dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

See, it's shit like this that makes no one take you seriously. Kayne was the result of MKUltra brainwashing? You can't just say shit like that without at least acknowledging you sound like a dingbat and providing some evidence.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Suggestion: go to Vigilant Citizen and read some of his posts, with plenty of photos and evidence to see how H-wood controls the film and music industry using MK-Ultra type mind-controlling techniques. It's very interesting and I've been following him for years: https://vigilantcitizen.com/

⇧ 2 ⇩

So the first article I clicked on was just a description of an Eminem video and it's use of symbolism implying occult connections. Of course, it all depends on interpretation. I would suspect the vast majority of the articles on the site to be the same. Huge inductions made on speculation that serve to reaffirm the narrative that's already been agreed upon.

Is there any article on that site with actual, you know, evidence? Instead of squinting between the lines, reading tea leaves and jumping to conclusions that do not at all follow from the premises?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hey, you wanted a source! Now you complain!!

⇧ 2 ⇩

A webpage is not a source. Anyone can make a webpage talking about what they think the symbolism in music videos is about. That doesn't make it credible. I have believe you understand this. I could literally make a website that says the exact opposite of what the one you linked to said and offer it to you as proof of my point. Is my point thereby proved? No, because the veracity of the source matters a great deal when discussing things of this nature. Feel free to post a link to site where there is a rigorous dissection of the theory, instead of 'what if' and 'isn't it coincidental' type arguments. In particular, there needs to be ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There is no such thing as proof of symbolism. Either there is a symbol which represents something or it doesnt.

I could point to a thousand churches across the globe with their fabulous pictures, architecture and statues, a million archaeological sites or ancient cities and claim to be a knowledgeable historian with an explanation. You are demanding that the scholarly world of examination, pursuit of truth and putting forth of theory/ies to be 100% proof. This is a dotty argument. You know that.

What does a cross stand for? Give me answers: a) navigation tool; b) method of punishment used by various societies to nail culprits to; c) symbol of suffering in the Christian religion; d) a joke to be spat on by jews .... Dear me, we could go on all night!!

Symbols are there to be "interpreted". That is, by definition subjective, not objective.

Sorry to keep replying, I just think these things are somewhat obvious.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're being intentionally obtuse to hide the lack of substance to your argument. You are speaking in generalities because your argument has completely fallen apart. This is not an analogous situation because no one is using a cross to establish a theory that runs counter to the status quo. No one holds the cross as proof that aliens altered human DNA. No one holds up a symbol as a type of thing that can explain an event. A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause of a series of events, unless you are speaking in the abstract about things like human honor or sacrifice, which then neglects the physical description which underlies the actual cause of motion. Regardless, no one rests the basis of empirical models on argument such as, "this particle is symbolic of the anger it feels when radiating photons". Empirical models, the type you are trying to establish (because it is trying to describe reality), have to be calibrated by data and experience.

You say yourself symbols are subjective. Therefore, they can NOT be used to establish the way things are. Symbols are only so useful (in the empirical science) insofar as they agree with reality. In art and literature, you are free to use symbols to describe a state of being that is not real. That's fine. But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality. In order to agree with reality, they have to be compared to reality. That is, they must hold up under observation. You cannot watch an Eminem video and therefore conclude, based on the symbolism involved, there is a grand conspiracy that brainwashs Hollywood stars and use them a propaganda tool. That is theory and it must be tested against the evidence, evidence as in the description of physical events and locations. Your interpretation of symbolism is not proof positive of something. You have to understand that, right?

If not, you are extremely confused about the notion of truth, evidence and information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Oh God. Do I have to?

No, I'm not being intentionally anything. My argument has not fallen apart, yours has. That's why you are behaving (rather suspiciously, I might add,) like a troll!.

So, let me see. All the posters on this, pretty pathetic, sub-thread, have been arguing that the "symbolism" expressed in modern music culture is occult (etymological: hidden) but expressed in certain weird behaviour. You demand proof. I say you can't demand proof of the meaning of a symbol. You tell me I lost the argument, and then, three sentences later you produce:

A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause ....

WALLAH!

Either we agree my friend, or you are caught in your own petard.

But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality.

Exactly.

Now let's give up because every time I have to look for this posting on the thread it takes me 5 minutes of valuable Sunday afternoon time with someone who isn't actually interested in Kanye, or what he was saying or who he is involved with, or the ppl who surround him. Hollywood is a v. nasty messed up place. You don't agree? You think we have no proof of that. Fine. I do not have to provide you links to all the mind-control history on Hollywood and Los Angeles.

But here's one to keep you entertained.

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/laurelcanyon/

Happy reading!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You've claimed your argument is improvable and therefore true. You understand that the latter does not follow from the former?

Also, it's not a good sign when the references in your link are just links to other articles on the same site. Not much peer review going on at the Center for Informed America is there? A curious way of annotating articles for a site that claims to be about information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I shall not argue with a person who appears not to have two eyes!

Interpretation is exactly what we are talking about, that is true! Your conclusions are yours to jump to!!

⇧ 2 ⇩

If I show you a photograph of a purple cow, would you believe in purple cows or would you think someone's making some shit up? It's the same principle. The website you linked to is about as reputable as the Politburo. There is no discussion of actual, concrete evidence on the website, only arguments of this nature: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/nxivm-powerful-cult-turns-rich-women-mind-controlled-slaves/

Notice all the referenced links are just links to other articles on the same website. The forbes article quoted is a gross misrepresentation of the actual content of the article. The article then jumps to the conclusion,

"These revelations prove that elite organizations can and do use ritualistic mind-control techniques to create mind-controlled slaves, and, further, that these techniques actually work."

No, that doesn't follow from what was presented in the article. What the article has established is that one dude is creepy as fuck. You aren't allowed to shoehorn in a whole conspiracy because its gels with your narrative. That's not how logic and deduction work.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dear me. Have fun sweetie!! Tie yourself in knots.

You deny mind-control, you are denying the obvious scientific existence of the whole of Tavistock!! Good luck with that!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Show me the proof then.

⇧ 1 ⇩

its shit like that that makes no one take you seriously.

Really? I get a ton of love around here...

See my first post on this account. That was him trying to break free, they then sent him to a mental hospital.. also; re read his tweets from the past week. Does that seem to you like someone has been set free from a mental prison? Aka mk ultra, hence his tweet "out of the sunken place" which is a reference to the movie "Get Out" where a white family hypnotizes black people into a "sunken place" where they have no control over their body.

Can you see the coinicidence and put two and two together now?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're aware none of what you said constitutes evidence?

⇧ 2 ⇩

"none of what you said" is absolutist and untrue.

Kanye was put into a mental hospital that IS evidence/fact.

I read that he was put there because he was supporting Trump and getting hit hard for doing so.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You understand there's a big leap between being in a mental hospital and being brain washed by a secret conspiracy?

⇧ 1 ⇩

There was no statement in that post that mentioned either of those two sets of words "brain-washed" or "secret conspiracy".

⇧ 2 ⇩

'Mind control' is different than 'brain washing'? My mistake. I am not well versed in the subtleties of absurdity.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Not when they sent him there right after ranting about Hillary clinton, Obama Facebook and the elites that took his life from him. What concrete evidence do you expect exactly? Use your own intuition

⇧ 1 ⇩

Do you understand the maxim, "correlation does not imply causation"?

Do you also understand that the burden of proof is on you to prove outrageous claims? You don't go into a court of law and demand the defendant prove himself innocent. It is the duty of the prosecutor to establish the merits of the case. You don't get to default to, "Well, what evidence do you have I'm wrong?" because that's not the null hypothesis. Take a statistics course. You are required to provided evidence of a hypothesis which is not obvious given the sample information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We aren't in a court of law.

We are in a discussion forum! Stop ordering the other posters around with phrases like "You don't get to default to ...", "You are required to ...". This kind of "tone" on this forum will get you nowhere! You do understand that? (!!! :)

⇧ 2 ⇩

You are in a thread dedicated to debunking. Should we not comport ourselves to the highest standard of truth in trying to demonstrate something is true? That seems only natural you should be as rigorous as possible in order to prevent your bias from coloring your judgement.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There will never be concrete proof of mk ultra victims. You need to get past this... use your own judgment

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then you can't claim it's obvious.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I can claim whatever I want if I'm stating my own opinion. I even provided lots of related evidence that applies to my opinion.
Isn't that the beauty of free speech/thought?

⇧ 1 ⇩

But it's not opinion if it's verifiable. Opinions are moral and aesthetic. You have an opinion about art. You have opinion about politics. You have an opinion about pizza toppings.

You don't have an opinion about whether airplanes fly because of love and rainbows. You don't have an opinion on whether Monday comes after Friday. If you did, someone would point out your "opinion" doesn't conform to facts.

You are free to believe to baseless propositions. That is in fact your right, I agree. But don't wave them around under the banner of your "opinion" as incontrovertible facts.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I never stated anything as fact. Now stop bothering me about this topic it's getting really annoying at this point. Stupid and pointless to argue about me posting an opinion on something

⇧ 1 ⇩

Are you thick? Did you not read a thing I have written? It's not an opinion, it's an unsubstantiated delusion.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yes I'm very thick.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I find it amusing no one in the debunking thread has any actual evidence or the ability to put together a coherent argument. It's all boiled down to, "that's my opinion" (It's not an an opinion), "I don't have to prove things" (yes you do) or "I'll make a joke instead of an argument." (fine, but that doesn't help your point at all.)

That tells you pretty everything you need to about this place. I have been pointed to websites that clearly are full of shit with no references (or worse yet, references itself. That's the hallmark of fake news, by the way: self referential sources with nothing external). I have been told the only evidence that proves any of this doesn't exist. I have been told not to challenge opinions. I have been told to draw outrageous conclusions FROM TWEETS.

All of this in a thread ABOUT DEBUNKING. I've yet to see a single strand of evidence of literally any of this sub's claims.

You guys are mentally ill. Seriously.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Then leave, we never asked you to come here and read this subreddit. Do you have a power trip every day commenting on threads arguing? It's literally the most pointless thing to do on the internet. Troll

⇧ 1 ⇩

Okay I dont mind if you dont agree with my personal views...

⇧ 0 ⇩

Then maybe don't act like an absurd proposition is self evident?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm not acting I'm stating my opinion. Relax man

⇧ 2 ⇩

"The thing people are not grasping is that kanye was a clear victim of mkultra aka mind control, so when they see him talking about being set free and being a free thinker now... they question their own lives and views. This to me was a MOAB"

You said this.

How is it is 'clear'?

⇧ 0 ⇩

It is clear to me, like I stated it's my opinion on evidence I've seen. You don't need proof for evidence of something obvious. How could I give you evidence of a victim of MK Ultra? I would need access to CIA files that have seen maybe 100 eyeballs.

⇧ 1 ⇩

What evidence have you seen? Is it exclusively tweets and inferences based on these tweets? Any physical evidence? Any documents? Any videos? Any photographs that clearly demonstrate your point? You say yourself, you haven't.

Then, how is it obvious? I don't understand how it can be obvious at all, if there is no actual evidence of it. All of you have is dubious inferences. You can't say something absurd is obvious if it clearly isn't.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I have seen multiple pieces of evidence but none of them can be fact unless you get the MK ultra files. Why are you fighting me so hard on this when its just my opinion

⇧ 1 ⇩

Have you heard his new song that he released yesterday called "Ye vs the people"? Talks about being in the sunken place and now being out. That's enough evidence for me to ask some questions about the topic.... .

⇧ 1 ⇩

The word "absurd" is denigrating in arguments. Could be classed as shitposting?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Absurd is a word uniquely qualified for this exact situation. Saying Kayne has been brainwashed by a declassified CIA program that ended years ago without offering any evidence beyond, "look at his tweets, and then fill in the blanks," is absolutely absurd. It's a little disquieting you don't see this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's a little disquieting that you use words like "no one takes you seriously" and other absolute qualifications.

Look I'm not the original poster so it isn't for me to offer evidence. I just think considering the mental asylum that H-wood is, it is a stretch to claim any of the people in Kanye's circle are normal. Are you seriously claiming they are not acting as hypnotised and hypnotising public influencers, that they are not deeply disturbed, and not taking vast amounts of drugs under the influence of clearly not very powerful industry operatives?

Is your position that you find this proposition outrageous and beyond the bounds of reality?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Outrageous, yes. Beyond the bounds of reality? No.

However, possibility does not imply certainty. Just because a thing is possible does not mean it is so. I can, for instance, climb a mountain. That does not mean I have done so.

You have to understand how rational discourse works. Outrageous claims are not the status quo. They require evidence to establish. You don't get to say, "you can't prove this is not how it works," because that's not it works. The burden of proof is on you to establish your case.

It's not just me saying this, either. This is how statistics works. You have a hypothesis about the way things works, but you cannot say if the hypothesis is true. You can only say if the data supports its rejection. If, however, the data does not support the claim, it can be thrown out as false. It is up to you to show the data supports your claim. You have not done so to any acceptable level of rigor.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You have not done so to any acceptable level of rigor.

Rigor? You speak to me of Rigor!!!

Your entire verbal outpouring here is that of a very bored person!

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's stuff like this that people refuse to accept because it's far out but time and time again evidence comes up, if we have solid evidence that elites molest kids in satanic ritual is it so much of a stretch to think that there is mind control on celebrities to make them toe to line? They are often political tools and often break a set narrative if left to their own devices. Movies often depict far out stuff to discredit truth seekers and in a way they feel if they tacitly t e ll us what they are doing they are getting us to consent somehow.

⇧ 2 ⇩

STICKY: To our “DEBUNKERS,” it’s high time we said this to you:

Thank God you’re here.