Right. It also explains why they have to change out the high school history textbooks every years or two. I no longer believe it's about the money. That's just what gets relatively normal people to go along with such an Orwellian plan.
Thanks for taking the time to look and post. Just by context it looked legit to me, since liars rarely go to the trouble to be so elaborate with detail.
And they do memory hole so much stuff. When I stumble across an example it's always so disturbing. I think, "Jesus, what the hell else have they erased without anyone noticing?"
I think many may have been too young to see this, but I clearly remember a very special episode of "The Andy Griffith Show", which ran in the 1960's.
In that episode, Sheriff Andy's young son Opie said, "Dad, I think I'd like to try out for Little League."
The widowed Andy replied, "We lost your mother, and now you wanna fucking die?!"
My take on this--a slightly different angle than the article--is that for the programmable normies, chatbots are becoming the perceived and accepted norm for human behavior.
This is the same phenomenon that has taken place with the totally phony and artificial "reality TV". They come to think it's real. Seriously, listen closely (if you can stomach it) to people who are fans of this kind of programming talk about it.
Then in a feedback loop for both reality TV and chatbots, the normies begin to behave in like manner. Monkey see, monkey do. Anyone that retains or tries to elevate their level of consciousness and authentic, meaningful human interaction becomes increasingly perceived as alien, and even threatening.
And, well, that's the point, isn't it?
Just a guess: hit dislodged blood clot, massive stroke, immediate brain death. Players all saw him not moving, not breathing.
But they can keep the body alive indefinitely. I'd guess they're going to do so long enough to sell the narrative of a "brave struggle" as we all "learn about" whatever nonsense they say his problem is.
Then when it "looks like he might make it", he'll "tragically slip away", dashing our hopes because "sometimes it just happens that way even to a healthy young man." "Thought and prayers."
Jeez, I should write this bullshit professionally, huh?
Over the last few years, I've been studying this phenomena and found that it's one entryway connecting to dozens of other subjects and leading into the story of the whole of human experience back to, well, the beginning of humans.
Now that sounds quite audacious, does it not? How could some rando on the Internet have stumbled into such knowledge? It used to surprise me too, enough to make me think I must be mistaken. But no, it no longer surprises me and I can point out why, right here in this post.
Take a look up and down the quite lengthy replies on this post: some interesting anecdotes, and lots of the usual nonsense of course, but the ones that attempted to engage with it on an "intellectual" basis just speculated and made naked assertions. It's what my old calculus teacher used to refer to as "fiat" and "hand-waving".
That is, almost no one attempted to actually investigate this idea, to explore it, most importantly to associate it with other phenomena. There were two exceptions:
Zap mentioned hylics. That's correct. People have recognized this phenomena for millennia, and collecting the knowledge others have gained is one of the simplest ways to gain knowledge yourself.
Vlad referred us to a podcast episode about NPCs. That's key: "inner monologue" and "NPCs" are manifestations of a single phenomenon. It seems like that crystalline thought is not clearly recognized, though.
The fact that this fact is not well known nor researched makes me very suspicious. We can't win if most people aren't really even people.
As to the second sentence, it's dead wrong. People are exactly as they have always been, it's just that we must recognize that we were quite gravely mistaken in our unconscious assumptions as to how they were. Oh, and I believe we can win, but not if we stubbornly and arrogantly persist in that ignorance.
As to the first sentence, I've had precisely the same thought. But look again at this thread: did anyone write anything like I just have? I didn't say anything particularly brilliant, but I have thought about it a lot. So when I look at how far I got on the subject, maybe it really shouldn't be much of a surprise to me or anyone else.
Final note: If anyone has read this far and is thinking, "What an arrogant jerk! Who cares what this a-hole has to say?", well, stop and think for a moment before typing your biting and witty reply. It will just reinforce my case, won't it?
Ahh, get it off your chest anyway.
Anyone interested in the time period of the "Middle Ages" should be sure to research the "phantom time" hypothesis.
Conventional history holds that the Middle Ages lasted from the late 5th to the late 15th century, about 1000 years. As one data point, a case is made by Anatoly Fomenko that Jesus was born in what we now refer to as the year 1152 AD.
Since they had to invent almost a thousand years, one can see that conventional history from this time period should be considered very suspect.
The concept coming into play now is known as "common knowledge of the fraud".
That is, it's one thing to have personal knowledge of a fraud, and it's another to know that everybody else knows about the fraud too. Your actions will be different in either case.
To illustrate: You're on an island full of head-hunters. The shaman is maintaining control over them with his power of fire, which you see is an old Zippo from WW2. Are you going to stand up and call him as a fake-ass witch doctor?
I respectfully submit to TPTB the following "double-whammy" idea:
NASA whistleblower: "The f@#$ing Chinks rented out the Moon for a base, and now the motherf%&*ing Blue Beam aliens are going to invade Earth from it!"
That we have been told lies as audacious as all those no longer surprises me. For anyone that finds it impossible to believe we have been so greatly deceived--or even finds it shocking--just keep researching.
If anyone is thinking that history is basically the way you think it is, spend a little time on Stolen History, then report back to all of us how immutable your views are.
That's actually a key question. I had no idea who he was or what the story was about, so I sort of randomly started a video on it from an r/conspiracy post. After 10 seconds, I was like, "How does anyone believe any of this?"
But many people do, and they attach importance to it. That observation should be incorporated into the worldview each of us should be constructing. That's part of how the world really works.
Of course, I should hasten to say it can also be observed that very, very few are interested in how the world really works, and add that the people really running the world are among them.
I noticed that the Establishment suddenly dropped all their talk about amnesty. From that I conclude that aftertesting, They judged it a non-starter, drawing even more negative attention. Back to the plan of selling well-established historical/scientific principles like, "napping causes fatal myocarditis in children" and "everyone knows athletes often drop dead on the field from winter vagina".
Zeroing in on and finding explanations for anomalies was what (we used to call) "science" was all about. "Conspiracy theorists" kept it alive by formulating theories for certain types of anomalous evidence. But as you can see with this J+J incident, virtually no one even recognized it as an anomaly.
Just us!
The actual information, for all to see, is that you posted a quote from someone else's work and now apparently consider it incumbent on me to refute "you". That's a dazzling lack of self-awareness, chief.
You also demonstrate a keen lack of awareness of being taunted and ridiculed. Autism does indeed have its benefits.
As I've seen you're type many times before, I know you can't rest until you've had the last word, so go ahead and post whatever "clever" non-sequitur you have in store. Get it on the record that I have foreseen even that from you.
Do you actually have any interest in this? Do you have a specific question?
How did I know you wouldn't read that, let alone respond appropriately? (<-- that's rhetorical, don't bother answering)
immaturity and a fragile ego
Do you think I get anything out of engaging with people who have such a level of consciousness? (<-- that's also rhetorical, don't bother answering)
Do you actually have any interest in this? Do you have a specific question? Or were you just insulted and this was meant to be some sort of rebuttal but lacking content?
I had a feeling you might be hostile to any sort of contradiction, which I find a sign of immaturity and a fragile ego, but just let me know and I'll block you so I'll have no future opportunity to either contradict or to support you.
My research led me to a different conclusion.
Anyone that researches this particular subject personally will find that there are a number of suggested origins for the name, none of which are obviously conclusive. James Mason (<- really?) states his flatly as if it's definitive. That's poor scholarship and a characteristic technique of disinfo, and thus should arouse our suspicions.
The particular line of etymology to which I was drawn went something like "hebrew" <- "ibru" <- "ibri", where the last would have identified a native of the Sumerian city of Nibru.
Why did I key on that? Well "Nibru" is a corruption of the original name "Niibru", meaning something like, "the place of the crossing". Crucially, though, the city would appear to be originally named after "Nibiru", or "the planet of the crossing". And--you got it--that's the home planet of the Anunnaki.
(BTW, Abraham, originally Abram, was born in "Ur of the Chaldees", another Sumerian city. So I guess Mason is not 100% off target.)
From looking over the other comments, it seems as if what people like to do is to justify their preconceptions. Humans will work very hard at that, but I see it as destructive to the process of research. One should begin with no preconceptions, and only as little a framework as necessary to collect and organize evidence.
In that vein, the only evidence I'm aware of is from near-death experiencers. There are numerous reports basically saying that there is a life review and you are judged, but only you do the judging. You relive the experiences, but from the perspective of the people you've hurt. (Sounds excruciating to me!)
All of it is overseen by a powerful entity exuding only love and acceptance for you. I suppose all this would be aimed at elevating your consciousness for reincarnation or whatever comes next.
That's the only "hard" evidence I've picked up over a number of years. Hope this helps!
People often say, "We're all sinners," and I suppose that's true enough, but then again anyone reading this should ask him or herself, "Is there some compensation that would induce me to go along with this at any level?" I suspect your answer is that, no, there is not.
But from that we should understand that the people involved in such activities are very, very different from us, but inside, not in any way that we could observe walking down the street. We should realize that there are gaps between us, perhaps unbridgeable, and we must incorporate that into our worldview.
Satan. Here's the real problem, though: part of the population does not believe he exists, so will always attribute his program to the wrong causes.
The other part of the population neglects to study Satan as if he exists. That is, rather than searching for and examining available evidence as in conventional scholarship and science, they basically just pick and choose mythology and make it up as they go along. The results they achieve only marginally surpass the first group.
Something went on that day concerning Ashli Babbitt, and even conspiracy theorists have lost the thread of it.
She was there on a mission, but I'm not yet certain what that mission was. (It would be interesting to know, but not vital to the analysis.) It was news to me that she was first at the doors. I wish we could hear what she was saying to the officers, but I doubt it was, "Stop the steal!" I imagine she was making contact, perhaps identifying herself in some way to them as other than a protester.
Byrd was sent to stop her from accomplishing her mission, which I presume involved something in the Speaker's Office. He never warned her, brandished his weapon, pushed her back, alerted officers on the other side of the door, or called for backup from the people standing behind him farther up the hallway. He was there to kill her and he actively hid from her. There's no evidence she ever even noticed him.
There's quite a telling detail in Sullivan's video that Babbitt and Byrd were not part of the overall psychodrama of Fed protesters and of cops playing the part of cops. That is, when the gunshot goes off, not a single person reacts as if a real gunshot had gone off. No protester, no cop, not one. Why?
They were all play acting. They knew for a fact everything was fake. It was an open air movie set, and no one told them they should react to a gunshot so they didn't react.
If you watch carefully as Babbitt is on the ground, it begins to dawn on a couple of them that it was real, but even then you can see how slow and uncertain that process is because, again, they "knew" it was all fake.
And even here on this forum, two years later, you can see the presence of shills to confirm that "They" don't want you figuring all this out.