20 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-08 1225 +Terran Downvale

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-08 1225 +Terran Downvale
https://plus.google.com/112413489582307671009/posts/3p6ALfvF87V
https://pastebin.com/p28iMG3p
__

Well, you can probably anticipate what I'm going to say!

At least "Dallas Goldbug" (g'day Mr Goldbug, I know you regularly Google your name) tries to substantiate his claims by pointing out supposedly unique/rare physical characteristics observed between two or more people (or "actors").

I don't think that even "Dallas Goldbug" would suggest two people are the same person _*merely because*_ they happen to look similar (though if he is wrong with his claims then that is effectively what he's doing).

Both "Mike Meyers" and "Michael Wolff" share _some_ broad similarities, they both have had active and public careers, and were born around ten years apart. *Hey, kind of like "Alex Jones" and "Bill Hicks"!*

If anyone were trying to undermine that author's credibility, it would be coming from team Trump by way of Team Jones, wouldn't it?

It is true that one person who is pretending to be another is going to display some physical similarities between the two characters. *It is also true that many people in this world innocently resemble other people, but that doesn't mean they are the same person.*

Everyone knows that somewhere in the world is someone who looks like yourself. There is no reason why this wouldn't remain the case with two completely different people in the public eye, etc.

If you are ruling *in* "similar looking people" as being worthy of suggesting that they're the same person, then how are you ruling *out* the suggestion of other people who look similar as being the same person?

There has to be *some* way to rule people in or out, else you are being arbitrary and whimsical.

I.e., to be consistent and not arbitrary, you would have to suggest that _everyone_ who _looks similar_ could be the same person which, although true (because until you dig deeper they _might_ be!), would be absurd.

It is easy to say that X and Y look similar, therefore they could be the same person! And, it is difficult to rule out X and Y when they look similar with no way to establish them in the same room at the same time.

*This makes it easy for dishonest and bad conspiracy theorists to misdirect open-minded people and waste their time by saying, _"these two people look similar, is it just me or could they actually be the same person?"_*

Given that other aspects of the author's book have been the subject of bullsh!t, that seems to have been the purpose of the Reddit post.

As I say, at least "Dallas Goldbug", bless his conspiratorial heart, strives to point out shared physical anomalies with ears etc. But are there any unique physical traits that both Mr Meyes and Mr Wolff share?

All said and done, aren't we assuming Mr Wolff's gender? Besides, who spells "wolff" with two Fs?

_I think we need a hansvestigation!_


__
+nationalparksign ., +Terran Downvale



__________
2018-01-10 0720

So, after watching "Michael Wolff" talk about his "Fire And Fury" book on _"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"_ it sounds like people are being introduced to the concept of "planned dichotomies", the role of trust, and the habit of weighing up the evidence before using one's imagination to fill in the blanks so as to become self-convinced.

Towards the end of the interview Mr Colbert asks Mr Wolff to "show him the tapes" (which is "sufficient proof" in the analogy), despite Mr Wolff suggesting he can simply trust him (he's the expert, after all).

_Link to the interview:_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDFZKAS5eQw

__
+nationalparksign, +Terran Downvale




__________
2018-01-11 1700

*PLEASE CONSIDER* that what has happened with the "Wolff/Meyers" incident is a basic application of *"thought alchemy"* by way of the *algorithm.*

What I outline below is precisely what the algorithm is good at. Only a few *basic ingredients* are needed for the magic to happen:

a) That "Michael Wolff" resembles someone else.

b) That someone "points out the similarity" between these two people.

c) That motivated people then *repeat the observation* to further their own ends.


__



*IN MORE DETAIL:*


1) It is easy to imagine that there exists a database of people and who they resemble.

*In fact, it's easy to accept that such a database _does_ exist because "Dallas Goldbug" happens to maintain one!* Can it be he's the only person? _Absurd!_

The point is that it can be known in advance that "Michael Wolff" resembles "Mike Meyers". Hold that in mind.




2) It is easy to imagine that it was known (by many!) when the "Michael Wolff" book "Fire and Fury" was going to be released.

*In fact, it's easy to accept people knew it was coming soon considering the (then upcoming) book had been in the news at least since the middle of November, 2017.*

For example, "Salon" posted an article titled: _"Soon, everyone can read the dirt on Trump’s White House"_ in the November, 2017:
https://www.salon.com/2017/11/14/soon-everyone-can-read-the-dirt-on-trumps-white-house/

>> That's a good 4 to 6 weeks prior to the book's release, *plenty of time to prime people with subtle imagery of "Mike Meyers".* <<


__


For those who require or desire a "motivation": The book "Fire and Fury" purportedly contains dirt on "Donald Trump". It is easy to imagine that "Pro Trump" propaganda networks would want to misdirect as much attention _away_ from the book as they can.

(Misdirect whose attention? I'd say people who are "Pro Trump" but I won't go into why here.)

The algorithm (which selects news items for people to see) can begin priming the population with news items that feature *"Mike Meyers"* a few weeks in advance with "where is he now?" themed headlines.

_*You* noticed those headlines!_

>> *But you likely didn't know about the upcoming book, and so it was not possible for you to connect the dots.* <<

You noticed something and somehow it *felt* important/relevant, but its purpose had not yet come into play.

(You can only have guessed at what was being primed had you known that "Michael Wolff", the author of an upcoming controversial book, sort of resembles "Mike Meyers".)

Because you *cannot* have known at the time, anything you came up with would *necessarily* be wrong (or be right by _blind_ luck).

All you could have known is that "something about Mike Meyers" might be relevant.

(But not even that, it's only in hindsight that you can see "Mike Meyers" was actually relevant. If you noticed "Mike Meyers" in several places, then you can suspect event priming - but that's about all.)

The "Mike Meyers" articles served to place a *visual* into the audience's mind with no way for anyone to know how it is _going to be used._

Then, all it required was for someone to suggest in a few key places (one such place being Reddit) that "Michael Wolff could be a role played by Mike Meyers" *and the "conspiracy" can take on a life of its own.*

Propaganda networks that are eager to misdirect attention away from the contents of the book *predictably* seized upon the "conspiracy".

For all who got swept up in this - it would have felt like a free choice. At all times, everyone participating in the "Michael Wolf is played by Mike Meyers" observation, it would have felt like it had occurred to them _naturally._

*As it happens, propaganda networks did seize upon this observed "similarity" and used it to create a diversion!*

Just look at all of these Tweets by people who are making the same observation as you have!

https://twitter.com/search?q=wolff%20meyers&src=typd

A *lot* of people are now posting about this similarity.

The algorithm provided the *raw ingredients*, then as soon as someone "made the connection" (i.e., someone saw a benefit in expressing the low-hanging fruit observation) it took on a life of its own.

Everyone repeating the observation has no idea how they have been manipulated.

__

And that is a basic example of "thought alchemy" in action. By making the "raw ingredients" available an idea can be passed on to others in a deviously clever way.

*Such that those affected believe they have came up with the idea for themselves.* And the most effective way to convince others of something, is to have them come up with the idea for themselves.

>> The influenced become self-convinced, and once self-convinced it becomes nearly impossible to get them to see things any other way. <<

__


What's happening can be *easily* understood in this simple, plausible, and rational way _without ever_ needing to get mystical. Without ever having to read more into things. Without ever requiring impossible and far-fetched explanations or connections.

*If an explanation for something is far-fetched and difficult to believe, then it probably is!*

What's happening is very simple, but the mind craves complexity!

And that's how the truth of "thought alchemy" can remain invisible. Because it's so _brilliantly_ simple that intelligent people naturally abhor it! They refuse to see it!

__

The fact you had picked up on this similarity is no surprise to me! If *anyone* were to notice something like this _*it would be you!*_

If there is something to be noticed in an event - _you_ will notice it.

But, this kind of thing becomes a perilous *trap* when you find yourself able to rule things _in,_ but without a reliable way to rule things _out._

You *are* noticing things that are there, but are looking for a more complex explanation than is needed when it's quite simple.

Again - for those who require a "motivation" it's as simple as this: A group of people don't want others to pay heed to the *contents* of an upcoming book (e.g., "Pro Trump" supporters/sympathisers).

So the people who are not to read it have been given a "mini conspiracy" to pass the time with ("Wolff is played by Meyers!").

It feels like something they have noticed and come up with for themselves. Eventually, buzz for the book dies down and everyone moves on to the next thing.

For those swept up it never *feels* like they have been manipulated. *It's just the algorithm doing what it does best.*

I really don't know how to describe these things any more simply and clearly. If you find yourself thinking _"I get what you're saying, BUT.."_ just STOP! and ask yourself: Why do I feel that it needs to be any more complicated than this?

There is "sufficient proof" for each of the ingredients I have outlined above. Putting the ingredients together in a consistent (rather than arbitrary) manner results in a predictable outcome which has come to pass.

*It does not need to be any more complicated than this.*


__
+nationalparksign, +Terran Downvale




__________
2018-01-14 2105

+Terran Downvale __ Normally you are the *first,* and often the *only,* person to notice _curious coincidences_ and _unlikely connections_ that *do* require a closer second look.

But, _"in search of the joke"_ with the "Michael Wolff" and "Mike Meyers" pairing, you were not only late to the punchline, you were beaten by almost everyone else.

Please, take a look at all the people who have been pointing it out on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search?q=wolff%20meyers&src=typd



_Here's one Tweet posted on the *5th* of January, 2018:_
__
The BEST part is Michael Wolff *sounds & looks* like Mike Meyers Dr Evil....only fitting that he will be the one to bring you down!_
https://twitter.com/KevinLe29114214/status/949276643222261763
__


Though it's only a basic Tweet, it manages to convey the main points you're making (i.e., appearance and voice)!

Spend a few minutes taking a squiz at the various Twitter accounts who have been posting about it. Notice that they are *all* politically motivated accounts that are in support of "Donald Trump".

I wouldn't be surprised if some (perhaps many) were compensated in some way for repeating this misdirecting "Wolff/Meyers" meme.

Now, I am not suggesting that you are a furtive political activist supplementing his income, but _somehow_ you have gotten swept up in a nonsense *political* disinformation campaign!

Come on! You are someone who normally makes *far more compelling* observations and connections than this! _How can this be?!_

I doubt even "Dallas Goldbug", bless his deranged conspiritorial mind, has gotten caught up in the "Meyers/Wolff" nonsense. If anyone were to jump on "Meyers/Wolff" bandwagon it would be Mr Goldbug. If he hasn't, then that should tell you something!

*I urge you to read over what has been written in my previous comments (including this one), _more than once if necessary._*

Not every coincidence or connection is meaningful. And just because a thousand meaningless coincidences and connections can be found *does not* suddenly make the _set/collection of them_ meaningful.

A coincidence or connection that does not actually prove anything is literally *worthless.* You know this! And so _a thousand_ such worthless coincidences and connections *remains* utterly worthless.

A whole lot of nothing is still nothing! A thousand times zero remains zero. *I know you know this!*

However, this is a concept that _every_ entry-level conspiracy theorist gets stuck on, *but I know you are above this!*

When I ask you, _"how are you ruling things out"_ - I am genuinely asking for you to tell me! I genuinely want to know!

_How *are* you ruling things out?_

If you don't have a way to rule things out, then all you are doing is ruling things in.

As I have said, the more intelligent you are the more connections you can find. Just as a person with a strong vocabulary can find more words from a set of jumbled letters than someone with a weak vocabulary.

You have "the gift", *_a knack,_* but it still needs to be polished!

You *need* to work on your skill at spotting "the joke" that other people can't see, _and take it to the next level._

*You need to become a master at your "dream interpretation" craft.* For that, you must do what others cannot: You *must* find a way to *rule out* coincidences and connections.

Otherwise you will be no different to a hypochondriac who Googles his muscular aches and comes away with the belief he has muscular dystrophy, when really he just overdid it at the gym!

"Event skepticism" is not for stupid and lazy people.

Event skepticism is *dangerous* to the mental health of stupid and lazy people. Because of the way the lie system routinely presents events and claims, *improperly* scrutinising them will *destroy the sanity* of stupid and lazy people.

I cannot emphasise how serious that is!

Do you really think that the lie system, something that has likely been used to farm humanity *since the beginning,* suddenly wants laymen to realise they're being farmed?

It doesn't. If the lie system wanted to get caught, it would have by now. It would be common knowledge to all.

There isn't some "spiritual awakening" taking place. It might _seem_ like that, *but every generation erroneously thinks that!*

That's not what's happening.

Psychosis is the unavoidable consequence when fantasy becomes accepted as reality. Every "event skeptic" is at a heightened risk of experiencing a *self-induced* psychosis.

This is how the lie system neutralises potential dissidents. It doesn't even have to physically intervene. Each potential dissident drives _himself/herself_ insane *before* becoming a problem.

Have you forgotten this?!

Surely you must recognise there is a "psychological operation" on open-minded people? That there is an ongoing effort to get open-minded people to believe outright absurdities?

Do you think the flat Earth nonsense is about awakening people to the "truth"? Or is it more about neutralising open-minded people?

For who will listen to someone with the actual truth about something, when that person is also bleating about the Earth being flat?

For who will listen to someone with the actual truth about something, when that person is also bleating about "Michael Wolff" being a role played by "Mike Meyers"?

_No one, that's who._

We are supposed to take seriously the idea of a flat Earth? We are supposed to take seriously the idea of a "Wolff/Meyers" connection, because they have a similar appearance and voice?

>> *This is madness!* <<

Not even Mr Goldbug would touch this. You're better than this!

If you genuinely feel like there is something to the "Meyers/Wolff" pairing, and what I wrote above about "thought alchemy" wasn't a satisfying "plausible explanation", then take some time to come up with a "protocol" whereby you can reliably and consistently *rule out* curious connections and unlikely connections.

Instead of it being whimsical, arbitrary, and dependent upon ephemeral feelings, let there be a consistent logic to it.

Whether you want to talk about it in public or private, use me as your sounding board. I'll give you straight answers and tell you what I think. Don't squander the opportunity.

Of all people you should know that when you form a belief without "sufficient proof" you are forming an "unjustified belief". Belief in a lie *always* requires an "unjustified belief". By accepting and/or mistaking proof's appearances for actual proof, *you are unavoidably training yourself to accept lies as truth.*

That's what's happening.

Once self-convinced of fantasy as reality, it's very difficult to reverse the psychosis. _Very difficult._

*Prevention* is the best (perhaps only) cure.

While this is all just another day for the lie system and its devious presentation protocol, you don't have to become another of its victims.

It's not too late, right?

>>>>> The question you *must* satisfactorily answer in order to take your skill at "spotting the joke" to the next level: _How can you rule *out* curious coincidences and unlikely connections that *feel* meaningful, but beyond a feeling - in actuality - prove nothing?_ <<<<<

If you want, let's talk about that. In public or in private.

Until you've found a way to reliably rule things *out,* you're only ruling things in - and that's how you are _training yourself_ to accept lies as truth. Don't be like everyone else!


____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.