I just wanted to pause a second to make a meta-point about revelations such a these.
In the before-times, each of these incidents would have caused some level of scandal, leading to discussion for many days or even weeks, both in the mainstream and the conspir-o-sphere (the perspectives and agenda being different, of course).
Now, there is a steady rain of these bombshells, which I daresay is unprecedented. In conspiracy circles, there is heavy shilling to be expected as a matter of course, but each of these passes away in a day or three because the next one has dropped.
On the other hand, in mainstream circles they have reached the point of flatly denying certain things exist that are easily corroborated. The fate of domestic animals in Ohio is now the textbook example. There are no justifications, or promises to investigate, or any of the other standard bullshit responses. We have jumped a quantum level in gaslighting.
I don't say we've reached "peak gaslighting", because for the imaginative there is a long way to go: Trump dropped out of the race, Trump is dead and we're seeing a body double. Republican Haitians have contaminated the Capitol Building with AIDS and electoral votes can't be counted until remediation is done by astronauts now stranded in the ISS, etc. The sky is the limit!
As I have said many times, we're really getting down to it and this meta-point goes on the pile of evidence for that. What that "it" may be, I do not know.
That question traces back to the fundamental question concerns the origin of consciousness itself: is consciousness a phenomenon emergent from physical processes in the Universe, or is it... something other than that:
A maverick physicist named John Wheeler wondered about this half a century ago, and you can read more about this very curious fellow here:
Physicist John Wheeler and the “It from Bit” (6/29/2023)
Wheeler was one of the first prominent physicists to propose that reality might not be wholly physical; in some sense, our cosmos must be a “participatory” phenomenon requiring the act of observation--and thus consciousness itself.
This is a carefully crafted message meant to be picked up by certain Trump supporters.
He is certainly just as aware as I am that TMC (or whoever was on the roof) was not the assassin, and further that the real assassination plot involved both on-site security personnel and elements of the leadership of SS, FBI and DOJ. That's very close to him and they very nearly succeeded.
Yet he had has almost nothing to say about it, willing to let stand the wildly suspicious actions and statements of those who are supposed to be investigating it.
The reason for this is a deliberate choice on Trump's part. He could easily press the position, "They tried to kill me. You think they won't rig the election? If they say Kamala won, don't you think that marks the formal end of the constitutional republic? What do you have left to lose after that, besides everything?"
On point, to be sure, but it's putting out fire with gasoline. He has chosen the path of (hopefully) peace with a "too big to rig" strategy. That is, the specific numbers in the election become unimportant. What is important is that everybody knows he won, and--this is the crucial point--everybody knows that everybody else knows he won. As Lincoln phrased it, "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."
You don't attract people under the big tent by frightening them, telling them that the foundations of the world they think they live in are made of sand and scorpions. He has chosen the fairly conventional and persuasive political message that, "Everything in the world has turned to shit since these other hacks got their hands on it, but I can fix it." So he stays silent about the deeply disturbing, inflammatory, and divisive attempted murder.
Coincident with that silence (and perhaps deliberately amplified because of it), the strongest disinfo gambit has been "it was all fake". Given Trump's silence, it seems even some supporters could reasonably begin to have doubts.This is a message to them.
The subtle message that is to be understood by them--almost certainly subconsciously--is that at the highest levels, they know we're all being lied to about this and no one has gotten to the bottom of anything, but Trump & Co. are still on the case. Message received.
The way I would describe it, really, is a paradigm shift. One way you can characterize a difference in paradigms is that it is flatly impossible to reason your way from one paradigm to the other. In essence, this is a practical definition of how the limits of a paradigm are established.
The classic example is the geocentric paradigm, with the Earth at the center and the planets moving in perfect circles. When they could not properly account for the observed movements of the planets... they just added more perfect circles called "epicycles". Still wrong? Add more epicycles and ask for more funding. See how that will never get you there?
Copernicus comes along with simple and straightforward ideas: the Sun is at the center and the planets--including Earth--move in ellipses. Rather than being evaluated, these ideas are rejected without examination because they lie outside the paradigm. They don't say that, of course, because a consciousness trapped in a paradigm does not recognize that fact. Rather, that brain will always come up with reasons why Copernicus is full of it. And it all makes perfect sense... within the hermetically (haha) sealed paradigm.
Even the very word "believe" loses what we take to be it's meaning and we have to be disciplined as to it's use. Suppose your average Democrat "believes" Kamala to be the correct choice for President. Is it the case that an unbiased and open consciousness has been presented with evidence and reasoning both for and against this position, and now "believes" it to be the most rational?
Of course not. It is akin to an "article of faith" in the religious context. It is accepted without question. To challenge it--even in the sanctity of one's own mind, let alone in public--is a grave sin. It then becomes irrational. Does one question a geometric axiom?
But to confess a blind faith is, in our society at the present time, also considered to be a failure. Thus, they'll make up whatever facts and arguments are necessary to "prove" to all the a-holes how "right" they really are. See how it works?
They actually say it plainly:
Satanic Temple Attacks Texas Abortion Law, Argues That it Violates Their ‘Religious Freedom’ to ‘Abortion Rituals’ (The Gateway Pundit 9/5/2021)
I'm reminded of something disturbing mentioned by former Satanic priest Mark Passio. As he was leaving, he said, "I'm going to expose you! I'm going to tell everyone what you're doing."
Surprisingly, they responded, "Go ahead. We could tell them ourselves, and they wouldn't believe us either." Even more surprisingly, that points the way forward.
It is demonstrably not a matter of discovering the truth, or even of showing that truth to others. The problem lies beyond that, in the consciousness of each person and how it functions. And I hear people just ascribe it to "sinfulness" or "our fallen nature", I find that to be incredibly lazy, naive and even bigoted, and thus an additional part of the problem.
The key observations concern the blood trails on his head from the close up photo. Another key photo surfaced which showed his body, his rifle 6-7' away, no blood trail down the roof, and no one else on the roof. These together tell a particular tale.
This patsy was used only as a distraction and then executed. The fatal shot came from the second floor window of the adjacent building overlooking the location. Like a fish in a barrel.
It was almost certainly a 5.56 round, fired from one of the generic M4's that everybody and his brother was carrying around that day. It entered the right side of the back of his head and did not exit, as there is no blood on the roof to the left side of the head. As I understand it, the ideal sniper shot involves some brain structure directly behind the eyes towards the back of the head and causes instant death. I would surmise that target was easily hit.
As the report states, it took 11 minutes for some, let's say, "normal" cops to get up to the roof. Immediately after the shooting, though, either the executioner or a nearby accomplice went up to the roof, made sure he was dead, and swapped out his original rifle for the bullshit one now in "evidence". That was before the blood trail even had time to run down past the body.
The patsy was dead, so blood was just slowly leaking out of his head. If you look closely at the pictures, you can see several separate sources. His sinuses were disrupted, so you can see blood out of his ears, nose and mouth. Totally separately, though, you can see blood trails running down both below and above his ear from behind. That was blood draining from the entrance wound on the side of his head.
Again, whoever this guy was he was only a patsy, meant to take all the blame and to tell no tales. His specific identity is unimportant at the current time, because no one without subpoena power is going to find out any more about him.
The Leftists talk incessantly about Trump's manufactured "legal problems", and I think they have to do their utmost to hide their erotic arousal. It's not just that Maya Rupert and Jonathan Capehart find no hypocrisy or even irony in these present comments, no other Leftist does, at least in the evidentiary record.
What I'm trying to point out is not that these people are hypocritical Leftists, it is that these people think fundamentally differently than what is universally assumed. It is, in fact, specifically that differing process of (what would incorrectly be called) "rationality" that makes them both Leftists and appear hypocritical.
See, if you pinned one down about it, asking whether this was a hypocritical position, they would manufacture a rationale for why it was not. Crucially, they would not begin their response with something like, "It would certainly appear hypocritical, but let me offer these additional facts and reasoning...." That's because they have never evaluated whether it might be hypocritical.
They begin with the correct conclusion (ie, "correct" as it manifests in their own consciousness). Obviously (to them) it is well-justified, involves no hypocrisy, and is supported by all the evidence. Everything after that is just waving their hands and making noises at the wrong people who disagree.
This article provides a good amount of detail on the elaborate plan devised and executed by Hezbollah, originally from a Lebanese source linked in the text:
Hezbollah Attack on August 25 Killed One of Israel’s Highest Ranking Military Officers! (VT Foreign Policy 9/3/2024)
If it ain't the truth, then someone missed their calling writing "Tom Clancy" novels.
A long time ago, Mark Dice got in a fight with Brian Stelter, who had criticized his book. Dice pointed out that he was sitting alone in this house and still had a bigger audience than Stelter. It was only many years later that Bri-Bri rolled off into the muddy ditch beside the road.
What I realized way back then was that mainstream media was an animated corpse. What I came to realize over the years is that very few people--normies and conspiracists alike--recognize this "Weekend at Bernie's" situation. They continue to internally conceptualize the mainstream as being as influential as it always was.
I realize now that's the kind of magic "They" actually rely on, which can metaphorically animate corpses. I must say it works well.
What I suspect (and find hilarious) is that Tenet Media is indeed a covert influence operation, but it's one set up by the CIA or similar organization. To mix metaphors, the wheels are really coming off lately and they've stepped on their own dick.
That is, these networks are constructed of personalities pushing "safe dangerous" material. Do they ever say anything you couldn't find just scrolling up and down r/conspiracy? Of course not. As long as they're doing more good than harm, their messages can be shaped.
Their protests to the contrary, it's just like training animals: you make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard. Millions and millions of dollars are floating around for fucking podcasts yet none of these geniuses ever questioned whether they might be assets. That sole fact is conclusive both that they are assets and that the program is working well.
Actually, it's possible that they were deliberately sacrificed for the greater good. I never view any of these people's content because you can smell them a mile away, but No Agenda played a clip of Tim Poole saying that Ukraine is the worst enemy America has and they should be cut loose immediately. Okay, that kind of talk is verboten for sure.
So maybe the conscious decision was made to cut all these fuckers loose, given that there are a hundred others standing behind each of them. As They do so, they get to lay out their carcasses and say, "Would you look at these motherfucking Rooskie whores? Disgusting!"
To mix metaphors again, it's a bloodsport and we're dealing with cornered animals. None of this comes as a surprise (to me, anyway).
Bannon says plainly what the problem is with himself and many others: he's a Christian Zionist.
Christian Zionism is a worse and more dangerous religious zealotry that regular Zionism. First, these kooks can be just as bloodthirsty because they're doing it for Jesus and not simple religious and ethnic bigotry. Second, no one seems to know about them, making the entire operation covert in terms of the public consciousness. Third, they're Americans in America with their hands on the reins of global influence, not a bunch of Yids in a Third World shithole on the edge of the desert.
I guess my point is that when "conspiracists" believe they're really on to something and go looking for how these people are crypto-Jews or take AIPAC campaign contributions or their kids are married to Heebs, well, I know I shouldn't, but frankly I have to laugh at their ignorance. They will never find anything because they're barking up the wrong forest.
The reason I shouldn't laugh is that a handful of such engaged people might actually be of service to get the word out about Christian Zionism.
(PS: I bet I made a lot of new friends writing this.)
When the Russian leadership is asked, from time to time, who they might prefer as US president, they invariably say that it's inappropriate to even comment on another country's internal political matter. Of course, the Biden Administration could cite this as proof of the Rooskies' utter deviousness but they never mention it.
I give them credit for being smart enough not to Streisand the hell out of the issue and just go with pure fabrication.
I'd add this one:
RING OF POWER EMPIRE OF THE CITY
As I watched it, I was surprised at the number of items that had fallen out of the conversation and I had not heard mentioned in many years
Long ago I thought something like this was a good idea. It's not. At all. It's just another psyop to buy time or distract or give false hope or--finger crossed!--cement Their fascism.
The proof is this: if TPTB don't give a shit about the current Constitution, why would anyone think They would give a shit about any revision?
The key practical observation is this: the Constitution was fundamentally to restrain the government, but TPTB only talk about it when it empowers them or restrains others. They never ever ever mention it when it restrains their own power. The sole exception to that is when it serves as an alibi ("Well, I sure would have done that for you but, you know, the Constitution and all, amirite?")
Looking deeper, the situation is this: constitutions are fine and all so everyone can have some idea of what was explicitly agreed on, but in the end, honorable men will do honorable things, and dishonorable men will do dishonorable things. There is no piece of parchment with ink splattered on it that alters that.
In the classic Western, "The Outlaw Josey Wales":, the character of Ten Bears sums it up eloquently: "No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men."
PS: The one instance that comes to mind of a politician candidly acknowledging that the Constitution restrained his actions was--you guessed it--DJT. During the pandemic, some dumbshit reporter asked him if it wasn't "irresponsible" or whatever that he didn't lock down the country. He said it was not a good idea, and besides, he was not empowered to do so (his words) "by something called the Constitution".
How bad is it when people have to be reminded of such things?
This is an important discovery so we are handed a fundamental diversion from what it implies. How could we expect otherwise?
They pass off the implication as an "Assyrian influence". All the smart people already know that, since Assyria was right next door. But of course it's Assyrian! Is that all? No.
A more detailed description of the item and it's context is in this article:
‘Extremely rare, beautiful’ First Temple-era ‘genie’ seal discovered in Jerusalem 2,700-year-old stone seal is inscribed with the words ‘Yehoʼezer son of Hoshʼayahu’; its image of a protective winged demon or genie betrays Assyrian influence (Times of Israel 8/29/2024)
It is likely that the owner was a senior official during the Kingdom of Judah and used the seal to sign documents or certificates, the IAA said.
But think about that: a top-level Jew is using the image of a pagan deity to seal official documentation. Does that make sense? It should draw our attention as much as seeing an bishop wave bye-bye with the mano cornuto (and no, he's not at the rock show).
Also, two names are inscribed on the seal: Yehoʼezer and Hoshʼayahu. They describe the importance as being that these names are very similar to names of characters in the Bible. Sure, okay, but that's not the important part. Another diversion.
The "yeho" and the "yahu" in those names are variants of Yahweh. The first name means something like "Yahweh is preeminent" and the second "Yahweh has helped". So clearly, father and son thought Yahweh was a great guy, didn't they?
That's a big problem: the Bible says the Juden slipped back and forth from paganism, but here we have both Yahweh, paganism, and official Jewdom combined in a single object. Can the circle be squared?
The answer is yes, but this post has gone on long enough. Such a thing as discussed here is far from the only instance. Another one--also entirely ignored--concerns the very city of Jerusalem.
The Jews had a millennium to name the city whatever they wanted. They could do so now, if they so pleased. Nor is it all that strange an idea, since the Muslims already refer to it as Al Quds ("The Holy").
It turns out the name Jerusalem comes originally from "uru shalem", which means something like "the city of Shalim". And who is Shalim? A pagan deity, of the Ugarit pantheon to be precise. Is the city named after a pagan god when it should be named after Yahweh?
Well, maybe it already is.
I haven't watched Suspicious0bservers in a long time, but the current channel I'm very slowly trying to make my way through is Sylvie Ivanowa's NewEarth. I had considered myself familiar with her work but I went back to the very beginning of her channel and found some things that were entirely new to me and quite startling.
One of those subjects came in a four part series called "Ruins of Old Earth, a Gary Schoenung Documentary" posted 10/3/2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExzeKeJQ_lI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtlfvK37LZs&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HRVUrmkgs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alLm9YVneBg
Interestingly, there's no narration and the long videos just zoom from site to site on Google Earth. It's far beyond any compilation of documented ancient sites and it seems like it goes on forever.
What I personally gathered from it is that most of the Earth was covered by innumerable ancient sacred structures, connected to one another by sacred geometry. There's no trace of this in the historical record and no researchers are pursuing the topic. In fact, I think the popular researchers were put forth to divert and keep us away form the topic.
I thought we knew little about the ancient history of the planet, and I flattered myself that I knew more than most about that little. Then I came to find out how little I really know.
Learning how ignorant you are becomes a real theme!... lol
To be honest, it's a peek into how truly bizarre things are and how far the whole world has gone beyond the looking glass. This is aside from any outrage or other reaction.
The admitted pretext is that one single baby got paralyzed, and this was less than a week previously. Just a tiny point among all other "ongoing circumstances" is: do any governments--let alone ones at war--ever move that fast? You end up having to ask yourself the question, "How could anyone possibly believe this, let alone virtually everyone?"
When you focus on this simple question, the inevitable conclusion is that human "rationality" is nothing at all like what we we're all supposed to think it is.
No, never heard of that site, but that's really the theme of this kind of research: when you think you have a handle on how strange the story of the world really is, you stumble on something new that forces you to believe it must be even stranger than that.
The workmanship on the granite in those caves is strikingly similar to that of certain of the these sarcophagi:
Lighting Up Saqqara: An Electrifying Theory for the Serapeum Sarcophagi (Ancient Origins 1/28/2022)
Scroll around or watch one of the videos and you'll see the ones I'm referring to: absolutely smooth black granite and corners it looks like you could cut yourself on.
And one thing I forgot to mention in the pole shift material is that it seems clear to me that the whole event was trigger by a comet impact about 13,000 years ago:
Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
You'll see they work extremely hard to tell you it's all BS. But if we accept it and start to put together what really happened, you'll find a lot of history can be tied to it, everything from the pole shift to the Great Flood to Gobekli Tepe.
It's been years and years since I looked at the subject, so the links I have may no longer work. I'm sorry to do it this way but let me just dump the list on you, and if they aren't live or archived the titles may be enough to track them down. (Also, sometimes when you search on the titles, you stumble across things equally or even more interesting!):
Pole shift hypothesis The Equator 12,500 Years Ago?
Ancient Equator 12,500 years ago and Richat Structure Atlantis
PART I - GEOGRAPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
Update – The Only Writings Left by the True Builders of the Pyramid Decoded.
Keep in mind I didn't save the links because they were God's honest truth, but only, "Hm, I'll have to sort through this one of these days." Good hunting!
It's pretty hazy, but as I've put it together there was a crustal displacement and a pole shift in the not too distant past. The big anomalies that come up are:
-
There's more ice in Greenland than there should be, according to mainstream history.
-
There's too little ice in the Antarctic, according to mainstream history.
-
The Piri Reis map shows Antarctica connected to South America.
-
There's evidence of extremely rapid cooling at certain sites.
-
A collection of ancient sites are located along a great circle, which seems to have been the former Equator.
It goes on with various other strange evidence, including that "They" do not want anyone talking about any of this. It's possible that other topics like Atlantis, Gobekli Tepe, and the Great Flood were just angles on this same event.
The first one had to be done in plain view, so we would all "know what had happened". This time around they were willing to take the psychology down a notch in return for effectiveness.
Specifically, they line up some unstable dumbass and do it in out of public view. Without seeing it for ourselves, we would have to take the word of the "authorities" as to what happened, but it would still look "true enough". The patsy can be suicided any time he begins to say things not in the script.
Who's next in the batting order? How about... one of his security detail turns out to have a homicidal case of TDS? "Oh well, maybe the mainstream should not have been so divisive. But what's done is done and, after all, Trump brought it on himself for threatening democracy."