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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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).