It's always seemed to me like the final evolution of this is simply where the totalitarians kick down your door in the middle of the night saying, "Don't bother telling us what you said because we know what you meant. Now, you have several choices for what we're going to call your suicide...."
I wonder if the last name "Hamman" is even real?
The reason I raise the issue is that it seems like just the kind of "very deeply inside baseball" reference Intelligence Satanists would make. It's very close to the name Baal Hammon:
Baal Hammon was known as the Chief of the pantheon of Carthage... as with most deities of Carthage, he was seemingly propitiated with child sacrifice, likely in times of strife or crisis, or only by elites, perhaps for the good of the whole community. This practice was recorded by Greeks and Romans, but dismissed as propaganda by modern scholars, until archeologists unearthed urns containing the cremated remains of infants in places of ritual sacrifice. Some scholars believe this confirms the accounts of child sacrifice, while others insist these are the remains of children who died young.
C'mon, we all know these freaks love these kind of jokes. Then again, maybe it's more disturbing if it is real.
The thing I'm really curious to see play out is whether or not they actually let Big Z become a martyr for whatever cause they decide to say he died for.
I mean, with their previous scumbags they arranged an exit because they needed to convince future scumbags to go along with them. This time sure seems different for a number of reasons. For example, Saddam seems like a fine fellow compared to Zelensky.
Average Ukrainians will want him dead for wrecking their country. Servicemen will want him dead for allowing the slaughter of their comrades. Neo-Nazis will want him dead for those reasons and not killing all the Russians and being a Jew. Who wants to deprive all these folks?
If I was him, I'd have faked my death a while ago, but I think as an actor he became addicted to being the center of world attention. And addicted to coke. But Jesus, Vlod, you can get coke anywhere.
I doubt the NYT had an attack of conscience. I think they're actually covering for an increasingly desperate Zelensky, who is getting the feeling that the sand is running out of the hourglass the West handed him and he's not entirely sure what happens after that.
What are the chances, really, that an errant anti-aircraft missile lands right in the middle of a crowd of people, precisely enough to kill 30 and wound dozens more? I'd say the chances are virtually zero.
Try this experiment: pull up Google Maps to a nearby city and drop the StreetView guy in a random place. Spin around in a circle. Are there 50 people visible within 50 meters? Even 100 meters? No way. Remember, I even spotted you a city, not just anywhere on the landscape.
So to be specific, Zelensky shoot a missile into a crowded marketplace. The plan is to blame the Russians for the mass casualty event and drum up "outrage" over the event so the West keeps the firehose of money and coke going to, uh, continue the brave fight against the merciless orcs.
The Neo-Imperialists don't like anything that isn't their idea, especially when they're getting strong-armed. They can't just out the guy, since then it would make them look like we've all been supporting a guy that would do what I just said he did.
Instead, they instruct The Newspaper of Mockingbird to say, "We have to be really honest here: it was all a big misunderstanding." Problem solved.
And the plan worked, didn't it? Conspiracy theorists bit down on it harder than normies.
Regrettably, I have found that even of those who consider themselves "awake", as a rule they prefer their own best judgement to determine what reality is. And what use is reality and the evidence of it when you have your own best judgement?
I suspect not even one single person reading it will understand what I just wrote, and therein lies the difficulty.
It's clear that the struggle in which humanity is engaged is between two of the Anunnaki: Enlil (Yahweh in the Bible) and Marduk (Satan in the Bible).
The "War in Heaven" ended in a bargain between them about 600 BC. If Satan could come to dominate the human race, as a rancher dominates a herd of cattle, then he could continue to rule Earth. He would not, however, be allowed to use any of the Nibiruans advanced technology. He could only convince us through temptation into transgression. By choice and consent, as it were.
The bulk of religious exegesis and ancient mythology are just corrupted, distorted, partial and garbled versions of the true and complete history. Disguising and erasing that history is, as one may imagine, of tantamount importance. You almost certainly won't win a game you don't know you're playing.
Above all this appears to be a supreme deity, but he plays no part in this contest that I can discern. He's only mentioned once in the Bible and that reference has been literally erased.
As a point of historical reference and an indication of just how far the Overton Window has shifted just within living memory, I remind everyone:
In Vitro Fertilization Was Once As Controversial As Gene Editing is Today: The scientists who pioneered it were regarded as pariahs, even within their own universities (Smithsonian Magazine 9/27/2017)
"The British magazine Nova ran a cover story in the spring of 1972 suggesting that test tube babies were ‘the biggest threat since the atom bomb’ and demanding that the public rein in the unpredictable scientists.”
One of the more extreme warnings was that babies so conceived would not even have souls. Ridiculous! But then again, looking around, are we so certain they were wrong?
One can imagine that these neurological deficits must be difficult to replicate, and very taxing on the person trying to do so. Might as well just punt and forget it ever existed.
We saw something similar with the super-fake-ass 2011 Tucson shooting, where Congressunit Gabby Giffords supposedly took one to the head and suffered severe brain damage. At the time, the constantly reinforced "proof" of her injury was that she had very obvious "aphasia".
Years ago, a close friend of my mother's had a stroke during surgery and also ended up suffering from aphasia. She would stammer and search around for even familiar words. Once you knew what you were looking at, it was quite distinct.
Since such a neurological condition would be hard to replicate, they just had Giffords talk like a baby. Anyone of us can do that for as long as we care to. It's quite laughable compared to real aphasia.
And in the rewrite of history that we all must now expect, if you look at the wiki writeup on Gifford's recovery, they don't even use the word "aphasia". Too easy for someone to click on the link and see that's clearly not what she exhibits.
If it was me running the show, I'd just drop the whole pretense and go with the story that both Giffords and Fetterman were miraculously cured by sacrifice to their Lord and Master, Satan.
Right, that's what I'm saying. This is all headed for something other than the players laying their cards on the table and one of them saying, "I see you have bested me. Good day to you, sir!"
Given that, I feel like the "White Hats" are trying to carefully maneuver to keep the table from being flipped over and .45 Colts flying in every direction.
When they started printing and handing out all those trillions during the pandemic, I really got the feeling that dollars had lost their character as a representation of value. And I don't mean that in some kind of "monetary policy Ron Paul debasement of the currency" type of way.
The closest analogy I can come up with is this: imagine watching a poker game in the Old West and it's come down to two players. One of them is a robber baron who's been dominating the town and draining all the wealth. As you watch them push out more and more chips, you think, "Well, whoever loses is going to be upset at forfeiting all that value."
Then they start to throw in the titles to their horses, the deeds to their farms, ownership of their wives and children, etc. You then realize, "Oh, this is no longer about money at all. One of these two is going to end up run out of town or more likely dead. In that case, whatever they had title to is meaningless because they aren't going to be around any more to own it."
So as I see it, the stakes are that high. No one's ever going to pay off the debt. That's no longer what's happening.
I was about to make the joke that it's really "anyone from Earth who can be predicted to vote Democrat", but I think it's actually gone beyond that.
Now I think they're relying on rigged elections and going for full-on Cloward-Piven societal collapse. Quantity over quality.
What's weird is that we're constantly hearing about all manner of things that can knock you off in the blink of an eye, from Tylenol to "safe and effective" vaccines to a whiff of fentanyl powder. And here they have to resort to a pillow? Is that supposed to make sense?
I have extraordinary reservations against suicide, but everyone's life is their own. In that case, what's wrong with a few hits of morphine? That's just a matter of how many, and will definitely take you out in a way you won't even notice.
Final bizarre twist: I thought pillows were supposed to muffle the screams of the victim. If they don't, I'll just... uh... note that down.
Miles Mathis shredded it up pretty well in this analysis:
Let's put the Spotlight on Spotlight (1/9/2017 24-page PDF)
I mentioned in a previous paper that I suspected the 2015 Academy-Award-winning movie Spotlight was a spook film, pushing a fake story. At the time, I suspected that only because it won the Academy Award. Based on past experience, it was a good bet that any promoted film would be a spook film. Most films now are, but the most promoted are the most spooky. As I have said many times, if the mainstream is telling you it is day, bet on it being night. Well, it didn't take much research to discover my hunch was right. This story is another avalanche of red flags, if you know how to read them.
Mathis is, of course, disinfo, so step carefully when it comes to assumptions and conclusions, but red flags are red flags and can be evaluated independently.
I think it's real. Anyone who's interested in doing the work can get a copy of the referenced book and look up the quote to confirm. No one constructs a lie that easily debunked.
I think what we have is an instance of, "If you can't cover it up, turn it up." I will explain....
Trump is a smart guy moving widely in the highest circles, while also seeming quite down-to-earth. By all accounts he's engaging and personable in private. Thus, he's the kind of guy people end up confiding in.
The 911 attacks were surely "in the air" in the late 90's for anyone paying attention (which almost no one was). Intelligence operations always leak to some extent, and a big one like this certainly would.
No one but Trump himself could say how much he picked up on. Bill Cooper picked up on a lot from far outside the sphere where it was taking place. So Trump, being a patriot, expresses either as much as he knows, or as much as he thinks people can handle.
As an instructive parallel, one should examine John O'Neill. He may have been the last honest FBI agent, and his story was covered by PBS in what may have been their last honest reporting:
An Update: John O’Neill and the 9/11 Commission (PBS 4/26/2004)
These disclosures directly relate to John O’Neill’s story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda’s presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI’s failure to share information with each other.
So O'Neill also knew it was "in the air", but you see how they spin it there at the end.
I will spoil the ending to John story: he is driven from the FBI and becomes (get this) security director for the WTC. Shortly thereafter he's killed in the 911 attacks. That wraps up the story of what happens to honest people who try to prevent "terrorism" and find the perpetrators of "terrorist acts".
And finally, back to Mika and Joe: they can't have normies knowing even the little I just wrote, so to avoid all that they "turn up the volume" and are attempting to sell it as, "wAs tRuMp WaS iN oN iT?! (yEs)" As I've said many times, "They" are desperate and nothing is off the table.
In all the coverage I've heard on this issue, no matter what the descriptions and characterizations and justifications for any part of it, not a single person has ever mentioned that all of it began with someone, somewhere, sometime willingly and consciously accepting money and promising to pay it back. All discussion erases the fundamental character of the issue, which has become par for the course.
My point is that they have as a consequence also annihilated the concept of personal responsibility. Actually, though, it's more subtle: personal responsibility overtly is still as vital and important as it ever was, but certain people in certain situations have any number of excuses none of which are worth mentioning.
But the really nefarious part takes place in the minds of the purported "victims". They will accept whatever excuse is handed over to absolve them, and the excuse is silently transformed into "justice".
So in the final analysis, the most important part of the whole affair is not abuse of the public treasury or extraconstitutional actions by the executive branch or any such thing. It's the loss of integrity in a whole generation.
In my view, yes, that's exactly what the Devil would most desire.
For anyone trying to figure out what's really going on (rather than reiterating how all new evidence means that they were "really right all along"), anomalies are as a rule the most important evidence for which to account. I remind everyone of this anomaly:
“Strong and Fearless” – Trump Endorses Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Despite Boos at Wyoming Rally (TGP 6/5/2022)
Trump endorses a guy that seemed to have stabbed him in the back over January 6th and probably on other occasions? An anomaly indeed.
As an aside, I completely dispense with the notion many hold that "tYeY'rE aLl iN iT tOgEtHeR!" as a wild card people deal to themselves who could not otherwise research and reason their way out of a paper bag. I find them to be overconfident in their abilities, to put it mildly.
I believe this is simply more "Blue Beam" propaganda for an event that I can pretty much guarantee never happened. The red flags and holes all over the entire story are too numerous to go into.
Really, one has to flip around the thought process and ask, "How hard would it be for some Intelligence creative writer to concoct a half blacked out 'secret memo' and then arrange for it to be FOIAed to a Mockingbird/Establishment media outlet?"
Everyone can come up with their own answer, but to me it seems like the work of an afternoon.
The Monica Lewinsky Scandal was faked (3/5/2016 25-page PDF)
Caveat: Mathis is a disinfo agent, but the evidence for the basic thesis seems solid and may be independently validated.
Mathis leaves out some things which are "too hot", such as this spicy little nugget:
That's the way disinformation works, of course.
I think it's enlightening to note the diametrically opposed approaches the Cultural Controllers take between Coral Castle and the pyramids of Egypt.
They'll talk to you literally all day and night about the pyramids and how "science" tells us they were built, but yet there's a deafening silence surrounding Coral Castle. Being millennia more recent, we should certainly know infinitely more about Coral Castle. But what does good old Neil deGrasse Tyson have to tell us about it? Nothing whatsoever, of course. (Side observation: modern "scientists" are absolutely repelled by actual mysteries.)
The reason Coral Castle is treated differently is that the conditions of early 20th Century America sill exist within living memory. There are still people around to call bullshit on their bullshit "theories". Give it another century or two and they'll be telling us all about Ed Leedskalnin and his earthen ramps and copper chisels.
I find the related arithmetic interesting:
For example, 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Then Auschwitz revises their number from 4 million down to 1.5 million, a difference of 2.5 million.
Then we can calculate the revised number that 6 million - 2.5 million = 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.
Everyone that disagrees is an anti-Semite. Actually, everyone is an anti-Semite.
Some other pics surfaced a while ago, on a trip to the UK as I recall, where the body double is just standing alone hanging out curbside at the airport. Looks like he was just waiting for his Uber.
What times we live in!