Original video was probably nations conspire. He has had so many I lose track, that one was a good name tho. He also has the 'ones that can see' channel and possibly 'one that can see' channel backed up and waiting. New channels are 'sheeple is as sheeple does' and 'wiser than serpents'. ACallforAnUprising.com is the website $3 a month but I think he has a lot of really good content and it's primarily focused on the dark (evil kind) occult world/freemasons/evil conspiring.
Edit: keep in mind he's rebuilding the channels
People worry that this sort of stuff will be mandated by the gubmint, but I don't think it's going to go that way at all.
The gubmint never mandated anything to do with smartphones, but after long resistance and from painful personal experience I find that it's nearly impossible to participate in modern society without one.
It seems to me that, viewed from a higher perspective and with a larger context, these kinds of nefarious initiatives are accomplished by giving everyone who might be paying attention something to fear and to bitch about, while the real work progresses without notice.
I suspect this won't be anything like the answer you expected or like anything else you've ever heard. It may sound like a joke, and if you're reading what I have to say and find yourself getting defensive or feeling the compulsion to challenge it, then just think of it as a joke and leave it at that.
I will have to be extremely brief, since it would take a book or two to arrange and contextualize all the evidence I've gathered, which means there's much more to be said about any particular element. All that being disclaimed....
Sitchin was right about the Anunnaki. Biglino was right that the Bible was essentially about certain episodes of human interaction with these aliens. For certain reasons, they only got so far in their reinterpretations. AFAIK, neither one addressed the "end of the world".
The peace settlement of the "war in heaven" was a deal between Yahweh and Satan, wherein the latter would be given a period of time to prove his point and come to dominate the human race through seduction and deception (not force). Whether humanity frees itself or not, that state will be mandated to continue.
The "end of the world", "Day of the Lord", "End of Days", "Second Coming", "end of the age", etc, I have tentatively concluded to refer to the time this peace settlement is finalized. Then the question would be, when is that? It's beyond hazy, with too many details to discuss.
And what happens after that? That too is almost not worth discussing, since there are almost no details. First, the Anunnaki lived alongside humanity for most of our existence, I would say, so we should not consider that unusual. It's all over sci-fi so it's strange that we're not completely used to the idea. See Leviticus 26:12, for example.
Revelation 21 says some pretty vague things about what happens when humanity is successful but it sounds pretty nice. People can make what they want of what is written, but “Behold, I make all things new” tells me that making predictions is merely speculation. The foregoing is assuming humanity is successful. If not, take whatever horrors you see now and multiply by 100 or 1000. Again, iIn either case, though, the details of what comes after are hardly worth discussing.
Humans should be concerned with making this deal come out in humanity's favor. As I see it, if Satan's influence was removed, we have all we need right here and right now to create for ourselves something of an Earthly paradise.
Someone once said something like, "That is all we know of Heaven, and all we need know of Hell."
Just one thing, isn't Lucifer the right subject instead of satan? Biglino said too that satan is more akin a judiciary title or role rather than one guy, although you could find a central figure of that role in Samael.
Also serpent is a symbolic statement too in the old language, and there is no binding between the serpent in eden and the 'ancient serpent' given to Lucifer.
Most likely the snake of eden was Enki trying to save his creation from the purposes of his brother and his father. Which his peers reviled him for.
Biglino knew a ton, but he was always very cautious and cagey when it came to ideas that, let's say, challenged popularly held religious conceptions supposedly rooted in the Bible. He tried to stick with more dry and academic topics from a scholarly point of view that were therefore less disputable. I don't blame him, since Italy is soaked in Catholics and people get hella touchy.
However, there's a big problem with Biglino: he was "turned" not that long ago. It's marked by the time he was interviewed by Hancock. Positions before that were cautious and blunted, while statements after that can be considered polluted and not necessarily what he thinks.
Most assuredly, though, Lucifer and Satan were one and the same person. In fact, one of my first forays into what I considered the dumb idea that Satan existed at all was that I had heard the claim that they were not the same, and I set out to prove that. I wanted to show something to the loudmouth Christians always bitching about "Satan this" and "Satanic that", point them towards a fundamental plot hole or contradiction so that they would shut up about this unhelpful nonsense.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
As far as the various names and monikers for this one single entity, we shouldn't really be surprised at that either. If you think of Hillary Clinton, you could probably come up with two dozen different names and titles by which people would recognize her with specificity, everything from Hillary Rodham to Mrs. Clinton to Hillbeast. That's a single person in one human lifetime.
So if you research these various names, you can find evidence for certain identifications. Sure, it takes a lot of work to straighten it all out but I can say it's doable only because I've done it, at least to my own satisfaction. The identifications come out almost like little mathematical proofs.
As to the Garden of Eden, I would agree that the strongest indication was that the nachash was Enki. Frankly, we don't even know precisely what they meant when they first used that word, only the usages that came afterwards.
If you start with the tentative assumption it was used to describe Enki, then you can see how it works out. For example, there are all these weird indications the Anunnaki had some sort of reptilian characteristics. It would be one hell of a damn coincidence if "nachash" with the connotation of "serpent" just happened to be talking about something entirely unrelated. See what I mean?
Enki wasn't trying to save them, though, since they were alive and well in Eden. What they got was higher consciousness, as the Anunnaki themselves had. The slave species--human livestock--did not require that and should not have it. Frankly, Enlil could have smoked them right then and there and had done with the whole issue, but he did not.
Rather, he outfitted them, arranged for them to have the ability to reproduce, and exiled them to mix with "wild" humans. Even then, he had some kind of sympathy towards the humans with higher consciousness.
Well Enlil flooded them after for being too noisy and breeding too much, i think he was mostly respecting his brother will to his best but he was upset and worried about it from the beginning.
We also know serpent is honorary description for wise, and enki was god of wisdom, but sure one could ask where that choice of language came from in the first place.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
What would that be if i may ask? it doesn't seem you elaborated that out.
Quick note about Enlil: his view of the human race changes fundamentally--radically even--from inception to the end of the Old Testament. It is also possible or even probable that he sent Jesus to coach humanity on how to save itself. Quite a change.
But we should not be surprised. Everyone seems to have the preconception that God or "the gods" or whoever are eternally fixed. They have no inner life, no evolution, and are frankly considered as objects. Even when you transition that to the Anunnaki, the assumption holds. How could they change as humans do? Well, that's not it at all: we change just like they do.
As to Lucifer and the Anunnaki, I'll be brief because you'll want to retrace the steps yourself from your own sources. That's the only way to cement it anyway.
The name "Lucifer" traces back to Isaiah 14:12 and the Hebrew phrase "helel ben shahar". "Ben" is "son", but what is "shahar"? Turns out it's who, and Shahar is a god of the Ugarit pantheon.
Look up the origin story of Shahar and you'll find that his father is the king of the gods. That king encountered two women bathing and one thing led to another led to two half-brothers. Shahar was the elder, god of the dawn, and Shalim was the younger, god of the dusk. Therefore the person 14:12 refers to is the son of the elder half-brother.
Recognize that genealogy? Anu is the king of Nibiru and has two sons. The elder is Enki and the younger is Enlil. Marduk is the son of Enki. So are Marduk and Satan one and the same? You can start putting other pieces into the puzzle.
Babylon of the Bible seems to be the source of so much evil, although no one explains exactly why. You can find that the "tutelary deity" of the ancient city of Babylon was Marduk.
Satan was at odds with Yahweh, whose city was Jerusalem. The etymology of that name traces back to "uru shalem", or the "city of Shalim". Why would the Jews never change the name of their city from that of supposedly some rando pagan deity? Because it was correct all along.
Scholars will always tell you that "helel" translates to "light bringer". In Strong's Concordance, you'll find that it's actually "shining one". In Sumerian, "E.DIN" means something like "home of the Shining Ones".
See how the pieces begin to fit together? There are wayyyy more that slot right into the same puzzle.
I'm not unversed in this idea and the thinking. I'd like to learn more from your perspective, it's one I value, and I hope I can share with you my thoughts on things too and not come off pushey, I'm a work in progress.
My ideas on annunaki do coincide with what I understand about fallen angels but I'm still learning and I wanted to put that on the table.
Glad to hear we're on the same page, or at least in the same book!
There are very few people interested in this area. Of those--to be blunt--almost all have ideas they're in love with that are just totally loony. About a paragraph into any explanation of it, they have to start in with "I think" and a lot of hand waving. There's just nowhere to go with it. How could you, when they are certain they're already "there"?
In my opinion this area is the most important subjects to be studied. That's because pretty much all other "conspiracy" eventually ties back to it. Really, all the pieces fall into place and it all finally makes sense in the full context.
Like, for example, the mysterious Fallen Angels. They are merely the faction of 200 Anunnaki, led by Satan, who remained behind to try to prove that part of the peace deal I mentioned. When you take all the religiosity and occultism out of it, it's a lot like deals we humans make. Even more clear when you put things in their proper order and realize that we learned deal-making from them.
I agree that it's important and super interesting and usually mishandled.
I say 'I think' a decent amount, mostly because I never want to speak for God in a way where I'm not absolutely certain, just to be clear on terms.
I say occultism is not always of the dark kind as in evil but rather hidden things we may not be able to know at a certain time, mostly because we need the pieces gathered, usually over some time, and then we can connect things and see what was 'hidden' to us previously.
To put a finer point on what I meant about, "I think", I have become so attuned to hearing it from the NPC-level consciousness. When you listen closely to the full context it becomes equivalent to, "A claim which I'm rounding up to true." Seriously, start listening super-closely to these people and you'll see a lot of "unassailable truth" begins with, "I think".
I used to use it often just like everybody else, but I've become much more aware of when I do (like when Bill Cooper used to tell people their offspring were "children" and not to refer to them as baby goats i.e. "kids"). Now I take pains to say, "There is evidence to indicate" or "There is a case to be made" or "Given little available data I speculate that" or some other specific phrase. It does get too cumbersome sometimes in a world of social media posts where most can't be bothered to capitalize, so sometimes it's just, "I think".
As to the occultism thing, to put a finer point on that and related to what you said, I've come to realize that all of the type of "occultism" discussed in conspiracy circles (Crowley and Parsons and so forth) is a giant cloud of smoke doing the occulting.
IDK if you've followed any of my posts exposing generational Satanists, but that's the biggest part of the occulted truth. Jack Parsons was a member of one of these families but that aspect is unknown, never mentioned by any researchers. All the "occult" stuff he did is nonsense, entirely unimportant.
Another family is the Parkers. You may have heard the odd coincidence that Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham, was closely involved with the first three Presidential assassinations. Bizarre, right? I just found out his mother's mother was born a Parker. Now it's no coincidence to me at all.
I mean, there's not even an accepted term for that type of information. People studying the occult never mention it, so it's not "occult", and conspiracy theorists seem entirely unaware, so it's not "conspiracy".
It's some pretty strange territory we're in these days.
I watched the movie. Actually, I sought it out specifically after I had gotten a firm grounding in the Anunnaki. Someone mentioned that the movie had some reference to the subject.
As I was watching it, I thought, "Jiminy Christmas! Whoever wrote this sure knows a lot about the Anunnaki!" I really was shocked. Same thing looking back at the movie, "Stargate".
Since then--let's say a decade--I've been hyper alert to anyone making the connection between these two movies and the Anunnaki. Nothing.
From that I realized, "Yeah, They don't care about parading any of this in front of the public because no one has any idea what they're seeing. Probably just inflates the egos of the people that put it there."
a) I AM aka je suis aka jesus...the origin of jew (phonetic you).
b) Identity Access Management aka suggested likeness (identity) tempting each different ones consent (access) to the manual control (manage) of mind (ment)...that's how a hive-mind aka golem/goyim is being established.
what you think the end of the world might look like when you have a chance
a) Being in-between beginning and end implies being given choice...taking a chance forfeits ones choice.
b) World implies virile (wer) age (ald)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/world which refers to living in-between beginning (inception) and end (death).
Choice implies ones response to origin; chance tempts ones choice towards outcome.
Aka ones response (re) to all (al) working progression of nature.
be paying attention
Notice/notes - "known" implies all perceivable inspiration given; which ones perception ignores when taking notes from one another.
Nature gives notice towards each beings "free" will of choice...few tempt many to sell out by buying into suggested bank-NOTES aka banking the flow of knowledge.
it's nearly impossible to participate in modern society without one.
PART-icipate implies being apart from one another; SOC-i-al implies together within all...nature separates beings to free potential, which implies im-possi-ble (potential enabled within).
One can only build upon foundation...ignoring this for building "towards future" demolishes anything build. Watching movies; while ignoring being (life) moved (inception towards death) demolishes being.
Simon says
Simon/shama - "he heard" + Phoenix/phonics - "sound"...one hears the sound of silence; which whatever word one says shapes into noise.
Think this video made the nations conspire channel get tanked.
I never knew the channel - is there some backup?
Is this Ones That Can SEE channel related to it? Was the original video made by Nations conspire?
Original video was probably nations conspire. He has had so many I lose track, that one was a good name tho. He also has the 'ones that can see' channel and possibly 'one that can see' channel backed up and waiting. New channels are 'sheeple is as sheeple does' and 'wiser than serpents'. ACallforAnUprising.com is the website $3 a month but I think he has a lot of really good content and it's primarily focused on the dark (evil kind) occult world/freemasons/evil conspiring.
Edit: keep in mind he's rebuilding the channels
Thanks for sharing. I've listened to some of his videos and he's very good.
People worry that this sort of stuff will be mandated by the gubmint, but I don't think it's going to go that way at all.
The gubmint never mandated anything to do with smartphones, but after long resistance and from painful personal experience I find that it's nearly impossible to participate in modern society without one.
It seems to me that, viewed from a higher perspective and with a larger context, these kinds of nefarious initiatives are accomplished by giving everyone who might be paying attention something to fear and to bitch about, while the real work progresses without notice.
I would like to hear what you think the end of the world might look like when you have a chance, I'm curious.
I suspect this won't be anything like the answer you expected or like anything else you've ever heard. It may sound like a joke, and if you're reading what I have to say and find yourself getting defensive or feeling the compulsion to challenge it, then just think of it as a joke and leave it at that.
I will have to be extremely brief, since it would take a book or two to arrange and contextualize all the evidence I've gathered, which means there's much more to be said about any particular element. All that being disclaimed....
Sitchin was right about the Anunnaki. Biglino was right that the Bible was essentially about certain episodes of human interaction with these aliens. For certain reasons, they only got so far in their reinterpretations. AFAIK, neither one addressed the "end of the world".
The peace settlement of the "war in heaven" was a deal between Yahweh and Satan, wherein the latter would be given a period of time to prove his point and come to dominate the human race through seduction and deception (not force). Whether humanity frees itself or not, that state will be mandated to continue.
The "end of the world", "Day of the Lord", "End of Days", "Second Coming", "end of the age", etc, I have tentatively concluded to refer to the time this peace settlement is finalized. Then the question would be, when is that? It's beyond hazy, with too many details to discuss.
And what happens after that? That too is almost not worth discussing, since there are almost no details. First, the Anunnaki lived alongside humanity for most of our existence, I would say, so we should not consider that unusual. It's all over sci-fi so it's strange that we're not completely used to the idea. See Leviticus 26:12, for example.
Revelation 21 says some pretty vague things about what happens when humanity is successful but it sounds pretty nice. People can make what they want of what is written, but “Behold, I make all things new” tells me that making predictions is merely speculation. The foregoing is assuming humanity is successful. If not, take whatever horrors you see now and multiply by 100 or 1000. Again, iIn either case, though, the details of what comes after are hardly worth discussing.
Humans should be concerned with making this deal come out in humanity's favor. As I see it, if Satan's influence was removed, we have all we need right here and right now to create for ourselves something of an Earthly paradise.
Someone once said something like, "That is all we know of Heaven, and all we need know of Hell."
Just one thing, isn't Lucifer the right subject instead of satan? Biglino said too that satan is more akin a judiciary title or role rather than one guy, although you could find a central figure of that role in Samael.
Also serpent is a symbolic statement too in the old language, and there is no binding between the serpent in eden and the 'ancient serpent' given to Lucifer.
Most likely the snake of eden was Enki trying to save his creation from the purposes of his brother and his father. Which his peers reviled him for.
Biglino knew a ton, but he was always very cautious and cagey when it came to ideas that, let's say, challenged popularly held religious conceptions supposedly rooted in the Bible. He tried to stick with more dry and academic topics from a scholarly point of view that were therefore less disputable. I don't blame him, since Italy is soaked in Catholics and people get hella touchy.
However, there's a big problem with Biglino: he was "turned" not that long ago. It's marked by the time he was interviewed by Hancock. Positions before that were cautious and blunted, while statements after that can be considered polluted and not necessarily what he thinks.
Most assuredly, though, Lucifer and Satan were one and the same person. In fact, one of my first forays into what I considered the dumb idea that Satan existed at all was that I had heard the claim that they were not the same, and I set out to prove that. I wanted to show something to the loudmouth Christians always bitching about "Satan this" and "Satanic that", point them towards a fundamental plot hole or contradiction so that they would shut up about this unhelpful nonsense.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
As far as the various names and monikers for this one single entity, we shouldn't really be surprised at that either. If you think of Hillary Clinton, you could probably come up with two dozen different names and titles by which people would recognize her with specificity, everything from Hillary Rodham to Mrs. Clinton to Hillbeast. That's a single person in one human lifetime.
So if you research these various names, you can find evidence for certain identifications. Sure, it takes a lot of work to straighten it all out but I can say it's doable only because I've done it, at least to my own satisfaction. The identifications come out almost like little mathematical proofs.
As to the Garden of Eden, I would agree that the strongest indication was that the nachash was Enki. Frankly, we don't even know precisely what they meant when they first used that word, only the usages that came afterwards.
If you start with the tentative assumption it was used to describe Enki, then you can see how it works out. For example, there are all these weird indications the Anunnaki had some sort of reptilian characteristics. It would be one hell of a damn coincidence if "nachash" with the connotation of "serpent" just happened to be talking about something entirely unrelated. See what I mean?
Enki wasn't trying to save them, though, since they were alive and well in Eden. What they got was higher consciousness, as the Anunnaki themselves had. The slave species--human livestock--did not require that and should not have it. Frankly, Enlil could have smoked them right then and there and had done with the whole issue, but he did not.
Rather, he outfitted them, arranged for them to have the ability to reproduce, and exiled them to mix with "wild" humans. Even then, he had some kind of sympathy towards the humans with higher consciousness.
Well Enlil flooded them after for being too noisy and breeding too much, i think he was mostly respecting his brother will to his best but he was upset and worried about it from the beginning.
We also know serpent is honorary description for wise, and enki was god of wisdom, but sure one could ask where that choice of language came from in the first place.
What would that be if i may ask? it doesn't seem you elaborated that out.
Quick note about Enlil: his view of the human race changes fundamentally--radically even--from inception to the end of the Old Testament. It is also possible or even probable that he sent Jesus to coach humanity on how to save itself. Quite a change.
But we should not be surprised. Everyone seems to have the preconception that God or "the gods" or whoever are eternally fixed. They have no inner life, no evolution, and are frankly considered as objects. Even when you transition that to the Anunnaki, the assumption holds. How could they change as humans do? Well, that's not it at all: we change just like they do.
As to Lucifer and the Anunnaki, I'll be brief because you'll want to retrace the steps yourself from your own sources. That's the only way to cement it anyway.
The name "Lucifer" traces back to Isaiah 14:12 and the Hebrew phrase "helel ben shahar". "Ben" is "son", but what is "shahar"? Turns out it's who, and Shahar is a god of the Ugarit pantheon.
Look up the origin story of Shahar and you'll find that his father is the king of the gods. That king encountered two women bathing and one thing led to another led to two half-brothers. Shahar was the elder, god of the dawn, and Shalim was the younger, god of the dusk. Therefore the person 14:12 refers to is the son of the elder half-brother.
Recognize that genealogy? Anu is the king of Nibiru and has two sons. The elder is Enki and the younger is Enlil. Marduk is the son of Enki. So are Marduk and Satan one and the same? You can start putting other pieces into the puzzle.
Babylon of the Bible seems to be the source of so much evil, although no one explains exactly why. You can find that the "tutelary deity" of the ancient city of Babylon was Marduk.
Satan was at odds with Yahweh, whose city was Jerusalem. The etymology of that name traces back to "uru shalem", or the "city of Shalim". Why would the Jews never change the name of their city from that of supposedly some rando pagan deity? Because it was correct all along.
Scholars will always tell you that "helel" translates to "light bringer". In Strong's Concordance, you'll find that it's actually "shining one". In Sumerian, "E.DIN" means something like "home of the Shining Ones".
See how the pieces begin to fit together? There are wayyyy more that slot right into the same puzzle.
I'm not unversed in this idea and the thinking. I'd like to learn more from your perspective, it's one I value, and I hope I can share with you my thoughts on things too and not come off pushey, I'm a work in progress.
My ideas on annunaki do coincide with what I understand about fallen angels but I'm still learning and I wanted to put that on the table.
Glad to hear we're on the same page, or at least in the same book!
There are very few people interested in this area. Of those--to be blunt--almost all have ideas they're in love with that are just totally loony. About a paragraph into any explanation of it, they have to start in with "I think" and a lot of hand waving. There's just nowhere to go with it. How could you, when they are certain they're already "there"?
In my opinion this area is the most important subjects to be studied. That's because pretty much all other "conspiracy" eventually ties back to it. Really, all the pieces fall into place and it all finally makes sense in the full context.
Like, for example, the mysterious Fallen Angels. They are merely the faction of 200 Anunnaki, led by Satan, who remained behind to try to prove that part of the peace deal I mentioned. When you take all the religiosity and occultism out of it, it's a lot like deals we humans make. Even more clear when you put things in their proper order and realize that we learned deal-making from them.
I agree that it's important and super interesting and usually mishandled.
I say 'I think' a decent amount, mostly because I never want to speak for God in a way where I'm not absolutely certain, just to be clear on terms.
I say occultism is not always of the dark kind as in evil but rather hidden things we may not be able to know at a certain time, mostly because we need the pieces gathered, usually over some time, and then we can connect things and see what was 'hidden' to us previously.
I think we learned a lot from them.
To put a finer point on what I meant about, "I think", I have become so attuned to hearing it from the NPC-level consciousness. When you listen closely to the full context it becomes equivalent to, "A claim which I'm rounding up to true." Seriously, start listening super-closely to these people and you'll see a lot of "unassailable truth" begins with, "I think".
I used to use it often just like everybody else, but I've become much more aware of when I do (like when Bill Cooper used to tell people their offspring were "children" and not to refer to them as baby goats i.e. "kids"). Now I take pains to say, "There is evidence to indicate" or "There is a case to be made" or "Given little available data I speculate that" or some other specific phrase. It does get too cumbersome sometimes in a world of social media posts where most can't be bothered to capitalize, so sometimes it's just, "I think".
As to the occultism thing, to put a finer point on that and related to what you said, I've come to realize that all of the type of "occultism" discussed in conspiracy circles (Crowley and Parsons and so forth) is a giant cloud of smoke doing the occulting.
IDK if you've followed any of my posts exposing generational Satanists, but that's the biggest part of the occulted truth. Jack Parsons was a member of one of these families but that aspect is unknown, never mentioned by any researchers. All the "occult" stuff he did is nonsense, entirely unimportant.
Another family is the Parkers. You may have heard the odd coincidence that Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham, was closely involved with the first three Presidential assassinations. Bizarre, right? I just found out his mother's mother was born a Parker. Now it's no coincidence to me at all.
I mean, there's not even an accepted term for that type of information. People studying the occult never mention it, so it's not "occult", and conspiracy theorists seem entirely unaware, so it's not "conspiracy".
It's some pretty strange territory we're in these days.
I've read probably all your posts, it's so interesting to me the connections out there and I'm glad you can see it and then share that info.
Finding what's going on beyond the smoke and mirrors (bread and circuses) is one of my biggest 'hobbies'.
Did you watch he movie Battlefield Earth or read the book?
I watched the movie. Actually, I sought it out specifically after I had gotten a firm grounding in the Anunnaki. Someone mentioned that the movie had some reference to the subject.
As I was watching it, I thought, "Jiminy Christmas! Whoever wrote this sure knows a lot about the Anunnaki!" I really was shocked. Same thing looking back at the movie, "Stargate".
Since then--let's say a decade--I've been hyper alert to anyone making the connection between these two movies and the Anunnaki. Nothing.
From that I realized, "Yeah, They don't care about parading any of this in front of the public because no one has any idea what they're seeing. Probably just inflates the egos of the people that put it there."
I'm not sure, but I find it curious that the initials just happen to be I AM. Just a coincidence I'm sure
Identity Access Management, I've been following it a few years now.
https://communities.win/search?query=IAM
a) I AM aka je suis aka jesus...the origin of jew (phonetic you).
b) Identity Access Management aka suggested likeness (identity) tempting each different ones consent (access) to the manual control (manage) of mind (ment)...that's how a hive-mind aka golem/goyim is being established.
a) Being in-between beginning and end implies being given choice...taking a chance forfeits ones choice.
b) World implies virile (wer) age (ald)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/world which refers to living in-between beginning (inception) and end (death).
Choice implies ones response to origin; chance tempts ones choice towards outcome.
I guess we're about to find out soon.
Aka ones response (re) to all (al) working progression of nature.
Notice/notes - "known" implies all perceivable inspiration given; which ones perception ignores when taking notes from one another.
Nature gives notice towards each beings "free" will of choice...few tempt many to sell out by buying into suggested bank-NOTES aka banking the flow of knowledge.
PART-icipate implies being apart from one another; SOC-i-al implies together within all...nature separates beings to free potential, which implies im-possi-ble (potential enabled within).
One can only build upon foundation...ignoring this for building "towards future" demolishes anything build. Watching movies; while ignoring being (life) moved (inception towards death) demolishes being.
Simon/shama - "he heard" + Phoenix/phonics - "sound"...one hears the sound of silence; which whatever word one says shapes into noise.
There can be only sound...not OR ELSE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQIRD57lls8
https://odysee.com/@SixthSense-Truth-Search-Labs:0/URGENT!-GOVERNMENT-SAYS-THE-PLAN-IS-TO-TAG-EVERYONE-LIKE-CATTLE-WITH-WEARABLE-TECH-WITHIN-4-YEARS!:7
https://odysee.com/@SixthSense-Truth-Search-Labs:0/URGENT!-TRUMP---RFK-ADMIT-THEY-WANT-TO-UNLOCK-AMERICAN-SCIENCE-UNDERNEATH-YOUR-SKIN-WITH-BIOTECH!:1
https://odysee.com/@WAM:0/breakingrfkwantsspydeviceswam:a