The Ability To Discern Well [Part 3]
Using this probability scale it means you will be able to draw rational thinking postions on subjects which there is incomplete data.
Read Part 1 Here
Read Part 2 Here
Before I begin, as I was writing this mini-series I realised that these really are just a continuation of ‘The Footsteps Through Your Mind’ series which you may remember I wrote a few years back :-)
So back to discernment...
When we have big complicated subjects come up where we don't know things, and things we are being told may, or may not, be true then the skill of discernment needs to move up a notch or 10 notches.
The tool I show you here I have found very useful to use on a wide variety of subjects. Mainly I do it in my mind as I’m going along, but sometimes I’ll bang out a written list of thoughts and define my position on each.
I'm going to demonstrate it here for the biggest subject of the day, which of course is the official narrative on Covid.
I'm not sure of the exact date the detail below relates to, but it was highly likely around 8 weeks into my weekly Rational Thinking Webcasts after I had called bullsh*t on the official narrative, so approximately mid-May 2020.
On the Webcast, I showed everyone how I considered big multiple tangent subjects where the truth was still mainly hidden.
Please understand, these are the answers I had for that time. They are not all the same as my answers would be now if asked the same questions again.
Side note: If you'd like me to answer them again for my current opinion, then please let me know in the comments - also feel free to ask my direct position on any additional points regarding this subject too, and I'll happily show you where I am with them on the probability scale.
The first thing needed for this tool is the specific answers on a probability scale, these are:
(No idea / No / Highly Unlikely / Unlikely / Unknown / Maybe / Likely / Probably / Highly Likely / Almost Certainly / Yes)
When looking at dark subjects or unknown phenomenon there is a psychological line we each have, for some it is further, for some it is almost non-existent. And it is important to note, our egos don’t want us to cross it, so we don't want to cross it.
So in these situations, for great discernment, we have to deploy critical / rational thinking to allow us to pass safely over that line and look at what's there without fearing it, without getting emotionally attached to it.
We do that by breaking the subject down into bite-sized bits to preserve energy and conclude before embarking on this perilous journey that we are 'just-looking'.
(As I said, please remember, these were my answers back then in May 2020 at a time where the world was extremely happy being in lockdown, and anyone who said anything against the mainstream media narrative was considered to be completely cuckoo, and this was way before they announced they had a 'vaxxxine')
Taken from part of a Rational Thinking Webcast
The main question is...
1) Is this being used to move along a new world order - Yes
2) Is there a virus of some sort? - Yes
3) Is the virus killing as many people as they say it is killing? - No
4) Is it killing some people? - Yes
5) Did the virus come from the wet markets? - Unlikely - probably a lab in Wuhan - unlikely to have evolved so quickly - circa 500-800 years+ to create naturally
6) Did the virus come from the lab in Wuhan? - Highly likely
7) Who owns the lab in Wuhan? - unknown - but likely funded by a grant controlled by Tony Fauci
8) Was the virus natural? - Highly unlikely
9) Does the virus have a patent? - Highly likely - It is also likely from 2004
10) Is there a vaccine? - Probably - a patent appears to have been granted for one in Nov 2019
11) Is the virus a bio-weapon? - Highly likely - the HIV element appears to have only been possible through manipulation
12) Is there a financial motive? - Yes - Testing & Vaccination & further vaccination
13) Is vaccination profitable? - Yes
14) Are there ulterior motives? - Yes - Definitely Control - possibly population reduction
15) Are masks necessary at all? - Probably
16) Are masks necessary most of the time? - No
17) Are masks safe? - No
18) Does Fauci have ulterior motives? - Highly likely
19) Is there suppression of one side of the discussion? - Yes - YouTube has stated they will delete anything that does not support the official narrative
20) Did Bill Gates say he wanted to reduce the population? - Yes
21) Are there currently any vaccines for this type of virus? - No
22) Does the test work accurately? - No
23) Can we trust the intention behind the tests? - No
24) Is the tracking app necessary? - Unlikely
25) Is the tracking app likely a covert control measure? - Yes
26) Do you trust the information coming out from the governments? - No
27) Do you trust Boris’s intentions? - Yes
28) Do you trust Trump's intentions? - Yes
29) Have the WHO been accurate and trustworthy? - No
30) Do you trust the intentions of the WHO? - No - because they are beholden to the people who pay them
31) Does the test pick up other things like stress, flu jabs, the common cold? - Likely
32) Does the argument that this is a natural outbreak hold up? - Unlikely
33) Are the scientists who are leading the action neutral and not financially motivated? - No
34) Are the governments pushing obvious preventative measures on health? - No
35) Could it be that the government does not understand true health? - Yes
36) Did Sweden make the right choice against the world's popular thinking? - Yes
37) Is the response rational, based on immunity? - No
38) Will there be a second wave after lockdown? - Likely
39) Are the actions with lockdown going to cause larger problems elsewhere? - Yes
40) Do you think they are going to use this to force mandatory vaccinations? - Likely
41) Has the question of lack of trust in Google, Facebook and YouTube been answered? - Highly likely
42) Are the death numbers worthy of trashing the country’s economy? - No
43) Were the governments fed bad data which led them to bad choices? - Yes
44) Were the people who gave the governments the data financially motivated in any way? - Highly likely
45) Are the media making things better or worse? - Worse
46) Are the media working with the governments to suppress alternative narratives? - Yes
47) Could this be caused purely by the scientist's poor maths based on the truth that scientists are only wrong if they underestimate the death rate? - Highly likely
The conclusion of it when looking at it as a whole said:
You are pretty much on the right track (so I had gained confidence in my position). There is something not right with what the official narrative is saying, likely nefarious. There is something not right with how people are responding, likely psychosis. Keep looking, and expect the data to come in (all producing more confidence of accurate direction). But this means the world will not go back to what it was before so you need to consider the world that you will find yourself in.
This meant while almost everyone was living through it and trying to make the best of a bad situation, I was getting ready for what was coming next. I still sounded pretty out there to the people who decided to remain on The Rational Thinking Webcast, except they saw I had gotten to the conclusions rationally, so even if they didn’t fit right yet, I was probably onto something. Of course, there were also members who were already on that page too.
This breaking it down into a series of bite-sized questions technique can be used to help form generally correct directions in a sea of the unknown.
It enables you to look at two or countless more people giving you conflicting information and see through it to the probable / likely / highly likely truth relatively quickly, and highly accurately.
So now you have that general feeling of direction in a sea of uncertain points...
This is the difference between roughly knowing where you are, roughly knowing where you are going, roughly knowing how long things are going to take…
As opposed to sailing aimlessly around the Pacific, being lost, but falsely knowing where you are, falsely knowing where you are heading, and falsely knowing how long things are going to take.
One position is astute, accurate and purpose-driven, the other is hopelessly lost, and has no idea they are lost, hence why so many took an experimental gene therapy. They were lost and clung onto the only thing presented which may guide them back to safety.
Basically, good discernment in treacherous waters is akin to good navigation. All who took the vaxx were bad navigators in very, very dangerous waters.
But let’s say you are way lower down the probability scale in your thinking than I was above. What do you do?
You either go and test to move your thinking up / down the scale, or you wait for data to present itself supporting or detracting from your rough direction of thinking.
If there is not enough data to make a confident directional prediction, then not making one is the next best possible thing. Because knowing you are on the right course, when in fact you are on the wrong one, well there is pretty much nothing worse… You cannot fix something if you cannot see it is broken.
Rather than going and specifically looking for anything (data I mean), I prefer a more general approach, as this way I help avoid the problem of too much research bias, i.e. finding what I’m looking for. Instead, I choose to pose my questions to my subconscious mind and let it deliver data items for me, at the appropriate time.
Thus I get to exert no energy as the bodies of my enemy come floating by.
***
In the 4th part of this mini-series on, 'The Ability To Discern Well' I'm going to cover how you can be all but certain your discernment is dead on balls accurate (as we used to say in the building trade).
Best wishes,
Andy
P.S. Thank you for all your support for a new book in the previous comments and personal messages. I am pretty sure I am going to write one now. Just need a few more days of thought to decide if I want to commit the time needed to it.
Thanks Andy! My own questioning process began as soon as I saw a coordinated/controlled narrative by governments, big media and big tech. That is my #1 red flag - 100% BS indicator. That indicated that: 1) there was a huge, worldwide agenda being pushed. 2) It was the opposite of the truth. 3) It was a very bad thing for humans. 4) I'd better do some research and figure it out or this was going to bite me and my family. Thanks for showing HOW you think rather than just WHAT you think. Please share your economic self-defense strategies. Thanks.
Andy, I would like updated answers to Questions 18, 26, 29, 30 and 32 through 47. Another question: Does the FDA truly have the welfare of the citizens of the US at the core of their decisions. Same question for drug companies that make the products.
Thanks. I'm looking forward to the other posts in this series. It's very timely and helpful.