There's a particular reason that led me to conclude the Phoenicians were the main followers of Satan in the area (although there were many other groups) and that it was the center of his power. I'll get to where that connects to the Bronze Age Collapse in a second but we have to back up a couple of steps.
Well, farther than that, we have to back up to the paradigm itself. Feel free to stop reading any time because I have long since given up hope that more than a handful (at best) would ever venture so far out as to disagree with pretty much every scriptural, religious, and historic authority on this.
That paradigm is that the Anunnaki were indeed as Sitchin described them. Under that paradigm, the Bible is not a "grand book of all truth" but rather a (corrupted and distorted) snapshot of one group's interactions with a few of these entities.
The last person to say such a thing was Mauro Biglino, and only up to a few years ago when he was "turned", suddenly dropping all his most profound claims. Even Sitchin could not follow it all the way through, which I believe was due to his religious convictions although I have not studied his work.
One of the main pieces of evidence in this concerning Phoenicia is Ezekiel 28, which has presented a historical conundrum. It seems to involves both Satan and the human king of Tyre. Scholars try to square the circle in various ways and with much hand-waving.
I took the direct approach of the Anunnaki paradigm and cut the Gordian Knot: the king of Tyre was Satan, present and ruling in his alien flesh. There is additional evidence solely concerning Tyre that would take several pages to write up.
But to get to the point, there were two further conundra about the Bronze Age Collapse that this solved: how sudden and complete it was, and why no one wanted to talk about it.
As to the first part, rather than the Phoenicians out of Tyre conducting a program of conquest and expansion, the power dynamics of the Anunnaki had changed, and Satan was consolidating his empire in the Mediterranean. IOW, serving the world's harshest eviction notice. I found this sentence deep in my notes:
Already mentioned, Byblos and Sidon remained very prominent centers before and after, while Jerusalem and Tyre, both apparently minor settlements before LBAC (and not destroyed) will become increasingly prominent in the Iron Age Levant.
Well, as I would explain it, The Boss was already living there. And the suppression of all this is so that no one ever puts the pieces back together, and two and two begin to add up to four.
Again, for any of this to make sense, you have to abandon almost all previous scholarship. Or, to be more precise, you have to do as I just did: cut it all up into tiny pieces and paste it back together in a sensible way, although it leads nowhere but far from the pack.
There is a "meta" point to be made about the Bronze Age Collapse: For anyone watching the video, if this is the first you've heard of it, you're in the nearly universal majority. This phenomenon merits scrutiny.
The thing is, when you judge that you should have been taught about some historical event--or at least heard of it--but have never even heard it mentioned in a classroom, a movie screen, or on TV, this indicates something of great importance is being suppressed.
The same thing goes for the Napoleonic Wars, and the War of 1812, the Bank War, the Era of Good Feelings, the Axial Age, etc. Few could give more than a couple of sentences on them, if any at all. This extends to "Babylon", which is often mentioned, but mention is a far as it goes.
So what is being hidden about the Bronze Age Collapse? Looks to me like the "bad guys" took over, then proceeded to erase there ever having been a conflict. Same thing goes for the global Tartarian War of the 1800's. And I don't have any evidence, but I think it was the same people.
Who were those people, who in that era were called the "Sea Peoples"? My best guess is that they would trace to the Phoenicians and from there to (dun dun dunnnnn) Satan himself. But that's a much longer story.
I see it all the time now on the conspiracy "podcast circuit". There's a word that has gone out of fashion over time and that's "charlatan". Conspiracy podcasts have been artificially pumped full of them.
They shout all kinds of provocative and enthralling things. You're free to agree or disagree, but there are a couple of things that will never happen. One is that nothing they say reveals any important truth, or will ever lead you to any.
The other, more important, is that nothing they say will frighten you. The truth really is quite frightening, in a certain sense, which is why almost everyone rejects it.
The subconscious recognizes all this material as--regardless of its factuality--no more than entertainment, so the overall effect is to have the audience wandering around in a comic book store, pulling those books off the shelf which have attractive covers. No one is disturbed by what they find in comic books, are they? There are also few important truths in them.
TrineDay seems to be one of the highbrow alternative publisher pumping their authors into podcasts. None of their highbrow authors like Jay Dyer seems to have noticed any of this. He also hosts the Alex Jones show from time to time, which tells us what "highbrow" really means these days.
I mean, "They" paid Rachel Maddow $30M/year for a 1 show/week gig, but it somehow did not occur to "Them" to take over TrineDay and all other such operations? I thought of it but "They" did not? Really?
I'd say the stags are good old Cernunnos.
When you look up the history of CERN, there came a time in the development when they should have changed it. The acronym originally referred to the "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire". That organization went defunct and the one that runs the collider now is the "Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire". So they should have changed it, right? Nope, they kept the old one (for some reason, eh?).
You find researchers talking from time to time about the unusual amount of "bee" symbolism that comes up, particularly in ancient cultures of the Middle East. They just mark it as notable because, you know, why would people get hung up on bees?
Personally, I agree 100% that a bee colony is what "They" are intent on creating, with everyone transformed into mindless workers of the various required classes (see "Brave New World").
The symbolism survives to the modern day, although few recognize it. We get this from "Deseret (Book of Mormon)":
According to the Book of Mormon, "deseret" meant "honeybee" in the language of the Jaredites, a group in the Book of Mormon that were led by God to the Americas....
Deseret was proposed as a name for the U.S. state of Utah. Brigham Young... favored the name as a symbol of industry. Young taught that Church members should be productive and self-sufficient, a trait he had perceived in honeybees.
For example, the state symbol of Utah is a beehive; this emblem is represented on both the state seal, state flag, and marker shields for state highways. The state nickname is the "Beehive State" and the honeybee is Utah's official "state insect"
Shit, they really kind of spell it out when you recognize what you're looking at.
This is most definitely part of the plan.
It plugs into transhumanism, which is to get people to behave as predictably as machines. That couples with technocracy, which is where society is run by experts as if they were programming a machine. The combination produces and in fact originates from cybernetics, which is to control human society as if it were one giant machine.
Most people already appear to think like machines, but this is somewhat deceptive. Left to themselves, people can figure out much of what's going on but it is overridden by those they accept as "authorities".
If an authority other than one controlled by "Them" appears and starts telling the masses the truth, then the masses will believe the truth. This is why "They" are so shit-scared over Trump. It's also why Trump still bothers appearing with all the lying liars on mainstream TV: to get in front of the masses.
An alternative vector of attack is to get people to accept AI as the authority. Then "They" can simply control the AI. This is what's happening now and They are having some success:
I had a terrifying conversation with an 11-yearold today (r/conspiracy 9/25/2025)
I was working with an 11-year-old client today who was wanting to copy down homework answers from chatgpt. She asked me, "Why should I think if chatgpt gives me all the right answers?" God help us.
Note: If anyone was wondering, all of this indeed comes originally from the Salem Witches. The birth of the push for cybernetics can be traced back almost a century to the Macy conferences. Yes, that's "Macy" as in both the department store and William H., but more importantly it traces back over three centuries to Thomas Macy, one of the original proprietors of Nantucket. That island is and was probably the most important outpost of the Salem Witches. Also note:
The Macy Cybernetics Conferences were preceded by the Cerebral Inhibition Meeting....
I think "cerebral inhibition" is pretty much exactly what we have on our hands a century later.
Hollyfeld did it the right way:
Real Genius | Frito-Lay Sweepstakes | Jon Gries as Lazlo | 1985
They never say, of course. It's like I advocated attacks on Tucker Carlson simply because of his identity as one of those... Tucker Carlsons. Makes no sense
The real question is what finally tripped it. As I mentioned, there was no revelation of any dire secret. Tucker just isn't that important, pretty much anyone would be baffled reading what I wrote, and no one was reading it anyway. There's not a lot to go on, but....
They've been cranking up the "dead Internet"-style fake AI content on that sub. It was like 95% and headed north. If you read the linked OP, it doesn't quite make sense and I don't think a real person wrote it.
Best guess: TPTB finally decided to take it to 100% and get rid of the few remaining real users that were doing any substantive posting. They would leave a Potemkin village for the slack-jawed noobs to wonder at, thinking they "just don't get it" if what they read doesn't make sense. Like when I used to listen to the Fed chairman speak, thinking I didn't understand when it was all just bullshit.
I felt like I "got through" to a real person like 1% of the time, so it isn't a big loss. On the upside, I consider it a strong indication of how freaked out and desperate They're getting as They feel it all falling apart day by day.
This may not be what you're looking for, but a more efficient approach in my mind is to short-circuit the entire thing and realize that Scofield was merely a dirtbag tool put forward by generational Satanists, and may be safely ignored unless you happen to like studying the works of the dirtbag tools of generational Satanists.
Otherwise it's like arguing the merits of gun control after a phony school shooting, which is precisely what the generational Satanists have everyone wasting their time doing.
You can also quickly connect this to another phony Christian put forward by the same people, Charlie Kirk. Well, whatever the sincerity of Charlie's Christianity, he was another of their tools they put forward. It looks like when Charlie went from Zionist to anti-Zionist he sealed his own fate.
The key connections are these: Christian Zionism -> Scofield Reference Bible (1909) -> Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921) -> Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) -> Edward Norris Kirk
The full story is huge, of course, but the case expanding on the context of those links is in my old post:
Regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk (4 of 2): Charlie the Salem Witch (conspiracies.win 10/3/2025)
Here's one no one talks about: rayon.
I thought for the longest time it was made out of petroleum because it has a sci-fi name, but when I finally got around to looking it up, it has nothing to do with petrochemicals. It's been around since 1885, and involves a chemical treatment of cellulose. Among other sources, you can use bamboo, which grows like a damn weed.
They badmouth it through the entire article, but here's a flat-ass lie in Wikipeda:
The durability and appearance retention of regular viscose rayons are low, especially when wet; also, rayon has the lowest elastic recovery of any fiber.... Recommended care for regular viscose rayon is dry-cleaning only.
I have shirts that I've machine washed hundreds of times and they have no holes and show no wear or fading. The material feels like silk, which they admit on wiki. The shirts are no more expensive than pima cotton.
I thought all clothes were going to get made out of rayon, but in all the years I've known these things, I've never heard anyone mention any of them.
One of the very common techniques to "keep someone alive" is to use old stock photos. Seeing a picture of the person is enough reinforcement, the most gentle of nudges, because that's really all it takes. For example, that Reuters article includes a photo captioned:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he speaks during the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, in Jerusalem, February 15, 2026."
Does anyone really give a rat's ass what he was doing a month ago?
This was a mistake, but the subtle reason reveals much.
First, Netanyahu has been dead for a couple of days and this video is AI. It was all over r/conspiracy last night showing a screencap of six fingers on his right hand (what a classic!):
Benjamin Netanyahu is dead. His last video was all AI. Iranian media claims he has been killed via missle. (r/conspiracy 3/12/2026)
The problem is that it was not Jews who created the video, but some Christian Zionist "Friends of Israel". As hard as the mistake was to pick up, it would be even harder for a Christian making this video to remember that an actual Jew would never ever say that.
This is very interesting, but not unexpected. There is something that even the committed Jew-haters never talk about, which is the origin of "The Jews".
There is this cloudy and contradictory "understanding" that on the one hand, "The Jews" are the same ones Jesus called out repeatedly and who killed him for it, and on the other hand "The Jews" are actually Europeans who are actually Khazarians.
In that model, Zionism is seen as a political movement that grew out of religious Judaism. Basically the opposite is true. Zionism is a social engineering operation, and for that purpose "The Jews" were invented. (See the work of Shlomo Sand, although he does not go nearly far enough.) Since it came out of Europe, Europeans Jews--the Ashkenazi--were used.
All other people of the Jewish faith, primarily those around the Mediterranean, were swept up in its wake. Since much political and military power resided in the US, the main thrust there was not through Jews but through Christian Zionism.
Recall that as recently as WW2, boatloads of Heeb refugees were getting turned away from America. They were and are simply pawns in this game. Whatever their faults and sins, these are the very levers used to manipulate them.
In any case, the Sephardi and the Mizrahi ended up out of step with all this since the social engineering was incomplete and imperfect. Iranian Jews see the evil of Zionism as clearly as any other Iranian, since there was no social engineering there.
Christian Zionism controls US politics, but it is not so in Spain. They were calling out the genocide in Gaza two and a half years ago:
NATO/EU Member Spain Petitions ICC for Warrant to Arrest Netanyahu for Mass Murder and Other War Crimes (The Intel Drop 10/16/2023)
Even the idea that among Jews, Sephardi > Ashkenazi does not come as a surprise. The Ashkenazi are surely seen as foreigners, newcomers and interlopers, and probably even manufactured residents of the Holy Land (which they are). The Sephardi and the others have been in the Med Basin since Rome stomped out Jerusalem.
I found out something similar recently about the United States, and this should be relevant to anyone who likes to call themselves a "Constitutionalist".
The Constitution was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Some conspiracy theorists are of the view that the Constitutional itself--never called for by the people--was a power grab by the Elites, far exceeding the power granted by the Articles. I agree completely, but this isn't the worst part.
When the Articles of Confederation were written, it was vital that the central government have no more power over them than the King had previously. Obviously so, since they had just fought a war to escape that power, not to replace Charles with a native tyrant far more up in their business.
The problem, of course, does not reside in the documentation. There are people that act virtuously and choose to restrain themselves in accord with general agreements, written or otherwise, and those who seek power and will never restrain themselves.
You see examples of this from time to time. There is, of course, no accepted term for it, but I think of it as an "informational black hole". That is, somehow "They" steer discussion and analysis around an area. It becomes something that "it just so happens no one talks about".
(BTW, "They" =/= "Jews". It extends far beyond them.)
This is certainly not done by forbidding discussion, because that act literally gives everyone something to point at. It's more subtle than that, like being enveloped in a haze and trying to fight it. There is nothing to throw a punch at.
I have never studied the technique, nor has anyone else, but I do have some thoughts on it. I believe it's based on the fundamental human reaction of... reacting.
In this instance, look around and the vast majority of people live in an information sphere of their own creation. There is a flow of data: news articles, Instagram posts, offhand comments at the water cooler, etc, etc.
And what people do is--you got it--react to those things. Love, hate, agree, disagree, fear, anticipate, whatever. It does not matter, in this context. The "mode" is the matter.
What virtually no one does is to reach outside that information sphere, to ask the fundamental question, "What is really going on out there?" The goal is to build up a model of the world outside, not just by receiving information but actively seeking it out when discernment prescribes.
In this instance, discernment prescribes that one should wonder just what is going on is Israel. Gotta be something, right? You just have to go looking for what it is. And the mere fact that nothing came automatically down the pipe means there is probably something someone wants to hide.
I finally had to admit to myself that while that all seems so rational and natural and automatic to me, almost no one else seems to do that. They don't wonder what's going on "out there", in its totality. Their mode holds that if something is important, it will come to them.
So I think what's going on with control of both mainstream and alternative outlets is, to keep them from discussing that which should not be discussed, keep the pipeline filled with something for their audiences to love or hate. Doesn't matter which.
There's a reason underlying this phenomenon, a reason that it happens so incredibly frequently, and it's one that we're not supposed to know about.
It has to do with a concept called "egosyntonicity". I heard Alan Watt mention many times while never clearly defining or discussing it, and it was years before I looked it up for myself. (That's how hard it is for things to get into people's consciousnesses.) Alan just kept saying that "They" wanted everyone to be egosyntonic.
I don't think he understood the mechanism clearly. Wikipedia does a horrible job of describing it and I imagine all the science backing it up is sparse and shitty as well. The concept is correct and it is key, which is why "They" make sure it isn't studied and discussed.
It involves the functioning of most human consciousnesses. What happens is that an egosyntonic person (which is most people) sees a claim that is contradictory to what they already believe. That claim is instantly and silently processed by the subconcious, which happens with everything.
This is key: the subconscious decides that it is certainly or probably true, and if it's true, that means the person was the dupe, the bad guy, on the wrong side of history, immoral, whatever. IOW, it threatens to wreck their worldview and their view of themselves in it.
That situation immediately engenders fear, insecurity, and intense anxiety. It is a crisis that cannot stand. The subconscious instruct the conscious to "fix it", and the easiest fix by far is that to make it so the claim, somehow, simply is not true. The conscious sets to work to make up whatever it can to "prove" the claim to be false, irrelevant, biased, whatever, doesn't matter.
This mechanism explains two thing: (1) Why people are so compelled to respond to claims they do not already believe are true, why they simply cannot let them stand, and (2) Why they say such stupid and irrational shit in an effort to do so.
In summary, there's almost never a point in arguing a point, because what is going on in the other person's head almost certainly has nothing to do with the truth of the claim in and of itself. In fact, deep down in their subconscious, they already know it's true.
This "Iran War" is fake, very much a "Wag the Dog" type of scenario, cooked up by the Trump Administration and elements of the Iranian government and military.
The main purposes seem to be: (1) An "internal decapitation" strike or a purge, if you will, of the Deep State in Iran. If several dozen key political and military figures suddenly disappear, well, they were tragically killed and no one inquires further. (2) That Deep State which has propped up Israel's existential phantom menace for nearly half a century is removed. Whose nuclear threat and imminent atomic Holocaust will the Zios be able to talk about now?
It's one of the boldest moves I've ever seen, but then again the planners realize that everyone just believes what they read in the news. I take time to note that as phony as it all is, even conspiracy theorists are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because it fits their previous conclusions about what it going on in the world.
I urge people interested in this to consult the news coming right out of Iran, such as available at: https://www.presstv.ir/. You'll get a totally different impression of events. One of them you will not get is, "This is it, boys, this is for all the marbles. The Great Satan has finally come knocking." Nope, they don't even seem particularly worried.
Also of note is that another Iranian news outlet, https://www.tasnimnews.com/, is now completely blocked, and it has been for a few weeks. That outlet is run by the IRGC. Apparently they are not in on this, indicating that the organization was a stronghold of the Iranian Deep State.
A note on how to understand this statement, because there's something very different in the way that Russians speak about things.
Americans are used to every public statement being filled with hyperbole, attempts to manipulate, political correctness, and generally loose talk. Russians, on the other hand, speak directly and plainly, and they definitely mean what they say. They also, perhaps as a result, play their cards very, very close to the vest and generally say little.
About a year and a half ago, Russia already got nuked:
We're supposed to believe this explosion at the 107th Arsenal in Toropets, Russia was caused by a Ukrainian drone. If you want to mark a date for the start of WW3, this is it. (conspiracies.win 9/19/2024)
It was particularly outrageous because the strike was almost certainly launched from Finland so air defenses would have no time to react. That means it was not really strike by Ukraine, but by NATO itself.
What did Russia say about it? Nothing. They announced an evacuation of the town, and then... they let the incident die. As did all Western media. The damage was done and the perpetrators didn't want any interest in exactly what went down there. The provocation--a nuclear one--had failed.
The point of all this is, the Russians definitely mean what they are now saying. Why make up shit now when they could have told the truth a year and half ago? The Neo-imperialists are getting crazier by the day as they watch their projects (the Ukraine War, NATO, and the EU itself) crumbling away before their eyes.
Who knows what'll come next.
Well, as far as the next chapter, this material just goes on and on and on and as much organization as I've put into my notes, there is still an avalanche of them. One of these days I'll be able to make a more coherent case about any of it.
As far as Heiser, though, I wanted to relate the narrative of the minuscule amount of contact I've had with his work. It was very early on and I heard that he was the most prominent "debunker" of Sitchin. I mean, his website is sitchiniswrong.com, so that pretty much puts his thesis right out front.
Attempting to be a careful researcher, I thought I should consult it, if it was all that obvious. A note of preface: I have never actually studied Sitchin's work, read no more than a couple of paragraphs and watched a couple of short videos. I heard his main thesis, set out to debunk it myself, and... here we are.
Anyway, at that time, years ago, there was a short video presentation right on Heiser's home page. I never saved the link so I'll have to describe it from memory. He basically said, "The Sumerians never mentioned the Anunnaki. Sitchin made it all up and I can prove it. Go to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, run by Oxford, and type 'anunnaki' into the search box. There will be no results."
That's absolutely true. Works just like he says. The Sumerians never once mentioned the Anunnaki in any of the numerous texts that have so far been translated. Debunked. EXCEPT....
The Sumerians did not refer to them as the "Anunnaki", they referred to them as the "Anuna" or the "Anuna gods". As I understand it, the term "Anunnaki" did not come along until the Akkadians, who were the successor civilization of the Sumerians, but they were clearly referring to the same group. The Anuna are all over the writings of the Sumerians, of paramount cultural importance.
Well, Heiser should know this. It's basic. I just picked it up along the way. The question which you can answer for yourself is then: is he that ignorant, or is he deliberately lying to prove his thesis, or is he perhaps--so to speak--deliberately ignorant?
That's as far as I ever felt I needed to look into the work of Michael Heiser.