Last modification 54 there is
The Fatal Mistake of the Sheep
The Fatal Mistake of the SheepNew World - Jul 04, 2023
The sheep's fatal mistake is not realizing that those they call "conspiracy theorists" and "science deniers" aren't a small fringe group of weirdos and hicks like they might be. imagine.
The point is, there are many of us, and we include a lot of brilliant minds and great members in our individual areas of expertise. This is not a bunch of misfits.
While I have no doubt that we are on the GOOD side of things, I will say that for the people who have to deal with us, that fact doesn't really matter (being right seems to have an effect on them ). It seems like the sheep like to ignore us and pretend we don't exist, even though we're right. They don't bother with us, we're just a nuisance to them. This attitude will one day bite them very hard in the you know where.
Many sheep have asked me, "How can you be sure that you are right and we are wrong?" ". I have often asked myself the same question. There are many answers, my favorite being simply to say "we're right because we're right" — which, of course, is rather flippant. This answer, however, seems more cautious: shrews are curious and seek answers.
Even if the prevailing consensus seems correct, it seems that we always want more. We want to understand why things are the way they are. We may not do this with everything we encounter; we certainly do when we're faced with big claims and when the powers that be tell us we all have to 'do' this or that, like take a vaccine that no one has really studied against a virus that no one knows big about -thing. In general, we say to ourselves “huh? ".
We then dive into the subject. We sink down all the rabbit holes we can find. Many of these holes lead to dead ends, but we discover those dead ends for ourselves. We don't let anyone shut us down and say, "You don't want to go in there." We say, “Why not? ". When we start to think that our usual sources of information, usually what's called the "mainstream media", aren't giving us the whole story, we quickly head into uncharted territory and start digging into it. Yes, more dead ends, but we are getting used to “dead ends” being part of the course of truly uninhibited discovery.
We draw conclusions, hypotheses, speculations from all the information we have gathered and we start to get something on which we can make a defensible statement of truth. But it takes a lot of work. And it's usually never definitive, never infallible. We don't seem to like things that "seem" final.
This is not the case with sheep.
Last modification 54 there is
They must have a good reason
They must have a good reasonDigital Dawn - Apr 18, 2023
There is a strange idea that if you don't know something, it doesn't exist.
It's a bit like the metaphor of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand. But it goes beyond denial. Ignorance is when you don't know something at all, denial is when you know it, but don't know it.
What I'm talking about here is when you know something and you don't deny it, but just rationalize it by saying "they must have a good reason for doing this" or "maybe we don't know not everything there is to know about it”. Which is often followed by "and I don't have the time (the desire, the attention, the interest, the curiosity, the capacity, the intelligence, etc.) to go further".
This has always bothered me to some extent, but I have to admit that I myself have been slightly guilty of this kind of reasoning. I mean, do we really have time to check everything? Well, now I think we have to take the time, and, of course, not everything is important enough to require truth checking. It's a terrible thing to say, but I'm afraid it's the truth.
Part of the “gullibility” that causes many people to brush things off with the assumption that all is well stems from the indoctrination they have been subjected to from an early age. I grew up in a culture that seemed really obsessed with the safety of people, especially children. Think of all the toy recalls and such. As soon as a toy comes out with the slightest bit of uncertainty about how it might harm your child, it's taken off the market.
I shouldn't say I "grew up" with it, as most toys from my childhood would be considered lethal weapons today - lawn darts, pellet and pellet guns, Vac-U-Forms, chemistry sets, Easy Bake ovens (it was my sister's toy, she was a little girl, I was a little boy – I'm telling you this for clarity). The “security craze” didn't really begin until a decade later. I even remember that a child I knew received an “Atomic Energy Laboratory” toy whose kit contained real uranium ore.
I would have died (literally) to get my hands on one of these toys.
That was the time.
