The Simulation

Somewhat gradually over the last five years, I've come to the conclusion that we exist in a simulated reality. Had I been less comfortable in my day to day life prior to the annus horribilus of 2020, I might have come to this realization sooner. In any event, it now seems patently obvious that we do exist in an artificial surround that's composed of an unrelenting stream of inorganic events and phenomenon featuring characters and happenings that only obtain as pixels on a screen, or, in the case of actual flesh and blood individuals, cosplayers whose purpose is purely performative, as in the case of elected and appointed officialdom and celebrity figures from the world of entertainment, business, science, etc. The simulation is, in effect, a non stop construct that runs continuously on every electronic/perception management platform,  and while it's entirely accurate to say that the simulation is fundamentally artificial, characterizing it as "fake" doesn't adequately capture how the construct operates. I'll go into why this is so in due course, but, for now, the essence of the simulation is best understood as consisting of a kind of meta program whose purpose is to provide us with a detailed false map of reality. To that end, the simulation not only provides us with the raw data of who and what the world allegedly consists of, and by implication, our place in it, but the simulation also orders all the data so that we not only have a deep working knowledge of what "reality" consists of, but we're also steered towards how and when to think about all the fictive phenomena that's paraded in front of us in an unrelenting fashion.

Critically, our minds are never left alone. The streaming simulation isn't simply non stop, it's all encompassing. Every electronic and print platform supports it, and, as a matter of course, unfailingly employs a vast array of false binaries to cement the make believe, because Democrats versus Republicans, U.S. versus China, Israel versus Hamas, Russia versus Ukraine, legacy propaganda, aka legacy media, v alt (aganda) media, "multipolar world", "left versus right", "Covid's deadly", "Covid's no worse than the common cold", "JFK was assassinated by___", "No, JFK was assassinated by___", etc. have proven to be spectacularly effective at insuring that almost none of us ever stop to consider for even a fleeting moment the possibility that the reality map we're presented with might be a colossal, dazzling lie.

You may be familiar with the term, Overton Window. This phrase refers to the range of ideas that society allows into discussion and debate. Practically speaking, the range of permissable ideas are identifiable as those ideas that support a foundational falsehood. That is the sole criteria that decides what will and will not be platformed, and the simulation operates with this implicit directive. If an idea casts doubt on a foundational falsehood in the manner of "There is no multipolar world" "Covid's a fiction", "Democrats and Republicans are teammates who only pretend to be adversarial" etc., rest assured that such ideas and those who proffer them will be marginalized and/or outright banned. There are no exceptions to this rule. The simulation can not and will not survive one day where a preponderance of humanity sees through the multitude of false binaries that support the programming that is the lifeblood of the simulation.

On this basis, why shouldn't we describe the simulation as "fake"? We can, but we're advised to understand that the artifice created by the simulation is actualized when we, the targets of the simulation, respond to the unrelenting prompts as something other than the bad faith triggers they so manifestly are. People act in response to what they perceive to be reality, and, in doing so, we typically make the stuff of fantasy real. That is what the infernal simulation is designed to do, prompt us so that we will set in motion ye olde self fulfilling prophecy.

I don't know why anyone votes. What that statement really means in the context of this discussion is that I struggle to see how people fail to recognize that individuals such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelensky, and countless other figures, are LARPs, (or, in some cases, intel employees wearing masks of said LARPs.) The perception managers who run the simulation have a tremendous tailwind at their backs in the form of our inexhaustible tendency to engage in self-deception. We make the jobs of the architects of the simulation easy, because, whether we realize it or not, our default position is to accept a preponderance of their relentless fantasy, aka programming, as fact. My considered view is that the primary reason why people choose to adhere to the programming instead of dismissing it is because to do so raises the prospect of losing one's place in the social order. If a narrative operates outside of what is perceived to be an Overton Window boundary the typical response is to react negatively, and, not infrequently, to display outright and overt hostility. Rejecting one's long held map of reality is just too threatening for most people to even consider when they perceive that doing so carries with it the potential to render them an outcast.

There's at least one other reason to reject the word "fake" to describe the simulation. Acts that involve physical events do take place in the simulation. On 9/11, a trio of buildings in lower Manhattan, two of which were iconic skyscrapers, were destroyed in a manner that shocked everyone who saw the destruction, whether in person and in real time, or not, but the platformed narratives put forward to explain the awesome demolition were spurious. Deception often requires some real real blood, fire, and smoking ruins to do the job. So, while the simulation does primarily rely on pixilated imagery and histrionics by LARPs for promotion, it is by no means exclusively operating in the realm of make believe.

Who runs the simulation and to what end? The global intelligence community's primary job is managing our perception of reality on behalf of a legacy criminocracy headed by those whose bloodlines are connected to royal dynasties well known to those with a decent working knowledge of "nobility" broadly defined. Managing and operating the simulation is, arguably, the intel community's most important job, and, for longer than living memory, they've insured that the "software" humanity runs on, so to speak, informs us that our world consists of adversarial sovereign nation states constantly spying on one another, engaging in acts of subversion against one another, and, not infrequently, waging shooting wars. Innumerable fictions such as "climate change", "the Cold War", and "Global pandemic" etc. are supported at every level of the, so called, educational system, and they, in turn, are reinforced by the, so called, entertainment complex. One can identify which of their make believe constructs they deem to be the most important by how many films, books, and T.V. shows are released over the generations that are devoted to keeping the burners on under the rather large catalogue of utter poppycock. Why else are they so dedicated to constantly flogging the plethora of very tired fairy tales generations after the fact-please don't say they are doing it for money, because they have limitless amounts of boodle, and gaining more is not what they're after-even when there's precious little if any juice left to ring out of such sagas as World War II. Do they really need another fable that features Hitler and/or the Third Reich, no matter how off-beat the packaging is, e.g. Inglorious Basterds? Why yes, they do, if they think that in taking a break a key foundational falsehood might be in danger of suffering some critical slippage in the gray matter of the body politic. 

If you're holding out for something that might act as proof that what I claim is real, rest assured that none will be forthcoming. No documents will be unearthed and revealed that make it irrefutably clear that so much of what we think to be cold, hard facts are anything but. In any event, as I stated earlier, it's highly likely that any such evidence, no matter how robust, would be rejected, because most people would find the entire proposition too disturbing to consider let alone accept. This is especially interesting since it is a fact that human beings have a long resume of creating artificial surrounds for a wide array of both animal and plant species, yet, apparently, it's beyond the pale for the collective to even consider that we, either by ourselves, or perhaps in conjunction with, or even at the direction of another kind of higher intelligence, may have long since created artificial surrounds for mankind. "Zoos for thee, but not for me" it would seem.

Perhaps the best way to settle the matter of whether the simulation thesis is valid or false involves each one of us flipping our default response to the simulation's programming by one hundred and eighty degrees. My bias is that we would learn a great deal, if, instead of responding automatically to the programming as if it were a collection of unassailable facts, we chose to respond to the programming as if it were anything but factual. It should go without saying that, as with other hypotheticals I've proposed, I'm not holding my breath that my fellow humans will make that choice, at least in numbers that might move the proverbial needle.