i feel most alternative media has become an amplifier of the worst case imaginable. in that sense they do the gang's job of fear-mongering way more effectively than the legacy media who have lost credibility even in the eyes of the masses. people in alternative media generally believe fully in what they are publicizing and it comes across as genuine to people. it might be one of the main reasons the gang has "given" the internet to people. many learned a lot, but so many narratives can be more effectively controlled through authentic and genuine pundits who are unaware of their role in the publicizing of false, system-entrenching ideas.
there is good reason to reject the entirety of "alternative" views on covid for instance because those stances fully ignore the scientific basis of the claim, much like the official narrative does. namely that there are such things as pathogens or even human cells. i am not certain any longer and will not take it for granted.
the pattern should be familiar now: make an official claim and limit the borders of discussion with the equally false "truther" narrative to encompass a planned playing field of discourse. i always raise an eyebrow when i find the commonality of both allegedly opposite views, and thus find the real agenda, i.e. which core concept (faith) is to be fortified in the public mind.
by that we can also find the more likely answers, though to be fair i get the feeling that even those are merely damage control views on the gang's part for those smart enough the to see through both lies. not sure it is possible to discern the objective truth through linear mind logic alone these days.
the truth has been fenced off carefully to an incredibly impressive degree.
and, i agree: community will trump everything. experience counts above all else. keeping an open mind and exchanging energy, thoughts and helpful deeds with those resonant to our own path in life seems indeed the best way forward. sharing is caring, and there will be a whole lot of that one way or another.
blessings dude!
I pretty strongly agree. We really need experiential evidence to support conjecture if we expect any kind of understanding of the real world. However, given our human existence we have to have an idea of what the world we live in is, how it operates, and what we should do to secure our existence. Whether we are primitive hunters whose horizon delimits our world, whose culture founds our conceptions of the world, and without experience of other possibilities than those and what our examinations of what our hands can hold before our eyes reveals, or urban consumers of Tik Tok and the practically illimitable streams of narrative competing for our attention, we have an idea of the world we live in, a gestalt we try to pigeonhole everything into. If we are faced with some novelty that doesn't fit we can try to extend our gestalt, ignore the new evidence, or reconceive of that evidence to comply with our worldview.
How we approach such information determines who we are, and in the end, because we all expire, all our hopes and dreams, our understanding or ignorance, fade away and become irrelevant to the world we are actually in. I find it useful to keep that irrelevance in mind, seeking to keep my expectations within reasonable limits, because little disturbs my peace more than the crushing of my hope, which invariably results from taking myself too seriously or expecting too much of me or my world and having to settle for whatever actually does come to pass.
I also concur that we too often simply accept sincerity as revealing what is factual, but I know about me that what I believe often has no concordance with facts, which is why I'm a confirmed bachelor today, amongst other things. We are also pretty gullible and folks that strive to be forthright expect others are also. That is why marriages so often last, and why it took so long for the corporate media to lose the confidence of anyone with any capacity to reason. Some people may well believe in reptilians or the flat Earth, and this can get people to believe in those things because they believe sincere reporters, but, sadly, sincerity isn't necessarily related to factual reality. We are so incompetent that the vast majority of reality is neither perceivable nor conceivable to us, and most of us are overconfident in our worldview, so sincerely report things to be what we cannot know and are almost certainly wrong about.
Thanks!
mmhhhmmm, those were some great reminders man. i think i have been taking myself and life too seriously lately again, i keep falling into that. so my gratitude for pointing that helpful strategy out in yourself.
well, we do have to start somewhere and i feel reminding each other of our particular unchecked beliefs is a token of friendship between individuals if it comes from a eye-level energy, which is where most truthers fail. i have failed at it many times until i found the catch in my newfound "truth" and felt like a dumbass ;)
as long as we leave the possibility of being wrong open i think we're "safe". i for one will no longer vouch for the earth having curvature. or the moon being a reflector of the sun's light. or the earth existing in an infinite vacuum.
nor will i vouch for a an icewall in antartica or the idea that the sun and all stars travel in one giant circle around polaris.
i miss crucial evidence for both "mainstream" cosmologies at this point and both camps dislike me for it ahahaha.
other than an otherworldly experience with an "unhuman" stranger while being on psilocybin i have no reason to take the reptilian story seriously at all. but the jury is still out on everything, it's just that the case i have seen for it is weak and untestable ;)
so i keep coming back to my dated and almost boring mantra that has served me well for over a decade: nobody knows what's up on earth.
my best to you and yours