You basically have to choose. You can be a broadcaster, and reveal all the information you find out. Or you can be a strategist and use it. Get it to the right place, at the right time, in the right hands. The second is far far far more effective. Especially when people don't know who to look for.

One of the major mistakes people make these days is presuming corruption. Most of them are not actively corrupt. They are either subverted or co-opted. Far far far far more often.

Milo got exactly what he asked for.

The Clancy case is wild because you know: 1) She was suffering from something and not sane 2) She did need more help than she was getting 3) She should go to prison And all three are simply because she strangled her own three kids. And then we have to argue about which ones are true or not. lmao.

Reality is the glass. Simulation is the water trying to fill the glass to mimic it. Saying reality is a simulation based on that evidence.... Is filling the glass with water and going "the glass is water".

There is a secret a lot of people don't understand about influencers and information warfare. It's rough. It takes a very strong mind to hold posture correctly or filter critically. And most thought leaders are not getting better. They start off best... and they regress at a decent pace as they get involved in more and more framing and credibility warfare. They lose what edges they had and become very cyclical and memetics based. Because it is what carries over well to their support demographics. Not every single one of them... but far more than not. Especially... in politics. It is a very high rate in politics. And they are labeled with 300k+ followers.

"And what if this logical rule suddenly changed? A genie appears and "POOF!" no more requirements for "extraordinary evidence". Then what? Do the aliens suddenly appear before all our eyes? Do the warp bubbles suddenly manifest themselves for all to see?" No. Cute and desperate, but no. We go back to critical evidence analysis. Where it doesn't matter how frequent something is or which observer saw it when. Just straight critical hard evidence. No perception involved. Because it never did matter with the scientific method- it has zero place in it. Actually, it is actively eliminated in process and designed to track down things outside it's own awareness pool. Which part of this are you not understanding?

"Warp bubbles?" I don't know what this is. Here let me reframe the whole thing. "This is about eyewitness accounts of lights in the sky. A perfectly plausible explanation is that those reports are inaccurate, as humans are not perfect." Yes, perfect, now I can make an obvious fkin statement t hat doesn't counter this at all and look right. "They make mistakes. But sure, maybe warp bubbles." although I still don't know what that is.

If yall want to save a whole lot of time you need to go learn about the concept of co-opting. Because that is what most of this is. It's groups and individuals, and their messaging or activity, being co-opted by larger groups and agendas. In the large majority of cases they are not aware of this. Neither are yall when it happens to you. Probably because you are always too busy being positive all the grand conspiracies are against your group. Just like every other group is sure of it. Hmmmm. A pattern.

They still don't understand what co-opting is.