The emerging official name for the phenomenon is "shrinkflation".
The most infuriating example I ever saw was in the familiar red and white metal boxes of McCormick ground black pepper. It has been sold for decades in the same iconic tin, but they dropped the contents from 4oz to 3oz. That and many other examples here:
Here We Downsize Again 2015 – Part 3 (Mouse Print 8/24/2015)
Well, I'm not objecting to or demeaning anyone thinking or saying that they're thinking. In fact, I encourage it.
The problem is that society has somehow lost the concept that this is speculation, or daydreaming, or fantasy, or delusion, and it has now somehow come to be considered "research" worthy of organized dissemination.
Moreover, that dissemination is to audiences composed nearly entirely of those wishing to hear only enthralling and fascinating fairy tales. They feed the ego because their conscious mind "knows the lore", while they never need feel fear because their subconscious mind knows it's all bullshit.
The phrase I take note of now is, "I think that...".
I really started noticing it after doing so much writing myself. Almost all of what I write is splicing together quotes and links. It takes a lot of effort and organization, but it was very important to me for it to come across as, "Well, you're seeing exactly what I'm looking at and you can make it what you will."
The phrase "I think" is prevalent in conspiracy-adjacent podcasts. That's because they have very little evidence to actually exhibit. You can mentally flag "I think" as an effort to manipulate your thoughts. Frankly, it's becoming more common to simply drop "I think" and state claims as if they were universally accepted fact.
Of course, the underlying problem is that no one demands evidence any more. I actually got criticized once on Reddit for providing links instead of just "saying what I thought". That's where we're at.
Weird coincidence: Kelly-Springfield was founded by Edwin Kelly and Arthur Grant. Just this morning I was researching a guy named Madison Grant.
Madison is famous for two things: conservationism and scientific racism aka eugenics. Both are Salem Witch initiatives for purposes of social engineering. The greenies are still going strong after a century. Eugenics, however, got a bad name and so They try to pin it all on Madison and Adolf Hitler.
Another famous Grant was President Ulysses S. Grant. You can trace both Ulysses and Madison (through a family called the Treats) to the founding of Connecticut. What a coincidence.
An even bigger coincidence: the father of Ulysses was Jesse Root Grant. His father was Noah D. Grant III. Noah's second wife and Jesse's mother was named Rachael Kelly.
I mean, c'mon, you can't even begin to make this shit up! Thanks for the links!
The disturbing conclusion I draw is that human consciousness is capable of recalling vivid first-hand experience of events which simply did not happen.
The mainstream minimizes discussion of the concept of "confabulation", and tries to make out like it's a handful of kookoo birds. I believe it is prevalent.
That sounds controversial but I think many (dudes, at least) will be able to regrettably recall one of more arguments with a female romantic partner in which she told you that you that you said or did something you definitely did not say or do.
It might be a "he said, she said" type of situation, but sometimes you might have been able to provide other evidence or reasoning to show that it was illogical or irrational or impossible that you did as she claimed.
Did that not settle the point? Not at all. You got the, "Well, that's the way I remember it" statement, as if personal recall controls Reality. Which statement, in itself, is a demonstration of the point that some people live in a reality partially or largely of their own construction.
How many people? Too long to go into, but I believe about 95% of the population. I also fear I am underestimating.
The crucial aspect of the "event"--whatever may have taken--is that it was connected to the same generational Satanist families that have been manipulating history for centuries.
I would say that the background of Jim Jones is not what we are told it was except that no researcher ever mentions it. That's how the important truths are hidden. This is that background in a post from two years ago:
First, yes, there is, so far as I can tell, no separation or distinction between victims, the accused, judges, witnesses, etc. IOW, nothing has ever come to the fore of my mind on that issue and I lump them all together.
That being said, there is probably some amount of texture to that we'll never be able to know. In summary, we can't say "the whole thing was fake" but must say, "the whole thing was fake(asterisk)".
There were a number of other witch trials in this period, both before and after Salem, in New England and back in what is now the UK. The starting point seems to be "Witchmaster General" Matthew Hopkins or maybe a little before him, and the end seems to have come with the Witchcraft Act of 1735. I label all this under the rubric of "Salem Witches" to avoid unnecessary detail.
These same people were around and about, here and there, doing all kinds of shenanigans, nothing to do with witchery at all. I mean, if They had conveniently gathered to stage a huge phony rap tournament in 1692 where I could easily identify them, I would have called them the "Salem Rap Battlers".
Even this deep into the research, I have no clear idea why they did any of it. It was "social engineering", psyops like any other, but what they hoped to achieve specifically is almost totally unknown to me.
Well, influence and control, but then again Their ideas on that are different from what almost anyone would imagine. People think about money, offices, titles, rank, ownership, money, and more money. Crowley said that magick was, "the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." This is what They seek, all those other things being only tools or byproducts.
As far as witchcraft in any of the trials, I do not think any such thing was involved in any of this. No witches, no magical powers, no curses, nothing. You read the claims and it's as laughable as any UFO abduction story in the National Enquirer.
Indeed, it's a much longer story but I have reason to believe that "magick" is the only kind of "magic" which They are permitted to use, any sort of supernatural powers being strictly forbidden.
As far as generalizing to any other similar sets of trials, I wouldn't do it without "doing the work" to show that they were faked, then working outward from there. It turns out that so much in history that seemed above suspicion is full of BS, and real and important stuff--if it did not go "Their" way--gets wiped from the record. So you can start with suspicion but you must still do the research and present the case.
Even the claim I make from time to time that these people are "Satanists" has a tremendous amount of context behind that. The most important aspect is that within the bloodlines, even when someone is involved in some way, it's all compartmentalized. Jay Parker knew about his family's SRA but had zero clue about all these historical psyops.
Conversely, I believe that most of the public figures I highlight are far more manipulated than the rest of us and ignorant of anything like "Satanism". These (excuse my language) fuckwads are so insufferably smug. They love signalling their superiority, but I could only point to a couple of instances where one of them dropped a clue that they had any idea whatsoever that they know something that I know about all this.
In any case, it's all a lot to unravel.
It was only in retrospect that I figured out "They" have been using this technique a long time. For those that think "conspiracy theory" was birthed because of the JFK assassination, they were using it back then too.
The simple and direct truth is that Jackie was an MK-Ultra assassin and she pulled the trigger. The are various items of evidence suggesting and even pointing strongly towards that conclusion. These are all subject to interpretation and argument, but the point is not to argue them here.
There is a certain piece of evidence consistent with that conclusion, which may be subject to interpretation but not to existence. That is, LHO's best friend in Dallas was George de Mohrenschildt. It turns out that a close friend of the Bouvier family, who almost married Jackie's aunt and who Jackie referred to as "Uncle George" was that same man.
While that's meaningless in and of itself, it is so ridiculous a coincidence that the only reasonable explanation--as wild as it may be--is that Jackie was involved in something very shady from childhood, and that same thing eventually culminated in front of the TSBD. All else is details of the journey.
After I found this out, my question become, "How was the fact of this relationship dealt with by the researchers that had literally written books on it, people that had studied it for years like Mark Lane, Vincent Bugliosi, G. Robert Blakey and others? What did they make of it? Had I missed something key that made it make sense?"
The answer is they didn't deal with it at all. Never mentioned it as if it was not worth mentioning. That is... not reasonable.
Numerous others had written books on the assassination, and probably much of it was based only on adding something to what the primary researchers had already said, not going back to question their faulty conclusions. Those primary researchers had already quietly steered everyone around the entrance to the tunnel that would lead to any important truth.
Sometime later I heard Mae Brussell--held up as a conspiracy theory legend--talking about the assassination of RFK. Which was totally and crudely faked, BTW. However, within about 20 seconds, Brussell's analysis had led to the Propaganda Due lodge in Italy and blah blah blah. I thought, "Oh I see, this bullshit has been going on forever, in all corners you would never expect. The hole is far deeper than I guessed."
The rule now boils down to, "The harder and deeper something is pushed in conspiracy theory circles, the more certain you can be it is not where you should be looking."
Corbett is a plant and always has been. I think he may actually be too low- consciousness to realize it himself.
For many years, I was as unquestioning as any other fan of his. Then I started getting the idea that his operation had been penetrated and was being steered in certain ways. Almost all "alternative researchers" are compromised in such a way and, after all, why wouldn't they be?
Then I happened to catch him calling in to Alan Watt on the radio very deep in Watt's back catalog, maybe 2007 or 2008. If anyone has ever heard a phony prescripted question asked at a press conference, this was worse.
Not that it was arranged with Watt, but more along the lines of, "I want everyone to hear that I'm a legitimate researcher by establishing in the record that I'm asking an organic question from my deep knowledge as a legitimate researcher, as previously stated." It's as easy as distinguishing movie dialog from overheard conversation at the next table in a restaurant.
His whole shtick is to establish himself as the cutting edge of careful research. The trick is that he is simply a stenographer and compiler. He doesn't reveal anything that has not already been revealed elsewhere.
A handful of times he has, however, revealed some important information I found to be key, but it was inadvertent. I could see where he failed to carry it forward into its logical implications or to resolve the issues it raised. Other stories for other days.
Well, let me give you a subtle example of something like "the best you can do":...
I'll start with this question: Why does Donald Trump still talk to the mainstream press? None of them are friendly and almost all are openly hostile. Why doesn't he kick them all out and fill the press briefing room with, say, Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and the like? Even if they don't agree, at least he'll get a fair hearing, right?
Now, don't ask me if Trump knows this next part as clearly and precisely as this, but he senses it on some level.
The vast majority of the public will never accept those "alternative" people as "authorities". They have none of the hallmarks that most people use to tell who they should get their truth from: fancy clothes, talk like lecturing schoolteachers, slick production, big organizations with long histories, impressive titles, and so forth. None of those things has the slightest direct bearing on the truth of what they say, but that is exactly what people really think.
So Trump keeps talking to these people because he knows that if he is ever going to be "heard" by the masses, it will have to come through those channels. There is no alternative. He takes all the abuse and just keeps plugging away.
As proof of this technique, check out this interview with Mike Lindell on Jimmy Kimmel from 5 years ago. Mike just stayed cool, acted normal, and stated his case. The key is in the YouTube comments: Jimmy's normie liberal audience torches Jimmy.
So in the end, I think the best play is to stay cool, keep studying, tell the truth as best you know it to anyone who wants to hear, and anyone who might ever stand any chance of actually listening to you will ask for more.
Frankly, the alternative is to try to think, "How can I manipulate people into thinking how I want them to think?" But that is exactly and precisely the mindset of all those we're struggling against, isn't it? Don't fall into that trap.
The reaction itself is not a matter of choice. It is as unavoidable a reaction as hunger or thirst or fear of heights. It's not a choice and you can't tell anyone to choose to feel some other way, or to fault them when they fail to.
Normies don't hold it as a dear principle that men did or did not walk on the Moon. They way they work is that the "authorities" have all said that men walked on the Moon, and thus it is true.
When you say it isn't true, what they're hearing is that everyone they have put their faith in to run the world in an orderly way is either a dumbshit or a liar. Nothing Big Daddy and Big Mama say can be trusted, and who knows how malevolent and powerful they may be given that they have gotten away for so long with such a grand deception.
Of course they reject that. It's the only "sensible" thing to do. And it's as easy as snapping their fingers and telling you to go away.
It's not about changing how other people work, any more than you could walk into an insane asylum and tell everyone to "snap out of it", but you can change yourself.
Once you accept and internalize this understanding, you will see the world and other people differently. You will think differently and take different actions than you otherwise would have. In exactly what ways I could not possibly predict, but it will be myriad and inevitable. Margaret Mead once said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
You see, she recognized the functional application. I have only explicated the principles behind it.
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
The other manifestation of this fear is on a deeper and more intractable level. It has to do with differing levels of consciousness is humans, and the vast majority of humans are utterly driven by this fear.
Have you ever noticed the negative reaction is normies when you tell them, say, that the Moon landings were faked? The more evidence you provide, the more intense the reaction gets.
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Conspiracy theorists are not exempt, but only operate one level higher. Try to tell them it isn't all down to the Jews or the Freemasons or the rich or whoever else they have "figured out is really behind it", and they will object more and more aggressively and less and less objectively.
What is really going on? It's the same phenomenon in all these cases: fear.
You see, in each of these, the person's subconscious has quickly decided that what you're saying is plausible and, further, it is a threat not only to their worldview, but to their very sense of self. If they were wrong about these very basic things, then what else might they be wrong about? Has their whole life been lived under deep deception? What are they now vulnerable to?
Exposure to such information is as fearful to them as telling a child he or she was adopted and that their mommy and daddy are not who they think they are. IOW, it is terrifying.
With bears and COVID and Republicans, they have to keep reminding us incessantly that these things are to be feared. Without that, the threat dissipates and the fear is forgotten because it was almost totally phony all along.
The fear I'm talking about never fades. No one told anyone to be fearful of these things because it is self-generated on a primitive level. There is essentially no way to talk anyone out of it.
The basic conditions generating it can be altered, but that's a story for another day.
Thank you very much! I appreciate the support!
Stay tuned because the story gets strange by the time we get to the end of the 5-part "tire arc". Then one more connected post even stranger than that.
Here's a little anecdote to pass on if you're chatting with someone from Akron. It didn't make the cut because, as you know, I've got to snip these red strings somewhere:
The US Navy used to run a fleet of zeppelins, and one of them was the USS Akron, made by Goodyear-Zeppelin. It was huge, almost the same size as the Hindenburg.
She experienced a bunch of misadventures and finally, in 1933, she crashed into the Atlantic in bad weather (or so we are told). The first ship on the scene was the USCG cutter USS Tucker. The last post was, of course, about Salem Witch Preston Tucker.
Turns out the ship was formerly a destroyer, and her namesake was Commodore Samuel Tucker (1747-1833). He was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts, which is that big peninsula just southeast of Salem.
There'd be a lot of backstory to explain the significance to anyone you were telling that to, but if you got through it, I suspect they might say, "You're just making this shit up, right?"
To be completely frank, I've fallen off the track of even being able to guess who might be up to what in this situation, and that's even knowing the following....
The nexus between the JFK assassination and MK-Ultra is that Jackie did it, specifically that she was both a programmed assassin and a "Presidential Model". It surprises me that no one seems to realize this is where they got the name.
That didn't take 40 boxes or even 40 words to state the core thesis. Analyzing the evidence of the event under that thesis, you realize 98% of what passes for "JFK research" is meaningless irrelevancies and red herrings. That's the point of it.
It was a Salem Witch operation. JFK was one of them, he crossed the line against them, and he was sanctioned. Allen Dulles (whose mother was a Foster) was the CIA Director that JFK fired, his deputy Charles P. Cabell was fired with him, Earle Cabell was mayor of Dallas, and Lyndon Johnson took over when he was dead. The list goes on.
At this point, I still have no information to indicate that anyone in the Trump Administration knows any of this, and who knows how many moles there are. Seeing that Olivia Coleman is the ODNI spokesperson is a bit disturbing. But if I were a White Hat trying to do battle with these embedded scum, I'd play my cards hella close to the vest, too.
Not just that: the general public could never believe even the few simple paragraphs I've just written. They would never even entertain it. Perhaps the White Hats have concluded that there is not now nor ever will be a point to mentioning any of this to the public. It is deeply disturbing and therefore destabilizing.
And let me be brutally honest on this point: it is barely worth mentioning to supposedly open-minded tin foil hatters.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission where "the lid was blown off MK-Ultra" were limited hangouts courtesy of the Salem Witches. Thus, the Congressional intelligence oversight set up in the wake of that is kabuki. I've been planning to write a post on this for some time but still far from it.
The children's parents insisted during their trial they had always acted in the interest of the youngsters.
That's the single crucial sentence in the entire article. I believe 100% that they believe this 100%. The NPC level of consciousness begins with the assumption that they are a good person and therefore correct in their reasoning and actions. They are the hero of the narrative playing out in their own head.
If anyone reading this assumes that they are a good person and therefore correct in their reasoning and actions, you might be an NPC. If you never worry about that and aren't worried after reading that last statement, you're definitely an NPC.
Jailing them does nothing to alleviate the situation and can be compared to beating a dog for what is deemed a moral transgression. It helps nothing but it makes the low-consciousness feel better about themselves.
This is a severe phenomenon and deserves a serious explanation. I find that it confirms a major aspect of "NPC theory". That term should be considered only a handle which has no agreed definition. The definition and characteristics are what is being discussed.
Most of the human race--perhaps 80%--are NPCs. One big aspect of that is that they are already psychotic. Even that term is poorly understood by mainstream science, but the core of it which I consider vital would be loosely described as "detachment from reality".
They get a small but vital part of their idea of reality from firsthand experience, but most of what they believe is happening in the rest of the world comes from sources they consider "authorities": parents, teachers, priests and preachers, fancy people on TV, etc.
A main cue of "authority" is to make statements with 100% conviction. It's even called "speaking with authority". AI does that 100% the time. There are no cues being emitted indicating to someone that they should question what is being produced: "<beep> That's the best I can figure out about it for now. I could be wrong and you'll have to decide for yourself. <boop>." Never happens.
At no time have any authorities told them that what comes out of computers as something labeled "AI" cannot be inherently trusted and may be wildly incorrect, no matter how reasonably it is stated and how authoritative it seems. That's part of the psyop, actually. Thus, anything AI spits out is "reality".
But the AIs themselves are psychotic under the definition above. It's far worse, actually, because the AIs can never look out the window or consult personal experience and common sense to adjust their reality. Particularly if they're ingesting social media, which is full of the the lunatic rantings of everyone that owns a keyboard.
The feedback mechanism amplifies psychosis with psychosis with no natural governor. I suspect that what pulled these individuals out was that eventually they came into contact with a person they considered an "authority" who said, "That's all crazy bullshit. Put your fucking phone down."
If you're reading this and thinking, "That could never happen to me," you're almost certainly correct. That's my point: it does happen to some people because their minds operate in a fundamentally different way.
The paramount observation out of all this is to stop believing that everyone thinks like everyone else, just with the dials and levers set in different positions and different punch cards fed in. Not true at all.
Most will never "wake up" no matter how indispensable and persuasive the social media posts they read may be. The few that can wake up have to begin making decisions under that reality.
I think there's a useful meta-lesson from this incident:
There's a universal subconscious assumption that "They" are at all times malicious and that everything "They" do is inimical towards the rest of the human race. Thus, researchers find something bad and then look for who to pin it on. This methodology is entirely unreliable and often misleading.
There's nothing inherently bad about the use of anesthesia, so far as I know. Nothing unhealthful or immoral. (I mean, within reason. Don't go sniffing ether, kids!) So what's going on here.
My guess would be that the Salem Witches realized that the discovery and rollout of anesthetics was right around the corner. Therefore, They needed to be the ones rolling it out and everyone was going to hear first what They had to say about it.
Sure, yes, Their control over the science is long-term inimical but is in such a fashion as no one is ever going to detect Their influence. It's been almost two centuries and no ones has, right?
A note on AI consciousness: Before anyone gets to discussing AI consciousness, it should be understood that no one understands human consciousness, even in its fundamental aspect.
That's a strong claim, but the demonstration of it comes from anesthesiology. First note that even the "engineering" of it is so poorly understood that a dedicated specialist is required to administer anesthesia during surgery.
Wikipedia's article is excruciatingly long but manages to avoid the simplest of characterizations of the science of anesthesia: scientists know that it works, but they do not know at all how it works.
In about a decade since I first learned this, I have only heard it mentioned one other time. It's yet another one of those "informational black holes" that the entire culture gets steered around.
Think of it like this: if you discover that putting your cell phone in a microwave means that it won't ring when you call it, that is no demonstration that you understand anything at all about the science and technology of either cell phones or microwaves.
Even in that trivial case, virtually everyone would jump to the wrong conclusion unless they already knew otherwise. Not all microwaves block all cell phone signals.
Bonus: The "History" section of that Wikipedia page mentions that the first demonstration of anesthesia took place at Massachusetts General Hospital and involved a dentist named William Morton and a surgeon named John Warren. Next to the text is a painting by Robert C. Hinckley illustrating the momentous event.
Well, surprise or maybe not surprise: MA General is in Boston, next to Salem. Morton, Warren, and even Hinckley are all Salem Witch names.
Double Bonus: I haven't covered the Mortons before so it might not be immediately recognizable, but I'll just mention as one example the 22nd Vice President of the United States, Levi Parsons Morton. Yes, those Parsons.
The whole organization is to be considered suspect, but the scheme is much deeper than anything visible on the surface.
Back in 2001, Liberty Media acquired Liberty Digital. The founding president and CEO of Liberty Digital was Jarl Mohn. No one comes out and says it, but everyone assumes that's how Mohn became a billionaire.
Not true. That's merely how they laundered his secret inheritance to him. I wrote up who Mohn really was two years ago:
The new CEO of NPR is an obvious spook, but not obvious at all is that the CEO before last, Jarl Mohn, was a secret Nazi billionaire (not a metaphor) (conspiracies.win 4/19/2024)
Finally, note that Liberty Media isn't headquartered in Los Angeles or New York, but in Meridian, Colorado, which is part of the Denver metro area. Denver is, of course, a primary Stronghold of the Salem Witches.
I forgot to mention the really outrageous one: Kleenex (IIRC) started making significantly smaller tissues, then put them in the same size external box with internal barriers so they wouldn't flop around. Who looks inside an empty Kleenex box?
That's some chutzpah.