One of the Big Secrets which is being hidden is the true nature of human consciousness. Normies are normies because of how they think, which is different from how it is universally and unquestioningly assumed to be.
Part of it is the way they determine what is real. Normies determine what is real from those they consider "authorities", from parents to the fancy people on TV. Left on their own, normies can determine reality just fine, but the pronouncements from authorities can overcome all facts and sense and even first-hand experience.
It's like they're sitting next to the smart kid in their algebra class. Every time they take a test, they make sure their answers match those of that smart kid. Since they have to "show their work", if they can't match his answer on their own, they'll just make something up.
The key observation is this: Suppose that in the course of showing their work on a test question, they come up with an answer different than that of the smart kid. There is almost no chance they will write down their own answer.
There is much more to the full scope of the situation, but the Elites manipulate by making sure people think they're the smart kid in class.
The German Deep State has come completely off the chain:
German defense minister says troops ready to kill Russians: Moscow has dismissed speculation it has plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” (RT 7/14/2025)
Well, people that met with him said that JE was upbeat and optimistic about the future right up until the day before his "suicide". He didn't say anyone was threatening him, so why would he need TP at all?
Suspicious all the way around.
Interesting you mention that, because I think that's exactly one of the techniques that has been used to fake the Mandela Effect.
That is, something like this gets garbled along the way, maybe not even by design, but it gets passed around and repeated over and over until most of us think that's what it was. By that point, few may have ever even had contact with the first-hand material.
Suppose it goes on and now 90% of "know" Epstein hung himself with toilet paper. Then someone jumps up and says, "Bro, look at this article from years ago that says Epstein hung himself with paper bedsheets. We just got Mandela'd!"
Quick note: the whole "New Age" movement was another social engineering project dreamed up by the Salem Witches.
As concerns the "New Age" and all associated, whether you love it or hate it, that's okay with "Them" because They consumed your precious time and attention with their bullshit. Just another part of the phony world they want everyone living in and reacting to.
I never got a chance to write it all up and probably never will, so I'll just leave a brief snippet. Everyone talks about Alice Bailey but--just outside the spotlight as usual--was her husband, Foster Bailey.
If you consult the list of Salem Witches, the Fosters are, of course, very prominent. Yeah, Foster is his given name, but they do that from time to time due to the importance of reflecting their bloodlines. You'll also find one of the "afflicted" was, "Joseph Bailey, age 44 and living in Newbury".
These Salem Witches were all over the Revolutionary war. One of the regiments of the "Massachusetts Line" was commanded by Colonel John Bailey. Do a little searching, and you'll find that it was lousy with men named Foster.
You'll see another of the regiments was Gardner's, and I think we can all feel pretty sure that we could ultimately trace the commanding officer to be a relation of Gerald Gardner of bullshit Wicca fame.
Or maybe all just bizarre coincidence I stumbled into!
PS: The Lucis Trust website is where I found one of the handful of references I have ever come across that indicate these Elites know something of what I've discovered deep in my research. Just an Easter Egg, so to speak, but They seem so very pleased with Themselves to tease. I suspect they don't know much more than what they stated.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention one item. Alice was English-born, so that throws everybody off. Foster, however, was born in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, less than 50 miles from Salem. What a coinkydink.
Quick note about Enlil: his view of the human race changes fundamentally--radically even--from inception to the end of the Old Testament. It is also possible or even probable that he sent Jesus to coach humanity on how to save itself. Quite a change.
But we should not be surprised. Everyone seems to have the preconception that God or "the gods" or whoever are eternally fixed. They have no inner life, no evolution, and are frankly considered as objects. Even when you transition that to the Anunnaki, the assumption holds. How could they change as humans do? Well, that's not it at all: we change just like they do.
As to Lucifer and the Anunnaki, I'll be brief because you'll want to retrace the steps yourself from your own sources. That's the only way to cement it anyway.
The name "Lucifer" traces back to Isaiah 14:12 and the Hebrew phrase "helel ben shahar". "Ben" is "son", but what is "shahar"? Turns out it's who, and Shahar is a god of the Ugarit pantheon.
Look up the origin story of Shahar and you'll find that his father is the king of the gods. That king encountered two women bathing and one thing led to another led to two half-brothers. Shahar was the elder, god of the dawn, and Shalim was the younger, god of the dusk. Therefore the person 14:12 refers to is the son of the elder half-brother.
Recognize that genealogy? Anu is the king of Nibiru and has two sons. The elder is Enki and the younger is Enlil. Marduk is the son of Enki. So are Marduk and Satan one and the same? You can start putting other pieces into the puzzle.
Babylon of the Bible seems to be the source of so much evil, although no one explains exactly why. You can find that the "tutelary deity" of the ancient city of Babylon was Marduk.
Satan was at odds with Yahweh, whose city was Jerusalem. The etymology of that name traces back to "uru shalem", or the "city of Shalim". Why would the Jews never change the name of their city from that of supposedly some rando pagan deity? Because it was correct all along.
Scholars will always tell you that "helel" translates to "light bringer". In Strong's Concordance, you'll find that it's actually "shining one". In Sumerian, "E.DIN" means something like "home of the Shining Ones".
See how the pieces begin to fit together? There are wayyyy more that slot right into the same puzzle.
To put a finer point on what I meant about, "I think", I have become so attuned to hearing it from the NPC-level consciousness. When you listen closely to the full context it becomes equivalent to, "A claim which I'm rounding up to true." Seriously, start listening super-closely to these people and you'll see a lot of "unassailable truth" begins with, "I think".
I used to use it often just like everybody else, but I've become much more aware of when I do (like when Bill Cooper used to tell people their offspring were "children" and not to refer to them as baby goats i.e. "kids"). Now I take pains to say, "There is evidence to indicate" or "There is a case to be made" or "Given little available data I speculate that" or some other specific phrase. It does get too cumbersome sometimes in a world of social media posts where most can't be bothered to capitalize, so sometimes it's just, "I think".
As to the occultism thing, to put a finer point on that and related to what you said, I've come to realize that all of the type of "occultism" discussed in conspiracy circles (Crowley and Parsons and so forth) is a giant cloud of smoke doing the occulting.
IDK if you've followed any of my posts exposing generational Satanists, but that's the biggest part of the occulted truth. Jack Parsons was a member of one of these families but that aspect is unknown, never mentioned by any researchers. All the "occult" stuff he did is nonsense, entirely unimportant.
Another family is the Parkers. You may have heard the odd coincidence that Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham, was closely involved with the first three Presidential assassinations. Bizarre, right? I just found out his mother's mother was born a Parker. Now it's no coincidence to me at all.
I mean, there's not even an accepted term for that type of information. People studying the occult never mention it, so it's not "occult", and conspiracy theorists seem entirely unaware, so it's not "conspiracy".
It's some pretty strange territory we're in these days.
Glad to hear we're on the same page, or at least in the same book!
There are very few people interested in this area. Of those--to be blunt--almost all have ideas they're in love with that are just totally loony. About a paragraph into any explanation of it, they have to start in with "I think" and a lot of hand waving. There's just nowhere to go with it. How could you, when they are certain they're already "there"?
In my opinion this area is the most important subjects to be studied. That's because pretty much all other "conspiracy" eventually ties back to it. Really, all the pieces fall into place and it all finally makes sense in the full context.
Like, for example, the mysterious Fallen Angels. They are merely the faction of 200 Anunnaki, led by Satan, who remained behind to try to prove that part of the peace deal I mentioned. When you take all the religiosity and occultism out of it, it's a lot like deals we humans make. Even more clear when you put things in their proper order and realize that we learned deal-making from them.
Biglino knew a ton, but he was always very cautious and cagey when it came to ideas that, let's say, challenged popularly held religious conceptions supposedly rooted in the Bible. He tried to stick with more dry and academic topics from a scholarly point of view that were therefore less disputable. I don't blame him, since Italy is soaked in Catholics and people get hella touchy.
However, there's a big problem with Biglino: he was "turned" not that long ago. It's marked by the time he was interviewed by Hancock. Positions before that were cautious and blunted, while statements after that can be considered polluted and not necessarily what he thinks.
Most assuredly, though, Lucifer and Satan were one and the same person. In fact, one of my first forays into what I considered the dumb idea that Satan existed at all was that I had heard the claim that they were not the same, and I set out to prove that. I wanted to show something to the loudmouth Christians always bitching about "Satan this" and "Satanic that", point them towards a fundamental plot hole or contradiction so that they would shut up about this unhelpful nonsense.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
As far as the various names and monikers for this one single entity, we shouldn't really be surprised at that either. If you think of Hillary Clinton, you could probably come up with two dozen different names and titles by which people would recognize her with specificity, everything from Hillary Rodham to Mrs. Clinton to Hillbeast. That's a single person in one human lifetime.
So if you research these various names, you can find evidence for certain identifications. Sure, it takes a lot of work to straighten it all out but I can say it's doable only because I've done it, at least to my own satisfaction. The identifications come out almost like little mathematical proofs.
As to the Garden of Eden, I would agree that the strongest indication was that the nachash was Enki. Frankly, we don't even know precisely what they meant when they first used that word, only the usages that came afterwards.
If you start with the tentative assumption it was used to describe Enki, then you can see how it works out. For example, there are all these weird indications the Anunnaki had some sort of reptilian characteristics. It would be one hell of a damn coincidence if "nachash" with the connotation of "serpent" just happened to be talking about something entirely unrelated. See what I mean?
Enki wasn't trying to save them, though, since they were alive and well in Eden. What they got was higher consciousness, as the Anunnaki themselves had. The slave species--human livestock--did not require that and should not have it. Frankly, Enlil could have smoked them right then and there and had done with the whole issue, but he did not.
Rather, he outfitted them, arranged for them to have the ability to reproduce, and exiled them to mix with "wild" humans. Even then, he had some kind of sympathy towards the humans with higher consciousness.
I suspect this won't be anything like the answer you expected or like anything else you've ever heard. It may sound like a joke, and if you're reading what I have to say and find yourself getting defensive or feeling the compulsion to challenge it, then just think of it as a joke and leave it at that.
I will have to be extremely brief, since it would take a book or two to arrange and contextualize all the evidence I've gathered, which means there's much more to be said about any particular element. All that being disclaimed....
Sitchin was right about the Anunnaki. Biglino was right that the Bible was essentially about certain episodes of human interaction with these aliens. For certain reasons, they only got so far in their reinterpretations. AFAIK, neither one addressed the "end of the world".
The peace settlement of the "war in heaven" was a deal between Yahweh and Satan, wherein the latter would be given a period of time to prove his point and come to dominate the human race through seduction and deception (not force). Whether humanity frees itself or not, that state will be mandated to continue.
The "end of the world", "Day of the Lord", "End of Days", "Second Coming", "end of the age", etc, I have tentatively concluded to refer to the time this peace settlement is finalized. Then the question would be, when is that? It's beyond hazy, with too many details to discuss.
And what happens after that? That too is almost not worth discussing, since there are almost no details. First, the Anunnaki lived alongside humanity for most of our existence, I would say, so we should not consider that unusual. It's all over sci-fi so it's strange that we're not completely used to the idea. See Leviticus 26:12, for example.
Revelation 21 says some pretty vague things about what happens when humanity is successful but it sounds pretty nice. People can make what they want of what is written, but “Behold, I make all things new” tells me that making predictions is merely speculation. The foregoing is assuming humanity is successful. If not, take whatever horrors you see now and multiply by 100 or 1000. Again, iIn either case, though, the details of what comes after are hardly worth discussing.
Humans should be concerned with making this deal come out in humanity's favor. As I see it, if Satan's influence was removed, we have all we need right here and right now to create for ourselves something of an Earthly paradise.
Someone once said something like, "That is all we know of Heaven, and all we need know of Hell."
People worry that this sort of stuff will be mandated by the gubmint, but I don't think it's going to go that way at all.
The gubmint never mandated anything to do with smartphones, but after long resistance and from painful personal experience I find that it's nearly impossible to participate in modern society without one.
It seems to me that, viewed from a higher perspective and with a larger context, these kinds of nefarious initiatives are accomplished by giving everyone who might be paying attention something to fear and to bitch about, while the real work progresses without notice.
I remember Scalia telling the story of how, growing up in NYC, he would bring his rifle on the subway to school because he was on the shooting team.
When he died suddenly, I thought, "Oh, of course they can't have a guy with those kinds of life experiences just running around loose giving his opinion on 2nd Amendment cases."
I couldn't explain it, but I would assume it was somehow associated with the whole "Walmart/FEMA camp" thing. IOW, Walmarts are something more than big boxes from which to sell you cheap shit from China.
At the first level, "They" are trying to erase hard-working and lucky country bumpkin Sam Walton's background. it's not well-known and has been erased from his wiki, but we can still find this in his Geneastar page:
Soon afterwards, Walton joined the military in the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps, supervising security at aircraft plants and prisoner of war camps.
In fact, you can see that the text was originally cribbed from directly from wiki, but wiki dropped the "prisoner of war" angle as being too much of a bullseye to hand to conspiracy theorists.
At a deeper level, the whole Walmart thing ties back very quickly to the "Salem Witches" I've done so much research on. That is, Walmart and the "world's richest man" and all that are way out on their periphery, just another project among many.
Given that, I'm not really surprised to see anything.
"Homeland" was sooooo popular when it was on. It wasn't really to my my taste but I remember eventually trying to watch it. I was shocked at how bigoted it was. I have since become further shocked at how no one else seemed to be shocked at how bigoted it was, and that was because they didn't even notice it.
Back in the day it was a poster of a gorilla in a Stalhelm carrying off a woman. You might think it would have to be that obvious for everyone to notice it, but I personally feel people would say, "We've got to put a stop to those fucking gorillas one of these days."
You may have misunderstood. Common ground is not the problem nor is it the object, although such things are of crucial important to most. If I'm interacting with someone who harbors the conception they might be in ignorance or even have something wrong, well then I might have something to offer that will help.
Strangely, though, even such a person thinks I have nothing of profit to offer them, rather than passing on their way they feel compelled to offer me something instead, even when I didn't ask. Really, what this communicates is that they do not, in reality, harbor such conceptions of self-doubt.
Jesus said, "Ask and ye shall receive." An invitation, in other words. He didn't say, "Listen, let me tell you jokers something...."
But thanks for the engagement. TTYL.
There is a big difference, even just in what you say. I have come to find--very regrettably--that in order to figure out what's going on in the world I may have to disagree with every other person on the face of the earth. It is not comfortable or convenient.
Few seem willing to do that, which to me is the big hindrance to progress. Plus, they already know what's going on in the world so why trouble themselves so profoundly?
Somebody once said that if cocaine just made you throw up, no one would be addicted to cocaine. Truth, I have found, is much the same way.
Bertrand Russell said, “Most people would rather die than think and many of them do!” More and more, I come to realize that those in control of the world know this well and use it. Which, I fear, brings up the other famous saying, "People get what they deserve."
I also fear that I will never see eye to eye with anyone on this, and despair at the suffering.
One of such things is that Western people for unknown reason quickly project their own way of thinking on the completely different people. That's really weird.
But that's not what you're doing, right? That's rhetorical. I don't need an answer.
The only real peace will come when popular support for the entire Zionist ideology/social engineering project is diminished and defunct. They started with nothing and have caused untold hell and havoc.
Even if Israel is flattened, the cycle will just start all over again. "Oy vey, we said never again but look what happened!" The next cycle would only be worse.
The solution, which no one seems to see, is to get the idea of Zionism about where the idea of crusading is for Christians: ridiculed as crazy fanatical backwards bullshit, not even close to being a question.
Sure a few Zio hard-liners will never give it up, but they'll just fade away.
I think there are things going on that you haven't thought about yet. One of them is that a big part of the larger problem is all the people that have no idea there are things going on that they haven't thought about yet.
But you've clearly thought about everything to such extent that you felt the need to tell me about it, so let's leave it at that. Hope you got the compulsion out of your system.
One thing I've noticed about the rumors this time is that the Zionists are telling every one they can think up. Personally, I think that means (1) none of them are true and (2) they are very desperate indeed.
What's funny is that this tends to confirm for me that the Supreme Leader is dead (and has caused events to go a way other than according to plan). That's the obvious rumor to monger, right? I heard it one time a few days ago and never since. Remember when Putin was dead and dying and insane and in hiding and had fled the country? But not the Ayatollah, huh?
My guess is that power has now gone to the Guardian Council, and that it's full of hardliners, and that they're willing to have it out using their giant missile inventory. It also looks like US bases in the Gulf have been evacuated and Huckabee is rushing American citizens out. Israelis are crashing the exits themselves. An Armageddon of sorts, just not the one They expected.
So, you know, back to the "very desperate indeed".
Well, probably the first thing to keep in mind is that this is all a shift in paradigm.
That is to say, you can't take the body of current scholarship and research then just select and and adjust your way to the correct view. You have to throw out the very foundations of it and set a new foundation.
But once that's done, you can actually go back and pick up the scattered masonry and start construction again. It wasn't the facts themselves that were wrong, but how they were interpreted and given sense.
So take a general form of the current question: "How does a person know what's true?" To answer it, perhaps you would study the page on epistemology. Maybe you start thinking that these damn normies better start studying some damn epistemology!
But we are already, at this very first step, trapped in the current and incorrect paradigm. That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.
In the "normie" or "NPC" mode, people are driven by their subconscious. Their essential goal might be called "safety". That is achieved in many forms in many different situations, but you can easily see the basic ones: "go along to get along", "move with the herd", "follow instructions", "do the smart thing", "mind your own business", etc.
Well, you can see that none of those involve a rational process. Rather, after the decision is made and the course set, the only process--if necessary--is rationalization.
Only on rare occasions when pressed hard will a normie say something like, "I don't care of it's true or not." Their subconscious knows they sound like a fool and that does not bring safety. So they will reverse engineer any reasoning, any facts, any moral principles to justify their beliefs and actions.
So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance. Try finding any of this mentioned as part of epistemology.
That's the cold calculation you mentioned, but where it becomes apparent is in the mid-level consciousnesses scattered about. A good example is Bill Maher, although I've been collecting a list of others.
The vast majority of the time, Bill goes along with the progressive line and spouts all the same dumb talking points and bullshit reasoning. But every once in a while, Maher comes across with the same things that would come out of your mouth or mine. When you focus on this phenomenon, it's stark. How is it possible?
The mid-level straddles that line, trying to move from rationalizing to rational. The problem is, there is one correct rational analysis but innumerable rationalizations. Bill is a smart guy with access to lots of info, so he can conduct the rational analysis. Bill is also firmly in the liberal milieu and gets all the rewards from it.
So it ends up being like pouring water into an upside-down funnel. Some gets through but not much. As an example, go back and study his comments after he met with Trump very, very carefully. His rational analysis--his first-hand experience, no less--is that Trump is personable even with a critic, he's well-informed and wants to do the right thing, etc, etc. But all that is at war with how Bill "knows" that Trump is "bad".
Interestingly, Bill can't bring himself to say something which is actually quite simple and reasonable like, "You know, I think it's possible I may have been wrong all this time about Trump. Maybe I was the bad guy in this." It's a related but bigger subject, but the NPC and mid-levels of consciousness also do not possess the same kind of morality it is assumed they do. They virtually always begin by assuming themselves to be the "good guys" and it is thus literally unquestionable.
As to the precise mechanism behind the three states of human consciousness (NPC, mid-level, fully awake), no one knows. It should, however, not be considered spiritual or magical or mysterious or anything like that unless it is clearly demonstrated to be so.
A very good analogy is the phenomenon of color-blindness. There are the color-blind, the normally-sighted, and for argument we add in people that can see ultraviolet. What is surprising is this: without screening, color-blind people often reach adulthood without themselves or anyone around them ever being aware of their condition.
People assume that what sight is like for them is what sight is like for everyone else. Color-blindness can be extremely difficult to notice. I would claim the same holds for the modes of consciousness.
With an awareness of color-blindness, we've come up with certain screening tests. As for the mechanism, the discovery of cone cells is not even two centuries old, and they were discovered by direct observation with a microscope.
No one has come up with screening tests for consciousness, and we don't have a microscope for internal thoughts. The question may be harder to crack. Also, as mentioned, it's a paradigm shift. Also, you're trying to get (at most, I believe) 5% of consciousnesses to recursively probe the depths of consciousnesses. Also it's a Big Secret so no one is studying it.
I have actually come to detest when people criticize normies as being stupid or guilty of some failing or such. As far as I can tell, they are how they are, they had no choice in the matter, and they are almost certainly incapable of changing the state of affairs.
It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.