Good collection of articles. I’ve read them all and many others, as well. Unfortunately, they have manipulated themselves into all key positions of our government. They now have direct access to every piece of government data, including private data belonging to each and every one of us. TechBros are real. As are their private cities around the world. They are dangerous with the power and knowledge about us they hold. Their theocracy is bizarre. They don’t believe in empathy because they can’t feel it. They call us their serfs. They detest democracy, the way of life to which we are accustomed, believe in and enjoy. It is a terrifying, sudden turn of events in our lives which we vehemently reject. We stand together in solidarity against them, their oppressive way of life and their control.
Your initial reaction? "Preposterous!" Yet, a subtle whisper follows: "Wait, what if?" Before you know it, you're tumbling down a rabbit hole, unearthing "evidence" that seems to confirm your suspicions. Why this swift descent? Our brains are fundamentally wired for connection, for discerning patterns and extracting meaning. This evolutionary imperative, honed to spot the tiger hidden in tall grass, once ensured our survival.
However, in an age saturated with information, this remarkable cognitive superpower can transform into a profound vulnerability. This, my friends, is where we confront our old adversary: Confirmation Bias. In essence, it's our brain's inherent inclination to selectively gather information that corroborates pre-existing beliefs (or secret desires), while conveniently dismissing anything that challenges them. It's akin to meticulously reading only the glowing reviews for your favorite restaurant, effortlessly overlooking those that detail questionable hygiene. "They simply don't appreciate the ambiance!" you might rationalize.
This isn't a defect exclusive to "others." It's a universal human trait. From our preferred brand of toothpaste to our deeply held political affiliations, our brains are perpetually constructing narratives that provide coherence and meaning. And when these narratives involve shadowy figures and elaborate schemes, our brains don't just light up; they ignite with a primal satisfaction. This is precisely why a single, unsubstantiated tweet can feel more authoritative than a rigorously peer-reviewed study, especially if it resonates with an already simmering suspicion.
This phenomenon isn't a "bug" in our cognitive architecture; it's a "feature" – a deeply ingrained mechanism that has served us well for millennia. The critical challenge, however, arises when this feature is exploited.
This leads us to the heart of the matter: if something feels true because it aligns with our biases, and this alignment is intentionally manipulated, does it then become unlawful or illegal? This is the most complex hurdle: how do we establish accountability? Does such manipulation hold weight in a court of law?
My central argument is precisely this: even if we universally agree that an outcome is unfair or unjust due to exploited biases, is it legally enforceable? Can individuals or entities truly be held accountable in a system designed around tangible evidence and established legal frameworks, rather than the intricate, often invisible, pathways of human cognition?
Just because something is written that way, just because it sounds real, or because there’s a convenient coincidence, it does not prove anything. Without checking sources, verifying facts from multiple, reputable sources, you’re essentially outsourcing your brain to whoever typed the loudest.
Even if something does check out – like a politician owning shares in a company that benefits from a bill they passed – it could be an opinion, or simply a legal, albeit ethically questionable, action. It doesn't automatically mean it's criminal or unlawful. That's up to local, state, or federal laws and the Constitution, not just our gut feeling or prejudice.
We have to be careful not to let our "feelings" dictate "facts."
You’ve described the MAGAs who believe everything they hear (they don’t read or question or weigh facts). Thats why they’ve been prone to military style brainwashing. They’ll parrot everything that aligns with their beliefs.
There are others who do their homework. Much is at stake for the entire world. I research, dig deep, scrutinize, determine negatives and positives, address dangers, verify, clarify, and make open-minded judgements. My mind is not closed. I’ll always be willing to hear a different viewpoint that may hold information unknown to me. I use my understanding, not my emotions, although “feelings” as in gut, can be highly intuitive, to arrive at a solution or conclusion.
Good collection of articles. I’ve read them all and many others, as well. Unfortunately, they have manipulated themselves into all key positions of our government. They now have direct access to every piece of government data, including private data belonging to each and every one of us. TechBros are real. As are their private cities around the world. They are dangerous with the power and knowledge about us they hold. Their theocracy is bizarre. They don’t believe in empathy because they can’t feel it. They call us their serfs. They detest democracy, the way of life to which we are accustomed, believe in and enjoy. It is a terrifying, sudden turn of events in our lives which we vehemently reject. We stand together in solidarity against them, their oppressive way of life and their control.
Your initial reaction? "Preposterous!" Yet, a subtle whisper follows: "Wait, what if?" Before you know it, you're tumbling down a rabbit hole, unearthing "evidence" that seems to confirm your suspicions. Why this swift descent? Our brains are fundamentally wired for connection, for discerning patterns and extracting meaning. This evolutionary imperative, honed to spot the tiger hidden in tall grass, once ensured our survival.
However, in an age saturated with information, this remarkable cognitive superpower can transform into a profound vulnerability. This, my friends, is where we confront our old adversary: Confirmation Bias. In essence, it's our brain's inherent inclination to selectively gather information that corroborates pre-existing beliefs (or secret desires), while conveniently dismissing anything that challenges them. It's akin to meticulously reading only the glowing reviews for your favorite restaurant, effortlessly overlooking those that detail questionable hygiene. "They simply don't appreciate the ambiance!" you might rationalize.
This isn't a defect exclusive to "others." It's a universal human trait. From our preferred brand of toothpaste to our deeply held political affiliations, our brains are perpetually constructing narratives that provide coherence and meaning. And when these narratives involve shadowy figures and elaborate schemes, our brains don't just light up; they ignite with a primal satisfaction. This is precisely why a single, unsubstantiated tweet can feel more authoritative than a rigorously peer-reviewed study, especially if it resonates with an already simmering suspicion.
This phenomenon isn't a "bug" in our cognitive architecture; it's a "feature" – a deeply ingrained mechanism that has served us well for millennia. The critical challenge, however, arises when this feature is exploited.
This leads us to the heart of the matter: if something feels true because it aligns with our biases, and this alignment is intentionally manipulated, does it then become unlawful or illegal? This is the most complex hurdle: how do we establish accountability? Does such manipulation hold weight in a court of law?
My central argument is precisely this: even if we universally agree that an outcome is unfair or unjust due to exploited biases, is it legally enforceable? Can individuals or entities truly be held accountable in a system designed around tangible evidence and established legal frameworks, rather than the intricate, often invisible, pathways of human cognition?
Just because something is written that way, just because it sounds real, or because there’s a convenient coincidence, it does not prove anything. Without checking sources, verifying facts from multiple, reputable sources, you’re essentially outsourcing your brain to whoever typed the loudest.
Even if something does check out – like a politician owning shares in a company that benefits from a bill they passed – it could be an opinion, or simply a legal, albeit ethically questionable, action. It doesn't automatically mean it's criminal or unlawful. That's up to local, state, or federal laws and the Constitution, not just our gut feeling or prejudice.
We have to be careful not to let our "feelings" dictate "facts."
You’ve described the MAGAs who believe everything they hear (they don’t read or question or weigh facts). Thats why they’ve been prone to military style brainwashing. They’ll parrot everything that aligns with their beliefs.
There are others who do their homework. Much is at stake for the entire world. I research, dig deep, scrutinize, determine negatives and positives, address dangers, verify, clarify, and make open-minded judgements. My mind is not closed. I’ll always be willing to hear a different viewpoint that may hold information unknown to me. I use my understanding, not my emotions, although “feelings” as in gut, can be highly intuitive, to arrive at a solution or conclusion.
https://www.ecstaticintegration.org/p/peter-thiel-is-betting-on-the-apocalypse
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S1tcBUS0NYQ
https://www.vcinfodocs.com/the-tech-fascist-axis
https://youtu.be/CvSXFRHPbGE
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DhQbUoxgm/?mibextid=wwXIfr
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI4X6LBSBEC/?igsh=M3drZnZocmYyMzRy
You’ve described the MAGA. yes that pretty much sums it up, here is a deeper dive its mind-blowing and scary but impressive at the same time...https://hejon07.substack.com/p/what-the-actual-fuck-was-i-thinking