Ifwewalktogether 2 points ago +3 / -1

Anyone want to chime in on what Johns Hopkins is doing spearheading the “second psychedelic revolution” as it’s often called with all of their new research over the recent years. I don’t trust it.

Yes psychedelics can be very useful and amazing. Micro doses to full trips can address the vast majority of psychological and emotional problems.

Yes it totally can help with ptsd. But I’m so suspicious of how thats all being touted and studied by our friends who ran event 201, dark winter and more with funds coming from Bill gates et al.

I always thought the system was scared of psychedelics and didn’t want us to have them.

But then you do some digging into the history of psychedelics in the west, the 60s and look at the players pushing it now and the pieces don’t fit for me yet.

I also found it interesting how much of the hippie / counter culture world drank the kool aid so quick.

I think anyone experienced with psychedelics knows they can be beneficial or harmful depending on how used. They’ve been almost entirely beneficial for me but I’ve seen them lay waste to others. There are some seriously fried acid casualties floating around.

The psychedelics are demons shit is so ignorant and clearly these people have never tripped.

Anyways. Anybody have any input on wtf they are really doing with these things and why Johns Hopkins is leading the research and why the media is unashamedly reporting on the “newfound” benefits from ptsd to depression and the open frivolous use of them in Silicon Valley.

Are they preparing to have your government trained therapist administer psychedelics as part of treatment and mkultra you in a “sanctioned” and clinical setting.

Oregon has decriminalized possession of psychedelics. More of a soros move than victory of the counter culture imo. But why?

They say within a decade there will be clinics you can go trip at.

Is the cat coming out of the bag or was it a lion all along?

I can’t put my finger on it, and as a lifelong psychedelic advocate, there’s something here not quite making sense to me.

Ifwewalktogether 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well put. I’ve been trying to make sense of this. Nobody says anything about me not wearing masks at 99% of stores. My appealingly hopelessly brainwashed mother is sick of it and if they drop another variant or booster she’s about done. Everywhere I go most people know what’s going on.

There’s no way it’s over and The elite are going to back off and stop. Something is up. It’s too quiet.

I agree with a lot of your post. Resistance is building and even many of the brainwashed are waking up to one degree or another. People are sick of it. How long can normies chase the “return back to normal” carrot before they realize it’s a dangling carrot.

It’s a literal part of totalitarian communist takedowns to squeeze, release, squeeze, release etc. Scientifically designed by psychologists and social engineers to exploit how the human mind and group dynamics operate.

This is a bit more than their standard release phase, they are trying to strategically accommodate the degree to which people are sick of it.

Humans will even adjust to constant fear and that can become normalized. There needs to be respite between fear campaigns to keep the panic until the younger generation grows up and a permanent state of social fear is the norm. For now there’s too many people alive that grew up in the REAL normal.

I agree we have to keep the pressure on. Even as an old skool truth seeker I can see even how my own psychology reacts to this. I’ve been so burnt out on covid shit it’s almost mind numbing and the urge to Avoid it is there. I can see how this works on weaker minds.

It is important to take breaks and self care. Covid/conspiracy fatigue is a real thing and this is a long war. We need to know when to push and when to fortify as well.

Anyways good comment.

Ifwewalktogether 3 points ago +3 / -0

I second this. youtube-dl will rip a whole playlist in one go.

Ifwewalktogether 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don’t worry, DuckDuckGo is now carbon negative. Happy searching

Ifwewalktogether 3 points ago +3 / -0

Haven’t watched that one yet, I think I’ve seen it mentioned. Now I have some watching for tonight.

Ifwewalktogether 1 point ago +1 / -0

To add, I have a friend that thinks we don’t need to do anything because plaedians are coming to earth merging timelines and accelerating our karmic processing to clear the way for a golden age.

Ifwewalktogether 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why is Disney pushing the timeline narritive

Ifwewalktogether 2 points ago +2 / -0

Awesome find here! I think pointing out debunked germ theory could cause a chain reaction of awakening more so than many other topics while remaining a more tangible thing than flat earth or lizard shapeshifters. If that can be shown a fraud then you have to rethink almost everything.

Ifwewalktogether 12 points ago +12 / -0

It’s hard to have a discussion on this topic with most people, even in fringe conspiracy circles. You will typically encounter either fervent believers, or fervent disbelievers, and typically just get insults or dismissive reactions.

I think it is a discussion worth having. There are some interesting points in the flat earth world. There are also some good points in the conventional round earth position.

The truth is that the extent to which we have been lied to, manipulated and indoctrinated is staggering, as is the length of time this manipulation has been going on. We are living in the matrix already.

Convincing society that the earth is a round ball flying through space, when it’s not, is absolutely something “they” would and could do- if that were the case. The ability to also believe something (such as round earth) is entirely obvious, evident and easily provable when there are angles and fallacies embedded in that belief is also possible.

Creating a flat-earth conspiracy movement as a psyop to fuck with all of our heads when the earth is actually round but they know they have us questioning everything and trusting nothing is also something they would do.

You ask a good question which I don’t have any answers to. When you apply the rules of logic and epistemology to any belief or theory you can see that most of our reality models are castles made of sand.

Belief perception and expectation dictate our realities including the perceived outcomes of our experiments and observations. And much of our description of these conclusion are semantic more than fundamental.

And there are more possible answers than either or. Could be both, neither or something else. Look at the wave particle duality. The fervent assertion that matter is atomic was pushed as entirely obvious. As had the wave nature. Now they say it’s both but it may be neither.

Remember just the act of observing and experimenting is intricately wound into what we perceive as absolute and out there, and the observer ultimately cannot be separated from the observed, allegedly lol.

There are always angles, positions, factors etc that we don’t see that could totally obliterate as what we hold absolute, proven and fact.

I’ve wanted to analyze all this more but there are just way more pressing things for me to research, and it could totally make sense that a flat earth psyop could be used to keep us focused on shit that doesn’t matter, like usury.

For a fun plot twist though, remember plate tectonics is an unproven theory. Germ theory has also never been proven, and has been disproven. But we assert that it must be true because it’s “obvious “proven” and “evident”. All those scientists doing all those experiments. If you research it you can see how people could think the results of experiments prove germ theory and then when you dig to the underlying foundations and experiments (and history) of it, it becomes clear that it’s not.

I find a lot of the flat earth stuff to be hogwash. But some of it (which is interestingly censored and hard to find) addresses this and some of those people make some great points. I also find it interesting that just about anybody that is against flat earth refuses to debate, is very dismissive and relies on logical fallacies to silence the conversation. Because everyone knows the earth is round and its obvious and you’re crazy. Yeah folks in this forum have never heard that before.

I’m not taking a position either way on this in this post. Learning how to think, understanding how you know what you know (epistemology) and realizing that its entirely possible to be ‘convinced’ with ‘proof’ that something is fact when it is not are essential tools in the seekers toolbox.

You must study and listen to all sides of a debate. Other than the person right to speak, the first amendment is also about the open market of ideas. One cannot draw any serious conclusions only examining a limited set of ideas on a subject. One must be ready to totally discard what they believe to be absolute truth at any given point of time. That’s TRUE science. But not willy nilly and gullible either. Discernment is key here.

Most of the great minds and intellectual advancements in human history are typically some “fringe wing-nut” asserting that a commonly held “absolute fact” is actually wrong. They are usually treated as heretics, piss off the status quo and are dismissed (of beheaded, hung, house arrest, excommunicated, etc).

There are also fringe wing-nuts that are very gullible, see connections that aren’t there and draw erroneous conclusions. As truthers, we learn that they have been lying to us. And the depth of those lies has no bottom. This can lead some to falling in logical traps just to refute the status quo.

Also psyops are scientifically engineered to do what they do and make it almost impossible to discern the truth while dividing people.

Unfortunately the majority of the content in my post is not the norm in how people think, which is why the masses are never responsible for a paradigm shift in civilization. Just make sure you’re on the right end of the bell curve!

Kudos to you for keeping an open mind seeking truth. Careful not to be gullible. Study your logical fallacies and careful with authority and convention.

Remember all theories are just models. They are called theories for a reason. And even the so called “laws of nature” have been discarded or revised many times as well. I will leave you with this:

“Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature.

No names can fully express what it represents.

It is nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not.

But to describe Nature as “the ultimate source of all” is still only a description, and such a description is not nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as ‘the ultimate source of all.’ ... To try to express the inexpressible leads one to make distinctions which are unreal.

Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.

For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have it’s own existence of that which is described; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.”

Ifwewalktogether 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s interesting this is coming out of Oregon. China Kate runs the state and there is a democratic super majority in the legislature. Everything going down in Oregon is like the prototype for Agenda 21/30 and the communist collapse of America. I’ll be curious to see where this goes, but very possibly will be a nothing burger. The complexities of there psychological battles is astounding, and so there could be an angle to this that does not benefit the truth or the people that is not entirely obvious at first. I guess we’ll see.

Ifwewalktogether 3 points ago +3 / -0

Apparently there are photos of Bush Sr near the plaza that day. I think I saw that in “Everything Is A Rich Mans Trick”

Ifwewalktogether 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah, I’ve come across this angle a lot in my research lately, but have been in other rabbit holes. It makes a lot of sense. Going back to the Rockefeller’s oil empire and plastics and pharmaceuticals coming out of that, tied with the green/climate agenda, of course it’s a sham. Of course having a virtual monopoly on energy sources and convincing the world that it’s on short supply and running out is something they would do. They can completely control the price, supply and demand centrally.

Ifwewalktogether 1 point ago +1 / -0

The way particle physics proves cause and effect and matter/structure is not all that different from how virology proves germ theory. It would be funny if not so tragic. Ideas like dark matter, junk dna, 5% usage of the brain, etc are just hiding or explaining away the fundamental discrepancies in the official narrative and the actual results of experimentation.

Ifwewalktogether 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, here he is 6 months ago interviewing Tom Cowan and getting a little offended and upset at the notion, defending his opinions in the post you shared.


Here he is just yesterday, interviewing Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman on the same topic and admitting that he thinks he was wrong and that this position now seems the most likely based on the information.


David Icke was right again (probably). I never read the article you posted before today, but he was definitely very rude towards David Icke who was paving the way for him for a long time. David Icke is anything but stupid. David Icke is probably not right about everything, but time has shown that many of his even “extreme” sounding assertions have turned out to be right.

Point being is that not everyone is right about everything. Being right about everything isn’t as much of a mark of intelligence as being able to admit you were wrong when new information comes your way.

If you compare the videos, you can see how hard of a time he had of accepting the theory (or lack of) in the first one. It took him time to come around. That’s fine. I do think he is authentic, though I don’t agree with or like everything he says. I don’t watch his personal reports often anymore, but his interviews are great.

It would be like dismissing someone telling you the sky was blue because they were a Christian and you are not, or vice versa. Yeah the reputation of the messenger is important, but staying focused on the point instead of the messenger is also important. Refuting the characteristics of the messenger and not their assertion is called ad hominem. Just some thoughts.