I wanted to comment on and amplify just the title of your post. What I have found is that everyone lives in their own "reality", which is of their own choosing and always at some distance to the final, objective reality.
I'm still crystallizing my thoughts on this, but there are three very substantial blocks which prevent each individual's reality from matching objective reality (leaving out any practical or theoretical limitations):
-
Imagination. No one will be able to discover or to accept something as true if they simply cannot imagine it is true.
-
Ego. Who people have decided that they are and what their place is in the Universe are both extremely important to them and also quite fragile. They will actively reject knowledge which threatens this.
-
Self-preservation. If someone subconsciously finds that certain knowledge indicates a world with which they do not have the necessary abilities to cope, that knowledge will also be rejected in favor of that which returns them to a comfortable state.
The last is the most unfamiliar and hardest to understand. To illustrate: your conscious mind knows you aren't going to fall out at the top of the roller coaster, but your subconscious does not. It alerts you by making you very frightened. The effect lasts for just a second or two on the ride, but you couldn't possibly live your life in that condition.
Oh yeah, I imagine the domination was much more straightforward back then, right out in the open. IDK if it's been documented, but I guess it was sometime in the "great age of sail" that we went from "flag" to "false flag", and it's been all downhill since then.
I was actually just trying to make an ironic witticism about colonialism, but you want to know what the real kick in the nuts is? We can't even romanticize the Colonial period because what was to become America was infiltrated from literally Day One.
Myles Standish of Plymouth Colony fame was one of "Them", a spook and "heir apparent unto a great estate of lands and livings". Disappointing to hear, right? Robert Mueller's wife is Ann Cabell Standish. It's more than four centuries later and trust me, that is no coincidence.
But if you think it might be, well, did you pick up on the other name? Charles P. Cabell was the Deputy CIA Director run out by JFK, and his brother Earle was the mayor of Dallas during the "Election of '63". Sickening, isn't it?
I did say Day One, though, and I meant it. There's a very mysterious character named "Master Coffin" that was at the Jamestown Colony. There are many, many, many connections that can be made to him but the one you might find most surprising is to Stephen Paddock, of LV Massacre fame. Seriously!
And to top it all off, the name "Coffin" is a variant of "Cohen". You just can't make this shit up.
It's certainly very disturbing to look closely at it, but I don't think his neck is CGI. The video of Biden walking around the auto show definitely was, though:
-
Weird outline when Biden is against a bright background.
-
Pelley is brighter and more in focus than Biden.
-
While Pelley appears to stare at him, Biden never so much as glances or shifts his eyes Pelley's way, which is extremely unnatural.
-
Not one Secret Service agent is ever in sight at any time, even close enough that he might be one.
Fuck you, Scott Pelley, for participating in a hoax.
I was going to post a witticism here and was looking around to see what model the plane was supposed to be when I found this story from just 5 days ago:
Posts falsely claim no airplane debris found at Pentagon on 9/11 (AP, 9/13/2022)
Security camera footage from the Pentagon shows American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building....
So I guess I'm left wondering which is the bigger joke: that the infamous security camera footage (like 4 frames, right?) shows a plane of any type, or that the footage above shows a Boeing 757?
Psych! The joke is the world we live in.
Yeah but, you know, we can rest assured that everything else about the case has been handled Strictly According to the Letter of the Law. Let's just put this singular aberration behind us so we can get on with the Witch Hunt.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, it sounds like what Biden is saying are normal sentences with meaning behind them. But when you examine his words closely, you find that you must have supplied it because nothing actually makes sense.
Here's are examples from the first things out of his pie-hole:
We agree with what we signed on to, a long time ago,....
What agreement reached a long time ago? Between what parties? Was a document signed? What would it mean if Biden did not agree with it?
Of course, the President solely determines the foreign policy of the United States, he need not agree with anyone, and he may change it at any time with no formal notice.
and that there's a "One China" policy, Taiwan makes their own judgements about their independence....
There are precise opposites. A journalist for over 31 years, Scott Pelley seems to be entirely oblivious to this.
If you were programming robots to have sensible conversations in natural language and this was the product, you'd say, "Units BIDEN and PELLEY are complete disasters. Back to the drawing board!"
Also note that the entire "Operation BIDEN" is so completely out of control that a WH official must immediately directly contradict the Big Guy. Where's the script supervisor on this?
This tells you what you need to know about Oxford University, and more generally about Western "culture".
Which makes perfect sense, because Oxford University is the source from which Western "culture" has been handed down to us by the Elites.
A few years ago, I had to stop reading the website "Black Agenda Report: News, commentary and analysis from the black left" because the ratio of radicalism to information just got too high. But they were acutely aware that these race hustlers of the CBC are one of the worst things inflicted on blacks in contemporary America.
Here's a taste of their opinions on this "black misleadership class":
Freedom Rider: No Tears for John Lewis
Black Caucus Sells Out Its Constituents Again – to the Cops
Half of Black Caucus Signs on to Israeli Stance on Syria, in Defiance of Black Public Opinion
Their views diverge from the mandatory Leftist party line (since they're real Leftists), so in typical Democrat fashion they're counted as zero-fifths of a person.
It was the association between the Hopi "anu-naki" and the Sumerian "Annunaki" that got me started on "ancient alien theory".
Ironically, I set out to prove it was all a bunch of nonsense and could safely be ignored. In fact, I could be the smarty-pants and tell other people how dumb they were for buying into it. I ended up discovering exactly the opposite.
I completely ignored the show "Ancient Aliens" for years until--out of desperation for something mindless to watch during dinner--I caught a few reruns from about Season 5 or so. One of them had Hopi factoid. I thought, "Great! Let me just research this one specific point and prove how stupid it all is. Then I can cite it to other people who buy into this garbage."
Fast-forward and, yep, it turns out the Bible is about the Anunnaki. Satan is real, he's one of them, and he's at the top of the pyramid running the show here on Earth even now. And trust me, I didn't see any of this coming.
PS: "Ancient Aliens" is disinfo and was created to run people off the rails, which it does very successfully.
Wish I'd saved a link to the clip. It wasn't from Brand's podcast, but just a short "behind-the-scenes with the guest" thing. I actually didn't save it because I was never going to analyze it any deeper--it was repellent right on the surface.
Brand was just all over Harari, beyond even that level of "I'm an outrageous celebrity who can get away with anything!" Harari was digging it--which is no surprise--but I remember thinking, "Well, Brand is clearly at least bi and probably out-and-out [<-haha] gay, so I guess that confirms his marriage to Katy Perry was fake."
I mean, did you ever see any heat between the two? I think he was always just wondering who was prettier.
If it was all I had ever seen of Brand, it would have been enough to put me off him forever when he slobbered all over that cockroach Yuval Noah Harari.
But given his history, I would like to ask him one question: "Have you ever in your life asked anyone if they were JonBenet Ramsey?"
If you're talking about the FBI faking documents (which I do not put past them), I think they would have played that card already. They are getting so much heat over this raid that they could dodge with: "Forget about all this legalistic administrativia, just lookee here at THIS!"
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.
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?
Yeah, I really think you're thinking along the lines of what I was trying to get across.
There are all kinds of books and entire college courses and innumerable videos about critical thinking and how to discern the truth, etc, etc. But as fraught and troublesome as that may be, it's made incalculably easier to confront because we perceive it right in front of us with our conscious mind.
Those other blocks that I was describing are made so problematic because they stem from the subconscious, and so perfidious because you will find--or if necessary create--a very good reason for rejecting the truth. It's not the real reason, but to your own mind it will seem very good.
I've collected stacks and stacks of evidence for what I think are very important truths, but when I even hint at these things people run like cats from an exploding pack of firecrackers. Trust me, I never suspected this was the way the human mind really works.
So yes, if you find yourself running from some "obviously ridiculous" claim, stop and take a look back, and make sure you can identify and articulate precisely why it's so "obviously ridiculous".
I used to always hate when people said, "The real journey is the journey of self-discovery." Welp, now I hate to admit that that hippie platitude was right.