I thought about this possibility, but there's just no way they can let Trump retake the presidency. He's got a much better idea what he's up against and he's going to go to work right away with a chainsaw and a sledgehammer. He's had four years to make plans and shape the battlespace.

You can see that this is understood implicitly by many, underlying certain statements they make, as if he will take power on Election Day instead of in January. That's when the Rubicon will be either be crossed or it will not, with this exception....

So Kamala is going to lose bigly even though there's going to be rigging in her favor bigly. Given all the foregoing, the only way to play that is to expose the rigging but leave out who it was in favor of. Then they just wave their hands around about having to redo the whole thing next year because "the American people deserve a fair and honest election and will settle for no less".

That will buy them time for something to break their way, like a nuclear war or some such. You can't lose as long as the game continues, can you?

I think They must look back and realize this is the gambit They should have run back in 2016. Given the controversy, a lot of people would have went along with it. It's way more obviously lopsided now than it was then. Few will be inclined towards accepting it or even putting up with anyone else that does.

EDIT: I came across this variant gambit right after posting:

Martin Armstrong: Can Biden Declare Martial Law To Suspend the Election? (10/23/2024)

Lots of detailed legal history with the conclusion:

Therefore, reviewing these decisions, I would have to say that while it would be controversial, the government could call this a necessity if they can get Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran to declare war or attack before the election or certainly before January 20th, and they could declare Martial Law. Hence, the Democrats, in the hands of the Neocons, could carry out their coup, suspend the election, and seize the country as Zelensky has done in Ukraine under the same theory. They would need to close all courts, including the Supreme Court, out of NECESSITY, real or manufactured.

Yes, absolutely, 100%. What rounds up to everything They do to us "ordinary" people is through us "ordinary" people, and if we stopped going along with them--directly or indirectly--it would all be over very quickly.

I mean, crypto's not inherently bad or good, it's just another invention, but even without direct evidence I feel certain they've got a backdoor into the math for the day they need to "pull the plug".

Then, well, it's way way way too f-ing late.

I think the giveaway for this is "the dog that didn't bark". That is, if crypto was any kind of real threat to The System, every puppet and spokeshole and their brother would be flipping the fuck out about it continually.

Frankly, they would only need make reasonable and rational claims: that untraceable currency would be ideal for dark webbists, domestic terrorists, regular terrorists, foreign influencers, etc, etc.

For comparison, a number of years ago there was a brief program to frighten the sheeple with the concept of "three-ring terrorists". These were maniacs bent on random homicide who dodged the intelligence services by writing things down on paper, where they could not be remotely snooped upon. I think they gave it up when they realized that telling everyone to be suspicious of any person carrying around a binder was probably a bridge too far.

I once heard the principle that, "Dishonorable men will do dishonorable acts." (I can't find the source of the quote so maybe I just made it up somewhere along the line.)

The point is, Twitter is a bunch of servers and code and connections to the Internet, and dishonorable men did dishonorable things with it. If the policies and practices were made fair, dishonorable men would immediately try to get them changed back. If you set up your own Switter or Fwitter, dishonorable men would immediately try to infiltrate it. You can go on in this vein.

The problem is dishonorable men and their dishonorable acts. Setting up new servers and writing new code and camping in the wilderness off the grid will never permanently alter that.

Well, let me lay this on on you, and if this doesn't get you then nothing will. Personally, I almost fell out of my chair when I stumbled across it.

A few years back, I was getting hella tired of people on social media blaming everything on Satan. He didn't exist (or so I knew at the time) and so it was a real conversation (and investigation) stopper. I was trying to find some basic contradiction or plot hole in the Satan story to point people towards, like "Just check this out, m'kay?"

It eventually occurred to me that there might be an opening along the "son of the morning star" and "son of Venus" line. I knew a little bit about both astronomy and ancient pantheons by that time.

Isaiah 14:12 is where we get that, as well as the only mention of "Lucifer". You'll find no shortage of people waving their hands around about exactly what that means and you're free to choose any of them. I, however, just wanted to check whether the verse referred to the planet, or a star, or what. The translations are all over the map so I knew I had to go to the Hebrew.

The line reads "ben shahar", so I looked up "shahar". He's actually Shahar, god of the dawn in the Ugarit pantheon. You should already be asking yourself why the Israelites thought Satan was the son of a pagan deity, and also why no one but me talks about it.

So I tried looking for more about Shahar and found his origin story: The king of the gods was walking along one day and encountered two women bathing... and each woman bore a son. They were Shahar, god of the dawn, and Shalim, god of dusk. Lucifer would then be the son of the elder half-brother.

That's when I almost fell off my chair.

I recognized that exact genealogy. In the Sumerian pantheon, Anu is the king of the gods and he had two sons who are half-brothers. Enki is the elder and Enlil is the younger. Marduk is the son of Enki.

Anyway, best of luck with your studies.

I meant the translation of "Inanna" from the Sumerian, which they give right in her wiki:

Her primary title is "the Queen of Heaven".

And for once on a crucial matter, they give a correct translation from the Hebrew you stated. I don't really study the Bible in anything like the normal sense that others do, so when I happened to stumble across it (like Jer 44:17), I thought, "Hey, does anyone realize this is referring to one of the Anunnaki?"

I also came to note the black hole surrounding that question, which may just sound like a glib expression at first. Didn't people wonder why the Israelites got so hung up on a made-up deity from a civilization that died a thousand or two years before? I guess many times you just never ask the question until after you come to know the answer.

To be brief about the importance of all this ancient history, to me it's still very much alive and in effect. For example, one of the questions you see come up from time to time in conspiracy circles is, "Why do the Elites worship Satan?" I had no idea until I put the big pieces together.

To be extremely brief, Marduk disagreed with Enlil (spoiler: Yahweh) as to the nature and fate of the human race. To settle the matter, an experiment was set up in which we are now engaged. If Satan (Marduk) could come to dominate us, then that would prove he was correct and he would be allowed to continue to rule as he saw fit, given that we had shown ourselves no better than livestock. Regulated by some methodology that remains mysterious to me, a small fraction of us were given higher consciousness as sword and shield.

The rule, though, was that he could use no advanced tech or brute force, only seduction. We had to do it to ourselves through a free will choice. As Satan and his cohorts were small in number, working through compromised humans was necessary. That's what we see now: the Elites literally work for him.

I believe this truth is known only at the highest levels, and perhaps even there they are deceived. Understanding the Anunnaki is key to all this, and so that makes it one of the Big Secrets.

Every current Anunnaki researcher is either off the track or has been compromised. You're reading it here because it has been written nowhere else publicly available (but maybe in the Vatican basement, eh?). That's how it goes when "They" really want to keep a secret.

The goods on MLK the civil rights leader is that he faked his own death. The hilarious aspect is that if you look up photos of him, he was apparently buried in two distinctly different caskets, like no one else ever.

To be serious, though, if we're talking the Hebrew word root, no, it's through another path. You have to tentatively accept the thesis that the entity that has come down to us as Satan (although a metric shit ton of misunderstood and made-up cruft has collected around him) was one of the Anunnaki, namely Marduk. I hate to spoil the ending that way, but it's impossible to follow the plot without that in mind.

If you're familiar with Manley P. Hall's telling of the origin of the name, he's correct up to near the end. The mistake he makes (and he sounds 100% certain as he does it) is that the South American tribe lived in "Amaruca" or "the land of Amaru", and that this Amaru was also known as Quetzalcoatl. That's not correct.

If you look up the original cuneiform of Marduk, it can be read two ways, either logographically or syllabically. In one of them, you read AMAR.UTU. Well, we can see the barely altered "Amaru" right there, can't we?

Interestingly--and maybe this will help these novel ideas gel--is that if you read it the other way, you get NAMR.UD. Recognize it? Yeah, it's where we get "Nimrod" (and "Nemrut" and various other corruptions). Also, both of those readings mean something like "young bull of the Sun" or "golden calf". Intriguing, right?

These may strike as happenstance or long reaches or simply made up, but I can only add that I started discovering these things around 2017 or so, and you would not believe the pile of evidence I've collected since then.

Well, to reiterate the point about Heiser, every single other thing he said may have been true and correct, but getting people away from the Anunnaki was the crucial goal. To paraphrase and invert a famous Winston Churchill quote, "In the psywar, the lies are so precious they must always be attended by a bodyguard of truth."

In fact, I have come to recognize this as by far the most prevalent mode of "disinformation". The word itself conveys that some lie is being pushed--which is true in limited circumstances--but far more common is simply keeping people away from the truth. Everyone is then free to select as they wish from the numerous attractive diversions, irrelevancies, and dead ends presented to them.

The texts you mentioned, and numerous others, far from being a diversion from the Anunnaki are where we are informed about them. The Anunnaki are in fact the lens through which they can finally be understood as they were written.

As an example since you're interested in her, did you know Inanna is mentioned in the Bible? It's plain, but to recognize it you have to understand her name as a (slightly corrupted) term in the Sumerian language. She was, of course, one of the Anunnaki, and so we see them specifically named in the Bible.

I don't think many people--or any that I know of, anyway--who study the Bible know this, or would acknowledge it if pointed out to them.

I feel pretty sure you don't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyway: I was finished with Heiser as trustworthy or an expert after about three minutes of exposure to his work. Whatever else he might have to say, I believe he was promoted specifically to divert people from study of the Anunnaki. This is one of the Big Secrets, so that is the importance.

Several years ago, as I was beginning to study the "ancient alien hypothesis" for myself, I kept hearing Heiser come up in regard to being a "Sitchin debunker". In the interest of scholarship, I went to his site where there was an autoplay video front and center.

Heiser said, "Sitchin made up everything about the Anunnaki. The Sumerians never mentioned them once. Go to the ETCSL, put 'anunnaki' in the search, and nothing comes up." He demonstrated this on screen.

Well, that's true enough: "Anunnaki" was a term Sitchin came up with. But... the Sumerians referred to them as "the Anuna" or "the Anuna gods", and did so prominently, many, many times.

Can Heiser really not know this? Whatever conclusion you may come to regarding how he came to his conclusion, I personally never considered that he would have anything worth listening to.

My favorite cylinder seal is this one:

Planet X / Nibiru: An analysis of Akkadian Seal VA/243 (7/27/2013)

My favorite debunking of it is "that's not really the Sun in the center", even though it's identical to the Sun on every f-ing box of Raisin Bran.

Strikingly reminiscent of depictions on three cylinder seals, which some believe may be Sumerian star gates.

lol... Jesus Christ, 45 seconds in and Kamala has had it with this "Bear" character and his right-wing antics. They probably edited out the part where she screamed, "And where are my fucking zannies?!"

It strikes me that such discussions fail to see the forest for the trees.

The underlying issue, which almost all are blind to and the authors of which do not want discussed, is that society is so incredibly fucked up and profoundly sick that there are members of it who are suffering so much they would sooner die than continue, and who that supposedly advanced and enlightened society is either powerless or unwilling to pull back from the brink,

I also think that if the handful of aforementioned authors of such a twisted and demonic situation could be located and euthanized, society would be very, very different. Perhaps I'm not against euthanasia in this circumstance.

"Social Equality"? Ohhh, I get it: we're all going to get Holocausted.

It's something with little meaning, and "They" can simply reverse themselves after another 20-year study. I think "They" like to throw these things out from time to time to keep the masses in thrall to their own egos.

That is, those that fancy themselves "aware of the JQ" or whatever get to congratulate themselves that they "were right about the Jews all along". On the flip side, the normies get to say, "Everyone who comments on this is an anti-Semite, which of course makes me a better person than them for pointing this out." The cycle continues because none of these people can raise their consciousness to leave that cycle.

As far as the factoid itself, I can't say it makes sense but what I do see is that no one actually tries to make any sense of it. The Catholic Isabella I of Castile sends out a Jew on this important mission? Oh well, maybe she's a crypto, right? At precisely the same time, Torquemada is running around and they clean house (like pronto) with the Alhambra Decree giving all the Jews the boot.

Does anyone attempt to bring these basic things together under a sensible thesis? Perhaps one that points us towards a deeper understanding of our real history? Nope, just Jews = bad or Jews = good (choose one).

As I see it, this type of divisive diversion keeps people away from the really sensitive issues. For example, was America really named after Chris's buddy Amerigo Vespucci? No, it's ridiculous upon any examination. America turns out to be named after Satan. That's a sensitive issue pointing at real history, but a story for another day.

Hmmm, flying over Langley for 17 days? Mere coincidence, I conclude!

There is a larger context into which this fits, one which involves the true nature of human consciousness. Most people--I would estimate around 80%--are NPCs. Their thought processes are fundamentally different than what is assumed.

Starting with an understanding of that thought process, we can derive what Chesterton points out. NPCs do exist in a state of what could crudely be called madness, and less crudely described as psychosis. The fundamental nature of psychosis is a detachment from reality.

You can see demonstrations of this daily. NPCs will create "facts: quite freely, and bat away other facts as if they were annoying flies. What this points towards is that NPCs are not interested in exercising their rational faculties to ascertain objective reality.

Rather, their subconscious seeks psychological stability and comfort, and freedom from anxiety and stress. When they are presented with situations that tend to disturb these states, their subconscious rejects them. At the far end of the process is rationalization and, as Chesterton terms it, "insane explanations".

But hang on to it after the attack so you'll have something to soak up all your blood. If you're not alive to won't have to worry about this.

Maybe they're finally nuking the DUMBs in SoCal.

Everything old is new again:

Election in Christianity:

God chose certain individuals, known as the "elect", to receive his saving grace and be predestined for eternal salvation; Calvinists view this election as unconditional, based not on human merit or works but solely on God's sovereign will and purpose.

Off-topic: You know what they never show you about these "forensic facial reconstructions"? How it comes out when they put it to the test. I think it serves to deliberately add to the psychosis that the vast majority of the population lives in. This paper pretty much admits it:

Forensic facial reconstruction under test (Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal 6/24/2015)

So I must report that sadly by the end of the last course run in 2011, having developed a reliable system of working, we were unable to achieve anything like uniformity in all reconstructions and were a long way off achieving the Daubert standard which in my view will never be achieved.

Why they don't just show you some pictures, like, "We took a person who died, and handed some of these 'scientists' the skull and some DNA. Here are some photos of the living person and here's what they came up with." They avoid that because it's so ridiculously far off, would be my guess.

Of course, the next logical step will be to tell us that "AI" did it. Can't argue with that, can we?

Politics was so much simpler when it just fellatio.

You know who I heard comment on the "erasure of history", a number of years ago? Melania Trump, of all people, in her interview with Hannity on board an aircraft carrier early in Trump's administration.

I thought it was very profound at the time and no one else was pointing it out. I'm working from memory and paraphrasing here, but Hannity asked her how she felt about all the lies being told about her husband. She said, "Well, that's just politics, but the problem is that it's getting written down in history books as if it were fact."

What happened to MH370 was clear within a few days for anyone that had the right sources of information and was paying attention. And no, it had nothing to do with anything "Ashton Forbes" is saying.

What we're seeing here is the fundamental mechanism by which history is controlled: "They" can tell whatever lies "They" wish far, far longer than anyone who knows the truth can repeat it. It is just that simple.

Any decent conspiracy theorists knows "They" control the mainstream media, and hundreds of billions of dollars cycles through that mechanism every year. No one who watches it questions Their narrative about MH370, but how about those who don't watch and do question?

Easy: They spend a couple of hundred K and roll out some dipshit like "Ashton Forbes". For the people that have any possibility to penetrate to the truth, he clouds the waters, wastes everyone's time, and maybe even convinces some people, like apparently Candace Owens. Is that worth the rounding error in any mainstream media budget?

I don't think I need to answer that.

I try to keep my hellaciously long posts as short as possible, so just to add a bit to the nukes thing: H&N and the early testing were clearly faked. but the weapons and power plants are real. I've posted a number of times about nuclear weapons used in just the last few years in Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine, Russia, and now Lebanon again. You can't believe the static I get.

As for the early days of nukes, it's a bit of an outstanding question. There's no direct evidence, but I would surmise that "Their" script called for nukes as the grand finale of WW2 to usher in the Cold War/M.A.D. phase of controlled history. Since they hadn't completed the engineering, they just faked it and caught up behind the scenes.

(Side note: the evidence is that nukes had been available since ancient times, so they knew it was possible and apparently planned around that, but they just didn't do their homework soon enough.)

As far as covering up an actual event at Roswell, I throw that right out. To accept that thesis, you have to believe that a UFO crashed aaaaaaaaaand all the other stuff I wrote up was pure coincidence. I reject virtually every coincidence these days.

I mean, suppose they found the "Jupiter 2" from "Lost in Space" with a bunch of dead alien Robinsons on it. The military boxes it all up and tells everyone it was a regular old weather balloon. It's way the hell out in desert, in a very rural area. Who would even notice this event, let alone have the evidence to challenge it? They tell "Mac" to STFU and that's the end of it.

It turns out that Ramey was definitely in on the fakery too. It's a bit of a long detective story to understand the precise events and circumstances that make that clear. I didn't mention it, but rather than having the shitstorm end his career running the most highly sensitive outfit in the military, Blanchard ended up a 4-star Vice Chair of the USAF. The Chairman was Hoyt S. Vandenberg, who just before the Roswell incident had left his job as CIA director. Rewards for a job well done, I'd say. I'll have to write all this up one of these days.

The oddest thing about the whole Roswell psychodrama is that they just dropped it right afterwards, and it stayed unknown for over 30 years. Seems like a lot of effort for little payback, but there you have it. It was resurrected in the 70's by Stanton Friedman (who was an asset), and now it's flogged by Kevin Randle (who is also an asset).

None of this takes away from the "UFO phenomenon". But the dynamic you have to see is that every minute interested persons spend on researching and discussing the phony Roswell incident is a minute they do not spend on researching and discussing and getting to the bottom of the "UFO phenomenon". As I mentioned, disinfo is about divorcing you from the truth.