Quick note about Mauro:

Sitchin got it right, which is why you see such an incredible amount of shade thrown on him. We're in an information war and that's how They do it. Mauro was hands down the best researcher on the subject since Sitchin passed away.

You could tell in his presentations, though, that Mauro stepped extremely carefully. On one hand, he clearly knew Sitchin was correct but also knew how controversial he was, so he avoided jumping into the middle of a mudfight.

On the other hand, what he had to say about the Bible overturns the vast majority of what is commonly held to be true by religious people. Yes, the Bible is true, just not at all in the way they understand it. Mauro always stuck really closely to the text and analysis of it, rather than moving to the connections and implications and pissing everyone off.

But in a recent development, Mauro has been "turned". This became clear in his interview a couple of years ago by Graham Hancock. Hancock himself is a disinfo agent, and the main subject he is there to divert researchers from is the Anunnaki. So why would he be promoting Biglino?

During the course of the interview, Hancock presses Biglino on the point of the "gods" of the Bible. He forces him to say that these "gods" were simply powerful kings, human beings and not aliens. When you are aware of what's going on, it's painful to watch. This is in direct contradiction to Sitchin's conclusions, and that was the point of the whole interview.

Another excellent researcher was Alan Alford with his book, "Gods of the New Millennium". He was eventually turned just as Biglino was and recanted his own work. Again, we're in an information war and that's how They do it.

Not so quick a note, I suppose!

That's what I'm saying, this not in any way the rational attitude of a reasonable person: "Oh, uh, these people only take half my money or more, control my life and will continue to control that of my children in countless ways, and are bringing civilization itself down around all of us. But they've ceased to amuse me so I don't even pay attention any more." Put succinctly like that, it's absurd.

It's the same as what was found in microcosm with the concept of Homo Economicus, the idea that humans could be treated as rational actors in the study of economics.

About halfway down the page you'll see where Daniel Kahneman curb stomps that concept through simple experimentation. They use a ton of verbiage to obfuscate that destruction. No, humans don't behave in the assumed and expected ways at all.

If you search on "kahneman consciousness", you'll see a lot more of his relevant work. He was way out in front, but he was just scratching the surface. As for me, I thrust my harpoon straight at the heart of the White Whale.

You know what the strangest thing is about the real-time decomposition of "Joe Biden"? It's the reaction of the normies. Actually, it's the near total lack of reaction.

Even just some average Democrat with eyes and ears would very reasonably say, "I voted for Biden before and would vote for him again, but I don't think he's fit for another four years of a very demanding job. Doesn't he have the judgement to figure this out himself? Why don't the Democrats pick a stronger candidate?"

You only hear that "normal" reaction on rare occasion, even in private. Rather, they seem to shut it all out of their minds. I live in a very, very liberal area, and I've seen about two Biden 2024 signs. Subconsciously, they know what's up and aren't going to waste any energy on lunacy.

I think my point here is that when you fail to see actions and reactions you would reasonably expect, that's the sure signal that people operate other than the way you think they do.

I'm reminded of what Woodrow Wilson wrote:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

So, you know, "Hey everybody, it's just an odd simile so calm down. I don't know nothing. And I'm not suicidal!"

As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"

Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.

I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.

NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.

As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.

First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.

Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.

Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.

Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?

So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.

I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol

A couple of items, only for the most adventurous and "out there" conspiracy theorists:

• Hunter is long dead, having OD'ed even before "his father" was inaugurated. So they can run this ring in the circus as long as they like and neither "father" nor "son" is in any jeopardy or will object.

• Flynn is controlled opposition. There's quite a case to be made for that, but the most interesting item is that the judge in his case, Emmet G. Sullivan, is secretly the father of John Sullivan (aka "Jayden X"), the guy that filmed Ashley Babbitt's assassination.

Hopefully, someone will say that I made all that up. I feel like I do not have that level of creativity, so it would be a nice compliment.

Hey, I'm glad you found the info useful, and thanks very much for your thoughtful reply!

Since you're interested in the subject, let me put a few more pieces on the table and tell you how I've got them arranged. There's a lot of evidence to support those pieces, but rather than detail all that (which I am more than willing to offer if you're interested), I think it's much more constructive if you have the "framework" in mind as you encounter evidence organically in your own studies. Then you see whether it fit or does not. Anyway...

As far as I can tell, there is only one type of human. Well, there may be an exception to that when it comes to "Illuminati bloodlines", but that doesn't play a big part in the analysis of our situation. If They did what They do for love or money or because They're half-alien, there's not much functional difference. Nor is there much evidence in any case, aside from that They clearly like to "keep it in the family".

So the framework seems to be that humans develop naturally through three levels, and the fundamental difference between them is the upper limit. I have no idea how the limit is determined. It does not seem to be hereditary, as one would imagine.

There are very scant indications that development to the highest level can be artificially stimulated, but the technique is baffling because the underlying mechanism in unknown. Development can certainly be halted. For example, Satanists are aware they need to traumatize children before age 7 to arrest them at the lowest level.

All this leads into the subject or morality and moral behavior. I have found that these three levels of consciousness are identical with three type of "morality". That is, a particular faculty of moral reasoning is set by the level of consciousness. So you see why the Satanists are so concerned.

NPCs, at the lowest level, have no in-built moral sense. They are guided simply by external systems of reward and punishment. Don't wan't to go to jail? Don't break the law. Or, don't get caught doing it, see? Want to go to Heaven? Go to church on Sunday and don't cheat on your wife. Oh, and kill the pagans if you're instructed to, the more pagans the better. So morality ends up coming from external authorities.

In the middle state, morality comes from deliberate moral reasoning, comparing facts and circumstances to a moral code adopted along the way. Such reasoning can be very tricky, and the biggest problem is that humans can "rationalize" just about anything. In this scenario, the reasoning most often comes out to be the personally convenient course. Whaddaya know? But it's why, for example, you see Bill Maher say some surprising things from time to time.

At the highest level, a moral sense is in-built, as reliable yet undefinable as knowing up from down. (Okay, yeah, I know it's your inner ear, but if no one had told you that you'd have no idea where to point when asked where that sense resided.) For such people, if Jesus Himself told them murder was okay, it would still not be okay.

Final note on how NPCs connect the murderer in your example to people supporting the Israeli genocide: they all think of themselves as "good" people. You see, for them that's the axiom rather than the conclusion. Their moral reasoning is completely inverted, or more accurately one would say it is moral rationalization.

"Good" people are pro-Israel and send bombs to Israel to slaughter "bad" people, and how could it be otherwise? The key observation here is that slaughter--for any reason--does not seem to bother any of them in the slightest. You can't find a single one of them praying, "Jesus, Lord, have mercy, let it end." At least I haven't heard one yet.

What's notable here is that it is Pelosi herself addressing the issue and that it's on MSNBC. The SOP with such things is for a "journalist" to "interview" a "reporter", who proclaims the new "truth" and--more importantly--how to feel about it.

In this case, we should have heard something along the lines of, "Guess what Russkie/Chink disinfo are trying to falsely claim now without evidence? It's outrageous!"

Things are changing, and "They" are losing. Anyone who cares to make the claim this is part of Their plan and that it indicates They have got us where They want us, please do so. Then we can all laugh at it harder than we're supposed to laugh at all the Q stuff.

You know, the more I've learned out the world, what has gone on and what is going on now, and about the nature of human beings, the less I can identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.

For example, if there are moral truths to be found in the Bible (or any other "religious" work) then are they not true regardless of who wrote them down and when and where? Or at all? Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?

Well, there are many such issues and many of them have, according to my research, quite specific answers. When you sort through it all, taking things back their foundations and fundamental natures, almost nothing is left of what we now call religion.

All that being said, another conclusion I've reached is that (for the foreseeable future) I would recommend and support anyone choosing to practice any sort of conventional religion. Which seems a funny place to end up, but there is specific reasoning behind it.

There has been essentially no disciplined research on defining and characterizing the "soul". The last I'm aware of was done by the Ancient Egyptians. Thus, it's certainly premature to say that NPCs do not have souls. Many people will have the intuition that all humans most probably do.

That being said, among other evidence, the violent backlash against the concept of NPCs can tell us two things. One is confirmation that it exists. Why fight so hard against something that isn't there? The other is that the Dark Occultists that run the world consider it one of the Big Secrets, as it provides crucial insight into human consciousness and, perhaps, the soul itself.

The closest analogy of which I am aware is to liken NPCs to people who are color-blind. That is, for some reason (which can possibly be traced to a biological origin), certain people lack a capability which other humans possess. In one case it has to do with vision, in the other with the level of consciousness.

In both cases, it's not for "lack or trying" or "stupidity" or "moral failure" or "propaganda" or any similar reason you see offered universally. In both cases, the condition is not readily apparent to others, it cannot be detected through introspection. and a person may remain unaware of it through their entire life.

It turns out that for someone attuned to the correct paradigm, there is actually quite a bit of available evidence pertaining to this condition. What I cannot avoid concluding is that there are also zero people interested in such evidence.

That may sound like a slam, but there's a vital point to be made: for those who one might think would be interested in researching such a subject, they display no consciousness whatsoever that their paradigm regarding it may be in error and should be reconsidered.

NPCs are unable to conceive that there is higher level of consciousness, and so will presumably be forever unable to reach it. So too, at that higher level of consciousness above NPCs which the Gnostics termed "psychics", are in a parallel way unable to conceive that there is a higher level of consciousness above their own. Most are conspiracy theorists of one type or other, and in fact this is the very reason they are conspiracy theorists in the first place.

At a rough guess, the numbers are 80%, 15%, and 5% between hylics, psychics, and pneumatics, respectively. One should also be aware that a person who has a higher capacity but is underdeveloped may simply appear to be a person of lower capacity. Personally, I thought there was nothing at all suspicious about 9/11 until late in 2012.

If you're someone out there reading this and feel like you "get it", rather than are furiously thinking of all the reasons it is incorrect, then you must now realize the difficult tilt of the playing field we're on.

What I have found most enlightening, most informative about the whole event is this: for all the hoaxes and rewritten history and diabolical deceptions that all conspiracy theorists have seen over and over seemingly without end, essentially zero percent of them even consider whether this is yet another hoax. There is no evidence it even enters their consciousness, let alone is entertained as a thesis.

In the unlikely case that anyone is interested in what I learned from this and other similar events, it's that even conspiracy theorists operate primarily on emotional reaction. Yes, they differ from normies in what they react to and how they react, but the dynamic is the same: reaction rather than conscious, deliberate action.

I would further add that I feel certain the Dark Occultists that run this world are fully aware of this dynamic and make use of it to manipulate the public. Why the hell wouldn't They? So if anyone takes offense at what I'm saying, go ahead and take offense. I can guarantee that will only make Them laugh at you even harder.

We get no information about what goes on "on the inside", but you have to start to wonder if there's a growing "Hitler in the bunker" vibe. You know, where everyone is screaming at other about whose fault it is and how they're still going to win.

The "security agreement" was actually a protection racket run by Israel and the US. The Saudis were, of course, willing participants for a long time. They were paying the American bag man so that they were not struck by "Jewish lightning".

MBS wants to break his country free of all that. I suppose he has judged that their lightning protection is now sufficient to the task. Also, the lightning is having tremendous trouble striking anything other than women and children, and the storm may, in fact, soon abate.

There's a subtle revelation here of how naive these people actually are, including Tucker with all his experience. The term of art is "handler". You'd think Tucker would recognize that right away.

It's a laughable as some dude referring to his dope dealer as his "buddy".

I came across a similar thing a couple of weeks ago. The Gateway Pundit published a list (which I imagine originally came from somewhere in the Chosenite Psyop Command) showing 40 young women purportedly still missing. You can see the photos about halfway down the page:

Barbarians: Hamas Admits that Several of the Hostages They Plan to Turn Over to Israel Are Already Dead (TGP 5/7/2024)

"It is not clear how many Hamas is still holding." Uh, didn't anyone ask? Isn't anyone worried enough to follow up on that?

Of course no one asked because the list is phony. Taste varies, but all of the women are well above average in attractiveness. My guess would be these were just harvested from the social media accounts of serving IDF, who were each instructed to keep their fucking mouth shut.

TGP is--it turns out--blindly Christian Zionist, so they never questioned this. Also, some fun Semitic hoax encoding: the number "40" is used colooquially for a large, indeterminate number. That's why you see it recurring so often in the Bible. So this is like a poster in English that says, "Wanted dead or alive for a jillion murders".

An angle on this which I never see mentioned is the simple, straightforward, foundational question: "Are viruses alive?"

I won't answer the question because anyone who considers themselves a critical thinker will have to come to their own conclusion, but I only suggest it as a starting point of investigation for those who ask themselves the question--as I once did--"Just what TF are viruses even supposed to be, anyway?"

This brings up an important point in regard to disinformation. Both normies and conspiracy theorists conceive of disinformation as a program to sell you a lie, or at least an incorrect or incomplete version of the truth. In cases that are simple, unimportant, or crude, this is true.

In cases of any importance and where there is enough evidence available so that one could get to the truth with some work, a more sophisticated approach is taken. The goal is not to sell you a lie, but to keep you away from the truth.

Many different versions of the "truth" are presented to you like magazines on a rack in a bookstore. You are meant to look at the covers, find the one that appeals to you, pick it up and walk out the door. A free choice was made, was it not? Although they will contains bits and pieces of it, certainly none of them are the truth.

So we see this movie as yet another glossy magazine on the rack that you can select if you choose. It joins others on that rack, like this judo flip reversal out of Richard Hoagland, which is here shadow-promoted by the ever reliable Smithsonian:

Yes, the United States Certainly DID Land Humans on the Moon (Smithsonian Magazine 5/16/2019)

Conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland has asserted for many years that the Apollo program discovered large artificial glass structures on the lunar surface that has been kept from the public. Besides other conventions common in a cover-up, Hoagland made the claim that the astronauts that went to the moon had been hypnotized and any memories of extraterrestrial encounters were removed. Most interestingly, Hoagland has argued that NASA deviously orchestrated the origins of the moon-landing denials as a disinformation campaign to mask the discovery of extra-terrestrial structures on the lunar surface.

Wow! Of course, these days you can also join the FE crowd and choose to believe the Moon is undefined (in some undefined sense). Anything is possible! (See how it works?)

The key observation is that even though these various disinformation programs contradict one another, all the promoters of said disinformation programs never get around to calling out all the others as promoters of disinformation. What, they just never thought it through like I just did, and thought it worth telling you like I just told you? Well, you see, that would give away the game, wouldn't it?

Glad to see someone else is on the case!

I believe that, clearly, the reason he was barred from research is because this is the effect--intended or unintended--of a bioweapon, and "They" do not want him figuring that out.

As stated in the article, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is a result of prions, and it turns out prions are bioweapons. I wrote up a very short summary putting together the main pieces of evidence in comments to this post from a few months ago:

Alzheimer’s passed to patients from cadavers (r/conspiracy_commons 2/2/2024)

The same thing happened with the Iraq War: Casualties of the Iraq War

For a long time, they tried to get away with about 100-200k, but in 2007 the Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll came out with an estimate of a million dead due to the conflict. IOW, a 5-10x multiplier. That's probably the most reliable number, and there are a couple of reasons why we might believe that.

First, I have never one single time heard any official or "expert" dispute it, then make an argument in favor of another number. They do not want to "Streisand" the issue then lose on the merits.

Second, you can see right on that Wiki page where They're trying to hide it. Look at that nice, neat table labeled "Scientific surveys". It does not include the ODB poll, even though the fundamental concept of extrapolation via survey is precisely the same as the three listed. Leaving it out is a crude but effective trick.

Let me square the circle: It turns out the Fallen Angels were aliens. Nimrod was not one of the Nephilim, but the leader of the Fallen Angels. He is one and the same as the entity known to the Babylonians and Sumerians as Marduk. In fact, the two names are simply different ways of reading of the very same cuneiform.

Much of the research in this area really involves just straightening out what is already known and putting the pieces back together. It seems counter-intuitive, but you must gather data from many different sources. In hindsight, you can see that the story was splintered over time and each source was corrupted in various ways.

That may sound high-falutin', but it's no more mysterious than talking to a dozen witnesses to a car accident six months in the past. Memory fades and is edited, everyone has their own perspective, and impressions may not have been properly interpreted in the first place.

With a lot of work it can be accomplished, but what I have found is that everyone appears to have fallen off the track before that lot of work was completed. Usually, it seems, they found what they wanted to hear and stuck with it.

So you think she thinks exactly the same things as ten years ago? Just because you can't learn anything in that amount of time doesn't mean no one else can. Maybe you'll learn that in another ten years. We'll see how that goes.

Not edit: that's exactly what retarded is... lolol

In 2013, she co-authored the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report alongside 11 other experts in the field of industry.

We all love to hear fresh takes like yours.

Let's hope for the best with Claudia. The fact that she is Jewish (secular) may turn out to work in favor of Mexico and the world. That sounds crazy but I will explain.

She's a member of AMLO's Morena party, and he is a populist who has done well for the Mexican people. Sure, there are all kinds of criticisms to be made of the situation there, but none of his creation.

Both the people and the government of Mexico have become openly anti-Israel. Just within the past few days, Mexico joined the prosecution of Israel for war crimes in the ICJ and the Israeli embassy in Mexico was burnt down. Remember, this is leading up the landslide election of a non-crypto Jew, so the Mexican people themselves apparently do not hold it against her.

So as Mexico adds their efforts to the worldwide opposition to the Zionist entity, Scheinbaum being a Jew is a positive. That is, Israel has been reduced to calling everyone in the world anti-Semites, but how would that play in Mexico? "Ay, chingada, la nueva presidenta es una Jewess! WTF do you want? Fuck off!"

Again, no need to look for trouble where there may not be any. There's already plenty to go around.

We're in Opposite World. Shouldn't they release it and say, "This is the official version, now out in public and part of the historical record. Anything at variance to it is a DeepFake." More disturbing, really, is how basically no one will notice this complete inversion.

I think that for the upcoming election they should just say, "Given the multiple threat vectors for election interference, we can't take the risk of voting. The winner is... Joe Biden for Permanent Fuhrer. Isn't it more fun when it's surprising?"