Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are the same picture.

Communism and Fascism are the exact same thing. Where they differ is irrelevant, that is the distraction. It is where they agree that is the real agenda of both.

This is the standard play. Create two sides, pit them against each other, expound their differences and get people crying foul on them. If where they agree is all you care about, you always win.

The House always wins.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is the exact wording leading up to the 17:00 minute mark:

“We need elections, they have to be free, and they have to be… nominated chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown, and his wife Serene...


  • The word “free” comes at the exact 17:00 mark
  • Serene means: "unaffected by disturbance; calm or peaceful"
  • Charlie Brown is the quintessential “keep trying” archetype
  • there was no interruption between the words themselves, other than the change of voice. It flowed very well.
  • “they have to be Free, and they have to be… Charlie Brown – Q”

Just some thoughts.

I suggest that nothing in this message was “a mistake,” and possibly nothing was extraneous, thus it behooves us to dig in.

Looking at the last bullet point, in 1972 there was an episode of Charlie Brown titled: You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown

Looking over the Plot section, there are some interesting parallels, though it doesn’t parallel exactly. It might be worth watching though, to get a better sense of things. One line of the explanation stood out to me however. It says:

Following his victory, Sally prods Linus to go to the principal and lay down the law, only to have the law laid down to him by the principal. After he sheepishly reveals this to Sally, she accuses Linus of selling out like all other politicians. 

This clearly states that even though Linus was “President” after the election, he had no power at all in that position, rather, the Principal held all the power, and Linus was just a frontman, a stooge for the real PTB.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

theres not enough rich billionaires in the world to feed it.

If each harvesting of adrenochrome kills a person, and there are thousands, or tens of thousands of adrenochrome consumers, that's a lot of people required to feed that addiction. That's just one of the possible uses for humans. There's also humans as food, organ harvesting, scientific research, and sex, and that's just off the top of my head.

Think of them as a resource, like cows, or "cows with benefits" and you can perhaps imagine the possibilities.

a high risk , cost and for what?

That there exist multiple underground "cities" is not in question. See Denver Airport, NORAD, or even Manhattan for example. That there exist numerous "town" sized underground systems is also not in question. That there exist underground highways that connect these places is not in question. That they do in fact hide shit down there is also not in question.

What is questionable is, how many cities are there, how connected are they, what do they really do there, how deep do they really go, and are there some that even the military doesn't know about? Hell, there are underground cities that exist from before (thousands of years ago), though it would be more appropriate to call them "towns" I suppose, but they are very sophisticated (cisterns, plumbing, compartmentalization, etc.). They were almost certainly used for survival at some tumultuous period of our past. But who knows how many such "aforetime" places exist that the PTB know about that have been hidden from us?

There is NO RISK involved, because a) almost no one knows about these things, b) no one thinks about these things, c) no one can go there that isn't shown the way and allowed to get in, d) any "leaks" are controlled the same way that all other leaks are controlled, which is to say, trivially, when you own all the media.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0


I do not think this belief is the core, but it lays so close to the core that it is easy to make that mistake. Indeed, it is a mistake that I made as well for a while (if it is indeed a "mistake").

The common objection that civil society is unworkable is simply wrong

Agreed. Civil society can work perfectly fine, but only if everyone (or a sufficient number of people) understand "the core of the fuckery," or rather, that they understand that which has been subverted to initiate the fuckery.

ANY form of government, no matter the form and no matter how innocent and benign it may be at the start, is a danger.

I suggest the opposite. It doesn't matter WHAT form of government the populace of some jurisdiction (nation, state, municipality, etc.) desires, it can't do fuckery if sufficient people understand one single thing.

That one single thing, is a basic understanding of Reality and our place in it. To put it briefly, that is an understanding of the Sovereignty of the Individual and what their Jurisdiction is by Natural Law. With that understanding disseminated among the Individuals, the polity itself will respect it. It must, because the people will demand it if they understand this basic principle, and why it exists (i.e. how it is derived from the only law that is not an illusion, to wit, Natural Law). The reason that fuckery is impossible with this understanding is because all government law fuckery has a single nature: it makes fraudulent claims on the Individuals Jurisdiction. It makes these claims because people don't understand that they have a Jurisdiction, or what it is. That it enforces these claims through coercion is a secondary effect, thus the belief in the "rightness" of that enforcement is not core.

It is this understanding that has been subverted. It resides in the minds of everyone still, and it is this residue that is used to motivate change in society towards further subversion. Both "the left" and "the right" are constantly bombarded with different pieces of evidence of this subversion, and then given a plausible path out of it, without really understanding what it is that has been subverted. By this method everyone is both divided (because they are shown different pieces of the problem, and then told "the other side is lying"), and they are convinced they have been shown "the best path out," when in fact, because the understanding is incomplete, they are all led further into the subversion fuckery itself.

Of course "to be brief" leaves out what is required to communicate sufficient understanding, but I'm working on an explanation that shows not just what it is, in a way that all can understand (or at least "enough") but also gives an argument that I believe will show beyond a reasonable doubt how this understanding has been subverted, and how it is "the core issue".

This line of reasoning never plays well here, but I continue to occasionally lay it out because ultimately, it's where we need to go.

You can't grow a tree without planting a seed (or at least avoiding running over it with a lawnmower if some other entity plants one for you).

So plant the seed, and avoid the lawnmowers. Maybe give it a little bit of water every once in a while. This is all that is required to Save the World.

Should be easy enough.

Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

But as for America's original INTENT and the heart of her people -- not to mention our founding documents, in particular the Declaration of Independence -- America was and IS like no other nation in history.

We The People may have, from the beginning, believed in a "Free Nation." There are certainly many people today who believe in a "Free Nation." I suggest that pretty much no one has any idea what that means, but people absolutely believe in it. They have fought for it and died for it for centuries.

From what I have found, the vast majority believe that a Free Nation is the opposite of what a Free People actually is, but an elaboration of the intrinsic and subtle lies of our collective beliefs is a larger discussion for another time. I suggest however, that We The People have been misled, and the vast majority believe the opposite of the Truth, and they have since day one. Even the DoI, the flowery words which you laud, has intentional fuckery contained within it to promote these "opposite beliefs". I'll get back to that in a bit.

My research suggests that the following "Founding Fathers" were agents of the Cabal beyond a reasonable doubt (for me, based on the evidence):

  • Thomas Jefferson
  • George Washington
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Alexander Hamilton

I don't know about any others, because I didn't do "deep dives" into any other founding fathers specifically. These are the four that I did, and they all turned up "Cabal" beyond a reasonable doubt (again, by my assessment based on the evidence I found).

My research suggests that Controlled Opposition takes many forms. There are the people that push the main agenda (Alexander Hamilton e.g.). There are the people that push an agenda opposite to the main agenda (Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). There are people that are useful "physical agents" to drive the "propaganda of the deed" (George Washington as the "Front Man" and War Leader e.g.). Every effort in history requires these agent types. They always follow the same pattern. The main agenda must be pushed. The reasons are obvious. The opposite agenda must also be pushed. The reasons are NOT obvious, but obvious once you see the pattern. The opposite agenda will happen. There will ALWAYS be an opposition to the main agenda. The only way to ensure that the main agenda moves forward is to Be the agency that pushes the "opposition" agenda. There will be a Front Man to push the physical part of the effort as well. It is essential to also make sure that person is your agent.

I am oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity, but the pattern is sound, and found at every stage of the currently running Utopian Dialectic, which began (intentionally began) sometime in 1500s I think. (I mean the current version of the Controlled Dialectic. There were previous versions that were run through the Religious Trust, controlled by the same group).

As an example of how this plays out, and I choose this only because you brought it up, there are so many more examples. One of the unalienable Rights given to us by Natural Law (or God, or Source, or "The Universe" if you prefer) is the Right to defend our Property. This was laid out explicitly in the works that inspired the DoI, notably the philosophical efforts of John Locke, who is specifically attributed with that inspiration.

Notice I said "Right to defend." We do not have a Right to our property by Natural Law. We do not have a Right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness (freedom of choice) by Natural Law. Every single one of those things can be taken away from us at any time, and Natural Law says that is totally fine. We do however, have the unalienable Right to defend all of those things, given to us by the only actual (non-fraudulent) Power That Be. The word "defend" was explicitly not included in the DoI, and I think that was also fuckery. This is atm just a hypothesis, but I think that word was excluded to make sure we didn't rebel against the government they were setting up, ensuring:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Never happened again.

Of course this hypothesis clashes with 2A, but there's more to it, and it isn't worth elaborating at this time because it's not a huge point.

Regardless, Property was purposefully excluded from the DoI. There are all sorts of explanations for "why" it was excluded, as there is for all of the most important issues (everything really important gets "debunked" e.g.). People believe those explanations. However, I suggest there is one reason, and one reason only, for why that was left off. Because if it was included anywhere in the DoI, or the Constitution, or anything that is pushed on the populace that leads us to our beliefs (propaganda), then Income Taxes, and Property Taxes would have been very hard to sell. Without these taxes, Bank Loans (on this scale) are impossible. So instead of including a clear and explicit statement of our Right to defend our property (which can't be taken away, but we can be convinced that it can), the exact opposite of that Right was written into the Constitution (end of 5A):

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This makes it explicit that the Sovereign Government can do with your property whatever it wishes, whenever it wishes. Again, this would have been a really tough sell if "property" (or more appropriately, the Right to defend your property) was one of the unalienable Rights included in the DoI. "Property Rights" was such a huge part of the "inspiration" (Locke) and its exclusion is so glaringly obvious, that the only conclusion (along with other evidence of Jeffersonian fuckery) is that it was left out of the DoI on purpose so that Banks could do their Loan thing for the US Govt, which of course, they did.

As an aside, the Sovereign claim on an Individuals property by the US Govt is itself legally impossible (a contradiction between Natural Law and Constitutional Law). A corporation (legal fiction, such as a governmental corporation) can't be a Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) because a corporation can't make decisions, only Natural Persons can. That particular piece of fuckery (sovereign corporation) is a larger exposure, outside of the scope of this response, but I will be creating a post soon that will elaborate this in detail with the evidence.

my point is that your anger at America's corruption and other faults is on target

My statements are not made out of anger, but out of hope. Hope that we can learn the frauds that bind our thoughts, so We The Entire People can learn the path to transcend our box.

the EXPRESSED intent and the hearts and minds of patriotic Americans -- yes, that's a smaller contingent than it used to be -- are not only "for" freedom, but are freedom's last and only hope going forward. A world without a revitalized America -- and by that I mean a far-less CORRUPT and militaristic America -- would be a hellscape mankind might never escape from.

Maybe you are correct, and I don't disagree, but I suggest we can't possibly make it to where we both hope it goes unless we understand the real fuckery that occurred from the very beginning. This includes the Sacred Cows, such as the DoI, or the Founding Fathers. We MUST understand the full extent of Controlled Opposition to understand the box our minds have been placed in (The Matrix). If we do not, we will fall back into the same trap with the next "good ruler" that comes along and "saves" us.

Slyver 7 points ago +10 / -3

freedom will die without at least one strong nation standing up for it

America has never been for freedom... Every single war in the history of the US has literally been theatre, from beginning to end. For example, The USSR and their communist state was created by Rockefeller/Rothschild as a necessary "opposition" to Fascism (when they were really the exact same "ism"), and to act as the "turncoat" for both world wars. Their "withdrawal" and "betrayal" was done intentionally to turn the tide at the prescribed time, right before America entered the war as "the savior." In both wars this happened after the US armed and funded both sides of the war as a "neutral party".

The USSR's Communist State also provided the introduction and driving force for the separation of all property ownership into "beneficial ownership" and "control ownership" (trustee); a "corporate trust" in Government form. The USSR is exactly the same entity type that they had created to take over all of corporatedom (everything is run by a singular Trust). This system has since been applied to every country in the world (at least all the ones in the UN).

Continuing this example, the Cold War was created by the same people, and controlled both sides from the beginning specifically so they would have a boogeyman to fight against. You must have "an enemy" to wage war, but the "Cold War" wasn't fought in the USSR or the US, it was fought in third world countries.

They created this completely fake war (not fake for the people who died, or even the people who were led around by the propaganda, but fake on the largest scale) so they could put every country in the world into their central banking system and the United Nations (both of which institutions were also created by Rockefeller/Rothschild). It didn't actually matter which went "democratic" (which is a lie) or which went "communist" (which is the same fricken lie). It was all about putting people into the same system of bondage.

The reasons that these were necessary steps for their upcoming One World Government are too numerous to get into here. But thinking that America was ever anything but a system designed specifically as one side of a two pronged system of "opposition" (controlled opposition) is not supported by the evidence.

America is just one major piece of a Hegelian dialectic, applied to socially engineering a Utopia, and it was designed to be that from day one (1787).

Slyver 11 points ago +11 / -0

After having done some research into the potential human breeding farms underground, my worst fears are worse than an actual Hellraiser movie made manifest. My worst fears have a ton of underground cities, with millions of humans who have never seen the light of day, never known kindness, love, or anything except horror, body parts removed at random, chained up since birth, blood extracted whenever by tubes with permanent blood valves courtesy of Baron Harkonnen from Dune, with the main source of these millions of people's meals coming from other "harvested" humans.

Some days I throw in actual legitimate higher dimensional entities (sometimes called demons) literally eating these people's souls... just because, who the fuck knows?

I seriously doubt it's 1000 times worse than MY worst fears...

...so that should make some people feel better.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

There were many posts in the beginning that were not signed. Coincidentally, the first "Q" signed post was the post after this one (scroll down to 61).

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Bitcoin network is a permissionless digital bank. When you exchange your fiat for sats everyone on the network acknowledges that those are your sats. Banks cannot create more sats to dilute yours.

Agreed. It has useful security features. That's what has been said in the exchange that you are commenting on. While I didn't give details, those features are implicit in the specific quote you cited.

None of that gives it effective intrinsic value however. "Intrinsic value" means that it can be used to produce something. The "bookkeeping value" of Bitcoin does not give it value in any meaningful way because it can exert it's value through any amount of exchange, and it is effectively infinitely divisible. If you exchange a whole Bitcoin or one trillionth of one, its security effects are identical, thus, while to say its value is zero would be wrong, it is effectively zero, and will never increase, because its "scarcity" will never change with respect to its use (it is an "infinite resource" with respect to its ability to be productive).

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I completely agree with you and I understand your point. My point was that this "use" doesn't give it value, because the resources don't actually get used up on the transaction. It is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool.

I say that because the use you suggest, and other uses for the technology are often suggested as "intrinsic value," justifying investment. Such uses DO give it value, but the value is so small it is effectively zero and will never increase.

I didn't think that you were suggesting that it would give them value as an investment. I was merely commenting on the fact that these uses don't do so, because so many people (who are invested in it) are confused about that.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

The technology behind digital currency, or NFTs, etc. can be used for all sorts of cool stuff, but that doesn't give it value because it takes nothing to make it do that work. Besides, other similar techs are better suited than bitcoin for all those projects, and again, they take very nearly zero resources to make it happen.

Slyver -2 points ago +2 / -4

Bitcoin is not "digital gold." Gold has real value. It is used for technology (all computers have some gold in them e.g.) and jewelry, along with a thousand other real uses. It has been used for Jewelry for tens of thousands of years, because it is Real, and pretty, and has unique physical properties (thermal, electrical, lustre, color, resistance to degradation, etc.).

Bitcoin is used for exactly nothing except as an intermediary of exchange for barter, exactly the same as the Federal Reserve note. It has never been used for anything else, and it can't ever be used for anything else. It has zero value. Not one iota of value.

Gold has value regardless of if it is used as a currency. Bitcoin has exactly and precisely zero value outside of that usage. It can't survive in any world where any currency with actual value exists.

This is not me promoting gold as a good medium of exchange for barter. On the contrary, I think that is not the best path. This is me calling bullshit to "bitcoin is digital gold" propaganda that has nothing to do with reality and purposefully ignores all of the evidence and arguments against it for the sake of protecting the mind with how much people have invested in something completely without any actual value.

Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think that only happens if the jet is at a very low altitude.

I used to live next to an air force base in the lonely wilds of TX. I had a jet do a low sonic boom over me (couple hundred feet maybe). It knocked me to the ground. I'm not sure if it knocked me to the ground out of fear, or out of ground or air movement, but it was so powerful of an "explosion" all my senses went haywire and I found myself on the ground.

A low boom is no small deal.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Training drill."

What movie/show was that from? I have a vague memory of a line intended to be a cover story for some event, something like, "call it a training drill like we always do." It was some sci-fi movie I think. Maybe Stargate SG1?

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

PTB means Powers That Be. You can call them "The Cabal," or "The Trust" (which is what I call them, because they run the world through Trust Law. See my report on this if you would like to know how it was accomplished (or at least the latest version of The Machine)). You could even call them a small subset of the People that call themselves Jews, though that would only catch about half of them (because only about half "call themselves Jews.") Just don't call them "The Jews." :-)

As for the Jesuits... I know a lot, and yet not nearly as much as I could, since my investigation into them was only long enough to tie them to the larger controlling structure. I don't really care about them, nor their specific actions, because thinking it's "The Jesuits" is just as much of a distraction as it is to say "The Jews." It is the total body of people that are creating The Matrix that really matters. Their subgroups are irrelevant except to establish them as part of the larger group, through which their real motives become apparent.

Once you realize that all these groups are ultimately controlled by the same group of people, you begin to appreciate the power of Controlled Opposition.

All beliefs, all sides, are the same side.

We truly live in The Matrix.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

and possibly been a bit taken back

It is not even slightly surprising. It is part of the Controlled Opposition brainwashing program. It's been running for almost 150 years. My previous comment on the "Association Fallacy" in this thread explains it a bit, though of course there is a great deal more to be said, and of course all the evidence that supports it, though doing so is a great deal more effort than I am willing to put in atm unless it is really important to you.

Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

using discretion in calling people Jews and meaning it in a derogatory way

Some of the most important people in my life happen to be Jewish (by descent, not by religion, though I have some friends that follow Judaism as well). I would bet my life that not a single one of them is complicit in any of the crimes. I am also quite certain that not a single one of them has any clue about any of this stuff. They certainly didn't when I lived with them. (I've been out of contact with them for a bit, but given who they are, I would be very surprised if that situation has changed.)

My research suggests that 99.9+% of the people who call themselves "Jews," either by descent or by religion are just as clueless as the rest of us. There is substantial evidence that the PTB preferentially recruit from the Jews, and that their religion (a variant of Judaism, kinda) promotes the Jews (or perhaps more likely, a subset of the Jews, I'm really not sure) as a superior race. In fact, they were responsible for the eugenics movement. It is because of this "internal recruitment" that it seems to some like its "The Jews," but that is an illusion. The vast majority of that ethnic group have been deeply abused by the PTB, and led around by propaganda to their own doom just like the rest of us.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm saying BE VERY SPECIFIC WHEN YOU CALL OUT PEOPLE OF ANY RELIGION and give as much background information as you can as to why you have such a bad opinion of them.

I'm not sure why you are saying that to me. Do you think that I have not done so? I mean, I agree 100%. That is why I have written what I have written. Do you think that something I have said suggests otherwise?

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

If it's not the Jews then why are so many here disparaging them??

Please see my response here (from this thread) that explains why people believe it's "The Jews." Basically, they believe it is "The Jews" because the concept was created by the PTB as a form of brainwashed controlled opposition. There must be an opposition to force division to hide evidence.

I believe we need to be VERY specific about who we call out and why.

Agreed. It is for this reason that I respond on this topic as I have on a regular basis, but overcoming brainwashing is hard.

This is very divisive

"The Jew" brainwashing program was created specifically to create this division.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

you type of a wall of text

It's a lengthy response because there is a lot to explain. It's not however a "wall of text," on the contrary, it is well formatted. If you mean you don't want me to elaborate then I suggest you don't want to actually engage in meaningful conversation. If what you want is dumbed down exchanges and memes, Twatter is over there.

you shouldn't insult me

What did I say that was insulting? Perhaps you should read the next sentence after the one that you thought was "insulting."

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is the official version of history.

The ruling elite of the Khazars was said by Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Daud to have converted to Rabbinic Judaism in the 8th century

The "ruling elite of the Khazars" is a huge deep dive, and relates to the "Aryan race," the Elite Scythians, and omg, so much. There is SO MUCH THERE in that particular group, I don't even know where to begin. The Royal Scythians were the Aryan Race, for example... Now just try to work that into the common beliefs about the "Nazis".

Nevertheless, this is the official version of history (or close enough to). I suggest that isn't what actually happened, or at least there is a whole lot more to that story (that isn't understood), but to elaborate that requires so much background information, not to mention me digging up all the sources. Perhaps I should take the time to write that up formally.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have seen too much that makes me believe they were idol worshippers who converted and are not Judahites, (actual Jews).

The problem with this is, there is too much evidence against the tribe of Judah actually being "Jews" in the sense that we understand it today (as in, followers of the religion we understand as Judaism today). That is a huge quagmire of a discussion however, and the evidence is flung far and wide. Also, people are generally unwilling to look at that evidence because their own beliefs rely on a specific "truth" of Judaism.

History is written by the victors... How do we know they tell the truth? It's hard to know what is actually true that far back.

History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the publishers. It is the people who make the actual books that write history. Any book that is "popular" even if it is only "popular" among a subset of people (historians e.g.) is popular precisely because the book publishers, and those that control the information (propaganda) made it popular. This is a very important thing to understand when looking into history.

That aside, my investigation suggests that most of what is said in history books is true (where by "true" I mean corroborated by other independent sources and evidence). Now of course "most" is not "all," and I'm not suggesting it is, but "most" is a whole lot. It is the stuff that is left out where the real fuckery is. It is in the books that aren't well known where the most interesting leads are.

Regardless, I agree that knowing what's "true" is impossible in practice. Thus I work strictly on "levels of reasonable doubt." In other words, I think about whether or not a "statement of fact" has enough supporting evidence that I think it is likely true. I then consider what my doubts are, based on all the evidence I can find on it. Are my doubts based on the process of reason? Are they based on fear or other unrelated (or indirectly related) beliefs? From these questions (which get applied with each new piece of evidence) I construct a theory of "what really happened."

It actually works out pretty well. As I get more evidence, my main theory (which I have espoused to some small extent here) gets stronger and stronger. Every piece of evidence I find now fits in perfectly, further corroborating the main hypothesis. That doesn't make it true, but it does put it, for me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence comes that would give me a reasonable doubt (doubt based on the process of reason), it remains in that category.

Of course elaborating a theory to other people requires a great deal of effort, because the evidence is not easily shown. While there are a few "smoking guns," most of the evidence is only meaningful in context with other evidence. The whole "evidence chain" requires so much work to elaborate. Also there is good reason to doubt all sources, as you suggest. Thus the actual exposure to the greater reasons I believe my theory is validated takes a great deal of time, effort, and organization.

The beginning of this project of exposure to my investigation can be found here. It doesn't talk about anything like this yet, and even when it does, that exposure will be minimal because I am not trying to show this particular line of reasoning. The cognitive dissonance (from brainwashing) as it relates to "The Jews" is too great, especially among the larger populace, which is the target audience for my report.

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about the Pope and the freaking Catholic church! Pedophiles central.

The evidence suggests the Vatican was a creation of the same group of people (that requires a TON of background, really a whole book, and since it shows who really created Christianity, the evidence is not generally well received).

The Jesuits were also started by that group of people. That has been known since their beginning. (Those are just easy starting references, there is so much evidence that supports this, I find it crazy that anyone doesn't realize that.)

The OSS was also started by the same group of people. (Started by Allen Dulles, an agent of Rockefeller/Rothschild (I'm currently writing a book that includes that evidence, first part here, but I haven't gotten to Dulles yet). It was also Allen Dulles who helped run the Nazi program (lots of stuff on that, but nothing "blatant", some will be in the book), stopped the Nazi program, started and ran the Cold War (evidence for that is everywhere, it's not even slightly controversial), etc. He did it all. He was a major player. He even "debunked" the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which "if true," explains everything, thus the "Debunking").

I'll need much more evidence then lip service regarding the whole "it's all the Jews fault"

It's NOT THE JEWS. Their religion barely even resembles the canonical Judaism we understand today except in that they are the "chosen people."

Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.

From BLD:

Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.


By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

There is your "succinct" answer.

There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."

Not so succinct:

The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.

They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.


Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:

  1. I have not been clear enough in what I have said, despite every effort to do so.
  2. You are not actually reading what I am saying.
  3. You are not reading what I am saying with the intent to understand what I am saying, rather, you are "listening to respond."

I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:

confirm that the core issue you have here is that the word "Sovereign" was omitted from the Declaration.

I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written while actually trying to understand it and not have realized that.

You also keep saying things like:

you are getting lost in the words

making long winded points where it is not necessary

You tend to get lost in terminology and splitting the hair to the point where you miss the big picture

From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.

Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.

Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.

view more: Next ›