I'm not certain I would disagree with Trump on this. The truth about the JFK assassination, as I understand it, is so shocking and terrifying even for "truthers" that I can observe them subconsciously steering away from it in an act of mental and emotional--even spiritual--self-preservation.
You can add to that the extreme levels of societal division, stress, and uncertainty. Also, the vast majority of the population is psychotic, which is geometrically compounded by the fact that the entire "mental health" establishment is unable to recognize this. And every other person being drugged to the gills on one or multiple substances only amplifies all this.
All in all, you have to ask yourself a fundamental practical question, "Would revealing the truth about this right now really help our situation?" As much as I've dedicated my life to a pursuit of the truth over the last few years, and believe that the truth will be our ultimate salvation, I have to admit that few actually want the truth, and fewer still can handle it.
And if all this winds up with me saying the kind of things the Elites say, yeah, that frightens me too.
I am reminded of this verse:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Matthew 12:31
The word translated as "Holy Ghost" is "pneuma", and conventionally this is the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. As a working hypothesis, I've wondered whether the "Holy Spirit" actually refers to the "Spirit of True Care", which dwells within (at least some of) us and impels us to act in for the good of others, which is to say morally.
So in practice, if you don't always act with the Spirit of True Care, that may be forgiven as with other sins. But if you blaspheme against it, which is to say that you counsel others to violate the Spirit of True Care, that will not be forgiven.
Of course one can see that counseling others to such violation enables the spread of evil, so yeah, maybe that should be unforgivable.
I've never really worried that "They" would cut the power, Internet, or phone service except as a normal military precaution preceding a specific strike or to disrupt an imminent enemy operation. The downsides of any sort of general cutoff are just too huge. And it doesn't matter who They blame it on because the effect is the same.
When the power goes out (and Internet and cell would soon follow) what happens? Everyone gets cut off from Netflix and Reddit and Pornhub and texting and email and shopping and everything else used to distract and program us. That's bad for Them.
What's also bad is that everyone gets off their couch and goes out to talk to the neighbors. They trade information, and get to see how good it is just to interact with normal folks. Also, everyone let's everyone else know how pissed off they are that "the authorities" have let this come to pass, and maybe it's time to start taking some action to put things right.
Finally, for those of a certain frame of mind, their internal Defcon Level goes up a notch or two. Preps are dusted off and contingencies are activated. Mindsets are altered. That's very bad for Them indeed.
I would suggest everyone find some conversation among "liberals" in whatever format they can stomach and listen carefully to it. You'll be able to confirm there's no trace of something in the conversation, and I would suggest that's because it's entirely missing from their consciousness.
That is, they have no concept that they are are not completely morally correct, and thus superior to anyone who disagrees with them. And clearly, if one is morally correct, there is no possibility or error in facts, reasoning, or principles. Indeed, facts must give way to this conclusion, and will be created as necessary.
It's mot that they have reasoned that they are acting morally, or that they believe it, or that they assert it by fiat, or see it as self-evident, or even have any consciousness of it whatsoever. It is the same as up being up, and down being down. It simply is.
And before anyone claims the "right-wing religious conservatives" are the same with their self-righteousness, well, that's the opposite of true. Try to find some religious person who would disagree with statements like, "We're all sinners," or "We all fall short of the glory of God," or "To err is human." That's a completely opposite mindset.
With this and similar issues, the proper question to ask is, "Why would they not?" Unless you can identify a clear and compelling reason, you have to leave open the possibility in your analysis.
Actual, I often notice a lot of stuff that They could be doing but are not. They are not everywhere and They are not nowhere, so one must exercise discernment. And given simple discernment as the standard, I often notice a near universal failure to meet it.
There's an argument to be made that we'll be safer:
Measures of Air Marshall Effectives (4/9/2010)
In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.
And we also stand to save a substantial amount of money:
They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest.
Plus, after 9/11 I contend a plane cannot be hijacked for the simple reason that almost everyone will believe the plane is headed for a building somewhere and will slaughter any hijackers with their bare hands, even going up against the deadliest weapon known to Man: the boxcutter.
Not their core message, I would describe it as one single aspect, From their wiki page:
Raëlism teaches that there exists an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim. Raël has said that the word "Elohim", which is used for God in the Old Testament, is actually a plural term which he translates as "those who came from the sky." Raël calls individual members of the Elohim "Eloha".
That's about it..But actually everything after the first sentence (-im indicates plural, and "eloha" is the singular form) is nothing more than Hebrew grammar. Then we get:
... over six days Eloha explained to him the true meaning of [the Bible's] contents, revealing more about the Elohim's involvement in human history.
Yes, that's what much of the Bible is about, properly translated and understood. You can study Mauro Biglino's work for more on this. But we're told things like
Raëlists believe that since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, humanity has entered an Age of Apocalypse in which it threatens itself with nuclear annihilation.
There's a core teaching. Well, since the bombings were faked, this Age of Apocalypse is based on a huge hoax? These aliens couldn't figure it out like many of us did? How about this:
According to Raël, their planet is outside the Solar System but within the Milky Way.
The Sumerians writing 6000 years ago were way more specific than that, and more has been learned since then, but Rael doesn't seem to know that. Did the aliens just blow him off with generalities?
It goes on and on, and the vast majority is just something we're supposed to take Rael's word for. From a guy that knows way less about the Anunnaki than I do off the top of my head? No thanks.
The Raelians thing has stuck in my throat for almost 22 years now. How do those weirdos get in front of Congress and get covered by mainstream media for anything other than ridicule? Having been around since the 70's, there's your long-form psyop.
And I'll note this for anyone wondering about the "theology" of the Raelians, they said one thing that was crazy but is nevertheless true: aliens created humans through genetic engineering. Everything else I've ever read from them is utter nonsense so, no, you can forget the idea that they're keepers of some secret knowledge or something.
Note to the note: I'm also sure that clones exist, but the Raelians just said they were trying to make them not that they'd ever been successful, so I'm scoring that under, "Intelligence Legend BS".
I agree it seems odd, coming just when the Leftist garrote is being loosened at Twitter. Any halfway decent intelligence analyst will always ask, "Why now?"
While his tweets brought up important points and gave him an opportunity to bring them to attention while exercising an incisive wit, they always struck me as carrying an undercurrent that he was just "getting it off his chest". Does one get tired of getting things off one's chest? And did he even read the responses? I sure wouldn't bother.and it's hard to believe he did.
And why even make this kind of announcement? Why not just say, "Hey just to let everyone know, if it seems I'm tweeting less often in the future it's because I'm out enjoying the rest of my life. I hope you all stop from time to time to smell the roses too."
As always, I have many more questions than answers, unlike virtually everyone else on social media decimating conversations of merit.
They didn't include the original posting (wonder why?), but I have to think it said something like, "The power outage is God's punishment for the activities of these drag queens."
So then did the cops go to her house and say, "Who is this 'God' person and where can we find him? Everywhere, you say? You'll have to be more specific."
We actually live in this surreality.
This is yet another demonstration that a certain subgroup of people is literally unable to detect contradiction, and therefore nothing needs to make sense. They do not function according to what would be described as rationality.
I don't say this to "insult Leftists" or some such thing, but to alert the awareness of those already awake.
I think that, ultimately, Bannon is controlled opposition. But given that, an asset is pushed to tossing around the "T"-word, which I don't think is done lightly. Theoretically you can get hanged by the neck until dead for that kind of activity.
Thus I conclude that TPTB are under extreme pressure to keep their controlled opposition out in front of the masses, because it is only from out in front that one may divert them.
Oh, it was just an attempt at wit, basically.
But at a very esoteric level, there is possibly a more serious angle. Ye is very high-profile and here he is referencing the Raelians, potentially drawing attention to them.
Even though they've been around for decades, they only flashed into the limelight briefly back in 2001 but, again, it was in a very high-profile way. These complete UFO whack jobs with their kooky outfits testified before Congress in March of that year at hearings on human cloning, and this included non-ridiculing mainstream media coverage:
Elizabeth Cohen: Congressional hearings on human cloning (CNN 6/20/2001)
For literally decades now, that attention always struck me as quite odd. Then from a completely different angle, there is much talk in the last few years in conspiracy circles about clones. Personally, I consider virtually all of the discussion sensationalist nonsense and speculative garbage.
But you might be surprised to know that, personally, I believe clones exist and that the current Hillary Clinton and King Charles are examples. Maybe Ye has some more direct knowledge of this.
So given this strange confluence, it does cross my mind whether there exists a remote possibility that what Ye did may eventually lead to some sort of revelation to the masses.
We need that kind of apocalypse, IMHO.
UPDATE: I guess this adds a bit more clarity to Ye's knowledge of human cloning: Ye spilling mad conspiracy on Elon about him being made in a Lab
RRN reported CA Gov Newsom executed about 10 months ago, and since then I closely examined about a half dozen of his media appearances, chosen more or less randomly as they came by.
All were either positively faked or presumed to be so circumstantially, but I have to say some of the DeepFake footage was flawless.
So just hearing it reported that Nancy has appeared somewhere is far from good enough these days to confirm that she's still on the loose. I'll definitely be examining footage of her "appearances" for fakery because, God knows, I could use the good news.
You have to first examine such content closely to determine whether it's from a real person. But if you find that it is, take the effort to examine their reasoning closely.
You'll find not just that it's flawed, but that it's inverted. That is, rather than the conclusion coming from an analysis of the facts, the "facts" (such as they may be) will be made to fit the conclusion. A hallmark is that you never find statements saying something like, "I used to think thus-and-so, but now that I learn this-and-that, I now believe something-or-other."
We all have to realize that what's going on in their heads is NOT what we assume it it or what we think it should be.
I took a quick look at his education and military service as reported in his Wiki, and it raises enough red flags to now make me think he's more or less an Intelligence asset.
He graduates from Yale, then:
He subsequently attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2005 with a Juris Doctor cum laude.
Then a section break and the very next sentence is:
In 2004, during his second year at Harvard Law, DeSantis was commissioned an officer in the U.S. Navy and assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG). He completed Naval Justice School in 2005.
So let's get this straight: Ron is on track for one of the top slots in the Establishment, then he just decides to bail halfway through Harvard Law and join the Navy? BTW, somehow this law student has enough pull for a direct commission.
But then again, maybe that's not a problem because Harvard just decides to spot him a year and a half of law school and give him a JD anyway? (From my read, the Naval Justice School is not a law school that the military runs, but a school of military law separate and apart from any civilian law education.)
So then he's assigned to GTMO, which at the time was a CIA nest, and we're told:
The records of DeSantis's service in the U.S. Navy were often redacted upon release to the public
He's supposed to have worked protecting the rights of terrorists. Ron does not strike me as a man of principle, and this does not strike me as a move any aspiring politician could think would have public appeal.
Then he deploys as legal advisor to SEAL Team One in Iraq. I find this also very suspect. A bunch of trained killers in a war zone needs on-site legal advice? They barely caught up with those civvie contractors years and years after the Nisour Square Massacre. And anyway, can't they just get on the phone?
And speaking of his activities there, we're told:
During his military career, DeSantis has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal....
What does a Navy lawyer do, exactly to deserve that kind of hardware? A heroic briefing? A meritorious filing?
Once again, I'm stunned at what they leave laying around on Wiki, and once again, I realize only a handful actually read it and no one demands it make any sense.
Hmmm, I never thought of Ye as derivative before:
The logo for the Theosophical Society brought together various ancient symbols
Reminds me of this:
A seafood fraud investigation DNA tested fish sold in the US. Here’s what they found (8/20/2019)
It was around 20% mislabeled, and that was just from some jerkoffs trying to sell us cheaper fish. So I think no, nobody would know.
(Did you notice the article was from the World Economic Forum? Delicious conspiracy!)
The practical impossibility of modeling climate was demonstrated by accident over 60 years ago. I often find striking things such as this admitted in Wikipedia, but then again They know no one's looking.
Here's the pertinent paragraph from Chaos theory:
Edward Lorenz was an early pioneer of the theory. His interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961. Lorenz and his collaborator Ellen Fetter were using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run weather simulations. They wanted to see a sequence of data again, and to save time they started the simulation in the middle of its course. They did this by entering a printout of the data that corresponded to conditions in the middle of the original simulation. To their surprise, the weather the machine began to predict was completely different from the previous calculation. They tracked this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny, and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have no practical effect. However, Lorenz discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in long-term outcome. Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, showed that even detailed atmospheric modeling cannot, in general, make precise long-term weather predictions.
But mUh mOdElS, tho, right?
I'm not sure I've ever gotten a troll that put in as much reasoning as anything in the graphic. The typical format I see is, "You're an idiot. You obviously know nothing about _____." Sometimes it's followed up by an unhinged rant.
The number and disorganized nature of these rants has made me think there are wayyyy more mentally ill people than I ever guessed.
Jackie Killed JFK? Saying Jackie shot JFK since 2010!
That's the main site with plenty of evidence, but in the years since I first stumbled across it, I've found much more. Also, I always compare that thesis to the analysis from any JFK researcher I happen to hear. Do they mention any of the evidence pointing towards Jackie?
Nope. When you listen closely there's a howling silence. I've concluded that probably about 80% of the high-profile JFK researchers are disinfo, and a further 15% are basing their work on the misleading research of those disinfo agents.
Beyond the whodunit, the event was clearly a public ritual murder, Satanic in nature. And you can add in that the famous Oswald assassination that was supposed to shut the lid was also hoaxed.
So whether you agree with all that or not, just fix in your mind for a moment that those things are all true. Is the public really ready for that? I personally don't think so. At least, they reject it out of hand--sometimes vehemently--when I bring even a little of it up.
And if you're saying to yourself, "That is all so ridiculous I can't even tentatively entertain it to be true for the sake of argument," then, well, you definitely get my point.