"Secret" Members of Team Rocket

[Emerald]

If you've ever played any of the old Pokemon Gameboy Games like Red, Blue, Yellow, Silver, etc., you will understand this metaphor.

In these games, you'll sometimes run across a character that doesn't present themselves immediately as a member of Team Rocket.

But they'll be wearing similar clothes to Team Rocket, have the same personality vibe as Team Rocket, and they'll send out similar Pokemon to the ones that Team Rocket uses.

And you pretty much know right away that they're actually a part of Team Rocket, even though they don't say it outright.

I feel like all these people "suddenly" supporting Trump: like Joe Rogan, Audrey Marcus, Aaron Abke, and others that we've talked about on here of a similar vibe... to me they've always come across like secret (not-so-secret) members of Team Rocket.

It's always been obvious. And yet, some people get surprised.

Did you NOT see them using Koffing and Ekans in their Pokemon battles the WHOLE time?

[Schizophonia]

@Emerald

 

Jung put tobacco in his pipe not weed, i think you mistaken.

 

[AION]

@Emerald haha that is a funny way of putting it. I played those games in my childhood but I can't remember that detail of the game.

Some SD stages are so easy to recognize. I only need to hear two sentences, feel their energy and I already know.

[Leo Gura]

What a strange analogy.

I played Pokemon Red and have no memory of this Team Rocket.

Edited Wednesday at 08:42 PM by Leo Gura

[aurum]

Aubrey was definitely one I didn't see coming.

I always saw him as a solid new age Green, potentially cracking into some Tier 2. I underestimated how badly COVID and his anti-establishment / libertarian views would warp things for him. And I did not anticipate someone like RFK entering the race that would capture him.

Once RFK endorsed Trump though, it was obvious Aubrey was going to follow suit.

A very disappointing trajectory for a guy I used to have more respect for.

[Leo Gura]

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But clearly that backfires when it comes to the whole Trump phenomenon. You try to be nice and charitable but then these perverts just become more emboldened in their pervertry. It's like dealing with an abusive person who just keeps gaslighting you when you wanna be nice and assume the best about them. But at some point you gotta draw a line in the sand. Which is what I have done with all Trump perverts. Zero charity towards any of them from now on. They are all servants of the Devil.

Edited Wednesday at 11:45 PM by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

I've wondered why things that are clear as day to me go unnoticed by others. I used to think it was a matter of intellect, analysis, or bias, and it can be, but how do you explain how intelligent people miss what appears to be very obvious? I think it has to do with intuition. People lacking intuition have to rely on thinking to see things, whereas good intuition can serve things up on a platter.

[What Am I]

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but out of necessity, you guys might as well go full "purity testing" in your assessment of various figures' support. If they're not vocally and explicitly for the left, they're probably not really for the left. I could have told you Joe Rogan, Aubrey Marcus, etc. were leaning in the right's direction long ago; probably even before Covid. And I wouldn't be surprised if they voted for Trump in 2020, and maybe 2016.

It's just that it was subtle, and they were likely terrified of the severe backlash from admitting it. It's easy to forget, but things were different back then in terms of the public perception around who was clearly considered the bad guys.

Edited Wednesday at 09:12 PM by What Am I

[Yimpa]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But at some point you gotta draw a line in the sand. Which is what I have done with all Trump perverts.

Preach!

 

[What Am I]

42 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I've wondered why things that are clear as day to me go unnoticed by others. I used to think it was a matter of intellect, analysis, or bias, and it can be, but how do you explain how intelligent people miss what appears to be very obvious? I think it has to do with intuition. People lacking intuition have to rely on thinking to see things, whereas good intuition can serve things up on a platter.

You're a fella I respect in our conversations, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but do you leave open even the possibility of your own incorrectness where this topic is concerned? I'm not meaning to say that you are wrong, but rather just asking if that's even on the table as something that can exist in this reality.

To give my perspective from the other side, I most certainly am not sure Trump was the right choice. You'd have to be one of those mega-MAGAs to be that bought in, considering how easily things could go wrong in the coming years.

[Juan]

Funny analogy but yea, makes total sense haha.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Aubrey was definitely one I didn't see coming.

I always saw him as a solid new age Green, potentially cracking into some Tier 2. I underestimated how badly COVID and his anti-establishment / libertarian views would warp things for him. And I did not anticipate someone like RFK entering the race that would capture him.

Once RFK endorsed Trump though, it was obvious Aubrey was going to follow suit.

A very disappointing trajectory for a guy I used to have more respect for.

I picked up a new, useful term from that YouTuber, Vlad, whose videos Leo often shares. 

"Algorithmic Drift"

I think these heuristics are mostly sufficient for predicting one's susceptibility to it:

• Who they're buddies with
• Who/what they admire
• Who/what they're most critical of
• Who/what they're most sympathetic towards 
• How much they sweep devilry and falsehood under the rug
• Minimizing falsehood or not being bothered by it (Lex Fridman)

Edited Wednesday at 11:02 PM by Joshe

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Who they're buddies

This is what I think it was for Aubrey more than any social media algorithm. 

He's a wealthy guy with a big social circle, surrounded by fellow new agers, elites and those with anti-establishment views. And that has likely come at the cost of truth. 

Score one for the devil.

There's also the possibly he was just always more of a grifter than I realized:

 

[What Am I]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

This is what I think it was for Aubrey more than any social media algorithm. 

He's a wealthy guy with a big social circle, surrounded by fellow new agers, elites and those with anti-establishment views. And that has likely come at the cost of truth.

Aubrey is an interesting case, in my opinion. He's had countless psychedelic experiences with the goal of self-betterment, and an absolute ton of 5-MeO-DMT breakthroughs in particular. He even became a facilitator for bufo as part of a tradition. So he's no stranger to profound states of consciousness bordering on literal temporary enlightenment. It'd be tough to say he wasn't a beholder of absolute truth, many times over.

But I suppose, as Leo posted in a recent blog (and as I believe as well), intellectual development and awakened consciousness should not be considered a 1:1 in terms of their required parallel development.

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Aubrey is an interesting case, in my opinion. He's had countless psychedelic experiences with the goal of self-betterment, and an absolute ton of 5-MeO-DMT breakthroughs in particular. He even became a facilitator for bufo as part of a tradition. So he's no stranger to profound states of consciousness bordering on literal temporary enlightenment. It'd be tough to say he wasn't a beholder of absolute truth, many times over.

But I suppose, as Leo posted in a recent blog (and as I believe as well), intellectual development and awakened consciousness should not be considered a 1:1 in terms of their required parallel development.

Yes exactly.

That's part of what made me give him the benefit of the doubt. Of all the popular podcasters out there, he seems to have some of the best understanding of God. He has had legit mystical experiences, no doubt about it. And he does seem sincerely committed to personal growth. 

It's all very twisted.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

You're a fella I respect in our conversations, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but do you leave open even the possibility of your own incorrectness where this topic is concerned? I'm not meaning to say that you are wrong, but rather just asking if that's even on the table as something that can exist in this reality.

To give my perspective from the other side, I most certainly am not sure Trump was the right choice. You'd have to be one of those mega-MAGAs to be that bought in, considering how easily things could go wrong in the coming years.

It's not taken the wrong way at all. I don't mind being challenged or questioned. 

It might not seem like it, but I'm careful with what I consider to be true. Most of my judgements on this topic are probabilistic, but there are some things I know to be true that others might find it impossible to believe I could know. It can seem like I'm full of shit or just arrogantly assuming things if prerequisite truths are unknown by the observer. 

In the grand scheme, no one can definitively say how Trump or Kamala would impact the world.

This kind of relativism is the sneaky game being played and it's being used to undermine truth. It undermines critical thinking and blurs the lines between valid assessments and subjective opinions. This I know to be 100% true. 

This game was played by big tobacco in the 50s. Big oil plays it, hiring think tanks and scientists to do research that sows doubt on actual scientific fact. 

The same thing is occurring with the embrace of RFK. Relativism is being used to diminish truth and reason. 

Here's an example of this if you're interested in seeing through it:

And if you want a deep dive: 

https://www.audible.com/pd/Post-Truth-Audiobook/B07CH1GW9M?source_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp

"Publisher's summary

What, exactly, is post-truth? Is it wishful thinking, political spin, mass delusion, bold-faced lying? McIntyre analyzes recent examples - claims about inauguration crowd size, crime statistics, and the popular vote - and finds that post-truth is an assertion of ideological supremacy by which its practitioners try to compel someone to believe something regardless of the evidence.

Yet post-truth didn't begin with the 2016 election; the denial of scientific facts about smoking, evolution, vaccines, and climate change offers a road map for more widespread fact denial. Add to this the wired-in cognitive biases that make us feel that our con9clusions are based on good reasoning even when they are not, the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, and the emergence of fake news as a political tool, and we have the ideal conditions for post-truth.

McIntyre also argues provocatively that the right wing borrowed from postmodernism - specifically, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth - in its attacks on science and facts.

McIntyre argues that we can fight post-truth, and that the first step in fighting post-truth is to understand it."

Edited Wednesday at 11:04 PM by Joshe

[What Am I]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes exactly.

That's part of what made me give him the benefit of the doubt. Of all the popular podcasters out there, he seems to have some of the best understanding of God. He has had legit mystical experiences, no doubt about it. And he does seem sincerely committed to personal growth. 

It's all very twisted.

Without being able to directly know his and others' minds who are similar, it could be that they've experienced the "impossible" so many times that their faith in what we think we know (i.e., the establishment) has been shaken to its core. And perhaps they're more open than usual towards accepting very unconventional scenarios as actually having a chance of being true.

I made this case about myself in a recent post. I could never make the claim that it's for sure the correct way to think about things, but I'm being honest when I say it is a significant driver of my worldview. It's possible that guys like Aubrey are similar, whether they're conscious of its influence or not.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:09 PM by What Am I

[WritingHands]

 

[Joshe]

36 minutes ago, aurum said:

This is what I think it was for Aubrey more than any social media algorithm. 

I'm pretty sure it's not just meant as "audience capture". For example, the algorithms facilitate alliances as well, but I need to look into his concept more. 

[Leo Gura]

There is algorithm capture, there is audience capture, there is social circle capture, there is career capture.

All 4 are at play.

But at the end of the day, group-think rules the mind. No matter how advanced, how God-realized, the mind buys into whatever others around it buy into. If everyone around you is doing stupid things, it's only a matter of time before you join them.

Edited Wednesday at 11:34 PM by Leo Gura