WARNING: Another long, rambling post to get it out of my system and on to the Internet so it can live in true obscurity.
Everyone needs the TL;DR to get hooked, so here it is: Foster is connected to “Them” (the ones whose names you are not familiar with), was involved in the Reagan assassination, is a psychopath, and is a no-talent artificial Hollyweird “star” handed down to us like all the rest of our popular culture.
I know I won’t be offending any Jodie Foster fans because she doesn’t have any. Odd, is it not, considering she’s one of America’s A-list movie stars with a career going strong into it’s sixth decade? That’s because she was packaged up and shoved in our faces without letup, as is so painfully obvious with today’s hottest celebs.
There’s a point to this writeup, and it’s not to bash Foster. Actually, it’s to note the opposite. You never thought much about her before--nor did I until very recently--and when you did it was only what “everybody knew” about her, particularly her incidence with the Reagan assassination attempt. But you see, when “They” don’t wish you to notice something, almost no one will (and I include myself in that group). Over “secrecy”, “failure to notice” is a much bigger part of how They keep secrets.
But I have found that when see a rock with the slightest intrigue to it and take the time to kick it over, I will almost always find things I did not notice before and that may have some importance. Kicking rocks over seems like too much effort for most people these days, but I’ll do the kicking and we can all take a look underneath the rock called “Jodie Foster”….
What caused me to look at any of this in the first place? Well, it was stumbling into this article, little-noted and long-forgotten:
HINCKLEY'S FATHER TELLS THE COURT, 'I AM THE CAUSE OF JOHN'S TRAGEDY' (New York Times 5/13/1982)
Their 26-year-old son stared stonily into space. But this afternoon, John W. Hinckley Jr. reacted strongly to the videotaped deposition of another defense witness, Jodie Foster, a film actress. And when her voice said coolly, ''I don't have any relationship with John Hinckley,'' he abruptly stood up from the defense table and walked out the back door of the courtroom, with three guards in his wake.
Hang on, did I read that right? He walked out of his own trial for attempted murder? Is that something we can all do but were simply ignorant of the option? No, of course not. The trial was phony.
If you watch the handful of mainstream interviews with Junior—extremely brief and without content, as you may imagine—you might observe, as I did, that he is a bit dim and emotionally underdeveloped, perhaps with a touch of the ‘tism. Very manipulable, in other words. (But not straight up retarded, and therefore unsuitable for FBI work.)
Which brings us to the outburst itself: what caused such an intense reaction in this otherwise “stony” and detached man? I propose that he heard something that he knew was a flat fucking lie and just couldn’t stand it. My basic thesis is that Senior worked with Foster to talk him into it under some pretense, and that Mommy went along with it all because Junior was a bit “slow”, and life in a mental hospital was not much different than any other state institution. All for the best, as always.
In that same article, another strange comment backs up the thesis about Dad’s involvement. You’d think he’d say something like, “I wish I’d handled John just a little differently so that all this didn’t happen,” right? Wrong:
The father of the man who shot President Reagan testified this morning, in a voice laden with emotion, ''I am the cause of John's tragedy'' and ''I wish to God that I could trade places with him right now.''
Well, well. As I would have it, the first part is the pure truth, is it not? Perhaps the second even expresses some regret after the fact. A sobbing Mommy was soon escorted from the courtroom, so maybe she just could not take the shit show either.
Foster herself is not just some ordinary person, but connected to “Them”, in case you had any doubts. Her Dad was just some deadbeat who bailed before she was even born, we are told. Well, her older brother is Buddy Foster, but his real name is Lucius Fisher Foster IV. Do you know any IV’s? I actually did meet a IV once, but let’s admit such bloodlines are pretty damn rare.
Their father was Air Force Lt Col Lucius Fisher Foster III. He was born in Denver and I don’t think that’s just trivia. Junior was living in Evergreen, a western exburb of Denver, at the time of the attempted assassination. (I’m planning a whole long boring post on the strange associations emanating from there, but that must wait for another time.)
The father of III is linked as Lucius Fisher Foster, also born in Denver. But that’s not right: the dates are right but he should be II. Well, we’re being fucked around genealogically, that’s why. This is how They snip those red strings. We also have not a whisper what he did in the military. Very suspicious, though, is the mere fact he was a Lieutenant Colonel. Having read through hundreds of Miles Mathis’s papers exposing psyops, it’s absolutely stunning how often that rank shows up in relatives of participants in said psyops. Miles suspected it was the highest rank that could be given to military spooks without drawing undue attention.
And did I say Jodie is a psychopath? The tables are turned, Lecter! And the apple apparently did not fall far from the tree. Take a look at the gems in this article:
Jodie Foster's father jailed over scam (ABC.au 12/9/2011)
"Despite your personal charm, you are dangerous," the judge said at the courthouse in Van Nuys, just north of Los Angeles, telling Foster that he was "continuing your business as we speak."
"He's either the liar of the century or he's delusional," she said. "Either way he's dangerous. It does not matter that he's 89 years old ... We all know what he's capable of."
Yikes! Sounds like a psychopath who just can’t stop predating even in his “golden years”. But does that mean Jodie is a psycho, too? Watch this video and see if you fail to notice what I failed to notice:
Jodie Foster press conference in April 1981 after Reagan was shot FULL INTERVIEW (4/12/1981)
I failed to notice any negative emotional affect. None. Just blank affect interspersed with smiles and light laughs. Keep in mind this is about two weeks after the incident where two people, Reagan and Brady, were gravely wounded. You’ll see more upset by telling someone in a departure lounge that their flight will be delayed by 30 minutes, particularly if they have a connection. (And is anyone reminded of the strange Apollo 11 press conference, just coming from a different angle?)
In brief, psychos don’t have normal emotional reactions. As a necessary tool of survival among other people, they carefully learn to act as if they’re experiencing emotions. Like an actor, if you will. Someone apparently forgot to tell Jodie how to act in this, her most crucial role.
Let’s finish up with Ms. Foster’s movie career. Did you know she was the prototype for the Disney child star? I did not realize that until I looked: Disney Fandom: Jodie Foster. Starting all the way back in 1972, she was in four Disney movies in five years. Looking at this list of Walt Disney Pictures films, none look suspicious until, half a year before Foster’s first film for them, we find Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Did you know that the film was based on books titled The Magic Bedknob; or, How to Become a Witch in Ten Easy Lessons and Bonfires and Broomsticks. I read once that “bonfire” originally comes from “Baal fire”. Who knows, but it appears the Dark Artists arrived around 1971 and started churning them out. (Some might push it back to 1969 and say that The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes was actually about transhumanism, but I don’t feel the need to go that far. Plus, Kurt Russell is a conservative now. Plus, how dare you give Snake Plissken any side eye.)
Now don’t click the link yet, but Jodie’s breakout film as an adult was, of course, The Accused, a highly controversial movie about a gang rape. Is that what audiences demanded? No, not even on PornHub. Can you say “cultural degradation”? Okay, if I claim Foster is an Illuminati puppet, what symbology might you expect to see in the movie poster? Go ahead and click that link.
The real attention is based on Jodie’s role in the film, Taxi Driver, where she plays a 12-year-old prostitute. Can you say “cultural degradation”? We are told this was the origination of Hinckley’s obsession. When I finally got around to watching it decades after the fact--just to find out what all the fuss was about--I thought for the longest time I had the wrong movie. Cybill Shepard (who is stunning) plays the female lead, while Foster has a tiny part and doesn’t come in until very late. Continue to accept this “obsession” as a plot element of the assassination attempt, if you insist.
Quick addition: I almost forgot to mention her forgettable film, Panic Room. Can you say “strategy of tension”?
Finally, let’s back up and look at the 30,000’ view: how in the hell did Jodie Foster have such an outstanding career? What’s her most notable movie? The Silence of the Lambs, of course. Is it because of anything she did? Nope. What’s her most memorable line? “Well hello, Clarice”, or whichever Mandela version you choose. Whoops, it was Anthony Hopkins who said that! Now, who among your friends does the best Jodie Foster impression? Well… after half a century she’s really left no impression at all, has she?
There are various other lies and contradictions and suspicious behavior and phoniness, but if I haven’t driven the point deep into the ground by this time, I never will. In any case, for anyone that has stuck it out this far, I hope you enjoyed the ride and thanks for flying!
PS: I mentioned known disinfo agent Miles Mathis. I find that my writing style comes out unavoidably like his. I read over 3,000 pages of his work and that is going to have an effect, right? Anyway, I’ve been waiting for someone to accuse me of being some sort of MM spinoff project, now that the original has gotten so ridiculous. I now feel like I need to keep upping my game In order to be suspected of being a high-level CIA disinfo writing team. I’ll try!
PPS: I always wonder if counter-intelligence agents read my posts. (They should!) I like to fuck with their heads by writing stuff like the PS. And this PPS.
WARNING: This post ended up much longer than I expected. It will be long and boring to almost everyone, about an event from long ago that has little direct relevance to any current events. But if you have the slightest interest, you’ll read some things I have not ever seen noted anywhere else and I think you will find you “didn’t expect all this”. I sure didn’t. Also, I’ll end with a comment as to why it may have been a crucial failure for TPTB.
Why write all this? I have this strange compulsion to speak truths out into the Universe. Maybe that’s because I just like being contrary to TPTB, who control history by speaking lies into the Universe longer than anyone else can speak the truth. Yes, it’s a drop in the ocean of the fight against them, but the ocean is made of drops, is it not? If you’re still here, let’s begin….
For the vast majority of the population, the attempted assassination of President Reagan is not even a blip on the radar, even though it is well within living memory. The normies that are aware of it know the story as, “John Hinckley Jr. shoots Reagan to impress Jodie Foster”. Note that this is a reinforcement to the “lone nut with a gun” meme, not even twenty years after they gave us the first telling of that tale.
We were also introduced to the novel meme of “deranged stalker”, and “They” have gotten a lot of mileage from that, have They not? Take a look at this: Erotomania: Well-known cases. This “disorder” barely exists outside of Hinckley. But then again, Wiki says the DSM-5 says it’s real, so it’s real.
Alternatively, conspiracy theorists know the story as, “son of Bush crony tries to kill Reagan so Bush can become President”. Yes, that’s certainly true and that’s where the theorists stop. I’ve been satisfied with that explanation myself for many years, but I never really thought it through. Here’s the part in the story that separates conspiracy theorists from truth-seekers: when you kick over a rock, truth-seekers must be prepared to throw out what they thought before and take a look at new findings. Okay, last chance to turn back….
The mainstream takes pains to tell us that Hinckley shot Reagan with a Röhm RG-14, “known as a Saturday night special, a general category of cheap, low quality handguns”. JHJR did not bring much of a gun for this job, did he? Really, it’s about as low-rent as you can go and have a normal person even consider it a “gun” (unless that person is a Democrat, but then again I did say “normal”).
What can you do with that kind of firepower? It’s terrifying! Shooting six rounds of .22LR from a snubnose revolver in a chaotic situation, Hinckley confirmed two near fatalities and two complete incapacitations. Wow! He would kick Wick’s dick in, would he not? Super Soldier Hinckley, reporting for duty!
Wellllll… I do not believe it. Not in the slightest.
Everybody knows about Reagan and Hinckley, but go back and look at footage of the other two “victims”. They are face down on the sidewalk, completely motionless. No blood, of course, but not clutching at wounds or moaning or writhing or swearing profusely about being shot. Complete incapacitation through a mechanism no one seems to have ever wondered about.
Is 22 Long Rifle God’s own caliber? No. It can certainly be fatal in exactly the correct circumstances, but here’s something for comparison: a story about a guy who accidentally shot himself with a .25 ACP (something everyone would consider more powerful) and he did not realize it until he had some knee pain, went to the ER, and doctors dug out a bullet:
The Wound Report: Always Bring Enough Gun (TTAG 2/8/2024)
Okay then, what really happened on March 30, 1981 outside the Washington Hilton?
It’s a longer story I’ll have to post separately about, but (1) there’s more to the Hinckleys than you think, and (2) it looks like Jodie Foster is yet another Illuminati puppet and was directly involved. You’ll have to accept those provisionally until I get to it, but I speculate that Foster and Senior talked Junior into playing his part (literally)
At a guess, she may have told him he was going to be in a movie and it was all just a set. An “assistant director” handed him a gun with blanks then, at the right time, told him to walk to his mark and fire. That’s about all that was needed from him for the psyop, but it served as the crucial distraction for all the rest of the action.
Reagan was shot by a real assassin on a balcony overlooking the scene, and he came close but failed. All talk of this has been suppressed, but if you look around you can find that a mysterious figure--never identified, of course--was seen on the balcony by several witnesses. This was reported at the time by Judy Woodruff. She is now a prominent Establishment mouthpiece. Is it a stretch to imagine her whole career is down to falling silent about her “brush with history”?
The other two we’ve talked about: they just fell down on the sidewalk. Not hard to pull off. Interestingly, I watched three brief mainstream interviews with Junior after his release. Throughout his profuse apologies, Hinckley never mentioned them by name. Like, “Sorry about the other people, too.” Pretty heartfelt, given only 40 years to reflect on his actions. Only one of the three reporters ever states their names. Why? Those other two VicSims are to be removed from your consciousness, lest the light goes on in your head about those fakers like it did in mine.
Finally, James Brady. I don’t even care enough about any of this to look in to his story, but let me assume his gunshot injury was real. I’d speculate that, in all the confusion, someone just stepped up next to him and popped him in the head. Maybe it could have been anybody and it turned out to be Brady. Then they could have presented us with at least one real victim to focus on, taking our eyes off the late President.
Interestingly, a distraction shooter and a real one simply walking up and firing is exactly what conspiracists are supposed to believe happened at the RFK assassination. Double-interestingly, the RFK assassination was faked. Triple-interestingly, If you work through all the permutations of what you believe about this aspect with Brady and RFK, you’ll either agree with me, agree with the normies, or be a hypocrite. All pretty bad, right?
Anyway, in the Reagan event, instead of dying Brady just got his brain fucked up or whatever. Well, even better (for Them)! Look at the incredible mileage They got out of him towards gun control. Immeasurable. Instead of only a martyr to the cause of gun grabbing, how incredibly effective it is to have someone with a fucked up head who talks like a retard going around saying guns ‘r’ bad, m’kay?
It was so effective that we saw a repeat of all this with the fake Gabbie Giffords. Note that They did not get a fraction out of her of what They did with Brady. I think that’s because she wasn’t actually fucked up. People could detect that on a subconscious level and refused to buy in. That reflexively goes back to Brady to indicate he really was shot. In any case, They shuffled Gabbie’s dumb ass off the stage now.
If you made it this far, I promised I would give some sort of justification as to why you should think any of this is important. Here it is as a counter-factual: what if the plan had actually succeeded? Bush the Elder gets in four years earlier, and maybe the Reign of Magog then extends for an additional term. All of “Their” plans are much farther along. Specifically, Obama the “set up pitcher” does his job, and Hellary successfully comes in as the “closer”.
They say the bullet stopped less than an inch from Reagan’s heart.
NOTE: Obviously, you’re going to have to take my word for some stuff when we get to the Satan part, but by that time you may be more of a mind to do so. Alternatively, if you think that--rather than simply discovering that which is there to be discovered—I am creative enough to just invent all this out of unrelated bits and bobs, well… I appreciate the compliment! Let’s begin….
“Pharos”, the shitcoin in question, seems to have come along in August 2023, as you can see in their whitepaper (31-page PDF). IDK what such whitepapers are normally like, but this one reads like it came right out of ChatGPT. On very casual page-downing, I did notice a few items worth mentioning.
First, it is not searchable. It’s all just a giant image. Even old texts scanned by Google three decades ago are searchable. What’s the deal here? Weird, right?
Second, because of that, don’t bother searching for “plato” but just go to page 23. It says, “Plato considered the ideal polis….” You be the judge, but the reference seems really forced. Why is it really here? Well, the utopia of Plato’s Republic includes no rights and a caste system where almost everyone is a slave. Maybe that’s why the reference is here, huh?
Third, remember that famous cover from The Economist, 9-15 January 1988? It’s getting harder to find now, BTW. Take a look at that symbol in the center of the phoenix’s medallion. You’ll notice it repeated at the top of page 28 of the whitepaper. I can assure you it’s no accident.
Anyway, I posted about it this before here, but the handful that bother noticing that symbol and thinking about it will instantaneously conclude that it’s the Greek letter “phi”. Alright, so that’s either part of the name of the organization behind “Pharos”, or the first part of the name of that phoenix they are showing you, right? Wrong.
It’s a sly reference by “Them” to the null sign, which is visually identical. The null sign represents the “empty set”, that is, the set with nothing in it. Funny, right? They take pains to tell you it’s some Scandinavian symbol. Are you reassured? Not me. And Pharos is trading as we speak for $0.0005116.
Okay, on to what They are googlewashing out of existence: “Pharos coins”. Now that the cryptocurrency exists, see if you casually run into any of the following by searching that phrase. You never knew it existed before, and the objective is that you never will.
(Here’s the part where you have to start accepting certain things provisionally, but when you see how it all begins to fit together, maybe the bar will be lowered.)
Money was invented by Satan for purposes of control. You might even have thought so before, but I’ll fill in the details. To keep you from reaching the basic realizations, They do an incredible amount of hand-waving in mainstream sources but they admit this fact right in the History of money:
The first manufactured actual coins seem to have appeared separately in India, China, and the cities around the Aegean Sea 7th century BC.
Really? All these widely separated cultures just decided to invent coinage at the same time. Suuuuure, buddy, you bet. It turns out that Satan took over about 600 BC, so they’re just imprecise in their dating or smearing it to keep you from realizing this all took place virtually simultaneously.
The very first coins Satan created, which we will talk about in detail in a moment, were known as “Pharos coins”. You can see them discussed here, in Ancient Greek coinage. Oh wait, no you can’t! “Pharos” is not even mentioned. They erased those coins from existence! But you can see that numismatists still know they exist, are you can see from this coinnerd: “Finally a Pharos”.
(So now here again is a difficult part: it turns out that Satan was real and living on the Earth, and was known by various cultures by various names. He was Zeus to the Greeks, Amon Ra to the Egyptians, and Marduk to the Sumerians, among many other names. Also, let me note that “Marduk” comes originally from “young bull of the Sun”. And yes, I should write a book about who Satan really is and the real history of the Earth, but I’m very lazy. Assuming you accept all that provisionally….)
“Pharos coins” as referenced by that coinnerd, feature the “Lighthouse of Alexandria”. Without even getting in to the “light bringer” stuff, we can say that Alexandria was formerly known as Heliopolis, or the “City of the Sun”. See where we’re heading?
Now we move to a mint in a city named “Pharos” on an island in the eastern Adriatic. Somehow no scholar with edit access to wiki knows about this, but we can find out more about those “Pharos coins” here: Greek-Illyrian coinage of the central Adriatic region: an overview:
The dominant iconographical motif that appears on the coins of Pharos is the head of Zeus on the obverse, accompanied by a goat and, most often, a legend designating the city on the reverse. Some reverse types add a snake, which has prompted some researches to identify this Zeus as Zeus Melichios, a chthonic deity worshipped in the Hellenic world.
Okayyyyy, a whole lot to break down there! As to the goat symbology and snake symbology relating to Satan, well… I leave that as an exercise for the reader. The Zeus reference I told you about previously. And as to being a “chthonic deity”, he was actually one of the Anunnaki, an expedition from an advanced alien race.
What you may have missed is the other reference to “Melichios”. This is a corruption from the original Semitic word root mlk. You will see that root vowelized many ways, including (drum roll)… “Moloch”. It’s not a proper name but rather a title, and is typically translated as “king”. The thing is, at the time they were using these words, everybody knew exactly who the “king” was. Get me?
If you’ve made it this far with me, holy crap. And I’ll ask again, seriously, do you think I could just be making this all up?
ADVISORY: This is a long read. My aim is to knock over a lot of sandcastles, but my hope is that if I do, in the future you won’t waste a lot more time admiring those sandcastles.
First off… I lied, but I had to write an attention-grabbing headline. The real claims about Phil Schneider’s father, Oscar Schneider, are even longer and wackier than the headline. You can barely find two facts about him that are consistent with one another.
Everyone may decide for themselves but to me, Oscar was clearly a Simulant. “They” love to keep it in the family, so his son Phil was used as a disinfo agent. Then, because these Intelligence projects are always formed as cells of mutual support and promotion, every other person and project associated with him can be considered ghey and an op.
Okay, what do I mean by “Simulant”? It turns out history is full of them, acting as agents of TPTB. Their lives are a blend of elements that are authentic, hidden, made-up, and corrupted. Nothing is reliable. If you know someone who has deceived you about something simple like, say, when and where they were born, that’s already extremely unusual.
For virtually everyone who encounters his story, Phil Schneider is the “person of interest”. Who his father is doesn’t even cross their mind, let alone that he is anything other than just some dude named Mr. Schneider. In this case, that’s totally wrong. Let me give everyone some resources about dear old Dad:
Find a Grave | Capt Oscar Schneider
WikiTree | Otto Oscar Schneider (1906 - 1993)
The Mysterious Life and Death of Phil Schneider
Shocking Yet Forgotten Whistleblower Claims (1995): Phil Schneider and Los Alamos National Lab
THE UNITED NATIONS WAS RUN BY SEVEN-FOOT-TALL GREY ALIENS
Alright, when was Oscar born: 1/21/1906, 1/22/1906, “about 1905”, “c1906”, or “c1907”? Where was he born: San Francisco CA, Cisco CA (that’s actually a different city), or Germany? Was he a medical doctor with only 4 years of college completed, or a U-boat captain in the Kreigsmarine? If he was in pre-war Germany U-boating, how did he happen to meet a girl from rural Arkansas? Do you really want to see these questions coming up on your quiz?
Then we get to: when and how did Phil find out about his father’s background? In conversation before he died, or was it that he found a trove of his father’s papers after his passing? Why is this so hard to pin down?
Funny thing concerning Oscar’s heritage: both his parents were Jews (either both Russian, or Russian and Polish, they can’t agree), making Oscar a Jew by anyone’s standard. But then Bielek says that Oscar confessed to Phil he wasn’t a Jew born in America, but was actually born in Germany. Does Bielek not get that being German doesn’t imply he wasn’t a Jew? True Holohoax Revision: no Jews in Germany at all... lol
Now we get to the projects he was supposedly involved in: the Philadelphia Experiment and the atomic tests at Bikini Atoll, known as Operation Crossroads.
If you can believe this much, Oscar was a doctor involved in nuclear medicine and was to study the “participants” in the Philadelphia Experiment. The closest you can come to substantiation here is that Oscar was living in Philly as late as 1940 and the experiment took place in 1943. Weak, but there you have it.
As an aside, you’ll sometimes see an association of that experiment with the CIA’s Project RAINBOW. It was for stealthing the U-2, test flights didn’t start until 1957, and it was a failure. Just my judgement, but that sounds about right for the CIA trying to do something useful. I would throw out anyone’s work that makes the association.
The other association is even more undermining. Tale-tellers that want to rope Oscar into it clearly don’t know that The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked (11-page PDF). Yes, it’s by disinfo agent Miles Mathis but the data and analysis seem sound to me, and I have independently uncovered quite a damning connection to a deep swath of fakery going on during that period.
And here’s something fun I stumbled across from The National WW2 Museum:
Operation Crossroads: A Deadly Illusion (7/5/2021)
What?! The author explains that the “illusion” was that a nuclear war could be fought successfully. Read it for yourself because that explanation seems weak-ass and very forced.
Maybe by this time you’re thinking, “Jesus, what a storm of lies and bullshit.” That’s what I think, anyway, but let me finish by describing what I meant by the “Montauk Gang”. See, overlaying all this, Venn diagram-style, you’ll find other people referencing and promoting each other: Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, Peter Moon, Duncan Cameron, Stewart Swerdlow, Thomas Castello, etc. Notice, though, that none of the people involved ever seemed to have had any confusion or doubt about any of the things we just covered. Stark ignorance, or is everyone just playing a part?
So is there any truth in anything any of them are saying? Who knows, but the pattern you’ll see is that as these events recede in time, more information about them turns up. Seems odd, right? I’d say that’s simply the ghey operators piling on more for you to dig down through. Roswell is a perfect example of that phenomena, and no, there’s nothing at the bottom of that one.
You’ll see another one of these “intel circle jerks” that is active as we speak. You can start with George Knapp and Bob Lazar, and end with Leslie Kean, Ralph Blumenthal and David Grusch. Get out your pushpins and red string and you’ll be rewarded with a connected graph. I call it “Project MKDISCLOSURE”.
Marvel's "Winter Soldier" is Bucky Barnes, and we are told that he first appeared under that very cool (haha) name in May 2005. That was long, long after the original coining of the name for an event in 1971 called the Winter Soldier Investigation. The not-very-cool-at-all subject? American war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam, told first-person.
Surprisingly, there is indeed a writeup on the nexus between the two names:
Learn the History of the Term “Winter Soldier” and Why Ed Brubaker Used the Name in Captain America (The Mary Sue 3/21/2014)
The author is just a normie comic fanboy but, as you'll read, he was tipped off by podcaster Jesse Thorn, whose own father was a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the sponsors of the WSI. (I used to listen to Jesse Thorn's Bullseye until a decade ago, when the progressivism that spilled over into the pop culture show became unbearable.)
The article comes off innocently enough and even includes an explanation of the name by the author of the comic himself, Ed Brubaker (who we will come back to). Believe it if you like, but his explanation is retcon bullshit.
The phrase "winter soldier" is a reversal of Thomas Paine's famous quote about the "summer soldier", and is meant to describe a true patriot, one who accepts as his duty the overthrow of tyranny. Well, Barnes is a traitor to America and a soldier for the quite tyrannical USSR. Not an apt name, is it? Then he has a whole paragraph of non-sequiturs about Vietnam, Russia and the American Revolution. Nice try.
I call it a googlewash because if you're searching for "winter soldier" and aren't already aware the WSI existed, you'll have a much harder time stumbling across either it or this:
Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
Yes, I too didn't know that existed until I was searching all around for this writeup. See how good googlewashing works? You'll also likely never find this documentary made about the original WSI either:
MILESTONE FILMS: WINTER SOLDIER
Though the event was attended by press and television news crews, almost nothing was reported to the American public. Yet, this unprecedented forum marked a turning point in the anti-war movement. It was a pivotal moment in the lives of young vets from around the country who participated, including the young John Kerry.
Memory-holed then, googlewashed now. Did you catch the last bit? That's our first twist.
Yes, Deep State Elitist scumbag John Kerry participated! You might be thinking that the whole thing was limited hangout with Kerry a leader of it, but I don't think so in this case:
We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
Some plain truth there and--as we're seeing--all slated to be erased from history. Not consistent with an op, is it? And I say that even given the next twist.
Mark Lane was one of the organizers. He's very prominent as a JFK researcher and (IMHO) a primary disinfo agent on the issue. Big red flag, right? Well, after the assassination, Lane sent the Warren Omission a 10,000 word brief saying that (drum roll)... Oswald was innocent. Was any disinfo agent going to be stirring up the waters that soon and in that way? IMHO, no.
Which brings up my view on the great majority of the Elite scumsuckers, Uniparty dirtbags, squadrons of disinfo rats, etc: they are made, not born. Well, "They" like to use Their own relatives to be sure, but those agents are shaped over a long process of seduction and grooming. Those assets start out fighting the good fight, and "They" make sure that's what those assets believe all the way along, see?
Final twist, this one concerning the comics author, Ed Brubaker:
Brubaker, the child of a Navy intelligence officer, spent much of his childhood in Guantánamo Bay....
To paraphrase Dr. Evil, typical childhood, the details of which are quite inconsequential, eh?
But that's not all: it is not listed under his "Notable works", but Brubaker was on the writing staff of Westworld. It's much, much too long to get into, but I have posted about that show numerous times. It is, IMHO, far and away the show where the Those That Really Run This World and Know What Has Really Happened have tipped Their hand the most and in an unmistakable way.
Is Ed himself one of those people? I sincerely doubt it. I've always suspected that They just have a conduit to screenwriters and the like, passing messages like "show this visual" or "have somebody say these words". That would be Ed, in the case of Westworld.
And it works, of course. Think about it: what percentage of people reading the coverage of it have any doubt he's alive and governing? Whatever you pick, it rounds down to zero.
You can read a basic story here at Gateway Pundit:
Let's analyze the event, shall we? But we should do it from the perspective of the ghey operators. For the benefits we desire, what does it take to create it and what are the downsides?
So the "evidence" we have to generate is a tweet of a Zoom call with "Gavin" on it telling an anecdote, all downrezzed to a potato-phone video. That does not sound like much of a challenge when put that way, does it?
Also, notice that Gavin gets to state his case for people that have never heard it, doesn't he? That's a plus.
Did you notice, though, that at the end he questions why he himself should pay? Do you think a career politician would carelessly say such a thing aloud, as if it was a point that happened to cross his mind? The writer went a step too far to make it sound "real".
Now let's talk about downsides: they had to admit that there's a shoplifting problem in California. Is that a big secret? Not really. So do you see that was the bait? If you look around, you'll see how hard everyone chomps down on it.
Okay, now let's talk about "dogs that didn't bark". Do you think someone could brazenly shoplift and the Governor of the state could argue with the cashier about it with someone taking a cell phone video? Without a dozen people taking cell phone videos? No, of course not.
Let's back up a step and ask: what are the chances that there's such a crime and the Governor is right there? Everybody I know shops at Target and every other kind of store in California, and as rampant as shoplifting is I've never heard a single one of them say it happened in front of them. Ever. No, I don't live in the hood but neither does (did) Gavin.
Let's back up another step: do you think the millionaire hereditary Elitist fuckwad Governor of California does his own shopping at Target? I decline to believe anyone who's made it as far as reading these words actually believes that. Don't even bother trying to claim it.
Anyway, to seal the deal, here's the paid shill post from r/conspiracy:
Over a thousand upvotes in 16 hours with the achingly phony top comment alone having 691 upvotes. There are 174 comments with some being shills, but obviously the vast majority are genuine "conspiracy theorists" taking the opportunity to stomp down hard when bad news comes along about a guy they despise.
It all seems very lame in retrospect but, again, see how well it works?
First off, we should all be aware that this type of the technology has been floating around for at least six decades and who knows what they have now. The tech in question is described here:
RHIC – EDOM (Radio-Hypnotic Intra-Cerebral Control – Electronic Dissolution of Memory) (9/28/2016)
Now, make of these associations what you will, but you know how "They" just love to put Their little references into such acronyms, right? Does that one ring and bells? The first part is exactly the same as this:
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) is the first and one of only two operating heavy-ion colliders.... Located at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)... it is the only operating particle collider in the US.
I don't think it's related, but I'll mention that BNL is 20 miles from Montauk. I do think it's related that BNL hosts an experiment named PHENIX.
What's more intriguing is this: do you know where the only other operating heavy-ion collider is? Yep, you got it! It's the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operating at CERN near the Swiss/French border (actually spanning it).
The second part is not quite as direct, but it's strange to see it come up. Edom was an ancient kingdom south of the Dead Sea, and apparently the Israelites were told to lay a Nakba on it and wipe it off the map or some such thing.
But that was in Biblical times, and here in the 21st Century researcher Adam Green has concluded that a notion has developed among certain modern Judaics that Christianity--particularly American Christians--are to be identified as the modern "Edom". And, you know, get the same kind of treatment.
Adam can go overboard with some things (IMHO) but if you have any interest in such topics you should hear him out. You're guaranteed to hear some things that others never seem to mention:
Rabbis Prophesize The Destruction Of America Christianity ( Edom) Know More News W Adam Green
In any case, the world is so strange that you can't kick over an ordinary-looking mind control rock without finding something weird underneath, can you?
It's intriguing how this aspect never gets mentioned, but @ShadowofEzra pointed out in this tweet a couple of days ago. By the Texas Constitution, while the Governor is out of state, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is in charge.
According to this press release, Abbott left the 19th and is returning on the 28th,
Not to start a discussion of either thesis, but it looks more and more like Abbott is a Deep State snake and Patrick is MAGA (to put it roughly). Did Patrick take steps as acting Governor that the Deep State took sharp exception to?
If you take a look at this timeline, it all began before Abbott left town. On the flip side, none of the mainstream coverage mentions either that Abbott is gone or quotes anything Patrick has to say. That is a red flag.
Final note: TIL that Abbott is in a wheelchair, and has been since he was 26. Am I the only person who didn't know this? I feel like I've been FDR-ed.
That's an unusual name, like a character in a work of fiction, isn't it? Like "Remington Steele" or something.
For the last two years of Obama's term (2015-2017), Ashton Carter was the Secretary of Defense and John Forbes Kerry was the Secretary of State.
It is just a coincidence, right?
The Zionists wish to continue their war, justify it, expand it, and bring in the West. Hostages are the emotional crux of that justification, and any and all of them may be imaginary at this point. Thus, I found this headline suspect:
Israel drops leaflets in Gaza asking Palestinians for help finding hostages (SCMP 1/21/2024)
If the Israelis want their hostages back, isn't it infinitely easier just to deal directly with Hamas? And Hamas must keep them safe, since a dead hostage is no hostage at all, correct? The story is nonsense and a psyop.
The full article is paywalled, but the psyop is confirmed by the subhead:
- ‘Do you want to return home?’ Displaced civilians seeking refuge in Rafah were urged to ‘make the call’ if they saw one of 33 captives held by Hamas
They simply cannot help themselves, can they? The overall thesis, that the war is all about Israeli aggression and nothing at all to do with hostages--real or fictitious--is confirmed by the second subhead:
- Israeli planes and tanks intensified their bombardment in Jabalia on the northern edge of Gaza, and in Khan Younis and Rafah in the south
You have to wonder is this all started with, "ChatGPT, make me a flyer asking for the whereabouts of 33 Jewy-looking hostages...."
ADVISORY: This is a very long post with no startling revelations. Skip it if you're looking to be entertained. (Although I find it quite entertaining, which is why I write it up.)
So what's the purpose? Really, I have something to get off my chest. It's about conspiracy theorists who are interested in the occult and like to listen to the occult doings of Jack Parsons and others like Crowley. More specifically, it's about the researchers and podcasters and posters who tell us about these things over and over. Even the mainstream covers Parsons.
If you're told about something over and over and over, can it possibly be considered "occult"? Seems crazy, like you're not really paying attention, just looking to be enthralled. Shouldn't we be looking deeper, and be suspect of the things we're told repeatedly? I think so. Instead of looking at the curtain of Jack Parsons, let's take peek behind it for once.
The thrust of this is that Parsons was what I term a Simulant. We live in a big simulation, but it's not a fancy computer program run by AIs or aliens. The bare fact that those notions are promoted should be enough to tell you they're not true.
Rather, this simulation is--among other properties--sprinkled about with open-air actors, especially up on the stage where we're all looking. But it's not as simple as being an actor, where everything about them is a lie. The Simulants are a mix of truth and falsity. I stress this because the idea seems quite hard for people to absorb.
One of the most common characteristics of these Simulants is that they have an altered name. I have yet to fully understand why. Most often it's not even a secret, it's just that for some reason we didn't have a "President Barry Soetoro" or "Mayor of NY Warren Wilhelm Jr." or "Candidate Nimarata Randhawa". It's bizarre, but it's a red flag for a Simulant. Jack Parsons has this red flag.
The wiki for Jack Parsons of course admits right up front that he was born Marvel Whiteside Parsons, with his father's first name and his mother's surname as his middle name.
Their son was his father's namesake, but was known in the household as Jack.
Okay, the family had to distinguish between the two, so the kid got a nickname of sorts. Plus, they don't want him getting his ass kicked every day in school, right? So "Jack" is out of nowhere, like calling someone "Chief" or "Ace" or something?
In this case "Jack" seems to be the common diminutive for "John", but the bizarre part is: where does the name John come from? This never gets mentioned.
The name John is actually the first word in his wiki, but I bet your eyes skipped right over it like mine did. Also, it's not his name as an infant when daddy was living at home. We're given this non-explanation:
Although she retained her ex-husband's surname, Ruth started calling her son John, but many friends throughout his life knew him as Jack.
That's odd, right? I might be willing to spackle right over this except for one thing: there is another John Parsons. And he was alive at the same time, and he attended Stanford like Jack did, and he ran NASA Ames (next door to Googleplex today), and he was also known as "Jack", and, well, he kinda looked like our Jack:
SP-4302 Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center 1940-1965
Scroll down to his pic and compare to Jack's pic on his wiki. He's got the same double-chin and the same John Waters-esque mustache. No, not the same person or twin or clone. Is he a brother or cousin about which They do not care to disclose the connection? Odd.
Again, I'd be willing to write this off, except for the matter of Jack's first wife. We're told over and over about his relationship with Marjorie Cameron, but no one mentions Helen Northrup. I wonder why?
Is it because her name was actually Helen Northrop, and she was closely related to Jack Northrop, founder of Northrop Aviation? You would know that organization better as Northrop Grumman:
Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers. The firm ranks No. 101 on the 2022 Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.
Helen Northup was from Pasadena, which was where JPL was founded. Jack Northrop was from Santa Barbara and his company was founded in El Segundo, just across LA from Pasadena. And, as if I had to mention it, Northop-Grumman is now headquartered in West Falls Church, VA, a stone's throw from the Pentagram. All very cozy, right?
My point in all this, again, is that while the real Elites arrange the Military-Industrial Complex just under the surface, lots of people are fascinated with the study of these "occultists" but never scratch that surface. It also leads me to think 99.9% of all "occultism" is shiny made-up nonsense. See why it all strikes me as frustrating?
Well, I guess I got it off my chest!
As the rumor has it, he was killed in Ukrainian bunker struck by a Russian missile. There have been a number of such rumored strikes over time and it does not seem surprising, but how are we to decide? Well, this was posted on r/conspiracy today in the wake of the rumor:
Is Loyd Austin Dead ? (1/8/2024)
The top-voted comment, the one that will be read by almost everyone who opens the post, says:
The info you shared is all wrong. He was not in Ukraine when he got hospitalised. But in the US.
The problem? The inept Cognitive Warrior that created the post just put in a stock picture of Austin and forgot to include a link or any text. There's no mention of the rumor or anything else at all.
But the first fake commenter replies as if the rumor was there instead of, "WTF does this mean? Why do you think he's dead. It's just a pic of him." So there's your tip-off. Then the lame OP replies to that comment with:
I am sure it is just clickbait and that he will show up at a presser relatively soon. Just wanted to see what the conspiracy community says about this.
To get what we're seeing, we would have to believe that the OP then--for some bizarre and unknowable reason--went back to the original post and just deleted all the text. Technically possible, but I'd sooner buy in to the adventures of Bob Lazar.
Final observation: Did you note the spelling errors and funky grammar to make it all seem more legit? Nice touch, right?
EDIT: If you're looking for at least some account of the circumstances, this is the only one I know of (from what many consider a fictional news site), so FWIW:
Russian Claim: Austin Dead In Ukraine (RRN 1/7/2024)
Somehow I had never heard any of this mentioned about the Monsantos:
The Monsanto family is a historical Sephardic Jewish merchant and banking business who played a significant role in founding the Jewish community in Colonial Louisiana (then transferring between French and Spanish rule) in the 18th century.
The family arrived in Louisiana in the 1760s, and one of their members, Isaac Monsanto, was one of the wealthiest merchants in New Orleans. The family engaged in the Atlantic slave trade and owned African slaves at their plantations at Natchez, Mississippi... and Trianon, New Orleans. Not including their former estate in New Orleans, by the 1780s, the Monsantos kept 51 slaves for their personal use and sold other enslaved African people to Louisiana plantations.
The Monsanto we know and love was founded by John Francis Queeny. It was named after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, so he was obviously just the front goy.
Now, I also mentioned that they were Dutch. That sounds incidental but I assure you it isn't. These Dutch were like a main circuit cable in Colonial America. And no one talks about them, which should clue you in on their importance.
Take one of these families, the Livingstons. BTW, they're also Jewish and that's an Americanized form of Lowenstein. I guarantee it's worth your time to go to that wiki page and see all the people and families they're connected to.
For example, you'll see the Schuyler family. You might miss the connection, but Alexander Hamilton married one of the Schuylers. When George Carlin mentioned the Big Club we ain't in, I don't even think he was aware these very tight, very Elite parts of it even existed.
Fun Fact #1: General Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg, Sr., of Vandenberg Space Force Base fame, was one of these Dutch. He ran the USAF, was CIA Director and (in my strong opinion) arranged the Roswell UFO hoax. Always take a second glance when someone Dutch comes up.
Fun Fact #2: Monsanto's first product was saccharin. For those that didn't live through all the controversy, skim through the wiki to see the furious hand-waving about how "everyone said it was real bad but it really wasn't so shut up about that!". IOW, they were "on brand" right out of the gate.
Intriguing Fact: The name "Monsanto" (which sounds like a type of plastic) actually means "Holy Mountain". All I can say is that it puts me in mind of Mount Hermon, where the 200 Fallen Angels came to Earth.
Well, wouldn't that just be "on brand" too?
I was triggered (haha) by a story all over the mainstream media today:
RUSSIA: Alexey Navalny, Putin’s Chief Opponent, Speaks Out After Prison Transfer – HE’S HELD IN A SOVIET GULAG (TGP 12/26/2023)
The point of this post is not to out Navalny as an Intelligence asset, which we will do only briefly, but to take a look at how thin the deception can be and still fool the consciousness of billions of people. Present company excepted, of course.
The zero-th item to note is that these types of analyses are very unpopular in conspiracy circles. That is, there are very few theorists left, where you have to at least string together a couple of facts with some analysis. They have been completely diluted (and I'm not disparaging) by people (God bless them) who are driven more by, "Yeah, that guy does suck! Upvote!" That's great and all, but if you're looking for more, read on.
Before we look at the general phenomenon, we'll only examine one conclusive detail to his phony story. You'll only be reading about it here, so note how easily an obvious contradiction flies by the rest of the world.
In the story linked above, you'll find a tweet dated the 26th from Navalny's blue-check account. Who cares what it says, because it's mere existence is directly contradicted here by Kira Yarmysh, Navalny's spokesperson:
Alexei Navalny ‘doing well’ after transfer to remote Arctic prison (The Independent 12/26/2023)
There's no way of reaching inmates, nor by mail nor by Internet, so it is practically impossible to contact someone directly.
I hope no troll is going to give us, "Ackshually, you can't email them, they can only tweet out." Although we'd all like to see that, it would still be pretty shameful.
The point is, one sheer lie serves one audience, and another sheer lie serves a different one. The two people making up these lies do not care whatsoever about coordinating them. Nor, as I have pointed out, do they need to.
As I referenced in the title, Navalny is a "Simulant". I don't know of any existing term for this type of "person". It's what I've come up with for the range of such people who go from absolutely authentic with a few phony aspects to outright "virtual persons" constructed from scratch.
Navalny seems to be a living, breathing human being. After that it gets very murky, which is what I'm trying to highlight. And what I'm really trying to highlight is how very thin it all is yet still yields successful, long-running psyop.
For example, this whole dumb, bullshit narrative about "disappearing" and "no one knew where he was for three weeks" until be was found "exiled to Sibera"? Did you know he was (supposedly) sent to the exact same place not quite three years ago?
What we know about the prison hospital where Alexei Navalny has been sent (Reuters 4/19/2021)
You can see the narrative at the time was that he was "recovering from Novichok poisoning (from Putin!)", and not "disappeared to Siberia". Yes, it's all just narrative, but everyone laps it right up.
But I want to stress how thin it all is, and always was. So this guy is supposed to be "Putin's opposition", right? I used Qwant to search on "putin navalny" and got--get this--27 hits. The nexus between the two is virtually non-existent.
Does Putin even know he exists, fake or real? It turns out the answer is probably not. The closest I can come is this video:
Putin says palace in Navalny report 'doesn't belong to me' | AFP (YouTube 1/25/2021)
If you watch the video, Putin never mentions Navalny. In fact, he says he never watched the video, only a summary made by his aides. My guess is that Putin is aware of the deception and chooses never to acknowledge it.
Finally, recall that Navalny is supposedly a politician seeking to challenge the highest-profile leader in the world, correct? He's got to get out there and kiss hands and shake babies, right? Apparently, no, he never does that.
Search for images with "navalny meets". It's him alone, in court, with his "family", and sometimes with some people floating around in the background. He never goes out and poses for photos with people he meets. Try the same search with something like "lauren boebert meets" and she's right there with all kinds of people. Maybe just a slut, huh?
Recall that "media" means "middle", and that's the shim that's created between people and reality. It may be razor-thin, but it's there and makes all the difference in the world.
The title unavoidably comes off like a slam against Tucker, but I do not mean it that way. I think he's more or less a normal person caught up in circumstances far beyond his control and is trying to do what's best in a murky situation.
First off, if anyone reading this does not or cannot believe that Julian Assange is either dead or--equivalently--in a black site he'll probably never come out of, then stop reading now because it will just make you upset and feel you need to argue about it for your own emotional stability.
The real Assange has been gone since October 2016, and everything after that has been DeepFakes and a modicum of simple hand-waving. Sounds primitive but it's fooled virtually everyone in the world. I suspect that Tucker might have had half an idea something was up and finally went to check it out.
Tucker Carlson Makes Surprise Visit to Julian Assange in Prison (TGP 11/2/2023)
Read that carefully. The only evidence really shown is Tucker and Assange's (fake) wife walking through a parking lot. All the rest I could have written up off the top of my head.
And that's it. No confirmation. No update. No "stay tuned for my upcoming interview". Nothing for nearly two months.
What was really going on? I think Tucker realized or had it confirmed there that Assange was dead. What to do? Well, let's see: a journalist was disappeared seven years ago and no one in the world realizes it. The most memorable factoid from that time was that Pam Anderson brought him a sandwich. Tucker himself is also a journalist, isn't he? Hey, how about a sandwich?
Anyway, it's not real clear that this is just something you go public with. Aside from the obvious, basically no normies and only a handful of conspiracists would even entertain the idea, let alone weigh the evidence. Is there a clear moral or ethical act? I don't think so.
So Tucker just punts, and that gives us today's article:
"It's Disgusting What They're Doing": Tucker Carlson Describes Visit With Julian Assange (ZH 12/23/2023)
If you deconstruct it, it's a few thin lies and the rest is a recap of "The Julian Assange Story" you could write up off his Wikipedia page. No video, no audio, no pictures. It didn't take Tucker two months to put the package together, it's the work of an afternoon.
Remember when they interviewed Manson in prison, several times? Tucker didn't even bother faking a selfie because that would be too deceitful. But let's look at the thin veneer put on for believability. For example, how did the guy look?
"Assange looks like press photographs of him, maybe older, pale, he hasn't been outside in 13 years..."
Oh, he did? Well, we've been told over and over about his physical and emotional decline over the years, and two years ago we were told this:
‘Looks very awful and ill’: Journalist tells RT he ‘couldn’t recognize’ Assange during High Court hearing on his extradition to US (RT 8/11/2021)
So that was a body double or just another outright lie. But if we assume it was him, maybe he's been working out, getting fit, and eating well at Belmarsh, right?
"The inmates are treated like animals."
Okay, enough of that. Well, what did "Julian" have to say, then?
"We talked about why he is in prison...."
The real Julian Assange was a smart, worldly, sensitive, passionate and articulate journalist, and after all that's gone on in the world since he's been "in prison", this is all he has to talk about with one of the world's highest profile journalists? We don't even know if he supports Trump or not!
Which brings up what finally occurred to me as the most significant continuing evidence Julian Assange is dead: Is he being held incommunicado? Is that even legal in any country? Everyone talks about extradition but no one mentions this?Doesn't he make and receive phone calls or letters? Is there a single person known to be in communication with him?
I guess even these guys gave up three years ago, after this tweet:
“This is not normal. @amnesty is almost always granted access to monitor court cases around the world. For our legal observer to find out this morning that he has not been granted even REMOTE access to the #Assange proceedings is an outrage.
He got married--or so we are told--but how is it his wife has no messages to pass on? No interview with Tucker about his situation or his persecution? Of course not. She's just a prop with limited dialogue.
A final reflection: If you've read this far, I hope you see that the point is not anything about Julian Assange, who, after all, was just one man in a world where thousands are outrageously slaughtered by various methodologies every single day.
Rather, think about how far the rest of the world is from this kind of information. You've joined me on the high vantage at the top of Everest. A commanding view, but very lonely, is it not?
And the analogy totally breaks down if you choose to tell anyone what you've seen from the top of that mountain: "Mount What? Doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, it cannot exist. That's science, dumbfuck."
