First, let's establish what "Magic" really is using three old-world examples, so you know how they apply them in their own understandings:
Synopsis: Flute player offers to rid the town or rats by leading them out of town playing his magic flute. When he's successful, the townspeople don't pay him so he uses his magic flute on the town children and kidnap them as payment.
When, lo! as they reached the mountain-side, A wondrous portal opened wide, As if a cavern was suddenly hollowed; And the Piper advanced and the children followed, And when all were in to the very last, The door in the mountain-side shut fast. Robert Browning, The Pied Piper of Hamelin: A Child’s Story
- They Gypsy Woman - The Evil Eye / Stink Eye
There is no singular story on this one, as it ha had many interpretations over the years, but the premise is about the same. A Gypsy woman gets slighted by a traveler, usually a man, and she puts a curse on him by waving her hands and giving him the "stink eye" or "evil eye." Stephen King wrote a modern version of this called Thinner where a fat lawyer gets cursed by a gypsy man he screwed over in court.
- Alice in Wonderland - The Walrus and the Carpenter
Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland as an encoded how-to manual to get away with pedophilia. It covers using uppers and downers to prep a child for their memory to be wiped (potion makes you small, cake makes you big). This particular case of the Walrus and the Carpenter is a case study on how to set up a protestant church and the Walrus, dupe a Carpenter (representative of a priest like how Jesus was a carpenter) who doesn't know what you're doing, a useful idiot, and honestly thinks you're trying to share the good news. He's a patsy, and the very essence of a lambskin apron, who will take the fall (gets dirty) should things go south and your plans to molest the "oysters" goes belly up.
"True" Magic
Magic is not about casting fireballs and freezing things with fancy light shows. Magic is convincing people that you did those incredible things without some illusion, scheme, scam, or sleight of hand.
Magic is in the dupe, not the spectacle. The smoke and mirrors is what everyone remembers, because the real magic spell being cast is on the mind, which is intangible. It's more about psychology, but still affects the spiritual integrity of the victim, so we can't say it's all-together an illusion. People being scammed actually believe the scammer is honest, they're getting what service or good they were pitched, and that everything is gonna work out just fine for everyone.
If you tell a man a sword is magic and give him a demonstration, there is a confidence in that sword and himself which comes from the user's mind. This confidence itself is the Source of magic, and can accomplish the once thought impossible. Call it placebo, the self-fulfilling prophecy, or whatever term you wish, the point is that you delude someone into believing something and by the terms and rules of that artificial belief, they use their spiritual essence, their divine spark, to perform great feats of faith.
Effectively, magic is preying on faith. Trust, therefore, is a potent weapon.
The Hierarchy
Even modern stories utilize this trope. For example, in Star Wars the Emperor serves as the Walrus to Darth Vader's Carpenter. Darth Vader believes he can control the galaxy with an iron fist, and therefore balance the force. The Emperor has deluded him into believing this, and when Vader figures this out he believes all that must be done is to replace the Emperor.
This trope is actually the modus operandi of the Freemason hierarchy. The Sith are modeled after Freemasons, and any other such Secret Society. "Always two there are. No more, no less. A master and an apprentice."
So, in Freemasonry there is the Freemason "Master" and then there's the "Apprentice." The trick here, however, is that the only way an Apprentice becomes a Master is to slay their Master and then take on a new Apprentice. The Apprentice is deluded into believing one day they will be a Master, and all other Masters hold secret just how the final act of succession occurs. An Apprentice who doesn't realize this "great truth" will never be "illuminated". If they do figure it out, it means they're viable candidates to become Masters and thus take a seat in the innermost chambers of the Lodge. Same deal with the Sith. Same deal with any other Secret Society. It's how they function.
So, again, the Freemason Apron denotes your Apprentice. It keeps you clean, and karmically innocent. So long as you coach your Apprentice to do your bidding, you get to stay clean. Also, so long as your apprentice follows your orders, they'll appear clean publicly.
Of course it's not always that simple. While they would like to have a 1:1 Master and Apprentice, Apprentices always have their secret Apprentices. Darth Vader had Star Killer, for example.
And so it is, that puppets have puppets have puppets.
In that way, I suppose the Secret Societies are closer to the Jedi order as well as the Sith, but whatever, that's a conversation for another time.
Regardless, that's what Q means by the +++, ++, +
The strings of + connect to ++ connect to +++
Like the Godfather Art:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jwVfrDSr/if-you-guys-are-curious-about-wh/c/
"The Godfather III" as Q puts it.
Back to Magic
Alright, let's try to set up a magic spell.
A narrative.
You see, that's the real meaning of a spell.
Spell - 1. A story; a tale. 2. A charm consisting of some words of occult power. Start not; her actions shall be holy; you hear my speel is lawful. Begin, begin; the mystic spell prepare.
First you need people to fuel your spell. You need their energies. To do that, you need to form a demographic, a tribe, which would adhere to your spell as dogma.
Once you collect this crowd, next comes the spell casting. Like a pod-cast. You Tell-A-Vision. A dogmatic motivational speech from your Carpenter followed by the sales pitch from the Walrus. What comes next is a rise to action, usually incited by a False Flag (blame game) and then everyone is fervently seeking your product to alleviate worries and woes they didn't have until you came to town and convinced them that you have to buy band equipment because pool tables are the devil.
In the Gypsy terms, you wave your arms and chant something and the mystery will gnaw at the mind of the victim until they make the curse reality. A curse, a spell, has to be accepted to take hold. Think of it like a contract, because it is a contract. Often times you sign not really understanding you're being defrauded in the fine print. Same deal with a Gypsy Evil-Eye spell. They do some juju and your confusion is your signature. If you ignore it, forget it, it has no power. If you obsess over it, that means you're keeping your part of the contract, whose fine print is "mess up your life."
And then there's also the Pied Piper. Of course, you probably see the similarity to his actions and the theories of DUMBs and the like where they harvest adrenochrome. The current Spell these modern-day Pied Pipers are playing on us is the Trans/Drag spell. Sexualizing children is just the method to reach a goal, which is to kidnap your child's mind away because you aren't paying them for their "services." Likely, though, the Pied Piper is the one who introduced rats into the town so that he could scam them by offering to remove them. He had the means to do so, even if you didn't catch him bringing rats to town, which should already beg suspicion. So, you fulfilling the "contract" which is based on fraud and malice in the first place is actually just a means to an end to corrupt your children. Gullible people don't stand a chance.
That's spellcraft all wrapped up in a bow.
Getting into the Terms
In my post yesterday, I provided some terms which denote themes. Those themes form together to create a [Stringer] which is the literal interpretation of the phrase "Common Thread."
I suggest you look into that post just so you know where I'm headed now.
Water is information. A rag is a derogatory term for a propagandized newspaper. When you fill a rag (newspaper) with water (information) and then squeeze (the press) it out onto people's minds (brains) we say you are washing them.
That's Brain-Washing. You use rags (newspapers) and water (information) to wash minds.
And that's the spell. The Magic Spell is in the language. The above is the mantra, the chant, the charm that they utter which curses you to do their bidding.
Of course, you see the obstacles, right?
In order for a spell to work, so that people can subliminally recognize the connection and sub-consciously accept it, you have to establish idiomatic foundations (bricks) by which to dupe them.
In other words, you have to disseminate among the populace the term "rag" and "brain-washing" and "flow of information" and "surfing the web" so that people can subliminally make the connections like I have done above, while staying consciously clueless to the terms they are signing on to. Once that is established, the excuse these "witches and warlocks" use is "we told you exactly what we were doing, you just didn't understand so you are still the liable party."
That's the same logic they use to defraud you using contracts. They hide behind legalese or some other such "occult" or "hidden" language. They offer to teach you grammar and words in school so you further have no excuse not to understand the fine print they've obscured intentionally, but they do a shit job at it so you don't wise up and realize you're agreeing to a social contract (spell) you would otherwise never sign.
That's the spin cycle. That's the bait-and-switch. That's the scam.
Spells are contracts. They're forms and papers you sign with your cooperation, with your will and spirit.
Dispelling and White Magic
Dispelling is what we do here. We are taking their narrative, their spell, and destroying it with memes and red pills, which are our counter-spells. Narratives which break their own. We humiliate them and get the useful idiots to wise up to whom they are supporting. That's what Q is having us do, and has done so by using a White Magic spell on us.
Modern terms would account Q as a White Hat Psyop. White Magic, White Hat Psyop; Black Magic, Black Hat Psyop -- you see the spell that was cast, right? We on the Great Awakening have a White Magic spell cast on us by Q which induces us to search for spells and break them apart. Like White Blood Cells. It's an obsession all the same, which is the signature of a spell having been cast.
To get rid of the pomp and circumstance, what both sides are doing is quite simple. They are psychologically manipulating people to do a thing. If that thing, that goal, is a positive and honest one it's considered White Magic. If it's a negative, malicious, and parasitic one, it's considered Black Magic.
We just call them psyops today, but the purpose and modus operandi is the same.
To break a spell, you only need to point out that it's going on. There's no eye of newt baloney you have to do, no potion you need to drink, no pill you have to take. That's just Hollywood programming. Instead, to break a spell you need only provide what we call a red-pill, a thought, which you can seed into the mind of another which wakes them up from the spell.
Something that makes them say "huh, I never looked at it that way before."
You point out the scam, and they have no excuse to fall for the scam anymore. It was never in their best interest, so only those thoroughly deluded or gluttons for pain and suffering would continue with the scam once it has been outed. Even if it doesn't take right away, like the Gypsy curse, it will gnaw on them and cause them to doubt.
Just like a heckler in a crowd being wooed by a snake oil salesman, we are pointing out the obvious. We are pointing out the magician's sleight of hand. We're telling the punchline to a joke which is a cruel joke. We're offering up spoilers at the middle of the movie.
That's how you dispel a spell.
So whether you recognize it or not, "you're a wizard, Harry."
https://qalerts.app/?q=wizards
And the ones with Q who cast a spell on us told us exactly what they were doing, in their own way. Because that's how spells work.
I believe in magic.
COVFEFE
🎶In a young girl's heart🎶
I thought that was a good song. Didn't know they were talking politics and world domination😎
🐸👌
Agreement, applies consequence whether it's conscious or unconscious. Marketing campaigns tell stories filled with lies of omission, without experience and awareness to use the important tools of contrast and comparison, one may easily destroy themselves with their own belief systems.
Becoming more aware and making better, conscious, choices is paramount.
Lotta effort here, I'll give you that much.
We are all under some spell that this world has placed on us. Only One ever walked the earth and avoided giving into the urge to believe the lies at least one time. The promise is of power, wealth and wellbeing. All are lies. The power is pride and a façade, wealth is consuming and greed, wellbeing carnal living in debauchery and ultimately produces fear of death. Pride, Greed, Death.
This is the worship of the earthly god, Satan.
Matthew 4:1-11
Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
The power of the spell is broken by refusing to believe the lies.
Exactly!
Only one cloth was taken through the mud to come out clean on the other side! We might think such things impossible, but nothing is impossible through God.
"Good" speed.
It was their first.
"Think of it like a contract, because it is a contract."
Habbens everytime you buy a ticket for a movie, pay for cable, pay for Netflix, pay for Prime, etc... You sign in to the propaganda, aka the spell. Hotel California stuff. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. You checked in before.
Q is the unspelling. I like that thought. Very good, fren.
Don't be so hasty to assume as much.
Do you believe any stories or narratives you personally cannot validate?
Those are spells as well.
Things like believing you have to wear clothes. Why do we have to wear clothes? That's a spell, and one that Genesis addresses.
Not all spells are bad, mind you. Not all are pure scams. Some are just done to make things easier. The majority of spells are simply placed on the minds of the "sheep" so that they don't jump off a cliff, which is still in the sheep's best interest.
People will have spent ages figuring out the best way to do a thing, and instead of having to teach people every step of the process of how we got from stones and sticks to jackhammers, you just tell someone "this is the tool for the job" and they will use the tool you provide. Unfortunately, that also causes them to never wonder if there's a tool other than a jackhammer which may be more efficient.
We are locked in the "that's how you do this" mentality all over the place.
How do you get food? Well, you gotta get a job. To get a well-paying job you need a degree. To get a degree you gotta get good grades. Etc.
Each of those dogmatic beliefs is a spell that we all lazily adhere to because it's easy, not because it's right or wrong, and not because it's the most optimized.
It's just the easiest path with the least amount of thinking required to do the thing we want to do.
The first step to breaking a spell on you is recognizing it as a spell. With every task you should ask "why do I do things this way"? If you cannot provide a well-thought and reasoned explanation for why you perform the task as such, then you are under a spell -- a subconscious adherence to dogmatic tradition based not on your own reasoned process but due to the rules which have been established.
https://qalerts.app/?n=4535
Besides, if you still pay income taxes, whether or not you recognize you're under a spell, you at the very least are adhering to it. Though I do advise not playing tango with the IRS. Breaking a spell has consequences, as all those still under the spell will act as crabs in a barrel and pull you right back in. You will be punished, and such is the cost of freedom.
You may disagree with the majority, but if you still do as they do you're still effectively under the spell regardless of you recognizing it.
Why do I have to wear clothes? Because it's January, in Northern Ohio, along the shore of Lake Erie.
Yes, January in Vermont, and I prefer clothing in summer also, because the mosquitos around here can screw a turkey standing flat footed.
You are correct….the is no white magic….no spell is ever considered good.
What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.
I'm not saying it is, but what if?
The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.
Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?
There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.
When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."
The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.
The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator. Not only separate, but subordinate.
We take it on faith that that is true.
We can't be separated from Source.
-> Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.
I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't set up a proper "Rulership" if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a belief of a separation from Source, taken on faith and trust.
No possible chance of a spell there.
Agreed. Whether inspired by God or not, the Bible was written by humans, and thus susceptible to corruption, especially over time and multiple translations. Your comparison between OT and NT is spot on imo, and when one considers the Gnostic gospels, it's pretty clear that the 'god' of the OT and Source that Jesus spoke of are two different entities. At least two. Bottom line: people should be able to discuss the bible without risk of calumny or hue and cry. To adhere to dogma without rational discussion is the ultimate definition of being under a spell. Personally, I suspect that YHWH of OT was Satan, and his spell was weakened with the advent of the Christ Consciousness, an incarnation of All That Is. But that's just little old me...and I always liked fairy tales. But I know the difference between a parable and the truth.
Not so.
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The OT = The Scriptures in the above verse.
Now read the Book of Enoch which was quoted in Jude and also canon at that time and it will all make sense.
The book of Enoch is quite long (which I've read, but don't remember every line). Which part am I supposed to see that will make it "make sense"? You've presented something as some sort of evidence, but left out too many connecting dots for it to make any sense at all. I can't comprehend how the verse you are quoting connects to what I said, much less what Enoch has to do with it.
In addition, while I agree the book of Enoch was likely canon at the time (at least for some people), it is not in any way a part of the religion that ruled the world, nor a part of the Bible (a specific subset of contextual writings, used to create a narrative).
On top of all of that, it doesn't actually address that all Christian religions (really all Abrahamic religions, but mostly Christian) do talk about a "New Covenant" to explain away the drastic change from OT to NT. The entire "sacrificed his only begotten son" story is the main driver of that "change" narrative, a line that is once again teaching us a strict separation from Source, and that We are not Divine.
The entire purpose of the Abrahamic Religions is to separate us from Source. As I said, you can't Rule without that step. And rule us with that belief is exactly what they did; almost the entire planet, for 2000ish years.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
You're attempting to separate the Old Testament from the New Testament and pretend it's something entirely different.
Here's a challenge from the Creator of the Universe to all who doubt Him-
Isaiah 46:9-11
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Matthew 5:17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So we see there are prophecies in the Scriptures, which we call the Old Testament today.
YHWH claims He's declared the end from the beginning.
Yahshua reminds us He did not come to destroy the Old Testament but to fulfill the words to the very letter.
The book of Enoch is quite long (which I've read, but don't remember every line). Which part am I supposed to see that will make it "make sense"? You've presented something as some sort of evidence, but left out too many connecting dots for it to make any sense at all. I can't comprehend how the verse you are quoting connects to what I said, much less what Enoch has to do with it.
The Book of Enoch fleshes out and explains the entire Old Testament in great detail.
The purpose of the Great Flood wasn't to destroy humanity, but rather to save humanity. The fallen angels AKA Nephilim were doing their damnedest to corrupt our DNA and they managed to genetically modify all but 8 humans.
In other words, YHWH didn't destroy the planet with the Great Flood until the last possible moment!
Satan convinced a third of the angels to rebel against YHWH after the Flood. Once they were cast out from heaven, they attempted to recreate the Nephilim and corrupt the DNA of all mankind once more.
They set up shop in the land of Canaan specifically because YHWH had promised that land to Abraham and his seed.
YHWH destroyed many of them at the same time judgment came to Sodom and Gomorrah. He allowed the Israelites a chance to demonstrate their faith in Him by destroying the rest of them.
In addition, while I agree the book of Enoch was likely canon at the time (at least for some people), it is not in any way a part of the religion that ruled the world, nor a part of the Bible (a specific subset of contextual writings, used to create a narrative).
It was directly quoted in the Book of Jude, and there are many passages in the Old Testament that are fleshed out even more when the Book of Enoch is included as Scripture.
On top of all of that, it doesn't actually address that all Christian religions (really all Abrahamic religions, but mostly Christian) do talk about a "New Covenant" to explain away the drastic change from OT to NT. The entire "sacrificed his only begotten son" story is the main driver of that "change" narrative, a line that is once again teaching us a strict separation from Source, and that We are not Divine.
Psalm 82:6-8
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The entire purpose of the Abrahamic Religions is to separate us from Source. As I said, you can't Rule without that step. And rule us with that belief is exactly what they did; almost the entire planet, for 2000ish years.
Removing the Book of Enoch and others, including the books of Jasher and Jubilees, was a big part of that.
The Roman Empire renamed itself as the Roman Catholic Church. They separated us from the truths found in Enoch and allied with Satan.
Would you consider all works of fiction to be bad?
The case can absolutely be made that fictitious stories delude humanity. What would a world without fiction look like? Why do we entertain ourselves with fictitious stories? What is the purpose of a fictitious work?
Remember: "1. A story; a tale."
Fiction is no different than a tale, a story, a narrative, a spell, and a lie.
They all function the same.
Fictional stories can have virtue. They can tell a moral truth, encapsulated in a story so that people can more readily adhere to much more complex solutions to life's everyday problems.
It's like a computer file that's been compressed such that it is more easily readable by our brains.
When your brain no longer knows what the original file was, but still is able to read the compressed file, it is no different than being under a spell. You do the thing because that's how you do the thing.
Jesus cast spells on people. He told tales and stories. We call them parables. They held within them moral truths. He did this because he is the Good Shepherd. Unlike the Pharisees who ruled by dogma alone, demanding their rules be followed and not questioned, Jesus encouraged us to question his narratives, his parables, his spells.
I suspect you have additional connotations with the word "spell." I'm using the Mark Twain era "let me tell you a spell" rather than strictly the modern interpretation of witchcraft and demonism.
That's what I'm trying to express here in this post. The Cabal has corrupted the original word in order to suit their goals. Originally, the term spell was in reference to stories by which a moral truth is concentrated -- most commonly told to children so that they might adhere to logical conclusions, and stay safe, before they are able to fully comprehend the moral truth.
You tell a kid that a monster lives in the woods and they will die if they wander off. This is a spell, a lie, like Santa Claus, which deludes them into following your rules with consequences they can understand. "Be nice and you get presents, be mean and you get coal."
We cast spells on our kids all the time. What's denigrating is when the Elites treat us as children and say "take the jab and you won't get sick." It's no different than how a pedophile grooms a child and lies to them to "keep this our little secret or your parents will get mad at you and won't let us play together anymore."
There are good spells and bad spells. Fictitious works are exactly that. They have their uses, despite the delusion they inflict on the unaware minds of our world.
The ego is massive with this one. He's here to tell you his perception of the world and how it works while telling you how your perception is wrong.
Define "White Lie"
Did Jesus lie when he spoke parables?
Did those events really happen? He frequently said with assertion "there once was" not "here's a story."
Did Jesus lie?
Parables are spells, using the traditional definition of the word.
Again, it would appear you're under a spell which causes you to only see the word in a singular, unmoving way. There's a deeper meaning to the word, and its association to what we in modern times call "magic" is an illusion, a spell of its own, meant to deceive us and keep us superstitious and therefore "safe" from the Truth.
Spells are psyops. They are narratives. They are stories. They are dogma.
All these words try to describe the same ideal -- that you can tell a fictitious story in order to impart a moral truth. However, the moral truth you plant can be corrupt, and therefore harm the person whose mind you've inserted your story.
There are bad morals to bad stories. Woke ideology demonstrates that.
Also, if we think about it, what is time but a spell to give us something to get through the days, weeks, months, and years.
We are all under some spell that this world has placed on us. Only One ever walked the earth and avoided giving into the urge to believe the lies at least one time. The promise is of power, wealth and wellbeing. All are lies. The power is pride and a façade, wealth is consuming and greed, wellbeing carnal living in debauchery and ultimately produces fear of death. Pride, Greed, Death.
This is the worship of the earthly god, Satan.
Matthew 4:1-11
Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
The power of the spell is broken by refusing to believe the lies.
Can someone post the exact reference to the Walrus and the Carpenter and ELI5? I’m unfamiliar.
Of course, you can read it in the book, or if you'll forgive the YouTube link... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=00WCEbKM_SE
Thank you Fren.
🐸❤
Very nice.
So this goes back to Kash Patel’s “wizards” terminology.
I was going to post a link to Terri Pratchet's book, “The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents,” & this popped up, if anyone else cares🐸 https://www.parkrecord.com/entertainment/the-amazing-maurice-playfully-pounces-on-sundance-audiences/
Ronnie James Dio on the origin of the metal horns.
This is true.
Thank you!
A most interesting post. I'm going to let it coalesce in my mind. It might help me recognise narratives.
So, who was the 4th family, removed after Trump's victory? SA? Prince Waleed?
Hard to say, there's so many of 'em and they're kinda marbled together at this point.
I believe you're right that Alwaleed was the first taken out after Trump got in, so it might just be him, but if SA (House of Saud) is one of the 3, then that's not accurate.
"
House of Saud (6+++) - $4 Trillion+
Rothschild (6++) - $2 Trillion+
Soros (6+) - $1 Trillion+
"
The Fourth family would likely then be among these candidates: Rockefeller (Clintons), Vanderbilt (A.Cooper), 4th Reich (Bush), or maybe one of those Asian families who never really get the limelight. Then again, it could just be the Pelosi family. Newsome and Pelosi's family are all in control of California.
If you push me to pick one, it'd probably be Pelosi.
https://qalerts.app/?n=2782
u/#q2782
Great post, sleepydude.