Conspiracy Theories

[tvaeli]

Many of us back then were attacked as "conspiracy theoriticists", talking about:

• Living in matrix, unknown which runs on railroad - fools, who believe, and who try to bring their small terms.
• We can see how fools are tilting the long axe, favouring all kinds of good things: their well-being, nations, lately they talk that their psychology is serious and how they get sick.

I have seen now the long term consequence - spiritual people, on long term, walk in their destinations, while others have started short term cycles again - things they told but tell they didn't, friends they had but tell they hadn't. This is a short term planning, perfect short term fit of people and plans right now.

This comes to eat:

• It says spiritual people are good, and thus, no local consequence appears on long term, if you do not set or fight with long terms plans:
  • Long term plans are not about dead matter, but people, spirit - this is scientifically known that people set goals, estimate future and that all is somewhat reliable; not doing this is not reliable - ones who do not set long term plans, do not fail if their consequences resemble random elements, eating the seeds as fruits.

Our new seeds seemed powerful, but as we got rich, the matrix activated - already contracted all around the world, in reflections we saw revolutions and new waves.

I can see how fools:

• They said we are conspiracy theoreticists
  • I did not say a word about this - practically, they have to show that any evidence they had on us, was sufficiently reasoned given our real crimes.
  • Money, which was not given to support spiritual goals:
    • All the actual spiritual goals are circulation of resources, not free money. Instances, people, live in thermodynamic world where ends meet ends, or die - spirit lives in realm which is class, related to those instances, thus in spiritual world, there is goal-setting and failure in causal, same effect as punisment and reward in goal logic which estimates based on goal-setting.
      • We can not materially measure evolution itself: we must measure it's collapse into material consequence, a miracle - in miracle, mind gets effect over matter; birth of life is the unique, biggest miracle - altough scientifically almost impossible, and there are more and more scientists who do not believe in birth of life (Undo Uus, Kirikiri), we can see the miracle is real - matter, partially, moves under mind, there are numerous muscles, nerves and systems which are long-term controlled, kind of infinity-aware.
      • Tax system circulation means, that representatives of tax money on spiritual terms need to control this circulation properly: it's not part of circulation of material taxation system which excluded spiritual goals.
        • One can say this money is not big - rather, do not die for it, do not make it a big goal to suffer. If spiritual people *themselves* think it's big money, it's *belonging to them*, *not to be measured by others*, and *tax system cannot ask for it reasoning that they can pay, because those things are more sentimental and valuable to us - things like long-term survival rather than clear, visible saving*.

[Ziran]

18 hours ago, tvaeli said:

they have to show that any evidence

The error, when it's a conspiracy theory, occurs when the individual is not able to accurately tell the difference between weak and strong evidence.  For example, a conspiracy theorist believes, "where there's smoke there's fire", but hasn't considered that it could just as likely be a cloud in the distance.

The other 'red flag' which tends to indicate that what's proposed is a conspiracy theory:  in order for the theory to be true, it would require a vast number of immoral, unethical, individuals to behave indifferently or maliciously when they have no good reason to do so, and most people would not behave in such a way.  But the conspiracy theorist ignores this.

[tvaeli]

On 26/7/2026 at 4:26 AM, Ziran said:

The error, when it's a conspiracy theory, occurs when the individual is not able to accurately tell the difference between weak and strong evidence.  For example, a conspiracy theorist believes, "where there's smoke there's fire", but hasn't considered that it could just as likely be a cloud in the distance.

The other 'red flag' which tends to indicate that what's proposed is a conspiracy theory:  in order for the theory to be true, it would require a vast number of immoral, unethical, individuals to behave indifferently or maliciously when they have no good reason to do so, and most people would not behave in such a way.  But the conspiracy theorist ignores this.

Yes, what you are talking about:

- You are talking about real people, so you must bring exact facts and details.

 

Here is the add-on:

- I was giving exact conspiracy theories and you must bring exact mentioned details and scientific account to disprove them. You must show exactly, what they did not have good reason to be: given that you exactly answer my post, not some theoretical blah-blah examples of your own people, you must give exact answer: what it means "no reason to be stupid?", also the statistics which proves how much real government and police, or for example you do with the fact that *nobody is criminal*, or *most people are not criminals to anybody*.

- I am talking about people, who expressively explained they do not want my better society, and when they do not belong to these cycles which appear in our society which does not have the problem that nobody would do anything other than self-earn, thus my society is not better, but nobody is criminal in sense of our society because so many people can not be.

 

In legal law, things are decided after.

- The anti-conspiracy theoreticists have been fighting silently against us belonging to their society. They keep hate and they consistently point out that we are psychologically not ready to cooperate with them - the late loud yelling that they cannot belong to our society is decided by that.

- They said we are conspiracy theoreticists. Based on my articles where I explained, that because their leaders tell *nobody* would follow our laws, they cannot join us, but because *nobody would do a crime*, we must belong to their criticism.

 

We do not belong now. I do not belong. They attack my own income sources so I have to slowly remove the ones they are connected to - this means, attack by physical means against my success in my personal field, because they say they belong and are not criminals. They said this society they are ignoring and *still* not asking to join this: who really shares the tax, talks in TV etc., must contain 50% spiritual and real spiritual people, not the ones who have material success and primarily think like them, or who they are feared to hit for their own reasons and fears, which do not touch us.

Since I am not belonging to those people who accused, that my saying that we will not success, this is given:

- Our discussions were democratic, supporting rights and free speech of our "enemies". Enemies themselves yelling loud about we fought about *genuine feeling of lifelong belonging*. We did not commit crimes, did not fire people, did not attack with police control, this is everywhere in the world. We did not open legal cases which would be sign of accusing in crimes. Given, this, *enemy cannot say they attacked us because we attacked them* - we were talking about who we trust.

 

Given that our theory was "conspiracy", a legal object:

- They avoid hiring me.

- They yell loud when girls and luxuries like me, and they run around that I'm living better despite *no money*.

- They tell us what they did to our society - but the problem is those fighters belong to government office, npo, etc., which told me they never hire me, and fights heavily.

 

You think you are giving symmetric response but you tell:

- If our conspiracy theory holds, you would not be fired to our high trust positions, where our lives depend on.

- This accusation is based on the *ends* - you say you are running here telling that I'm moron because I have attacked you. In legal sense I did not, but right now this is scientific long term - since you did not hire me, did not work with me, but you are protecting people who failed to support us - for this legal and consitutional failure which shares our responsibilities, they need *real crimes*. You say this is not real crime, but your *decision* and *situation* if you try to remove us - but you say to hire, to support, to take to society is your *decision*, but we waited until this end because ours, is not our decision - it's our obligations and responsibilities that others can live by law. I can not live in your society by your law, thus please do not come with the "real hard laws", looking with paranoid eyes that you are 100% pure, true and working, where your first comment would fire others, because of our consistution and capitallism where they have to survive on their own.

 

Now, first - explain this silent decision about our belonging to your society, negative over 10 years; *then* discuss the "conspiracy theories", which were latent and guessing you do not belong to ours. With your fucking science and government - who cares about those things? We care about ours, because *practical* is our own survival, not the one you come with from outside, about your granted legal rights to belong - we can see in your post, you would be surprised if you *doubt in the feeling of beginning*. You would make *free decisions* to come here about how us morons do not belong - science, in the end, *decides about the real case and ability where we do not belong*. This categorizes: the ones who *won* something there, from their legal, free and rightful situation ^*nobody was really attacking*: must explain not "conspiracies", but now these real results - who actually did what, for what, and for what reason.

 

[tvaeli]

You seem to be fighting here: I have seen people fighting against "conspiracy theories" for 20 years, trying to maximize their hits.

- This seems, talking about random conspiracy theory and associating randomly is already crime, why to give a fuck about "he did not know it was not his theory?".

You say you see some dangers, doubt, bad gut feelings:

- Your activity itself is legally conspiracy theory, materially, as you try to penaltize those people, generalize and bring additional claims such as "whole world is not guilty" - you must give name, author, exact claim where you got this "all people guilty" because either, you have not talked with me - or you look my claims from my text, and do not put them as subcategories of your claims on other topics - here is the original conspiracy theory, that people like you take my exact sentence, but they think it's special case of another sentence with unfitting logic. I see linear, vague, stupid thinking in you - do not tell you have right to be stupid, because to prove that, tell why you fight people for being "stupid" in accusing, perhaps you, when they did not, and what right they did not have to seem stupid to you just because you have right to interpret?

[tvaeli]

Here is the conspiracy theory:

• It only states that they do not bring us out from darkness, to lives we can live, because we live in matrix.

 

It only states that we stand out for our civilization, our lives, our love and our honour.

This is a honour court, not criminal court. You do not need to disprove you did something, but to disprove you didn't do it all - what we were envisioning. We did it all, we won inside, you came to fire and beat us to share this "social position" - but when you came to share our personal, everyday energy and radiation, you told you say your right is to stand here.

You said it's scientific discussion, a debate, and we said:

• Coming against our spiritual talk:
  • This states ideals, therefore this is naïve, because all the cityzens are honour criminals.
    • Honour criminal is the any one who does not have ideals, and is not able to progress towards.

Now to prove your responsibility:

• You did not have to fire those spiritual people in advance.
• You did not have to call our ideals conspiracy theories as your research about "100%" was open, modified to "99%" - the weak. Known from soviet union, and my theories of illuminati (mostly mine), the 99% and ther 1% - the weak and the strong.
• Honour is to fail in honour courts, whatever it costs, in excess and in advance. Any attempt against is crack, cracknut head of limited consciousness, limited, binary thinking.
• Now, to hire us, to fight us more than 20 years - this is legal accusation.
  • To decline giving our highest honour to our future killer, the one who pretends to be a legal man, in our society, standing for honour in honour and kicking us out: this is fighting the spiritual cause, claiming one cannot be solved peacefully, while we can still be sarcastic towards you as our most peaceful statement goes on and demonstrates your moral vulerability. This is sacrifice to suffer.

For example to reason against theory of reincarnation, is to bring real, verified sample of society which did not reborn: the scientist arguing this in final opposition must stand high, stand free, talk for him - fact by fact, case by case, with natural proof and free evidence.