2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

All the world's a stage. What is planned? What is organic? What are people's real motives? Are the people on both sides acting under the same director? Are the "gangs" actually patriots? Who the fuck knows. Whatever the truth is, none of it was contained in this video.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +3 / -1

He does a very good job of making the very first part of my report short and sweet. Of course this misses quite a few details and evidence that are rather important, but it makes the basics of the problem available to a much larger audience. I think it's fantastic.

The whole report (what I have out so far) can be found here.

14
Slyver 14 points ago +15 / -1

Both the CIA and the UN were created by Rockefeller in 1947. The PRC was created by Rockefeller in 1949. Those pieces of information are key to understanding the world.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

The following is for humans. I don't know about dogs.

There are many types of cancer cells that live off of glucose. Not eating glucose can starve the cancer cells. Humans can live just fine without glucose by using keytones (protein breakdown products) as an energy source. Many cancers cannot. Thus, by eating a ketogenic diet, it can have a potentially devastating effect on cancer.

Yes, the medical research is unclear on this, but that research is funded and published by the same people that get, on average, $200,000 per cancer patient, and are literally working towards depopulating the planet to bring about their neo-Malthusian Utopia. In the field of cell biology on the other hand, this is well known.

So, take that however you want. I worked in a lab that studied cancer cells (specifically how failures in the autophagosome can lead to escape from apoptosis). My experience (lab work and reading other's work) suggests that many types of cancer will starve in a body that is ketogenic.

Of course I don't know for certain. I am not saying "for certain." But there is a lot of evidence that supports a ketogenic diet for the (vast) majority of cancer types, and contraindicating evidence has a lot of ties to conflicts of interest.

u/94f450d

I'm not a vet. I don't know about dog diets. I do know that for humans adding any type of fiber to the diet will aid in firming up the stool. I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish that for a dog, but for humans it's pretty straight forward. You can potentially add something like psyllium husk to tuna, or some other good, neutral flavor fiber additive if you can't get your dog to eat celery. :)

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

There would be no "standing armies" without banking institutions.

If you need to get people together to protect themselves from other people attacking their actual homes, that doesn't take money, the impetus is already clear. If, on the other hand, you want to convince people to go murder other people in their homes, that requires money.

Banks provide that money. They have always provided that money. Banks are institutions of conquest. We think that they are just "making money off the loans." That's true, but it's not the whole truth. They are also making more money and more importantly, fulfilling their own agendas off the resultant wars.

Indeed, if you own the bank, and you want to control everything, start a war, by whatever means necessary (false flag generally). Then makes lots of money on every front, and fulfill all the other agendas your heart desires.

It's quite the scam, and we have been falling for it for millennia.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +3 / -1

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply them directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Capitalism is not "Free Enterprise." That is the lie told to control the opposition. Confusing those things is what you are intended to do. It is how the PTB control the conversation about pretty much everything. Please see my comment below.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not sure, but I think it might be the other way around. In a free market system, there is no regulation by the state. There are no taxes, there is no input whatsoever by any State entity. all economic transactions are free.

It is hard to imagine any losses of liberty by any outside sources if the market itself is free. There would still be social tradition, and "laws" (though almost no one understands what that term means), but if it doesn't affect what we own, if no State is claiming ownership on your property, or how you conduct your business, what repression of liberties can there effectively be?

1
Slyver 1 point ago +3 / -2

Capitalism, by definition, is an economic design model where you take gained capital and reinvest it into your business to gain more capital. It is all about growth. Just being "sustained," or "happy with where we're at," etc. is outside of the definition of Capitalism.

People, by design of the propagandists, confuse "Capitalism" with "Free market" or they think of Capitalism strictly in opposition to what they imagine "Communism" or "Socialism" are.

Communism and Socialism, are, by definition, also just economic design models, and there is, in that scope, nothing wrong with them. People conflate what all three of these economic design models are, by economic definition, with how they have been put into practice (State run forced economies). That causes confusion which causes a great deal of heat in discussions about them, with an inability on every side to actually talk about what these things really are, and perhaps more important, what they are not.

What they are not is a Free Market. None of the above are a Free Market. In a Free Market you can apply any -ism you want to your business model, or make up your own, and the Market will decide your success. A Free Market is, by definition, not controlled by anyone. Capitalism has always been controlled. It was created by people who wanted to control everything, which was exactly what they succeeded in doing with Capitalism. These same people also created both Socialism and Communism (as economic design models) and then set the world against itself, through pushing all sides of the conversation in arguments about "what is best" through their "Left" and "Right" propagandists. Everyone lying, everyone confusing what they are really talking about.

Which of course is exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like. Those who push Capitalism are just acting out one half of the Controlled Opposition. They think they are pushing for a Free Market, but nothing could be further from the truth. On the opposite side those pushing for Socialism/Communism think they are pushing for more freedoms for the market and the individual, and against the world wide monopoly that controls the market, and nothing there too could be further from the truth.

What we really want, and what no one is actually pushing for, what is not a part of the conversation, is a Free Market. A Free Market means no controls, no regulations, no police, no State involvement whatsoever. Let people decide for themselves what they want to sell and what they want to buy. A person can never be free as long as the Market is controlled by the State, or though a hidden monopoly; both of which apply to our world in general, and the United States specifically, and have since Capitalism was first implemented. The market has never been free; at least not in the "civilized" world.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

As of when I am looking at this, all the responses are evidence that Q made the claim. What I want to know is, what evidence have others found for AJ--CIA or AJ--Mossad connections?

These are taken from my notes. I am not sure the time on the claims, they are just annotations from my notes.

In this video AJ says his father did work for the CIA.

Here is a video of Bill Hicks who looks and sounds an awful lot like a younger, thinner Alex Jones, who "died suddenly" about a year before AJ began his talk show on the radio.

I don't remember exactly what was said, but I have in my notes that this video shows AJ promoting Eric Dubay (Flat Earth guy), who is almost certainly a CIA agent.

It's not much. It would be great to get some corroborating evidence other than just "Q said it, therefore it must be true."

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jews tend to be well-educated and proportionally a larger percentage of them are in positions of power in and out of government, meaning that we see a disproportionate number of them in the Cabal.

This is not coincidental. The system works as an aristocracy, and the Jewish aristocracy is, by design, larger than for any other demographic. The aristocracy is not just an aristocracy, but also a meritocracy. So if you are of the "right blood" you will be more likely to get opportunities, with no guarantees of success. This gatekeeping of opportunity keeps the aristocracy the aristocracy, but also encourages excellence and fits with their religion (I don't mean Judaism as the term is commonly used).

It is through this selective opportunity system that certain groups have advantages. The whole "jews tend to be well-educated" stuff is because they are much more likely to have the opportunity to become so. The Cabal created the education system. They created the selection systems. They created the awards systems, the publication systems, the credential systems. This system then hands out opportunities and gives voices "fairly" by the view from the outside. But it is especially fair to those who are of The Blood (not just Jewish blood, but any member of the aristocracy)..

The reason the association fallacy of blaming The Jews is so prominent is, 1, because it is pushed as a form of controlled opposition, driving the narrative that the "jews are persecuted" so they can hide their crimes, but also, 2, because there is some merit to it. It was for Jewish reasons that The Plan is in operation. It was for the creation of the State of Israel that the World Wars happened. That, and the creation of the UN, which is run, at the top, by people who call themselves Jewish.

Yes, there are people other than those who call themselves Jews that are members of the very top, but everything suggests they are there working towards what can best be described as "Jewish goals" (whatever that may mean, but it has to do with biblical (Old Testament) prophecies, the Chosen Race, and the Promised Land).

So even though there are more involved than just those who call themselves Jews, the same Aristocratic Jewish Class has been running the show the entire time.

None of that takes away from the association fallacy of blaming all the Jews. Indeed, that's a feature, not a bug. It is an intentional shield used to hide crimes. The point is, there is merit to it, but only in the sense that the Jews, if taken as a nation, are the primary instigators and beneficiaries of the actions, and thus when we call out a nation (which doesn't really exist) as the perpetrator, we automatically make an association fallacy. Blaming The Jews is no different than blaming the "Germans" or even the subgroup, the "Nazis" or the Americans or the Democrats, etc.. It is a very natural thing to blame a group for the actions of a few, unfortunately.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can you provide some sort of sources for the 1.2M figure? It is very difficult to find accurate numbers. Also, it's not just the concentration camp jews. There were many killed in poland massacres by the USSR (both when they were Axis and when they were Allies). It's tough to really figure out how many jews were killed. Any sources you have would be greatly appreciated.

6
Slyver 6 points ago +6 / -0

Birth Control and Homosexuality: Intended Consequences

FTFY

Turning the world gay was a part of the neo-Malthusian design. See the Jaffe memo from around 1967. It states explicitly that it is necessary to push propaganda to encourage gayness to reduce the population. That memo came from the same people that ran planned parenthood who created and pushed the pill.

That's just the tip of the iceberg on that one though. That same effort of hormonal birth control plus homosexuality to reduce the population goes back to the early 1900s, and even as far back as the 1870s.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't forget the creation of the United Nations, which by treaty, is a one world government with conscription powers over the entire planet.

The creation of the Cold War via Rockefeller shared nuclear secrets with the USSR as well as Uranium and the tech to purify it, all of which was done under Rockefeller management during the war was another major victory. The "Cold War" was the perfect fear driven construction mechanism to lead to the creation of The Machine, and Utopia (dystopia).

13
Slyver 13 points ago +14 / -1

Yup. Ole' Noam Chomsky. Mr. Controlled Opposition himself.

9
Slyver 9 points ago +9 / -0

I really enjoyed Weekend at Bernies. This movie is kinda like that, but with nukes. What's not to love?

8
Slyver 8 points ago +8 / -0

Nice dig. Very interesting. One more famous person to add to the Epsteined pile of hanging yourself in a position where you can easily stand up if you hesitate for a moment.

These people are committed to dying.

13
Slyver 13 points ago +13 / -0

Makes sense to me. If you're heading towards a bread lines economy, you'll want to keep your bread selling monopolies happy.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Numerous great (B) movies have ended with the defeat of the Kraken/Leviathan. It's even a part of the biblical prophesies (Isiah and Revelation) for the End of Days. Maybe "It will be biblical" meant "Just wait until you see our Kraken!"

69
Slyver 69 points ago +69 / -0

Once you get past the headlines a different story emerges.

Excess D wasn’t the only cause of death listed — the coroner also blamed congestive heart failure, chronic kidney failure, hypercalcemia, and Ischaemic Heart Disease

He was 89 years old and had a metric fuckton of issues, all of which take a lot longer to develop than the nine months he had been taking large amounts of Vitamin D.

Maybe he was taking large amounts of vitamin D because he had serious problems and was trying to give himself a little bit longer life. Maybe the vitamin D even helped with that. Maybe (almost certainly) he didn't die because of high amounts of vitamin D in his system, maybe he died with high amounts of vitamin D in his system.

There is zero doubt this is a hit piece on vitamin D. How do you drive up those death numbers in the next "inevitable" electiondemic? Get people afraid of vitamin D.

view more: Next ›