some evidence-based (empirical) sciences than there is in any other human beliefs.

It's a mistake to let your skepticism get the better of you. Hume warned about this at the end of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and many subsequent philosophers have made similar points. My favorite quip being by G.E. Moore, "Here is one hand. Here's is another hand. Therefore two external objects exist in the world. Therefore the external world exists."

Although it is stimulating to think deeply about how far the skepticism can go, we needn't make things more complicated.

ok.

A mouse and keyboard are inputs. The computer senses them like windows on a house that open up and allow the data to stream through, senses are just windows. What happens to that data once it's inside depends on the software and how it interprets it. After this it turns into something meaningful that can be used as an output. If my software is setup to not trust my mouse input then it wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio between mouse movement and the mouse cursor on the screen. The software would be adjusting the input to what it thinks it should be, maybe adding acceleration or if it completely thinks all the input is fake not even register it at all and do it's own thing. The software then would be completely blind to the inputs it's receiving.

i see.

I've read each of your comments and I'm not sure how any of this relates to conspiracy theories or what you're getting at.

Our senses are not complete and they do not let in raw data like a window lets in sunlight. The senses interpret information from the outside world without us consciously needing to think about it. This should be quite obvious from the fact that some people are color blind or have an extended visible range, or that some people have are "super tasters", or even the phenomena of synesthesia. There are variations within the human species but there are many differences across the animal kingdom. In other words, everything is filtered, including the "inputs".

The universe will always be at arms length for humans because we have a very limited and incomplete sensation of the reality around us. Not just the fact we cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum or hear every vibration that passes through the air, but also our scale limits our perceptions to only our sliver of reality.

However, this does not mean that we cannot reliably understand reality. Isolating and controlling variables, using instrumentation that can measure things we cannot normally measure, doing experiments, etc.. Whether or not the universe science is describing is the actual reality or just our human interpretation of it is an important question but that does not stop us from developing an understanding that helps us predict the world around us.

Being able to sense the world around you has everything to do with conspiracies. The whole point is if it is possible we are being lied to by a person, a group of people or even the government; we need to be able to use our senses to deduce the truth.

Our senses can range from highly sensitive to dull, damaged to non-functioning. It all depends on your usage of them, experience (accidents etc) and even biology. Saying a sense interprets is like saying your usb port interprets your mouse input, it's just a window to pass outside data to the inside, your brain does the interpretation afterwards. It's like the good ol' expression that "your eyes are the windows of your soul". I say all senses are the windows of your mind and soul.

As for a practical example, you can believe the official story to say the 9/11 building collaspes. We are told fire weakened the steel beams and caused a pancaking collaspe. When you use your eyes and look at the collaspes it's clear that that narrative is impossible as it goes down on its footprint in a manner consistent with demolition. You can use your eyes and watch other buildings on fire and notice none of them collaspe. But your eyes don't interpret, so nobody would "see" that if your method of interpretation is based on the idea that the government wouldn't ever do such a thing or if you don't trust your senses.

We are born into this world filterless but the education systems and society norms put these absurb filters over our senses so we stop seeing things as they really are. We need to let those part of ourselves burn away so we can pursue truth.

If knowledge is power, then the world is controlled by neckbeards

Knowledge is one of the sources of power, it is obviously not the definition of power. ;)

tl;dr

If I were conspiring the first thing i would do is to make alot of conspiracy theories that weed smokers would devour. putting the information in veils.

tl;dr you are in on it.

Source: youtube

Boy do I love ESR.
Threads like this are pretty interesting and you won't get similar discussion elsewhere.

Nah, 15 years ago, maybe. Esr is quite dead, both Reddit and 4chan are better for interesting arguments and crazy insane stuff

Thanks for killing my vibe.
Obviously ESR isn't as active as it was before but it has nice content from time to time.

Fortunately for after 7 or something years on reddit I can tell you he is wrong.
There is a big circlejerk and the downvote system hides interesting comments. Users try to have a popular opinion to get upvoted. The system breeds inbreds

Grab a GOLDEN ESR ACCOUNT, fellow esrealitian!

Wtf is going on?

esr

Where going full retard meets reality.

Dahang dude much respect. Time to time I will post something and it will be craaazy
I'm a crazymagnet

There is finally an uprising to the lizard people and their jew overlords, sheep. Let's fight back to reclaim our flat earth with homeopathy and natural remedies that are only 49,99 on my new e-shop [link redacted].

Have u been away? It's a while now that threads like this one pop up periodically. The only missing piece here is lacceh lowering the bar and killing 1% of the reader neurons with each post.

I think he cant sit down to write since the last time I was through with him in that vegan thread
i was pretty rough
it took its toll
prolly he eats meat like a normal person now

This will be my go-to thread whenever I think I am using my time unproductively.

"Skeptic community" This has to be the most retarded neckbeard shit I've heard in a long time.

Where did you hear it? I went over the page with a search but I only found scientific community.

hm? I'm really interested
share , now dont be shy

You called your butt buddy a "fellow skeptic" did you not?

so if you and i , two persons, play quake and we are a community automatically? :D
Who is the retard here son

Seriously, you had to think about that for two days? Did you ask your neckbeard friends for advice?

I bet you watch a lot of TED talks. ;DDDDD

I don't have time to post everyday, I don't live here like you, retard

seriously, you think that your empty retard drivel that made zero sense is high on my priorities? Moron ?

There's bunch of wankers on youtube calling themselves "Skeptic community" if it helps.

dosent help me . that shitty club mentality makes me puke ppl want to belong,but dre doesnt

tl;dr: gSTRUCTOR trying to wake up the sheeple by posting irrefutable youtube videos

didn't read

so this is definitely daniel trying out his new by-monthly personality right

He seems legit mentally challenged.

gotcha doctor

hm? Do you have problem with the research I linked?

Some conspiracy theories which are based on legitimate evidence, like the seth rich murder, speak a lot about the forced silence on the issue than they do about the crazy nuts who believe in anything. This is why i always take conspiracies with evidence that actually raise a valid concern as to why there has been no proper investigation with an open mind, like the deep state and pizzagate conspiracy for example. And if /pol/ has taught me anything, they turn out to be right time and time again with many of their less out there theories about politics.

One of the benefits of being an old f*cker is that I've seen how the internet has changed the world, and how these 'conspiracy theories' exist now. Pre-internet the same shit went on in the world, it was just a lot easier to hide! So many of the facts to do with conspiracy things are freely available, but most people are far too conditioned to understand what they see or hear.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

jesus christ these last comments.
Pre internet the same fuckers preached to the coir in pubs, read the same silly shit from paperback novels with titles like "ufos are really kidnapping me" the ageless classic ofc "jews control the world/usa" or "I talked to the CIA and they told me they killed Kennedy" but now it is indeed harder to hide that you are retard because you have to write it all down. We eliminated the excuse that you are stupid because you are drunk. The impossible was that you know anything of value and we indeed can be sure now that you don't.

You know the whole south.korea under a oligarchy was a legit conspiracy conspiracy theory before it was leaked that it was true.

who the fuck cares or knows about south korea that detailed or should i take that on its face value? Seriously you had to bring a country from the far east to illustrate a point that is supposedly wide spread in the west ? :DDD
Btw I know enough about it that it is any extreme patriarchal society where family is key, so it wont amaze me, should not amaze anyone that knows anything about the far east, even the middle east. China had long dynasties same goes for Japan (though not that long maybe), Korea why not. These one liners you guys produced are lazy and maxilol .. even russia had its oligarchies

Well you're probably right but I still believe the other conspiracies I posted above have a grain of truth to them. What I would like to hear your response on is the very recent crowd investigative conspiracies that has become popular from websites like 4chan e.g Seth rich. Do you think his murder is a load of crap as well?

No I don't. I'm all for it. his parents and family though

The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, which runs contrary to U.S. intelligence that concluded the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[5][6][7] These theories were debunked by law enforcement,[5][6] as well as by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[6][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org.[5] The fabrications were described as fake news and falsehoods by The New York Times,[10] Los Angeles Times,[11] and The Washington Post.[12]

Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that these individuals were exploiting their son's death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists disgusting sociopaths.[13][14][15] They requested a retraction and apology from Fox News after the network promoted the conspiracy theory,[16] and sent a cease and desist letter to the investigator Fox News used.[6][15][16] The investigator stated that he had no evidence to back up the claims which Fox News attributed to him.[5][6][17] Fox News issued a retraction, but did not apologize or publicly explain what went wrong.[18]

Pick up books written by Rockefellers. They flat out brag about fucking the human race. Eventually they will be exposed but for now the human race is buttfuck nowhere in terms of coming together.

Senior's donations led to the formation of the University of Chicago in 1889; the Central Philippine University in the Philippines (The first Baptist university and second American university in Asia); and notable for the Chicago School of Economics.[11] This was one instance of a long family and Rockefeller Foundation tradition of financially supporting Ivy League and other major colleges and universities over the generations—seventy-five in total. These include:
Harvard University
Dartmouth College
Princeton University
University of California, Berkeley
Stanford University
Yale University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Brown University
Tufts University
Columbia University
Cornell University
University of Pennsylvania
Case Western Reserve University
Institutions overseas such as London School of Economics and University College London, among many others.[12]
Senior (and Junior) also created
Rockefeller University in 1901
General Education Board in 1902, which later (1923) evolved into the International Education Board
Rockefeller Sanitary Commission in 1910
Bureau of Social Hygiene in 1913 (Junior)
International Health Division in 1913
China Medical Board in 1915.
Rockefeller Museum, Israel, 1925–30
In the 1920s, the International Education Board granted important fellowships to pathbreakers in modern mathematics, such as Stefan Banach, Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, and André Weil, which was a formative part of the gradual shift of world mathematics to the US over this period.
To help promote cooperation between physics and mathematics Rockefeller funds also supported the erection of the new Mathematical Institute at the University of Göttingen between 1926 and 1929
The rise of probability and mathematical statistics owes much to the creation of the Institut Henri Poincaré in Paris, partly by the Rockefellers' finances, also around this time.[13]
John D Jr. established International House at Berkeley.
Junior was responsible for the creation and endowment of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, which operates the restored historical town at Williamsburg, Virginia, one of the most extensive historic restorations ever undertaken.

Way to fuck up the world u done goofin' son?

it was FBI that kill the tupac n biggie =]

It is true because it is written in a book by ppl living in the 18 19th century. Ford also wrote a book about the world wide jew conspiracy. That was before the gas chambers.xd

What gas chambers?

I don't know, I heard somewhere there were gas chambers connected to jews somehow.

are you a nig*er?

why are you asking cum?

because you type like one

must be my nick

You are the single most cringeworthy poster on this site, you apparently can't see how embarrassing this "mommy's little genius" act is.

I really can't. However for comparison, you cant even comprehend what is written down and resort to using some kind of pathetic imagination like that community stuff you pulled out of your ass. The same ass I handed to you instantly. I love that after you did show in your first comment here that you cant read you still try to impose some kind of superiority and I should be embarrassed :D

Dyslexic retard ;D

No. I like to see slowly dripping blood and agony

conspiratards are just deluded people with paranoid tendencies who want to feel smarter than really they are and be part of some kind of subversive resistance to validate their meaningless existence.

it's truly heinous how they jump to irrational conclusions even about people who actually try to do good in this world, like Bill Gates etc.

I don't trust any western government as far as I can throw them (except Poland, they have their heads on straight)

me neither. Not even poland :D

at least Poland knows how to protect its borders :p

when there is a chance real life is a simulation there is nothing that is not possible
to believe in conspiracy means you are woke

* hits da blunt

are you woke or not ??????

how can I assert that about myself.
I think we must let gstructor be the judge he is woke us fuck.
also going over this wall of text could contain cues about dre's wokeness
lets not bring dre into this though.

why do you speak about yourself in third person? are actually who you say you are =]<o~~~

I can answer that clearly.
I'm am actually who I am.
dre is dre and nobody else.

god bless we cleared that up =]
*passes blunt*