To put a finer historical point on it, the very concept that "the Nazis burned books" is flatly untrue. I say this to emphasize how deeply this false "fact" has seeped into history. Some may have an immediate reaction to this if they just watched the video and saw Nazi officials and members of the SA standing around as books burned, but we need to take a closer look.
The Nazis, recognizing along with many others the corrosive and subversive nature of certain "literature", approved of the voluntary destruction of it. But beyond that, there is no documentation that the NSDAP:
- published a list of books to ban
- confiscated books
- personally destroyed books or commanded their destruction
- organized, directed, supported, or even encouraged any groups--such as the GSA--to do so
I never uncovered a single official document or publication from the NSDAP--let alone legislation--regarding the burning of books. All in all, the idea that "Nazis burned books" is about as erroneous and "Trump made everyone wear red hats".
In fact, I turned up the original prewar article about book burning from "The Guardian", and it seems obvious black propaganda by Western warmongers. You can get that link and others along with more discussion in this old post:
I appreciate you saying so, thanks.
There's a second-order point to this kind of content, which is that you can see how little engagement it gets. You don't even get people saying anything like, "I'm surprised to find out how long They have been around, how deep They are dug in, and how Their fingers are in everything."
So it informs my view of a topic like Trump's first term. People bitch and moan about he didn't "drain the swamp". I find it reasonable to think he waded in a bit and said, "I'm surprised to find out how long They have been around, how deep They are dug in, and how Their fingers are in everything." See how that changes the interpretation of events?
A third-order point explains why he says very little about any of this. Would he get a better reception airing this type of information among the general public than we see here, among supposedly knowledgeable, awake, hardcore conspiracy theorists? Not a chance in Hell.
Then again, can we discount the site shadow-banning when they really feel they need to?
The trolls seem to be taking some effort, though, don't you think? So readers get to see not just the content, but the odd reaction of supposed "conspiracy theorists". That will indicate something to the aware.
Sometimes I wonder if such fools ever regret being so obvious. Probably not, as it requires a degree of reflective thinking.
In your analysis, an eclipse is to be likened to a hurricane? If that degree of insight is to be considered "stepping it up", I'll take a hard pass on it.
Maybe you should have backed up your "insight" with articles on the devastation caused by past eclipses.
Jesus, and they always accuse the ancients of being superstitious about eclipses.
But I guess, yeah, if a dragon really is going to eat the Sun, then every dipshit is going to have to tweet about and will clog up the cell towers.
Jack was just a minor player walking around the stage as part of the presentation, same as Crowley. "They" do that to keep you from from wondering who wrote the script, and thinking about who owns the theater. In this way, "They" stay invisible, in all practical terms.
The coverage of his exploits in mainstream productions is itself part of the presentation, as is forever embiggening his "legend" as an occultist. You're not supposed to think about who actually put together the linked video, but I sure did.
Thus, the Occultism in which Parsons was supposedly involved is virtually entirely a stage show. And since I have just told you about some things which are truly "hidden from the eye", we should now understand better what the "occult" truly is in this world.
Interesting historical perspective: Most people would say it was Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln was a Republican. Technically speaking, that proclamation freed exactly zero slaves.
In the Confederate states, where Lincoln had no power to enforce it, no slaves were freed of course. Well, he just couldn't do it then but he had the noble idea, right? Nope.
In the border states that remained in the Union, the Proclamation continued slavery there because Lincoln desired to cooperation of those states. No slaves were freed where he could have enforced it.
So for anyone that was aware that Lincoln was generally a scumbag but were giving him credit for freeing slaves, you can go ahead and drop that exception.
Indeed, Wallace was insightful and spoke a little too plainly. That why they had to shoot him when he ran for President in 1972.
Too long to write up now, but there's an interesting historical note. Wallace was the "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" guy. After he got shot and was laying the hospital, he realized the error of his ways. He called local black leaders to his hospital room, asked forgiveness, and was given it.
IIRC this stat, correctly, when Wallace ran again for Governor of Alabama, he won with a higher percentage of the black vote than Obama did in his campaign for President.
All memory-holed, for obvious reasons.
It really is an interesting point you bring up. There's sort of a parallel question which is: for all the hate directed towards various public figures, why hasn't anyone taken them out, or even suggested it in a less than joking way?
On one branch, you have liberals that detest Trump, and think that if he's reelected that will be the end of Western civilization or some such. I know they hate guns, but how has there never been a public assassination attempt? They sure are loony and violent enough, right?
On the other branch, so many awakened people are aware of the murderous outrages of Hillary and Gates and Fauci, etc,, yet no one has ever tried to take them out either. And these sentiments are supposedly held by the people that are gun nuts, too.
There are two general answers, I think. One s that people are victims of learned helplessness and too pussified to actually take any action. I would say, sure, that's part of the cause of what we see.
The other is that we're seeing real human nature, and properly functioning humans find violence abhorrent. They are repulsed by the idea, even when under lethal threat.
So I would summarize by saying, yes, tons of Assange supporters are just virtue signalling, but beneath that, there are many people that are still relying--rightly or wrongly--on all the various social institutions we have created over the centuries to peacefully resolve disputes.
A guy named Jeff Cooper said it in a bit of a different way, but when the time comes when a man has to leave his house and take direct action, it's a form of suicide to all that he had been up to that point.
He was kidnapped, out of the Ecuadorian embassy back in 2016. A few at the time even claim to have watched it live on webcam in the middle of the night. Since then we can presume he's either been in a black site or more likely dead. Not a whisper of a rumor--real or fake--has come along since then of his actual status.
If anyone's suspicions were aroused over him being "too sick" to attend his latest trial--even via webcam--you have your explanation.
I'll have to watch the video to see if this is duplicative, but to avoid that I'll be brief: a while ago I stumbled across the origin of the weaponization of prions. Quite damning circumstantial evidence, IMHO.
I've never seen the pieces put together anywhere so I'll have to write it up in a post one of these days. In the meantime, anyone with even moderate interest can put these few pieces together:
- The book "Brain Trust: The Hidden Connections Between Mad Cow and Misdiagnosed Alzheimer's Disease" by Colm A. Kelleher (2004)
- Daniel Carleton Gajdusek
- Joseph Edward Smadel
- The paper "The Possession of Kuru: Medical Science and Biocolonial Exchange"
Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone, but more for the historical record.
Good points!
It was always a little weird, wasn't it, that BG set up shop way up in the corner of the country instead of Silicon Valley or Boston or LA. MS was in Albuquerque for the first four years, so then they decide to go to Bellevue of all places?
Hmmm, yet you trouble yourself to respond so aggressively to a "long rant about the insignificant Jodie Foster".
Keep troubling yourself with such posts to make it even more obvious I've touched on a nerve that They send Their lame lackey to mewl about.
have ayh got this right? lololololololol
bcz remember how ayh said ayh like to fuck with their heads? lolololololol
Since you mention "Contact", maybe I can use that to shoehorn in my thesis about Carl Sagan! Let me know if you saw this left turn coming....
IDK if you've seen any of my comments about it (which I generally keep very low-key just because no one is interested), but I'm a 100% believer in the Anunnaki, and I'm certain Carl Sagan was also.
He suggested we should look to archaeology for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation a decade before Sitchin published! The thing is, for his career he traded ever talking about them again.
But he did leave a lot of clues laying around. There's actually an avalanche of evidence he thought that way collected here:
I don't agree with every detail, of course, but the overall thesis is quite sound. One correction I might offer, for example, concerns the author photo on the inside cover of the hardback edition of "Contact". You'll see a copy of the photo about halfway down the page.
From a certain set of evidence, I conclude the "winged disc" symbol represents Nibiru itself, the home planet--actually small star system--of the Anunnaki. You'll notice the Egyptians always depicted it as a dull red, which may well have been close to the visible color of the brown dwarf star.
Anyway, did that crazy Egyptian symbol end up in the photo behind him by accident? I sure don't think so.
There's a disturbing shift taking place, along the lines of the old maxim, "If you can't cover it up, turn it up". We see an example of that here.
I think it's possible within a couple of years we'll see something like, "Of course the vaxx killed millions, and thank the AI God it did so and saved us from overpopulation!"
I say this is disturbing because we're dealing with vicious, cornered animals, and Their corner is getting smaller.