I can't get over the fact that AJ is Bill Hicks, so that puts him in the category of what I call "Simulant". This type of person is not an Intelligence legend, which is entirely fabricated. Also, he's not just an ordinary person. Like, don't you get a little bit of a weird feeling when you find out the first name of someone you know isn't their real first name, but they go by their middle name for whatever reason?
The weird feeling is precisely because we trust one another implicitly, and real fakery or deception is so uncommon. So AJ can tell an authentic and convincing story about his youth because it probably happened almost exactly that way, but we have to keep in mind he's definitely not an ordinary person.
The trans agenda of the Establishment is alive and well. Witness them burying Hale's manifesto.
(Which in itself is strange. The event was fake, so didn't they write the manifesto themselves beforehand and arrange it's release? If somehow it really existed and is authentic, why not just declare it was a "diary with unimportant ramblings"? Makes me think these hoaxes are not as tightly controlled as we all assume them to be.)
As you say, though, the tide seems to be shifting. And also as you say, the NPCs get their programming from the media. But they also absorb other material on a subconscious basis from the environment, and the Establishment cannot (yet) shield NPCs from that completely.
I would say that there has been such an accumulation of negative associations with trannies and transsexualism and the trans agenda that it has finally begun to overbalance the scales in the minds of NPCs.
Of course, they would be unaware of this. None will say, "I was wrong and I've changed my mind." They won't say anything, really, other than just a vague, "I think it all may be going too far," or, "Well, it seems like some of these people have problems."
Same thing happened with all the rioting a couple of years ago. Notice how there aren't any NPCs saying "BLM 4eva!" No, they all got enough dirty looks and absorbed the message.
Make of this what you will, but I'd say the name is a reference to Pazuzu:
Pazuzu is a fictional character who is the main antagonist in The Exorcist horror novels and film series, created by William Peter Blatty. Blatty derived the character from Assyrian and Babylonian mythology, where the mythic Pazuzu was considered the king of the demons of the wind, and the son of the god Hanbi. In The Exorcist, Pazuzu appears as a demon who possesses Regan MacNeil.
We also find for the mentioned Hanbi that:
In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology (and Mesopotamian mythology in general) Hanbi or Hanpa (more commonly known in western text) was the god of evil, god of all evil forces and the father of Pazuzu and Humbaba.
An association between AOC and the child of the god of evil? Who saw that coming? Surely a coincidence!
For historical context, we can see that they are taking their "liberal democracies" all the way back to ancient times:
Lèse-majesté is an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or the state itself.... This behaviour was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or Late Empire period, the emperors eliminated the republican trappings of their predecessors and began to equate the state with themselves.
Sorta reminds me of, "L'etat c'est moi!." Can't think who said that, though.
My guess is it's a Deep State debrief. They want to know everything he knows about China.
The difference is that China has gone from fake enemy of the West and real friend of the NWO to the leader of the multipolar world order, with no enmity to Western populations. Xi finally turned the tables at the 20th Politburo of the CCP at the end of last October.
Remember when they hauled off the guy that was sitting right next to Xi? That was a very public message to the Chinese Deep State. And as much as the Establishment loves to bash Xi as a brutal dictator, notice how they never mention that incident? The Deep State memory holes it's defeats as quickly as possible.
I think the really diabolical aspect is that all the normies that watched this said to themselves, "Oh totally. Ryland really IS a boy--I can just tell. Transgenderism FTW!"
I don't want to call it brilliant, so I'll say it's sickeningly effective.
Actually, I had been really intrigued by the material referenced in the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats", and for a long time I meant to research it but never got around to it.
Then somewhere along the line I found out those two factoids: the one about Ronson and Jones, and also that Ronson wrote the book the movie was based on.
Being a good enough conspiracist to put two and two together, I said to myself, "Well, I really just saved myself a lot of research time on evaluating that material, didn't i?"
Haha, no, I never knew this! Again, what a strange parallel: remember that Alex Jones got his "big break" when he "snuck in" to Bohemian Grove?
Makes you wonder whether Fulford and AJ are secretly in some weird Cabal version of the Mickey Mouse Club together, except that Elites did stuff to your butthole when you were a kid?
Oh... well... I guess that goes for the regular Mickey Mouse Club too, doesn't it?
Fulford is, IMHO, a Cabal asset and disinfo agent. (And I'm quite surprised at some of the people who give credence to his "reports".)
Just at a guess, he was deemed by his masters to be deserving of punishment, and it comes in the form of this strange public humiliation. I find it a parallel to the similarly questionable Alex Jones "tranny porn" incident.
Public Service Announcement: FTN is ultimately, like so many alternative media outlets, disinfo.
A few years back I heard an episode where they exposed Alexander Hamilton. They came up with extremely deep research about all his connections to Jewry. Quite informative and quite damning.
But I happened to have read a paper about Hamilton by Miles Mathis, another disinfo agent. He detailed Hamilton's connections to the British aristocracy. (Did you know there was literally a member of the peerage named Alexander Hamilton alive at the same time as the American one?) FTN mentioned not a single bit of this. Do I think they could have simply overlooked it? No way.
So They give out info about the Jews to the Jew-haters, because they know they're foolish enough to think that's where it ends. That's how They keep those people from finding out anything more. The same goes for the flip side.
When smart and knowledgeable people who are "on your side" are saying all the things you want to hear, that's when you need to get your guard up. IOW, if you think you're already on to the game and playing it well, make sure it's not the one They set up for you.
I wholeheartedly recommend the work of Mark Passio to everyone.
Over the course of years, listening to many thousands of interviews and presentations, I've found that these "popular" researchers break down according to the "80-20 rule" (estimated values):
- 80% are straight up disinfo with material written in some Langley basement office
- 16% are honest but in error because they foolishly base their work on the 80% disinfo peddlers
- 3.2% are honest and have avoided the disinfo, but are in error because they make mistakes like we all do
- 0.64% are honest and accurate, but lack importance because they are incorrectly tied into the larger context
- 0.16% are honest, accurate, important, and insightful
Mark Passio falls into this last category.
If you very carefully examine the usage of this and other such terminology, you'll find that these words have no fixed definitions in the accepted sense.
A prime example would be the word "nazi". What do you think the definition of the word "nazi" is internally, in the mind of the average leftist? Sure, if pressed for a definition, they would make a bunch of mouth noises at your face because they know they're not supposed to admit that they use words with no definition. Do you think "definitions" from any two of them would coincide if asked separately? I daresay you'd have to look quite a while to find that.
So really, these terms are not even words. "Nazi" is just meant to convey, "The person I point to when i say 'nazi' is not one of us, a bad person, to be considered a threat." Like if you approach a gang of wild monkeys and one of them orients towards you, screeches, and bares it's teeth, are those words? No, but the other monkeys get it.
An interesting event from just yesterday consistent with Soros being dead and Ronny a Cabal asset:
DeSantis is calling out Soros as the puppet master. What else has Soros backed up?
The heat goes on a dead guy and DeSantis gets insta-cred among the unwary conservatives for calling out "Darth Schwarz".
Not explicitly. The phenomenon of human consciousness is barely studied. Upon reflection, I think you may agree that this is by "Their" design.
The first thing to understand is how incredibly poorly it is understood even in our "advanced civilization". For example, scientists do not know how anesthesia works. They know that it does, but they do not know the actual mechanism. I once heard an anesthesiologist say that everyone in his profession just develops a technique he likes to make sure his patient is "under". For him, he would touch their eyeball to see if they flinched.
The closest proxy of which I am currently aware is hypnotizability. Directly related to your original post, we find this:
correlation between unvax% and unhypnotisable% (10/6/2021)
Do you think "scientists" can't see these patterns and correlations as I have? Well, maybe, but I think any that are smart enough to see them are "smart" enough to steer away from following up. Frankly, I'd say a less explosive thesis for research would be, "I think I can tell which of these negro kids will have a propensity for violence!"
After seeing how little research and discussion there is on this subject, and how violent the reaction was a few years ago when the "NPC" meme was going around, I have come to consider the true nature of consciousness one of Their biggest secrets.
As far as I can tell at the current time, it's both subject to external manipulation and genetic.
That is, in ancient times, kings and chief priests could be elevated to consciousness by some sort of treatment. This is what the "apple" in the Garden was, and also what we see represented in those Assyrian carvings where one of the "gods" is pointing a pinecone at the king's pineal gland.
I have not even a hint of evidence anyone is getting such treatments nowadays, so I presume that when the deal went down around 600 BC, some fraction of humans were genetically endowed with this characteristic. As these people began to be born, we see humans "waking up" all around the world during the Axial Age.
If we could recover the science and technology of those treatments, well that sure would help.
It's Yahweh/Enlil. The Anunnaki apparently have some concept about trading off rulership with every zodialcal age, which we would conventionally take to be 2160 years. All that stuff in the Bible about "the end of the age"? That's exactly what they're referring to.
The people who think the Bible and other works were all about astrotheology are kinda correct in this aspect. Their theories then fall off the line of reasoning because, for them, the ancients were very concerned about the doings of the stars for no reason at all.
I mean, can you even imagine being concerned with tracking the precessional cycle? That's like being a 10yo boy and noting when a certain star rose, then being an 82yo man and noting that same star rose 10 minutes earlier. It's ludicrous to believe people just thought this stuff up one day.
Clearly this is true, and the West would be crazy to provoke a pan-European war. Then one must consider whether "They" have an interest in destroying Western military potential. For the life of me, I can't think of a sensible reason.
All that being said, I think They will still try. The reason is that They are so desperate, They think a war--any war--might just shake something loose in Their favor, or at least give Them some room to maneuver.
They can bullshit all of us all They want, but the Russians are creating facts on the ground and that's a huge problem for Them.
I'd say photoshop. Dad and daughter are not in the same picture, or even generated together. The right side of his face is slightly lighter. On her, the lighting is even, and perhaps slightly from her left. An AI wouldn't make that mistake, but a human would.
The clues are extremely tiny, but here's how it shapes up: a deal was struck between Yahweh and Satan which took effect around 600 BC. Yahweh and his forces withdrew while Satan and the Fallen Angels remained.
The nature of it seems to be something like this: if, in a given period of time, Satan could come to dominate the world and the human race, then he could keep rulership. Humans, virtually all of whom were unconscious up to this time, were to be given a tool to resist: some small fraction of them would receive higher consciousness. I think you may be able to see that consciousness is all we need to free ourselves from our current situation.
The mechanism I believe has something to do with the pineal gland. I would also presume it's a recessive genetic trait. Thus, getting upset with people that "don't get it" is like yelling at the colorblind for their failure to try hard enough. I'm sure you know there is virtually no research available along these lines.
As I say, the evidence for the whole idea is scant and fragmentary. One of the more obvious points is where Jesus is confronted by Satan in the desert. Satan offers him the world. Note, though, that Jesus does not contest that. IOW, he recognizes that the world is Satan's to give. And so it is, if Satan prevails in the deal that has been struck.
Now your microscope must be well focused when you tale a look at this verse (Matthew 8:29):
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Biblical scholars are silent on this, but if pressed I'm sure they would just wave their hands around and talk about Revelation and the End Times or some such. My concept is much more finely tuned.
These "demons" are the un-reincarnated spirits of giants, who were the offspring of the "bene Elohim" and human women, now trapped on Earth and living off loosh. We see that they are aware of who Jesus really is, and they are also aware of the deal that has been put in place. Their fate rests with the outcome of that deal.
Finally, you know that "revelation of the method" thing that conspiracists always talk about? The prevailing idea is that it has to do with karma. Satan and the Elites afraid of karma? Well, maybe. But again, my idea is more concrete. Someone is coming back to make sure that the rules of the contest were followed, and violation equals forfeit. That's something real to keep Satan and his followers in line.
There is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that almost no one was conscious before about 600 BC. The most crucial aspect for finding that evidence is that you have to have the idea firmly in mind before you can properly interpret the evidence that's been in front of you all along.
Take, more or less at random, the Book of Isaiah, which is from the other side of that Great Divide of Consciousness. First chapter, first verse, we find:
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
What an exceedingly strange way to put it. If Isaiah wrote it, why not just say, "My name is Isaiah and this is what I saw"? The same applies if someone pretending to be Isaiah wrote it. And if that author wanted to write honestly, he could simply say, "My name is So-and-so, and I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from Isaiah that...." I claim that we get this odd third person phraseology because Isaiah was not conscious.
First chapter, second verse, we find:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
Well, it's not like they had some rule against speaking in first person because here is Yahweh doing just that. Why the difference? Yahweh is conscious and speaks in first person.
Try to find any Biblical exegesis explaining this, or even recognizing the difference. You won't. It's just like not having your microscope properly focused: there are a lot of things you simply will not see. That's why I said you had to have the idea firmly in mind.
The 600 BC date comes from the Axial Age, plus much additional evidence. I believe I may have mentioned it before. The exact circumstances of that transition I have yet to fully understand, but it's a much longer story and has nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe or Evolution or anything like that.
Bizarrely, this is even a step back from the fake-ass NZ "mosque massacre". In that one, keeping true to video game style, shell casings were ejected from the gun but never appeared on the ground. The laughable part there was when he fired a shotgun at the windshield of his car but only created a smoke stain.
I guess next we're going to get stick figures going "pew-pew".
For me, these are yet more confirmations that the split among human consciousnesses follows the 80-20 rule: 80% NPC, 16% "in-between", and 4% fully conscious.
But let me trace through the particular manifestation seen in the Milgram experiment. Let me first state that I have separately determined that higher consciousness and an innate moral sense are one and the same phenomenon. Those without higher consciousness, and thus without an innate moral sense, superficially mimic it by "following a moral code". This "external morality" comes from those who that person accepts as "authorities", typically religious and/or political powers and systems. In this, they simply seek external reward or try to avoid external punishment.
So in this case the "experimenter" is accepted by those certain subjects as the authority. He's got a white coat and a clipboard, doesn't he? Nothing they do is immoral because the moral authority has not indicated otherwise.
Interesting note: I heard many years ago that for some of the subjects in this experiment, the higher the compulsion from the experimenter, the more firmly they resisted. I suspect these were the fully conscious subjects.
Interesting note #2: I met a couple of people a few years ago that had recently graduated from the local state university with bachelor's degrees in psychology. Neither one had ever even heard of either this experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment, let alone studied them.
Did CNBC provide their definition of "secretly"?