I think were living 'the truman show' (media controlled reality)

[turkalurk]

You don't necessarily need an absolute objective perspective to know some things about objective reality, it depends what conditions you think are necessary and sufficient for knowledge. The 'traditional' account of knowledge is, S knows that P if and only if:
(1) P is true.
(2) S believes that P.
(3) S's belief that P is justified.

It seems quite clear (to me, anyway) that there are cases in which peoples beliefs are justified by their subjective experiences. If you grant this, then it seems there is nothing in this analysis of knowledge that implies one must be able to adopt an absolute objective perspective in order to have knowledge about objective reality. There are problems with the traditional account of knowledge, and I am not here endorsing it, but it conveniently illustrates my point.



I mean that the concept of knowledge already has the concept of truth built into it; you can't know something which is false, but obviously you can believe something which is false. P's being true is a necessary condition of someone knowing that P. This is not to say that knowledge and truth are the same thing, you can fail to know something that is true, but something you know can't fail to be true.





The fact that some persons belief in a proposition is justified through subjective experience does not rule out the proposition (and therefore the belief) being objectively true.



This is trivially true; by 'perspective of the truth' it seems you must be talking about belief. Of course our beliefs are relative to our subjective experience of reality, that's a lot different to saying that truth is relative to our subjective experience of reality, which is the claim I initially objected to.



Science operates on the principle that our best scientific theories could be wrong, which is to say that what those theories tell us is not true. If we observe some phenomenon which contradicts what some scientific theory T predicts then we must either revise or discard T. In other words, some of the things we currently believe to be facts might not actually be facts.



You aren't making much sense to me here, to be honest. I objected to the following claim:



You seem to agree with me that this is wrong, since you are implicitly appealing to absolute truth and raising epistemological issues about how we can know that what we believe to be true is actually true. In my initial post I acknowledged there are epistemological problems about objective reality, but pointed out that raising these problems is distinct from the ontological claim that there is no such thing as objective reality or truth; it is the latter claim which I have challenged. You are mostly talking past me, and you seem not to appreciate that your perspective more closely aligns with my own than it does with the view I was critical of.

I never said you can't have knowledge about reality. To me, if you are aware of something you have knowledge of it. Really I was trying to illustrate the point that "the reality that can be told is not objective reality" (Tao Te Ching)

I do believe in an objective reality but I can only perceive reality subjectively. So, objective reality is like a riddle that I will never be able to solve. When you reason something to be true, you are still just using your subjective experience to justify another subjective experience and calling it objective because its less subjective than using one's experience of reality. Your still just using an experience of cognition as a means to attain information that can only be perceived to be real. It very well could be real, but it can't be objectively perceived. We can only think of what it means to exist objectively, we can never actually process information information without "collapsing" it into a subjective version of reality. So, i can think of it as existing but realize the limits of my perspective. I will never see reality, I will only see a mirage. An image that appears to represent reality but its merely a surface reflection the depths of which are impenetrable. I can make progress through my experiences by gaining more knowledge about reality; I can make my reality seem more real to me the more I understand our human nature the more I can utilize methods that reduce the effect of biases thus forming a more objective perspective. But it will always be just a subjective perspective based on the truth of my experience.

I also don't believe knowledge presupposes truth. I understand how it works semantically, but words aren't that precise and unambiguous. You're basically just saying that we assign the meaning of "being true" to the word "knowledge." in my experience knowledge only presupposes awareness.

 

[jammin83]

When that movie came out it was essentially the beginning of reality tv shows like Big Brother.

Then reality tv became just following fame hungry talentless losers around.

Now media is tapped into everything we do.

Wars are fought like they are scripted for some faux reality tv show.

And with politicians wasting their time on twitter instead of doing their jobs yeah it is very much like reality tv has taken over.

Its something to be aware of but just mot being sucked in to it gives some hope humans will get back to reality.

This is essentially what im getting at here. i think this stuff is scripted. its all a little story like to me. i guess my point would be that we are just watching a show that is essentially for us to watch and feel like we are participating in. maybe cast a vote for the next stooge that is presented to us.

sure, i have some conspiracy takes on things here and there and thats for various reasons that i don't feel like getting into right now but its not without looking at evidence. i read all different kinds of things and try to see what makes the most sense. i think its foolish to dismiss some of these things because they sound too crazy to be true. i think the truth is crazier than people think and i have my reasons for that.

you have these shootings with people on camera acting all hurt being strutted in front of the camera and then dropping the act as soon as they are off the screen. i think we are being manipulated and sucked into this fake world and its mostly bullshit. thats not to say that terrible things aren't happening but i think most of the movies we see, most of the news we ingest, is intended to manipulate us. its a big giant propaganda show and its getting more blatant as the public's apathy slips into oblivion.

i think a lot of these celebrities and entertainers are engineered celebrities. it can be hard to accept that we are being manipulated like that on that type of scale but i think thats actually whats happening. my mental health is just fine btw.

spacey, lots of people think like you and there is nothing wrong with that. you just have a tendency to talk down to those that you disagree with. im just throwing ideas out there. to lump conspiracy theorists into one group is pretty absurd. thinking that you are more informed than someone that spends years studying a single event is ridiculous.

ALL of the US presidents have been freemasons. the majority of the historical figures that are presented to us have links to freemasonry, and i don't give a shit about the illuminati and have never mentioned that in this thread, but something like it exists im sure. its about the bigger picture to me not getting sucked into a bunch of rabbit holes. it doesn't really matter what you call it. the truth is that its probably multiple organizations working together of which we will never fully understand the mechanisms of.

i just have always sensed something being 'off'. the sports, the politics, the movies, the TV, the education, it all seems to be pushing us in a direction. its successful because of naivety. people don't believe in absolute evil but there is evil out there that orchestrates all of this and it is intended to keep you in the physical and keep you in base consciousness. the narrative doesn't add up to me. to me its obvious there is tons of shady things happening that nobody is seeming to notice.

we keep being presented problems on one hand, solutions in another. take global warming, why would anyone lie about that? sure the earth is getting damn hot but how we fight it is by geoengineering? come on, that doesn't sound a little sketchy?

history keeps repeating itself, and all of history is shaped by what would be considered a 'conspiracy theory' at one time. there are psychopaths in this world and they are untouchable. there are those that remain immune from criticism in our society. we are being prepped for something IMO and we are heading in a dark direction unless you understand a spiritual context that people are quick to dismiss because materialism rules our society.

I think that in our lifetime, we will get to a point where you are required to take a chip or 'mark'. and when we get there, that you, as my friends, arent so deluded by the bullshit that you take it. i think that will be the point that you can say to yourself, damn i was wrong, there is something to some of this stuff jammin was trying to tell us and maybe some of this jesus talk isnt a bunch of nonsense. im genuinely trying to help you, bc the wheels are going to spinning triple time to confuse you.

the tranny angle is a bread crumb trail. where the trannies are, is where much deception abounds. statistically they make up like .3% of the population. television, politics, movies, sports, are all full of trannies. you don't see it because you are not looking for it.

that is a male torso with no hips. that was a man at one point. where do these people come from?

lets not forget the image of the father of lies, mr androgyny himself.

 

[Scrofula]

I also don't believe knowledge presupposes truth. I understand how it works semantically, but words aren't that precise and unambiguous. You're basically just saying that we assign the meaning of "being true" to the word "knowledge." in my experience knowledge only presupposes awareness.

Or maybe practical use: I can use my super-nerd powers to calculate the trajectory of a mass thrown off a cliff (in a vacuum) accurately and precisely. Those who know it's not magic and doesn't need someone with explosives, would call it knowledge, and I think they're (and you're) right, even though we now know it's not right, it's not even True. We simplified and ignored spacetime in our calcs. But you don't need that to know where the ball will land.

And if we relied on Truth to know, we might never know anything, since in the future, the reality of "spacetime" might be revealed with a new understanding of motion, like that other thread about eleven dimensions is holy shit right!

And, for instance, you may know how to brown a steak, even without ever hearing about the Maillard reaction.


(paraphrasing drug_mentor)
P knows S if and only if:
(1) P is true.
(2) S believes that P.
(3) S's belief that P is justified.

I'm not following number 3, is this a specific viewpoint in epistemology?

f this all-seeing overlord of media communications is a real thing,

I tried back there to get them to admit it's paranoia, that they're saying there's an evil Man behind everything, and that that's impossible given all the henchmen and minions, and besides, what the fuck is he doing anyway? Like, we were going to go to war with Iraq whether 9/11 happened or not.
Imagining people talking about you and watching you behind your back--all without meth, presumably. How many truthers are on ADD drugs?

 

[drug_mentor]

I never said you can't have knowledge about reality. To me, if you are aware of something you have knowledge of it. Really I was trying to illustrate the point that "the reality that can be told is not objective reality" (Tao Te Ching)

Right, but that point is distinct from saying there is no such thing as objective reality. This is what I meant when I said you are mostly talking past me, you are trying to illustrate something that I never explicitly denied, whilst seemingly ignoring the fact that your own views are more explicitly incompatible with the view that I was critiquing than what I said in the post which you initially responded to.

I do believe in an objective reality but I can only perceive reality subjectively. So, objective reality is like a riddle that I will never be able to solve. When you reason something to be true, you are still just using your subjective experience to justify another subjective experience and calling it objective because its less subjective than using one's experience of reality. Your still just using an experience of cognition as a means to attain information that can only be perceived to be real. It very well could be real, but it can't be objectively perceived.

I agree with this in large measure. However, as I have already pointed out, S can gain justification for believing some proposition P through subjective experience, and if P happens to be objectively true and S satisfies some other epistemological conditions, then we can say that S knows an objectively true proposition P, despite the fact that S doesn't objectively perceive P. Of course, this still leaves open the question whether S can ever know that they know P, which is something I am less sure about.

I am less skeptical than you about the prospect for attaining an objective perspective, or, at least, a not entirely subjective one. The way science is conducted means that scientific results can be and are replicated by individuals across the world who have no vested interest in an experiment coming out one way or the other. This practice is not constrained by the subjective perspective and limitations of any individual. However, since all scientists are humans, it is true that the practice is constrained by the general constraints which are imposed on human perception and experience.

I also don't believe knowledge presupposes truth. I understand how it works semantically, but words aren't that precise and unambiguous. You're basically just saying that we assign the meaning of "being true" to the word "knowledge." in my experience knowledge only presupposes awareness.

I am saying you can't know something which is false, what would it mean to say that one could? Suppose P is true, if S can know that P and R can know that ~P then it seems you trivialise knowledge when you don't hold that knowledge presupposes truth.

I am not really sure what you mean by awareness, perhaps you could clarify what you mean? If you just mean perception, then the plausibility of knowledge presupposing awareness really depends on how broadly we define perception; it doesn't seem plausible to think that you can only know things you perceive directly through the senses (such a view would certainly rule out a lot of things we ordinarily take ourselves to know). If awareness/perception just means belief formation that is mediated through a generally reliable cognitive faculty, then it sounds an awful lot like justification (and on this view, presupposing awareness entails that one also presupposes belief).

Or maybe practical use: I can use my super-nerd powers to calculate the trajectory of a mass thrown off a cliff (in a vacuum) accurately and precisely. Those who know it's not magic and doesn't need someone with explosives, would call it knowledge, and I think they're (and you're) right, even though we now know it's not right, it's not even True. We simplified and ignored spacetime in our calcs. But you don't need that to know where the ball will land.

And if we relied on Truth to know, we might never know anything, since in the future, the reality of "spacetime" might be revealed with a new understanding of motion, like that other thread about eleven dimensions is holy shit right!

And, for instance, you may know how to brown a steak, even without ever hearing about the Maillard reaction.

Right, but the claim is that to know P, it must be the case that P is true. The claim isn't that S can only know that P if they form the belief that P from true premises; it may well be the case that one can be justified in believing P if they form the belief through a reliable method that isn't strictly true, doing calculations with Newtonian physics and ignoring spacetime as a mathematical simplification would be a good example of this. Neither is the claim that S can only know that P if they hold every true belief which relates to P. Let P be 'if I cook x grams of steak for y minutes at temperature z, then the steak will brown', my claim is to know that P it must be the case that P is true, and that doesn't in any way imply that one has to know about the Maillard reaction.

(paraphrasing drug_mentor)
P knows S if and only if:
(1) P is true.
(2) S believes that P.
(3) S's belief that P is justified.

I'm not following number 3, is this a specific viewpoint in epistemology?

The view outlined there is the 'traditional account' of knowledge in philosophy. It says that conditions (1), (2) and (3) are all necessary conditions for knowledge, and the conjunction of all three is sufficient for knowledge. In 19963 Edmund Gettier wrote a short paper that showed this view is unsatisfactory (you can read it here). As far as I know the only way to maintain that view is to define justification in such a way that to be justified in believing P entails the truth of P, for various reasons this is not generally considered a plausible view.

I take it that you are asking for some elucidation on what it is for a belief to be justified. This is not a simple matter, though, I take it that most people have an intuitive notion of what a justified belief is. Personally, I view justified belief as one which is formed through a reliable cognitive faculty, allowing for the fact that this faculty could be deductive logic, sense experience, etc. Some choose to define justification in a probabilistic manner, others say justification is achieved through the exercise of cognitive virtue (whatever that is taken to mean). These are not the only accounts of justification, just the first ones that spring to mind. The nature of justification is a central debate in contemporary epistemology.

 

[Scrofula]

Thanks, I'm following that better now.
Although it still gets tricky for models, say, that are in fact wrong, but produce results (for the time being). Actually I like this definition better because it DOES treat absolute Truth as less a factor in knowing (it being unknowable) than the justification of the belief in what could be a useful illusion.

Or that if someone believes in something that happens to be true, you can still say she doesn't know it.

It's kind of an ironic topic given the political climate around here.

But I still don't like the phrase "knowledge presupposes truth", even with the explanation P knows S, R knows not S, I guess because S v not S is usually not so clear.

I think we should have a "justify your belief" forum.

 

[jammin83]

drug mentor, i have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, but i like you.

what do you think of the subject at hand. do you guys really thing our votes matter and what we see on the screens is just regular news? we have no control and dont you understand that this a machine? we are living in the damn matrix man being truman showd on top of it and nobody cares. these movies are making fun of us and brainwashing us and we pay for the shit. oh the irony is not lost on me.

all of these people on the screens are the same. do you think a tranny palin is a Christian? really? maybe you don't believe it but if was true hypothetically, shit man, that would be weird right?

get it guys, george BUSH, bill CLInTon. trannies man. sexualized names. i know, sounds too crazy to be true, etc. not true because its too crazy. you have tranny pam anderson going to meet assange. like the guy thats leaking all of this stuff that you are not supposed to see gets visits from celebrites and dates people. they would kill his ass and keep him off the screen. same with trump. if the didnt want him to be president, they would have ignored him. media controls the narrative and the screens control you because they control the people around you. whats not on the screen, is in the classroom. learning shit to make you a lefty in preparation for the assault on the right thats happening now by a guy thats not even a conservative. its a big game. the left will win. socialism will win because they suck you into the screen. free money, magical cures, thats what this shit is about.

whether you have a tv or not this all impacts your life. this shit is really messed up to me. and people attack you for trying to tell you to wake the fuck up because this is a game that controls you. like your vote, your letter to a statesman has that much impact. we have no control. you hear thats ridiculous, etc. your crazy. it all sounds too crazy to be true, but all of this stuff is a big giant show to brainwash the shit out of you. there are no teams, there is no good side. and you know that because most of the main celebrites you see are trannies. same team man. weird right. look at the people, they are mostly trannies. females to males are more difficult but as they get older the m to F are pretty obvious. look at palin now all horse faced. playing a christian dumb idiot. these are actors and this is a show. damn man. what the hell?. get it?justin timberlake (lake for timber har har), carrie underwood (wood under her pants ha ha) and yes even brad pitt (you put stuff in a pit but i know its hard to accept but i see it now). la pen...tranny. macrons wife, tranny. mayor of rome...tranny. wtf man?

who cares really, i think they need help, but its not weird that all these people in high places are mostly transgendered? this is how you know. you might even be able to make some damn money on the next election but they usually have two. jackpot lotto winners - trannies. i mean even washington has that mona lisa thing going. you know the da vinci in drag painting. hmm. wonder how far back this goes?

learn to embrace the dissonance man, you learn to like it. quit playing the damn duality game. we are being truman showd. its a scripted to show to make you feel like this is a natural progression of society and politics. why do you think they make these movies, because they are so creative? we are getting laughed at.

why do they make so many alien movies, for money right? no because they want you to BELiEVE in aliens. ancient cultures that had contact with these beings usually got wiped out but were incredibly advanced somehow. this is the same scam with a new face. NASA wants to sell you an alien story. wonder why. same dance to a new song.

time to let go of the kool aid people.

 

[drug_mentor]

drug mentor... what do you think of the subject at hand.

I guess it isn't really clear to me what you mean by a 'Truman show'. I mean, I assume you don't mean that we are being collectively both deceived and filmed so that the results can be marketed as entertainment media to some unidentified audience? So, is what you mean that the MSM has some agenda? I agree they do, its called profit... What I am not seeing is how mass deception ties into the profitability of media outlets.

the influence and the power of the screen is what im getting at here. whether its, tv, internet, phone, print, however we absorb information...constantly sending beams into your brain that alter the way that we view the world and direct the topics that we think about whether we agree with them or not. the world would not be the place that it is in today without the damn screens.

This kind of thinking requires one not just to doubt the mainstream media, but also the way peer-reviewed science is conducted. You are basically insinuating that these technologies have some kind of physiological (and psychological) influence on the population at large. To me, it seems very unlikely such phenomena would have gone unnoticed in the scientific literature; that is, unless you suppose the scientific community is in on this.

Moreover, I assume the government is supposed to be in on this conspiracy? Or, at least, aware of it? Why would, for example, the Trump administration allow the mainstream media (which constantly runs stories that are damaging to Trump and his cabinet) to influence the masses in this way?

not trying to be all over the place here but im kinda all over the place today. someone mentioned bin laden in this thread as being the perp of 9/11. perhaps he was an invented boogeyman?

This seems pretty unlikely to me. The US has no vested interest in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein in certain respects was an invented boogeyman (which is not to downplay the atrocities he was actually responsible for); why would the US conduct a 'false-flag' and blame some imaginary villain in a country the US has had virtually no geo-political interest in since 1989?

this looks like kinda the same guy to me. online facial recognition software has it somewhere in the 90s. kinda interesting.

It seems to me that you are engaged in a kind of double-think here: Mainstream media/technology is manipulating us with brain altering beams, yet online facial recognition software provides legitimate grounds for suggesting that Charles Manson and George W. Bush are the same guy. The latter suggestion is ridiculous enough, your inconsistent attitude towards different information projecting technologies makes it all the more so.

There is a recurring theme in your posts of certain prominent figures being identical with other prominent figures. What possible motivation is there for this? Let's suppose, arguendo, that the mainstream media is controlling our minds through a combination of misinformation and mind-altering technology. Surely, anyone must grant that such a project would require the work of thousands of people. Why, then, would this group of individuals use the same actor to play several roles which are subject to extreme public scrutiny? It isn't like they would have such a shortage of people they need the same person to play Charles Manson and George W. Bush, or Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. No self-respecting and intelligent conspiracy orchestrator would leave such easily exploited holes in their plan.

get it guys, george BUSH, bill CLInTon. trannies man. sexualized names. i know, sounds too crazy to be true, etc. not true because its too crazy. you have tranny pam anderson going to meet assange. like the guy thats leaking all of this stuff that you are not supposed to see gets visits from celebrites and dates people. they would kill his ass and keep him off the screen.

Do you not see the leap you are making when you derive 'clit' from 'Clinton'? Seriously. Maybe Eisenhower was all about cleanliness, eiSenHOWER and all that... These kinds of inferences are not logical. Again, why would the proponents of a world controlling conspiracy intentionally leave clues about what they are up to? It doesn't add up. This "tranny" conspiracy just makes no sense. How do you suppose a marginalised community took power of the media? Before you answer that question, don't you think that it's more than a little arrogant to suppose that you can infer Sarah Palin is transsexual based on the appearance of her hips in a single photo? What conception of rationality or logic do you suppose validates or justifies such an inference?

 

[alasdairm]

get it guys, george BUSH, bill CLInTon. trannies man. sexualized names...

your bl handle contains "minj". should i just assume you're part of the same conspiracy?



alasdair

 

[Scrofula]

I kind of like finding shower in Eisenhower as evidence of mass manipulation.

First, that our manipulators would leave us clues like suggestive words hidden in the names of our leaders (although Charles Manson as "Chuck" would've worked better than Bush, I still can't figure a good one out for Obama other than the erogenous 'O,' and Trump sounds more scatological than sexual) is reassuring, since the Sunday NYT crossword crowd should have it figured out soon.

Second, finding shower to be the subliminal message, and not something like show sin, or even Howitzer, taken with the rest, points more toward hygiene than titillation. Clinton could become lint and the Obama O, one's navel.

It could be argued that some malevolence would consider our extinction a form of hygiene, but then why suggest the very-human navel? Then again, it's well known that decline in personal hygiene is a hallmark of schizophrenia--is this manipulation or a plea from concerned guardians?

The message seems to be, after ignoring all the other presidents for some reason, "Shower the lint from your bush and navel, then take a dump." Our masters do speak mysteriously.

 

[Scrofula]

and people attack you for trying to tell you to wake the fuck up because this is a game that controls you. like your vote, your letter to a statesman has that much impact

In my brief gig opening US tax returns, refolding W2 origami, unstapling, brushing off cheeto dust, stamping them variously, restapling and routing accordingly, I would come across urgent appeals to authority about neighbors, the FBI, the CIA and their nefarious plots, multiple pages hand-written with compact print, except for where there were diagrams and block letter captions.

Rest assured that after showing them to the people around me, I dutifully received-stamped each page, date-stamped, double-stapled, attached envelope, and after obliterating the code on the stamps that identify me, routed it accordingly, to Personal Correspondence/Other.

My advice to folks in the future is to include a tax return, that way it will get filed with the tax returns. Including a check tends to expedite these things.

 

[jammin83]

I guess it isn't really clear to me what you mean by a 'Truman show'. I mean, I assume you don't mean that we are being collectively both deceived and filmed so that the results can be marketed as entertainment media to some unidentified audience? So, is what you mean that the MSM has some agenda? I agree they do, its called profit... What I am not seeing is how mass deception ties into the profitability of media outlets.

of course profit ties into this. "10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." people sell themselves for money everyday. what is worth more than money? anything?

what i mean by the truman show here is this: the media, the education, the TV, the information, the mainstream science, this is what our world is constructed of in our minds. forming the constructs is key. things we wouldnt typically question. these are the foundations of a consensus. now in the movie, he is living in an orchestrated world that he thinks is real until he starts to question it. by todays standards, the life he understood was fine, because truth is relative and all of that, hey so long is the guy is happy right?

you can draw parallels with the way that we are observed and tracked by our governments but the idea is that his life is controlled by what he is exposed to. nothing to do with solipsism or any of that kind of thing. its about breaking free of a control mechanism...or the futility of trying to do so.

what i see goes beyond money, but it is about deceiving us. why would we be lied to? yes it is profitable in some ways but by manipulating the public you control them. some psychopaths dont care about money. there is a bigger end game here going on that i will expound upon later.

This kind of thinking requires one not just to doubt the mainstream media, but also the way peer-reviewed science is conducted. You are basically insinuating that these technologies have some kind of physiological (and psychological) influence on the population at large. To me, it seems very unlikely such phenomena would have gone unnoticed in the scientific literature; that is, unless you suppose the scientific community is in on this.

i dont believe them to be necessarily. but you create a program and they don't have to be in on it, they think they are thinking for themselves or in it for themselves. i do think some of technology has an impact on our minds on a physical level but this is not what im getting at here (different thread maybe). but i think you dismiss that many who think outside of a mainstream are laughed at by some of the scientific community. i think most scientists that made an impact were rejected in their own day and i think science has become a dictatorship of sorts.

it is more about the social impact that technology has on our society. we think its nothing, but our society has largely downward spiraled because of screen technology IMO and fills our noggins with all kinds of crazy ideas. think of half the internet traffic fapping right now. it is easy to manipulate what you see on a screen when a select few individuals control it.

Moreover, I assume the government is supposed to be in on this conspiracy? Or, at least, aware of it? Why would, for example, the Trump administration allow the mainstream media (which constantly runs stories that are damaging to Trump and his cabinet) to influence the masses in this way?

because trump hate isn't about trump. its about an ideal. its about directing your frustration towards a voter base. certain groups. same as the catholic church. the vatican doesn't care that thousands of priests have been involved with pedophilia or child porn because it reflects poorly on religion and Jesus. this is part of the agenda. demonizing religion and christians. there is another layer happening that most people miss without the right context. trump is an actor. bush was an actor. you are supposed to hate them. they are supposed to piss you off. maybe trump will invite duterte for tea again just to make you punch the next conservative you see in the face. please think critically here mate about what emotional response and conclusions you come to based off the information you absorb.

This seems pretty unlikely to me. The US has no vested interest in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein in certain respects was an invented boogeyman (which is not to downplay the atrocities he was actually responsible for); why would the US conduct a 'false-flag' and blame some imaginary villain in a country the US has had virtually no geo-political interest in since 1989?

well for one afghanistan has a lot of opium and i think vietnam had some heroin or something there. yes governments have an interest in the drug trade. also how many places dont have a puppet? i don't know? maybe iraq, iran, syria, afghanistadn, north korea, maybe some others. also we have been in the middle east since 2003 now right? we are spreading democracy like the plague. people are liking the freedom i think. i mean look at the results of a bin laden. patriot act. war in the middle east. terrorism, refugee crisis, religious turmoil, jeez man. the guy was worse than hitler to most americans. he was a scapegoat for an emotional response that resulted in the above and more. i mean if you look at the pictures, would some jihad dude be able to just get his picture taken all of the time? nope, nobody could find his ass. except obama. got em. murica bitch!!! made a movie about blowing his ass up.

It seems to me that you are engaged in a kind of double-think here: Mainstream media/technology is manipulating us with brain altering beams, yet online facial recognition software provides legitimate grounds for suggesting that Charles Manson and George W. Bush are the same guy. The latter suggestion is ridiculous enough, your inconsistent attitude towards different information projecting technologies makes it all the more so.

dont care about bush and manson thing. just think its funny if it were true and i guess thats kind of the idea if it was. but maybe the idea would be to subconsciously associate a facial structure with someone you despise.

There is a recurring theme in your posts of certain prominent figures being identical with other prominent figures. What possible motivation is there for this? Let's suppose, arguendo, that the mainstream media is controlling our minds through a combination of misinformation and mind-altering technology. Surely, anyone must grant that such a project would require the work of thousands of people. Why, then, would this group of individuals use the same actor to play several roles which are subject to extreme public scrutiny? It isn't like they would have such a shortage of people they need the same person to play Charles Manson and George W. Bush, or Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. No self-respecting and intelligent conspiracy orchestrator would leave such easily exploited holes in their plan.

I dont think miley and bieber are the same person just twins or something...maybe. dont read too much into coincidences i posted. it was lighthearted and i dont have much vested just something to consider the implications of. at first this is weird, but look for yourself. you don't normally think that someone is trying to manipulate you in this way. keep an eye out. its an angle to consider. maybe it is all a propaganda show.

they do look pretty similar to me but i dont care. but no thousands of people wouldn't have to be in on it. i just think we live in an age where we are so deluded that even if we knew nobody would really believe us. its a joke and about laughing at us. also certain bloodlines play into it. the thing is, hiding in plain sight is pretty effective.

Do you not see the leap you are making when you derive 'clit' from 'Clinton'? Seriously. Maybe Eisenhower was all about cleanliness, eiSenHOWER and all that... These kinds of inferences are not logical. Again, why would the proponents of a world controlling conspiracy intentionally leave clues about what they are up to? It doesn't add up. This "tranny" conspiracy just makes no sense. How do you suppose a marginalised community took power of the media? Before you answer that question, don't you think that it's more than a little arrogant to suppose that you can infer Sarah Palin is transsexual based on the appearance of her hips in a single photo? What conception of rationality or logic do you suppose validates or justifies such an inference?

sarah palin. yes. one photo may not be enough, but it almost is in the right context. your eyes don't look for this stuff. if you are critical and understand some things about anatomy you can start to distinguish the differences pretty quickly. while some may be easier to accept than others, a lot of it is undeniable when you start looking closer. there starts to be a theme. when politicians, their wives, the rich, the famous, the talented are transgendered it tells you some things. its actually more important than it seems. it ties it all together in a way. so if melania, michelle, and hillary are all trans, what does that tell you?

clinton, right. too much too fast.of course. i know. ...but its about context. this particular angle is hard to believe at first but its actually one of significance. right. clint on and clit. i know. but if you look at a lot of the folks that are actually transgendered in the media there is a way in which they communicate with the names. there are themes. hiding in plain sight again. laughing at you the whole time. i could make a list to show you if you like.

yes marginalized, but i believe our society is being pushed towards gender dsyphoria. sad really. a glorified mental illness that can only be cured by enabling. shit man. every other mental illness has to be cured via polypharmacy for life. have you not read the DSM IV? but yeah i feel bad for them and don't hate them on a personal level, but this is about generational satanism and inversion of the natural law not about LGBT stuff.

we are living in the 'the great deception' IMO this is in the bible. but yeah, i know how it sounds.

that was a good on dair. i chuckled. love old jokes man.

 

[jammin83]

i realize that this kind of talk sounds crazy. its a natural instinct to reject and ridicule. but i think once you really start looking at this stuff this way, you can see that most of this is propaganda if you are looking for it. most of us mind our business and go to work. none of us have that much control. most of us only look so deeply into the information we absorb. we dont have time. just see for yourself that the news works this way.

im not telling you this for kicks. trying to help you here. step away from the screen and don't get worked up.. thats the idea. order through chaos. you are supposed to feel crazy.

its a staged world where we make news up, invent celebrities, politicians, entertainers, wars, boogeymen, etc...for the greater good lol. so when the next US shooting discussion goes to gun control, we can think...hmmmm.

i can start a support thread in TDS for the dissonance sufferers. it really is hard at first.

elite end game coming soon...

 

[Yourbaker]

If you change from thinking someone is controling everything to thinking you are immersed in a full experience game and these coincidences are just programmers easter eggs hidden for the gamers to stumble across, it becomes easier to discuss.

Humans have too short a life span and far too poor a relationship over generations to carry a complex end game over thousands of years. Seeing things align in what looks like a prophetic array seems impossible unless it was planned, not predicted. This changes how concerned you'll be about things as well. Maybe God was an acronym for Games Original Designer. But that would make English an old language...

I do see some of the events you mention Jammin but I've really stepped over my religious beliefs. I've gone through a long run of what felt like insanity when my world unlocked and I woke up but I have really shrugged off pretty much everything. I see huge issues in our economy that are about to ignite but I see our currency based economy as a religion, anything goes in money worship except not having enough.

I see a lot of groups grabbing for what they can get as fast as they can with no regard for future generations. This is causing suffering now for millions and will get worse. It's sad to see humanity fail at cooperation, if we could learn how we could have earth wide utopia fairly quickly. As tensions mount the clutching of necessities increases and billions will suffer.

I often wonder how large our population was last time we wiped ourselves out and if we do it again what landmarks will survive from us? The last civilization left us pyramids, maybe they'll survive for the next group as well.

 

[jammin83]

I always appreciate your thoughts, yourbaker

I guess i just see us on the brink of societal collapse and being manipulated in ways that the world has never seen. many empires that have fallen in history looked just like ours today. nobody seems to care that much i don't think and people seem to have a defense mechanism built into their minds that prevents them from looking at the world this way. i mean if someone from a couple hundred years ago stumbled upon our society, they would think we were absolutely insane and i guess that begs the question, 'how did we get here?'. the fucking screens man!

so the goal is this: one world government, one world financial system, one world religion. the rich have opted for a flat rate fee. by 2030 the goal of the UN is to depopulate the world to a fraction of what it is now. all its going to take is a single 9/11 type event to light the powder keg. so between now and then we are going to see some horrific things. with burning man going worldwide and with the masses disgusted with nationalism and religion in general, we are well on our way to a NWO. can you seriously not see that?

parallels in the biible and the kaballah when it comes to apocalyptic literature in the future.

 

[spacejunk]

the real threat to humanity, civilisation and all other life on the planet is climate change.

yes, we are being manipulated- but i believe a lot of it is distraction based upon climate inaction and the horrors of late capitalism.
i can relate to how difficult paranoia can be to manage in a day and age where your home appliances and (and do) spy on you - but some of the theories you are putting forward are created by very devious people.
you know that people make a lot of money peddling "fake news" and conspiracy theories, right?

the classic "conspiracy theory" rebuttal i've come across is the "roswell incident"
basically, a bunch of rural folk in the late 40s (or was it early 50s?) find the wreckage of a balloon used by the military to try to detect the detonation of nuclear bombs anywhere on earth.
a highly secretive project, using materials never seen by civilians previously (something like aluminium foil, i believe).
the whole thing turns into a "flying saucer crash", and locals (and "ufologists") cash-in for decades by relating fantastical tales of alien autopsies and the like to journalists, publishers and a general public that lap this kind of thing up.

and of course, the government didn't ever comment to disprove the hoaxes or misunderstandings, because it was some kind of classified Cold War project.

the truth is sometimes far more mundane than it seems, but regardless, i think it is folly to not keep a close eye on who may be profiting from conspiracy theories.
the advertising on sites like infowars makes people like alex jones very wealthy.

 

[jammin83]

you realize how the global warming trend is being dealt with, right?

capitialism has its flaws, but the answer is to give government all of the control?

im not just talking conspiracies here. im talking how the fabric of our reality is based on what we see on a screen and what we learn in a classroom. it seems to all fall apart when being scrutinized.

yes conspiracies are about fear porn, fear controls the world. but there is another layer if you look closely. and yes the alien thing is the greatest fear porn that exists. talk about people losing their minds. thats the idea.

if you cant distinguish propaganda from news than you have no business trying to tell me about #fake news

 

[spacejunk]

im talking how the fabric of our reality is based on what we see on a screen and what we learn in a classroom. it seems to all fall apart when being scrutinized.

my 'reality' doesn't have that problem,
i'm not flaming you, but i don't agree at all.

it's very difficult to take this conversation seriously if you are going to say this

if you cant distinguish propaganda from news than you have no business trying to tell me about #fake news

then this

you realize how the global warming trend is being dealt with, right?

- and linking to this-

White House Urges Research on Geoengineering to Combat Global Warming

can you see the irony in that at all?

yes conspiracies are about fear porn, fear controls the world. but there is another layer if you look closely. and yes the alien thing is the greatest fear porn that exists. talk about people losing their minds. thats the idea.

i think it has a lot more to do with people losing their ability to critically analyse the vast amounts of information available to us nowadays - and the fact that this is cynically exploited by extremely wealthy political interests.

 

[Scrofula]

[mention]jammin83[/mention], it sounds like you have a whole worldview you've put together. I'm wondering if you could succinctly share it?

I'll be honest and say we (or I) will try to poke holes in it, and ask questions like "what did "they" do before there were screens? TV hasn't been around for even a hundred years yet" and "who are 'they' are exactly, the trannies, or the people who control the trannies?" But it might help if we could get the wide view of the UN (only seventy years old) intersecting with the transexuals, to bring about a depopulated earth with one world government.

If you're interested. I mean, it'd be your thesis. So far you've been laying it out slowly.

 

[vortech]

Wtf do the trannies have to do with any of this? You do realize that transsexuals are us, as in some regular bluelight users? There is no need to divide us further than this hypothetical 'Truman Show' production already is. If you think ' the trannies' are the problem, congratulations, you are working for the powers that seek to divide humanity, keep us ignorant and in the dark, limit the expansion of consciousness and shove us all into a globalized blob that is easier to control and predict.

Yes there is an information war ongoing increasingly, and yes it is hard to discern the intentions behind the messages, but don't forget people on the side of truth and illumination are fighting this too, and this truth might not be the same beliefs you were raised with, and that is when you have to question yourself. Yes, question everything...especially yourself.

 

[Scrofula]

Wtf do the trannies have to do with any of this? You do realize . . .

(Hope you were talking to Jammin83, not me. I personally have met and attended weddings of and have no issues with transexuals, or their plot to take over)