There are allegations that people with ASD are more prone to following conspiracy theories than the average Joe. How do you define a conspiracy theory?
Perhaps one of the major ones of recent years is one that I can't help myself but subscribe to. 9/11. Too much that happened that day simply doesn't add up. I'm not sure who was responsible... but when I read testimony from architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, munitions experts, air crash investigation engineers, scientists, police patrol men, firemen and countless others who've either investigated the disaster or were present on the day, I can't help but believe that the world was sold a lot of half-truths at best, and a huge bunch of lies at worst.
In the simplest terms, WTC 1 and 2 should never have collapsed in the way they did. And WTC 7 should never have collapsed at all, considering the minimal amount of damage it suffered. Come to that, 1 and 2 shouldn't have collapsed at all, either. Even a fully-laden passenger airliner striking structures of their size and strength would be the equivalent of a high-velocity rifle bullet being fired into a fence post. It might do considerable damage to the post... put it would remain standing!
But that's just my tuppence-worth on the subject....
Maybe one man's conspiracy theorist is another man's truth-seer!
Martian Tom said:Come to that, 1 and 2 shouldn't have collapsed at all, either. Even a fully-laden passenger airliner striking structures of their size and strength would be the equivalent of a high-velocity rifle bullet being fired into a fence post. It might do considerable damage to the post... put it would remain standing!
If though the rifle fired incendiary bullets into a wooden post it would burn down.
Personally though I do not mind a bit of creative thinking, and I am quite into paranoid conspiracy stories actually on account of which, just as I like sci-fi and such like. I am not into paranoid conspiracy theories being taken seriously though, not at all, as they hamper scientific research into accidents, and causes delays in improvements to engineering, public safety, and general knowledge.
I did though pay attention to the social responses to the tower collapses, and I was into architectural design in a big way during my younger years, and although a good deal of my technical knowledge got thoroughly fragged due to mind wipe seizures and multiple breakdowns, I still get the basic gist.
Most of the reports of the twin towers were to certain extents quite accurate in relation to particular instances in other situations, such as explosive charges being used to demolish tower blocks and so on and so fourth.
After a while though, there were so many reports about what was thought to have happened, that no one in the media could decide what had happened, but none the less people wanted an answer, so an investigation was called for.
The investigation discovered that due to the water supplied by the sprinkler systems, rather than foam, the airplane fuel was assisted in burning, and along with the melting metals of the fuselage and everything else, a superheated metallurgical plasma was created, which had been observed, reported and filmed running out from the effected floors of the two buildings.
When the plasma made contact with the metal support structures of the buildings, the molecular lattice structures that gave them their structural integrity ~ systematically disorganised due to the piezoelectric effect going long-chain, as left the support structures themselves seriously compromised, and they buckled.
In the other building, that fell in on itself without an airplain hitting it, it was due to burning material from at least one of other two towers and the sprinkler system not fully working ~ and those that did stopped working due to running on diesel which quickly combusted disabling them on account of the others being disabled ~ so as the fire raged on unabated; the heat increased and the structural integrity of that building's infrastructure decreased, and collapsed also.
That’s interesting Tom. I think it was a tried and tested strategy that they used. A strategy that can be seen to have been used, throughout history. But people treat history like that, like it’s history, just another form of interesting information. It’s like they file the information away in the file named ‘history’, without realising the implications of it, without connecting the dots, to what’s happening in the present day. The majority of people in the world, live under the hypnotic spell of the people who are in charge of the hypnotism, who are also under the spell. They (the hypnotists) honestly think they benefit by lying, cheating, killing and amassing great wealth and power over people, but they couldn’t be more wrong. So the trick is, to be aware of the hypnotism, but not try to tell people about it. Not by using their methods of communication anyway. It’s impossible. The minute you start talking about any of this stuff to a person who is under the influence, you not only fail to get your message across, but you also become part of the problem. You start giving power to the illusion, which is the opposite of what you wanted to achieve. Ghandi got it right. He was no saint. And that made him all the more remarkable for what he achieved. But we’ve entered a new wave now, the hypnotists are getting ever more sophisticated in their approach, or so they think. But they weren’t banking on a new wave of intelligence and method of communication entering into the world. Which is more powerful than their man made self limiting illusions, which the majority of the world, adhere to. Autistic people cannot and will not abide by their world. I would rather rip out and eat my own guts, than abide to their world. I simply cannot do it. And by the very presence of who we are, we are changing the world. This is how the world works. It works on presice and definite laws, that simply cannot be broken. They are never broken. If you misswire electricity, you’re going to get a shock, regardless of your good, kind and loving intentions. The law is not kind, it’s not loving, sweet or gentle. It’s precise and exact. I know this law, I’ve known it all my life.
I never spoke directly to my father, or called him dad, and was NEVER alone with him in the same room until after I left home at the age of 15. I had no idea who this person was. I knew who my father was and I knew who my mother was, but I had no idea who these people were, calling themselves my mum and dad. At 18 months old, I broke down, completely. They put me in an isolation ward, at the hospital for kids with learning difficulties. I only found out recently that it was a hospital for kids with learning difficulties. After three weeks, they let me out. By now, I had found some use for these people. My isolation room, was a big room, with barely more than my cot in it, and when my ‘parents’ visited me, they had to stand behind the glass wall and just look at me. One day I started to choke on my own vomit, and my ‘dad’ entered the room, picked me up and quite possibly, saved my life. They also took me out of that glass room, but the glass barrier, went with me. And for good reason.
It not only protected me from their insane world, it enabled me to look inside and see what was going on.
I’ve travelled this world, speaking a language nobody understood and hearing from others, a language I never understood. Then I met you guys, who speak my language, so now, I can make sense of it all.
Conspiracy theories and all of that stuff, is simply part of the hypnotic state. As soon as you mention it, you become part of it, and you fall into the hypnotic state, if you’re not careful. And then you’re doomed! Lol! Temporarily anyway. Man made laws and power are no match for the natural laws of this universe. The laws I subscribe to, because, like I said, they might not be loving, kind and sweet, but they are exact and presice and they’re at work constantly. They are what keeps the universe in balance. They keep the stars in the sky and the oceans, moving in and out. Life exists because of these laws. Einstein worked it out. And so have many others. But they all failed to convince the masses. Sure, they made a few points, but people are the same now as they were then. They’re under an hypnotic state which has a force field containing within it a certain language. When you get past the language barrier, it doesn’t last for long, because the majority of the world are still under the hypnotic state and certain words will trigger people back to the hypnotic state.
When you see somebody who is under the influence of hypnosis, they can see, hear and participate in the show, but as soon as a certain word or phrase is said, they get up and do something bizarre. Only it’s not bizarre, they were placed under hypnotism. While under hypnotism!
It is clearly documented, by a German fella, how certain words have been strategically introduced into society over many years at certain points. It’s all a mass illusion. And conspiracy theories are a clever part of it.
Well... there's some stuff to mull over! I've always said 'The only lesson we learn from history is that we never learn any lessons from history'. As for conspiracies... who knows? The Illuminati? A secret group of ultra-wealthy Jews with their hands on all the levers? A star chamber of 'Bond villain' megalomaniacs, manipulating opinion and event - using the world as its chess board in the furtherance and consolidation of its own power and wealth? Etc, etc.
I sometimes simply sit and wonder about the whole basis of what we know. About 'facts' and about 'truth'. Certain things are provable by observation and empirical evidence. The Twin Towers collapsed. Fact. Theresa May is UK Prime Minister. Fact. If you go without oxygen for long enough, you will die. Fact. But 'truths'? Which of us knows anything for certain in that regard? I'm not just talking about the relativity of truth - cultural, etc. We take up positions in life - socialist, conservative, anarchist, religious, humanist - and can argue our sides and present all the evidence to back up our reasoning. But does any of that ever lead to a truth? We are all the products of so many things: our genes, our environment, our life experiences. All of these things - this biology and conditioning - lead us to view the world in a certain way, and shape our judgements. But if they lead us to any 'truth' about human affairs and the human condition, it can only be that our knowledge forever limits us. The socialist is neither right nor wrong. The Christian is neither right nor wrong. The only true position to take in any of this is one of complete neutrality - which then puts one at risk of accusations of intellectual failing or lack of commitment. Scott Fitzgerald said that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in the head at the same time, yet still retain the ability to function. I don't think he was talking about it in this context - but I take that as a good place to begin. Not just two conflicting ideas, either. Many. There is no such thing, to my mind as ideological, religious or moral purity. We all think and do contradictory things. We are all guilty of hypocrisy - if, indeed, guilty is the right word. We become embarrassed and defensive when these 'weaknesses' are exposed. Yet, if anything, they are evidence to me of a more active and resourceful mind. Life, if anything, is a process of constant change, re-adaptation, analysis, reconsideration, progression. It can't be anything less. We don't advance anywhere by sitting in holes. For these reasons, I can never be a 'joiner' or ideologue in any way, because I see such things as innately self-limiting. And maybe these things are part of what you refer to when you talk about 'hypnosis'.
Ironically, the explosion of information brought about by the internet seems to have led to greater polarisation and entrenchment of opinion. People join political or cultural groups on Facebook and other sites which align with their own world-view. Places they can retreat to to offer them the safety of a general congruence of ideas and perspectives. Challenges are seen as hostile to this safety. Challengers are dismissed as trolls, or as traitors, and are barred. Open discussion is generally discouraged, or is heavily moderated. The social distance involved, too, makes abuse and other attacks easier to perpetrate. Similarly, universities - places of discussion and intellectual challenge - ban speakers with controversial ideas, who might 'upset' certain groups in the student body. Education has long been a commodity in such places, I feel. True education is being receptive to a wide variance of inputs, ideas, opinions - even, and most especially, challenging ones. But then... we have to produce a new generation of active participants in the economy, don't we! Producers and consumers, to keep the whole cycle going...
I was recently reading an interview with James Williams, a former Google strategist who built the metrics system for Google's global search advertising business. This gave him a front-row view of an industry he describes as 'the largest, most standardised and most centralised form of attentional control in human history.' Here's the nub of it... "87% of people wake up and go to sleep with their smartphones. The entire world now has a new prism through which to understand politics, and the consequences are profound. The same forces that led tech firms to hook users with design tricks also encourage those companies to depict the world in a way that makes for compulsive, irresistible viewing. That means privileging what is sensational over what is nuanced, appealing to emotion, anger and outrage. The news media is increasingly working in service to tech companies, and must play by the rules of the attention economy to sensationalise, bait and entertain in order to survive." In the wake of Donald Trump's stunning electoral victory, many were quick to question the role of so-called 'fake news' on Facebook, Russian-created Twitter bots or the data-centric targeting efforts that companies such as Cambridge Analytica used to sway voters. But Williams sees those factors as symptoms of a deeper problem. It is not just shady or bad actors who were exploiting the internet to change public opinion. The 'attention economy' itself is set up to promote a phenomenon like Trump, who is masterly at grabbing and retaining the attention of supporters and critics alike, often by exploiting or creating outrage. Williams saw a similar dynamic unfold months earlier, during the Brexit campaign, when the attention economy appeared to him to be biased in favour of the emotional, identity-based case for the UK leaving the EU. He stresses these dynamics are by no means isolated to the political Right: they also play a role, he believes, in the unexpected popularity of left-wing politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, and the frequent outbreaks of internet outrage over issues that ignite fury among progressives. All of which, Williams says, is not only distorting the way we view politics, but - over time - may be changing the way we think, making us less rational and more impulsive. "We've habituated ourselves into a perpetual cognitive style of outrage, by internalising the dynamics of the medium," he says. Since the US election, Williams has explored another dimension to today's brave new world. If the attention economy erodes our ability to remember, to reason, to make decisions for ourselves - faculties that are essential to self-governance - what hope is there for democracy itself?'
Forgive me for any lack of intellectual robustness in this ramble. I don't really have the knowledge to be able to argue my point properly, and what I've said probably comes across as naive and ill-informed. Just stuff that passes for my usual musings on the state of human affairs!
If you want to know who’s in control, follow the money. It’s not difficult, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter, it really doesn’t.
As for what we know, the simple and truthful answer is, we don’t know anything yet we also know everything. And most of what we think we know, is next to useless anyway, and really, means nothing much at all because it is only ever simply part of the picture, and usually a very small one.
If you want to get down to Truth and facts. For example, you say the twin towers collapsed. Fact. However, that’s not a fact. We could say there was once a space occupied by what we collectively called the twin towers, and then it was no longer there. We could say it collapsed, we could say many things, but depending on who is talking about it, you would get several versions. You could say Teresa May is the U.K. Prime Minister, but that isn’t factually correct. She is currently working in the Job of prime minister. It’s is one aspect of her life but she isn’t ‘the’ prime minister, that is just one of the roles she plays. When we are talking about truths and facts, we have to be careful on what grounds we consider something to be true or a fact. For something to be true, it has to be true for everybody and it must be unchanging. It’s not true that we are a product of many things. Our human aspect, or the egoic mind, is indeed made up of many things and we all live in a body, which we effect and are effected by, but no so much as by ‘who’ we are. Which is more than the egoic mind and the physical body. And it is not affected by anything, because it is everything.
The only true position to take in life is that of being in alignment with ones true self. This self has no opposite, so it’s not a matter of taking any particular side, sides are for people who think that they are right. But in truth, there is no right or wrong, different sides are simply different perspectives based almost entirely on bias judgements and limited data.
It all depends as well, what you mean by advancement. We have much to thank the people who sat and sit in holes for many years, so sitting in a hole can advance us. Also, like Henry Ford said after his ‘success’ with the ford motor car; he thought he had created a motor car when indeed he had created a monster. He simply wanted to advance the lives of the ordinary man. He wanted city dwellers to be able to visit the country and visa versa and instead, he was under increasing pressure to invent more and more cars for the sole purpose of making more and more money. He was thoroughly disgusted by this and he eventually gave in and retreated to his home and garden.
Opinions are opinions, that’s all. They’re just opinions. They don’t mean anything. They’re not worth anything. What is an opinion after-all? It’s a joke really, although if people are open minded and willing to explore their ‘opinions’ it can be quite enlightening.
You wrote ‘challenges are seen as hostile’. This is what I mean. The greatest act of violence, ever committed on this earth, is to identify oneself as something, regardless of what that thing is. It instantly sets them up for conflict, because chances are, not everyone they encounter in life will share their ‘thing’ therefore they will be cautious of many people. They set up rules and regulations for who can join their ‘club’ etc. It’s crazy. All of it. It is part of the illusion, the hypnotism, which seems to have culminated into an actual part of people’s brains now. I’ve forgot the name of it. It’s insane. People call Hitler a murdering b*****d, but he was only doing what most other people do, but on a larger and more extreme scale.
True education is what happens every second of our lives. We have the faculty of the senses and the ability to process information and make choices about what to do with that information. I am a member of the school of practical philosophy and their actual school, for children, is based on the understanding that we all already contain within us all the knowledge and information we will ever know and their job as a school, is to bring out the knowledge that is already within.
"We've habituated ourselves into a perpetual cognitive style of outrage, by internalising the dynamics of the medium," ~ this I completely agree with. People are so entrenched in this attitude that they can’t see any other way. A popular saying of young people up north, is ‘I’m raging’!
Williams has explored another dimension to today's brave new world. If the attention economy erodes our ability to remember, to reason, to make decisions for ourselves - faculties that are essential to self-governance - what hope is there for democracy itself?' I’ve said this before, democracy is like the blind leading the blind. People have already handed over their power to think to tv, movies, the latest gadget, anything and anybody really but them.
But none of this matters. Not really. There are two sets of laws at play in this world. Man made societal laws, and the natural laws. With the natural laws, you get things like the law of electricity etc, but it’s clear they’re not man made laws.
We have many great man made laws, and it seems they are necessary, to some degree, for societies to live and work together and to thrive. Man made laws are interpreted in many different ways but natural laws cannot be. And it is the natural laws that trump the man made laws, every time.
I knew that Donald Trump would win the election, because I know how he works. He’s not interested in man made laws, he lives and works by the natural laws of the universe, which are exact and precise, so of course he was going to win the election.
It’s not to say that we completely ignore and dismiss man made laws, like I said, some of them can be really helpful. But if everyone in the world stopped identifying with this or that identity, we would find a way for us all to get along just fine, in no time at all.
When somebody is in a hypnotic state, they cannot think for themselves. They are taught what to think and how to behave. Their capacity for thinking has been overshadowed by the hypnotic state. This is the state of most people. They do not think for themselves, they simply go with the flow, like sheep. Which I have always thought of as insane and why others think I’m insane.
The smart phone, is said to be phase 2 of the program to get us all chipped. One step beyond the current form of mass hypnotism. The smart phone is considered the ‘hand held’, the next stage (I can’t remember all the names) is to get things on our bodies (actually, I think they’re called ‘wearables’), so things like the Apple Watch, things we wear or attach to our clothes. Then we’ll get the chip. Which they have been bringing in in stages alongside bringing in the handhelds and the wearables.
But none of this matters. If we think it does, were part of the problem.
No need for any forgiveness. I enjoy a good conversation. I’m aware that I say things and sometimes people are not sure what I mean, which is very understandable as I see the world differently to most people, so feel free to ask me to elaborate if you want me to. And if I seem to have misunderstood what you have said, let me know. I don’t take offence ;)
BlueRay said:The smart phone, is said to be phase 2 of the program to get us all chipped. One step beyond the current form of mass hypnotism. The smart phone is considered the ‘hand held’, the next stage (I can’t remember all the names) is to get things on our bodies (actually, I think they’re called ‘wearables’), so things like the Apple Watch, things we wear or attach to our clothes. Then we’ll get the chip. Which they have been bringing in in stages alongside bringing in the handhelds and the wearables.
No. I think we sing from basically the same hymn sheet. Maybe in different keys is all. I think you're on a higher register of knowledge and thinking than I am on the subject.
I'm always saying this to people. 'What's the next stage with it?' The smart phone will eventually have to go because it's essentially disabled us. We've lost the use of a hand. And continuous partial attention means that we are also losing so much more. Many are suggesting that IQs will be lowered as a consequence. Accidents involving smart phone use are on the rise. Even having hands-free in vehicles won't help. You cannot concentrate properly on both a conversation and on the road. I've long said that the personal chip - implanted at birth, probably - cannot be far away. The consequences of that are unimaginable. Smart phone tech already controls so much of our lives, and it's perfectly feasible that it will gradually take away our abilities to think, judge, reason. I see people in the shops, constantly on their phones checking which of this to get, which of that to get, and I'm thinking 'Just make a f***ing autonomous decision, why don't you?' Hypnosis is already turning us into robots. This will be the final step to total control.
I'm pleased to say that our new manager at work has forbidden personal smart phone use - unless for emergencies - for all staff whilst working with service users. Quite rightly, because it's theft. I'm the only person there of her generation - late 50s. And, it seems, the only one supporting her in this directive. The younger staff are miffed at best, outraged at worst. Not hard to understand why, I suppose. It's all they've grown up knowing. They're so hooked on the gadgets that they're unable to make the distinction between what's acceptable in a place of work and what's their basic right.
...'the consequences of that are unimaginable'. When we get the 'chip', life will not be much different to what it is now. It's not smart phones and technology that already controls so much of our lives, these don't control anything. They're just tools, gadgets, nothing more. You would never say that hammers and chisels control our lives, or any other tool we use. People have already giving over, their ability to think, judge and reason. They've already done that. Putting a chip inside them won't make much difference to them, it will simply stream line and make the job swifter and easier for those who are already pulling the strings. People think that smart phones etc are tools for them, for their benefit, to make their life easier. But they're not. They're tools for the puppeteers, to make their lives easier.