If you're looking into Nixon and that time period, another little angle you may want to toss into that dumpster fire of "history" is the fact that the Pentagon did not trust him and was spying on him (quelle surprise!):
Nixon and the Chiefs (The Atlantic, April 2002)
The Atlantic's spin, of course, is just more Nixon blackwashing, but you can gain insight by reading carefully. Take a look at this quote:
In his 1976 memoir, On Watch, Admiral Zumwalt lamented "the deliberate, systematic and, unfortunately, extremely successful efforts of the President, Henry Kissinger, and a few subordinate members of their inner circle to conceal, sometimes by simple silence, more often by articulate deceit, their real policies about the most critical matters of national security." Scarcely alone in his views, Zumwalt marveled "that rational men could think that running things like that could have any other result than 'leaks' and 'spying' and all-around paranoia." Indeed, he said, "they had created a system in which 'leaks' and 'spying' were everyday and essential elements."
I read this as an excellent illustration of the mindset of Deep Staters: To themselves and each other, they are the true heroes of this story. They are the rational ones, the patriotic, those who have the will to do that which is necessary, which they must do in secret because (the unspoken part) the masses could not possibly understand.
It never, ever occurs to all these Deep State types that if they were elected President, they would not tolerate Pentagram fuckwads who were certain they knew better spying on and undermining them.
I've never seen these rules before, but I find it of note that there are 47 of them. That was Year One of the CIA, granted to us by the "original recipe" Patriot Act, the National Security Act of 1947.
The "47" is a marker you see come up repeatedly in these pervasive psyops run by Intelligence, sort of a gang tag. I'm sure it has some sort of deeper occult meaning, but I've never researched what that might be. Who cares? Virtually all that occultism constantly discussed by researchers is nonsense intended to fascinate both occultists themselves and those attempting to probe their mysteries. And it works exceedingly well.
Fun tangent from something my eyes lit on in that wiki article: they mention that one of the witnesses testifying in support of the legislation was Director of Central Intelligence Hoyt S. Vandenberg,. That statement is erroneous since the CIA would only be established and the position created with the enactment of the bill, and in fact Hoyt was gone when it passed. But I'm letting it slide, Wikipedia, because there's something more interesting.
Maybe the most famous "47", what most conspiracists think of when they hear that number, is the Roswell UFO incident in 1947. None of us would have ever heard of it were it not for the press release ordered by the base commander, Col. William H. Blanchard. Rather than being punished for this, he was richly rewarded, eventually becoming a 4-star general and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Vice Chief? Not too bad. And who was Chief of Staff? 4-star general Hoyt S. Vandenberg. Sort of sheds a new light on Roswell.
Nixon was "in the system" but he was never "of the system", and that's all the difference in the world. I've always favored this quote--in his own words--as the most telling of that fact:
richard nixon: bohemian grove "most faggy god dammed thing you could ever imagine"
And thank God someone high-profile is finally exposing that smug Intel cockroach Bob Woodward.
The Elite keep making more and more desperate moves. Okay yes, They're losing on a lot of fronts (maybe every front), and yes that's going to push Their hand. But it really seems to go beyond that. They really are acting like a hidden clock They know about is running out.
While you can't rule out any theories about this, there's almost no evidence in favor of any of them. Then if you look around carefully you begin to identify all the counterevidence. No one looks carefully at anything, which is why any of these theories persist.
So what is the hidden clock? There's only one I know of, at the very highest level, having to do with the "Day of the Lord" (very long story). Every analysis of it to now has been, of course, demonstrably incorrect. There is also quite a bit of information never discussed publicly which makes the dating of this event, in principle, virtually impossible. Certain other information suggests that it would be, at the nearest, several decades in the future.
But all that being said, the Elite at the very highest levels may indeed have data that I don't which places the event a lot closer in time. If that were the case, I would be quite surprised.
So really, we're back to square one. Personally, I ignore almost entirely ignore the issue, as dates and times have no effect on morality.
That PDF put me in mind of a couple of other ancient landscapes laid out "as above, so below":
The Valley of the Kings and the Hopi: Constellations Send Ancient Messages (Ancient Origins 9/24/2016)
The Orion Zone: Ancient Star Cities of the American Southwest (2/17/2006)
I suspect that if we looked hard enough, we might find that most of the ancient world was designed in such a manner. I can't for the life of me imagine that there was any functional purpose to any of it. I'm fairly certain there are indeed ley lines, but these landscapes don't seem to have much necessary correlation, certainly not in detail.
It all suggests to me something completely different: those that designed these structures did it only because it seemed pleasing, and fitting, and even reverential. Their garden wasn't their front yard or even the grounds of Versailles, but the entire face of the planet itself.
So many people get black-pilled these days, and make wild claims about everything from a deranged demiurge having created the world, to demonic aliens running a simulation of it.
Such ideas are ridiculous to me. Are these notions at all consistent with the grace and power of these exquisitely designed landscapes, now occulted from our awareness? Not in the least. Nothing evil would or could design and build anything like it.
What a world that must have been, living inside a titanic work of art, architecture, and--dare I say--spirituality.
You know, it's possible.
I recall seeing a picture of Chichen Itza in the modern day, only in this picture a trench near to one of the structures showed it extended several feet farther down, even though we all subconsciously assume that site and all similar were completely excavated.
I conclude that most or perhaps all ancient sites were mudflooded. Again at Chichen Itza, the landscape is completely flat in every direction for dozens of miles. There's no way dust blowing in the breeze was going to bury any of those structures no matter how long you gave it.
So could something important be buried under mudflood overburden in the area around Stonehenge. I'd say sure.
If anyone has ever wondered whether James Corbett was a deep cover disinfo agent or not, he recently stated his position that no, there was no one at the top ultimately controlling the world.
I leave it to the individual to interpret this little piece of evidence.
You know, in a certain way of thinking you have to hand it to the Jews on this one. The Babylonian Talmud wasn't fucked up enough, so they had to gin up the Kabbalah to increase the levels of murderous heresy.
On the flip side, all the Christians need was the Scofield Reference Bible and John Hagee to become murderous heretics.
And so far I haven't heard anything.
Anyone that has not gotten as far as figuring out that no one owes them anything is so far behind the curve they are not worth helping. That's what I've figured out. Everyone else is free to pour their efforts down a black hole to see if they can fill it up.
I feel certain I have nothing to offer you.
Third time, for the hard of reading. And the only reason I write all this is for the benefit of any who stumble across such interactions.
I feel certain I have nothing to offer you.
For someone that writes so voluminously, your reading comprehension evidently does not extend to the end of a single sentence. That may inform others as to the potential worth of your "analysis".
It seems like the empire fell by parts, as you can see the size changing in different maps. It even included North America at one time. The problem with even locating the parts of a "fall" is that history has been greatly rewritten.
For example, part of the fall came during the Napoleonic Wars. There's quite a lot of other evidence, but a fun one is that if you look at the French and the Russian uniforms of the time, they are nearly identical. Ever see a telnyashka, the iconic horizontally-striped shirt of Russian spetznaz? Looks like a French sailor's shirt, doesn't it? That's no coincidence. We also see identical uniforms on opposing forces today in Ukraine. Why? Russia and Ukraine were parts of a single country thirty years ago.
(You also come to find out that Moscow was nuked during that war, and that got rewritten as a "great fire", but that's a story for another day.)
IIRC, Sylvie Ivanowa on YT I believe has some videos on this but I couldn't tell you which ones. All her content is great, though, so browse around her channel.
You know, over the last few years as I've taken what turned out to be a "journey of discovery" (but was really no more than Forrest Gump going out for a jog one day and never stopping), and what I found most striking as the biggest practical blocks in research, in getting the picture correct, is that people have the metaphorical arrows pointed the wrong way. Well, WTH does that mean? I'll explain with some big examples.
First, I'm totally open to immaterial forces. (I prefer rather think of them as material forces we have not yet investigated and characterized. Like, what did cavemen think was going on with magnetic rocks? Not magnetism!) But when I started looking into the Anunnaki, I consciously thought, "If I'm ever going to tell anyone else about any of this, I've got to keep it a down-to-earth and materialistic as possible." And when I adhered to that discipline--surprise!--I never had to go beyond it.
For example, many would say that God in the Bible basically magics people into existence. But if you study very, very carefully, you find quite a bit of evidence--both in the Bible and outside--that the Anunnaki genetically engineered us. Then you're faced with the choice, "These advanced aliens have genetic engineering like we do," or "God magic'ed people into existence and all evidence otherwise is mere coincidence." I know which one I'd pick. Also, it explains all the fucked up genetic diseases we're prone to as being from imperfect engineering, does it not?
Then the idea that "the gods" are simply a race of alien beings, flesh-and-blood, much like us, leads to righting another wrong-way arrow: we think the "gods" and "angels" have human-like characteristics. Exactly wrong! It is we who have Anunnaki-like characteristics. "We learned it from you, Dad! We learned it by watching you!"
So I came to find evidence that what we think of as the source and substance of the ills of the world and our society (wars, hierarchy, government, organized religion, money, patriarchy, etc) all were handed down from the Anunnaki. They gave us our culture, and still do. Look around--what human being would invent what we have?
We get hierarchy because they were obsessed with it, so to your question that is probably the original source of what we receive as the distinction between "gods" and "angels". The Anunnaki had a royalty of twelve members, each of which had an individual rank between 5 and 60, counting by fives. The overall expedition numbered 600, who basically just became described as "angels". (By the by, the crew size of 600 combines with the one-third swept from heaven to become the 200 Fallen Angels on Mt. Hermon. See how the pieces fall together?)
As regards the concept of a "training ground", well, before we address anything of a more cosmic significance, there is a contest underway that I mentioned before and we have to get past it. In brief, Satan feels that humans are no more than cattle, and that he is within his rights and wishes to dominate and use us freely as one does livestock. TBH, when you look around that idea isn't entirely without basis, is it? Yahweh, on the other hand, feels we should be free and independent, even working in harmony with him. But the contest is underway to show that Yahweh is correct and that we are worthy.
Can we free ourselves from Satan's domination? We can see (in the negative) that his fundamental approach is to convince us he doesn't exist, that everyone believes we are doing this to ourselves, and that tyranny is by choice and consent. If you want to pose the big, cosmic questions, there's one right there: Is Satan correct?
I would add that in this contest, Satan was disallowed from using any advanced alien tech, but must seduce and convince us, exercising our own free will. Deception is allowed. On the flip side, a small number of us have been granted full consciousness to use to defend the human race. And here we are doing just that.
Well, that's really part of the whole thing: if They can't get you to believe this or that particular lie, then They'll take you being confused about it. So there ends up being this tornado of partial truths and misdirections and flying cows and actual truths and girls named Dorothy swirling all around. You can't make any sense of it because none of it is attached to the ground and there is no sense to be made of it.
You'll never, ever get to the truth from analyzing anything in the mainstream, and even the alternative media and conspir-o-spheres are totally polluted, both intentionally and unintentionally. To describe the state of affairs, there's an old saying in mathematics: "Spot me one miracle and I can prove the rest." How far will you get when you miss the "one miracle" and study "the rest"? Not too far, IMHO.
Let me give you an example: with the "PCR test" that everyone talked about endlessly, the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, said repeatedly not to use it as a test because you'll be able to find anything. He was entirely correct.
I studied PCR back in college and it's just a copying machine for DNA. That's it. It takes a tiny sample and makes copies so you can then have enough for testing or whatever other purpose.
So thinking of it in any way as a "test" was complete nonsense, and that was one of the miracles everyone spotted them. But every time they mentioned it on TV, it sounded to me like someone saying, "Well, even if you don't feel sick, you've got a deadly disease. My HP LaserJet says so. Irrefutable proof!"
Another miracle they got spotted was "HIV causes AIDS". Never demonstrated. Never. Another fake disease, other things mislabeled and misattributed. So then the test you mentioned, which I also heard about, is just confusion cubed, impossible to unsnarl. (Not that there is no knowledge to be had from that factoid, but we're so far from proper interpretation and correct placement in the framework it ain't even funny. Or maybe it is.)
The problem is more fundamental. It was a nonsense test for a bullshit disease assumed to be caused by a fictitious virus. Nothing sensible will come out of that.
The part never discussed (probably because few actually understand anything about any of this) is that when creating a test of any kind, you already have to know what the right answer is to even begin to judge the accuracy of the test.
The "right answers" are loosely called the "gold standard", but in our NewSpeak the term has lost all meaning. They decline to actually define it, but it has come to mean "the best available". Is "the best available" a synonym for "correct"? No, of course not.
So if you don't have the correct answers, it's like handing a stack of college exams on differential equations to a whacked out homeless guy and asking him to grade them without an answer key. Telling him you just need pass/fail.
Will what you get back be meaningful?
You may have missed that those comments were from the author and filmmaker themselves.
I think we can comfortably reason that if they meant to keep the material secret. it might have occurred to them not to write a book and make a documentary in the first place. But did you have other reasoning on that point?
No. You know what's odd? You'd probably agree with 99% of what they have to say on a given day, but they have been super-ultra-100% pro-Israel during the Gaza War.
Here's a sample:
How this all goes together sensibly is beyond me.
Can't believe I'm issuing a trigger warning, but here it is and people may want to step carefully into this material...
I never actually watched the documentary or read the book it was based on, but I read one book review then listened to an interview with the author and the filmmaker.
One thing the filmmaker mentioned was that there were parts of the documentary that he himself would not watch. Even in a screening, he would just find reason to avert his eyes.
The original author mentioned that after writing the book--get this--he no longer believed in God. As far as I could tell he was absolutely serious and it was not a metaphor.
Just a small correction, the work is about the aftermath of WW2 in Germany, a story never told. I never studied it further because I felt I had learned enough about the subject for one lifetime. In summary, maybe just try an interview or book review first.
Let me lay it out in the way that makes sense to me, and perhaps you'll find something of value...
When you sort it all out (or the critical parts, anyway), you find out that the two key personalities are (as the Sumerians knew them) Enlil and Marduk. They were part of a single hierarchy running Anu -> Enlil -> Marduk.
You also find out that these personalities were all known by many different names in different times and different cultures. That further complicates the picture but it can be unwound with meticulous effort. (This may seem like some kind of dodge where you can sub anything for anything else, but just consider how many names you can think of that refer to Hillary Clinton, and that's just in one culture in one short human lifespan.)
To that point, Enlil and Marduk were referred to as Chronos and Zeus by the Greeks, Saturn and Jupiter by the Romans, and Yahweh and Satan by the Israelites. These identifications are crucial.
After that, you find that the "war is Heaven" was a schism between them. A deal was struck and is still ongoing, where Marduk remained on Earth as part of the contest. The "Day of the Lord" is when Enlil will return to conclude the deal. They both remain part of the same hierarchy, as far as I can tell.
So when you're looking at subjects like "Saturnian worship" or the Titanomachy or Satan being the "lord of this world" or many other such things, you can "reverse engineer" them into this very brief summary. You see that they are incomplete, distorted, and corrupted versions of the true situation.
That is, everyone who studies these things has been looking into the wrong end of the telescope, trying to make sense of the tiny images. That's why it's difficult to make all the pieces fit together. People usually just punt, and pick out the parts and pieces they choose to be "true".
Final note: if you're wondering whether those Elites "at the top" know this truth, I doubt more than a handful do. It looks like everyone is just handed down a different mix of lies and truth. But the scant traces I've come across were enough to confirm to me that this was the correct framework.
Another golden example of how the Jews are a powerless, persecuted minority on the verge of Pogrom America 2024. Here's the explosive, violent, Hitlerian/Trumpian rhetoric that got her in crossways, right from NPR's own original coverage:
Lawmakers grill the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn over antisemitism on campus (NPR 12/5/2023)
"Today's hearing is focused on antisemitism and its direct impact on the Jewish community," Magill said in her opening remarks. "But history teaches us that where antisemitism goes unchecked, other forms of hate spread and ultimately can threaten democracy."
Magill noted that Tuesday's hearing came two days after a viral pro-Palestinian demonstration outside an Israeli restaurant in Philadelphia, which she called a "troubling and shameful act of antisemitism" that "left many in the community upset and afraid."
Chilling, I know, and I should have issued a Holo-Trigger Warning.
They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, which explains why it took four days for (((them))) to fuck her over. For anyone that thinks attending Harvard is what the Elites do, and that being the President of Harvard is thus a very Elite position, note well how much juice that has when you lack in enthusiasm for the real Elites (who, you will further note, have no names).
Finally, compare this incident with what we would all agree was quite a serious matter, the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. It's a close comparison because it involves the president of the very same institution just a dozen years ago.
The sex abuse occurred beginning in 1994 and allegations first surfaced in 1998, but President Graham Spanier (an admitted white male, no less), did not resign until late 2011.
To summarize, if you're insufficiently servile to (((them))), your position as house nigger will last only days. But you've got a decade and a half when it's merely a matter of insufficient discretion when kids are getting fucked.
Looks like the Unipolar World has lost Slovakia. This was the first order of much-needed business:
NATO member suspends military aid to Ukraine: A party opposed to sending weapons to Kiev recently prevailed in Slovakia’s parliamentary election (RT 10/5/2023)