First I have to get this off my chest: Aaron Sorkin as about as good a storyteller and writer of dialog as Hollywood as ever produced. You could call him brilliant and I wouldn’t argue. He’s also done more damage to… to truth… to the mass perception of How The World Really Works (HTWRW) than any other contemporary human, not excepting three-letter professional spooks/propagandists, from Langely/Fort Meade to Tavistock.
If you doubt that we’re being gaslit, whaddya think of this doozy?
Sorkin’s two major TV shows, The West Wing (2000 – 2007) and The Newsroom (2012 – 2014) have been major sources of his deceit. If you doubt me on this, watch just one episode of either show then try to picture how they would play now, these days, only a decade or less later.
Although it only ran for a couple seasons, The Newsroom was an especially egregious example of the methods behind his quite artful guile – the premise of the show is that a mainstream cable news network suddenly decides to… wait for it… really tell the truth. It was bad enough to try to tell us that Washington politics, i.e., The White House, is run by basically decent and honest folks, but trying to say the same about the media… I suspect that The Newsroom died early not from audience neglect, but from some version of… call it ‘terminal irony.’
But this post isn’t about that. It’s about this goddamn ‘Mandela Effect’ (I hate the term, and the idea that some are ‘inflicted’ with it, while others are not). Before I continue, I ask the reader to view the following very short video, which includes clips from Sorkin’s The Newsroom:
Note: The real target audience of the video and this post is those who will think that the sign on the bus – clearly reading ‘Sex and the City’ – is proof that the dialog is simply an error by the writer, Aaron Sorkin. I will argue that this can’t reasonably be postulated. Nor can the contradictions in the video (or ‘The Mandela Effect’ itself) be a ‘psy op’ out to gaslight the masses.
Biblical ‘changes’ are an interesting subject. I’ll add a few images as examples, like this misspelling of ‘Noah.’
What I do postulate is that this contradiction within ‘the world of a TV show’ also rules out – or at least goes against – the idea of ‘timeline jumping,’ as might be defined by some interpretations of quantum physics, i.e., ‘The Many Worlds Interpretation’ (MWI), first put forth by physicist Hugh Everett in 1957.
‘and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.’
Sounds like it could be what we’re dealing with here, doesn’t it? ‘Leakage’ from an ‘alternative branch of reality.’ (Hence the explanation that the effect is via CERN or quantum computing, which brags that it is ‘tapping into alternative realities.’)
Addendum: Those unfamiliar with quantum physics should look into this matter: The MWI is ‘accepted physics’ by many credible Ph.Ds in theoretical physics (including mainstream gatekeeper Sean Carroll). That none have come forward is unsurprising, given the intellectual grip academia has upon their careers. Note that no ‘academic’ physicists came forward to point out that damage to the top 10% of a structure (a skyscraper) cannot by the laws of physics cause the disintegration of the bottom 90%. And that’s just one example.)
‘Pisseth’ in the Bible? Many scholars say this is a recent ‘change.’
Given the acceptance of the metaphor of a TV show production representing a ‘little world of its own,’ the contradiction noted in the video implies that something else is behind the phenomenon.
#
A couple things. As many of you know, I used to work as TV writer, so I know something about the process of bringing an episode to the screen. I also know a bit about Aaron Sorkin; I tend to look into people who are both brilliant and profoundly dishonest, plus damaging to the rest of humanity. (Hence my concern with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.)
Although, based on the initial montage we already know that at the very least something very strange is going on with the show now titled Sex and the City, it gets stranger still when you come across conflicting versions of reality coming from the same source.
There are ‘now’ three references to men nursing infants in the King James Bible. Does that sound right?
The title ‘Sex in the City’ is repeated three times by the actors in the Newsroom scene; no doubt about that, right? (I’ve played it in slow motion to see if words might have been changed later, and came to the conclusion that they were not.) Now, you must understand that before that scene was actually shot, at least a dozen people aside from the actors read it in script form. These are the various producers (most of whom are also writers) and technical people (like the art department), any one of which can and would suggest to Sorkin that an error of fact was in the dialog, if indeed there was. (Sorkin no doubt had one or more ‘advisors’ from the broadcasting industry – several of his writers on The West Wing were ex-White House people – so you can add them to the list of folks who seem to have missed this thrice-repeated major gaffe.)
And the actors. How could that gang of twenty-something showbiz kiddos be unaware of the title to one of the major hit shows of their generation? The same of course goes for all the people who could, no, should, have caught the errors at the award shows I included. (And I’ve left out other examples, plus physical ‘residues’ like posters with ‘in’.) And how about the actors in the show, whatever its name was? How many times could Sara Jessica Parker listen to her name booming across the world hooked to the wrong name of her show, without saying something? How can any thinking human not see that something is seriously amiss here?
This may all seem obvious, but it still bears repeating, especially to those with ad hoc theories about each and every Mandela Effect (ME) they are confronted with.
Yeah, there is so much blatant disinfo on the Net that we might start distrusting our own senses.
Can you picture Sorkin typing ‘Sex in the City’ three times in dialog then writing the stage direction for the bus scene: ‘On the side of the bus are the words ‘Sex and the City’? Really? You can? It’s unlikely but you can picture it, you say? Okay. And then can you picture all the people that read the script between Sorkin’s printer and the shooting not noticing this discrepancy? Unlikely but… You can?
And then the actors, during their readings at home and then the table readings back at the set and then the shooting, with dozens looking on? How about the film editors? They asleep too? (A correction could have been dubbed in post production.)
When I first started coming across this stuff I figured it to be just another psy op. Another way to get us all to doubt our own senses, our own minds. Gaslighting. The spooks love it. It’s their job.
That would account for the bus prop contradiction, right? I mean if the boys at Langely (or Fort Meade or Tavistock or wherever) were out to fuck with our minds, they couldn’t let everyone in on it. Maybe the ignorant prop-master just took it upon himself to make the correction. Possible? (No, they didn’t get the bus-prop from the Sex and/in the City producers. They didn’t have a huge, self-referential prop lying around, I promise you.)
Yep, there’s plenty of physical ‘residues.’ But residues from what?
Do you see the problem? If ‘The Mandela Effect’ were a ‘normal’ psy op, for once I agree with the argument against ‘conspiracy theories’ that too many people would have to know. See, unlike, say, 9/11 or the fraudulent Apollo missions, the ME as psy op is not a matter of ‘where the video feed comes from’ (with both 9/11 and Apollo, virtually everyone was getting the imagery from a video feed).
But think about it. In this case all of those I’ve mentioned, hundreds of them if you count the legitimately screwy MEs I included in the video (plus those I left out)… these people had to be in on it!
What do I mean? Well, how do you think it went? The spooks told them that they’re just fooling around, playing a joke on the American people so please keep this to yourselves? Is that how you figure it went? (Although I don’t doubt that Sorkin himself is ‘an insider’ and would have gone along with it…)
Those of you who think this is a ‘normal’ psy op – that yes, we are being fucked with but nothing ‘supernatural’ or beyond the ken of science is involved — you have to answer the above questions. And more.
If it’s not a psy op, what it is it? How did all the people involved with Sex and the City get the name wrong? Yes, we are back to that question. I’m the first to say that if it only were this one show, I’d somehow write it off to…. I don’t know what…my own denial… and I’m the first to say that some people have gone over the top with this issue, listing every logo and product name that doesn’t look right. Thing is, there are many, many examples like this one. That is the problem.
Has this horror always been in the Bible? And is it a coincidence that pedophile ‘Poppy’ is smiling at us?
So no, the internal contradiction between dialog and the bus-prop does not mean the dialog was a simple mistake by Aaron Sorkin. What it means is this: ‘The Mandela Effect’ is even stranger than a glitch in The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics. Not only is science as we know it somehow being twisted, but logic itself.
More to come.
Allan
112 comments for “Even Stranger Things…”