Thanks very much! I appreciate the support! There's a lot more to come.
And there's good news and bad news about that. The good news is that your pondering will be well-rewarded, and a lot more things in this world will make a lot more sense. The bad news is that there is so much material because these motherhumpers have been all over the map for a helluva long time.
The thing is, the sellouts and shills--nearly universally, to my guess--have no consciousness that they are sellouts and shills. Just like almost everyone else who opens their yap to air their opinions, they are smart and the big heroes in all this.
There is a more subtle litmus test, one reflecting the subconscious, something which is typically extraordinarily difficult to gain insight into. Ask anyone who saw the movie--shill or sellout or guy at the watercooler--something like this question:
In your opinion and your opinion alone, no right or wrong answer, do you feel that the movie, intentionally or unintentionally, subjected you to propaganda?
You see, I would say, "Yes, and further there is no question that it was intentional." Many others reading this would say the same.
For others, though, they will resist giving any answer whatsoever, even if you persist and press for a straight answer. In fact, it can be quite unsettling when you study them closely because they plainly cannot answer a plain question in a plain way.
So what's going on? The individual's subconscious is--as always--struggling for the most profitable answer. Further, it senses from the controversy and from the construction of the question that there may well be a trap which it is desperate to avoid.
The internal gears grind and various forms of nonsense and non-sequiturs come out of their mouths. Really, it's very much like that guy who gets AI chabots to spout nonsense in response to simple questions and requests.
The comparison is not spurious, which is precisely why it is so unsettling.
As one manifestation of this, everyone seems to have forgotten what charlatans are.
Unless they are told, of course. That's why Donald Trump is considered a charlatan, when for decades no one considered real estate development, writing books, and appearing on reality TV shows to be anything out of the ordinary.
But now we're reaching peak ignorance of the very concept of charlatan. I was just listening to the latest Higherside Chats podcast, which is considered by many as the top of the heap of conspiracy content.
The guest was Mark Burr, and it's like listening to a carnival barker for two hours. Everything out of his mouth is hucksterism. Seriously, he modulates his voice more than Krusty the Clown.
Greg Carlwood doesn't seem to notice any of this. Except that sometimes I hear the faintest hints of a growing tension inside him. His subconscious is telling him it's all bullshit but his conscious is telling him to consider his revenue model.
Maybe in another decade it'll spill over so that he will ask himself the question, "I wonder if--out my many hundreds of important and valuable guests--maybe a couple of them were disinformation agents deliberately sent to leverage me so that I would mislead or at least waste the time of my entire audience? Naw, couldn't be, could it?"
EDIT: The only resistance Greg shows is a couple of times when Burr implies something positive about Trump. That's because if Greg accepted that, it would mean he was wrong about many other things. The choice is clear.
And then she thought: how did they do it?
They were too complex, scholars argued, to have been achieved on a living person's own hair. The evidence they pointed to was the sheer scale and precision of the styles.
... the way individual hairs caught light, the way the tension distributed across a scalp.
... the seemingly impossible complexity of imperial Roman hairstyles became achievable.
Two thousand years of scholars looked at those statues and saw wigs. It took a hairdresser to look at them and see hair.
What I fear it may take another two thousand years for anyone to notice, yet is stated in that last sentence: that scholars were not looking at wigs nor was Janet looking at hair, but all were looking at marble.
That is to say, the intricate features distinguishing the design and construction of real hair from that of wigs was replicated by the creators of these statues in a level of detail so subtle as to go unnoticed for millennia yet of unerring reproduction. Who in their right mind would even bother?
I intentionally use the word "creators" rather than "sculptors" because the preconception that dudes with hammers and chisels stood around studying hair at the level of a professional hairstylist and carefully crafting the "impossible complexity" of the features and characteristics into stone... well, the idea sounds absurd when you type it out plainly. Which is what I have done.
And the SPLC has also switched auditors: it is now using the Atlanta-based firm of CRI (Carr, Riggs & Ingram, L.L.C.), whereas for many years it used Jackson Thornton & Co., P.C....
I added the bold to indicate Salem Witch names. What a shock that the auditors have never found and will never find any wrongdoing.
The Salem Witches have been behind what is conventionally but erroneously called the Social Reform Movement for nearly two centuries. It has always been the Social Engineering Movement. The SPLC is obviously right on brand.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate the support! Here's a special bonus to the bonus that I forgot to include (because it just never ends)....
Former President Bill Clinton's mother is said to be Virginia Dell Cassidy. I had always considered that as a reasonable middle name for a girl but now I'm not so sure about that. Not sure at all.
She was born in Bodcaw, Arkansas, in the southwest of the state and so towards Texas. Round Rock, home of Dell Computer and the annoying James Talarico is fairly far away, 325 miles, just north of Austin.
The thing is, do you know what's between those two locations? Elkins Lake in Huntsville, Texas. That was the longtime home of the man I suspect to be Bill Clinton's biological father, Colonel William Jackson Blythe, Sr..
Point is, it's extremely difficult to accept that all this "Dell" business is mere coincidence, amirite?
I believe this is more than something some sage came up with long ago, but is a reflection of the underlying functioning of human consciousness. That is, it's one thing to realize that sometimes metals stick to one another, and another to recognize and study the physical phenomenon of magnetism.
In this case, the misunderstanding is what the subconscious mind of the vast majority of humans is actually seeking. Everyone reasonably assumes that is something like "truth" or "facts and skills" or some such thing.
That would be quite rational but it is also incorrect. No one bothers verifying their assumption, of course. Rather, the mind seeks something along the lines of a psychic security or, to be more precise, an escape from fear and anxiety.
In the "beginner's mind", it is nearly impossible to avoid the idea that one is ignorant. No one around will believe a noob making up bullshit. Thus, the beginner seeks truth or facts or skills or whatever makes one cease to be a noob.
In the "expert's mind", the situation becomes reversed. Security is threatened by anything that challenges what that expert already "knows" to be true. Instead of searching for novelty, anomaly, and their own errors and ignorance, they seek only to reassure themselves that their superiority is intact.
The sages of old were correct but only through intuition, not explicit understanding. They understood the what but not the why. "Why?" is, of course, the question that nearly every child eventually gives up asking.
I forgot to mention the really outrageous one: Kleenex (IIRC) started making significantly smaller tissues, then put them in the same size external box with internal barriers so they wouldn't flop around. Who looks inside an empty Kleenex box?
That's some chutzpah.
The emerging official name for the phenomenon is "shrinkflation".
The most infuriating example I ever saw was in the familiar red and white metal boxes of McCormick ground black pepper. It has been sold for decades in the same iconic tin, but they dropped the contents from 4oz to 3oz. That and many other examples here:
Here We Downsize Again 2015 – Part 3 (Mouse Print 8/24/2015)
Well, I'm not objecting to or demeaning anyone thinking or saying that they're thinking. In fact, I encourage it.
The problem is that society has somehow lost the concept that this is speculation, or daydreaming, or fantasy, or delusion, and it has now somehow come to be considered "research" worthy of organized dissemination.
Moreover, that dissemination is to audiences composed nearly entirely of those wishing to hear only enthralling and fascinating fairy tales. They feed the ego because their conscious mind "knows the lore", while they never need feel fear because their subconscious mind knows it's all bullshit.
The phrase I take note of now is, "I think that...".
I really started noticing it after doing so much writing myself. Almost all of what I write is splicing together quotes and links. It takes a lot of effort and organization, but it was very important to me for it to come across as, "Well, you're seeing exactly what I'm looking at and you can make it what you will."
The phrase "I think" is prevalent in conspiracy-adjacent podcasts. That's because they have very little evidence to actually exhibit. You can mentally flag "I think" as an effort to manipulate your thoughts. Frankly, it's becoming more common to simply drop "I think" and state claims as if they were universally accepted fact.
Of course, the underlying problem is that no one demands evidence any more. I actually got criticized once on Reddit for providing links instead of just "saying what I thought". That's where we're at.
Weird coincidence: Kelly-Springfield was founded by Edwin Kelly and Arthur Grant. Just this morning I was researching a guy named Madison Grant.
Madison is famous for two things: conservationism and scientific racism aka eugenics. Both are Salem Witch initiatives for purposes of social engineering. The greenies are still going strong after a century. Eugenics, however, got a bad name and so They try to pin it all on Madison and Adolf Hitler.
Another famous Grant was President Ulysses S. Grant. You can trace both Ulysses and Madison (through a family called the Treats) to the founding of Connecticut. What a coincidence.
An even bigger coincidence: the father of Ulysses was Jesse Root Grant. His father was Noah D. Grant III. Noah's second wife and Jesse's mother was named Rachael Kelly.
I mean, c'mon, you can't even begin to make this shit up! Thanks for the links!
The disturbing conclusion I draw is that human consciousness is capable of recalling vivid first-hand experience of events which simply did not happen.
The mainstream minimizes discussion of the concept of "confabulation", and tries to make out like it's a handful of kookoo birds. I believe it is prevalent.
That sounds controversial but I think many (dudes, at least) will be able to regrettably recall one of more arguments with a female romantic partner in which she told you that you that you said or did something you definitely did not say or do.
It might be a "he said, she said" type of situation, but sometimes you might have been able to provide other evidence or reasoning to show that it was illogical or irrational or impossible that you did as she claimed.
Did that not settle the point? Not at all. You got the, "Well, that's the way I remember it" statement, as if personal recall controls Reality. Which statement, in itself, is a demonstration of the point that some people live in a reality partially or largely of their own construction.
How many people? Too long to go into, but I believe about 95% of the population. I also fear I am underestimating.
The crucial aspect of the "event"--whatever may have taken--is that it was connected to the same generational Satanist families that have been manipulating history for centuries.
I would say that the background of Jim Jones is not what we are told it was except that no researcher ever mentions it. That's how the important truths are hidden. This is that background in a post from two years ago:
First, yes, there is, so far as I can tell, no separation or distinction between victims, the accused, judges, witnesses, etc. IOW, nothing has ever come to the fore of my mind on that issue and I lump them all together.
That being said, there is probably some amount of texture to that we'll never be able to know. In summary, we can't say "the whole thing was fake" but must say, "the whole thing was fake(asterisk)".
There were a number of other witch trials in this period, both before and after Salem, in New England and back in what is now the UK. The starting point seems to be "Witchmaster General" Matthew Hopkins or maybe a little before him, and the end seems to have come with the Witchcraft Act of 1735. I label all this under the rubric of "Salem Witches" to avoid unnecessary detail.
These same people were around and about, here and there, doing all kinds of shenanigans, nothing to do with witchery at all. I mean, if They had conveniently gathered to stage a huge phony rap tournament in 1692 where I could easily identify them, I would have called them the "Salem Rap Battlers".
Even this deep into the research, I have no clear idea why they did any of it. It was "social engineering", psyops like any other, but what they hoped to achieve specifically is almost totally unknown to me.
Well, influence and control, but then again Their ideas on that are different from what almost anyone would imagine. People think about money, offices, titles, rank, ownership, money, and more money. Crowley said that magick was, "the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." This is what They seek, all those other things being only tools or byproducts.
As far as witchcraft in any of the trials, I do not think any such thing was involved in any of this. No witches, no magical powers, no curses, nothing. You read the claims and it's as laughable as any UFO abduction story in the National Enquirer.
Indeed, it's a much longer story but I have reason to believe that "magick" is the only kind of "magic" which They are permitted to use, any sort of supernatural powers being strictly forbidden.
As far as generalizing to any other similar sets of trials, I wouldn't do it without "doing the work" to show that they were faked, then working outward from there. It turns out that so much in history that seemed above suspicion is full of BS, and real and important stuff--if it did not go "Their" way--gets wiped from the record. So you can start with suspicion but you must still do the research and present the case.
Even the claim I make from time to time that these people are "Satanists" has a tremendous amount of context behind that. The most important aspect is that within the bloodlines, even when someone is involved in some way, it's all compartmentalized. Jay Parker knew about his family's SRA but had zero clue about all these historical psyops.
Conversely, I believe that most of the public figures I highlight are far more manipulated than the rest of us and ignorant of anything like "Satanism". These (excuse my language) fuckwads are so insufferably smug. They love signalling their superiority, but I could only point to a couple of instances where one of them dropped a clue that they had any idea whatsoever that they know something that I know about all this.
In any case, it's all a lot to unravel.
It was only in retrospect that I figured out "They" have been using this technique a long time. For those that think "conspiracy theory" was birthed because of the JFK assassination, they were using it back then too.
The simple and direct truth is that Jackie was an MK-Ultra assassin and she pulled the trigger. The are various items of evidence suggesting and even pointing strongly towards that conclusion. These are all subject to interpretation and argument, but the point is not to argue them here.
There is a certain piece of evidence consistent with that conclusion, which may be subject to interpretation but not to existence. That is, LHO's best friend in Dallas was George de Mohrenschildt. It turns out that a close friend of the Bouvier family, who almost married Jackie's aunt and who Jackie referred to as "Uncle George" was that same man.
While that's meaningless in and of itself, it is so ridiculous a coincidence that the only reasonable explanation--as wild as it may be--is that Jackie was involved in something very shady from childhood, and that same thing eventually culminated in front of the TSBD. All else is details of the journey.
After I found this out, my question become, "How was the fact of this relationship dealt with by the researchers that had literally written books on it, people that had studied it for years like Mark Lane, Vincent Bugliosi, G. Robert Blakey and others? What did they make of it? Had I missed something key that made it make sense?"
The answer is they didn't deal with it at all. Never mentioned it as if it was not worth mentioning. That is... not reasonable.
Numerous others had written books on the assassination, and probably much of it was based only on adding something to what the primary researchers had already said, not going back to question their faulty conclusions. Those primary researchers had already quietly steered everyone around the entrance to the tunnel that would lead to any important truth.
Sometime later I heard Mae Brussell--held up as a conspiracy theory legend--talking about the assassination of RFK. Which was totally and crudely faked, BTW. However, within about 20 seconds, Brussell's analysis had led to the Propaganda Due lodge in Italy and blah blah blah. I thought, "Oh I see, this bullshit has been going on forever, in all corners you would never expect. The hole is far deeper than I guessed."
The rule now boils down to, "The harder and deeper something is pushed in conspiracy theory circles, the more certain you can be it is not where you should be looking."
Corbett is a plant and always has been. I think he may actually be too low- consciousness to realize it himself.
For many years, I was as unquestioning as any other fan of his. Then I started getting the idea that his operation had been penetrated and was being steered in certain ways. Almost all "alternative researchers" are compromised in such a way and, after all, why wouldn't they be?
Then I happened to catch him calling in to Alan Watt on the radio very deep in Watt's back catalog, maybe 2007 or 2008. If anyone has ever heard a phony prescripted question asked at a press conference, this was worse.
Not that it was arranged with Watt, but more along the lines of, "I want everyone to hear that I'm a legitimate researcher by establishing in the record that I'm asking an organic question from my deep knowledge as a legitimate researcher, as previously stated." It's as easy as distinguishing movie dialog from overheard conversation at the next table in a restaurant.
His whole shtick is to establish himself as the cutting edge of careful research. The trick is that he is simply a stenographer and compiler. He doesn't reveal anything that has not already been revealed elsewhere.
A handful of times he has, however, revealed some important information I found to be key, but it was inadvertent. I could see where he failed to carry it forward into its logical implications or to resolve the issues it raised. Other stories for other days.
Well, let me give you a subtle example of something like "the best you can do":...
I'll start with this question: Why does Donald Trump still talk to the mainstream press? None of them are friendly and almost all are openly hostile. Why doesn't he kick them all out and fill the press briefing room with, say, Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and the like? Even if they don't agree, at least he'll get a fair hearing, right?
Now, don't ask me if Trump knows this next part as clearly and precisely as this, but he senses it on some level.
The vast majority of the public will never accept those "alternative" people as "authorities". They have none of the hallmarks that most people use to tell who they should get their truth from: fancy clothes, talk like lecturing schoolteachers, slick production, big organizations with long histories, impressive titles, and so forth. None of those things has the slightest direct bearing on the truth of what they say, but that is exactly what people really think.
So Trump keeps talking to these people because he knows that if he is ever going to be "heard" by the masses, it will have to come through those channels. There is no alternative. He takes all the abuse and just keeps plugging away.
As proof of this technique, check out this interview with Mike Lindell on Jimmy Kimmel from 5 years ago. Mike just stayed cool, acted normal, and stated his case. The key is in the YouTube comments: Jimmy's normie liberal audience torches Jimmy.
So in the end, I think the best play is to stay cool, keep studying, tell the truth as best you know it to anyone who wants to hear, and anyone who might ever stand any chance of actually listening to you will ask for more.
Frankly, the alternative is to try to think, "How can I manipulate people into thinking how I want them to think?" But that is exactly and precisely the mindset of all those we're struggling against, isn't it? Don't fall into that trap.
The reaction itself is not a matter of choice. It is as unavoidable a reaction as hunger or thirst or fear of heights. It's not a choice and you can't tell anyone to choose to feel some other way, or to fault them when they fail to.
Normies don't hold it as a dear principle that men did or did not walk on the Moon. They way they work is that the "authorities" have all said that men walked on the Moon, and thus it is true.
When you say it isn't true, what they're hearing is that everyone they have put their faith in to run the world in an orderly way is either a dumbshit or a liar. Nothing Big Daddy and Big Mama say can be trusted, and who knows how malevolent and powerful they may be given that they have gotten away for so long with such a grand deception.
Of course they reject that. It's the only "sensible" thing to do. And it's as easy as snapping their fingers and telling you to go away.
It's not about changing how other people work, any more than you could walk into an insane asylum and tell everyone to "snap out of it", but you can change yourself.
Once you accept and internalize this understanding, you will see the world and other people differently. You will think differently and take different actions than you otherwise would have. In exactly what ways I could not possibly predict, but it will be myriad and inevitable. Margaret Mead once said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
You see, she recognized the functional application. I have only explicated the principles behind it.
A thesis as to why the Deep State of the collective West is bent on the destruction of Russia would be quite long and would necessitate a discussion of topics beyond the scope of even the most adventurous conspiracy theorists.
Rather than undertake anything like that, I would suggest that any thesis put forward be evaluated to see if it accounts for an extraordinarily mysterious event that took place just over seven years ago aboard the Russian submarine Losharik.
We're told it was a fire in the battery compartment. This is not uncommon on submarines and they are well-ready to handle these nearly-routine mishaps. That's a cover story and it's total bullshit.
The first anomaly is the scale of the disaster on a crew which would nearly sink the boat from the amount of brass alone. The small sub has an estimated crew complement of 25, and:
It was a huge deal that no one wanted to talk about. The public in the West was--as mentioned--handed an absurd lie which was--as usual--accepted without the slightest question. The Russians did not want to talk about it either, but they kept their mouths shut rather than spew out bullshit.
Almost shut, that is, because statements and events belied how huge a deal it really was:
Dead sailors stopped a 'planetary catastrophe' aboard a secret submarine, a top Russian naval officer said at their funeral (Business Insider 7/8/2019)
And back on the Wikipedia page:
For a routine accident on a research sub? C'mon.
So what really happened? As I said, it's a very long story. But, again, the point is that whatever explanations are put forward for what the hell is going on with Russia that do not account for this incident can--in my book--be thrown out without further consideration.
PS: If anyone can work "Da Joos" into any of this I'd be shocked.