Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship as support for their argument.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their faith in the broader scholarship or their current beliefs. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I subsequently quit that world as it exposed that the barriers I had personally experienced and previously believed were organic, were, according to the evidence, all contrived by a singular controlling entity.

I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship as support for their argument.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their faith in the broader scholarship or their current beliefs. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I subsequently quit that world as it exposed that the barriers I had personally experienced and previously believed were organic, were, according to the evidence, contrived.

I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship as support for their argument.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their faith in the broader scholarship or their current beliefs. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I subsequently quit that world as it exposed the barriers I had personally experienced and previously believed as being organic, were, according to the evidence, contrived.

I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship as support for their argument.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their faith in the broader scholarship or their current beliefs. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship as support for their argument.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscategorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscactegorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that say something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal, miscactegorization, or expansion or contraction of important evidence. Scholarship is controlled by giving voice to that which the PTB want to be expounded, and silencing voices that give something that doesn't fit their narrative. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation, or any discussion about it, move forward in earnest.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring.

A red herring is something intended to distract from the relevant question. The relevant question I was addressing was your faith in scholarship. It was not a "red herring," it was a specific example of how history (in this case the largest, longest lasting Empire of all recorded history) can be hidden from the entirety of academia. Thus showing that "scholarship" is not to be trusted. There is nothing more relevant for someone who is explicitly stating their trust in scholarship.

In general, I have found that until a person can see how broad the fuckery is, they are incapable of seeing the evidence without putting it into the context of justifying their belief. Trust entices this action.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence

I was previously (not very long ago) a part of academia. I then fell into an investigation which showed explicitly such control on every single level. I am not claiming that I know what the truth is about anything, only that whatever the truth is, it is hidden by intentional removal. I am stating that there is substantial evidence that supports the assertion of such control. Indeed, the next section of my report (hopefully done soon) elaborates this investigation. It is true, by my estimation, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, every doubt I had I investigated thoroughly, applying the processes of reason, and there are no doubts left. YMMV.

Once I produce my argument I welcome any criticisms or contraindicating evidence. However, for most of those here on these boards, they have already done this investigation and are well aware of the control systems. I had assumed it was something you already were aware of because it was a very important exposure done by Q (though far less than as exposed by my investigation).

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

In principle I agree. However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically. Only from a place of "not trust" can an investigation move forward in earnest.