My support is for the Galactic Empire over the Alliance invasion. PERIOD.
Seriously, though, without suggesting it was planned this way, everyone should compare Die Schwarze Sonne to this: The insignia of the First Galactic Empire in the fictional Star Wars universe.
It's just that they do not not look alike.
This is all really beyond the forefront. I only know of one other researcher working on it: "Korben Dallas", who runs the stolenhistory.org website. IMHO, he's got a lot of things wrong about who "the Controllers" are and how the big picture fits together, but that's going to happen when you're hacking your way through the jungle. Aside from that, his work and the rest of the site are mind-blowing and a gold mine. Wander around there for a while and you'll have a very hard time after that taking any conventional history at face value.
The last time i was active on the site was a few years ago, so surely there have been developments since then, but Dallas was only beginning to see the mud flood as a weapon. No one, including myself, had any speculation as to how it may have worked. You'll develop your own ideas, but a couple of seemingly likely directions can (IMO) be thrown out.
First is the straightforward idea of liquefaction, as in an earthquake. There are indeed a handful of buildings that are tilting, such a the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but all the rest of straight and level. Liquefaction always induces racking and then tilting before collapse and there's no evidence of this in innumerable mud flooded buildings.
Which brings up the concept of "flood" itself. A flood, like a tsunami, would damage buildings, knock them off their foundations, etc, and there's no evidence of that. Fatally, though, there are many mud flood building on flat plains and on top of rises, so it seems there's nowhere from which the mud could have flooded.
Even a heavy precipitation of rocks and dirt does't seem likely, like ejecta from a comet strike or some such. I would think that that would not only collapse the roofs, but take part of the upper walls with them. Again, no evidence.
All of this analysis is just how it appears "to my eyes" at the current time. We're left with perhaps some sort of relatively slow "dust storm" phenomenon. The thing I'd like to look at is the character of the "mud" next to buildings. Is it all fine particulates, or are there sizable rocks and boulders mixed in?
So how did the Tartarians fall to, well, the Satanists that rule us now? It's a big black hole you're trying to draw evidence out of. But I urge you to study the architecture closely: only a noble and magnificent people could have dreamt such wonders, let alone actually created them to stand flawlessly before us centuries later. I have a hard time even imagining what they were like, but it does bring to mind how far we have all fallen or--more fairly to say--been cast down.
But I take the dismay I feel at what has been lost and flip it around to realize that it is just out of reach, barely out of living memory, and that what has fallen may be restored. Take a good look at photos of the "world's fairs" at the end of the 19th Century. Clearly, the societies that built these cities lived in all we need know of an Earthly Paradise.
Yes, correct, it seems like it finally put an end to the Tartarians.
You can sort of "back into" the weapon argument this way: The mud flood put an end to the Tartarians. All the mud flood history has been virtually eradicated. Do bad guys or good guys eradicate history? Bad guys, right? And who writes history? The victors, of course. So if the bad guys won a war over the Tartarians, and the mud flood ended the Tartarians, it would be quite an astonishing coincidence if the mud flood was a natural disaster and not in fact a weapon.
Two more factors are consistent with this analysis. One is that the mud flood is found at locations all over the globe, and it was almost entirely confined to cities. A natural disaster would leave all kinds of things buried in the soil, not just buildings.
Second, and I admit this is judgement but it's very clear to me, the Tartarian architecture left behind is beyond magnificent. Glorious artistry and craftsmanship beyond compare. Every building is of a type, yet all unique. Even water towers and stables are more beautiful than any building you've ever seen constructed.
So the current rulers, the winners of that war that erased the memory of their enemy, are they creative enough to have made these? Quite the opposite. All architecture, art, music, etc, is increasingly degrading, debased, dehumanizing, disgusting. A civilization of exceeding beauty was destroyed with what we can only imagine was a sort of "doomsday weapon".
It's a huge thing, undeniable. Once you see the evidence, you can;t see unsee it. There are three mud flooded buildings in the city near which I live, and one in the small suburb where my house is.
What's disturbing is that it's not like it's something you only see on the Internet. It's real, right there, in this rando city and suburb. You can't dismiss it like, "That YouTube guy is just a shill! He's working for the Cabal!" And I'll just take it at face value, so to speak, because if the Cabal arranged false evidence that's been there my entire life to fool a handful of people in the far future, we're all fucked anyway.
It's also clear that the Capitol, the White House and the Executive Office Building across the street were all mud flooded, but there is not a single word in the official histories as to when and how this happened. That's disturbing.
If you choose to research this, you'll also open your eyes to events like the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes. If you've never heard of it, you'll think you really should have when you find out that the Mississippi River ran backwards for 3 days after it. If this was part of the war, they successfully rewrote a huge strike, and the weapon was of unimaginable power.
Look up Ewaranon on YT, something like "Lost History of the Flat Earth" .He's disinfo, yes, selling FE, but there's excellent content documenting the reset of the 1800's. Trust me, you'll be heartbroken seeing what has been stolen from us.
Personally, I feel right now that the idea of an imminent cataclysm is entirely a red herring. There's a longer discussion to be had, of course, but I have seen not a piece of evidence come along that can be accounted for solely, or even most likely, by such a future event.
Rather, what I do spend a lot of time thinking about is the "mud flood". If there was a coming cataclysm, that would be it. Even more worrisome is that it appears to have been a weapon, and that it depopulated much of the world. Really worrisome is that it was used as recently as the 19th Century, that it has been used many times before, and that it has been virtually erased from history. Overarchingly worrisome are the potential circumstances in which it could be used again.
All in all, if I were the potential user of such a weapon, I'd want everyone talking all the time about all these other nonsensical existential threats instead of the real one, and looking for me. Deception is, after all, the ultimate art of war.
Well, in a larger sense, I'm only involved in trying to account for evidence we have at hand. I'm willing to speculate anything, but only so far as it provides a potentially falsifiable, well-defined hypothesis, or would at least serve as a framework for developing one.
There's a problem with introducing an all -powerful creator being into that. It's not that there isn't one because there are certain indications that there is, but as far as analysis you just handed yourself the ultimate wild card. Every single fact and circumstance can simply be explained as, "God willed it to be thus." Actual analysis becomes completely arbitrary, if not flushed right down the toilet. Just think of how liberals have a secret invisible asterisk at the end of every one of their statements. Do you want to be like them?
As far as the nature of consciousness, the biggest tip of the hand was the show "Westworld". We clearly see it as a technology that can be manipulated externally. If we look judiciously around at the current world and through history, we can find evidence of exactly that happening.
One might also analogize it to eyesight. We start with an in-built, "natural" facility. Note that different people have different characteristics, and some are even color-blind. We can augment it with everything from eyeglasses to telescopes and microscopes. With lasik and RK, we can also alter it in ways undetectable to all but specialists, who would need to examine the person carefully.
To sum up, instead of trying to "get somewhere", I simply try to make sense of what is already before me. When and as that is done and done well, where to look next is usually not much of an issue.
I would guess it's real, and what I base that on is that DeSantis is a rival to Trump, Trump was stunningly popular among ordinary Jews, and ordinary Jews can be quite outspoken.
What I am reminded of is when a Jewish film director was literally booed offstage for badmouthing Trump. At a KKK meeting is Alabammy? No, it was at the Israeli Film Festival in Los Angeles. Such anti-Semitism did not get any media coverage, for some reason.
When carefully examined and properly understood, this is key to understanding the original history and relationship between humans and the Anunnaki. It all revolves around a single Hebrew word: avod. You can examine it more closely later, but just take a look at the title of this article:
‘Avodah’: What It Means to Live a Seamless Life of Work, Worship, and Service
Does the disjunction scream out at you? If not,let me break it down.
In the "Abrahamic" religions, there is a strong division between work and worship. W.H. Auden mentions, "My working week and my Sunday rest," and every Christian knows what that means. The Biblical Jews wanted to put two of Jesus' followers to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. Many modern Jews won't press an elevator button on Sabbat.
But in "avodah", we see work and worship fused together. It's unexpected, contradictory, extraordinarily baffling! How can this be?
If we go back to the true origin, though, it makes perfect sense. We learn that humans were created to do work the Anunnaki did not want to do, beginning with mining gold but of course expanding to everything else. In other words, we were created to work for the Anunnaki, which becomes "to serve the gods", which becomes "worship of god(s)". But you see how the original meaning has been lost and disguised.
As far as where the "day of rest" concept came in, I don't personally know but I would think even beasts of burden are not worked every single day. I suspect that one day out of seven was established by the Anunnaki as appropriate rest for their bests of burden. Indeed, this may have been the very purpose of originating the concept of "week". Why would primitive farmers and hunters have the least care to create such a period of time?
There was indeed a "War in Heaven". In a twist to what you might expect, a bargain was struck where the winners left and the losers stayed here. Two-thirds of the Anunnaki returned to Nibiru, and the Fallen Angels led by Satan were marooned.
A problem in unraveling all this was that Satan then proceeded to rewrite some of the history. Of course, various confusions and misunderstandings aided the cause of obfuscating real history. Much remains, though, and at least a skeletal picture can be reassembled.
It all takes a great degree of discernment and discipline, and wide-ranging research, but not many people are even interested. Most of those get tangled up in the barbed wire of existing "scholarship". The few that get past that nail their own feet to the floor with their biases and predispositions. You simply cannot tell someone anything different than what they already "know".
The current period we're in is some sort of test, but the Anunnaki will return. Quite possibly this will be within our lifetimes, the biggest clue being how panicked the Elites seem to be getting.
And finally, Genesis 1:1, when properly translated, mentions "the Father of the Beginnings" as the creator of the Elohim, but no more is known.
You've hit on quite an important point, and I've had exactly the same thought. As regards Yahweh of the Bible, what is virtually universally missed is that he radically alters his position just during the course of that document.
Yes, we start with all the "burnt offerings" and all the rest of this, but even the Ten Commandments says nothing of worship except "Remember the sabbath day". (Later, Jesus reminds us that the Sabbath was created for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.) Interestingly, there is a commandment to honor your father and mother but--again--Yahweh does not even include himself there.
By the time of Isaiah, we get this very strong plain and statement regarding worship from Yahweh (Isaiah 1:11-14):
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Right in the Scripture, from the man himself, yet completely ignored! Finally, by the end of the Bible (although similar things are mentioned several times before), we find in Revelation 21:2-3:
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
"A bride adorned for her husband"? "Dwell with them"? "Their God"? It all gives quite a different picture than that of some sort of blind worship.
Again, all ignored, which has greatly informed my view of "Biblical scholarship".
My point was that if the people that go along with the people you're talking about did not go along with the people you're talking about, I doubt we'd have much of a problem at all.
How many people do you think would go along with Harari or Schwab just because they have such great ideas? I'd say it's a number that rounds down to zero. They go along because because they sense that good things will happen for them, just as with Bernard.
I remember once Mark Passio said that he thought there should be no prisons. He thought that all the inmates should be released back into their communities as a punishment for allowing them to become adults with such a low level of consciousness.
Now that's pretty extreme and I personally don't think we're ready for that at this point, but I was never able to put my finger on exactly why--in principle--he could be said to be wrong.
Turns out Satan's original name is Marduk, which if from the Sumerians and as far back as can (presently) be known. All the others, I would say, are best thought of a just sort of titles or "alternate descriptors".
So if you take "Hillary Rodham", an original name, you can probably think of two dozen different titles (like "Senator Clinton") or alternate descriptors (like "Hellary") for her, some very different than the original.
Even "Lucifer" itself is erroneous. If you trace it back to the original Hebrew source, you'll find it comes from the word "helel". Most properly translated and converted to a name, it would be something like "Shining One". I mention this not as trivia, but because it turns out to be key evidence in the case for his true identity.
They were afraid of him for whatever reason.
This fits into my thesis about the Elites, specifically that the vast majority of them aren't putting on the robes at the Eyes Wide Shut party and bowing down before flaming statues of Moloch. Rather, it all happens through influencing their behavior.
Take, for example, the "cool kids" back in school. Want good things to happen for you and to have a "good time"? Do what it takes to get in good with the cool kids. On the flip side, cross them and your life begins to become hellish.
Also, recognize that the cool kids had no membership lists or initiation ceremonies, but we all knew who they were and even how they ranked internally. The Elite are actually more explicit than that.
So yeah, the "smart" people knew that the smart move was to go along with the program when it came to JE. Is this best described as being "in on it"? I don't think it's very accurate and does not lead to a clear picture of the situation. And is there any conflict in which you've said to yourself, "I wish my picture of this situation was less clear"?
There is a two-fold problem in making this determination. (1) I think most Redditors are not capable of expression beyond the level of a bot, and (2) 95% of the content is simple glib one-liners.
So what the breakdown is between AI and low-consciousness humans is I couldn't even guess, but the far more alarming problem is the human one. Bots can be turned off, but consciousness (AFAIK) cannot easily be turned on.
You know, I've noticed this is going on even worse over on r/conspiracy. I mean, even worse than how worse it was before. My theory is that They have been reduced to the primitive technique of "the bad drives out the good".
To illustrate, imagine trying to drive a rival bar out of business. Instead of trying to complete, every day you just hand 40 bucks each to dirty, smelly, loud, aggressive people "experiencing homelessness" to go drink in there all day. Pretty soon, any real customers will get fed up and leave. The bar shuts down and the homeless go back to paying for their own drinks.
Did I just accidentally compare shills to dirty, smelly, loud, aggressive homeless people drinking all day on someone else's dime? Oh my word!
I regret there's really no way to sensibly reply to something so disorganized. Have you ever heard the phrase "not even wrong"?
Thanks for what I'm sure you consider a "contribution". Or maybe it's a "refutation". Who can say?
I would guess most of us here are fairly certain there has been an organized program of economic/environmental sabotage program active in the US for a while now.
What I would like to underscore is that when you consider the numerous systems and institutions and organizations we have for protecting us from harm, finding malefactors and bringing them to justice, and preventing future attacks, just realize that every bit of it means fuck all whenever "They" decide to flip the switch and deactivate it.
You know how there's that strain of conspiracy theorists/preppers that are faced with this murderous Satanic Fascist control system and talk about a "parallel economy" and "getting off the grid" and things of this nature?
What I have observed is that that's precisely what Russia, China, Iran, Turkiye, SA, et al, have been doing on a global scale over the last year, but none of those people I mentioned seemed to have ever noticed. Makes me wonder how deep their powers of analysis really were.
Anyway, my point is that both Russia and those CTists share the underlying goal that you do not have to give a single rip about anyone who opposes you (unless of course you care to).
That includes all the anti-Russia shills on this forum.
This is an important learning opportunity for understanding how humans really work.
Obviously, hordes of Leftists who watch MSNBC should see this and instantly realize, "Ohhhhhh, so that's what all the conservatives were complaining about all this time! Well, it all makes sense now. And what manipulative liars all these people are!" Yet can any of us find a single example of what should be millions?
So what's really happening? Well, the type of people that watch these outlets to "get informed" about the world are the type of people that take instructions from those they perceive as being "in authority". Regarding Twitter, they were instructed what to think then, and they are being instructed what to think now.
More specifically and importantly, it's instructions on how to feel, in this case outrage. Once they know how to feel, they can find reasoning or invent "facts" as necessary to support it. See the inversion?
To put a finer point on the particular dynamics in their mental processes, they have no ability to deviate from authority. It's not that they can't reason about situations such as this--they do it every single day. It's that they have been given the directive, so their reasoning process comes into play only to support that directive.
This is all subconscious. They lack even the ability to introspect and discover it for themselves, so good luck expecting them to. You might as well ask someone to let you know when they've fallen asleep.
Marcus Aurelius should be required reading in schools, but isn't for what I think we all know are obvious reasons. Really, I think one of the most surprising things is that just from reading his work, you'd never guess what his job was or even when he wrote it.
I get the feeling we're at the point now where quite a few people--everyone from these cops in the UK to Alvin Bragg in Manhattan--are mentally calculating, "What are the chances someone's going to come kick down my door if I just go along with this?" For pretty much all of them, the answer at present is, "There's not a chance of that, so I guess there's not really a problem."
Each of us can make us this what they will.