Something to look out as a way the Elites may handle this problem:
No one "gets AIDS". It simply means your immune system is trashed. Supposedly this is the end result of infection with HIV, but even that is highly questionable and the topic for another day.
So if people are having their immune systems wrecked via injection, an easy way to hide the problem is to say, "Oh no, look at all these people getting AIDS!"
Then, of course, they can make those lemons into lemonade and say, "All these sex-positive people need to get on safe and effective PReP! How about we start with primary school children who are already learning all about how to get freaky?"
I think the best analogy here is the tried and true sheep and shepherds: a few of the sheep broke down part of the fence and walked out. Over time, more and more sheep are finding their way out of that same break. It's gaining momentum in an uncontrollable way.
If anyone has ever worked with sheep (or just about any livestock), it's pretty much pointless to stand at the fence and yell at the sheep and threaten them with all manner of dire consequences if they don't come back. To get them to do anything, whether it be with a carrot or a stick, you must get out in front of them.
So to do that back in the real world, they've got to get their disinfo agents out in front. That means they've got to have them dish out more truth than they ever have before. You can see it all over the place, from Stew Peters to Robert Malone to RFK Jr. They try to limit and disfigure and otherwise "demilitarize" the truth they give out, but there's still a lot of damage being done.
The whole point is that if you put your faith in any of these disinfo agents, they can and will eventually lead you back into the pen. And if anyone feels like saying, "Hey, how dare you accuse ____ of being disnfo! He's a great guy we should all trust!", well then, we'll all get to see the mechanism at work.
The overall significance is that while we all should still tread carefully, this phenomenon is very good news. They are losing control, they know it, they're getting desperate, and this is the counter-action they're taking.
Obvious and lame when you just back up a step a take a good look.
You know what sort of "pop theology" really got me? So many people say, "The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God, and so therefore blah blah blah."
I actually repeated that first part many times to other people, coming off like I knew something about the Bible. But when I actually began to study bits of it here and there, it gradually emerged how totally wrong even that simple understanding was.
Yahweh is barely even mentioned in the New Testament, mostly just in the very strange Revelation. (And even Revelation, popularly understood only from the "futurist" perspective, is in main clearly about the past with only a minor part a description of the coming times.)
In the OT, OTOH, Yahweh is all over it, in first-person no less, and he changes attitude quite drastically in the course of it. No one ever, ever mentions that, to the extent that it appears literally incomprehensible to them.
I often think, "What the hell have all these people been studying all these centuries?" I mean, there are entire Christian bookstores! What could be in all those books? I find it all mind-boggling and pretty much the last thing I ever expected.
The field is wide open, and customers are clamoring for you to take their money.
I just listened to the latest THC episode with The Arkon and The Greek. I have never in my life heard such high-speed disjointed deranged nonsense in my life. I felt slightly psychotic just by listening.
So the bar is really, really, really, really low. And actually, maybe it's not so much customer purchases as CIA funding and the gullible, distracted masses thinking they're getting knowledge for free.
IDK if something like this is even worth saying, but I'll say it anyway. More or less by happenstance, once I started studying the Bible as well as numerous related subjects, I discovered that almost nothing said about the Bible is correct.
Even leaving out the quite astounding fundamental misunderstanding of what that collection of writings is, even simple individual points within it starkly contradict what is commonly believed.
After contemplation, I came to realize that the Bible, as well as pretty much anything else they can get their hands on, simply served as platforms for many people to display to others their "knowledge and expertise".
Their goal, though, was not to share knowledge on some sort of voyage of human discovery using their best talents. That's all just an alibi. It is all driven by ego and, below that, a desire for psychological comfort. If you know more than all others, that's quite a comfortable place to be, is it not? It's all quite regrettable to witness from the outside.
A true voyage of discovery turns out to be quite a lonely venture. Everyone disagrees with you, and the easiest way to do that is to call you a dumbshit. You must directly confront the limits of your knowledge, doubt is a constant companion, and there's no one there and no "back of the textbook" to tell you that you got the "right answer".
And no one ever tells you any of this in school, or portrays it in any movie or novel. I guess it should just be said somewhere, sometime, manifested into the Universe.
But as to your question, without even looking I can tell you this guy is as full of it as the innumerable others that have come before and will come after. Everyone should feel free to waste their precious time studying whatever nonsense he has to say, if their desire so leads them. None of any such study of any such researcher ever got anyone anywhere, so it would be quite the exception if this particular one did.
Some other pics surfaced a while ago, on a trip to the UK as I recall, where the body double is just standing alone hanging out curbside at the airport. Looks like he was just waiting for his Uber.
What times we live in!
It's always seemed to me like the final evolution of this is simply where the totalitarians kick down your door in the middle of the night saying, "Don't bother telling us what you said because we know what you meant. Now, you have several choices for what we're going to call your suicide...."
I wonder if the last name "Hamman" is even real?
The reason I raise the issue is that it seems like just the kind of "very deeply inside baseball" reference Intelligence Satanists would make. It's very close to the name Baal Hammon:
Baal Hammon was known as the Chief of the pantheon of Carthage... as with most deities of Carthage, he was seemingly propitiated with child sacrifice, likely in times of strife or crisis, or only by elites, perhaps for the good of the whole community. This practice was recorded by Greeks and Romans, but dismissed as propaganda by modern scholars, until archeologists unearthed urns containing the cremated remains of infants in places of ritual sacrifice. Some scholars believe this confirms the accounts of child sacrifice, while others insist these are the remains of children who died young.
C'mon, we all know these freaks love these kind of jokes. Then again, maybe it's more disturbing if it is real.
The thing I'm really curious to see play out is whether or not they actually let Big Z become a martyr for whatever cause they decide to say he died for.
I mean, with their previous scumbags they arranged an exit because they needed to convince future scumbags to go along with them. This time sure seems different for a number of reasons. For example, Saddam seems like a fine fellow compared to Zelensky.
Average Ukrainians will want him dead for wrecking their country. Servicemen will want him dead for allowing the slaughter of their comrades. Neo-Nazis will want him dead for those reasons and not killing all the Russians and being a Jew. Who wants to deprive all these folks?
If I was him, I'd have faked my death a while ago, but I think as an actor he became addicted to being the center of world attention. And addicted to coke. But Jesus, Vlod, you can get coke anywhere.
I doubt the NYT had an attack of conscience. I think they're actually covering for an increasingly desperate Zelensky, who is getting the feeling that the sand is running out of the hourglass the West handed him and he's not entirely sure what happens after that.
What are the chances, really, that an errant anti-aircraft missile lands right in the middle of a crowd of people, precisely enough to kill 30 and wound dozens more? I'd say the chances are virtually zero.
Try this experiment: pull up Google Maps to a nearby city and drop the StreetView guy in a random place. Spin around in a circle. Are there 50 people visible within 50 meters? Even 100 meters? No way. Remember, I even spotted you a city, not just anywhere on the landscape.
So to be specific, Zelensky shoot a missile into a crowded marketplace. The plan is to blame the Russians for the mass casualty event and drum up "outrage" over the event so the West keeps the firehose of money and coke going to, uh, continue the brave fight against the merciless orcs.
The Neo-Imperialists don't like anything that isn't their idea, especially when they're getting strong-armed. They can't just out the guy, since then it would make them look like we've all been supporting a guy that would do what I just said he did.
Instead, they instruct The Newspaper of Mockingbird to say, "We have to be really honest here: it was all a big misunderstanding." Problem solved.
And the plan worked, didn't it? Conspiracy theorists bit down on it harder than normies.
Regrettably, I have found that even of those who consider themselves "awake", as a rule they prefer their own best judgement to determine what reality is. And what use is reality and the evidence of it when you have your own best judgement?
I suspect not even one single person reading it will understand what I just wrote, and therein lies the difficulty.
It's clear that the struggle in which humanity is engaged is between two of the Anunnaki: Enlil (Yahweh in the Bible) and Marduk (Satan in the Bible).
The "War in Heaven" ended in a bargain between them about 600 BC. If Satan could come to dominate the human race, as a rancher dominates a herd of cattle, then he could continue to rule Earth. He would not, however, be allowed to use any of the Nibiruans advanced technology. He could only convince us through temptation into transgression. By choice and consent, as it were.
The bulk of religious exegesis and ancient mythology are just corrupted, distorted, partial and garbled versions of the true and complete history. Disguising and erasing that history is, as one may imagine, of tantamount importance. You almost certainly won't win a game you don't know you're playing.
Above all this appears to be a supreme deity, but he plays no part in this contest that I can discern. He's only mentioned once in the Bible and that reference has been literally erased.
As a point of historical reference and an indication of just how far the Overton Window has shifted just within living memory, I remind everyone:
In Vitro Fertilization Was Once As Controversial As Gene Editing is Today: The scientists who pioneered it were regarded as pariahs, even within their own universities (Smithsonian Magazine 9/27/2017)
"The British magazine Nova ran a cover story in the spring of 1972 suggesting that test tube babies were ‘the biggest threat since the atom bomb’ and demanding that the public rein in the unpredictable scientists.”
One of the more extreme warnings was that babies so conceived would not even have souls. Ridiculous! But then again, looking around, are we so certain they were wrong?
One can imagine that these neurological deficits must be difficult to replicate, and very taxing on the person trying to do so. Might as well just punt and forget it ever existed.
We saw something similar with the super-fake-ass 2011 Tucson shooting, where Congressunit Gabby Giffords supposedly took one to the head and suffered severe brain damage. At the time, the constantly reinforced "proof" of her injury was that she had very obvious "aphasia".
Years ago, a close friend of my mother's had a stroke during surgery and also ended up suffering from aphasia. She would stammer and search around for even familiar words. Once you knew what you were looking at, it was quite distinct.
Since such a neurological condition would be hard to replicate, they just had Giffords talk like a baby. Anyone of us can do that for as long as we care to. It's quite laughable compared to real aphasia.
And in the rewrite of history that we all must now expect, if you look at the wiki writeup on Gifford's recovery, they don't even use the word "aphasia". Too easy for someone to click on the link and see that's clearly not what she exhibits.
If it was me running the show, I'd just drop the whole pretense and go with the story that both Giffords and Fetterman were miraculously cured by sacrifice to their Lord and Master, Satan.
Right, that's what I'm saying. This is all headed for something other than the players laying their cards on the table and one of them saying, "I see you have bested me. Good day to you, sir!"
Given that, I feel like the "White Hats" are trying to carefully maneuver to keep the table from being flipped over and .45 Colts flying in every direction.
When they started printing and handing out all those trillions during the pandemic, I really got the feeling that dollars had lost their character as a representation of value. And I don't mean that in some kind of "monetary policy Ron Paul debasement of the currency" type of way.
The closest analogy I can come up with is this: imagine watching a poker game in the Old West and it's come down to two players. One of them is a robber baron who's been dominating the town and draining all the wealth. As you watch them push out more and more chips, you think, "Well, whoever loses is going to be upset at forfeiting all that value."
Then they start to throw in the titles to their horses, the deeds to their farms, ownership of their wives and children, etc. You then realize, "Oh, this is no longer about money at all. One of these two is going to end up run out of town or more likely dead. In that case, whatever they had title to is meaningless because they aren't going to be around any more to own it."
So as I see it, the stakes are that high. No one's ever going to pay off the debt. That's no longer what's happening.
I was about to make the joke that it's really "anyone from Earth who can be predicted to vote Democrat", but I think it's actually gone beyond that.
Now I think they're relying on rigged elections and going for full-on Cloward-Piven societal collapse. Quantity over quality.
What's weird is that we're constantly hearing about all manner of things that can knock you off in the blink of an eye, from Tylenol to "safe and effective" vaccines to a whiff of fentanyl powder. And here they have to resort to a pillow? Is that supposed to make sense?
I have extraordinary reservations against suicide, but everyone's life is their own. In that case, what's wrong with a few hits of morphine? That's just a matter of how many, and will definitely take you out in a way you won't even notice.
Final bizarre twist: I thought pillows were supposed to muffle the screams of the victim. If they don't, I'll just... uh... note that down.
Miles Mathis shredded it up pretty well in this analysis:
Let's put the Spotlight on Spotlight (1/9/2017 24-page PDF)
I mentioned in a previous paper that I suspected the 2015 Academy-Award-winning movie Spotlight was a spook film, pushing a fake story. At the time, I suspected that only because it won the Academy Award. Based on past experience, it was a good bet that any promoted film would be a spook film. Most films now are, but the most promoted are the most spooky. As I have said many times, if the mainstream is telling you it is day, bet on it being night. Well, it didn't take much research to discover my hunch was right. This story is another avalanche of red flags, if you know how to read them.
Mathis is, of course, disinfo, so step carefully when it comes to assumptions and conclusions, but red flags are red flags and can be evaluated independently.
Since Nixon was universally reviled and ridiculed as Worst President Ever (until the rise of Trump, of course), we can probably safely assume he had some good aspects.
Nixon was a product of Prescott Bush, but I would contend he was never "in the club" (literally and figuratively). The evidence:
richard nixon: bohemian grove "most faggy god dammed thing you could ever imagine" (YT 0:38)
I mean, if you're not down with some good old hot dude-on-dude action, you are in no way ready for child rape and torture, blood drinking, cannibalism. etc. Can't trust a guy like that, and he's useful only as long as he's useful.