Conspiracy theories

[tvaeli]

Some 20-30 years ago, I wrote "conspiracy theories":

• I argued that many fools would not follow our spiritual values, and we need to prepare for their failure.
• I argued that altough we need to be peaceful and forgiving, and allow their free word, we need to build civilization and protect ourselves, and depend rather on our circles.
• This was anonymous: I explained the traits, sentences, games and their short and long term outcomes, expressing that spiritual people now play their long term games themselves. We are not supported by tax, government or authentic selection of the best - rather, we materially rely on our own structure than some kind of contract between spiritual and material, which collects tax from everybody and feeds off everybody, authentically choosing and investing to future on real, futuristic basis. Here is what came:
• People reframed my theories into statements, like supposed criticism on some kind of "elites". Yes, material people could fight in long-term, like animal fights humans, but after long run we have houses, walls and cars and they turn more attention into their own lives for this ethical reason of civilization and it's long-term practical, ethical goals.
• I was told "this is not intentional conspiracy": I do not know how "fools behaving like lack of system" must be conscious.
• It was told they have principle of innocence - in goal based logic, no. Goal based logic supports money, fame, power: you do not get paid, as if wering cutting edge.

Here is the outcome:

• Materialist group was not attacked. I was not sure in this until now: but I can say, those theories have finished their work without anything illegal, which would happen on basis of my theories. Evidence is measured in the end, to reason about initial contract, claims and accusations.
• Materialist group managed to kick off this spiritual group from their society. Their "not being guilty" was and is now: ability to control out tax money, be our office law and country, and in other senses to "belong", for example ask for treatment from anybody, which must resemble ethically how they treat others rather than resembling lack of interest and not being able to think how this "rich materialist" would be any use, or any belonging.
• They are consciously, targetedly fighting for spiritual groups to death - I say "for" because they say it's useful and sane, and "to" does not mean they would die; it's the way they express we would die. Death is isolation from some society: who is in other, isolated, parallel reality does not exist in terms of money, gain and payoff.

Here is implication:

• If we are kicked off, we do not belong. We did not break the law. Therefore, they do not belong: they do not belong to any group they kicked off, because superiority and equality games in game theory, are not to be connected (for loss - equality causation - and gain - superiority condition).
• If we do not belong, belonging to us did not have anything to do with their "innocence". To belong means they accept us as society, even through such neutral discussions: instead they say it's "conspiracy" to have "conspiracy theories". Time is linear and linearly, without crime we reached state of not belonging: this means, based on outcome, their initial forceful contract to belong was illegal, therefore also this activity to kick us out from somewhere, because without reason such accusations are illegal. Evidence is measured in the end, to reason about initial contract, claims and accusations.

Goal based vs. causal:

• Accusations like Einstein made - and now they dislike Einstein because of my theories - where that intelligent fools and responsible idiots come to control our conditions. How we "treat" them, in sense of belonging to our group, does not matter at all if we do not belong theirs:
• Materialist accusations are based on causal logic, and this past experience based logic says "conspiracy" in some means if someone is acting intentionally.
• Goal based logic aims to perfect goal, then organizes it accusing not for doing, not that to be "not A" you have to "act against being A": in goal based logic, rather, intention is defined so: if you do not forcefully, realistically and resultatively do A, which means intentful doing, the same terms and logic of intentful being-against appears: to find high class honour law, one which needs acceleration and dense motive to say it's not "negative", and replace it with criminal law, where one needs to be "neutral". "Neutral", in future-oriented logic of doing, rather than being, means that something might resemble "conspiracy theory" in the way we see fool who is running and reorganizing our lives based on forgotten principles and personal sensations of belonging, worthiness and honourity.
• If materialist said long-term goals are idealistic, too high and not worth it, attacking people who did: in causal logic, they just followed the random events and outcomes they do not understand, and to make this claim makes it funny that they say they got "control with wisdom", "just solving their everyday problems".
• In goal based logic, you take the same algorithm of conspiracy: you get rather, if they are not truly doing strategic, directed and successful flow to not being criminals, indeed the simple "neutral man" has the same mathematical form of crime. They came to "materially punish", saying they "don't believe in spiritual ideas" and thus think, we would materially pay back such:
• A material man who wants to use "their own, believable logic", addressing goals and statements of our multidisciplinary logic, must get the fuck out.

Because if my statement is made: I use GBL and make this statement; man with narrow course knows "logic", a binary system, and states "simply understanding your sentence by logic, if must have been logical statement of causal logic and not GBL, therefore I must reframe and explain your motives and intent myself". This turns to something like "intent", and like good-and-bad people, they are organizing into our zones, reservoirs and places of exile like Siberia, and telling they got human rights and we as bosses there in exile, the people who gained this high resource as ourselves, are somehow tiny and worth nothing and based on legal, civil rights they must provide with results of spirituality, because they are material and working for themselves as material people, and in social contract we should be spiritual, tiny and working for material people like slaves until we become materially useful, to get them closer to critical human rights given them at their birth: the rights of this ex-spirit civilization, the one built in spirit but reasoning the matter.

Once we get the palace, built, people start doing abstract things like "entering". Once we organized our secret society to modest degree of love and support: it becomes abstract synonym of science itself, something one "belongs by right" - goal-based logic, which builds up, like money and competition, is seen as causal logic, which builds down, like avoiding crime or loss of basic rights. Materialist with their narrow, visible view, is giving authoritative opinions and thinking it's legal to make claims without exactly measuring the spirituality, having the right professionals and right income in right offices, not claiming that they would be "lied to" - if they ly, they won't belong.

Notice: the funny words were intentional and were checked from dictionary for sufficient meaning, and intuitively for sufficient form. It's not like taking logic together, but a creative act.

Edited 2 hours ago by tvaeli

[tvaeli]

https://github.com/tambetvali/BulkLoad/blob/main/Conspiracy Theories.md

This is the in-depth text and I will add illustrative materials quite now.