>>/46282/
Ok I had other things that I wanted to answer, like the "ridiculous" parts but it's gotten long already. Maybe I'll write that tomorrow, but since I posted that pic by mistake let me address that
 >>/46288/
> you need to reconsider some things if you just read a mainstream Western scholar (Tooze) and saw it as some redpills being given to a non-establishment dissident audience

I don't follow the reasoning here. Are you saying my guess was wrong? To me, he does seem to mix "red" (non-mainstream narrative) with "blue" (mainstream narrative), regardless of how much "esteemed and famous" an academic he might be. And I extrapolated that his readers might be a mixture of non-establishment types from left and right after looking over the comments. If you are suggesting that he being a "mainstream academic" somehow contradicts such a description, then have a look at the pic: it is a comment I saw when I clicked at the link above about the Putin-Orbán meeting. There are indeed "redpills" there, and Chomsky does sound like a mainstream academic, but if you are redpilled on race you know that Chomsky delivers blue there, and I don't think anyone would question the existence of a non-establishment dissident audience for him. So I'm not getting you

 >>/46270/
 >>/46300/
> There might be stuff I know but not aware

I was agreeing with you until this. Saying that dreams might reveal things you "know" is going too far I think. Those are mostly a loose mostly uncorrelated bunch of memories, feelings, percepts, and concepts ("noema"). Yes, sometimes (though rarely) one is able to gain some useful hint or insight by pooling together seemingly disparate "noema", but if you think that qualifies as "knowing" or "knowledge" then I'm afraid you are superstitious indeed ;-)