I'm giving very low probability that there are such things as "nukes." The Daily Fail is a good outlet to pump out fear porn to prop lies. They did a lot of that with the "covid" mind virus.
I think your reply excellent. I've recently come to an epiphany. I red pilled in 2015 at the advanced age of 67. Since that time, I researched; read; and jumped down innumerable rabbit holes. I early (April 2020) understood "Covid" as not a medical but rather a control issue.
Recently, Substack has seen quarrels among those who have and are continuing to reveal Covid findings; research; opinions; investigations; analyses; etc. The accusations and diatribes flew fast and furious. Suddenly, a light dawned. Everyone was accusing everyone else of being "counter information" or "counter opposition," and some were inordinately foul and nasty about their accusations.
I realized most of the material I'd been reading, aside from straightforward statistical analyses, was simple conjecture and that most of the people involved received an ego boost via their part in the play. They may be conveying partial or whole truth in all sincerity, but I now disbelieve 99% of what I read. If someone is announcing a conclusion, they better damn well have the evidence...and I don't mean speculation...I mean hard evidence.
A great example of the latter is the young lady some have pointed out today as "proving" Blackrock and the CIA are in back of the Trump attempted assassinations. She didn't prove anything; she offered her opinions and insights as to how they MAY be connected. Every writer and poster is entitled to their opinions and thoughts, but proof is a different level of playing field, and 99% of the people posting have absolutely not one shred of proof. However, they are certainly entitled to their conjectures, opinions, and thoughts.
Interestingly, I am 67 now... LOL! I had the advantage of having the father I did. He taught Me:
Never believe ANYTHING. Place probabilities of truth based on how well any data explain what You see. Adjust Your probabilities as new data come along that better explain what You see. and never give 100% or 0% to anything - there's always the possibility there are data You don't have.
In this way, I have attached to nothing as being "true" (or "false"), unlike Most who become emotionally attached to things They have assessed as "true" or "false," and often reject even clear data that suggest They're probably not as initially assessed.
As for Trump and Blackrock and all... I assess that the probability is highest that someOne(s) above Them control both. But indeed, all Others may assess it differently, and that's fine with Me.
I think I do what you describe. For some reason, I can hold a "belief" knowing that further information may arise which either amplifies or nullifies that "belief." IOW, I'm not wedded to the belief and have lived far too long to understand that one idea one day may be completely revised or discarded another.
I also come from a religious viewpoint which believes totally in individual sovereignty and that each individual must be allowed their own beliefs and actions (of course excepting violence and harm toward others). How others believe is their own business until they encroach upon mine.
I concur about Trump/BlackRock. I think the "differences" we see are factions fighting. The ultimate agenda or goal is the same. Unfortunately.
Could be, Am. Definitely could be. The whole show, in my book, is contrived. The wars orchestrated. Massive immigration orchestrated. They've been extremely effectively installing their own WEF-trained-aligned leaders who have effectuated these changes.
I say "factions" only because, if we read the Deagel 2025 forecast under the essay "explanation" section--and you may have to do so on Wayback Machine or some other similar technology--a very peculiar remark arises.
Someone writing among this descriptive "explanation" of the foretold drastic reduction in American population spoke about America turning tail and "being run off the world stage like the cowardly bitch she is." ??? Words to that effect. Rather personal remark, isn't it?
Someone acting in the capacity of a leader or controller effecting an outcome would tend to speak more impersonally. Like a military strategist.
I get the picture that, if factions exist, they all agree on the ultimate agenda but squabble over methods. I see the more mundane logistics of these conflicts left to the factions to fight out. Of course, if someone proposes ineffectively and produces little results, fights naturally occur. The people like Putin, Trump, van der Leyen, etc. are simply middle management puppets controlled by leaders within these factions.
Control sounds ominous but is simply understood that, once you capture an individual by applying prestige, power, money, and blackmail, their mindset accords with yours. When a high-level executive enters a room, all within that room are in accord or predisposed to like or further his agenda or desires.
Extremely intriguing video with Dr. Busby. Thank you for the link.
I'm giving very low probability that there are such things as "nukes." The Daily Fail is a good outlet to pump out fear porn to prop lies. They did a lot of that with the "covid" mind virus.
I think I will trust Dr Busby over you any day.
I'm sure My hundred and more hours of research are unworthy of trust, so You're surely better off.
But if You're interested in a bit I found... I offer:
Michael Palmer on Hiroshima and the faked atomic bombing: https://odysee.com/@jermwarfare:2/Michael-Palmer:6
I think your reply excellent. I've recently come to an epiphany. I red pilled in 2015 at the advanced age of 67. Since that time, I researched; read; and jumped down innumerable rabbit holes. I early (April 2020) understood "Covid" as not a medical but rather a control issue.
Recently, Substack has seen quarrels among those who have and are continuing to reveal Covid findings; research; opinions; investigations; analyses; etc. The accusations and diatribes flew fast and furious. Suddenly, a light dawned. Everyone was accusing everyone else of being "counter information" or "counter opposition," and some were inordinately foul and nasty about their accusations.
I realized most of the material I'd been reading, aside from straightforward statistical analyses, was simple conjecture and that most of the people involved received an ego boost via their part in the play. They may be conveying partial or whole truth in all sincerity, but I now disbelieve 99% of what I read. If someone is announcing a conclusion, they better damn well have the evidence...and I don't mean speculation...I mean hard evidence.
A great example of the latter is the young lady some have pointed out today as "proving" Blackrock and the CIA are in back of the Trump attempted assassinations. She didn't prove anything; she offered her opinions and insights as to how they MAY be connected. Every writer and poster is entitled to their opinions and thoughts, but proof is a different level of playing field, and 99% of the people posting have absolutely not one shred of proof. However, they are certainly entitled to their conjectures, opinions, and thoughts.
Interestingly, I am 67 now... LOL! I had the advantage of having the father I did. He taught Me:
Never believe ANYTHING. Place probabilities of truth based on how well any data explain what You see. Adjust Your probabilities as new data come along that better explain what You see. and never give 100% or 0% to anything - there's always the possibility there are data You don't have.
In this way, I have attached to nothing as being "true" (or "false"), unlike Most who become emotionally attached to things They have assessed as "true" or "false," and often reject even clear data that suggest They're probably not as initially assessed.
As for Trump and Blackrock and all... I assess that the probability is highest that someOne(s) above Them control both. But indeed, all Others may assess it differently, and that's fine with Me.
I think I do what you describe. For some reason, I can hold a "belief" knowing that further information may arise which either amplifies or nullifies that "belief." IOW, I'm not wedded to the belief and have lived far too long to understand that one idea one day may be completely revised or discarded another.
I also come from a religious viewpoint which believes totally in individual sovereignty and that each individual must be allowed their own beliefs and actions (of course excepting violence and harm toward others). How others believe is their own business until they encroach upon mine.
I concur about Trump/BlackRock. I think the "differences" we see are factions fighting. The ultimate agenda or goal is the same. Unfortunately.
Peace out.
Humbly, I even ponder "factions," wondering if that is a diversionary tactic higher up...
Could be, Am. Definitely could be. The whole show, in my book, is contrived. The wars orchestrated. Massive immigration orchestrated. They've been extremely effectively installing their own WEF-trained-aligned leaders who have effectuated these changes.
I say "factions" only because, if we read the Deagel 2025 forecast under the essay "explanation" section--and you may have to do so on Wayback Machine or some other similar technology--a very peculiar remark arises.
Someone writing among this descriptive "explanation" of the foretold drastic reduction in American population spoke about America turning tail and "being run off the world stage like the cowardly bitch she is." ??? Words to that effect. Rather personal remark, isn't it?
Someone acting in the capacity of a leader or controller effecting an outcome would tend to speak more impersonally. Like a military strategist.
I get the picture that, if factions exist, they all agree on the ultimate agenda but squabble over methods. I see the more mundane logistics of these conflicts left to the factions to fight out. Of course, if someone proposes ineffectively and produces little results, fights naturally occur. The people like Putin, Trump, van der Leyen, etc. are simply middle management puppets controlled by leaders within these factions.
Control sounds ominous but is simply understood that, once you capture an individual by applying prestige, power, money, and blackmail, their mindset accords with yours. When a high-level executive enters a room, all within that room are in accord or predisposed to like or further his agenda or desires.
Kinda creepy, that comment on Deagel... The whole Deagel thing is creepy...
And yes... Money... An very dangerous and archaic tool.