It's been a decades-long journey for Dr. Drew, and he's also a prime example of the "middle" level of conscious. Also note that Drew is highly intelligent and incredibly well-read, so we see that consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence.

It was clear back in the "Loveline" days that Drew was a product of his training. He talked just like any other doctor, and that was exactly why he was on the show. But you could also tell that he read a lot of research for himself, and this led him to say things from time to time that you would not hear anywhere else.

Mid-level consciousness is that which is between NPCs and the fully awake. Probably at most 15% of the population is capable of it, but a far smaller fraction of them have actually developed it to that level.

This is the big problem with mid-level consciousness: humans are incredible at being able to rationalize things to themselves. So people like Drew, Bill Maher, and even Michael Moore and Piers Morgan constantly get torn between the mainstream line and the evidence they see before them. Any of them might say something that you might have said yourself, but that's not something which is true about Joy Reid.

Over the years, Drew has said some shockingly true things out loud in the mainstream, after which his career got its dick kicked in. Remember when he said, "It looks like Hillary is a lot sicker than they're saying"? He was crucified and he backed off. That's the rational choice, in a sense.

So humans of the mid-level highly tend towards "going along to get along" in their self-interest. That generates the fundamental bias of, "Everything is real, just like they tell us in school and on TV and in books."

What's happening here is that Drew has taken the final step. Now, it's not that he has graduated to the next-higher level of consciousness--it doesn't work like that. He has, however, finally adopted the correct bias for the current time: "Everything is fake."

I have found that what actually goes on in the vast majority of people's minds--they way they actually work--is more subtle than that they are duped on various issues.

That is, "duped" implies that there is some information hidden from them, and that if they were made aware of that information, the true situation would become clear. That does not seem to be how it works in almost any situation.

To go back to the original post and incident, the question is how many people, when hearing about it, asked themselves whether it was real or fake? That's basically a rhetorical question and you can come up with any answer that pleases you.

If I was to answer the question and give evidence that even one single person besides myself evaluated it on that basis, I could not produce a single shred. Whether or not anyone agrees that it was fake is not the point, it is whether the question even formed in their mind.

Taking the purported incident in Yemen, I would assume that anyone who had a strong reaction to it also believes that to some extent Trump is a liar. So why didn't they ask themselves whether Trump was lying about this? Because they saw in what was presented to them that which they wanted to see and reacted to it in the way their subconscious dictated. That's how it really works, apparently.

So as I summarize the whole situation, I would characterize it not as people being duped, but as living within a level of consciousness where they create their own reality, rather than always seeking the truth. Of course, seeking the truth means you often find out how wrong you were, and that's the last thing people want.

I recall clearly the huge push for Gardasil on NPR's Science Friday show. As a show supposedly about science, they felt so strongly about it they openly condemned anyone who resisted or objected. We've come a long way since then in how low the bar is for open condemnation.

Another reference with numerous outgoing links on what bullshit it was all along:

CDC Confesses: No Scientific Basis for “HPV” Narrative… No Virus, No Contagion, No Genome… Just Bogus Tests (Global Research 10/17/2024)

Along the lines of a program aimed at the destruction of organized religion and Christianity in particular, we have:

Spotlight (film) (2015)

The drama revolves around a Boston Globe investigation into a decades-long coverup of widespread and systemic child sex abuse by numerous priests of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

Miles Mathis then surfaces a lot of evidence centering around the innumerable Jews and Intelligence assets involved in the whole project:

Let's put the Spotlight on Spotlight (1/9/2017 24-page PDF)

Usual disclaimer about Mathis as a disinfo agent himself: take the evidence, validate it for yourself, are beware his big conclusions and the directions he's pushing you.

For so thorough a researcher (but then again maybe it's another indication he's disinfo), Mathis doesn't mention the screenwriter, Josh Singer. Surprise--he's Jewish, too.

Singer won an Academy Award for Spotlight, which we would certainly expect for promoting prime propaganda. He went on to write First Man in 2018 about Neil Armstrong, so I think we can safely conclude he's not terribly concerned about settling the veracity of his material.

Finally, for anyone who's ready to say that what Mathis said and what I'm echoing is itself, in fact, the disinfo coverup of child abuse, there's a nuanced point everyone should keep in mind.

I'm not saying abuse did or did not occur, I'm saying that if it did, you're never going to find out about it from these people. Their point, again, is to degrade the Catholic Church in the eyes of the faithful, but they will never hand you the truth even to accomplish that.

There's a finer but vital point.

I was just recalling how controversial the whole "grab 'em by the pussy" incident was. Only one person I'm aware of, Jim Stone, suggested it was faked. Given that it came from a member of the Bush family, was recorded by a "hot mic" then saved and only released many years after the fact, not making sense as a phrase in common use or practical application, required only the alteration of one word, and seeing the phenomenal technological progress in A/V fakery since then, it is as close to a "conspiracy" slam dunk as you can get.

Although I'm sure there are a few somewhere, no conspiracy theorist I ever saw accepted that thesis. The story has since then become more bedrock a "fact" than the Moon landings. So what precisely is going on?

It's one thing for Ron Paul to suggest that the media is biased. People may agree or disagree, but at least they get what's being claimed. Trump hits far closer to the mark when he calls something "fake news". No public figures come out and say, "You aren't living in the Matrix with a cable in the back of your head, but your Reality is--in many respects--just as artificial. Here are some examples...."

To be frank, I don't think Ron Paul is actually aware of the things I've just said, but I think Trump is.

Further, as we can see, it has been easier to convince many conspiracy theorists that they are, in fact, living in the Matrix with a cable in the back of their heads.

I'm a fan of Ron Paul, but a thought occurred to me the other day: in his long career as a truther (of a sort) he has never said something like,

"Hey everyone, you know you simply cannot take at face value what you see in the news and the history books. Stories, photos, and even videos can all be faked, and it gets easier every day. It's not that everything is phony==far from it-- but you should always be allowing for that possibility. You need to be willing to examine it for yourself, or at least be acutely aware that you're taking someone else's word that it's real."

Personally, I conclude that Ron himself does not actually think this way. And I further conclude that that, in itself, is a weakness and a failure of a sort.

It's quite a deep issue, very involved, but I would suggest that researchers always pay close attention to events around the year 600 BC. (There's a typo in the title of the post and the battle is dated to 609 BC.)

In short, when properly interpreted, evidence simply keeps building up that what we may loosely refer to as the "War in Heaven" took place at that time. Clearly, it was not confined to "Heaven", but a bit more specifically we may say that the primary warring factions were members of a space-faring civilization.

One reference that researchers should begin with if they are not already familiar, is the "Axial Age". You'll see that they try mightily to smear out the dating. There is also a wealth more evidence than included on the wiki page that humanity suddenly "woke up" at that time. I suggest that these titanic events and many others are not unrelated.

Another angle for the very deep divers, also xD-chess-adjacent: was the whole thing phony? IOW, was it a psyop on those we're usually psyopped by? If so, it would indicate the Yemeni military also cooperated, and all this would have to take place silently at the highest levels.

Everyone can decide what they wish to believe by examining all the evidence for signs of a hoax, but you should also check out this story from The Western Journal (which is in the mainstream of alternative media, if that makes any sense):

Trump Posts Video: 'Houthis' Gather for 'Instructions,' Seconds Later There's Just a Crater Where They Stood (4/5/2025)

The thing is, it appears that the author--either consciously or unconsciously--is not quite buying that this whole story is legit. Words and phrases indicating that are scattered liberally throughout, and it's quite obvious when your radar is on for them:

• "purports"
• "implying"
• "noted"
• "apparently"
• "not been independently verified"
• "lack of a date"
• "similarly missing"
• "No location for it was mentioned, either."

So what would be the chess angle? Zillions of people, including many MAGA types, are absolutely convinced that Iran is the big nuclear boogeyman and the Houthis are their terrorist puppets. They're beaten over the mind relentlessly with this. The big dumb US military also feels bad about getting their asses kicked in the Red Sea for reasons beyond their comprehension.

If Trump doesn't say and do something about this, They will give him the old "soft on crime" and "exposing the nation to danger" lines in just the manner Goering told us. So Trump "does something".

It was a judo move, basically: just add too much of what your opponent is trying to do. The countermoves are not attractive. They can defend those that they daily condemn as terrorists. They can plead for pacifism and dialogue. They can recommend that the US pull out of the Red Sea and the entire Middle East. IOW, They can curbstomp Their entire program. They most assuredly will not give us the truth and call it out as fake.

I predict "They" will now just let this all go until everyone forgets what happened and--most vitally--stops trying to figure out why.

For anyone trying to figure out WTH is going on with Liev, I just wanted to add that the Jewish Schreiber (per Jewish law, since he has a Jewish mother) was in "The Greatest Story Never Told".

Strange world.

For those interested in "real deep" conspiracy theory, there is a different interpretation of this event:

The whole "Virginia Giuffre" narrative may have been phony. Presumably, the purpose was something like like a pressure relief valve. Way too many people were seeing way too much smoke surrounding JE+GM and they knew there had to be some victims somewhere around. Sooooo....

We were handed one. This one was something akin to the limited hangout variety. She would say only as much as was required for the purpose, and none of it would lead to anything further. Is that not exactly what has happened?

The crucial piece of evidence we're all supposed to have forgotten about was that the famous pic of Giuffre and the prince was phony. I heard about it in conspiracy circles, just from autists carefully examining the photo. Long ago, there was a post analyzing it on this very forum. Totally separately and entirely in the mainstream, some British aristocrat made a parallel claim:

Prince Andrew's ex Lady Victoria Hervey claims infamous image of Duke with Virginia Giuffre was FAKED using photo of accuser in the same clothes taken at Naomi Campbell's birthday months later and a body double who dated another Epstein victim (DailyMail 2/4/2022)

So the interpretation of the latest (alleged) event under this scenario is that, having served her purpose, the curtain is coming down on the role of "Virginia Giuffre". Oh, and everyone is free to be as suspicious as they like about the circumstances because none of it is real and no one is going to get hauled into court over events that did not take place.

When you see all those things about the event that don't seem right--that would or would not happen under any normal circumstances--well, now you have your answer. "They" rarely bother filling in every single detail because They know for a fact no one is looking anyway.

The Elites spent decade upon decade to take control of the mainstream media, but somehow it never occurs to the the "alternative" crowd that They spent just a fraction of that to control the alternative media.

For example, today I was listening to James Corbett's latest podcast. He's just as breathless and hysterical about fear-mongering his audience to hate and distrust exactly the same people as Rachel Maddow.

Just as it never occurs to normies that someone took control of the mainstream media they trust, it never occurs to conspiracy theorists that someone took control of the media they trust.

As if it never fucking occurred to the Elites to do so? Jesus, how naive.

Pay close attention to the fact that you never heard about this old story until recently.

The Elite don't keep Their secrets and orchestrate Their coverups primarily by presenting counterevidence, or promoting bullshit narratives, or silencing those who try to expose them. Frankly, that part of the effort is trivial.

Rather, They subtly arrange affairs so that these types of stories are just never talked about, so that they slowly pass from human consciousness. All They need do is keep that up longer than anyone who opposes them can keep the Truth alive.

This is one single example. Conspiracy theorists like to congratulate themselves on how they "already knew all about it". To me, such statements are an admission of the fact that they have fallen short of understanding the deeper game, which is--in fact--why the Elite succeed in the first place.

This is a red herring, IMHO. What was important about Allen Dulles is that he was a Foster. His brother, John Foster Dulles, had a middle name that reflected their mother's bloodline.

Lafayette S. Foster was next in line behind VP Andrew Johnson when Lincoln was (fake) assassinated. The attention of Jodie Foster was purportedly the object behind the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. President Bill Clinton and his wife/witch were behind the purported suicide of Deputy WH Counsel and Bill's childhood friend, Vince Foster.

Everyone is free to tell themselves that was all a coincidence.

I've never even heard of this, but I would just like to suggest to everyone that as they examine and analyze the evidence for this or any other high-profile event, they keep in mind this fundamental perspective:

Hey, did any of this actually happen? What precisely convinces me that anything like what we are told took place really took place? Exactly whose word am I taking?

You'll discover a lot more psyops than you ever suspected with this "one simple trick".

Anyone interested in probing beyond that which we are told by others about Freemasonry should look in to the misdirection we are handed concerning "Hiram".

On the one hand, the Masons go on with their tale about the mythical "Hiram Abiff" and the construction of the Temple of Solomon. On the other hand, there was indeed a nearby king in Tyre, Hiram I, who reigned during the construction of said temple.

You think they'd fall all over themselves trying to claim the historical king was the basis for Hiram Abiff, and that they were not just spewing a load of loony bullshit they dreamed up somewhere along the line.

Quite the opposite is true: they go out of their way to say the two Hirams have absolutely no relation to one another. That's odd. So odd, in fact, I consider it clear misdirection.

I find it relevant that Hiram's father was Abibaal ("Baal is my father") and his son was Baal-Eser ("Baal is foremost"). Some may have heard of Baal before.

I saw an obvious shill post on LOP promoting this titled: "BREAKING: World leaders combine to issue SHOCKING rebuke of Trump". That led me to four observations...

1. This demonstrates a multilayered social media program that includes "conspiracy theorists".

2. Certain world leaders demonstrate that they respond instantly to a hidden puppeteer.

3. You've gotta be incredibly brainwashed and ignorant to think the world works according to the way we're all supposed to think it works, with a free press and democratically elected leaders.

4. Most of the world still actually thinks that.

I haven't studied it, but from all the reincarnation cases I've heard casually over the years, only a tiny minority seems to have any relation to their former family. It's not even described as a "feature" of reincarnation, if you know what I mean.

There are, though, a number of extremely intriguing cases involving, say, a stillborn twin or an aborted fetus that is later born to the same mother.

In the case of the twin, he was fighting with his older brother and he told his mother that he blamed his brother for not hanging on to him in the womb in his former incarnation.

I mean, these are stories you can't even make up!

I have never personally had that feeling or memories or other personal indications, but from other research I definitely believe reincarnation to exist.

Again, this is not a feeling, but there was an incident when I was about 5. I was at my grandmother's house and she had made me oatmeal. I had a habit of eating it in this very unique, idiosyncratic way. My aunt walked in about that time and my grandmother asked me, "Who taught you to eat oatmeal like that?"

I thought it was a totally odd question and said no one had. My grandmother then turned to my aunt and in a low tone said something like, "My brother, your uncle, ate oatmeal like that, and he's the only one I've ever seen do it." That great uncle had died before I was born.

The point is, my grandmother's tone of voice was so completely out of character for her that I remember it these many decades later. She seemed a bit "spooked", if you will, and I never once heard her talk remotely like that any other time.

There are several pieces of evidence that indicate Israel has little in the way of a nuclear arsenal.

One of those would be that the nukes they used to blow up Fukushima were antiquated copies of the Hiroshima "gun type" uranium bomb. Also, they had to steal from the US probably about 50 5kT nukes, one of which was used a few months later in the Beirut Port bombing.

If they had an arsenal of several hundred nukes with the capability to produce more, there's no way they would be reduced to these type of shenanigans. Simple conclusion: they do not possess such an arsenal.

So the grand psyop is that they maintain a policy of "strategic obfuscation" or whatever they call it, and everyone thinks that means the Jews definitely have a load of nukes but are getting away with it. True, but only to a minimal extent.

Then every once in a while they run a minor gag like the present one, along the lines of a car salesman walking out of the room to speak to the manager but accidentally leaving the factory invoice on the table. Oh, ooops.

Another example was back in 2015 when DefSec Colin Powell had his AOL mail account (yes, AOL) hacked where it was "revealed" that he was of the opinion that Israel had "200 nukes all pointed at Iran". So the Heebs get to slyly threaten Iran as a bonus. (Hey, "sly" and a "bonus", so right on brand, isn't it?)

The counterevidence is that these cartels never go after one another. None covet what any of the others possesses. Parents and children will go after one another, husbands and wives, best friends of long standing, but not gigantic criminal enterprises?

The hydra has any number of heads one chooses to count, but one single body to which they are all attached. We should be talking about that body. Toby does not seem to have noticed a body at all.

For anyone interested in trying to discern the deep game being played here, as to why Trump would do such a thing when he wouldn't speak about it before, there's a reason: it would have been counter-productive. I will probably need to explain, but will try to keep it brief....

Most of the population are NPCs. As such, their "truth" comes from those that they consider "authorities": political officeholders, fancy people on TV, priests and prelates, and so forth.

During the entire COVID nightmare, the FDA etc. was firmly held by the Deep State. As the "authorities", they said that "vaxx = good". Thus, for most of the population, conservative or progressive, "vaxx = good" and that was the end of the story. Note clearly that I have not mentioned any facts or reasoning because such things are not generally relevant in this situation.

So what if Trump had contradicted them? He might as well have told everyone that they were adopted, and that their real parents were aliens. It would have just been a giant shitstorm, and greatly divisive.

The plan for 2024 that was developed somewhere along the line was "too big to rig". Division would yield the opposite of that. So while not admitting much one way or the other, he had to let it go in pursuit of the more ambitious goal.

For those now mentally objecting that people died because of this, perhaps that's true. But to be blunt and adult about it, we can note that any general that takes as an objective the preservation of the life of every soldier will certainly lose every war.

So now the Deep State is being cleaned out and Trump has taken control of the "authority", namely the FDA. They can now take the proper action and outlaw these poisons, and the NPCs, conservative and progressive, will accept it as "the truth".

Finally, for those who are mentally objecting that--if this was all the case--why would he not explain this to everyone? I would dare you to explain it to one single other person. You already said that you yourself were mentally objecting to it, right? There really isn't much point to explaining anything to anyone, ever.

It's really a general thing with the control systems on modern aircraft. You see the details of the complexity of any aspect and think, "This cannot possibly be the best way to design this, no way, not after this many decades." Oh, and they're all different brand to brand and airframe to airframe. Pure insanity.

It's really seeing how the sausage is made. Best not to know!

(I hate to say it but) ackshually the question has been around for probably well over a decade, so long that I can't recall exactly. It must have been around 2013 and I was researching whether the 911 planes could have been remote hijacked.

(There were no planes that crashed that day so the point ultimately turns out to be moot, but that's a story for another day. Anyway....)

I came across a video at the time talking about the capabilities of autopilot systems. I confirmed that, yes, they were entirely capable of flying a jetliner on any normal commercial route. Thus, if you could control the autopilot remotely, you could fly anywhere you liked.

What I was surprised to hear them say was that autopilots were capable even at that time not only of operating the aircraft mid-journey, but entirely from gate to gate. Impressive, really, and the point is that "AI" was not mentioned and has nothing to do with this question.

The real issue then and now is as posed at the top of the video: no one wants to board a plane, glance to their left, and see an empty cockpit. Or one without controls. Or one just with seats for people that like to ride up front on a roller coaster.

If there's one thing that's worse than using TikTok for search, asking a chatbot for the truth would be it.

Someone (I think it was John Dvorak from No Agenda) asked one of them, "When did James Kirk become a commodore?". He got some answer. Then he asked the exact same question again and got a different answer. Then he asked again and got yet a third answer. No human would ever do such a thing, ever.

I mean, I thought Flat Earth was the most audacious psyop to date, but this whole "AI = superior electronic intelligence" is far worse and far more dangerous.

Frankly, it's shocking to me how manipulated search engines are these days. With all the monkeying around, the results between Google, Bing and DDG are all over the board.

Yandex is coming on strong in market-share, but it's still spotty which I think is just due to normal development issues.

The really bad part of all this is that very, very few people are aware of any of it. Whatever comes up in their search engine of choice is "the truth".