Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior - ignoring certain factors - is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of people displaying this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
Because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. You do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with yours.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior - ignoring certain factors - is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of people displaying this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. you do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with mine.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior - ignoring certain factors - is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. you do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with mine.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior itself is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. you do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with mine.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. And, to em a tell-tale sign, is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
And the second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior itself is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. you do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with mine.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, is that the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. And, to em a tell-tale sign, is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
And the second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior itself is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable. When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. you do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with mine.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.