Breaking Apart

So, every once in a while I have a somewhat clear idea about what to write and how to get going. Its, the moment I open up the notepad and lay my hands onto the keyboard words just keeping coming. Other times thats not so much the case. I'm 'confused' - with a lot of issues on my head ... and I guess thats one of the most reasonable arguments 'for' society/social interaction. TO 'have said' it - as opposed to just having it jitter around your head. What you say is off your mind - but that again brought another problem to me. It was one of my earliest concerns, ... as I called it: I'm dripping into a dirty well. I mean, so the idea however. I thought of myself as a crack in some stone wall where water keeps dripping forth, ... but once the pond its dripping into is dirty - sotospeak, the water comes out dirty too. Since then I have thought about that more than once and its ... somehow flawed. And there goes one of my bigger concerns for this one, though not from the angle I had wanted to.

I'm confused about myself. In many ways. And whether I'm right or wrong, ... thats important! I mean - thats important in many ways. The big first thing may be: To start learning to 'reason' again. What I mean is that a scientific discovery is 'not' equal to evidence that there is no God no matter how much of a win for science it is. Uh - do you get the idea? What I'm getting at? So, church says: Earth is flat. Columbus discovers America. Ergo: There is no God. The same thing that Mormons do too though. The Book of Mormon is true and so is Joseph Smith a prophet etc. - which is a bit more 'tight' to see through. And for the most part I think is this one problem we cannot overcome easily, but if we gave more credit to peoples words - which requires that we ourselves are able to comprehend what they say - that'd be a good start. Were it not for those ... like me, which are sometimes quite literally deaf to some things. But thats beside the point. It is important because 'right' is 'right' - of course. Except in Trump University maybe. Thats ... thats yet another thing. Its interesting. So, some guy has money and thinks to invest in a University. Thats a good thing, right? You would think: How much wrong could a man do with that? And its funny, right now. Do you get it? That strange ... "disruption in the force" ... as of a man who went from confident to angry and disappointment. So, do we now wanna have a pitty on that mister? Hey, the US is backing ISIS, ... "Russians say" ... and its hard to digest. Hard to work in. But ... I wanted to keep my mouth shut about such things. At the very least up until I get that point of my chest. Whether I'm right or wrong is however 'not' all that important, so the point, if you know you're right! And that is the social meta. We all do our rights and wrongs - and so there usually is plenty of room for both, cheering and criticizing a particular individual. And I don't want to say that we always have to only see the good in others. Maybe we will - but the more so: The more we will see people that we do not like ... ... by the way. But so, obviously it happens that once you're with someone you like, you have the same kind of "rights", ... and in consequence would also end up sharing some wrongs. And in a world where most of our sophisticated social meta is extremely passing - its wrong to make decisions solely based on outrage! What I mean is that we have our wrongs and those include an independent way of not getting certain things. So when getting into a conversation, its possible that you end up loosing yourself in a certain narrative or whatever - that is there just a momentary flaw. So its good that things take their time.

Sometimes the truth can be detremental. I mean, in a practical sense as I'm going to demonstrate. And maybe in another sense but ... whatever. I 'want' to say: "I know nobody wants to have Sex with me" - as a simple verbal outbreak of inner tensions regarding me and my spirit, my selfawareness, factors, etc. - and from there I could rant on. But I know for a fact that the sentence is a lie. I had my returning customers that picked me above others - and thats as solid of a proof as there is. It is now however possibly so that due to my public standing ... there is some reverse psychology thing - so, well, lets see if I turn around and start to be anti progressive. At least regarding that perverted part. Well yea, it isn't mainstream. Its weird. But well. I could then go on: "nobody wants to have Sex but teenagers". For instance. Where there is a nuanced truth to it I think - which is one of the reasons why going this way would be OK. Kindof. But you need to be able to see it. This for instance lends itself to become part of a joke - its already sarcastic, and so as it goes on that way ... it would "become laughable" (unfortunate expression of figures). However, in that sense we're already on ... well, what I would call "the Slope". Or in the 'maelstrom'. But slope is possibly easier to digest. A slippery slope. Its that slope of getting "drafted away" - "lured into" the temptations of the entertainment ... uh, all industries. You start prolonging for things in turns of which you stop prolonging for other, perhaps more important things. But ... don't worry. Seventh Day Adventists are on the frontier of off-worlded ... to my experience, ... though not quite Amish, I apologize, ... and being preparedness but once the truth comes knocking at their door they don't see it either. And for the second half I've come to acknowledge to myself that I'm a bad comparison for the ordinary guy as I'm doing it somewhat more professionally. Minding the truth that is.
There is a thin line of course, we might say, but thats beside the point. So when you hear the words "nobody wants to have Sex but teenagers" - you're already sortof in your mind prepared to laugh about it - and this readiness is being perpetuated by the fact that it is nonsense, which you know if you're not a teenager anymore, ... maybe ... and on closer observation this polarizes the 'teenager' as the 'premature' horny person looking for a partner to mate with. The thing very clearly is that we do not want to have sex 'always' - and whether that is now 'more' or 'less' to you ... thats kindof the thing here.
These two paragraphs now are however basically just the 'idea' of two sentences. And the main reason why I haven't gotten clear about clarity yet is because its equally 'explosive'. And now it seems that two things I took as two totally different things are actually one and the same thing when beheld from a certain perspective. Thats ... the way things are.

I would have gone on to explain a little. And by that you might realize that its not a joke and you might go back and think more properly about it. That is, if I had the luxury of that much attention/relevance. And I'm sure that I sometimes demand quite a bit of you, but either way, someone would have to do that job ... either way.

There are many reasons why grown ups don't like to have Sex anymore. For instance is the 'no sex zone' a place where you can look at someone without right away being held liable in some way. There is this 'meta' - some call it 'reality' or 'real life' - wherein we're usually dressed up, looking at other dressed up folks, each going their ways, ... and sorry. But if I see a well figured brunette jogging down the streat straight towards the trainstation wher I'm chilling, and she has big boobs that bounce up and down in a top that doesn't leave much to fantasy - with enough of the bra underneath visible to feel like ... blessed for that sight ... thats not something you see every day, not most at least. But I think it is more an instinct of the past that we associate sex with it. Its the 'excuse' for finding something hot or attractive. Because just finding things attractive for their aesthetics is "gay".
There is also, cognitively, a difference between thinking of 'Sex' as an intermediate act, or 'Sex' as a thing to look forward to. And someone who is stuck in a lot of daydreaming as me, there's a bit of a dilemma. And ... I have wondered for a long time. To put it into words. But that is yet another thing. That watching these 'we explain you shit and talk of our oppinions' videos on YouTube only speeds up the fuckery that the social and intellectual imbalance is causing. We are monkeys. We mimic what others do. One way or another. (The medicine against that is called: 'coolness'. Being 'cool' is not about fitting into a certain fashion group, but to 'mimic' the coolness that 'cool' people have - to be ones self ... to an extent.) But anyway. The thing now is that the way we 'understand' reality depends on how we perceive it. If Sex were a frequent thing to you, your 'understanding' of it is more intermediate with a 'practical' domain of foresight. So, you're not wanting to have Sex because you're not worried that you won't have it, while sex all in all is for general sakes an ongoing social meta thing - you have it without having it, sotospeak. Someone who's daydreaming a lot however experiences mostly just the foresight part, or does that first and thus starts to get "hung up" on it, ... which is I guess what most would call 'introvertedness'. Once 'reality' provides for two to come together - we again have that overlap and sex isn't really the thing. Its the establishment of the meta. Its what keeps it going, sotospeak. And so, the more you think about it, the more difficult it will be to date someone. That because you're going to the date with your foresight - where eventually you're already thinking about things that can't even happen yet because the relationship itself isn't even a thing yet. And me - I ... I can't even ... ... - lets just say ... uh, ... well, you could say that my social interactions are basically just intellectual narcissism while else sex is a dominant thing on my mind. And that is just a thing. Perhaps its a psychosis, some strange knot of some weird kind - but its been there since I was a child. I gather from this that my social need describes a person who ... well, I could make asumptions - and with those I 'have to' pick some bias - as a general 'anti bias' assumes on some things that appear to be 'biases'. Like, scientists would know. The 'is there a God?' dillemma. The thing with 'the God of the Gaps' is that one day there would be some Gap where God is truely the only right answer - ... effectively.

Scientists would know ... what? Its ... yea, it fits the topic. 'Of course' it is an atheistic argument that the higher up you climb the ladder of education, the more and more atheists ... and less and less religious people you'll find there. Like, 8% when you really get to the upper end are religious. So, the smarter you are, the less likely it is you believe in God. "Yay Atheism!". But ... taking 'one' step further, you get to ask 'why' ... most educated people aren't religious. And ordinarily there is a given 'cultural fortification' too - when you get to places where there are predominantly atheists. As anywhere else with whatever ideology and mindset. But that then is ... way at the end. We get there when we however think about communication and argumentation. But whatever. I'm loosing my sight upon it. So, when scientists amongst themselves or to proposed future atheists speak about religion - you get to hear eventually that atheism is not meant as a religion, that their fundamental "belief" is simply a 'not believing'. You just take the concept of God and 'poof'. And why? So - thats an interesting bit. So, the religious skeptic doesn't really take that well - just ... and simply ... 'poof' - and I guess thats the base of all anger that all believers of any kind, ... and I'd say even Buddhists ... have about unbelievers. And so, while "he" would go on talking his atheistic perception, "we" are boiling inside. And that may mean that you just try to calm down - because OK, you're a reasonable person - yet so, this boiling is immediately attached to ones own belief in God. As the atheist would so go on and tell you why he doesn't believe in God ... the outcome is already perceivable. Either you keep it or you don't. And once you're boiling, you won't! Yet, in the meantime, the atheist however explained something totally different. The basis of understanding the 'atheism is not a religion' perspective is to take it as it is: It is 'not' -a Religion- ... and so most talking points go on to express criticism about religion as a progressive ideology, plus pointing out that science provides compelling evidence for the evolution theory and such. The thing that is important to them thereby is what believers possibly fail to understand: How to make sense of life? But thats the point. Instead of looking for wisdom in ancient texts while being ruled by some evil dictator ... they look for wisdom in figuring out 'what' works and what doesn't. As the Bible tells us to. 1 Thess 5:21. Anyway - let 'them' tell you what they think about religion.
I can tell you the same things though. Here - it is 'religion' - still, as anything but the truth. All the different beliefs out there - if there is one, there is only that 'one' - that is correct. And if the Mormon story is true, then it is even more so, that 'nobody' is correct - not even the 'actual correct' one. So, we, in that sense, all stand there "like Atheists", ... without a clue about what to do. "Many will come unto me and say "But have we not prophecied in thy name?" ..." ... Jesus backs this position!

But what do I now 'really' need? Isn't it the idea of there being a need that causes the conflict in first place? Its like when I smoke weed. Once I'm in just the right mood - I take one hit from the bong and I'm good for what seems like an eternity but was only an hour or so - and so when I have weed, my tobacco goes away a lot slower! Maybe a bad comparison. And yea. So far - I had those 'needs'. Things that crawled up my head and bothered me - and what do we do? What should we do? What is ... healthy? What is normal? And is normal healthy? Well, this need - there are different stages, or levels. So, different needs come in different sizes. Oh, well - now I all of a sudden understand habits a bit better. The thing with habits in that regard is that you can create needs, effectively speaking. If you don't have a lot of meaning in your life, you can do that really easily. You just look at yourself in terms of the time that is ahead of you. Think of a road/beam or a schedule - that be the 'frame' for your everyday life. So, thinking about a week - that covers every day of the week - and if you go to church, you go to church and that 'alters' your reality. That is a habit you 'could' put yourself up to. But the bottom line is not to think of planning any of it - its more about using the empty space you have to do certain things, to establish habits.
But then again - what is good? What is bad? I mean - one 'argument' against me is that by intimately coexisting with people of a similar mindset we're in danger of ... . Whatever blanks evil suits you. But what about Dragons?

In the end its simple. What I 'really' need is someone with an emotional attachment to me, someone who is therefore willing to put up with me - and Sex really is just a logical iteration on that. It is totally however separate from everything else that there is. So, lets take a step back. "Someone ..." who is therefore willing to put up with me. Everything else ... its hard to put into form I guess. I would speak of there being some sort of 'intellectual "gravitas"' - a balance between attraction and distraction - also known as: What would keep two people that close to each other from having sex (or being miserably bored).
Now, 'stresses' would occur where each member of a couple has a different 'need' - there it goes again - for certain passtimes. Aside of whatever that means - there it is, the word 'need', in an interesting context. Here the 'need' isn't a 'need' as in 'else I die' - but a 'motion' within ones "adjustment". Where, this can be well compared to the withdrawal effects of drugs. When a smoker and a non-smoker meet, the smoker at some point has an urge that the other one doesn't. And at this point ... the case seems clear! Stop smoking!

But there the problem occurs that somehow we have to find a 'base'. So, if two are together and they are off sync, they should meet in the middle. When they truely love each other or are just generally good people they will - thus creating something of a 'base'. And I would dare to say that the wealth of a relationship can be measured in terms of its solidity. Uhm, ... and that the solidity of a relationship can be measured in terms of its wealth? ... Kindof. I'm no vagabond, so, a girl who'd be much of that wouldn't be much for me! Saying - there are different ideas of wealth. If a relationship flourishes, there is some wealth. Otherwise, once both are miserable - yea! They make it work. You stick together or you don't. Is that a thing?

Well, isn't it that simple? Can it be? What is simple about it?

Maybe I'm wrong though! Maybe she would bring just the right things into my life! And on this basis Clarity is simply put: Just a theory. There are many things that come together whereby various parts are individually significant. And one thing about those is that they are all equally significant. While the basic idea is that you could 'take' those individual bits out while discarding the rest, they are all connected by 'stuff' on some deeper level - where ... this cut really ... feels. And that deeper connection isn't a wire - its more like a landscape. And yea, the individual thing would be like a ... lets say castle on a mountain, for instance. While logically the castle can be separated from its surrounding as to be viewed as a building - the landscape goes along with it while 'intimately' - the deepest truth of that individual thing, is inherantly connected to it. So, if you want to think of a positive feeling maybe. A joy or pleasure. Something entirely harmless, or however anything that gives you a feeling of pleasancy - or bliss ... or any motion at all ... - its before God fundamentally all the same. But I wonder: can God truely influence how we 'react'? Directly? ...
Well, good feelings are usually connected to given constellations. ...

Anyway ... on the one side there is the idea of relationships being for life to deliver - and on the other side there is the idea of dating platforms ... and match-making. And ... is match-making nonseniscal? So, its 'give life a chance to surprise you' vs. 'you always know best' - to draw a harsh contrast. Anyway - dating platforms and then inevitably match-making are beyond a given point of social chaos somehow necessitated. There are obstacles to the 'giving life a chance' position. Such as "Geo strategic impairments" - which we cannot take seriously if we want to truely make it up to God. Well - so, ... what is true?

I by now count a 'variable amount' of 'potential relationships' that 'already' provoke a feeling of intimacy within me - just thinking about someone - that I cannot logically make a decision. Because one is however different to those, that is not a thing that bothers me. However - there are different feels and thereby different reasons to connect - and without 'the one' I would have to say that there is no 'true one and only' and that everything is just chance. So it then works. You take chances. This is more relevant when living in a huge city - where there are options - and yea, so, less ... 'good' ... where there are not ... so many.
But yea - all those problems don't bother us because God is taking care of us!? Well - yes! I mean - I do believe that every sincere believer is a little bit somehow more protected - as, whom else could we trust to help us through this life? But aside of how good and well it is with this 'passivity' - it is clearly broken within terms of 'the mission'. And we can also think about the place of 'repentence' within the doctrine as one thing to say ... well ... "don't become lazy". So the parable with the salt and saltiness - and the case with the hot and the cold water ... the lukewarm is what gets spit out.

Anyway does 'fate' now have it so that I do have this picture. There are 'two' big fails of the past, ... which I count together because the emotional context has been the same (blinding, addictive, self-ignoring) - and there-after, well. There is that one thing thats like ... a flower. There are bloom-leafs all around one glorious center. Then there is some foilage and fountain water in the background - a mansion. This all constitutes this 'all the things' impression. So, that 'glorious center' is not 'the one'. More so the opposite. Here its like, the attraction for one totally negates the attraction for the other. Otherwise there are some given overlaps. And this isn't speaking as 'prophecy'. I think. I think the point is that I have emotions and these manifest to me as 'dreams' or 'fantasy'. So, take one, take another, and once the both can get along - there is just ... the possibility at least.
And those ... lets say it were 40 or 70 ... don't weigh as much to me as 'the one'. That mostly because they are somehow all the same. And ... I think some part to ... the divine reasoning ... here also goes to say that you cannot fully dedicate to someone, well knowing that there are plenty of others that would be just as good to be with (and a difference for a change ... ?). Thats anyway my problem. The whole case and point.
The big difference is oversight. I have had the 'pleasure' of being alone for long enough to have this 'wide array of "options"' to think about. And naturally, to some extent, they are welcome! Anyway - being just two may be well - but, ... having friends goes beyond that. This is where I think there is some level of prophecy to it. That I expect them to be dominant while I comfort myself in my darkness could be, but it may onle be the truth that they are dominant/strict and I by comforting me in my darkness already do have my greatest problem exposed. As at some point we had to learn that there are more things that we 'can' enjoy than we 'knew' existed.

One problem within this all is that if we don't know better, we're dependent on others. We eventually head forward into life with a given common sense that doesn't help us out where we end up being. As it is for the others to see the obstacles we impose, it is for us to see the obstacles others impose. 'And to deal with them properly'. We may be troubled by someone else, but we might as well be someone elses problem. Sounds terrible?

The problem lingering in the depths there is of course a matter of just the thing described. People entering social grounds with certain points of view that ultimately trouble others greatly. As - 'with what common sense' the discussion is entered or ... something; That is the norm that we impose unto others.

So, it for once seems reasonable to expect nothing ... or worse ... - as ... thats how we get to defend ourselves and impose 'that' as norm - which means - thats the general public. ...

Code of Conduct


End of Green

There is a neat link between physics and politics. And I got to realize this as I was starting to watch "one of those" "what the fuck" videos. Those are videos that basically only have one purpose: Making the viewer think: "What the fuck did I just see?". Like, weird goofy 3D figures distorting and yelling and basically just being creepy. And I just started to watch it because seriously I'm getting sick of youtube. What I learned from it - and no doubt one can learn stuff - is that most of the things I learned didn't really sit. So, there is this 'illusion' - we might say: passive intelligence. And thats by the way loosely part of a bigger issue I have. Its like ... what you know 'about' is a new status symbol. And I mean by that: You only need to know a thing exists. If you know there's fake news you're smart - sotospeak - even if all you watch and believe in is fake news. But anyway. Basically though I'm just confused. After 6 hours of moronically watching video after video - as a habit that has emerged - you're at some point already wading through videos you wouldn't have bothered to watch some time ago, ... so its already a habit as opposed to curiosity ... and that habit didn't evolve to a point of knowing when to stop. And I think there also goes a fallacy. If you are at that point - you can either choose to quit entirely, or you just make the 'stop' a part of that habit. But anyway.

This "WTF" video made me wonder: What if reality was like this? And I realized: Reality 'may have' been like this, once. So, as a ... thing between a drug overdoze and a fevery halucination. So, way back when we were young, not yet born, and there was no real concept of any consistency. But - anyway. Thats not the important bit.

The point ultimately is that when it gets to physics, our oppinion isn't really relevant. And thats the whole point. Does 'Angular Momentum' make any sense? Thats: Once you turn around real fast with arms spread, and you pull them in, you twist faster. And yes - it 'does' make sense - by the way. The things you pull in have their own momentum - so, a speed. And once you pull stuff in those objects still move at about the same speed but at a smaller radius. It wouldn't make sense if it wasn't the case.
What I'm getting at is that there are things that at first seem counter-intuitive, but we don't have a choice but to accept them. And then there's upsides to it. Like the fact that certain gasses are flammable brought us lighters. But thats physics. It works as it does - and if we don't like it ... "too bad".

Particle Entanglement? Quantum Mechanics? Time (or should it rather be: Lightspeed) differentials/dilletation? Magnetism? Electricity? Ice?

And so we can again wonder: Is the earth a round or flat? Either way we 'used to believe' its something that it isn't. And with flat earthers there is a serious issue. And their enemy isn't science, its NASA. So, even if you convinced them the earth is round - they still have reasons to not buy into it. Its a situation like ... a 3D puzzle. Not a Videogame. An actual one. Like, ... whats it called? 'Nut Case'? Anyway, where some geometric shapes are interlocked in a way that makes it hard to separate them not knowing 'the/a trick'. And this is where analysis ends - sortof. It cannot 'help' - other than just pointing out whats "obvious". But thats already 'smart' work - we don't really need a 'silly' solution slapped onto it. But well, thats us I guess. Human Beings at work.
But if you don't believe in Gravity - you got a serious problem! Which makes a great example I guess. See - Flat Earthers don't believe in Gravity - and by that they obviously mean whatever made Newton and Einstein so famous. They can't 'mean' that this force that we associate to weight doesn't exist. So we have to give it another name. Lets call it - ... "Allulleel". Whatever. What we're asking for is this: We have an object that weighs 10 kilograms - drawn onto a piece of paper. So, on that picture it floats. Thats ... 10 kg - hypothetically. In reality - those 10 kg wouldn't just float there. It has 10 kilos, but with the object floating there it doesn't really matter. So, the fact that objects are moved towards the ground ... thats a given. And thats how ... fuck english ... measurement devices (weigh,scale) work - so a box with full beer bottles is heavier than a box with empty ones. So, we can call it a 'pull'. This 'pull' is a thing. If you now go and say you don't believe in it - you just 'take' it away. And now - how are we gonna talk about it and make progress? But NASA is arguably doing the same thing. In a weirdly different way. Instead of 'taking' things - they are giving us stuff. Like, obviously doctored images. What I mean is that there are answers to certain questions that are obscured through what NASA shows us. And NASA isn't really having a "we have nothing to hide" reputation. What? Theres a face on Cydonia? Wrong! Look at this new image! And yea - it may be so - or not at all. The thing is: With NASA you can't really feel safe with trusting their info. I don't! I'm compelled to - because everything about it, conceptually, is good. Its science. Its freedom. Its progress. Its part of this amazing "new world". But you can't go and say: Look, NASA images of Mars show no advanced Civilization! ... So what? At certain points Mars looks like its been cheaply paintbrushed together using some advanced technology - you can however yet clearly make out the 'brush size' that has been used to draw that shit! (South region).
And its easier - I would think - to 'manifacture' data regarding such things than to actually do science. You a) have a way to control the rate of news - at which point its ... like entertainment. And b) you don't really have to spend millions on a device you're anyway not planning to use. All you need is software that makes things look like there's actually a thing.

But now matter how interesting this all is - you don't really get it until you 'get' 'it'. Whatever 'it' is. 'It' is however something that makes you understand. Like take a picture of Pluto, the dwarf planet, and compare that bright region to a pictore of Pluto, the disney dog, and ... thats one of those things. A more easier 'it'. Yet it doesn't really proof or disproof anything. Though ... I at that point wonder: OK, but when is it enough? At which point is 'this' attitude complete horseshit? I for my part understand that the whole apparatus is intransparent. All we get are images from some institution that is somehow connected to space exploration. "Good!" - ... right?
Yes, but - how can we 'tell' that they are actually exploring space? Maybe its just the worlds most expensive kindergarten for grown ups! I understand some of the concepts by which this space exploration is supposed to be happening - and I don't doubt that for a pretty large part astronomy is legit. "Duh". Its ... another thing. One thing about ... what we 'were', have become and 'might' become - as a civilization.

So, the reason we know about Mars is because someone has discovered it. Its not that simple, but not at all complicated. Some planets can be mistaken for stars. And so, many people accross the globe figured stuff out independent from each other. Like so, there are those stars that aren't 'fixed' to the sky but they move faster. Anyway - at some point so there is that kind of knowledge - and you could come up to someone who has that knowledge and he can demonstrate its accuracy to you. Still, it is just - in some sense - secret knowledge. Or hidden. I would though rather use the term "community knowledge" - to say, you could technically just start and say: There are no planets. And in further depth, at that point you only use words. There are no [whatever 'they' call Planets]. And people could buy into that. And then you would only have to make sure that nobody is looking any closer. What I mean is that there is no 'real' obligation to trust either community. Or - as we might say: "Freedom of Belief". Freedom of Speech. Freedom in general. "Creativity"?
So you could do that - which would work better than going to the 'astronomers' and telling them that Planets aren't a thing. They will always tell you that Planets are a thing! And they can show you why. They can proof it. To say: They have a degree of credibility. This however isn't absolute. The fact that you know something thats true doesn't give you that social status. The next step were community. Here there is no real status quo either - but there is mutual understanding and a wider social circumference and thus an increased chance to find supporters or such. Nowadays you can't say that there are no Planets because if you were real about it, you would have to deal with Astronomers that would happily accept that challenge and proof to you the opposite. At that point saying that there are no Planets is like saying that there is no Sun. Far stretch? Well no! Its a matter of "scaling" - saying: All that matters is how 'close' the Astronomer can bring a Planet to us. Thunderf00t has a great video on that.
What we have today and are trending towards is a world where things turned around. We say: Its enough that there are people who know about stuff. And of course! Thats the only way! For as long as there are truely people who so and are in the right place. Else its getting a bit problematic.

And to a large degree it is this 'phenomenon' that I believe that most Conspiracy Theories are way too dark. Although, ... well. The big point is that I think its all a bit like Sudoku. You can't just do anything. There are always going to be people that think differently. But if nobody who knows any right thing is in charge of anything - thats bad!
This how it is somewhat difficult to fake a poll. Although its totally easy if there is nobody involved who isn't on board with that.

And here the greatest strength, sotospeak, of 'evil' is also its greatest weakness. While its strength is that of imposing as the good guys and thus enjoting an exalted status quo, they do also pretty much need us in order to give that to them. And because they then will try to 'pull' you over, they at that point sortof 'fail' to understand ... 'the Light'.

Have a good one!