I am not privy to the internal workings of those who see the world differently from me, which is on the one hand, wonderful and on the other, maddening.
I’ve had no success, ever, in attempting to impose my beliefs on others.
Only they can make that choice.
Thank you for your impassioned clarity. Both passion and clarity are minimal requirements for progress from where we appear to be.
For me, the fact that the easy Carbon Dioxide nonsense remains strong doesn’t bode well. It takes 5 minutes to see how daft that is!
The slightly more subtle details of the virology con is like a Himalayan challenge with no apparent reason to make the trek.
(Except maybe trusting people you’ve known and trusted for years that it’s an important climb if they want to protect their children!!) .
Brilliantly, they have got everyone everywhere to interpret experiences in the light of the pathogen story.
What the believer believes the perceiver perceives.
Upstream data immediately pulled from the river - packed according to pink categories and interpretations - and put back in neat little boxes to float downstream where they are just retrieved as data, memories.
Thanks for this well thought out and well written piece.
Self-analysis and critical thinking are not skills that one is born with. They require experience, keen observation, and the ability and desire to think beyond family and social boundaries.
I find that most people want to be told what to do and what to believe. This offers them comfort and a sense of community with likeminded thinkers regardless of the truth or objective reality.
Early on in the plandemic I was learning about things like PCR tests, Germ Theory, and the contagion narrative. I already had a strong sense of mistrust for allopathic medicine having done much research around the Rockefellers, their discrediting homeopathic remedies, and their insidious blueprint for co-opting and reestablishing the corrupt medical industry as we know it today.
I was plugged into podcasters like Steve Falconer (Spacebusters), Sean G. Turnbull (SGT Report), and Stew Peters (Stew Peters Network), guys who were actively ripping the sheets off of the Covid narrative with verifiable facts. At that time, I was amazed (not shocked) to hear them talk about friends, family, and colleagues who had turned that backs on them for doing so. This reinforced my firm belief that a) denial is more potent than family ties, and b) there is nothing more terrifying in this world than the truth, be it personal, cultural, national, global, or who we really are as human beings.
My impression is that germ theory denial and the false reality of contagion are “offering comfort and a sense of community with likeminded thinkers regardless of the truth or objective reality.” Of course people want to be told what to do and what to believe especially if it aligns with their pre-existing fears, and current beliefs, and provides community and a sense of being and unity with others regardless of truth or objective reality. I’m sure you are well aware that a keyboard will sit in place and let anyone type anything on it, regardless of their agenda.
My example: I think that if one looks closely at what the “terrain” was described as doing at the time is clearly in line with what good health habits, good public health practices, and innate and acquired immunity are seen as accomplishing today - about 150 years later. Cheers for now ….
“I was amazed (not shocked) to hear them talk about friends, family, and colleagues who had turned that backs on them for doing so. This reinforced my firm belief that a) denial is more potent than family ties, and b) there is nothing more terrifying in this world than the truth, be it personal, cultural, national, global, or who we really are as human beings.” Welcome to the “culture wars.” Yes, ties that bind are most often more important than opinions that divide. Shit happens and of the five W’s – who, what, when, where, and why – the first four are the most important and verifiable. It’s “why” that tends to be subjective. It doesn’t help to assign a motive. That needs to be discovered without pointing fingers. Cheers for now
The classic "truth-teller, liar, and fork in the road" puzzle involves figuring out which path to take at a fork, knowing one person always lies and the other always tells the truth, but not knowing which is which. The solution is to ask either person a question about what the other person would say regarding a specific path. The question should be phrased in a way that forces both the truth-teller and liar to give the same (incorrect) answer about the path. This allows you to identify the correct path by taking the opposite of their answer, as one will point you towards the beer, and the other will point you towards the incorrect path.
Here's the puzzle and solution:
The Puzzle:
You encounter a fork in the road.
One path leads to a village where there is a festival with free beer, the other leads to a “reality” where viruses don’t exist.
Two people stand at the fork. One is a truth-teller (always says what is true), and the other is a liar (always says what is false).
You don't know which is which.
You can ask one person only one yes/no question.
The Solution:
1. The Question:
Ask either person, "If I were to ask the other person which path leads to [your destination], what would they say?"
2. The Logic:
If you ask the truth-teller, they will accurately predict that the liar would point to the wrong path.
If you ask the liar, they will lie about what the truth-teller would say, and also point to the wrong path (since the truth-teller would have pointed to the correct path).
I do share your frustration, Tim.
I am not privy to the internal workings of those who see the world differently from me, which is on the one hand, wonderful and on the other, maddening.
I’ve had no success, ever, in attempting to impose my beliefs on others.
Only they can make that choice.
Thank you for your impassioned clarity. Both passion and clarity are minimal requirements for progress from where we appear to be.
For me, the fact that the easy Carbon Dioxide nonsense remains strong doesn’t bode well. It takes 5 minutes to see how daft that is!
The slightly more subtle details of the virology con is like a Himalayan challenge with no apparent reason to make the trek.
(Except maybe trusting people you’ve known and trusted for years that it’s an important climb if they want to protect their children!!) .
Brilliantly, they have got everyone everywhere to interpret experiences in the light of the pathogen story.
What the believer believes the perceiver perceives.
Upstream data immediately pulled from the river - packed according to pink categories and interpretations - and put back in neat little boxes to float downstream where they are just retrieved as data, memories.
Tim,
Thanks for this well thought out and well written piece.
Self-analysis and critical thinking are not skills that one is born with. They require experience, keen observation, and the ability and desire to think beyond family and social boundaries.
I find that most people want to be told what to do and what to believe. This offers them comfort and a sense of community with likeminded thinkers regardless of the truth or objective reality.
Early on in the plandemic I was learning about things like PCR tests, Germ Theory, and the contagion narrative. I already had a strong sense of mistrust for allopathic medicine having done much research around the Rockefellers, their discrediting homeopathic remedies, and their insidious blueprint for co-opting and reestablishing the corrupt medical industry as we know it today.
I was plugged into podcasters like Steve Falconer (Spacebusters), Sean G. Turnbull (SGT Report), and Stew Peters (Stew Peters Network), guys who were actively ripping the sheets off of the Covid narrative with verifiable facts. At that time, I was amazed (not shocked) to hear them talk about friends, family, and colleagues who had turned that backs on them for doing so. This reinforced my firm belief that a) denial is more potent than family ties, and b) there is nothing more terrifying in this world than the truth, be it personal, cultural, national, global, or who we really are as human beings.
🙏
My impression is that germ theory denial and the false reality of contagion are “offering comfort and a sense of community with likeminded thinkers regardless of the truth or objective reality.” Of course people want to be told what to do and what to believe especially if it aligns with their pre-existing fears, and current beliefs, and provides community and a sense of being and unity with others regardless of truth or objective reality. I’m sure you are well aware that a keyboard will sit in place and let anyone type anything on it, regardless of their agenda.
My example: I think that if one looks closely at what the “terrain” was described as doing at the time is clearly in line with what good health habits, good public health practices, and innate and acquired immunity are seen as accomplishing today - about 150 years later. Cheers for now ….
“I was amazed (not shocked) to hear them talk about friends, family, and colleagues who had turned that backs on them for doing so. This reinforced my firm belief that a) denial is more potent than family ties, and b) there is nothing more terrifying in this world than the truth, be it personal, cultural, national, global, or who we really are as human beings.” Welcome to the “culture wars.” Yes, ties that bind are most often more important than opinions that divide. Shit happens and of the five W’s – who, what, when, where, and why – the first four are the most important and verifiable. It’s “why” that tends to be subjective. It doesn’t help to assign a motive. That needs to be discovered without pointing fingers. Cheers for now
Very interesting, but … preaching to the choir?
The classic "truth-teller, liar, and fork in the road" puzzle involves figuring out which path to take at a fork, knowing one person always lies and the other always tells the truth, but not knowing which is which. The solution is to ask either person a question about what the other person would say regarding a specific path. The question should be phrased in a way that forces both the truth-teller and liar to give the same (incorrect) answer about the path. This allows you to identify the correct path by taking the opposite of their answer, as one will point you towards the beer, and the other will point you towards the incorrect path.
Here's the puzzle and solution:
The Puzzle:
You encounter a fork in the road.
One path leads to a village where there is a festival with free beer, the other leads to a “reality” where viruses don’t exist.
Two people stand at the fork. One is a truth-teller (always says what is true), and the other is a liar (always says what is false).
You don't know which is which.
You can ask one person only one yes/no question.
The Solution:
1. The Question:
Ask either person, "If I were to ask the other person which path leads to [your destination], what would they say?"
2. The Logic:
If you ask the truth-teller, they will accurately predict that the liar would point to the wrong path.
If you ask the liar, they will lie about what the truth-teller would say, and also point to the wrong path (since the truth-teller would have pointed to the correct path).
Kudos from Wolfgag