Let me go super-conspiratorial for a minute.The only reason they let this guy go on is because he's a minor asset in advancing Project Blue Beam. I think he's actually sincere, but we should find it odd that exalted Harvard seems to care nothing of its reputation when this guy starts talking aliens.
The story itself reads like a back-handed promotion. There are only a couple of sentences that remotely refer to the "arrogant mentality". The rest of it just promotes his project. Oh, and then there's the $1.75M that appears out of nowhere to fund it. Nothing sus about that, eh?
If they wanted to shut this guy up, they'd shut him up. You can compare Loeb to Jeff Meldrum, an anthropologist out of Idaho State University. He collected a bunch of evidence that Bigfoot is real and spoke and wrote about it. Which is what scientists do, right? Well, they tried to get him fired but it ended up drawing so much attention they dropped it.
So to recap, when the mothership holograms appear above your city, you're supposed to think, "Oh snap, I bet they came from that asteroid that guy was talking about!"
I saw this guy interviewed many years ago where he must have been tripping balls or something. He said, "Of course I say outrageous things in interviews. They tell me to. They wouldn't have me on otherwise."
Refreshingly honest, but I think if anyone admitted that these days they'd get "boosted".
Once again, Vox comes through with the limited hangout (as outrageous as it is) and the double whammy of promoting vaccination.
They leave out that the fake "search for OBL's DNA" got at least 56 medical workers murdered: CIA barred from using vaccinations as cover after dozens of doctors killed. But liberals said not a word about it because it was under Obama. Is there a rule that it's not a problem when PoCs get PoCs killed?
I guess the part that gets me is that good old Col. Tim Osman was dead since 2001. Did the CIA not know or did they not care? Haha, what am I saying? We're talking about the CIA.
For the same reason, ordinary people should no longer be allowed to read or own a Bible. Are you a priest, qualified to know it's meaning? We are only follow the will of God, as given by those appointed to authority over us. Reading the Bible, or any other sacred texts for that matter, will only lead to heresy.
All hail Lord Gates, and his prophet Fauci (pbuh)!
I think you're not wrong to bring up the points you do, but what I would observe is this: no law enforcement organizations or even specific law enforcement individuals or anyone involved in protecting children from sexual exploitation seems to have anything whatsoever to say about Epstein.
Suppose you were walking down the street and see billowing clouds of smoke coming out of a building. A huge crowd of firemen looking at it all spin on their heel and walk briskly away. I think most would definitively conclude something was very, very wrong about that situation. But I suppose if you really wanted to, lacking specific evidence, you could convince yourself there was no fire and all firemen were dedicated professionals and just continue walking on your way.
Well, I'd say this about the lies and the lying liars who tell them: the people who believe these weasels (no offense to actual weasels) are not in reality convinced by the lies themselves,
If we take a real close look, they couldn't possibly be convinced by these lies, since they're full of non sequiturs, fallacies, contradictions, unsupported claims, reversals and outright nonsense. This implies that they are not actually examining the claims.
What is happening is that they have been programmed that truth is what the authorities say it is when they say it, rather than that truth comes from the Universe itself. And the authorities, of course, are people in fancy clothes, with titles, who are on television, and who lecture as if they're talking to slow children.
This pattern of "thought", if we may call it that, is what must be changed. IDK if it's possible, but I think so and I hope so and I go forward as if it can be so.
You have to back up a level to see the absurdity: Does AOC think there is an entity that "allows" people to speak? I suppose once we determine who or what that entity is, we can demand an answer from him/her/xer/it. Hey, there's a possibility that him/her/xer/it doesn't even follow AOC on Twitter!
You should post this on r/conspiracy. Then we can organize an over/under betting pool on how many shills reply with some version of, "They're both total NWO puppets! Don't you get it, dummy? It's all part of the plan!!!"
Actually, the sad part is that there are quite a number of "conspiracy theorists" that really believe that. I think they live in a world of fear deeper than your average pro-vaxxer, except they think they're smarter.
I think people should ask themselves the theoretical question: how many more steps before high government officials stand up at podiums in press briefing rooms and say, "Why don't you all go fuck yourselves? End of press conference."
Bonus theoretical question: what percentage of the population still will not see anything wrong with that?
I recall many years ago seeing an interview this guy had with Fareed Zakaria on CNN. Ahmadinejad had come to NY to address the UN, as I recall.
Fareed said something about everyone thinking he was a dictator or some such thing. Ahmadinejad said, "No, it's like 5 or 6 Western governments. I don't think the people of these nations really think that." Then he blew my mind.
He said, "The leaders of these countries travel around with huge security details, but I don't think any of the people here really have a problem with me. Why don't you and I go for a walk around New York?"
Story of the year, right? Fareed just mumbles something and immediately moves to another question. What a POS fake-ass bitch.
If someone manages to locate this ancient clip, please post a link here!
Thanks for the reply! You may well be right, but I actually lean towards the media uniformly being just that totally ignorant and uncaring. Let me explain....
I don't really know how much penetration the US media has in Ukraine, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was very little. Now why would I think so?
Well, back on 1/12/2020, which was a big day in DC for a couple of reasons, Trump decides to take a trip down to the border near McAllen, TX. I was looking into it and could find only two news articles on it.
One was from some mainstream network affiliate, and all it had in it was quote after quote from local Democrat politicians bashing Trump. There was almost no information about the actual event.
The other was also from a mainstream network affiliate, but it was a Spanish-language station and you'd presume the audience was Mexican immigrants. Guess what? It was just some normal news article, who what why when etc. No Trump bashing whatsoever.
Remember, this was after five years of continuous media psywar, with a special feature of "Trump hates all immigrants". They had not gotten through to Spanish speakers in America (at least down there), so I conclude it would be a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult to get through to Ukrainians on short notice.
You can find a number of posts on r/conspiracy where people are freaking out in the US and calling Ukrainian friends and family, and those people have no idea what they're talking about.
But you're absolutely right in that they have got a hard on for this war like nothing I have ever seen before. Anyway, thanks again for replying!
"They" are going to do what "They" are going to do.
Given that, prep to your heart's content but I would suggest we all starting thinking about how to act, instead of simply preparing to react. Unless, of course, you have already conceded control of human civilization to Them.
Has she ever denounced Klaus "Anal" Schwab and the WEF? The analysis as I see it is this:
She is "in the club": What's the point of any more association with the WEF? They're now political poison to lots of people. Don't They want to preserve their mole, or is Their game just getting that lame?
She is NOT "in the club": Same point as the above, really. Nothing to lose and lots to gain by shunning them, right?
All I can figure is that the association was so long ago she's forgotten about it and hasn't really realized how toxic this YGL thing has become. The media will, of course, never bring it up to her, lest they get an answer they don't want.
I mean, I donated to the World Wildlife Fund way back when. TF did I know? I just like animals. Now, of course, I think they should build a public latrine over Phillip's grave.
I think this is all part of the coverup and Baldwin will never be punished.
I heard a guest on the Boiler Room podcast a few months ago talking about this shooting. Sorry I can't recall his name offhand, but he was involved in the film industry himself, primarily as a cinematographer, and had actually worked with Halyna Hutchins a couple of times.
He said a lot of things about firearms and film sets that I haven't heard elsewhere, so if you're really interested you should look up the episode (and please post a link here!)
Forgive me if I get some of the specifics wrong, but one item that stuck in my mind was that he had very recently done some filming with an ex Green Beret on a shooting range. The guy was supposed to fire (a blank of course) directly at the camera, which he said was actually very rare. As I recall, he stood 30 feet to the side of the camera and operated it remotely, and was also behind a bullet-resistant plexiglas shield. Also pertinent is that he said the use of firearms on film sets since the Brandon Lee incident is regimented (by law, unions, and professional practice) to a crazy degree.
Now that doesn't really match up with what we're seeing in the "recreation", is it?My conclusion is that we're being shown more nonsense to add to the pile. The pile was built so everyone could pick what they wanted out of it like legos to put together their own little "theory". It's all part of the plan.
I believe this "incident" was part of Bladwin's "occult" qualification for political office and he will run for Senator from NY in 2024.
There is indeed a campaign to suppress the existence of Jesus, part of a larger program to destroy true Christianity (that is, any part they cannot subvert). One disinfo agent is Joseph Atwill, who goes around saying the New Testament Gospels were faked by the Romans and Josephus so they could create and control Christianity.
I recall one interview he did with Alex Tsakiris on the Skeptiko podcast. (I am currently of the opinion that Alex is honest but very gullible where he is biased.) They must have spent 20 minutes talking about what Josephus said about Jesus.
They went on and one about what a liar and a scumbag Josephus was, and how he hooked up with the Flavians, and how he was probably the main guy behind the phony New Testament.
There was one thing they didn't talk about somehow, and that was the Testamentum Falvianum itself. Because it's huge, right? No. It's just one short paragraph, well under a hundred words. So why not just read it aloud on the show if you're talking about Josephus and Jesus so long?
Please do read it yourself. As you do, ask yourself whether it seems like what a professional propagandist would write to convince you that Jesus actually existed. No, the Flavians would have wanted their money back.
It is said by some to contain certain "interpolated" sentences, ones added in later. I suspect you will also be able to easily identify these yourself.
Given this active campaign of suppression, I would suggest that you be extremely skeptical of anyone who discusses the existence of Jesus and is not conversant in what I have just told you about the Testamentum Falvianum.
For any children who still believe that Beirut was destroyed by fertilizer or that several World Trade Center buildings were turned to dust by airplanes, I suggest you return to the NYT and CNN, where such fairy tales are widely available.
I've heard this hypothesis. I do think there's an earth grid and there may even be some relation to nuclear weapons, but from all the tactical strikes I've seen they can use them anywhere they wish, in very precise locations down to a few meters. That doesn't rule out Cathee's hypothesis, but it means that there is not much apparent practical locational limitation from it.
There could still be some limitation as to timing, but all the targets I've seen have been fixed so we can;t tell the difference there. But short of an aircraft carrier, anything worth blowing up with a nuke probably doesn't move much. Since the Russians have deployed nuclear-tipped anti-ship cruise missiles since at least 1983 (see the P-700 Granit), unless they're lying about this one little aspect of it I suspect there's no practical limitation as to time either.
All in all, I personally found no anomalies that would compel me to research Cathee's hypothesis further.
One is certainly tempted to think so. But wind the clock back a few years. Did you notice them then? No, me neither. Who was talking about human NPCs? No one.
They were working jobs, driving cars, flying planes, hanging out with you on Friday nights, typing and clicking away in the next cubicle over, etc, etc. These are all complex activities. similar or even more complex than the ones you and I do every day. And we never noticed the difference.
The true picture is more subtle. You can see that the entire establishment is silent on this subject. They do not want us to know it exists, let alone understand it.
Given that they do not want us to understand, we should try to understand as fully as possible.
Think about who you mean by "everyone". There are just a bunch of spooks running around there. And if you just worked in the embassy, how far do you think you get in those circles asking, "Hey, do you know what those guys over there are doing? Just asking because I think the public might want to know."
Even in the normal course of business, sensitive documents are destroyed all the time. Remember back in July 2020 at their consulate in Houston when the Chinese were literally burning documents in a trash can out back before anyone even noticed?
The technique I've noticed is that more and more terms not only have no fixed definition, they have no definition at all. You can see it all over the MSM, and then of course all the normies and shills pick up on it and bleat along.
Like, what does "far right" mean when they use it? Is there a definition anywhere that we generally agree on? What makes it different from "alt right", or "right wing extremist", or "fascist" or any other similar term?
It's like the gaslighting formula has become as elementary as: anyone who disagrees = bad name --> fear == hate.