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.
Thank you very much! Crazy people yell out into the void, but when you're sane it's not that much fun. I appreciate the support more than you know!
It's been a long, strange trip and it's going to get much longer. Great to have company.
Haha, it's -2 now.
But you know what I've found to be the interesting dynamic of "pissing people off"? People really only get pissed off by things that are true, not things that are false. No one's going to get pissed off if you call them a Wookiee from the Planet Endor--unless maybe he's a tall, exceptionally hairy guy
With true claims, the subconscious instantly and silently processes the information and says, "Seems like this is likely true but if it is, then you will have been the ignorant dumbass. Better tell the conscious mind to think that this is some bullshit!" That generates the negative reaction.
It's exactly the same explanation for those handful of times you've tried to tell some normie about the Moon landings or 911. The more facts you hand them, the more upset they get, right? The subconscious is like, "Whoa whoa whoa, shut this down!"
Quick aside: When Trump announces that he wants Hamas destroyed, the sufferers of TDS and conspiracy never-Trumpers instantly interpret it as aiding Israel in the destruction of the Palestinians.
They jump to the conclusion that they were "right all along", rather than looking one level deeper. Israel has used Hamas for decades as the excuse to bludgeon the Palestinians repeatedly. Trump wants to remove it from their hands but simply does not say so out loud.
I mean, what the hell are (((they))) going to do when Hamas is gone? Confront their real enemies?
What I attempt to embody is this sentiment, and it comes from the Bible but I don't mention that because people are unable to control their preconceived reactions when they hear something quoted from it:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
What is always and forever missed is this aspect: asking, seeking, and knocking are all voluntary acts. If anyone does not care for what they are given, what they find, or what is opened to them, they are free to depart. No one can or should try to stop them.
This is the essence of free will, and it is universally ignored.
I cannot believe the number of times I reiterate that everyone is free to think whatever they like, but then they insist on telling me what that is.
To me, it is crystal clear that they are telling themselves what they think because I have made them uncomfortable, and they need someone to tell them they're "right". They simply cannot rest until that is accomplished.
TBH, I fully recognize that only a tiny fraction of the population will be ready to hear what I have to say and derive benefit from it. If that doesn't include you, then you should be find some resolution to the conundrum of why you keep torturing yourself with it.
I reject the idea that your mission is to correct people you don't know on the Internet, and that I happened to be at the top of the list.
His fruits, of course, drew people to TPUSA, which espouses the genocidal ideology of Zionism. Perhaps you feel that is indeed doing the work of HaShem on Earth.
All these issues were addressed specifically in the posts. I would say stop reading them if they displease you, but perhaps you're not reading them closely in the first place. To put a finer point on it: because the implications are disturbing to your subconscious, then for your psychological protection your subconscious interferes with and diminishes the comprehension of your conscious mind.
One can seek the comforting lies or the disturbing truth, but not both. It is the mark of a higher consciousness to clearly understand which of those is being sought.
There's the very long-running Blue Beam thing so there's no downside whatsoever to hyping anything that goes on in the skies, but I would say that the actual reason is that "They" are getting very desperate in the information war and need everyone to pay attention to anything--anything at all--other than what's actually going on.
The counterpart to that is that very few conspiracy theorists are actually trying to figure anything out for themselves. They're just looking for something to react to. Even there, anything will do as long as it meant they were "right all along".
I'm just speculating here, but I think has to do with the actual way human consciousness works, specifically how it decides what to accept as the "truth".
For the vast majority of people, the truth comes from their authorities. In practical terms, for them something is true merely because the authority said it. They never consciously think of it that way, of course, so it's always, "they're the experts" and "do you think they're all lying/stupid" etc etc etc.
If we compare the Earhart case to, say, the Moon landing case, some significant differences are apparent. For the Moon landing, we know what "the answer" is, without doubt. For Earhart, they have left the mystery open.
The Moon landing is tied up in all this other supporting worldview: free world vs commies, the march of discovery, USA #1, the technical/scientific/academic establishment. All that is in turn tied up in emotional investment. It just has to be true. Earhart doesn't have much at all of that same context, just maybe "grrrl power".
So maybe she was picked out as a way to begin to expose the truth because it's relatively trivial. You break the seal on "smart people you trust have kept secrets from you, have lied to you, and could not figure out things they should have."
IOW, if the public can't internalize the truth about whatever Amelia was up to, there is absolutely no point telling them about the Moon landings. They can just draw a line through it on their list.
Do they know these things as explicitly as I've just laid out, or are they operating on instinct? There's no evidence one way or the other. But then, I figured it out so I would gamble that others in that orbit could too.
BTW, I'm going off the theory that she was a spying for the US military before the war. She crashed doing it and they kept silent to avoid exposure. The Japanese captured her and eventually beheaded her. That's a pretty gross story, and if the truth is revealed to be anything like that, people are going to have to alter their worldview to a more realistic one.
This seems so very random, but I think it is not. I've long thought Trump was a "closet truther" and knows or has been told much more than he could possibly admit publicly.
In this case, the crucial factor is that her husband was George P. Putnam, of the--you got it--Salem Witch Putnams.
Of all the shit Trump could have possibly declassified, I don't think this was chosen randomly.
What you're saying and the way you're saying it puts me in mind of the perspective that we're all just slowly catching up to these relationships, while these people were very familiar since they had lived them all their lives. When you start to collect that network of connections and internalize those relationships, your perception of history keeps changing shape.
It's like the single fact that finally convinced me that Jackie shot JFK. George de Mohrenschildt was LHO's bestie in Dallas, but then it turns out that decades before he had almost married Jackie's aunt. He was so close to the Bouvier family that as a child, she had called him "Uncle George".
Like, whatever else anyone thinks may have happened, they would also have to think that was merely an outrageous historical coincidence that no one ever talks about. When I found that out, I thought, "Oh, c'mon, how does anyone believe she didn't do it?!"... lol
Thanks very much for the support, it is very much appreciated! More on the way!
Well, just an an example of what I was talking about:
Suppose you went into a church--any church of your choosing--and handed out a simple 100-item multiple choice questionnaire to 100 different people regarding the tenets of "Christianity".
Unless you got back 100 identical answer sheets, then you'd have to say you had a problem even defining what "Christianity" was in the first place.
If you asserted that you or some other person was enough of an authority to decide how closely the questionnaires needed to match with less than 100% fidelity in order to define "Christianity", and which questionnaires did or not not satisfy that criteria, then "Christianity" would instantly be rendered an imperfect arbitrary human concept rather than a perfect absolute divine one. Then we'd also have to go back to how the questionnaire authorities were decided in the first place.
When someone could tell me the foregoing instead of me telling others, I would say that they had worked through numerous other issues for themselves and elevated their consciousness, and we were ready to proceed with the interchange.
Until such time, I would leave it to others to discuss the issues amongst themselves to see if they could elevate their consciousness and come to the realizations that I had, including that that discussion would never reach a conclusion and the true progression was to rise above it. It seems that in many centuries no such conclusion has been reached, so WTF does anyone want from me?
And if it strikes your mind that you find all this unsatisfactory and it's dodging the question or it's nonsensical or whatever else, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
To be frank, when you understand enough about what is really going on, you observe that almost everyone in the world draws a little circle around themselves. They call things within the circle "right" and things outside the circle "wrong". Of course, they never realize they have drawn the circle themselves, or that they adjust the lines from time to time.
When you're looking down at all these little Venn diagrams, you realize that the words "right" and "wrong" the way they are typically used have little applicability from that vantage. It's pointless to talk about.
If someone is looking down on these little Venn diagrams with you, well then, maybe there's something to discuss.
Well, I don't consider it harsh in the sense that I don't consider calling someone color-blind who cannot see all the usual frequencies of light. It's not a compliment, to be sure, but it doesn't do the individual any favors to ignore it, nor does it aid anyone trying to understand the situation. Few problems are remedied before there is at least some understanding.
But the "raised as an evangelical and this thing got drilled into his head" is quite at the heart of the necessary paradigm change. That applies to everyone in the human race. It's where they get their worldview and morality: from the "authorities".
About 80% are stuck there. Their worldview and morality will change only if the authorities they accept tell them so, or if those who they perceive as the authorities are changed.
For reference, this is why Trump is so focused on unity and maintaining a presence in mainstream media. To get the--let's say--30-40% entrained by progressive authorities to ever think or do something different, he himself has got to become the authority for them. And it's slow but it's working. That's why the Democrats are imploding.
Perhaps a further 15% can develop in time to the next higher level. There, you find Kirk, Maher, Tucker, Rogan, Ana Kasparian, Douglas Macgregor, and even Chris Cuomo. These are all smart people with all the access they want to information and to other smart people. They held firm view for years and years. They ended up changing some of them fundamentally, radically.
It's not clear what exactly triggers that reevaluation in them, but triggered it was. We will never know the trigger if we never study it, and we will never study it as long as the very paradigm is denied.
So the point is, none of this has anything to do with Kirk or Christianity or Zionism or Trump or Masonry or Da Jews anything like that. Those that seek to manipulate these things--the famous "They"--would very much prefer that the principles and mechanisms of human consciousness remain entirely unknown.
It is said that "knowledge is power" and this is it.
Charlie was another example of a "mid-level consciousness", which is the next level about the NPC. One of the fundamental characteristics of that level is that they lack an internal moral compass.
Now, it's not that they lack "morality", but morality is not quite what it is assumed to be. People would say that Charlie was a strong Christian. As a follower of the Christian moral code as it had been handed to him, he supported Israel. He was virtuous, in his own mind. He was also no dummy and could find no shortage of evidence to justify that position and did so for many years.
And that's the problem at the mid-level: the moral code is external. Pretty much everyone is smart enough to rationalize and justify any position of that moral code. Charlie somehow blotted out or necessitated or unfocused a plain genocide for years. It is a powerful facility of the human mind.
If you think of it like a funnel, yes, you can pour water through an upside-down funnel but it's very difficult and most of it's going to miss. It's very easy for mid-level consciousnesses to get it totally wrong in spite of the evidence. It's the internal moral compass that tells someone which way to orient the funnel for best results.
Another good example is Bill Maher. After years of vicious criticism, it's takes a personal visit and an evening with Trump before he comes to realize, "Hey, all I can say is that in person he's not like how everyone thinks he is from what is said about him on TV."
The subconscious mind builds tall and strong walls for the conscious mind.
I think there are very few actual "disinformation agents" as they are universally conceptualized. That is, some variation of someone on payroll receiving specific instructions on what content to disseminate.
All the others--all these "influencer" types that are constantly pushed in our faces --are legitimate people, but are themselves influenced and manipulated behind the scenes.
A close associate hooks them up with appearances and sponsorships. Another friend offers advice from time to time about how well it's all going over from an outsider perspective. Farther behind the scenes, social media campaigns promote and them. These dipshits, of course, just consider themselves talented and lucky with important things to say.
They fully believe they are good people doing the right thing, so loyalty is never a problem. As long as they do the right things, good things keep happening. If they do the wrong things, those good things dry up and they get "help from a friend" with how to fix things.
They operate within guardrails, some of them very strict. For example, try to find someone who you suspect is a disinfo agent who is also a firm Trump supporter. They do not exist, which is very odd if it's just a coincidence. Rogan is as close as you'll get, but he used to be anti-Trump and still wavers all around from issue to issue.
What this all boils down to is that anyone with a platform--anyone whose name you recognize and who you are supposed to follow--is being manipulated to some extent.
Except for someone like Trump, where the attacks on him are numerous, varied, open, and nearly universal.
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.