I find this to be a surreal sort of kabuki.
Are we supposed to somehow believe that, as their first act after seizing the materials, the FBI did not make copies of them? And that these copies won't make their way surreptitiously to whoever they need to? And that if any of them subsequently need to appear in public it won't simply be courtesy of an unnamed whistleblower, or in a courtroom via a redacted informant? Can anyone possibly imagine someone's door getting kicked down for "extrajudicial" possession of any of these documents?
I often wonder how other people think the world really works. I often conclude that the question is not well-founded, because most don't really think about it at all.
I believe that the real reason Newsom is getting involved in this "feud" with DeSantis is just to convince us he's still alive. The issues are far removed from anything in which the real Newsom would be interested, namely the personal advancement of Newsom.
Now if anyone is thinking to themselves, "Hey man, that's over the line, there's no way that's true!" then you can still benefit from this post. Just take a moment to self-reflect and gain awareness that that's how normies think, they just do it somewhat more often.
Well, I'm 100% with him in the rejection of the mind-numbing despair of Modernism and an attachment to the truly Real.
It actually gives me hope in a turn for the better now that he's King, but I also noticed they rolled out the sausage-fingered clone. Now I don't know what to think.
I would contend that the great majority of the Bible is misunderstood on a fundamental level, and therefore what is said about New Jerusalem is also misunderstood at a fundamental level. Allow me to illustrate.
We can begin trying to understand at the very beginning, the first sentence of the linked Wiki page:
In the Book of Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible, New Jerusalem (יְהוָה שָׁמָּה, YHWH-shammah, or YHWH [is] there")....
So they say that "new jerusalem" = "yahweh is there", but these don't really seem to be transliterations of one another, do they? For anyone that seeks a real and full understanding, the topic has already come off the rails. Let's look deeper.
Within a couple more lines, they link to the Wiki for regular Jerusalem, so let's take a look at the section on Etymology:
The name "Jerusalem" is variously etymologized to mean "foundation (Semitic yry' 'to found, to lay a cornerstone') of the god Shalem"; the god Shalem was thus the original tutelary deity of the Bronze Age city. Shalim or Shalem was the name of the god of dusk in the Canaanite religion....
With our deeper understanding, we can now say that "New Jerusalem" means something like "City of Shalim", where Shalim is the name of a deity of the Canaanite pantheon.
This should strike us as very odd indeed. Both Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Israelites were very bitterly--even genocidally--at odds with the Canaanites. Yet their most important city, and even this coming city, are named after a deity of the religion of their foes and no one has seen fit to rectify this since the time of the Bronze Age? Puzzling indeed.
What I hope to draw your attention to is that no "authorities" have outlined this issue which is right on the surface, much less ventured to try to explain it. I would give commensurate credence to all else they have to say on this issue.
Is there a reasonable and rational explanation for it? So as not to leave you in suspenders, yes there is, but only if your imagination can stretch enough to properly consider the evidence.
We just can't seem to catch a break. Almost like it's planned, huh?
Desmet is the guy that came up with "mass formation psychosis" as the explanation for how people were behaving with all the COVID hysteria. When that idea hit, it was so incredibly heavily promoted over on r/conspiracy it was insane. But even as suspicious and paranoid as I have learned to be, that didn't tip me off.
From the little I heard it seemed plausible enough and I thought, "Well, I guess that guy's just really on to something." Then when I finally got around to listening to a full interview it was nothing I knew much about--crowd psychology stuff--but it seemed pretty reasonable. It took like 50 minutes to get the the key questions.
The interviewer asked, "So what causes it?" Desmet's answer was like, "There are these 4 conditions, and whenever you happen to get those you get mass formation psychosis." Then he was asked, "How do we stop it?" Desmet answered, "Oh, it just goes away by itself after a while."
Yep, that was it: things like the COVID madness just happen all by themselves and there's nothing to do about them. No one is engineering society and it can't be avoided or stopped, No wonder they promoted his ideas.
'Lying flat': Why some Chinese are putting work second
The fact that it's also happening in simultaneously China makes one suspect there's a plan at work. Then there's this report:
The ‘lying flat’ movement standing in the way of China’s innovation drive
Note it's from Brookings--part of the Establishment--and they seem to be critical of it. That's not on message. But then again, they're critical of it for China, so maybe it is on message.
Just so.
If anyone is interested, here's the source: The Great Harry Potter Hoax (15-page PDF)
The main thesis is that J.K. Rowling is a fake Intelligence creation with a made-up backstory. The original reply is speculation on why they would bother with suck a thing.
A long time ago, I heard an interview with one each ex-CIA, ex-FBI, and ex-DEA. The CIA guy mentioned that new trainees spend the first couple of years doing nothing other than receiving indoctrination on how vital their work is, how only the most talented were capable of it, how patriotic they were for doing it, etc. And I think we can rest assured that anyone who didn't enthusiastically guzzle the Flavor Aid was asked if they wouldn't he happier pursuing other employment.
Interesting side note: Miles Mathis has argued that the Harry Potter series is directed at mentally conditioning prospective future case officers. Think about the students at Hogwarts: they're told how vital their work is, how only the most talented were capable of it, how special they were for doing it, etc. Why, those silly muggles would all be dead from dangers they aren't even aware of if it weren't for magical people!
The most important aspects of their training, of course, are never to divulge their activities to any outsiders, and to always follow the instructions of the leadership. You want to be Harry Potter too, don't you?
I'd say he's definitely "controlled opposition".
One of the identifying features of a disinfo agent is that he will promote others "in the circle" and fail to ever refer you to authentic researchers. It can be very, very difficult to detect this unless you already know this pattern and have some provisional idea who is also controlled op and who is not.
So halfway into the first paragraph past the French Revolution stuff (which was another op, it turns out), we find Malone referring us to the work of Mattias Desmet. It turns out that Desmet is not controlled op per se, but a more subtle variation.
That is, Desmet is authentic in his beliefs, but he's off target in important ways. They can let him speak freely--and even promote him--because he ultimately leads people away from the truth, and no part of the truth that he exposes is considered too damaging. Being authentic, if he ever actually gets too close to the truth... poof! all promotion would end and censorship would begin.
"They" are sophisticated and experienced players, and we each must be prepared to match their level.
On a serious note, if anyone is worried about a "civil war", rest assured that before any hostilities begin you will see a number of fake and ghey "civil war" incidents before any real bullets start getting traded.
There is zero way "They" are not going to get all the mileage available before any real people who are real pissed off start picking up their real guns (which were miraculously recovered from that boating accident).
Will do!
And I can't tell you how long a period I went through after I discovered r/conspiracy, just scrolling through it every day and going, "Wait--what?!?!?" a dozen times.
The signal-to-noise over there has gone way down over time, so the silver lining is I can get through browsing quicker.
It's too bad to see this happening at ZeroHedge. I'm sure we've all read a lot of very good reporting there over the years.
I take this as yet another piece of evidence that "They" are getting more desperate. Burning an important asset like ZeroHedge with this kind of nonsense over something like the war in Ukraine? It's also strong evidence that the conflict there is far, far more important to "Them" than is ever recognized, way beyond grift and hiding Hunter's crimes and killing Rooskies.
Everyone is free to use their own judgement as to who and what to trust, but as I read the first couple of paragraphs, my eyes involuntarily and inevitably went up to the byline: Michael (((Rubin))). I like to think of myself as unprejudiced, but there's a point where it becomes willful blindness, does it not?
Ah, regrettably I see that we differ here. I have come to very different conclusions about the story of the human race, and how that story shapes human affairs to this very day. I'd link you to researchers holding a similar worldview to mine but there aren't any.
I'm sure you'll be seeing bits of it in other posts. I try to wedge it in where I can :)
Just so.
When given the opportunity, if someone really wants to understand what's going on with the phenomenon present before us roughly described as "Leftism", I always advocate that they should listen very, very carefully to what Leftists say, most particularly when they're "just talking amongst themselves". It is very surprising and enlightening.
Sure, no one wants to hear it and it's infuriating, but when it just so happens to come my way I mentally step back, put on a lab coat, and stare at the rats running around the maze. Which sounds bad, but then again they're the ones speaking aloud for all the world to hear.
For example, you'll hear them say contradictory things to one another, but just move right on because they're "on the same side". When pushed into a rhetorical corner, you can't ever detect the point psychologically "landing" on them at all like, "Okay, maybe I need to look at that one again." Also, they will never indicate an awareness of their own ignorance in any way, even with something as simple as, "Oh, I didn't know that before."
You'd think some "scientists" would have studied this all long ago, but "Asch conformity" is about the closest I know. I suspect that no one is going to give me a grant for it either. Why it's almost as if this "feature" of human cognition has been weaponized against all of us.
This song was recorded in 1980: Rush - Red Barchetta (Lyrics)
One of their best, BTW.
I would suggest a subtle but crucial change to the question, to wit: is Leftism caused by a mental disorder?
I would further suggest that it's not a mental disorder per se, but that their thought process fundamentally differs from that thought process which everyone assumes we all share (without evidence).
Anyone remember there was a horse that could do simple arithmetic? Greatly impressed everyone for quite some time. How could a horse think in a way that it takes a human child some years to develop?
Wrong question. The horse was not thinking at all in the way a human does arithmetic. Rather, the horse was looking for extremely subtle clues his owner would subconsciously give off when the horse reached the correct answer.
As I said, it took some time for someone to stumble upon this. That means all the humans who examined the situation were completely oblivious to that subtle form of interaction. Important lesson there.
That's precisely what I think. They had to invent the cover story for this evidence before anyone could start asking, "Hey, why is there a fancy stone bridge out in the desert next to a tiny agricultural town?" I'm pretty imaginative but I can't think up an excuse for that one.
I'm a subscriber to the idea that Q is legitimate. I dislike saying it so plainly, but I personally judge that anyone thinking otherwise is misguided, of mediocre intellect at best, an outright shill, or some combination of the three. (If anyone is triggered by that, I noted that this is my personal judgement so take the debate on the merits elsewhere.)
Even among subscribers to Q, almost no one thinks through for themselves what Q might really be and this causes much misunderstanding and many problems. Q seems to be the messaging outlet for a somewhat loose organization of White Hats distributed throughout the military, Intelligence, political establishment, etc. That is to say, they're not wizards with magical powers. They have certain capabilities and certain limitations.
I would say that by far the biggest limitation is the level of consciousness in the population. It's low, very low, and the "reality" in which they live is split almost completely from objective, external reality.
I felt that the most fundamental activity in which Q was involved was to ask questions in order to make people think. People thinking is never, ever, ever to the advantage of the Cabal. Ever. As people think, their level of consciousness rises, and ever so slowly raises the consciousness of those around them. Hanging traitors and nuking DUMBs is child's play compared to changing consciousness.
To solidify what I'm talking about, take a counter-example of something that most QAnons would want the White Hats to do. Suppose that overnight they arrested half of Congress on charges of treason and corruption, and hundreds more state and local officials and assorted others. What would happen? Really play it out in your mind.
To start with, the Cabal would know it was the endgame, and they were backed into the final corner. They had nothing to lose and all resources were to be expended. We all saw what happened when just one part of one type of asset, a few hundred soiboi Antifa goons, were unleashed in America. Pick the number you'd like to multiply that by in this scenario. Add in the part where American patriots decide it's time to put paid to these a-holes and take them out, along with the tens of thousands of other dimwits who thought Antifa were the good guys. Pretty messy, don't you think?
So I'd say a huge part of The Plan is planning to avoid this, with which I totally agree. And if anyone doesn't like The Plan, I guess no one's stopping you from grabbing your rifle and heading right out the door.
Because the story is just a big dumb joke, look at how they just sail right by that part on the wiki page:
On 18 April 1968, Rennie's bridge was purchased by the Missourian entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch of McCulloch Oil for US$2,460,000. The claim that McCulloch believed mistakenly that he was buying the more impressive Tower Bridge was denied by Luckin in a newspaper interview. [this is right where they should be explaining why a Missouri oilman would put down $2.5M (in 1968 dollars) for a bridge in the UK that's going to go in the desert in Arizona] Before the bridge was taken apart, each granite facing block was marked for later reassembly.
They should have just said it was a "Brewster's Millions" thing where this guy had to blow money on the dumbest stuff imaginable. But no, they don't even have enough respect for anyone's intelligence to bother making up even the flimsiest of lies.
Look at a map. There wasn't a "river" and there still is not. There was just a high spot of land across from another high area. They had to excavate very far down to connect Lake Havasu to itself around that high spot.
Piles are driven under the water all the time. Have you ever noticed the ocean being blocked off every time they want to build a pier? Me neither. There are no photos of what would have been a rather large coffer dam.
As far as your speculation about sand under the bridge to support the arches, you may want to look into something called "scaffolding". It's been in common use for quite some time and has many advantages over enormous piles of dirt.
As far was you assertion that that fucking bridge was built there, you apparently forgot to link any photos of a time when that fucking bridge was not there, or when that fucking bridge was only partially constructed. But obviously your claim alone carries fucking conclusive evidentiary weight.
I trust everyone reading this is appropriately impressed by the demonstration of your knowledge of topography, construction, and engineering. I know I am.
There's also the even lesser known 4 World Trade Center.
We're supposed to believe that all but one wing of a 9-story building was completely obliterated falling debris from the towers. However, if you believe the evidence of your eyes, you saw the towers turn to dust and the little debris there was fall into it's own footprint. Of course, there is no recognizable debris from the towers at the site of WTC4.