Garry Kasparov (who is Jewish) is considered the greatest chess player of all time. Kasparov is an enemy of Putin and is classified as a terrorist by Russia.
Kasparov said the following at the beginning of this October: "For me, the conflict in Gaza is the biggest distraction from global challenges. Europe is not decided in Gaza. It is decided in Ukraine. The outcome of everything, from Taiwan to Venezuela, will be decided in Ukraine." He also said: "I am convinced that the next step in escalation will be a small-scale provocation against a Baltic country before the end of the year. He will do it. He just needs to show that Article 5 does not work. His goal is to prove that NATO is dead, and the best way is to display its impotence. He will try it with a limited incursion."
I'm also very convinced that Russia will soon invade the Baltics. I published a post about it and summarized all the reasons I've heard that point to an impending Russian attack on the Baltics. I don't know if that will happen this year, but I'm certain it will happen by May 2026 at the latest.
Well, to find the truth we often must look at the most subtle details which, upon examination, become greatly magnified.
The subtle but obvious question here is, "Precisely why is anyone interested in ruling over the ashes of Europe?" Pick whoever you like as the bad guys: globalists, Zionists, Eurocrats, the American Deep State, doesn't matter. Exactly what benefit do they seek in turning Europe into the northern counterpart to Africa or--at this rate--a nuclear wasteland with craters for capitals?
There is no sensible reason. Well, anyone who cares to will wave their hands around and claim that their selected boogeymen are just crazy like that. Such an explanation is less satisfying than any I choose to incorporate into my understanding of the world.
You see, whether it's Kalergi or Herzl or any of these other maniacs, everyone stops with the vague, subconscious notion that these people just woke up one morning full of this insanity for no reason whatsoever, including no personal benefit. Why would they think it was a good idea? Why would they think anyone was going to go along with it, instead of arresting them or locking them in a loony bin?
The reason I'm saying this is that I've been planning a post on just exactly where Zionism came from, but I've never gotten around to writing it up because everyone is already satisfied with the answers that their subconscious notion of the origins led them to.
And as for Kasparov, you can see how far away that genius is from any of these thoughts. I can guarantee you that he's satisfied with the answers he's found, though.
I think I have an answer to that question, anyway my opinion. And IMO, the plan is older than 100 years, it's about 2,500 years old. But, before I share that and start talking about interdimensional beings (non-human entities) I'd like to know if you are you familiar with Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 6:1–4? how about books that have been removed from the Bible, like The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)?
IMO, they're not driven by a tangible benefit like money or gold. It's something else and Europe is the key to it. I don't consider myself a religious person, but I know they are. Globalists, Zionists, Eurocrats, the American Deep State ... they all have one thing in common, they are students of Kabbalah. And they all follow it to some degree.
The "grand plan", as I've put it together, involves and includes a vast array of disparate areas of study, everything from ancient Sumerian texts to the Axial Age to the origin of modern cereal crops to the Vatican's "Lucifer" telescope to the irrational war against Russia to the murder of Charlie Kirk to the true nature of human consciousness and on and on.
That's a lot of wild shit to try to cram together into a single sensible puzzle, but I had to put together the fundamental pieces of that puzzle to make sure I had the puzzle correct at least in basic structure. I needed that to know how to carefully analyze and interpret evidence in that framework. At least to me, much previously baffling information suddenly fell into place and made sense.
In none of that effort, though, did I feel it necessary to resort to any assumption outside the currently accepted laws of the operation of the physical universe. Not that I think there aren't any undiscovered laws, I just never needed to deal myself any "wild cards" to give a sensible accounting of any evidence.
If we begin to talk about interdimensional entities, since there are no known characteristics of them, there are no known limitations to their actions and we can say nothing whatsoever about their motivations, any more than termites know exactly what humans are up to.
Something similar goes for Kabbalah and every other field of "occult" knowledge. On the one hand, none of it whatsoever has ever come up in my research as something I was required to know in order to give any explanation for situations or events. Never happened, never close, not once.
Frankly, all the information I've ever found to be useful--which was laying around in plain sight if you knew what you were looking for and what you were looking at--is nothing that anyone ever talks about. Well, that truly is the "occult", beyond all that is written in dusty books, is it not?
The mere fact that discussion of Kabbalah and Freemasonry and Gnosticism and Simulation Theory and all such topics come from people that are just saying, "Oooh, look at this!" is enough to tell me that's not where any real answers will be found.
To push it to the extreme, when you can't find anyone else in the whole wide world over the course of centuries who is talking about what you're talking about, well, you just might be on to something. Or nuts or way off the mark, because it will happen in those cases also.
Interesting, that’s where I started as well, about 4th millennium BC, with the Sumerians. And that’s probably when the blood cult started, about 6,000 years ago. In the story of Gilgamesh we learn about a dude who wanted to live forever. Does this sound like a few well-know people today wish for? “I think there’s a good probability that my generation is — hopefully with the advances in science — either will be the first generation to live forever or the last generation that’s going to die,” – Jared Kushner, Aug 2022 Later I connected the dots, Gilgamesh and Nimrod, the biblical character - son of Cush and a descendant of Noah, are one and the same. From the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Sumerian Lamentation Texts concerning the deluge we learn something very important, that Nephilim lived with mortal humans in antediluvian times, and that the deluge overwhelmed both the humans and the beings fathered by the heavenly realm. We are told that Gilgamesh was 66.6% Anunnaki and 33.3% homo sapien, he was a Nephilim, or what we would call today a hybrid. Here is an interesting number 66.6 that will appear later somewhere else.
Now, what I find interesting is the Book of Enoch, which connects the Babylonian flood to Genesis as the source document. A number of different copies of 1 Enoch in the original Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran material also contained Enochian works not otherwise included in 1, 2, 3 Enoch, Jubilees, or other previously-known texts. The most important of these is the Book of Giants, which retells the part of 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 that describes the rebellion of the angels and the origin of the Nephilim. That’s what I asked you in my previous message if you’re familiar with. The word Nephilim appears for the first time in Genesis 6:1-4 but the argument made there that the sons of God were fallen angels who took to themselves wives, had a “normal” sexual relationship with them, and produced an offspring of giants in the time of Noah is illogical. But, maybe we’re not talking about a “normal sexual relationship” here, but a change in DNA. Does this sound like something that also recently occurred due to a pandemic?
There’s so much to cover as context before I start addressing the things you outlined. I already wrote a lot and the only point I think I was able to make so far: there is a different seed introduced in the human population (or DNA manipulation) that occurred a long time ago in the area today we know as Southern Mesopotamia, where Iraq is. But, this is crucial IMO to the correct understanding. This is the only thing that makes sense to me now. Let me give you an example, I mentioned their plan to be 2,500 years old, and I have reasons for saying that, but let’s just say their plan is only 1,000 years old, it’s still the same. Impossible for humans to carry out the execution & implementation over such a long period of time. Pure humans would deviate from the original plan many times over. But not this criminal Cabal. That means they’re hybrids, maybe 66.6% human and 33.3% something else.
You've clearly done a lot of close research on this and gone farther than all but a few have, but in my estimation you've gotten off the track--at least the track that I've found.
Gilgamesh and Nimrod are not one and the same. In fact, Nimrod is nearly universally misidentified, although the correct identification can be found in standard sources. Because it's correct, it's one of those things no one ever talks about. That's typical of how big secrets are kept.
To shoot down the "son of Cush" thing so many rely on to tie him to Noah, go back to the original Hebrew text. Gen 10:7-8 says:
Supposed scholars and researchers play fast and loose with the terminology. The two uses of "sons" in verse 7 are from ben, typically meaning male child but even more general than that:
The "father of" in verse 8 is even farther off from male child, coming from yalad:
The crucial note is that in consecutive sentences, one word was used twice then a different word was selected. The straightforward observation that no one makes is that the writer was describing two different relationships.
In the first, given that a list of proper names follows, sure, these are almost certainly lists of children. In the second, both word choice and construction are different.
Put that together with the knowledge that "Kush" also referred to what is now the area of southern Egypt, and the interpretation of the statement then becomes clear: Nimrod came from southern Egypt.
So can we identify Nimrod with anyone else? Yes.
The cuneiform representation of the name of a certain Babylonian/Sumerian "god" can be read in a certain way to produce AMAR.UTU. That gets corrupted to the version you find him called today: Marduk.
However, reading that very same cuneiform under a different set of rules for interpretation will also yield NAMR.UD. Certain scholars long before me held that this was the original source of the name we have today: Nimrod.
If you don't agree with just this much--which is your right--then our paths of research must diverge. There is a helluva lot more where this came from.