Ymar Sakar: The claim in your topic was that Marilyn Monroe was a Monarch-programmed Sex Kitten. The claim in my topic was that Monarch programming exists and it provided a summary.

Your topic even linked my topic. So the topics aren’t equal (whatever that would mean in this context) but they are parts of the same whole.

Anyway. I’ve been through the Vigilant Citizen website and enjoyed it. I had hoped you might have more, better links on MK/Monarch but apparently not.

Maybe the public consensus said Occam’s Razor was some kind of indomitable magic elixer solution for finding the truth… reality is a little bit different, Huxley.

Since you are good at looking up people online, such as how to spell Ohm’s name, why don’t you try reading that and see if you can comprehend it.

Noticeably, these portions.

In the philosophy of religion, Occam’s razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God. William of Ockham himself was a Christian. He believed in God, and in the authority of Scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[53] Ockham believed that an explanation has no sufficient basis in reality when it does not harmonize with reason, experience, or the Bible. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith. He states: “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

If only you hadn’t fallen into the Lucifer or Satanic whatever trap, Huxley… it could have still been feasible for you to make an argument based upon scientific methodology that you were correct, if you hadn’t tried to include those two topics in after proclaiming Occam’s Razor.

In chemistry, Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[44][45] Although it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among some selected published models.[2] In this context, Einstein himself expressed caution when he formulated Einstein’s Constraint: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”. An often-quoted version of this constraint (which cannot be verified as posited by Einstein himself)[46] says “Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[3][4][47] As a logical principle, Occam’s razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often support more complex theories than do existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available.[1][4] That is, science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles

The reason why I brought up movies is simple.

In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Movies are not what scientific methodology uses to derive hypothesis, theories, facts, data, or conclusions.

People looking for infotainment, information that entertains them, such as movies about conspiracies, cannot at the same time say they are using Occam’s Razor. It’s an automatic fail.

The user of OC can reply that they are not using OC for science or religion, but philosophy.

the razor’s statement that “other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones” is amenable to empirical testing. Another interpretation of the razor’s statement would be that “simpler hypotheses are generally better than the complex ones”. The procedure to test the former interpretation would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. If one accepts the first interpretation, the validity of Occam’s razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use). If the latter interpretation is accepted, the validity of Occam’s razor as a tool could possibly be accepted if the simpler hypotheses led to correct conclusions more often than not.

The Deep State theory has some predictive success. Huxley’s theory that crazy people do crazy things, thus that accounts for everything, does not have the same predictive success. For one thing, it leaves out who the crazies are and how to detect them. It also doesn’t explain why some people are crazy and harmless while others are not. These suppositions stack on top of each other, rendering OC incompatible with the “crazy people” theory.

If people settled for that type of solution, we would still be answering questions in basic chemistry about water with “oh, that is because water is crazy that it boils at that temperature”.

When humans say “I don’t know why people are crazy, but being crazy explains everything because OC”, that’s not OC, that’s incorrect (IC)

https://infogalactic.com/info/Occam%27s_razor

If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to choose a preferred one. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest in using Occam’s razor to say the other two are wrong. Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models that make the same testable predictions.

To what extent is Huxley’s theory that crazy people do crazy things, sufficient of a predictor for the events in question? It doesn’t even account for 10% of the variables, let alone 50% of the events.

Since the killers say the demons and/or voices made them do it, how does one differentiate that from Lucifer whatever theory vs crazy did it to whomever theory?

By the statistics made by humans, they would be equally predictable as to the variables. Thus under OC, they are not true or false but equal. People are going to have to do the hard work of finding evidence and testing their theories, rather than doing it the lazy way and proclaiming OC as a general principle, as if it would tell them where darkness and light is.

For the error of people that use OC as a general guiding principle that illuminates the Truth of Existence, to be destroyed by the existence of OC itself, is quite ironic. It’s like a SJW blaming JP for being offensive to transgenders, while asking offensive questions in gotcha journalism.

That is a speculative theory perhaps that may be true, but it is not the solution.

Your conjecture that two articles about different topics at the same website is equal under Occam’s Razor is incorrect.

Thanks for the effort but it all still sounds like conjecture.

In other words, you’re not really paying attention or listening. That’s why I said I don’t watch the same movies as you do.

Whether I had a conjecture about Civil War 2 in 2007 or not, is easily proven. All they had to do was wait another 10 or so years.

They were 10 years too early to be judging anything.

One need not disprove multiple personality robot assassins – or agents of Lucifer for that matter – before proceeding in the straightforward, minimal manner that crazy people sometimes do crazy, violent things.

The application of Occam’s Razor is also incorrect.

Occam’s Razor means to use the least complicated solution set for a problem, such as a mathematical problem. Even if another solution exists that is correct, choosing the simpler solution is better as it saves time and is harder to fudge or make mistakes on. In engineering, people understand this.

The problem is not proving the movies you watch or things about Monarch. You have few clues whether they are crazy or not. Just because an article or movie says so, isn’t proof.

The problem is nobody can explain my 100% accuracy without utilizing the complicated supernatural sources.

What is the Occam’s Razor solution for how Ymar knew about Civil War 2 and the Demoncrats, in 2007?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

Ymar Sakar: Thanks for the effort but it all still sounds like conjecture.

I’ll stick with Occam’s Razor that “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.” One need not disprove multiple personality robot assassins — or agents of Lucifer for that matter — before proceeding in the straightforward, minimal manner that crazy people sometimes do crazy, violent things.

I had hoped you might have better links than I’ve found, but VigilantCitizen is the same site I linked in an earlier topic for an intro to Monarch programming:

https://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/

That was not conjecture. I was pointing out that Neo’s argument rests upon a presupposition. One, I notice, that has been assumed to be true rather than proven to be true. The candidates in question demonstrate enough split personality traits that there’s a reason psychologists don’t make a mention of it. They link it to psychopaths instead. I’ve seen interviews with psychopaths. They are not suicidal for the most part. Their mask is also usually not all that good, BTK being an outlier. The problem with taking as evidence and at face value, psychological profiles is that most of the psychologists are Leftists or Demoncrats. Taking at face value what the government says and what elites say, is inferior to utilizing primary sources and analysis methods.

The conjecture or theory would actually be that the Deep State has resurrected or improved upon the old mind control methods, no matter what one chooses to call them. Leftist zombies are also a byproduct of mind control, from both progressive ideologues and KGB spy craft.

However, I haven’t found anything convincing that there are multiple persona robot assassins out there.

Why would anyone have evidence of this?

We don’t even have official evidence that FDR put Halsey and the Enterprise in a radio silence position to wait for Pearl Harbor to be attacked. That was only less than a century.

Nor do we exactly know what happened with Operation paperclip and why so many Nazi scientists were imported into the USA and set in charge of our space and military institutions. People don’t even know about the existence of Operation Paperclip, so what evidence would there ever be.

If “evidence” is presented about so called deep secret operations, more than half of it will be disinformation. Cronkite’s disinformation coup is a great example of how easy Americans fall to deception and cons.

The recent DC treason fiasco is another. What happened to the ‘evidence’ that the IRS and HRC had on their hard drives, did the government somehow lose them or delete them?

There is no evidence of the Deep State or truly covert operations. There is no reason for there to be as professionals are professionals.

Now what people can do is to make up conspiracy theories and point out conspiracy facts, such as Hogg or “weird things” in the FBI. Eventually it gets to the point of saturation where nobody knows who is telling the truth. They just know something fishy and covert is going on.

It reminds me of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic (which has been absorbed into the Monarch mythology) of the 80s and 90s.

That was a disinfo operation to cover up the people behind Pizzagate and the Vatican’s problem with child hunters and some exorcists.

The Religious Right are easy to provoke and manipulate, since many of the pastors are corrupt and interested in gaining political leverage or fame. There’s nothing wrong with that, such as Olsteen making more money from getting more converts (Trum also made money using the rules of ruthlessness). It is little different from a corporation or arm of government to me.

If you want sources, I can provide them, but they (nor I) are here to convince people. I do not specialize in dealing with evidence but in revelations and connecting the dots (clues like a detective).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRJIQNM4pJc

Michael S Heiser is my go to expert on Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages. Somebody has to explain why English translators made some changes in the Bible, so called Word of God…

Another data point. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-hidden-life-of-marilyn-monroe-the-original-hollywood-mind-control-slave-part-i/

If such a thing as the Deep State exists (deeper than the Federal Bureaucracy at least), then I assume they were professional enough to leave no tracks. Thus there would be no evidence, hard evidence, of their operations. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but lawyers only use circumstantial evidence if they lack sufficient hard evidence.

A disinformation operation is designed to blend facts with inaccuracies, so that nobody knows what is true from false. Even if a person somehow “leaked” some classified secrets, they would be seen as a conspiracy actor or loon, due to that “X files mythology” which is quite extensive. The field is seeded with fertilizer and bullsh. Any genuine article comes into contact with it and nobody wants to touch it any more. That is useful as a cover up though.

Even now, the FBI could maintain their innocence if only it wasn’t for the various leaks online. Kind of hard to cover that up… If Hollywood, politicians, and Leftists had associated in the public eye for the last 3 decades, that anyone who questions the FBI were loons and UFO cultists, it would have been easier to hold up their front. Unfortunately for them, parts of the Deep State needs to get rid of certain people in the FBI. The useful idiots are no longer useful.

So what?

That’s why I don’t pay attention to movies or the X Files mythology. That’s what.

The only thing I’m known for advocating is that in 2007 I started repeating that Civil War 2 was inevitable. I seriously doubt anyone took that seriously until some time later. I didn’t advocate any theory concerning Satanic whatever or CIA whatever or FBI whatever, in those eras.

Human knowledge comes from learning and testing and yes evidence.

Divine revelations starts in reverse, with the conclusion coming first and then the rationalizations coming later. Unlike the 50-70% accuracy of most human rationalizations (or guesses), divine revelations are 100% accurate. People just don’t know how it works. They can’t explain it. If they can’t explain, neither can I.

Ymar Sakar: So what? I was curious if you had any good links on MK-ULTRA/Monarch programming you found persuasive to support your conjecture like:

That’s because the presupposition is that the agent has only one persona and that they are doing whatever they do of their own free will (such as Breivik or Oklahoma bomber).

I’ve been tracking MK-ULTRA and Monarch for years. However, I haven’t found anything convincing that there are multiple persona robot assassins out there.

The Monarch mind control sites have developed an impressive X-Files-like mythology seemingly based on nothing more than the testimony of a few high-profile Monarch victims buttressed by a legion of internet commenters who are sure something like that happened to them too.

It reminds me of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic (which has been absorbed into the Monarch mythology) of the 80s and 90s.

In WW2, I recall there was a psychological study done about why soldiers killed or fought. The number 1 reason was “to protect their buddies and comrades”. Number 2 was “fear of dying”. Number 3 or 4 was something like patriotism or their family.

This study was also ostensibly divided up by new recruits vs battlefield vets. The new recruits said patriotism, loyalty, and family were the primary reasons. The vets put their comrades as the number 1 reason instead.

It easily explains why teachers will try to shield their students.

The explanation, as some analysts outputted it to me, was this. Before a person becomes desensitized to the horrors of war and fighting, they are motivated by classical ideals of patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty to family/blood. Later on, when these long term idealistic ideals break to the trauma of war, what replaces it is the short term goal of saving their comrades.

Is this because their comrades are more important than their lovers, family, and country? Not necessarily. The short term goal being valued over the long term goal was because few people can deal with pain and horror without a short term goal supplying them with immediate gratification and motivation.

Who knows if all this pain and suffering for this one battlefield and hill is enough to save the country or free a people? But they know that if they fight harder and better, they will save their comrades from death and despair. The more enemies they kill, the more bullets they can soak up and tank for their comrades and battle buddies. Whether this helps their country or not, becomes an after thought.

The number 1 cause of PTSD in Vietnam wasn’t even the killology military conditioning that increased the intent to shoot to kill up to 90% and above, from WW2’s below 51%, which was still better than the 10% in previous wars.

The number 1 cause, in my pov, was that each soldier in Vietnam campaign had their own callback number. That means they never got to the point where they felt they were fighting and dying with their comrades, as they would just need to wait x months and their tour would be up. The rest of the comrades and “newbies” would still be there, so it was easier to let the newbies be the cannonfodder to keep themselves alive longer.

That allowed them to survive and return home, maybe for a John Kerry style purple heart… but it caused humongous trauma as a result. They could not return with their buddies, as WWII generation did, and celebrate everyone’s survival. No, they were the “lone survivors” who let their comrades die in war. This guilt ate away at them and they refused to talk about, because who amongst all of civilian society could understand the guilt produced by the independent tours used in Vietnam?

Evil? Mayhem? To me, it is merely another combat field. Kill or die, shrugs, seems to be a natural result of humanity’s “survival of the fittest” strategy to me.

I wouldn’t call such scenarios to me normal, but they are far more normalized to me than evil or mayhem is. Evil or mayhem would be far worse than Columbine and other fields.

How about some MK-ULTRA/Monarch links about how the Deep State is splitting these mass shooters into multiple personalities, then programming them to execute these strategic killings?

I’m not a fan of watching the movies you watch, Huxley.

You still haven’t shown us the details of who was persecuting and suppressing Ohm. That should be easy for anyone that looked his name up online.