I just heard an interview on THC where the guy flatly claimed that the Nazis were occultists, but the Vril Society never existed. I think it might have been the clown calling himself "RamX". I say that not to bag on RamX because who gives a shit but to say something about the state of the disinformation war.
"They" have gotten so desperate in the disinformation war that as an SOP, They take a load of "conspiracy" topics, put them in a big bag, shake it up, and pull out a handful. They weave a dumb narrative out of the ones in their hand and call the ones that fell on the floor disinformation. This gets pumped out through an endless supply of agents. When RamX starts losing traction, look out for RamY and RamZ (<-- that one is actually catchy and They should have used it).
Oh, it's all very intriguing and the conspiracy masses lap it up and ask for more (literally, see the comments on the THC site). It works for this reason: every dumbshit is so bent on being right they'll always find something to latch on to and get a half-chub because someone on the Internet radio said something they thought. The rest of it they entirely let go because they aren't actually trying to figure anything out.
Of course, it's far from the listener's consciousness that even a single one of these guests is a disinformation agent. What, as if they could be fooled? Impossible.
What I would note here is that you keep coming back. Is it to share information because you believe I might find it of relevance and importance? No one could be that dim, but it's what your subconscious tells your conscious to believe is the reason.
You see, you aren't looking for enlightenment, which would entail giving up some of what you already believe. You simply desire confirmation of what you already think. It traces further but is, in fact, the path of the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
You subconscious has already silently judged that what I said had merit and this disconfirming information disturbed your worldview. That produces anxiety and that anxiety must be relieved. Your conscious is tasked to "prove" that the new information is "wrong", thus to restore internal stability.
Seriously, try your best not to respond to this. Just let me be wrong like the billions of other people on the Internet and silently go on your way. With any capacity for self-reflection, you'll observe your conscious furiously thinking up all the things you need to write back but cannot, lest you give practical verification of all I just said. Quite the dilemma.
Until next time!
As I see it, virtually everyone ends up defending their own position, however they came to arrive at it. It has to do with the true nature of human consciousness. The only advancement comes when one thinks that maybe, just maybe, they might be wrong about something.
So when I examine closely exactly what people say without prompting...
It inspires me to challenge you....
I can see clearly that no, that's not what they're thinking about at all and no advancement is possible. To be blunt, my challenges are to get the handful that are capable to move to the next level. I try and try and it's shocking and disappointing how often I confirm the rarity of that.
Life would be much easier were I not compelled to try, and left others at peace in their own versions of reality where it all made sense to them, no matter how nonsensical it appeared from the outside.
And if you think what I'm saying does not make sense, perhaps you should consider the same.
That was a lot of absolute assertions, which I tend to reject as flatly as they are made, and from which I tend to stay away from using myself. I consider them the sign of an ego struggling to maintain its worldview and thus its own stability. I can't say that I do understand anything which you are asserting, but I'm glad you got it out of your system.
If you're looking to make and keep friends, you will never, ever find the truth. All innovative thought requires entering into disagreement with everyone on the face of the Earth. In every other case without exception you're simply concurring with something someone else has already said (probably a friend) or stating a triviality.
And yes, I'm also just getting this out of my system. Thank you for understanding.
Philosophers do come to conclusions, it's just that other philosophers don't agree with those conclusions. That's because great minds don't think alike....
Why then refer to them as "great"? What is the definition or qualities of "greatness"? Why use words without specific meaning? Is it "vague" as philosophers themselves would say, being that which I point to when I say "great"?
What does a giant stack of conclusions add up to if it is acknowledged that it adds up to nothing? Of what value is it all other than mental masturbation, as I stated? It serves many egos, as can be plainly seen. Why not conclude that was always the point, just with lots of extra steps and confused and incomplete understandings?
To put it bluntly, I feel that everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses instead of believing that all but a remnant of any of this has any worth. In my view, adding yet more words to their voluminous and unending nonsense does nothing to push back the frontiers of knowledge, it only extends a distorted and literally useless view of those purportedly seeking knowledge.
These are some independent thoughts for you--you will not find them written elsewhere--but I doubt you liked hearing them or got the slightest enlightenment out of them. That's precisely how independent thoughts are received in the real world.
Just another related observation I made: I used to listen to a philosophy podcast intended for general audiences called, "The Partially Examined Life". It was entertaining in and of itself, but after hundreds of episodes I couldn't help coming to a certain realization: philosophers never ever came to any conclusions.
Their expositions and discussions drew on the work of philosophers over many centuries and even millennia. Quite evidently--not in all that time with all those geniuses working on it--they had never reached any analysis that they could all agree on and proceed from there.
I have to put it in crass terms to make a point: the whole of this supposedly lofty pursuit of knowledge boiled down to mental masturbation. You know, like, no babies were born into the world who could develop over time.
It was quite a revelation to me. With philosophy, I always assumed I was missing out on important ideas from the world's best thinkers. I was not. I will never bother reading a book of philosophy in the rest of my life. Frankly, I am very much biased towards dismissing out of hand anything that anyone calling themselves a philosopher has to say.
But this reply is not to bash philosophers, as much as they may deserve it. You see, I had a complementary observation: unless it was some special situation concerning an antiquarian, no scientific professional would ever bother reading any of the historical texts on math or physics or chemistry, not even of the greatest geniuses.
There would be no point, nothing to be learned. All the work of the geniuses would have been incorporated into the current state of the art (or science, in this case). Various laws and principles might still bear their names, but that's about it.
What that made me realize was that one group of people was actually trying to get somewhere and the other group was not. There was a profound and fundamental difference between the two, and what I had observed was simply a manifestation of that difference.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you might consider giving consideration into which group religious scholars of all types might fall, and to which group you wish to belong. Don't bother telling me because your decisions are, of course, entirely up to you and cannot be considered right or wrong.
(I often feel, however, that people confronted with such questions hasten to tell me because their subconscious impels them towards the idea that they cannot be "wrong", and to do this they must demonstrate to others that they are "right". If you feel the urge to do so, then that in itself is a type of evidence you should examine.)
Best of luck in your journey!
A long, long time ago, I heard that there were an estimated 30,000 identifiable Christian denominations. It eventually caused a certain chain of thinking.
It began with, "Given this, what does anyone mean when they use the word 'Christianity'? One of these, some of these, any of these, all of these?"
I realized that they never addressed themselves to this question unless they had specific desire to do so. "Christianity" was without definition, and was only what each person referring to it considered it to be in their own mind.
It further seemed like any time any Christian actually stopped to think about it on a formal basis, they figured out that they disagreed with every other Christian so profoundly that they felt compelled to instantiate yet another denomination. Christianity has more forks than Unix.
Here's a list of related wiki pages:
List of Christian denominations
List of Christian denominations by number of members
Each page is of staggering length. I didn't conduct a complete search, but I could not find a number either a confirming or refuting that figure of 30k I had heard so long ago.
I do not believe that is mere oversight, but is rather a subconscious omission. That is, I would argue that the observations I just wrote down would occur to any thoughtful Christian, such as those that probably wrote those pages.
You see, it doesn't speak too well of Christianity to point out the incredible fragmentation for those who generally conceive they they follow The Way, The Truth, and The Life to acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of distinct versions of that which is supposedly singular and purportedly divine.
Jesus said something like, "The truth shall make you free," and I think everyone who seeks that truth and that freedom better come to grips with this part of it.
Just as a final note, this is not to bash Christians or Christianity, but rather the subconscious conception that any particular version of Christianity is or will ever become perfected to be "the truth". Rather, Truth is to be found among many of them. Oh, and all over the rest of the whole Universe as well.
You hit the nail on the head in that we should all be in pursuit of the Truth, the Love of which draws us towards it, and the understanding of which inevitably manifests in Beauty and Peace.
Christianity, then, is merely one available tool among many which may serve to bring us closer to the Truth. Paralleling this, and as Jesus himself said, "The Sabbath was created for Man, not Man for the Sabbath."
However, this vision collides with the Truth itself, which brings unwelcome news....
The vast majority of the human race places no value on the Truth. They fear it because of the anxiety and discomfort it brings, and thus they hate it. Instead, they construct their own version of "Truth" based on that which makes them comfortable, a Truth where they are Right and Good, and all that they think and say and do is justified.
Where virtually all Christians go wrong is at a paradigmatic level: they absolutely take the Truth as coming from the Bible, rather than recognizing that the Truth is in the Universe and the Bible is some tiny part of that Universe. Then whatever is in the Bible is interpreted in its multitudinous ways to suit their desired ends.
They aren't "bad" people--whatever that means--it is merely how their consciousness was constructed. You don't blame your dog for failing to learn arithmetic and placing no value on it. And your dog can live a wonderful life without it.
As to that small fraction of humanity which places an inherent value on the Truth, that is a product both of how their consciousness was constructed and that it was able to develop to that level. Not all do, and indeed perhaps very few.
Additionally, they have an in-built moral compass. In fact, that higher consciousness and the inner sense of morality can be considered simply as characteristics of a single condition.
All the others lack this in-built morality and require an external one to guide their behavior through a system of reward and punishment. That's where organized religion comes in, each of which provides such a moral system.
Boiling down the entire ministry of Jesus reveals that he knew what I just wrote. The Way was a simple set of moral precepts taught through simple parables and simple directives such as the Sermon on the Mount. Reward awaited those who practiced the lessons.
A harmonious society supporting the elevation of the human spirit and geared towards discovery of its destiny can be constructed of such simple elements, but it is plain for all to see how far we are from that.
Everyone may now return to arguing about chapter and verse, which is where comfort lies.
I would suggest the issue that needs to be questioned and investigated is what exactly "sane" means. More to the point, what needs to be clearly understood is how the human mind actually works. Sensible conclusions can be drawn from false premises only by accident.
As far as to how this all connects to what's happening today, yes, I had to make those connections to make sure it all worked out given all the available evidence. Further, I took a rigorous approach to it all, rejecting notions such as "evil" as being ill-defined. All is within the realm of common understandings and reasoning.
What I found out with this straightforward approach ended up smashing the foundations of... well, a lot of things. It disagrees fundamentally and profoundly with pretty much everything almost anyone has to say about it. But since it was all put together from plain bits of information such as you have now seen, I couldn't go back and suddenly declare it to be different, nor to "compromise" with any other researcher. The evidence is the evidence, not a mere convenience to my conclusions.
Of course, if it wasn't already obvious, I had to throw out almost everything I thought I knew about the world, my place in it, and just what the hell was going on. I had to accept how ignorant I had been, and how ignorant and intransigent everyone else was. All that is extremely uncomfortable and is a big part of why no one does it.
So if you think you have the answers--and I think you think you do--then just forget about everything I've said. It will only make you uncomfortable, then anxious, then angry. I've seen exactly that more times than I wish to recall. You don't get to be the hero of the story, you only get to be what people consider the lying dumbass and--if it goes far enough--the villain.
You've clearly done a lot of close research on this and gone farther than all but a few have, but in my estimation you've gotten off the track--at least the track that I've found.
Gilgamesh and Nimrod are not one and the same. In fact, Nimrod is nearly universally misidentified, although the correct identification can be found in standard sources. Because it's correct, it's one of those things no one ever talks about. That's typical of how big secrets are kept.
To shoot down the "son of Cush" thing so many rely on to tie him to Noah, go back to the original Hebrew text. Gen 10:7-8 says:
The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Supposed scholars and researchers play fast and loose with the terminology. The two uses of "sons" in verse 7 are from ben, typically meaning male child but even more general than that:
a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.)
The "father of" in verse 8 is even farther off from male child, coming from yalad:
To bear, bring forth, beget
The crucial note is that in consecutive sentences, one word was used twice then a different word was selected. The straightforward observation that no one makes is that the writer was describing two different relationships.
In the first, given that a list of proper names follows, sure, these are almost certainly lists of children. In the second, both word choice and construction are different.
Put that together with the knowledge that "Kush" also referred to what is now the area of southern Egypt, and the interpretation of the statement then becomes clear: Nimrod came from southern Egypt.
So can we identify Nimrod with anyone else? Yes.
The cuneiform representation of the name of a certain Babylonian/Sumerian "god" can be read in a certain way to produce AMAR.UTU. That gets corrupted to the version you find him called today: Marduk.
However, reading that very same cuneiform under a different set of rules for interpretation will also yield NAMR.UD. Certain scholars long before me held that this was the original source of the name we have today: Nimrod.
If you don't agree with just this much--which is your right--then our paths of research must diverge. There is a helluva lot more where this came from.
The "grand plan", as I've put it together, involves and includes a vast array of disparate areas of study, everything from ancient Sumerian texts to the Axial Age to the origin of modern cereal crops to the Vatican's "Lucifer" telescope to the irrational war against Russia to the murder of Charlie Kirk to the true nature of human consciousness and on and on.
That's a lot of wild shit to try to cram together into a single sensible puzzle, but I had to put together the fundamental pieces of that puzzle to make sure I had the puzzle correct at least in basic structure. I needed that to know how to carefully analyze and interpret evidence in that framework. At least to me, much previously baffling information suddenly fell into place and made sense.
In none of that effort, though, did I feel it necessary to resort to any assumption outside the currently accepted laws of the operation of the physical universe. Not that I think there aren't any undiscovered laws, I just never needed to deal myself any "wild cards" to give a sensible accounting of any evidence.
If we begin to talk about interdimensional entities, since there are no known characteristics of them, there are no known limitations to their actions and we can say nothing whatsoever about their motivations, any more than termites know exactly what humans are up to.
Something similar goes for Kabbalah and every other field of "occult" knowledge. On the one hand, none of it whatsoever has ever come up in my research as something I was required to know in order to give any explanation for situations or events. Never happened, never close, not once.
Frankly, all the information I've ever found to be useful--which was laying around in plain sight if you knew what you were looking for and what you were looking at--is nothing that anyone ever talks about. Well, that truly is the "occult", beyond all that is written in dusty books, is it not?
The mere fact that discussion of Kabbalah and Freemasonry and Gnosticism and Simulation Theory and all such topics come from people that are just saying, "Oooh, look at this!" is enough to tell me that's not where any real answers will be found.
To push it to the extreme, when you can't find anyone else in the whole wide world over the course of centuries who is talking about what you're talking about, well, you just might be on to something. Or nuts or way off the mark, because it will happen in those cases also.
The cover story that the culprits behind Charlie's murder finally settled on is that "The Joos did it!" They could not be shoving this shit farther down our throats.
Israel is a sinking ship and They might as well throw Charlie's corpse on board. When it finally disappears beneath the waves, so will the mystery of whodunnit. The side benefit is that any of their assets out there badmouthing the Heebs right now remains "legit" in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Charlie was one of "Them" (<-- not the Zios) and whatever he did to cross them is still a complete mystery. The verdict on him seems to have come sometime before April of this year, which isn't much to go on but definitely rules out the Israeli angle entirely.
Well, to find the truth we often must look at the most subtle details which, upon examination, become greatly magnified.
The subtle but obvious question here is, "Precisely why is anyone interested in ruling over the ashes of Europe?" Pick whoever you like as the bad guys: globalists, Zionists, Eurocrats, the American Deep State, doesn't matter. Exactly what benefit do they seek in turning Europe into the northern counterpart to Africa or--at this rate--a nuclear wasteland with craters for capitals?
There is no sensible reason. Well, anyone who cares to will wave their hands around and claim that their selected boogeymen are just crazy like that. Such an explanation is less satisfying than any I choose to incorporate into my understanding of the world.
You see, whether it's Kalergi or Herzl or any of these other maniacs, everyone stops with the vague, subconscious notion that these people just woke up one morning full of this insanity for no reason whatsoever, including no personal benefit. Why would they think it was a good idea? Why would they think anyone was going to go along with it, instead of arresting them or locking them in a loony bin?
The reason I'm saying this is that I've been planning a post on just exactly where Zionism came from, but I've never gotten around to writing it up because everyone is already satisfied with the answers that their subconscious notion of the origins led them to.
And as for Kasparov, you can see how far away that genius is from any of these thoughts. I can guarantee you that he's satisfied with the answers he's found, though.
Here's an oddly tight little ball of yarn: I talked about Elvis, Col. Tom, and Miles Mathis as disinfo back in this post from almost exactly a year ago. Then the yarn gets even tighter because in that post you'll see a link called "3x3" back to an earlier post where I talked about Parker Bros. As many coincidences as I've seen which are not coincidences at all, there still seem to be funny coincidences from time to time.
Interesting connection between the Parkers and hypnosis, and I believe I understand why. I've never written much about it because it's not directly related to and as explicit as the Salem Witch material, and it also opens up a big can of worms.
Long ago, I heard Mark Passio say that Satanists study one subject above all others: how the human mind actually works. The big secret is that the vast majority of people are "NPCs". That's a very rude handle and can lead to incorrect assumptions, but the point is they operate in a different "mode" than we all assume.
To wit: about 80% of humans operate in a state of hypnosis, perhaps something akin to sleepwalking. Well, sleepwalkers can drive cars and make sandwiches, so it's not like you'd be able to casually observe this phenomenon. Find out how to control them and there is no higher consciousness to figure out what's going on and resist. See why that's a Big Secret?
It's not just that They know, They need to keep everybody else from knowing. I've casually picked up a few names along the way, enough to see that the Salem Witches invented both psychology and psychical research back in Boston in the late 1800's. The point was to clog the way for legitimate researchers studying the human mind. So, sure, They want to be the ones who tell us what hypnosis is.
I read about 330 Miles Mathis papers before I jumped off the train. It became absurd junk I just could not wade through trying to find nuggets of gold. But that's a lot of material to ingest and let's face it: his style is good. My style was a lot like his before so it inevitably became more like his. His style is effective so why not hijack it?
Long story, but it's clear to me that he's the front man for a research team. I think an actual living breathing human exists but there would never be any point even meeting him. Frankly, there wouldn't be much point meeting me. I'd just be all, "Uhhh, anyway it was something like that. I can't quite remember the details but it's all in the post." How fascinating! lol
Really, the whole thing has turned into: "What Would It Be Like If Miles Mathis Was A Real Researcher?" And I've actually been waiting for the shill to declare that I'm the Disinfo 2.0 sequel to Disinfo 1.0 Miles Mathis. But that would mean admitting that Miles Mathis is disinfo, and They are apparently not ready to do that.
Hope you keep reading! Much more to come!
There do seem to be small cliques or clans within the Salem Witches, but already it's a tiny enough group, way smaller than any other suspect group you could name.
For example, back in the Billy the Kid post, we ran into Parkers, Pratts, and Romneys. And present day, in research on Charlie Kirk, guess who I just ran into again? Parkers, Pratts, and Romneys! The full writeup is coming directly.
Thank you very much! Crazy people yell out into the void, but when you're sane it's not that much fun. I appreciate the support more than you know!
It's been a long, strange trip and it's going to get much longer. Great to have company.
Haha, it's -2 now.
But you know what I've found to be the interesting dynamic of "pissing people off"? People really only get pissed off by things that are true, not things that are false. No one's going to get pissed off if you call them a Wookiee from the Planet Endor--unless maybe he's a tall, exceptionally hairy guy
With true claims, the subconscious instantly and silently processes the information and says, "Seems like this is likely true but if it is, then you will have been the ignorant dumbass. Better tell the conscious mind to think that this is some bullshit!" That generates the negative reaction.
It's exactly the same explanation for those handful of times you've tried to tell some normie about the Moon landings or 911. The more facts you hand them, the more upset they get, right? The subconscious is like, "Whoa whoa whoa, shut this down!"
Quick aside: When Trump announces that he wants Hamas destroyed, the sufferers of TDS and conspiracy never-Trumpers instantly interpret it as aiding Israel in the destruction of the Palestinians.
They jump to the conclusion that they were "right all along", rather than looking one level deeper. Israel has used Hamas for decades as the excuse to bludgeon the Palestinians repeatedly. Trump wants to remove it from their hands but simply does not say so out loud.
I mean, what the hell are (((they))) going to do when Hamas is gone? Confront their real enemies?
What I attempt to embody is this sentiment, and it comes from the Bible but I don't mention that because people are unable to control their preconceived reactions when they hear something quoted from it:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
What is always and forever missed is this aspect: asking, seeking, and knocking are all voluntary acts. If anyone does not care for what they are given, what they find, or what is opened to them, they are free to depart. No one can or should try to stop them.
This is the essence of free will, and it is universally ignored.
I cannot believe the number of times I reiterate that everyone is free to think whatever they like, but then they insist on telling me what that is.
To me, it is crystal clear that they are telling themselves what they think because I have made them uncomfortable, and they need someone to tell them they're "right". They simply cannot rest until that is accomplished.
TBH, I fully recognize that only a tiny fraction of the population will be ready to hear what I have to say and derive benefit from it. If that doesn't include you, then you should be find some resolution to the conundrum of why you keep torturing yourself with it.
I reject the idea that your mission is to correct people you don't know on the Internet, and that I happened to be at the top of the list.
His fruits, of course, drew people to TPUSA, which espouses the genocidal ideology of Zionism. Perhaps you feel that is indeed doing the work of HaShem on Earth.
All these issues were addressed specifically in the posts. I would say stop reading them if they displease you, but perhaps you're not reading them closely in the first place. To put a finer point on it: because the implications are disturbing to your subconscious, then for your psychological protection your subconscious interferes with and diminishes the comprehension of your conscious mind.
One can seek the comforting lies or the disturbing truth, but not both. It is the mark of a higher consciousness to clearly understand which of those is being sought.
There's the very long-running Blue Beam thing so there's no downside whatsoever to hyping anything that goes on in the skies, but I would say that the actual reason is that "They" are getting very desperate in the information war and need everyone to pay attention to anything--anything at all--other than what's actually going on.
The counterpart to that is that very few conspiracy theorists are actually trying to figure anything out for themselves. They're just looking for something to react to. Even there, anything will do as long as it meant they were "right all along".
There's a certain segment of "researchers" fixated on the idea that the Jews are behind it all. This gets amplified in certain areas and at certain times by disinformation agents because it is--ultimately--wrong.
Even very rich, very powerful Jews are assets. Those who are actually pulling the strings stand a layer or two or three behind them, totally unobserved and therefore totally safe.
These assets are not on any sort of payroll, they are not being blackmailed, no one is holding a gun to their heads. Rather, they do what they do of their own free will, although the key is that their will is subject to the pull of those puppet strings. Not really strings, though, but more like subtle and invisible magnetic fields pulling and pushing them this way and that.
The latest news about Ihor is this:
‘Mindich’s Schemes Are Zelensky’s Schemes’: Corruption Scandal Shakes Ukraine to the Core, as Zelensky’s Former Financier Kolomoysky Publicly Calls on Him To Resign (The Gateway Pundit 11/13/2025)
What the aforementioned researchers will try to do is to crowbar this into the Grand Scheme of the Jews where said researchers were "right all along". Far easier is to remain ignorant and silent. Truly, you will see no one else commenting on this news.
I'm guessing that at one time, Ihor thought Big Z was the right man for the job--a man of peace even-and helped him get elected. Later, he began to object and was arrested. Now he recognizes a corrupt dwarf who needs to go before it all burns.
The first two parts were with the approval and influence of the string pullers. The last part is evidence that the pot is boiling over and the string pullers cannot stop it. That shows that They are not all-knowing and all-powerful.