This seems so very random, but I think it is not. I've long thought Trump was a "closet truther" and knows or has been told much more than he could possibly admit publicly.
In this case, the crucial factor is that her husband was George P. Putnam, of the--you got it--Salem Witch Putnams.
Of all the shit Trump could have possibly declassified, I don't think this was chosen randomly.
What you're saying and the way you're saying it puts me in mind of the perspective that we're all just slowly catching up to these relationships, while these people were very familiar since they had lived them all their lives. When you start to collect that network of connections and internalize those relationships, your perception of history keeps changing shape.
It's like the single fact that finally convinced me that Jackie shot JFK. George de Mohrenschildt was LHO's bestie in Dallas, but then it turns out that decades before he had almost married Jackie's aunt. He was so close to the Bouvier family that as a child, she had called him "Uncle George".
Like, whatever else anyone thinks may have happened, they would also have to think that was merely an outrageous historical coincidence that no one ever talks about. When I found that out, I thought, "Oh, c'mon, how does anyone believe she didn't do it?!"... lol
Thanks very much for the support, it is very much appreciated! More on the way!
Well, just an an example of what I was talking about:
Suppose you went into a church--any church of your choosing--and handed out a simple 100-item multiple choice questionnaire to 100 different people regarding the tenets of "Christianity".
Unless you got back 100 identical answer sheets, then you'd have to say you had a problem even defining what "Christianity" was in the first place.
If you asserted that you or some other person was enough of an authority to decide how closely the questionnaires needed to match with less than 100% fidelity in order to define "Christianity", and which questionnaires did or not not satisfy that criteria, then "Christianity" would instantly be rendered an imperfect arbitrary human concept rather than a perfect absolute divine one. Then we'd also have to go back to how the questionnaire authorities were decided in the first place.
When someone could tell me the foregoing instead of me telling others, I would say that they had worked through numerous other issues for themselves and elevated their consciousness, and we were ready to proceed with the interchange.
Until such time, I would leave it to others to discuss the issues amongst themselves to see if they could elevate their consciousness and come to the realizations that I had, including that that discussion would never reach a conclusion and the true progression was to rise above it. It seems that in many centuries no such conclusion has been reached, so WTF does anyone want from me?
And if it strikes your mind that you find all this unsatisfactory and it's dodging the question or it's nonsensical or whatever else, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
To be frank, when you understand enough about what is really going on, you observe that almost everyone in the world draws a little circle around themselves. They call things within the circle "right" and things outside the circle "wrong". Of course, they never realize they have drawn the circle themselves, or that they adjust the lines from time to time.
When you're looking down at all these little Venn diagrams, you realize that the words "right" and "wrong" the way they are typically used have little applicability from that vantage. It's pointless to talk about.
If someone is looking down on these little Venn diagrams with you, well then, maybe there's something to discuss.
Well, I don't consider it harsh in the sense that I don't consider calling someone color-blind who cannot see all the usual frequencies of light. It's not a compliment, to be sure, but it doesn't do the individual any favors to ignore it, nor does it aid anyone trying to understand the situation. Few problems are remedied before there is at least some understanding.
But the "raised as an evangelical and this thing got drilled into his head" is quite at the heart of the necessary paradigm change. That applies to everyone in the human race. It's where they get their worldview and morality: from the "authorities".
About 80% are stuck there. Their worldview and morality will change only if the authorities they accept tell them so, or if those who they perceive as the authorities are changed.
For reference, this is why Trump is so focused on unity and maintaining a presence in mainstream media. To get the--let's say--30-40% entrained by progressive authorities to ever think or do something different, he himself has got to become the authority for them. And it's slow but it's working. That's why the Democrats are imploding.
Perhaps a further 15% can develop in time to the next higher level. There, you find Kirk, Maher, Tucker, Rogan, Ana Kasparian, Douglas Macgregor, and even Chris Cuomo. These are all smart people with all the access they want to information and to other smart people. They held firm view for years and years. They ended up changing some of them fundamentally, radically.
It's not clear what exactly triggers that reevaluation in them, but triggered it was. We will never know the trigger if we never study it, and we will never study it as long as the very paradigm is denied.
So the point is, none of this has anything to do with Kirk or Christianity or Zionism or Trump or Masonry or Da Jews anything like that. Those that seek to manipulate these things--the famous "They"--would very much prefer that the principles and mechanisms of human consciousness remain entirely unknown.
It is said that "knowledge is power" and this is it.
Charlie was another example of a "mid-level consciousness", which is the next level about the NPC. One of the fundamental characteristics of that level is that they lack an internal moral compass.
Now, it's not that they lack "morality", but morality is not quite what it is assumed to be. People would say that Charlie was a strong Christian. As a follower of the Christian moral code as it had been handed to him, he supported Israel. He was virtuous, in his own mind. He was also no dummy and could find no shortage of evidence to justify that position and did so for many years.
And that's the problem at the mid-level: the moral code is external. Pretty much everyone is smart enough to rationalize and justify any position of that moral code. Charlie somehow blotted out or necessitated or unfocused a plain genocide for years. It is a powerful facility of the human mind.
If you think of it like a funnel, yes, you can pour water through an upside-down funnel but it's very difficult and most of it's going to miss. It's very easy for mid-level consciousnesses to get it totally wrong in spite of the evidence. It's the internal moral compass that tells someone which way to orient the funnel for best results.
Another good example is Bill Maher. After years of vicious criticism, it's takes a personal visit and an evening with Trump before he comes to realize, "Hey, all I can say is that in person he's not like how everyone thinks he is from what is said about him on TV."
The subconscious mind builds tall and strong walls for the conscious mind.
I think there are very few actual "disinformation agents" as they are universally conceptualized. That is, some variation of someone on payroll receiving specific instructions on what content to disseminate.
All the others--all these "influencer" types that are constantly pushed in our faces --are legitimate people, but are themselves influenced and manipulated behind the scenes.
A close associate hooks them up with appearances and sponsorships. Another friend offers advice from time to time about how well it's all going over from an outsider perspective. Farther behind the scenes, social media campaigns promote and them. These dipshits, of course, just consider themselves talented and lucky with important things to say.
They fully believe they are good people doing the right thing, so loyalty is never a problem. As long as they do the right things, good things keep happening. If they do the wrong things, those good things dry up and they get "help from a friend" with how to fix things.
They operate within guardrails, some of them very strict. For example, try to find someone who you suspect is a disinfo agent who is also a firm Trump supporter. They do not exist, which is very odd if it's just a coincidence. Rogan is as close as you'll get, but he used to be anti-Trump and still wavers all around from issue to issue.
What this all boils down to is that anyone with a platform--anyone whose name you recognize and who you are supposed to follow--is being manipulated to some extent.
Except for someone like Trump, where the attacks on him are numerous, varied, open, and nearly universal.
I have come to realize that most people are terrified of discovering that the world is not as they imagine it and as they have become comfortable with. They don't know who they are, and begin to see that they have no significance in that world.
I used to be so ignorant as to think there was meaning behind it. There is not. It's pathetic, but also part of the truth any true seeker of it must come to accept.
Fake, to be sure. So fake everybody on r/conspiracy already gets that. So fake the shills don't even bother trying to defend it. It's an act of desperation. The thing is, what comes next?
Evidence has a paper trail, and evidence gets handled in various in various ways by various people. That's what should be observed.
If someone is asking, "If Kash or Dan is smart and a 'good guy', then why aren't they calling out this rank bullshit?", well it may not be that simple. They could be on a mole hunt, watching to see who in the Big Machine fails to raise their hand and call shenanigans on this.
It's definitely what I'd do.
As far as Sheen, the rumor of his death went around... a week ago? I recall seeing one single post on LOP and thinking, "Well, I guess it had to happen sometime," but didn't click on it because I was sure to see the detail in a zillion other posts. That was it, though.
The phenomenon at work here is that the vast majority of the human race actually has no internal moral compass.
These people get their "morality" by those they accept as "authorities": their parents, the cops, the church, fancy people on TV, whoever. Nor is it actually morality, but rather that they only subconsciously observe and adhere to external systems of reward and punishment.
In the present case, the Leftist "authorities" have recently made a "virtue" of political violence. The NPCs thus merely seek to express their own "virtue". If you think back to former times--still very recent, actually--when these same Leftists leaders did not hold up violence as a virtue, their followers expressed no such sentiments.
Find someone that swims against the flow of those around them, those closest to them, for reasons of their own internal morality, and you have found someone of a higher level of consciousness.
What I would highlight is that this is a textbook example of how most people in the world actually form the reality in which they live. Specifically, they get it from those they accept as "authorities". Those authorities said a plane crashed, so a plane crashed.
From there, the evidence is made to fit the conclusion, like, "it's all underground because planes go really fast" or perhaps, "what, are you some kind of airplane crash expert now?" Reasoning can be tricky and take effort, but rationalization never ever fails.
By far the easiest way to deal with evidence that would tend to contradict their firm conclusion is simply to not think about it at all. They got no time for all that shit anyway. I suspect everyone reading this has heard that before.
I suspect this doofus is just the patsy. I'm using that term loosely because the crime can never be pinned on him and isn't supposed to be. He didn't do it and could never be convicted. We're all just supposed to argue about him until everyone loses interest in the whole incident. Reference the previous Trump assassination attempts.
I would hazard a guess at the following scenario:
This dummy does all the suspicious shit like posting the song and walking around in front of the cameras and whatever else. For all the surveillance video, there's not one second with him carrying a rifle. That's because he never had one.
The real assassin had an accomplice at the venue, probably someone planted earlier on the maintenance staff. He brought in the real murder weapon and stashed it for the assassin. He also had to let the assassin up on the roof, since access is typically alarmed or simply locked.
The assassin retrieves the rifle, shoots Kirk, and hands it back or drops it in a stash location. Then he blends in with the chaotic, alarmed and confused crowd and eventually slips away.
The accomplice can get rid of the rifle any time. No one is looking for it anyway because the cops already found "the murder weapon" in the woods. It was planted there who knows when with all its bullshit iconography, which the scriptwriters somehow think is convincing. More dumb shit to argue about. This is why no one was seen carrying a rifle around that day: no one did.
Maybe the FBI are just stupid, or maybe the plant in the FBI just says, "OoooOOOoooh, we sure gotta find this guy! Let's have a statewide manhunt!" You don't have to lie and cover up when doing dumb things will suffice.
As an addendum, I have never ever seen such incredibly high throughput shill posts about this event on r/conspiracy. There is a 0.0% chance whoever this person is could arrange such a thing, ruling out the "lone gunman" theory absolutely.
These posts are identifiable because only about 3 out of a thousand would have the slightest chance whatsoever to lead someone to the above scenario. The water isn't muddied, "They" filled in the pond.
I would conclude this is misdirection.
If you were planning on dropping your rifle, why not just drop it where you shot it so there's no chance of anyone seeing you carrying a rifle-shaped object? On the flip side, if you made it to the woods, aren't you just about home free? Why drop it there?
The rifle was planted. It was meant to be found and will lead nowhere. Crowder went through that weird humiliation ritual a few years back, so he's an asset who was chosen to promote this story.
They should have went all the way and planted a different imported bolt-action rifle: the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano,
UPDATE: The FBI apparently smelled this particular rat and seems to be wasting no time trying to get to the bottom of it:
BREAKING: Steven Crowder Announces He Has Been Subpoenaed Over Explosive ATF Leak Revealing Transgender and Anti-Fascist Engravings on Charlie Kirk Assassinβs Weapon (The Gateway Pundit 9/11/2025)
I suspect the guy just dropped his weapon, took off or put on a different colored shirt, put on/took off a hat, and blended into the crowd walking towards the venue to see that happened.
Takes some balls to do that, but--like with stage magic tricks--what's amazing is how much people do not notice about the world around them. Some guy dressed in all black sprinting away from the site of a shooting... well, that is the kind of thing that would be noticed.
I would point to that user as a perfect example of the level of consciousness of the vast majority of "conspiracy theorists".
At that level, you keep finding out how "right" you are and feel a compulsion to demonstrate that to others. Of course, there's no end to "evidence" that can be interpreted to prove that correctness, and it is impervious to all counterargument.
While this may strike many as the obvious endpoint of any conspiracy theory or science or reasoning itself, it isn't. As Richard Feynman put it:
In science, we are never right, just not proven wrong.
The search for the truth is finding out what you're wrong about and correcting yourself, hopefully with an idea that is--in some sense--less wrong.
Oh, there were no days off, any more than there are days off for the robots in "Westworld". Wouldn't even make sense as a concept in that context. Not just a useful comparison, either, since (long story) They were using that show to allegorically tell us how it used to be.
There is no clear and universal consensus on when the idea of a "sabbath" day came into human culture, but I found this passage quite intriguing:
The earliest extrabiblical attestation of Sabbath might occur in a 7th-century BCE ostracon discovered at the ancient fortress of Mesad Hashavyahu, which could refer to a servant doing certain kinds of work "before Sabbath" (lpny Ε‘bt).
In another incredibly long story, it turns out the whole world changed drastically around 600 BC, the same dating as this origin of the sabbath. It goes back once again to the Anunnaki, and the settlement of what is loosely known and widely misunderstood as the "war in heaven". The "peace treaty" went into effect at that time.
So in that scenario, the sabbath just came into being along with a couple of hundred other things that humans started thinking up, such as the very idea of writing down history. Big changes all around.
Related: When I first began researching the Anunnaki, I came across an item buried incredibly deeply in etymology that did a lot towards convincing me of their reality.
Ingrained so far down in culture that it has become subconscious is the separation between work and worship. There was a time in living memory when Christians called Sunday, "God's day". Chick-fil-A is still closed on that day, and that's an assload of chicken money to give up just to respect something no human is holding you to. Orthodox Jews live in buildings where the elevators run automatically during the Sabbath. The concept is in there deep.
Nor is it only a modern way of getting out of work. Two followers of Jesus were gathering wood on the Sabbath and the Jews wanted to f-ing kill them for it. Sure, we're largely fallen from the purer faith, but people take this concept really seriously.
So how surprised was I to find that the ancient Hebrew word "avodah" means both "work or service" and "worship or prayer". These two diametrically opposed concepts had been one and the same in the mists of the past. How could that be?
Well, to be brief, the Anunnaki created us as a slave species. These powerful aliens were as gods to these new humans. We can't really get in their heads as to how they thought about it, but their writing seems to indicate so. Does your dog think of you as a god? You sure have god-like powers and do things in mysterious ways.
There's the explanation of how work and worship were originally one and the same. They were literally doings gods' work.
I'm just speculating here, but I think has to do with the actual way human consciousness works, specifically how it decides what to accept as the "truth".
For the vast majority of people, the truth comes from their authorities. In practical terms, for them something is true merely because the authority said it. They never consciously think of it that way, of course, so it's always, "they're the experts" and "do you think they're all lying/stupid" etc etc etc.
If we compare the Earhart case to, say, the Moon landing case, some significant differences are apparent. For the Moon landing, we know what "the answer" is, without doubt. For Earhart, they have left the mystery open.
The Moon landing is tied up in all this other supporting worldview: free world vs commies, the march of discovery, USA #1, the technical/scientific/academic establishment. All that is in turn tied up in emotional investment. It just has to be true. Earhart doesn't have much at all of that same context, just maybe "grrrl power".
So maybe she was picked out as a way to begin to expose the truth because it's relatively trivial. You break the seal on "smart people you trust have kept secrets from you, have lied to you, and could not figure out things they should have."
IOW, if the public can't internalize the truth about whatever Amelia was up to, there is absolutely no point telling them about the Moon landings. They can just draw a line through it on their list.
Do they know these things as explicitly as I've just laid out, or are they operating on instinct? There's no evidence one way or the other. But then, I figured it out so I would gamble that others in that orbit could too.
BTW, I'm going off the theory that she was a spying for the US military before the war. She crashed doing it and they kept silent to avoid exposure. The Japanese captured her and eventually beheaded her. That's a pretty gross story, and if the truth is revealed to be anything like that, people are going to have to alter their worldview to a more realistic one.