Anonymous ID: ba5a13 Dec. 29, 2021, 9:54 a.m. No.15273086   🗄️.is 🔗kun

The corruption of academic philosophy, from Romanticism to Marxian, that the human mind is characteristically incapable of knowing reality as it is, that at best humanity could only achieve a 'consensus' that has no bearing with reality as it truly is, is precisely what has 'intellectually justified' the weaponization of information in the political arena to which the world is supplied with a fake narrative.

If the information of reality as it is will always be out of reach for humanity, that view then justifies the implementation of a massive organized system of deception for the purposes of power and control.

After all, say the bad actors who do this, if they didn't do this it's not like humanity would suddenly have awareness of reality as it really is, it would just be another fake narrative humanity invents for itself.

Why not control and weaponize what would allegedly already take place?

 

If there is any group of people who are most responsible for the existence of a system the people in this pic practise every day, it is the 'philosophers' of the current age. They made this possible 'intellectually'.

They are the ones who, in their arrogance and pride, attacked human reason, completely oblivious to their own self-contradiction, casting rationalism as enemy number one.

They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the existence of Operation Mockingbird.

They are the ones who handed the world over to a satanic cult of pedophile psychopaths who practise organized deception for the sake of power and control over the world.

They are the ones who made it intellectually acceptable for entire governments to lie and create false narratives to attack their own populations.

If philosophers of our age had courage and wisdom, we would never have had to live amongst these psychopaths.

Anonymous ID: ba5a13 Dec. 29, 2021, 10:46 a.m. No.15273328   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>15273301

RRN pushers are D

definitely shills, because their 'independent' narratives are always the same exact narrative.

Same 'rebuttals'.

Same 'Q drop proofs'.

Same 'Q sAiD 'rAw' iN a DrOp!'

Same avoidance of any SOURCE.

>>15273308

Your post is noted.

Anonymous ID: ba5a13 Dec. 29, 2021, 11:13 a.m. No.15273475   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3487

>>15273341

Some REALLY hate the criticisms of RRN, kek.

It's almost like you can tell when a criticism os legit, it's when the criticism attracts this much whining, while a TON of other criticisms are met with deafening silence.

Anonymous ID: ba5a13 Dec. 29, 2021, 11:15 a.m. No.15273481   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3495 >>3501

>>15273473

>RRN is PROBABLY bullshit. But you don't know.

Nah, it can be known.

We just need to read RRN's own website disclaimer. They admit they're PARODY.

Like the Babylon Bee, only less funny and less insightful.

Anonymous ID: ba5a13 Dec. 29, 2021, 11:28 a.m. No.15273550   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3569

>>15273487

>>Some REALLY hate the criticisms of RRN, kek

>Wrong, I just think it is hilarious

Nah, you're not 'laughing', you're particularly upset that there are criticisms of RRN.

You aren't finding it 'hilarious' enough to post defenses of other criticized sources. Why?

Why do criticisms of RRN get your panties in a twist? Why do you feel the need to include your own opinions on criticisms of RRN whereas you don't with other 'sources'?

>how you attack it EXACTLY the way you have other alt-news outlets that have proven to be true after the fact in the past.

You're just making shit up here. By that shit logic you might as well defend CNN on the basis that 'attacks against CNN are EXACTLY like the attacks against some other 'credible' site that has nothing to do with the site in question.

The criticisms of RRN are unique and unlike any other 'attacks'. The reason the criticisms are unique is that UNLIKE other sites, they admit in their disclaimer that the site is parody, satire, humor.

When 'anons' push the information from the site as fact, without any corroborative evidence/source, it MAKES SENSE that criticisms would ensue.

The uniqueness of the criticisms stems from RRN's own admission.

To then cry foul at such criticisms smacks of shilly knee jerk defense mechanisms

>You know "Future Proves Past", there used to be a poster that talked about this all the time, he was most likely satire as well.

Wait, so you're admitting RRN is satire now?

>Enjoy your day, literal kike.

You don't know the 'identity' of any anon here.

Funny, while you demand anons have in their minds that 'they can't really know' if RRN is real or fake, you're here smearing anons with identity labels.

It's almost as if you want one set of rules for anons, and an opposite set of rules for yourself.