There's a reason underlying this phenomenon, a reason that it happens so incredibly frequently, and it's one that we're not supposed to know about.
It has to do with a concept called "egosyntonicity". I heard Alan Watt mention many times while never clearly defining or discussing it, and it was years before I looked it up for myself. (That's how hard it is for things to get into people's consciousnesses.) Alan just kept saying that "They" wanted everyone to be egosyntonic.
I don't think he understood the mechanism clearly. Wikipedia does a horrible job of describing it and I imagine all the science backing it up is sparse and shitty as well. The concept is correct and it is key, which is why "They" make sure it isn't studied and discussed.
It involves the functioning of most human consciousnesses. What happens is that an egosyntonic person (which is most people) sees a claim that is contradictory to what they already believe. That claim is instantly and silently processed by the subconcious, which happens with everything.
This is key: the subconscious decides that it is certainly or probably true, and if it's true, that means the person was the dupe, the bad guy, on the wrong side of history, immoral, whatever. IOW, it threatens to wreck their worldview and their view of themselves in it.
That situation immediately engenders fear, insecurity, and intense anxiety. It is a crisis that cannot stand. The subconscious instruct the conscious to "fix it", and the easiest fix by far is that to make it so the claim, somehow, simply is not true. The conscious sets to work to make up whatever it can to "prove" the claim to be false, irrelevant, biased, whatever, doesn't matter.
This mechanism explains two thing: (1) Why people are so compelled to respond to claims they do not already believe are true, why they simply cannot let them stand, and (2) Why they say such stupid and irrational shit in an effort to do so.
In summary, there's almost never a point in arguing a point, because what is going on in the other person's head almost certainly has nothing to do with the truth of the claim in and of itself. In fact, deep down in their subconscious, they already know it's true.
This "Iran War" is fake, very much a "Wag the Dog" type of scenario, cooked up by the Trump Administration and elements of the Iranian government and military.
The main purposes seem to be: (1) An "internal decapitation" strike or a purge, if you will, of the Deep State in Iran. If several dozen key political and military figures suddenly disappear, well, they were tragically killed and no one inquires further. (2) That Deep State which has propped up Israel's existential phantom menace for nearly half a century is removed. Whose nuclear threat and imminent atomic Holocaust will the Zios be able to talk about now?
It's one of the boldest moves I've ever seen, but then again the planners realize that everyone just believes what they read in the news. I take time to note that as phony as it all is, even conspiracy theorists are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because it fits their previous conclusions about what it going on in the world.
I urge people interested in this to consult the news coming right out of Iran, such as available at: https://www.presstv.ir/. You'll get a totally different impression of events. One of them you will not get is, "This is it, boys, this is for all the marbles. The Great Satan has finally come knocking." Nope, they don't even seem particularly worried.
Also of note is that another Iranian news outlet, https://www.tasnimnews.com/, is now completely blocked, and it has been for a few weeks. That outlet is run by the IRGC. Apparently they are not in on this, indicating that the organization was a stronghold of the Iranian Deep State.
A note on how to understand this statement, because there's something very different in the way that Russians speak about things.
Americans are used to every public statement being filled with hyperbole, attempts to manipulate, political correctness, and generally loose talk. Russians, on the other hand, speak directly and plainly, and they definitely mean what they say. They also, perhaps as a result, play their cards very, very close to the vest and generally say little.
About a year and a half ago, Russia already got nuked:
We're supposed to believe this explosion at the 107th Arsenal in Toropets, Russia was caused by a Ukrainian drone. If you want to mark a date for the start of WW3, this is it. (conspiracies.win 9/19/2024)
It was particularly outrageous because the strike was almost certainly launched from Finland so air defenses would have no time to react. That means it was not really strike by Ukraine, but by NATO itself.
What did Russia say about it? Nothing. They announced an evacuation of the town, and then... they let the incident die. As did all Western media. The damage was done and the perpetrators didn't want any interest in exactly what went down there. The provocation--a nuclear one--had failed.
The point of all this is, the Russians definitely mean what they are now saying. Why make up shit now when they could have told the truth a year and half ago? The Neo-imperialists are getting crazier by the day as they watch their projects (the Ukraine War, NATO, and the EU itself) crumbling away before their eyes.
Who knows what'll come next.
Back when the Greenland thing first came up, I watched a few videos in an effort to get a feel of how Greenlanders themselves felt about the issue.
Everyone would, of course, argue that they were edited to support one viewpoint or another. However, it would be very strange if--many months ago--they were editing these videos to support the single undercurrent I detected.
That is, the people seemed unhappy with the health care system available on the island. That's unsurprising, and I would guess it is a result of socialism exacerbated by colonialism, with a hint of racism thrown in.
I think the angle here is that Trump is looking to become something like "the most popular politician in Greenland". As Lincoln pointed out, with popular sentiment, anything is possible.
His play is then simply, "Your colonial masters speak for you and tell the world (and you) that you like things the way they are. I don't think that's true. I think you'd be better off with the good old USA. For example, people in Alabama are now better off than in Canada. Anyway, I think you should be the ones to make the choice. And I think you would choose to be with the winners, if given the chance."
As to what exactly is so important about Greenland, it sure isn't Russia or China or minerals or the well-being of a bunch of Eskimos. Ancient civilization buried under the ice? Who knows.
UPDATE: Right on cue, here's whitey to tell the sick Eskimos what they don't want:
Note regarding the methodology of disinfo agents:
A number of years ago, I came across the Testamonium Flavianum. Just on that first reading, it seemed plain that it was legit but that a few sentences had been added later. They really stuck out to me. The upshot is that after removing those sentences, it would be baffling that Josephus would have written the passage had no such person ever existed.
A few years later, I heard a long interview with Joseph Farrell on the Skeptiko podcast. This was when I still considered him a respected scholar and not a disinfo agent for "Them", as I have outlined in a couple of other posts. I focused in closely when the subject of the Testamonium came up.
Farrell and the host Alex must have talked about it for 20 minutes. Note that reading the very short passage aloud would probably take under 20 seconds. They did not do that anywhere in their discussion, avoiding the very thing that had guided my judgement, and would and should guide everyone's: a personal examination of the available evidence.
So that began to solidify my suspicion of Farrell. Being alert to that, I eventually found the evidence of his relation to the "Salem Witches". Along the way, I examined his disinfo technique and those of a similar vein.
That technique essentially channels people into their old familiar NPC regimen: taking their truth from authority. This is done subconsciously. He speaks with authority at all times, he never expresses doubts or limits to his knowledge, he belittles and ridicules all opposing viewpoints, etc. The technique becomes quite obvious when you listen for it.
In conclusion: Farrell is a piece of shit pompous disinfo peddler from the bloodlines, and I conclude that anyone who claims Jesus never existed (whoever he may have been) has not done even a couple of hours of basic research on the subject and almost certainly has nothing of value to say.
There's a certain segment of "researchers" fixated on the idea that the Jews are behind it all. This gets amplified in certain areas and at certain times by disinformation agents because it is--ultimately--wrong.
Even very rich, very powerful Jews are assets. Those who are actually pulling the strings stand a layer or two or three behind them, totally unobserved and therefore totally safe.
These assets are not on any sort of payroll, they are not being blackmailed, no one is holding a gun to their heads. Rather, they do what they do of their own free will, although the key is that their will is subject to the pull of those puppet strings. Not really strings, though, but more like subtle and invisible magnetic fields pulling and pushing them this way and that.
The latest news about Ihor is this:
‘Mindich’s Schemes Are Zelensky’s Schemes’: Corruption Scandal Shakes Ukraine to the Core, as Zelensky’s Former Financier Kolomoysky Publicly Calls on Him To Resign (The Gateway Pundit 11/13/2025)
What the aforementioned researchers will try to do is to crowbar this into the Grand Scheme of the Jews where said researchers were "right all along". Far easier is to remain ignorant and silent. Truly, you will see no one else commenting on this news.
I'm guessing that at one time, Ihor thought Big Z was the right man for the job--a man of peace even-and helped him get elected. Later, he began to object and was arrested. Now he recognizes a corrupt dwarf who needs to go before it all burns.
The first two parts were with the approval and influence of the string pullers. The last part is evidence that the pot is boiling over and the string pullers cannot stop it. That shows that They are not all-knowing and all-powerful.
I just heard an interview on THC where the guy flatly claimed that the Nazis were occultists, but the Vril Society never existed. I think it might have been the clown calling himself "RamX". I say that not to bag on RamX because who gives a shit but to say something about the state of the disinformation war.
"They" have gotten so desperate in the disinformation war that as an SOP, They take a load of "conspiracy" topics, put them in a big bag, shake it up, and pull out a handful. They weave a dumb narrative out of the ones in their hand and call the ones that fell on the floor disinformation. This gets pumped out through an endless supply of agents. When RamX starts losing traction, look out for RamY and RamZ (<-- that one is actually catchy and They should have used it).
Oh, it's all very intriguing and the conspiracy masses lap it up and ask for more (literally, see the comments on the THC site). It works for this reason: every dumbshit is so bent on being right they'll always find something to latch on to and get a half-chub because someone on the Internet radio said something they thought. The rest of it they entirely let go because they aren't actually trying to figure anything out.
Of course, it's far from the listener's consciousness that even a single one of these guests is a disinformation agent. What, as if they could be fooled? Impossible.
What I would note here is that you keep coming back. Is it to share information because you believe I might find it of relevance and importance? No one could be that dim, but it's what your subconscious tells your conscious to believe is the reason.
You see, you aren't looking for enlightenment, which would entail giving up some of what you already believe. You simply desire confirmation of what you already think. It traces further but is, in fact, the path of the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
You subconscious has already silently judged that what I said had merit and this disconfirming information disturbed your worldview. That produces anxiety and that anxiety must be relieved. Your conscious is tasked to "prove" that the new information is "wrong", thus to restore internal stability.
Seriously, try your best not to respond to this. Just let me be wrong like the billions of other people on the Internet and silently go on your way. With any capacity for self-reflection, you'll observe your conscious furiously thinking up all the things you need to write back but cannot, lest you give practical verification of all I just said. Quite the dilemma.
Until next time!
As I see it, virtually everyone ends up defending their own position, however they came to arrive at it. It has to do with the true nature of human consciousness. The only advancement comes when one thinks that maybe, just maybe, they might be wrong about something.
So when I examine closely exactly what people say without prompting...
It inspires me to challenge you....
I can see clearly that no, that's not what they're thinking about at all and no advancement is possible. To be blunt, my challenges are to get the handful that are capable to move to the next level. I try and try and it's shocking and disappointing how often I confirm the rarity of that.
Life would be much easier were I not compelled to try, and left others at peace in their own versions of reality where it all made sense to them, no matter how nonsensical it appeared from the outside.
And if you think what I'm saying does not make sense, perhaps you should consider the same.
That was a lot of absolute assertions, which I tend to reject as flatly as they are made, and from which I tend to stay away from using myself. I consider them the sign of an ego struggling to maintain its worldview and thus its own stability. I can't say that I do understand anything which you are asserting, but I'm glad you got it out of your system.
If you're looking to make and keep friends, you will never, ever find the truth. All innovative thought requires entering into disagreement with everyone on the face of the Earth. In every other case without exception you're simply concurring with something someone else has already said (probably a friend) or stating a triviality.
And yes, I'm also just getting this out of my system. Thank you for understanding.
Philosophers do come to conclusions, it's just that other philosophers don't agree with those conclusions. That's because great minds don't think alike....
Why then refer to them as "great"? What is the definition or qualities of "greatness"? Why use words without specific meaning? Is it "vague" as philosophers themselves would say, being that which I point to when I say "great"?
What does a giant stack of conclusions add up to if it is acknowledged that it adds up to nothing? Of what value is it all other than mental masturbation, as I stated? It serves many egos, as can be plainly seen. Why not conclude that was always the point, just with lots of extra steps and confused and incomplete understandings?
To put it bluntly, I feel that everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses instead of believing that all but a remnant of any of this has any worth. In my view, adding yet more words to their voluminous and unending nonsense does nothing to push back the frontiers of knowledge, it only extends a distorted and literally useless view of those purportedly seeking knowledge.
These are some independent thoughts for you--you will not find them written elsewhere--but I doubt you liked hearing them or got the slightest enlightenment out of them. That's precisely how independent thoughts are received in the real world.
Just another related observation I made: I used to listen to a philosophy podcast intended for general audiences called, "The Partially Examined Life". It was entertaining in and of itself, but after hundreds of episodes I couldn't help coming to a certain realization: philosophers never ever came to any conclusions.
Their expositions and discussions drew on the work of philosophers over many centuries and even millennia. Quite evidently--not in all that time with all those geniuses working on it--they had never reached any analysis that they could all agree on and proceed from there.
I have to put it in crass terms to make a point: the whole of this supposedly lofty pursuit of knowledge boiled down to mental masturbation. You know, like, no babies were born into the world who could develop over time.
It was quite a revelation to me. With philosophy, I always assumed I was missing out on important ideas from the world's best thinkers. I was not. I will never bother reading a book of philosophy in the rest of my life. Frankly, I am very much biased towards dismissing out of hand anything that anyone calling themselves a philosopher has to say.
But this reply is not to bash philosophers, as much as they may deserve it. You see, I had a complementary observation: unless it was some special situation concerning an antiquarian, no scientific professional would ever bother reading any of the historical texts on math or physics or chemistry, not even of the greatest geniuses.
There would be no point, nothing to be learned. All the work of the geniuses would have been incorporated into the current state of the art (or science, in this case). Various laws and principles might still bear their names, but that's about it.
What that made me realize was that one group of people was actually trying to get somewhere and the other group was not. There was a profound and fundamental difference between the two, and what I had observed was simply a manifestation of that difference.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you might consider giving consideration into which group religious scholars of all types might fall, and to which group you wish to belong. Don't bother telling me because your decisions are, of course, entirely up to you and cannot be considered right or wrong.
(I often feel, however, that people confronted with such questions hasten to tell me because their subconscious impels them towards the idea that they cannot be "wrong", and to do this they must demonstrate to others that they are "right". If you feel the urge to do so, then that in itself is a type of evidence you should examine.)
Best of luck in your journey!
A long, long time ago, I heard that there were an estimated 30,000 identifiable Christian denominations. It eventually caused a certain chain of thinking.
It began with, "Given this, what does anyone mean when they use the word 'Christianity'? One of these, some of these, any of these, all of these?"
I realized that they never addressed themselves to this question unless they had specific desire to do so. "Christianity" was without definition, and was only what each person referring to it considered it to be in their own mind.
It further seemed like any time any Christian actually stopped to think about it on a formal basis, they figured out that they disagreed with every other Christian so profoundly that they felt compelled to instantiate yet another denomination. Christianity has more forks than Unix.
Here's a list of related wiki pages:
List of Christian denominations
List of Christian denominations by number of members
Each page is of staggering length. I didn't conduct a complete search, but I could not find a number either a confirming or refuting that figure of 30k I had heard so long ago.
I do not believe that is mere oversight, but is rather a subconscious omission. That is, I would argue that the observations I just wrote down would occur to any thoughtful Christian, such as those that probably wrote those pages.
You see, it doesn't speak too well of Christianity to point out the incredible fragmentation for those who generally conceive they they follow The Way, The Truth, and The Life to acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of distinct versions of that which is supposedly singular and purportedly divine.
Jesus said something like, "The truth shall make you free," and I think everyone who seeks that truth and that freedom better come to grips with this part of it.
Just as a final note, this is not to bash Christians or Christianity, but rather the subconscious conception that any particular version of Christianity is or will ever become perfected to be "the truth". Rather, Truth is to be found among many of them. Oh, and all over the rest of the whole Universe as well.
You hit the nail on the head in that we should all be in pursuit of the Truth, the Love of which draws us towards it, and the understanding of which inevitably manifests in Beauty and Peace.
Christianity, then, is merely one available tool among many which may serve to bring us closer to the Truth. Paralleling this, and as Jesus himself said, "The Sabbath was created for Man, not Man for the Sabbath."
However, this vision collides with the Truth itself, which brings unwelcome news....
The vast majority of the human race places no value on the Truth. They fear it because of the anxiety and discomfort it brings, and thus they hate it. Instead, they construct their own version of "Truth" based on that which makes them comfortable, a Truth where they are Right and Good, and all that they think and say and do is justified.
Where virtually all Christians go wrong is at a paradigmatic level: they absolutely take the Truth as coming from the Bible, rather than recognizing that the Truth is in the Universe and the Bible is some tiny part of that Universe. Then whatever is in the Bible is interpreted in its multitudinous ways to suit their desired ends.
They aren't "bad" people--whatever that means--it is merely how their consciousness was constructed. You don't blame your dog for failing to learn arithmetic and placing no value on it. And your dog can live a wonderful life without it.
As to that small fraction of humanity which places an inherent value on the Truth, that is a product both of how their consciousness was constructed and that it was able to develop to that level. Not all do, and indeed perhaps very few.
Additionally, they have an in-built moral compass. In fact, that higher consciousness and the inner sense of morality can be considered simply as characteristics of a single condition.
All the others lack this in-built morality and require an external one to guide their behavior through a system of reward and punishment. That's where organized religion comes in, each of which provides such a moral system.
Boiling down the entire ministry of Jesus reveals that he knew what I just wrote. The Way was a simple set of moral precepts taught through simple parables and simple directives such as the Sermon on the Mount. Reward awaited those who practiced the lessons.
A harmonious society supporting the elevation of the human spirit and geared towards discovery of its destiny can be constructed of such simple elements, but it is plain for all to see how far we are from that.
Everyone may now return to arguing about chapter and verse, which is where comfort lies.
I would suggest the issue that needs to be questioned and investigated is what exactly "sane" means. More to the point, what needs to be clearly understood is how the human mind actually works. Sensible conclusions can be drawn from false premises only by accident.
As far as to how this all connects to what's happening today, yes, I had to make those connections to make sure it all worked out given all the available evidence. Further, I took a rigorous approach to it all, rejecting notions such as "evil" as being ill-defined. All is within the realm of common understandings and reasoning.
What I found out with this straightforward approach ended up smashing the foundations of... well, a lot of things. It disagrees fundamentally and profoundly with pretty much everything almost anyone has to say about it. But since it was all put together from plain bits of information such as you have now seen, I couldn't go back and suddenly declare it to be different, nor to "compromise" with any other researcher. The evidence is the evidence, not a mere convenience to my conclusions.
Of course, if it wasn't already obvious, I had to throw out almost everything I thought I knew about the world, my place in it, and just what the hell was going on. I had to accept how ignorant I had been, and how ignorant and intransigent everyone else was. All that is extremely uncomfortable and is a big part of why no one does it.
So if you think you have the answers--and I think you think you do--then just forget about everything I've said. It will only make you uncomfortable, then anxious, then angry. I've seen exactly that more times than I wish to recall. You don't get to be the hero of the story, you only get to be what people consider the lying dumbass and--if it goes far enough--the villain.
You've clearly done a lot of close research on this and gone farther than all but a few have, but in my estimation you've gotten off the track--at least the track that I've found.
Gilgamesh and Nimrod are not one and the same. In fact, Nimrod is nearly universally misidentified, although the correct identification can be found in standard sources. Because it's correct, it's one of those things no one ever talks about. That's typical of how big secrets are kept.
To shoot down the "son of Cush" thing so many rely on to tie him to Noah, go back to the original Hebrew text. Gen 10:7-8 says:
The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Supposed scholars and researchers play fast and loose with the terminology. The two uses of "sons" in verse 7 are from ben, typically meaning male child but even more general than that:
a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.)
The "father of" in verse 8 is even farther off from male child, coming from yalad:
To bear, bring forth, beget
The crucial note is that in consecutive sentences, one word was used twice then a different word was selected. The straightforward observation that no one makes is that the writer was describing two different relationships.
In the first, given that a list of proper names follows, sure, these are almost certainly lists of children. In the second, both word choice and construction are different.
Put that together with the knowledge that "Kush" also referred to what is now the area of southern Egypt, and the interpretation of the statement then becomes clear: Nimrod came from southern Egypt.
So can we identify Nimrod with anyone else? Yes.
The cuneiform representation of the name of a certain Babylonian/Sumerian "god" can be read in a certain way to produce AMAR.UTU. That gets corrupted to the version you find him called today: Marduk.
However, reading that very same cuneiform under a different set of rules for interpretation will also yield NAMR.UD. Certain scholars long before me held that this was the original source of the name we have today: Nimrod.
If you don't agree with just this much--which is your right--then our paths of research must diverge. There is a helluva lot more where this came from.
The "grand plan", as I've put it together, involves and includes a vast array of disparate areas of study, everything from ancient Sumerian texts to the Axial Age to the origin of modern cereal crops to the Vatican's "Lucifer" telescope to the irrational war against Russia to the murder of Charlie Kirk to the true nature of human consciousness and on and on.
That's a lot of wild shit to try to cram together into a single sensible puzzle, but I had to put together the fundamental pieces of that puzzle to make sure I had the puzzle correct at least in basic structure. I needed that to know how to carefully analyze and interpret evidence in that framework. At least to me, much previously baffling information suddenly fell into place and made sense.
In none of that effort, though, did I feel it necessary to resort to any assumption outside the currently accepted laws of the operation of the physical universe. Not that I think there aren't any undiscovered laws, I just never needed to deal myself any "wild cards" to give a sensible accounting of any evidence.
If we begin to talk about interdimensional entities, since there are no known characteristics of them, there are no known limitations to their actions and we can say nothing whatsoever about their motivations, any more than termites know exactly what humans are up to.
Something similar goes for Kabbalah and every other field of "occult" knowledge. On the one hand, none of it whatsoever has ever come up in my research as something I was required to know in order to give any explanation for situations or events. Never happened, never close, not once.
Frankly, all the information I've ever found to be useful--which was laying around in plain sight if you knew what you were looking for and what you were looking at--is nothing that anyone ever talks about. Well, that truly is the "occult", beyond all that is written in dusty books, is it not?
The mere fact that discussion of Kabbalah and Freemasonry and Gnosticism and Simulation Theory and all such topics come from people that are just saying, "Oooh, look at this!" is enough to tell me that's not where any real answers will be found.
To push it to the extreme, when you can't find anyone else in the whole wide world over the course of centuries who is talking about what you're talking about, well, you just might be on to something. Or nuts or way off the mark, because it will happen in those cases also.
The cover story that the culprits behind Charlie's murder finally settled on is that "The Joos did it!" They could not be shoving this shit farther down our throats.
Israel is a sinking ship and They might as well throw Charlie's corpse on board. When it finally disappears beneath the waves, so will the mystery of whodunnit. The side benefit is that any of their assets out there badmouthing the Heebs right now remains "legit" in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Charlie was one of "Them" (<-- not the Zios) and whatever he did to cross them is still a complete mystery. The verdict on him seems to have come sometime before April of this year, which isn't much to go on but definitely rules out the Israeli angle entirely.
Well, to find the truth we often must look at the most subtle details which, upon examination, become greatly magnified.
The subtle but obvious question here is, "Precisely why is anyone interested in ruling over the ashes of Europe?" Pick whoever you like as the bad guys: globalists, Zionists, Eurocrats, the American Deep State, doesn't matter. Exactly what benefit do they seek in turning Europe into the northern counterpart to Africa or--at this rate--a nuclear wasteland with craters for capitals?
There is no sensible reason. Well, anyone who cares to will wave their hands around and claim that their selected boogeymen are just crazy like that. Such an explanation is less satisfying than any I choose to incorporate into my understanding of the world.
You see, whether it's Kalergi or Herzl or any of these other maniacs, everyone stops with the vague, subconscious notion that these people just woke up one morning full of this insanity for no reason whatsoever, including no personal benefit. Why would they think it was a good idea? Why would they think anyone was going to go along with it, instead of arresting them or locking them in a loony bin?
The reason I'm saying this is that I've been planning a post on just exactly where Zionism came from, but I've never gotten around to writing it up because everyone is already satisfied with the answers that their subconscious notion of the origins led them to.
And as for Kasparov, you can see how far away that genius is from any of these thoughts. I can guarantee you that he's satisfied with the answers he's found, though.
Here's an oddly tight little ball of yarn: I talked about Elvis, Col. Tom, and Miles Mathis as disinfo back in this post from almost exactly a year ago. Then the yarn gets even tighter because in that post you'll see a link called "3x3" back to an earlier post where I talked about Parker Bros. As many coincidences as I've seen which are not coincidences at all, there still seem to be funny coincidences from time to time.
Interesting connection between the Parkers and hypnosis, and I believe I understand why. I've never written much about it because it's not directly related to and as explicit as the Salem Witch material, and it also opens up a big can of worms.
Long ago, I heard Mark Passio say that Satanists study one subject above all others: how the human mind actually works. The big secret is that the vast majority of people are "NPCs". That's a very rude handle and can lead to incorrect assumptions, but the point is they operate in a different "mode" than we all assume.
To wit: about 80% of humans operate in a state of hypnosis, perhaps something akin to sleepwalking. Well, sleepwalkers can drive cars and make sandwiches, so it's not like you'd be able to casually observe this phenomenon. Find out how to control them and there is no higher consciousness to figure out what's going on and resist. See why that's a Big Secret?
It's not just that They know, They need to keep everybody else from knowing. I've casually picked up a few names along the way, enough to see that the Salem Witches invented both psychology and psychical research back in Boston in the late 1800's. The point was to clog the way for legitimate researchers studying the human mind. So, sure, They want to be the ones who tell us what hypnosis is.
I read about 330 Miles Mathis papers before I jumped off the train. It became absurd junk I just could not wade through trying to find nuggets of gold. But that's a lot of material to ingest and let's face it: his style is good. My style was a lot like his before so it inevitably became more like his. His style is effective so why not hijack it?
Long story, but it's clear to me that he's the front man for a research team. I think an actual living breathing human exists but there would never be any point even meeting him. Frankly, there wouldn't be much point meeting me. I'd just be all, "Uhhh, anyway it was something like that. I can't quite remember the details but it's all in the post." How fascinating! lol
Really, the whole thing has turned into: "What Would It Be Like If Miles Mathis Was A Real Researcher?" And I've actually been waiting for the shill to declare that I'm the Disinfo 2.0 sequel to Disinfo 1.0 Miles Mathis. But that would mean admitting that Miles Mathis is disinfo, and They are apparently not ready to do that.
Hope you keep reading! Much more to come!
There do seem to be small cliques or clans within the Salem Witches, but already it's a tiny enough group, way smaller than any other suspect group you could name.
For example, back in the Billy the Kid post, we ran into Parkers, Pratts, and Romneys. And present day, in research on Charlie Kirk, guess who I just ran into again? Parkers, Pratts, and Romneys! The full writeup is coming directly.
You see examples of this from time to time. There is, of course, no accepted term for it, but I think of it as an "informational black hole". That is, somehow "They" steer discussion and analysis around an area. It becomes something that "it just so happens no one talks about".
(BTW, "They" =/= "Jews". It extends far beyond them.)
This is certainly not done by forbidding discussion, because that act literally gives everyone something to point at. It's more subtle than that, like being enveloped in a haze and trying to fight it. There is nothing to throw a punch at.
I have never studied the technique, nor has anyone else, but I do have some thoughts on it. I believe it's based on the fundamental human reaction of... reacting.
In this instance, look around and the vast majority of people live in an information sphere of their own creation. There is a flow of data: news articles, Instagram posts, offhand comments at the water cooler, etc, etc.
And what people do is--you got it--react to those things. Love, hate, agree, disagree, fear, anticipate, whatever. It does not matter, in this context. The "mode" is the matter.
What virtually no one does is to reach outside that information sphere, to ask the fundamental question, "What is really going on out there?" The goal is to build up a model of the world outside, not just by receiving information but actively seeking it out when discernment prescribes.
In this instance, discernment prescribes that one should wonder just what is going on is Israel. Gotta be something, right? You just have to go looking for what it is. And the mere fact that nothing came automatically down the pipe means there is probably something someone wants to hide.
I finally had to admit to myself that while that all seems so rational and natural and automatic to me, almost no one else seems to do that. They don't wonder what's going on "out there", in its totality. Their mode holds that if something is important, it will come to them.
So I think what's going on with control of both mainstream and alternative outlets is, to keep them from discussing that which should not be discussed, keep the pipeline filled with something for their audiences to love or hate. Doesn't matter which.