I've listened to a few of his old podcasts. Its pretty easy to tell he "was" a grifter. Same as Juan O' Savin, Charlie Ward ect I think hes stilll grifting for his Alien Girl friend.
To believe in what this man says, you must also believe that his real "mum" is an alien, he's transported to a spaceship monthly to have "relations" with the Cat Queen, who he says is a cat type being & that they have a child together "Zarka". That is from a tv interview he gave. You can still view it on a y-tube channel called M Seeker Of Truth, who has covered SP extensively.
Although, the rest is in Dutch, the part I linked to in somewhat in English. If you want to know more: find Dan Winter: Flame in mind Iris Huizing on youtube. Dan Winter is quite some guy, oftentimes difficult to follow, as he has a different view on electricity than we generally have.
So, this part what Simon Parkes is saying is logical, not out of our current experience if you know where to look.
governments he can trust
Another interesting view, he is espousing, is the justice part in relation to foreign heads of state. It reminds me of this q-posts:
As always, the big game is played based on protection, the good ole Potomoac two step, insurance policies. Also consider the oval office scene with Trump and Zelenski: You do not have the cards, with us you have cards.
Why would Trump offer Zelenski cards to play?
Another view: we know that, given the situation in the EU, deep state central, is severe, and they want to burn the house down. It was set up this way. Why would we, as logical thinking and sympathetic people want to burn down the House and rule over the ashes. Is it not because we feel grieved, and that our passions rule us?
As for Parkes, if there is no 2 or 3 sentence abstract of the point he wants to make, I have no interest in wasting an hour and a half on "dude, check out this video." Especially if he is an alien half-breed (or whatever).
But as for the Q quotation, I have real questions and misgivings about the end sentence: "Much will be revealed, we want transparency but not at a cost we can't recover from." We want to see the truth...but not the most crucial aspects of truth? And who is to shield us from the truth? And why? And when we have demonstrated human ability to survive world wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, diseases, countless family tragedies---what information is so cataclysmic we can't "recover" from it? This implies that the gatekeepers---and only them---are capable of "recovering" from the truth. It further implies that any attempt to paraphrase this information is equally as deadly as the information itself. The only thing I can imagine coming even remotely close to this level of peril is classified information, but after 40 years of working with highly classified and compartmented material, I can certify that it is not that perilous to be aware of. In that case, it is always a question of whether the classified activity can survive disclosure, not whether the person to whom it is disclosed can survive the knowledge.
My candid reaction to that sentence is "Bullshit!" I would like to be more elegant, but the offense to history and human nature is intolerable. If there is a flaw at the heart of the Q operation, it is a complete lack of faith in the truth.
Now, it could be that this is only an inept way to allude to classified systems and operations, without which all our national defense could be jeopardized. I am okay with classified information withheld for that purpose, since I have exposure to it and know why it is classified. This puts the highest premium on placing responsible and trustworthy people in charge of it.
But the sentence is written to allow the interpretation that this pertains to persons and actions. Presumably of criminals and crimes so hideous they cannot be borne...or believed? Failure to disclose the depth of evil is a failure to prompt us all to repentance. Failure to disclose also deprives us of the righteousness in applying condign punishment.
I keep coming back to my thesis that these modern political problems are actually a challenge in mass psychological aberration, mostly amoral psychosis, involving narcissism, delusions of grandeur, and solipsism. When truth collides with psychosis, the patients' delusions either collapse, and then they recover---or they harden into a complete psychotic break. It is from this that I think Q advises that it will "not be for everyone." And maybe the lost souls are part of the "unrecovery" being alluded to. But I am not willing to relent on truth. As a line of dialogue from a contemplated story put it: "Man, the reason these people are having bad trips is because they are BAD PEOPLE." It is all so true, when a person decides to commit to a life based on lies instead of a life based on truth. We like to think that the deepest mental problems are only impersonal sicknesses, for which we are not willfully responsible. But the opposite is true. They are the manifestations of a moral choice toward falsehood, which leads only to a deranged view of life and how to live. (There are neurological afflictions such as schizophrenia or bipolar syndrome, but they are more like someone knocking on your mind with a mallet. Disturbing, unpleasant, disorienting, which in the extreme can unbalance a person to the limits of self-possession. What we are facing here is not the effect of such afflictions, but the effects of willful choices about what to think and how to act.)
Thanks for your response. wow! I do agree. Language is meant to convey knowledge and truth, not allowing for hideouts and falsehoods.
I have to pose the question: Can one be truthful without disclosing the means and methods? Can one be truthful without overplaying a hand?
When I researched the word reality, in its origin Latin, its meaning is only geared towards the material. The "Wirklichkeit", or the likeness of the state of how things work is of course also material, but acknowledges that there are things we cannot see, or only recognize by signs, yet do influence the workings of a matter.
In the international arena, there is more going on than just power play with guns. There is debt, there is people, there is logistics, etc.
For instance, and you probably have seen it: In Django unchained, there was this line about an offer, so ridiculous, that the owner of a property is forced to consider it. Transpose that to the situation in Gaza. An offer so ridiculous, that certain parties had to consider it, and are now discussing in Cairo practical solutions to the counter offer they made. Meanwhile, the biggest Zionist problem maker is on a leash.
How do you tell Bibi that shut up and put up? By the prospect of a Canal? Of course not. There is something that is hanging over his head, and he never thought it would be said straight to his face. How about divulging that?
In the history of the Dutch Republic, there are the De Witt brothers. These were very smart guys. At the end of their lives, they were torn apart by the frenzy of a mob, enticed by the Orangists. Literally, the saying applied: they went medieval on their ass.
Romania, in the last moments of Ceausescu, killed that mother fucker off. Was he a bad guy? No doubt. But event his Mf-ers understood that being into debt to the IMF was bad. Within the time-frame of them days, he effectively starved his own people, while droning on for hours about how well they were doing. Something had to give. That was the end of Ceausescu.
These events only exemplify, that, indeed, psychology plays a role in what you can and must be reluctant to divulge.
I think the cutting edge on what to tell is determined by the welfare of the general public. Revealing military and strategic secrets for the sake of show-and-tell, while stripping the nation of its defenses is not in the general welfare. Secrets can be acknowledged and maintained, but not revealed. Stewards are appointed for their oversight.
Where I have a problem is when the argument turns away from vital public information on the grounds of "You can't handle the truth!" That the knowledge is dangerous to individuals who learn it, not because it's disclosure imperils the defense of the nation. This is pernicious. I see this happening all the time in polite Zambian society, where candor on important topics is avoided so as not to cause discomfort. My analogy story is this: Nurse Nkomo notices Mr. Banda leaving the hospital in a carefree mood. She approaches his physician, Dr. Kenda, and says "I just saw Mr. Banda leave the hospital in apparent good spirits. Didn't you tell him he has cancer and only 6 months to live?" Dr. Kenda spreads his hands and replies, "Eeh...I did not want to upset him."
I am a quarter Dutch, so the story of the De Witt brothers prompted me to look it up. It seems more a matter of wearing the wrong color hat, than speaking truth to power, but the result was a horrible and savage violation of justice.
The Ceausescu overthrow produced a photo that remains vivid in memory and I wish it could be found on the internet. It was a scene in the print shop area of an independent newspaper, with everyone busy producing an edition. Each one had an AK-47 slung over their back. A better illustration of the fusion of the 1st and 2nd Amendments I cannot conceive
I've listened to a few of his old podcasts. Its pretty easy to tell he "was" a grifter. Same as Juan O' Savin, Charlie Ward ect I think hes stilll grifting for his Alien Girl friend.
https://qresear.ch/?q=simon+parks <------------------ Lots of info here.
To believe in what this man says, you must also believe that his real "mum" is an alien, he's transported to a spaceship monthly to have "relations" with the Cat Queen, who he says is a cat type being & that they have a child together "Zarka". That is from a tv interview he gave. You can still view it on a y-tube channel called M Seeker Of Truth, who has covered SP extensively.
There is something he is saying I find interesting, in relation to children.
Before a certain point in time in the life of a child, they are able to overcome the limitations of the matrix.
Flame in mind
This is what Iris Huizing also is doing, with great success.https://odysee.com/@evavanzeeland:f/iris-huizing-over-zien-met-je-ogen-dicht:1?t=196
This is not staged. This is real.
Although, the rest is in Dutch, the part I linked to in somewhat in English. If you want to know more: find Dan Winter: Flame in mind Iris Huizing on youtube. Dan Winter is quite some guy, oftentimes difficult to follow, as he has a different view on electricity than we generally have.
So, this part what Simon Parkes is saying is logical, not out of our current experience if you know where to look.
governments he can trust
Another interesting view, he is espousing, is the justice part in relation to foreign heads of state. It reminds me of this q-posts:
u/#q27
It seems Q is indicating the willingness to take a hit to indeed bring about change, without going too far. This ties in with another post here on GAW: https://greatawakening.win/p/19AdpozAUn/thought-exercise-for-every-anon-/
Here the question of disclosure is represented.
As always, the big game is played based on protection, the good ole Potomoac two step, insurance policies. Also consider the oval office scene with Trump and Zelenski: You do not have the cards, with us you have cards.
Why would Trump offer Zelenski cards to play?
Another view: we know that, given the situation in the EU, deep state central, is severe, and they want to burn the house down. It was set up this way. Why would we, as logical thinking and sympathetic people want to burn down the House and rule over the ashes. Is it not because we feel grieved, and that our passions rule us?
As for Parkes, if there is no 2 or 3 sentence abstract of the point he wants to make, I have no interest in wasting an hour and a half on "dude, check out this video." Especially if he is an alien half-breed (or whatever).
But as for the Q quotation, I have real questions and misgivings about the end sentence: "Much will be revealed, we want transparency but not at a cost we can't recover from." We want to see the truth...but not the most crucial aspects of truth? And who is to shield us from the truth? And why? And when we have demonstrated human ability to survive world wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, diseases, countless family tragedies---what information is so cataclysmic we can't "recover" from it? This implies that the gatekeepers---and only them---are capable of "recovering" from the truth. It further implies that any attempt to paraphrase this information is equally as deadly as the information itself. The only thing I can imagine coming even remotely close to this level of peril is classified information, but after 40 years of working with highly classified and compartmented material, I can certify that it is not that perilous to be aware of. In that case, it is always a question of whether the classified activity can survive disclosure, not whether the person to whom it is disclosed can survive the knowledge.
My candid reaction to that sentence is "Bullshit!" I would like to be more elegant, but the offense to history and human nature is intolerable. If there is a flaw at the heart of the Q operation, it is a complete lack of faith in the truth.
Now, it could be that this is only an inept way to allude to classified systems and operations, without which all our national defense could be jeopardized. I am okay with classified information withheld for that purpose, since I have exposure to it and know why it is classified. This puts the highest premium on placing responsible and trustworthy people in charge of it.
But the sentence is written to allow the interpretation that this pertains to persons and actions. Presumably of criminals and crimes so hideous they cannot be borne...or believed? Failure to disclose the depth of evil is a failure to prompt us all to repentance. Failure to disclose also deprives us of the righteousness in applying condign punishment.
I keep coming back to my thesis that these modern political problems are actually a challenge in mass psychological aberration, mostly amoral psychosis, involving narcissism, delusions of grandeur, and solipsism. When truth collides with psychosis, the patients' delusions either collapse, and then they recover---or they harden into a complete psychotic break. It is from this that I think Q advises that it will "not be for everyone." And maybe the lost souls are part of the "unrecovery" being alluded to. But I am not willing to relent on truth. As a line of dialogue from a contemplated story put it: "Man, the reason these people are having bad trips is because they are BAD PEOPLE." It is all so true, when a person decides to commit to a life based on lies instead of a life based on truth. We like to think that the deepest mental problems are only impersonal sicknesses, for which we are not willfully responsible. But the opposite is true. They are the manifestations of a moral choice toward falsehood, which leads only to a deranged view of life and how to live. (There are neurological afflictions such as schizophrenia or bipolar syndrome, but they are more like someone knocking on your mind with a mallet. Disturbing, unpleasant, disorienting, which in the extreme can unbalance a person to the limits of self-possession. What we are facing here is not the effect of such afflictions, but the effects of willful choices about what to think and how to act.)
Thanks for your response. wow! I do agree. Language is meant to convey knowledge and truth, not allowing for hideouts and falsehoods.
I have to pose the question: Can one be truthful without disclosing the means and methods? Can one be truthful without overplaying a hand?
When I researched the word reality, in its origin Latin, its meaning is only geared towards the material. The "Wirklichkeit", or the likeness of the state of how things work is of course also material, but acknowledges that there are things we cannot see, or only recognize by signs, yet do influence the workings of a matter.
In the international arena, there is more going on than just power play with guns. There is debt, there is people, there is logistics, etc.
For instance, and you probably have seen it: In Django unchained, there was this line about an offer, so ridiculous, that the owner of a property is forced to consider it. Transpose that to the situation in Gaza. An offer so ridiculous, that certain parties had to consider it, and are now discussing in Cairo practical solutions to the counter offer they made. Meanwhile, the biggest Zionist problem maker is on a leash.
How do you tell Bibi that shut up and put up? By the prospect of a Canal? Of course not. There is something that is hanging over his head, and he never thought it would be said straight to his face. How about divulging that?
In the history of the Dutch Republic, there are the De Witt brothers. These were very smart guys. At the end of their lives, they were torn apart by the frenzy of a mob, enticed by the Orangists. Literally, the saying applied: they went medieval on their ass.
Romania, in the last moments of Ceausescu, killed that mother fucker off. Was he a bad guy? No doubt. But event his Mf-ers understood that being into debt to the IMF was bad. Within the time-frame of them days, he effectively starved his own people, while droning on for hours about how well they were doing. Something had to give. That was the end of Ceausescu.
These events only exemplify, that, indeed, psychology plays a role in what you can and must be reluctant to divulge.
In German there is a saying:
You have a wide-ranging comment, and I take heed.
I think the cutting edge on what to tell is determined by the welfare of the general public. Revealing military and strategic secrets for the sake of show-and-tell, while stripping the nation of its defenses is not in the general welfare. Secrets can be acknowledged and maintained, but not revealed. Stewards are appointed for their oversight.
Where I have a problem is when the argument turns away from vital public information on the grounds of "You can't handle the truth!" That the knowledge is dangerous to individuals who learn it, not because it's disclosure imperils the defense of the nation. This is pernicious. I see this happening all the time in polite Zambian society, where candor on important topics is avoided so as not to cause discomfort. My analogy story is this: Nurse Nkomo notices Mr. Banda leaving the hospital in a carefree mood. She approaches his physician, Dr. Kenda, and says "I just saw Mr. Banda leave the hospital in apparent good spirits. Didn't you tell him he has cancer and only 6 months to live?" Dr. Kenda spreads his hands and replies, "Eeh...I did not want to upset him."
I am a quarter Dutch, so the story of the De Witt brothers prompted me to look it up. It seems more a matter of wearing the wrong color hat, than speaking truth to power, but the result was a horrible and savage violation of justice.
The Ceausescu overthrow produced a photo that remains vivid in memory and I wish it could be found on the internet. It was a scene in the print shop area of an independent newspaper, with everyone busy producing an edition. Each one had an AK-47 slung over their back. A better illustration of the fusion of the 1st and 2nd Amendments I cannot conceive