Let me be right up front: what I have to say drives some people crazy in exactly the same way your Grandma would be driven crazy if she turned on "The View" and one of the hosts kept talking every day about how the Moon landings were fake and 911 wasn't just some Arabs with box cutters, etc, etc.
Tell me, would she ever be able to settle down and engage with that material in any reasonable way? Or would she just get angrier and more disturbed because of the extreme psychic anxiety caused by the world turning to quicksand under her feet every time she heard that host saying things that cracked and melted her worldview?
If you think the solution to that is that hosts on "The View" should follow rules about avoiding material that upsets people excessively, I'm not entirely certain I would agree that's practical or even sensible.
To be brutally frank in a way few are ready to accept, seeing people spin out of control over what they read on a screen is itself a valuable lesson in how human consciousness actually works.
Let's be honest: no one objects to what I write because it's nonsense or bullshit, they object because it's true and they have no idea how to handle it. As I've said before many times, far from searching for it, most people hate the truth and reject it because of the internal stress it causes them.
Think of it this way: suppose I started posting all Jew-bashing all the time. I'd get way more upvotes and none of these problems would exist. Does that really seem like a move in a positive direction? Should it?
I'll reiterate: I never go looking for any of this, nor do I bother reporting this annoying/harassing bullshit. It's others who just cannot--and I believe will not ever--be able to handle my material. Think up a rule that solves that.
If you want me to start blocking people without ever responding, that's fine. Seems juvenile to me, but juveniles is what we seem to have on our hands. We haven't come far from the schoolyard. And I mean, is that really going to put a dent in the three people that ever bother reading my posts in the first place?
Delete anything you find that you don't like. You just let me know when you believe my contributions might be better suited to another forum and you desire more of what others have to provide.
You cannot reasonably think any reasonable person would put with this, but if you do, let me know that too.
I would submit that the Jewishness of the Rothschilds is essentially unimportant, a red herring to keep everyone off the trail. But how could anyone think that?
The Rothschilds were just some nobody Heebs living in the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt, but then we find this in the wiki of the progenitor, Mayer Amschel Rothschild:
With the help of relatives, Rothschild secured an apprenticeship under Jacob Wolf Oppenheimer at the banking firm of Simon Wolf Oppenheimer in Hanover in 1757. The grandson of Samuel Oppenheimer taught Rothschild useful knowledge in foreign trade and currency exchange, before he returned to his brothers' business in Frankfurt in 1763.
He became a dealer in rare coins and won the patronage of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Hesse (who had also earlier patronised his father), gaining the title of "Court Factor" in 1769. Rothschild's coin business grew to include a number of princely patrons, and then expanded through the provision of banking services to Crown Prince Wilhelm, who became Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in 1785. Business expanded rapidly following the French Revolution when Rothschild handled payments from Britain for the hire of Hessian mercenaries.
By the early years of the 19th century, Rothschild had consolidated his position as principal international banker to Wilhelm IX and began to issue his own international loans, borrowing capital from the Landgrave.
I suggest the key lies in Frankfurt, although exact names still elude me. To wrap it back around, Samuel Oppenheimer was born in Heidelberg, less than 50 mi south of Frankfurt.
The Ludlow Massacre was phony, but there was a real one I call the Forbes Massacre. I had to make up a name because it's so low-profile, history has never agreed on one.
Albert Pike said that They would hand us heroes, but it turns out They will also hand us villains when and as necessary. Pike was one of Them so he should know, but then only give us half the truth.
A tale of (one of) two massacres: the Ludlow Massacre was staged which is why you’re allowed to talk about it (also, the Salem Witches and yes, I found the Parker) (conspiracies.win 9/4/2025)
A tale of (the second of) two massacres: the Forbes Massacre was real which is why you’ve never heard of it (also, the Salem Witches) (conspiracies.win 9/18/2025)
If anyone's wondering why it is that so many high-profile people are freely bashing Israel now when they didn't before, and that they seem to fear no backlash whatsoever, that because "The Jewish State" is considered a lost cause. These plants can get cred for their ongoing efforts without doing a single iota of harm to the fate of Israel.
Just imagine if you and another spy had infiltrated some foreign organization, then they caught up with your fellow agent. Do you say, "Hold on now, let's just take it easy on him"? No. You say, "Fuck that guy. I never liked him and I thought he was dirty for a long time."
And if you thought somebody was now on to you too? You add, "Yeah, and you know who that dirtbag spy was good buddies with? That guy right there."
I believe this phenomenon is related to one called "egosyntonicity" and several others, and that all are manifestations of the functioning of a certain type of human consciousness. Thus far, psychologists, brain scientists, philosphers, and studiers of human consciousness have done a completely shit job of unifying and clarifying it.
The basic idea is the imperative for security, and in this sphere that entails something along the lines of "being right", "being the expert", "knowing enough to criticize all others", and so forth along those lines. The sense of superiority fulfills the requirement.
This phenomenon has never been on display more clearly than in recent times, but still no one sees it. Tucker Carlson is more worldly, rational, and even-tempered than most, yet he has been driven to a form on insanity by this. An example:
Tucker Carlson criticises Trump administration and claims 'American empire is over' (indy100 4/6/2026)
Tucker has become anti-Trump recently, and so his rationale is that this all a very bad thing. But can Tucker possibly be ignorant of reports like this?
Study: US regime has killed 20-30 million people since WW2 (Sign of the Times 4/24/2007)
And that was almost twenty years ago, so you can add a few million to those estimates. The US Empire was an industrial-scale mass murderer, yet Tucker mourns the end of it?
Well, the thing is, he doesn't even see that. It has all vanished from his conceptual world as he focuses on how right he was all along about Trump. He's light-years from asking the question, "Hey, was this the plan all along? The thing that so many dreamed about for so long has finally come to pass?"
It's never been more plain that rationality vanishes when the conclusion threatens to kick your ego right in the nuts.
On a personal note, over the last decade or so, I had to throw out about 95% of what I thought I knew about the world. I never felt it threaten my ego. In fact, I saw clearly that it was the way to advance my state of knowledge. One of the things I pitched overboard was the idea that everyone else was like me.
The "US war in Iran" is mostly fake.
everything is fake narrative....
I'm glad when people take the effort to carefully examine what I write, because I put a lot of effort into it. It's particularly gratifying when they make it all the way through the first sentence before it gets blurred into whatever is going on inside their head.
You know what disappoints me about conspiracy theorists? Given the rise of generative AI and the incredible amount of attention and controversy it has generated in conspiracist circles, I have yet to see one post questioning any of the numerous videos of purported US airstrikes. A couple of points to be made about that.
First, even if they were all authentic, how could no one even raise the question? You can't tell at a glance, that's for sure. Frankly, even at a glance, they all look like they came out of de-rezzed video games.
The second point is related to the first, and is even more vital. I've come across uncountable fakes in history that are as obviously phony as the walls of a house in a stage play. The only way They get away with it is that no one is actually looking to see if they're fake.
I think normies simply cannot comprehend that these things might be phony, and almost all conspiracy theorists are focused on being right about whatever they think they're right about.
What a world we live in, when you actually stop to look around.
Extreme minority opinion (of one, so far as I can tell): The "US war in Iran" is mostly fake.
The whole thing is absurd from a military standpoint. Iran's air defense is probably 2nd only to Russia, and they can barely get a shot off? Every reported shootdown is extremely mysterious with zero details. The US claims to have completely suppressed air defenses in a few weeks, while Russia is still working SEAD on their next door neighbor 4 years on. It's all ludicrous.
The only destruction I would surmise is going on in Iran is of two types. One is Israel firing a small number of missiles and drones, then letting it be blamed on the US in hopes of antagonizing Iran. The other--and this would be extremely limited--is the US military going after rogue elements of the IRGC that did not and will not adhere to civilian authority. Shit, they're probably run by Mossad officers.
In the meantime, "The Jewish State" is getting systematically worked over by Iranian missile and drone strike. We're up over 100 waves, averaging at least 100 projectiles. Israeli air defense is for display only.
That's a lot of blown up things on the ground and it's why we're getting essentially zero information about damage. This is going to be their last dance and they know it.
You know what's funny? I came across that too in all the research I did for the six (!) Charlie Kirk posts back in the fall. I was like, "Oh, c'mon, whaaaaaaaat?!"
I looked into it and the company originated in Winston-Salem, so that's where the name came from. I tried to tie the people behind it to the Salem Witches and failed at that. I tried to tie the Salem of Winston-Salem to the Salem in MA but failed at that too.
HOWEVER....
Living and learning, I now see that Salem Media Group was founded by Stuart Epperson. His middle name is Watson, which is a pretty unusual given name. Seems more like the surname of his mother's bloodline, right?
Welp, sure as shooting, here are the "Case files referencing John Watson" from the records of the Salem Witch Trials. You look at this stuff long enough and you inevitably start to develop the same eye, huh?
Well, as far as the next chapter, this material just goes on and on and on and as much organization as I've put into my notes, there is still an avalanche of them. One of these days I'll be able to make a more coherent case about any of it.
As far as Heiser, though, I wanted to relate the narrative of the minuscule amount of contact I've had with his work. It was very early on and I heard that he was the most prominent "debunker" of Sitchin. I mean, his website is sitchiniswrong.com, so that pretty much puts his thesis right out front.
Attempting to be a careful researcher, I thought I should consult it, if it was all that obvious. A note of preface: I have never actually studied Sitchin's work, read no more than a couple of paragraphs and watched a couple of short videos. I heard his main thesis, set out to debunk it myself, and... here we are.
Anyway, at that time, years ago, there was a short video presentation right on Heiser's home page. I never saved the link so I'll have to describe it from memory. He basically said, "The Sumerians never mentioned the Anunnaki. Sitchin made it all up and I can prove it. Go to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, run by Oxford, and type 'anunnaki' into the search box. There will be no results."
That's absolutely true. Works just like he says. The Sumerians never once mentioned the Anunnaki in any of the numerous texts that have so far been translated. Debunked. EXCEPT....
The Sumerians did not refer to them as the "Anunnaki", they referred to them as the "Anuna" or the "Anuna gods". As I understand it, the term "Anunnaki" did not come along until the Akkadians, who were the successor civilization of the Sumerians, but they were clearly referring to the same group. The Anuna are all over the writings of the Sumerians, of paramount cultural importance.
Well, Heiser should know this. It's basic. I just picked it up along the way. The question which you can answer for yourself is then: is he that ignorant, or is he deliberately lying to prove his thesis, or is he perhaps--so to speak--deliberately ignorant?
That's as far as I ever felt I needed to look into the work of Michael Heiser.
There's a particular reason that led me to conclude the Phoenicians were the main followers of Satan in the area (although there were many other groups) and that it was the center of his power. I'll get to where that connects to the Bronze Age Collapse in a second but we have to back up a couple of steps.
Well, farther than that, we have to back up to the paradigm itself. Feel free to stop reading any time because I have long since given up hope that more than a handful (at best) would ever venture so far out as to disagree with pretty much every scriptural, religious, and historic authority on this.
That paradigm is that the Anunnaki were indeed as Sitchin described them. Under that paradigm, the Bible is not a "grand book of all truth" but rather a (corrupted and distorted) snapshot of one group's interactions with a few of these entities.
The last person to say such a thing was Mauro Biglino, and only up to a few years ago when he was "turned", suddenly dropping all his most profound claims. Even Sitchin could not follow it all the way through, which I believe was due to his religious convictions although I have not studied his work.
One of the main pieces of evidence in this concerning Phoenicia is Ezekiel 28, which has presented a historical conundrum. It seems to involves both Satan and the human king of Tyre. Scholars try to square the circle in various ways and with much hand-waving.
I took the direct approach of the Anunnaki paradigm and cut the Gordian Knot: the king of Tyre was Satan, present and ruling in his alien flesh. There is additional evidence solely concerning Tyre that would take several pages to write up.
But to get to the point, there were two further conundra about the Bronze Age Collapse that this solved: how sudden and complete it was, and why no one wanted to talk about it.
As to the first part, rather than the Phoenicians out of Tyre conducting a program of conquest and expansion, the power dynamics of the Anunnaki had changed, and Satan was consolidating his empire in the Mediterranean. IOW, serving the world's harshest eviction notice. I found this sentence deep in my notes:
Already mentioned, Byblos and Sidon remained very prominent centers before and after, while Jerusalem and Tyre, both apparently minor settlements before LBAC (and not destroyed) will become increasingly prominent in the Iron Age Levant.
Well, as I would explain it, The Boss was already living there. And the suppression of all this is so that no one ever puts the pieces back together, and two and two begin to add up to four.
Again, for any of this to make sense, you have to abandon almost all previous scholarship. Or, to be more precise, you have to do as I just did: cut it all up into tiny pieces and paste it back together in a sensible way, although it leads nowhere but far from the pack.
There is a "meta" point to be made about the Bronze Age Collapse: For anyone watching the video, if this is the first you've heard of it, you're in the nearly universal majority. This phenomenon merits scrutiny.
The thing is, when you judge that you should have been taught about some historical event--or at least heard of it--but have never even heard it mentioned in a classroom, a movie screen, or on TV, this indicates something of great importance is being suppressed.
The same thing goes for the Napoleonic Wars, and the War of 1812, the Bank War, the Era of Good Feelings, the Axial Age, etc. Few could give more than a couple of sentences on them, if any at all. This extends to "Babylon", which is often mentioned, but mention is a far as it goes.
So what is being hidden about the Bronze Age Collapse? Looks to me like the "bad guys" took over, then proceeded to erase there ever having been a conflict. Same thing goes for the global Tartarian War of the 1800's. And I don't have any evidence, but I think it was the same people.
Who were those people, who in that era were called the "Sea Peoples"? My best guess is that they would trace to the Phoenicians and from there to (dun dun dunnnnn) Satan himself. But that's a much longer story.
I see it all the time now on the conspiracy "podcast circuit". There's a word that has gone out of fashion over time and that's "charlatan". Conspiracy podcasts have been artificially pumped full of them.
They shout all kinds of provocative and enthralling things. You're free to agree or disagree, but there are a couple of things that will never happen. One is that nothing they say reveals any important truth, or will ever lead you to any.
The other, more important, is that nothing they say will frighten you. The truth really is quite frightening, in a certain sense, which is why almost everyone rejects it.
The subconscious recognizes all this material as--regardless of its factuality--no more than entertainment, so the overall effect is to have the audience wandering around in a comic book store, pulling those books off the shelf which have attractive covers. No one is disturbed by what they find in comic books, are they? There are also few important truths in them.
TrineDay seems to be one of the highbrow alternative publisher pumping their authors into podcasts. None of their highbrow authors like Jay Dyer seems to have noticed any of this. He also hosts the Alex Jones show from time to time, which tells us what "highbrow" really means these days.
I mean, "They" paid Rachel Maddow $30M/year for a 1 show/week gig, but it somehow did not occur to "Them" to take over TrineDay and all other such operations? I thought of it but "They" did not? Really?
I'd say the stags are good old Cernunnos.
When you look up the history of CERN, there came a time in the development when they should have changed it. The acronym originally referred to the "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire". That organization went defunct and the one that runs the collider now is the "Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire". So they should have changed it, right? Nope, they kept the old one (for some reason, eh?).
You find researchers talking from time to time about the unusual amount of "bee" symbolism that comes up, particularly in ancient cultures of the Middle East. They just mark it as notable because, you know, why would people get hung up on bees?
Personally, I agree 100% that a bee colony is what "They" are intent on creating, with everyone transformed into mindless workers of the various required classes (see "Brave New World").
The symbolism survives to the modern day, although few recognize it. We get this from "Deseret (Book of Mormon)":
According to the Book of Mormon, "deseret" meant "honeybee" in the language of the Jaredites, a group in the Book of Mormon that were led by God to the Americas....
Deseret was proposed as a name for the U.S. state of Utah. Brigham Young... favored the name as a symbol of industry. Young taught that Church members should be productive and self-sufficient, a trait he had perceived in honeybees.
For example, the state symbol of Utah is a beehive; this emblem is represented on both the state seal, state flag, and marker shields for state highways. The state nickname is the "Beehive State" and the honeybee is Utah's official "state insect"
Shit, they really kind of spell it out when you recognize what you're looking at.
Let me provide you with a little more perspective, just so someone other than me knows it. You can skip to the last paragraph if you want and I'll never know.
As I've mentioned before, at one time I was a big fan of Miles Mathis. I read hundreds of his papers and my mind was blown, totally. It opened up a whole new world, and changed my entire worldview with it. And I could never go back.
Over a great amount of time, I became increasingly disenchanted. It was hard to believe, but my mind went back to the article or two I had come across "exposing" him as a psyop. I had discarded them out of hand since, after all, he was shoveling out gold.
But I came to realize they had been right. Further, I came not only to emulate his work but (false modesty aside) to vastly exceed it. And everything I came up with was substantiated, as I am always careful to demonstrate, and not pushing people towards the desired conclusions.
That really showed me what a fraud Mathis had been all along. I can't stand to read his papers anymore and, as you can see in my posts, I can barely scrape out a few sentences of reliable substance.
I had been so enchanted with it all, at one time. Really, what I wanted was a Miles Mathis that was not a psyop. Such a researcher does not exist or I surely would have come across him in the zillion searches I've done.
Well, then, really with no plan to do so, only the excitement of discovery, I became that which I had so ardently sought. But that, in itself, brought very unexpected new lessons.
You see, I'm guessing here but I think Mathis has thousands or tens of thousands of readers. With my tastiest nuggets, however, I could get only a dozen upvotes, maybe two. I wasn't setting the world on fire, but putting a match to wet newspaper. What was the problem?
Sure, there's audience size and shadowbanning, but I could tell it went beyond that. What I finally realized was this: what Mathis had to say made people feel superior, inflated their ego, like they were "in the know", they knew a secret others did not.
Conversely, the things that I brought forward, well, there were two problems. One is that it is so foreign there's a white noise around it that makes it hard to even land in the consciousness. The only work anywhere near it it... Miles Mathis, of course, and that's hardly for everyone.
But the bigger problem--for the ones that were able to absorb any of it--was that it scared them shitless. The Devil wasn't off in Hell or on a screen, he was in your driveway and your kitchen and on your desk and every place else you looked. And he had been there for centuries. And no one else knew about it or was talking about it, not even Alex Jones.
I never anticipated how much that would frighten people. The silver lining is that it mostly never gets through the noise filter to frighten people in the first place, but for the ones that it does... it's a big problem. Real big.
(As a hilarious side note, did you see turtlebam accuse me of pushing "the everything is fake narrative of Jewish Miles Mathis"? I have no doubt I'm the biggest, most protracted, and most precise detractor of Miles Mathis in the entire world, as you may have read. IOW, I cannot expect any reasonable on pretty much anything I write. That's never what it's going to be about.)
So who is the audience I'm looking for? At one time I thought it might be 5% of the population. How naive. Then I thought 1%, then I thought that was optimistic. Now I think (being honest here): "Maybe there is someone--one person--out there like I had been when I first started reading Mathis and was set on fire."
The more time that passes, the more I wonder if the real number is less than 1 (if you get what I mean). The goal, as I now see it, is to come into contact with that 1. I won't ever convince anyone with any sort of debate or interaction. No one ever convinced me of the value of Mathis' work, either when I believed every word or when I understood it for what it really was.
As you can plainly see now, even the few that read my posts positively never comment on my work. I think they just have no idea what to say, how to react, nothing to add since it's already so foreign to their experience. Then the negative comments outweigh the positive because none exist, as stated. Would a reasonable and rational person persist, or go elsewhere, or just leave the world to belief after its own desires? Sounds rhetorical, but maybe not.
In any case, just respond "PLEASE BLOCK" to this and I will never again post a rude comment, I'll just block anyone I do not care for. My experiment in the practical demonstration that humans are not equal, and that many are--in the final analysis--not in control of themselves even over pixels on a screen, has reached a conclusion with no more to be learned by anyone. Sad to see a proof of it, but there you have it. I think that really, perhaps, it should be my policy not to comment at all. I never thought anything I would ever have to say would be "too hot for the Internet" but, again, there you have it.