( -0333 ) Looking In Slo Mo at the Chris Rock Will Smith Thing - The Drama May Help Will's Film (& Help 'Oscar Sponsor' Pfizer, Who Sells Alopecia Med)

Chris Rock and Will Smith - Its a Strange World - Will The Drama Help Will's Film (& Help 'Oscar Sponsor' Pfizer, Who Sells Alopecia Med)? Of Course Not! Promotion isn't a Thing and Never Has Been!!

( - 0333)

2 odd things are known. It was a strange, girly type slap, and they ARE both smiling for a fraction of a second there. Does this mean it is definitively different than what Will Smith and Chris Rock say happened? No. Of course not. Public discourse requires that we don't let our prejudices run wild. But similarly we can't let cognitive dissonance prevent us from at least opening our eyes to what we see.

Does the word "Hollywood" refer back to a kind of wood (holly wood) useful in wizardry? There's also a kind of wood called "moron wood" that lives in the brains of morons. The fact checkers cast spells using that kind of wood. They've also cleared up a lot of thinking and questioning so we can get to our bread and circuses.

Sure there are naturally occurring events - not planned, & within which there's little or no deception.

For example a stake bed truck carrying vegetables may lose a Tomato or two. We imagine much of what catches the imagination of casual skeptics actually falls into that category - just accidents or coinciding unplanned forces that get "read" as having been aligned by an unseen agent of power.

I wouldn't want to theorize or speculate on what I know is ridiculous. And you wouldn't want to speculate on what you know is ridiculous... but should we necessarily agree? For example if someone suggests that McDonalds is selling more healthy food than was thought, I may consider that (while being extremely skeptical). Someone out there may find reason to accept that the earth is flat, while you or I might see mountains of contradictory evidence. That person might be duped into going further, thinking that every scientist at NASA is part of a coordinated deception. We may personally see no reasonable evidence for what some people propose as ideas. I don't see strong evidence that a significant part of Hollywood is involved in practices or secrets that the public would find surprising, although there occasionally interesting patterns that may only be coincidence.

But some small set of Hollywood, entertainment & sports personalities have been shown to be engaged in some unchecked dark and harmful behaviors that appear to be evidence of a lack of speaking out and "self-policing" in such realms: maybe such as Brittany Spears' treatment, what is alleged regarding abuse at the hands of Marilyn Manson, and abuses and crimes by a list of famous persons eventually convicted either criminally or in a civil procedure (O.J. Simpson, Bill Cosby, Steven Fabrizio, Harvey Weinstein, Bobby Beausoleil, DMX, Phil Spector, R. Kelly, Roman Polanski.)

Influenced and surrounded by such, sometimes it definitely pays to keep an open mind - for one's own protection and to understand what's there. But by coincidence as the world seems to be more dangerous, dissenting opinion and observation about "guiding lights" in entertainment & media seems more and more to threaten the direction we are headed in. Some of us must become sycophants of those only claiming to wish for a trusting & cooperative world - when really its all a mess of virtue signaling. The sycophants and role models alike don't understand that they sound as if they're greatly oversimplifying issues. They don't understand that intelligent people do have reasons for caution and suspicion.

Now the sycophants are learning to feel that such views should be eliminated by education (or school indoctrination) or by force. Not satisfied to address needs as they arise, these kinds of adherents to "virtue" have been brought to the mindset of WANT.

Sure, we all want an engineered solution but we need it to be real. For them, rather than contend with intricate needs, they are focused on activisms that only admit to the simplest forms of political and social WANT. Yet they will tell you what they WANT is undeniably and with no significant modifications what IS NEEDED. These sycophants don't cooperate with those not entirely in an identical trance. To not be in their trance equates to not being virtuous. They don't do well with disagreeable scientists that raise issues, who need better, more accurate theories or more science (more science is actually bad because they WANT to USE their science already).

They're the first to claim that consensus is in their favor. They are the last to admit that Science as a trusted method is contrary to rushing to any consensus. Along with their icon tech leaders (some of whom are not from the U.S.), they're slowing taking on 'defensive' strategies (hate speech, safe spaces, censorship, and cancelling) that don't cooperate with those of different mindsets, but instead aim to limit free consideration of ideas.

So the likeliest explanation of Will Smith's assault on the diminutive Chris Rock is possibly just as it appeared to be. And many facts support that. But if someone's intuition leads them to a few stray objections how harmful is it to the herd really? Being uncomfortable for one or two moments doesn't really harm them in reality.

And should we be thinking like a herd if we're capable of more than that?

What's wrong with thinking like a cat, being watchful and alert? Maybe some develop a disliking of this cat-like individualistic behavior - simply because they don't always get there way.

So I'm placing this video here for those who may want to question what appears to be an easily agreed upon narrative, albeit an odd one, like what Kamala's friend Jussie Smollett did, apparently acting only on his emotions - as if he wasn't in touch with and influenced by people in spheres of power... but don't get me started. Because I know Its bad for the herd to experience connections - between seemingly unrelated ideas or places, before they've had their cigarettes and coffee.