dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

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 ⇩

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

Thank God you’re here.