Hollywood hi-jacking of Spiritual enlightenment | INFJ Forum

Hollywood hi-jacking of Spiritual enlightenment

AJ_

Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2012
235
576
746
MBTI
_
Let me start off by saying that when the Matrix first came out, I thought it was a pretty cool movie. I was excited when the sequel came out a few years later (the last movie was just terrible).

With a lot info out now about how we are entering a new age (Aquarius) and the rising energy/vibration of not only ourselves and the planet but the solar system, it seems that we are primed for many individuals all over the planet to become more spiritually aware. When an individual does go through a spiritual awakening or enlightenment, it is not always smooth and pretty. In many cases, it involves what many would describe as an intense and scary ego death. One of the experiences that may occur with this “dark night of the soul” is an overwhelming bombardment of synchronicitites. I actually experienced this and the level of synchonicities smacking me in the face was almost too much — to the point where I felt like I was in a dream world. This feeling made me think about the Matrix movie.

With this experience, I began to see the Matrix movies as not only misleading, but dangerous. What is the thing that Neo asks for right before he goes back into the Matrix for the last time in the first movie? Guns — the last thing on this planet that anyone in an altered psychological/spiritual state needs. In my own case, I have never owned a gun and will never own one, I didn’t even think of causing harm to another person, but I can see how someone who is scared and has a tendency to be aggressive could go the “Neo” route in a defense mode. I’m going to post two articles below that talk a little more about this possibility.

My question is, is it unreasonable to think that this movie could have been preemptive attempt to hi-jack what could have been a positive revolution? Instilling fear, aggression and violence into what could have been infused with love and compassion? I’m curious what others think about this:

Is the Matrix’s Neo Actually a Brainwashed Terrorist?
http://media.gunaxin.com/neo-matrix-brainwashed-terrorist/150796
Let’s assume for a moment that we are not all trapped inside of massive incubators used to perpetuate the rule of the machines. Lets also make the assumption that we live in a world where the character of ‘Neo’ can happen anyway. If the Matrix was seen completely as a psychedelic fantasy strictly from Neo’s point of view, then try to imagine an elaborate set-up in which Thomas A. Anderson was turned into a soulless terrorist who cost hundreds if not thousands of people their lives.

Impossible, you may say. However, it is actually infinitely more possible than the alternative. Lets look at the Matrix through the lens of a few other movies and situations. As exhibit A, we present you with The Manchurian Candidate.

Neo may have a lot more in common with the character of Raymond Shaw than previously thought. Shaw is captured with his unit in Korea, then held captive and systematically brainwashed. After the brainwashing, Shaw is let loose back in the regular world and is controlled through symbols and cues. Now, lets take a slightly more critical eye at what happens in the Matrix. How does Neo ‘wake up’ in the ship? Oh yeah, he is given a drug by a known terrorist.

How did Neo even come to meet the known terrorist? He was directed there by Trinity. Who is Trinity? She is a known computer hacker. What’s more? She has recently murdered an entire room full of police officers.

If you watch the movie from the beginning with a relatively open mind, you cannot really tell who the ‘good guys’ and who the ‘bad guys’ are. After all, Agent Smith was attempting to save the lives of police officers by ordering them not to go after Trinity. Trinity proceeded to murder everyone in the room without a second thought. This is exactly what Smith said she would do.
To review, a cop killer has taken you to a known terrorist. The terrorist drugs you. After the drugs have taken effect, you are unable to move, all your body hair has been removed, and your entire body has been rigged to ingest implants. You are not in prison but told you can never leave or go back to your previous life. For the record, mind control with drugs as well as cutting a person off completely from family, friends, and previous society is exactly how cults tend to operate.

This is all after Anderson was specifically warned by Smith that he knew nothing about how Morpheus operated. Morpheus, as well as the others, will only refer to Anderson by his hacker identity ‘Neo.’ The next step is to convince ‘Neo’ that the entire world is their enemy and the apocalypse is coming. They leave no room for possible trust or another theory being given by the outside world.

If law enforcement knew that there was a way to get to this dangerous cultish terrorist cell, it would seem perfectly logical that they would try to bug him. It would seem almost irresponsible if they did not. Once Neo has been thoroughly brainwashed and trained, then he is let back into the outside. He is then controlled through phone calls and code words. This is also exactly how Raymond Shaw is controlled in The Manchurian Candidate.

What is the purpose? Once ‘Neo’ has bought into everything and been fully trained, he can be released out into the world as an assassin, just like Raymond Shaw was. It doesn’t matter why Neo is blowing things up or killing as long as he is blowing up and killing the right people and places.

What if Neo was caught and told some one what the truth was? The government is a virtual reality simulation meant for the machines and he stands alone as an awoken Messianic vigilante? How well exactly do you think that would go over? Wait, haven’t we actually heard that one in the ‘real world.’? (reference to David Koresh).

Regardless of the reasoning, what is it that Neo ends up doing? He walks right into a government controlled building and starts indiscriminately killing people.

He has two objectives. First, he needs to free a terrorist under capture who is undergoing ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ This terrorist knows how to access his terrorist cell mainframes which is called Zion. Incidentally, this brings a whole religious jihad nature to what these ‘enemy combatants’ are actually doing. They have apparently created a military installation within a cave system which would take a massive military operation to drill into and sweep out.

There is also a secondary mission which Neo accomplishes. Neo directs an unmanned helicopter and turns it into a large bomb destroying an adjoining building. More than likely, that building was the target of the terrorist plot all along.

This should all look jarringly familiar. Most all terrorists tend to think what they are doing is exactly right and has the strength of moral superiority. In Neo’s case, fighting the rule of the machines was simply the most convenient way to accomplish the goal in the shortest amount of time.

It’s like the JFK discussion about Lee Harvey Oswald. It doesn’t matter what they told him. It matters that he was in the right place at the right time doing exactly what they wanted him to do.

You may argue “What about all the rest in the Matrix? What about the supernatural stuff and people disappearing by phone? What about the strength, the kung fu, and the remote killing?” Have you ever noticed how many times Neo seems to wake up during the Matrix. Go ahead and count the number of times his eyes open at some point. Neo is either drugged or under some form of post- hypnotic suggestion through the entire movie. Most all of it could have been done with a constant stream of enhancing drugs as well as merely making him pass out and move the body to create an illusion.

There is not a scene in which Neo is not being actively controlled through the entire movie. He can shoot anyone as an ‘agent.’ It is merely incidental that they seem to turn into a real dead person after he does it. Neo doesn’t even realize that he has done anything wrong. This all makes Neo one of the scariest characters in the history of cinema, and a terrorist.


Does the Matrix inspire the disturbed?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125158

Could the The Matrix movie phenomenon really inspire violent or mentally disturbed individuals to act out sadistic fantasies?
The Matrix Reloaded made Hollywood history this weekend when it took in $93.3 million at the box office, generating the highest-grossing R-rated opening ever.

Meanwhile, the original film, The Matrix, which inspired the sequel, has been linked to several violent crimes over the past four years.
The plot of the film, which blurs the line between reality and fantasy, is that computers have taken over the Earth, leaving some humans existing in a computer-simulated world where they battle for survival.

Columbine Massacre
When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attacked Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, killing 13 people and themselves, investigators said the killers evoked Neo, Keanu Reeves' character in The Matrix.

The two teens were known for wearing long black trench coats similar to the one "Neo" wears in the film and for calling themselves the trench coat mafia.

The Movie Defense
Attorneys for a 19-year-old who shot his parents to death last February claim he was obsessed with The Matrix.

Josh Cooke, of Oakton, Va., shot his parents with a 12-gauge shotgun that was similar to one of the weapons "Neo" uses in the film.
Cooke wore a trench coat, had a huge poster from the film in his room and even believed he lived inside The Matrix, his defense attorney, Rachel Fierro, has argued.

Lee Malvo, one of the accused Washington-area snipers, is said to have been obsessed with the world of blurred realities and mind control portrayed in The Matrix as well.

A note written by 18-year-old Malvo in jail reads: "Free yourself of The Matrix."

University of Wisconsin communications professor Joanne Cantor says there have been other murder cases in which criminals referenced other violent films, but the professor says perpetrators who reference The Matrix tend to provide many more details from the film.
"I think all violent movies have some tendency to encourage violence in particularly susceptible individuals," Cantor said on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America. "This movie, I think, has an extra component of the blurring between fantasy and reality," she said.
It's not known if The Matrix will form part of Malvo's defense, but the defense has been used successfully in a few murder cases across the country.

‘Not Guilty’
Vadim Mieseges, 27, of San Francisco dismembered his landlady without provocation three years ago. He told police he did it after he had been "sucked into The Matrix." A judge accepted his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tonda Lynn Ansley of Hamilton, Ohio, made references to the film after she was arrested in the July 2002 fatal shooting of Sherry Corbett, 55, a Miami University professor whose house she had been renting.

Ansley's statement to police made reference to the The Matrix as she suggested that she was drugged to make her think the things she envisioned were dreams.

"They commit a lot of crimes in The Matrix. That's where you go to sleep at night and they drug you and take you somewhere else and then they bring you back and put you in bed and, when you wake up, you think that it's a bad dream," she told police.
A judge ruled that Ansley was innocent by reason of insanity last week at a pretrial hearing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
That's a very interesting idea; i've never heard that expressed anywhere else

You could be on to something with that.....i always wondered why hollywood would make such a revealing film which exposes the gnostic ideas about the demiurge and the archons controlling society

They could have noticed how this info was getting out onto the internet and sought as you say to co-opt it to their own ends

Its certainly something to think about
 
I'll add something else to that....

Another thing they have found with the dshootings is that many of the shooters were on 'serotonin uptake inhibitors'

These psychoactive drugs blur the boundaries between the subconscious and reality

So imagine people who are having their brains chemically tampered with playing violent and increasingly realistic video games and watching violent movies
 
This is a roundabout way of expressing the sentiment that aesthetic violence causes real violence which is a hotly disputed (read: politicized) topic and one not significantly acknowledged as being valid in the scientific and academic community.

I think you're getting carried away by disregarding all the clearly and unambiguously fictional elements of the movie to only focus of the subjective interpretation of reality. By this reasoning, the film also convinces the mentally ill that they are capable of flight (as Neo is in the second and third films), martial arts prowess, superhuman speed, and other abilities, and that is therefore validation of their transcendence and their destructive behavior.

I do agree with you that the subjective interpretation is an interesting part of the film though. Why does Morpheus offer Neo one of two pills as if he HAS to ingest one regardless? I'd certainly be hesitant to ingest any pill given to me by someone I'm not familiar with.
 
I'd certainly be hesitant to ingest any pill given to me by someone I'm not familiar with.

People take stuff from doctors all the time
 
For me one of the most intirguing things about the matrix is that at no point does anyone say that the machines forced humans to plug into the matrix

This leaves it open to the possibility that humanity plugged themselves into the matrix so that they don;t need to take any responsibility anymore

We are seeing an increase in mechanisation where peoples jobs are increasingly being done by machines and we are moving towards the singularity where computing power will outstrip human brain power

We are seeing virtual realtiy becoming more advanced and lifelike and i wonder how long it will be until we can hook into it to have out of body experiences

Then how long after that will it be before people hook themselves upto machines that feed their bodies nutrients so that they can stay in the simulation for longer and longer

As humans merge more and more with machines will humans opt to live in a new simulated reality world to escape this one?
 
People take stuff from doctors all the time

Doctors and strangers you just met are not the same, neither is unmarked colored pills and prescriptions with documentation and research.
 
Doctors and strangers you just met are not the same,

Most people don't really know their doctors

neither is unmarked colored pills and prescriptions with documentation and research.

How do you know the pills have been properly researched?

http://rinf.com/alt-news/health/big...-used-millions-pulled-dangerous-side-effects/

Are We Big Pharma’s Guinea Pigs? 8 Drugs Used by Millions Before Being Pulled for Dangerous Side-Effects


Big Pharma hopes we’ll forget about these drugs.

Martha Rosenberg


Blockbuster drugs like Viagra, Lipitor, Prozac and Nexium have made Big Pharma one of the nation’s top industries. Even before direct-to-consumer advertising on TV, there were blockbuster drugs like Ritalin, Valium, Tagamet and Premarin. To be a blockbuster a drug has to 1) be usable by almost everyone; 2) be used every day; 3) be used indefinitely; 4) solve an everyday health problem like heartburn or high cholesterol; 5) have a fun or memorable ad campaign; 6) get social buzz; and 7) be sold to a large number of people quickly.
The last qualification—quick sales to millions—is crucial because Big Pharma has a small sales window before a patent runs out. But it’s also dangerous because many risks don’t emerge until millions take the drug so the public serves as unwitting guinea pigs. In fact, the “early user/guinea pig” factor is what sunk Vioxx 10 years ago.

Because of patent pressure, minor drug risks are often only admitted when the patent runs out, a ruse AlterNet has written about. But when risks can’t be ignored, even if the drug is selling briskly, the drug will be unceremoniously withdrawn and seldom mentioned again. Here are some blockbusters in the drug graveyard that Big Pharma hopes we will forget about.
1. Darvon and Darvocet
Is an opioid-linked medication that relieves pain worth the overdoses, death, addiction and abuse that are often in its wake? It is a question we hear today with drugs like OxyContin, but dates all the way back to 1957 when Eli Lilly began marketing Darvon.
Darvon and Darvocet (Darvon with acetaminophen, approved in 1972) were synthetic weak opioids that found themselves under safety clouds almost from the beginning. In 1978, Public Citizen called for their ban or severe restriction due to heart toxicity and deaths. Instead of banning or restricting Darvon, the government allowed Lilly to run an “educational program” about the risks. How did it work out? Lilly “converted its education program into a marketing initiative,” said the Department of Health Education and Welfare. No kidding! In 2004, Darvon was still the 12th highest selling generic in the U.S. with 23 million prescriptions filled.
In 2006, Public Citizen again called for a ban saying that Darvon had been linked to 10,000 confirmed U.S. deaths since its introduction and that coroners “note its presence in more deaths each year than most other prescription drugs.” Why is Darvon so lethal? A dose and overdose are very close in strength, it is extremely toxic when mixed with alcohol, it eliminates slowly from the body and it appears to be impervious to naloxone, the drug carried by beat cops and paramedics to treat/reverse heroin overdoses.
Read more
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

1. You claiming what most people do or do not do is a blatant lie. Are you privy to peoples' medical records or their doctor/patient confidentiality?

2. This is you derailing the thread now, as you are prone to do. The problems inherent in the pharmaceutical industry is tangential to the topic at hand. I agree with you that there are plenty of things to criticisize, debate, and discuss, but that has ZERO bearing on the initial topic and/or a comparison between a fictional character in a film and real life doctors.

Maybe keep towards symbolic representation rather than derailing it into big pharma. Morpheus represents a doctor in a black trenchcoat rather than a white labcoat, dispensing drugs, blah blah blah.....For the love of God, stay on topic.
 
@muir

1. You claiming what most people do or do not do is a blatant lie. Are you privvy to peoples' medical records or their doctor/patient confidentiality?

2. This is you derailing the thread now, as you are prone to do. The problems inherent in the pharmaceutical industry is tangential to the topic at hand. I agree with you that there are plenty of things to criticisize, debate, and discuss, but that has ZERO bearing on the initial topic and/or a comparison between a fictional character in a film and real life doctors.

Maybe keep towards symbolic representation rather than derailing it into big pharma. Morpheus represents a doctor in a black trenchcoat rather than a white labcoat, dispensing drugs, blah blah blah.....For the love of God, stay on topic.

Well as with a lot of conversations they start innocently enough with someone pointing out what they see as a flaw in anothers argument which in this case was me pointing out that people take pills from strangers all the time and that's how we then got to big pharma

But i have contributed to this thread regarding the OP

The ideas of the gnostics have been violently suppressed for millenia and then hollywood goes and makes a blockbuster trilogy that is a barely veiled allusion to gnostic ideas.....seems a bit strange unless of course there is more than meets the eye

So on one hand it could be a way of discrediting gnostic ideas that were making a resurgance due to the internet

Is this crazy?

Not really...if you look at Kabbalah for example it was jelously guarded by mystery schools and rabbis for centuries and then in the 1990's rabbis start coming out of the woodwork educating people about kabbalah...so what happened? The internet happened

Suddenly esoteric knowledge that was previously only known by a handful of people down through the centuries is being thrown about online like confetti! I've even posted the inner secrets of an occult order here

So suddenly kabbalists come forward claiming their lineages from reputable teachers and saying that they have selflessly decided to come forward at this time in humanities development to share with them kabbalah in order that they may develop spiritually...this is bullshit....they are coming forward now because regular joes and janes were getting their hands on the info and they want to maintain a form of ownership or control over the material

So this stuff is exploding out over the internet and perhaps the system (hollywood is a department in the the propaganda arm of the system) thought that they would step in and try and manage the perceptions of the public and steer it in a way thats beneficial to them

So they give gnostic teachings the sci-fi treatment thereby making the ideas seem outlandish to the younger generation so that the next time they hear the idea expressed they say ''pfff that's just the matrix, that's not real, that's just a movie''

Also as AJ said they can inject violence and negativity into the gnostic teachings where really the gnostics preach peace
 
I don't have anything significant to contribute to the OP, but felt the following was worth responding to briefly for the sake of accuracy:

This is a roundabout way of expressing the sentiment that aesthetic violence causes real violence which is a hotly disputed (read: politicized) topic and one not significantly acknowledged as being valid in the scientific and academic community.

I cannot speak for other disciplines, but the American Psychological Association released a meta-review of the extensive, albeit incomplete, research on this topic several years ago. The debate still rages, though it's rarely publicized in popular mediums; to the very best of my knowledge of the controversy, no true experimental design has been conducted yet to tease apart cause from correlation (and there isn't likely to be one, IMO, given the prevalence of electronic media). If you like, I will give you the reference to the APA's release when I get home tonight. It's chilling on my desk.

 
Well as with a lot of conversations they start innocently enough with someone pointing out what they see as a flaw in anothers argument which in this case was me pointing out that people take pills from strangers all the time and that's how we then got to big pharma

No see, this is how YOU end up derailing threads into another of your personal conspiratiorial belief threads. By suggesting an equivalence between doctors and strangers where such a thing may only be symbolic and/or arbitrary. How long does someone need to interact with someone else before they are no longer strangers? Are family members strangers?

You made that leap so that you could follow up on that line of thinking. It does not justify hypostatizing a fictional/symbolic representation into a political argument.
 
No see, this is how YOU end up derailing threads into another of your personal conspiratiorial belief threads. By suggesting an equivalence between doctors and strangers where such a thing may only be symbolic and/or arbitrary. How long does someone need to interact with someone else before they are no longer strangers? Are family members strangers?

I think you have to know whats in someones heart; once you know that they cease being a stranger

Doctors often keep up a professional front (a 'bed side manner') and they often don't have any insight into the product they are given by the drug companies and are asked to foist onto the public

People often presume doctors know things that they don't

You made that leap so that you could follow up on that line of thinking. It does not justify hypostatizing a fictional/symbolic representation into a political argument.

I have said more about the OP topic in this thread then you so i don't see what you're getting all bent out of shape over

You thought it was unrealistic that someone would take a pill off a stranger when they don;t know whats in the pill and i said it happens all the time....it's no big deal
 
Last edited:
I don't have anything significant to contribute to the OP, but felt the following was worth responding to briefly for the sake of accuracy:

I cannot speak for other disciplines, but the American Psychological Association released a meta-review of the extensive, albeit incomplete, research on this topic several years ago. The debate still rages, though it's rarely publicized in popular mediums; to the very best of my knowledge of the controversy, no true experimental design has been conducted yet to tease apart cause from correlation (and there isn't likely to be one, IMO, given the prevalence of electronic media). If you like, I will give you the reference to the APA's release when I get home tonight. It's chilling on my desk.



No, I'm quite familiar with the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument which is what I was attempting to convey. I know it isn't verifiably provable or disprovable either way.

Depending on the specific instance though, it may be a refutable attempt at the argument. I think this may be the case because it's not even really a direct argument as to how the movie is supposed to cause real life violence.

It uses the symbolic association between a subjective interpretation of reality within the film and within real life to indirectly associate Neo with the mentally ill and/or at-risk individuals and suggest that they too are capable of violence (which wasn't in disagreement to begin with; the mentally ill and others are typically diagnosed as such because of their propensity towards similar issues).

This led indirectly to the next point of causation, which was mixed between the fictional events in the movie and their relationship with real life counterparts such as David Koresh. This makes the very much clouded point that rational individuals might be mentally manipulated (a dual association between the film and reality of subjective interpretation) into terroristic and delusional acts of violence.

The problem here is that Neo is simultaneously being associated both with normal, rational beings who aren't necessarily prone to acts of violence or mental instability and the at-risk individuals who are typically defined by such a standard, an association between fictional acts of violence and real life acts of violence, as well as associations with fictional brain-washing and real life manipulation techniques.

The argument for causation is implicitly linked by association with at-risk individuals being either already prone to violence or by manipulation coerced towards violence and then exacerbated by informally and incorrectly applying it to those who were not previously defined as susceptible (i.e. normal characters are at-risk also) and then further applying it from the fictional character of Neo onto the audience (i.e. if normal characters are then ergo normal people are also) and hence reality.

How the movie is supposed to cause violence is never elaborated upon, but merely suggested. Neo is a seemingly normal and rational person (similar to the audience enjoying the film) who gets coerced into fictional acts of violence, and so the audience is also being mentally coerced into fictional acts of violence is about as far as it gets.

The jump from rational, normal people towards mental illness and cult-like manipulation is symbolically achieved within the movie using fictional tropes that have no bearing on the real life, everyday distinctions we rely on to define mental health and wellness.

It heavily relies on our difficulty in understanding mental illness. Are the mentally ill already prone to violence or does the movie cause the mentally ill to be susceptible to the suggestion of violence? It is in effect an unanswerable post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what level of our psyche movies are able to impact
 
I have said more about the OP topic in this thread then you so i don't see what you're getting all bent out of shape over

You thought it was unrealistic that someone would take a pill off a stranger when they don;t know whats in the pill and i said it happens all the time....it's no big deal

No, I made the point that it is strange that Neo was not presented with the option of not taking either pill which is related to the plotline of the story. You made the tangential relationship between a fictional character and doctors and then further suggested that the comparison was quite literal to enable you to discuss big pharmaceuticals. It may be an interesting symbolic interpretation, but it is not literal. Morpheus was not a doctor in the film's storyline, nor did he give Neo a written prescription for drugs.

I could post random nonsense about something totally unrelated and then say I'm contributing to the thread more than you, but that doesn't make it so. Just stay on the topic and we're all good.

Edit: Added 'not.' Neo was NOT presented with the option.
 
Last edited:
No, I made the point that it is strange that Neo was presented with the option of not taking either pill which is related to the plotline of the story. You made the tangential relationship between a fictional character and doctors and then further suggested that the comparison was quite literal to enable you to discuss big pharmaceuticals. It may be an interesting symbolic interpretation, but it is not literal. Morpheus was not a doctor in the film's storyline, nor did he give Neo a written prescription for drugs.

I could post random nonsense about something totally unrelated and then say I'm contributing to the thread more than you, but that doesn't make it so. Just stay on the topic and we're all good.

Don't try and twist things

You said it was strange for neo to take a pill from a stranger (you said: Why does Morpheus offer Neo one of two pills as if he HAS to ingest one regardless? I'd certainly be hesitant to ingest any pill given to me by someone I'm not familiar with) and i said people do it all the time and from there it went on to big pharma because you said:

Doctors and strangers you just met are not the same, neither is unmarked colored pills and prescriptions with documentation and research.


I then went on to defend my position that doctors are often strangers and pills often aren't properly researched; i posted an article with it to support my point

Now this is an INFJ forum...this is not the INTJ forum

INFJ's look at things holistically and expansively

if you want to look at a single brick and then try and tell people about walls then go to the INTJ forum

if you want to learn about walls from people who look at the whole wall as well as individual bricks then we're all good
 
Last edited:
I don't feel like discussing your schizophrenia [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]. You want to stay on topic when people get so holistic as to bring you into the picture, but then get 'big picture' when people point out problematic details in your reasoning.

It's one or the other, buddy. It's not pick and choose as your mood dictates.
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

All you're quoting from me is a fictional event in a movie and hypostatizing it to reality. It's not relevant. You want it to be relevant so you can quit discussing the movie and move on to big pharma.
 
I don't feel like discussing your schizophrenia @muir .

And...you've fallen back on insults lol

It never takes you long before you have your little ego tantrum

I wonder if you'll ever grow out of that

You want to stay on topic when people get so holistic as to bring you into the picture, but then get 'big picture' when people point out problematic details in your reasoning.It's one or the other, buddy. It's not pick and choose as your mood dictates.

There's no problem in my reasoning

I have been speaking to the OP in private messages

I have a broader view in this subject matter than you and insight into their thinking on these matters and on the subject matter at hand (the matrix) which i have been discussing with AJ recently

So i'm speaking from a context of which you aren't even aware of, but i don't mind bringing you into the picture

You're like a guy with your nose against a wall saying ''what is this thing in froint of my face?''

I'm the guying standing back from it saying ''dude...it's a wall''