all 15 comments

[–]HeyImSancho 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think it's just planned; they're gonna try to finish stealing everything, and lock some places down into military command, and control societal constructs. A lot of heads will roll I think, as at the point they come forward, and can no longer hide the true intentions, the 'fringe' self involved, and selfish groups that have been promoted, will be worthless, and set for disposal.

As the world burns

EDIT: the worst aspect is that real abundance is everywhere, but 'owned' by the creditors; the people are seemingly now stupid enough to be okay with that.

[–]Robin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You mean the de facto scarcity comes from an attitude/expectation of scarcity? Kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the 'scarcity' isn't real; the scarcity is caused by the banks/govt/cabal stealing most property(read expanse) by usage of fractional reserve fiat currency. If people take back what was taken by way of fraud, then there is no scarcity.

However, the average 'people' are dumber than a box of rocks, or so indoctrinated into 'intellectualism' via 'degrees', that they've given up their common sense logic to see what's really in front of them.

We really could see the end of the world as we know it, the whole while the average people will scream, 'we're the most advanced ever', but are they? How many people know how to grow food, fix mechanical items, hunt, or even how to build shelter? Not many anymore.

I mean look at our housing, we build stuff today that sucks, and frown upon the ancient technology of earth building. Ziggarates, tu-lous, rammed earth, quiche, shibam, timber laced masonry; we modern idiots call all of the aforementioned buildings mud huts, and 'beneath' our modern intellect; yet we've got nothing that will stand as long as those buildings have, and do.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Probably just evolution at work.

Believing that crises or collapse is imminent when it really isn't would carry less of a penalty than believing that crisis/collapse is not imminent when it actually is. So over time humans would evolve a bias in favor of perceived crisis/collapse.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You are not addressing the question. Why?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I did. My argument is that the reason why you see all that stuff in search engines is because of a natural bias humans have.

I have no idea if a crisis/collapse is actually imminent.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So your argument is that IN THIS REGARD, information is not manipulated.

I'm not buying it, of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am not sure what you mean. Are you arguing that the search engine results are being manipulated?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am arguing that if TPTB wants a certain narrative, they make sure a million articles get written about it. So the absence of articles saying something only means it isn't their intended message...

Unless you believe information is NOT manipulated? (lol)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am saying that information in general is HEAVILY manipulated.

If (((they))) want a certain narrative or slant to be prevalent, they make sure 500 web pages talk in those terms. Or 5,000, whatever.

So obviously if something can't be found, it's not what (((they))) want us to believe.

However, your argument that we are or are not finding something "because of a natural bias humans have" implies that the information is NOT being manipulated. Otherwise, the question isn't one of bias, it's one of "we - could be free-thinking individuals, could be (((them))) whatever - want this to be heard"... i.e. nobody wants to say we are NOT on the brink. Neither the state media controllers nor individuals, nor the sheeple, nor well, anybody.

[–]Robin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Believing that crises or collapse is imminent when it really isn't would carry less of a penalty..." Not necessarily. It's a stress factor, and can lead to crisis promoting behaviour (e.g. resource wars as people fight over the last few drops of oil, rather than addressing the long term issue)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a good point that I hadn't considered.

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People who say the world is not on the verge of collapse don't generally use wording like this, and therefore show up less with a search in that wording. The same occurs for "is climate change a hoax", where mainly things talking about it being a hoax use the word "hoax" in the first place. I would search something more along the lines of "the world will get better" and "the status quo will always continue" if I was trying to find an anti-collapse narrative.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did you? What are your results?

[–]Robin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How search engines work is part of it. "Not" is a common 3 letter word, so easily missable in the scheme of things, as opposed to matching on all those other words.

I'd say that the world has always been on the brink of economic crisis. Something to do with lending out money at interest and demanding more back. Ah, but this crisis will be worse, people say. It was ever thus. Upping the ante is part of the rules of the game. "They can't keep creating money for ever", people say, but when asked why not the logic goes hazy.

I avoid such metaphors as "economic collapse" (and it is a metaphor) - too much FUD...