Circle of Trust

When it comes to the alternative community there is one small circle of trust, members of which mostly vouch for each other. They offer support for each other’s claims, as in backing them up for YOU, the public.

This is akin to official academia quoting each other’s theories, or they might call it a hypothesis. One self entitled academic makes a theory and is then referenced by another academic, who is returning the favor for being referenced by the originator of the theory some time before. This then spreads and the theory somehow becomes fact. It must be true, all the great men and women are talking about it.

X is true due to Y | Y is true due to X

There is no independent verification regarding the claims made by either the source or its presenter. One of the most common arguments, to excuse this, is the control over reality is so strong such a verification is impossible. Besides, what is real anyway, right? It is generally believed any actual tangible evidence would immediately result in someone dying. Anything which could lead to proof checking is always absent.

This kind of reasoning continues - some, so apparently not all yet which and how many, of the information is leaked intentionally, so to say the leak has been authorized and the source may or may not be aware of this.

In addition, leaks include disinformation, for which again the source may or may not be aware of. This is all due to the supposed highly compartmentalized organizational structure, where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and a finger on either hand does not know what other fingers of the same hand are doing. The source may even be told information by one of the fingers, which means the source is not even a part of that specific organizational body. The source has no direct access to the information they claim to have.

Off camera

Often presenters will claim they were told things, but did not get them on camera, as that would be too dangerous. Really? So presenter being told drop dead information is all OK if it is just that one person, or two or five, but not their entire potential audience? Seems cabal is getting sloppy.

We know this, it confirms everything, but we can not talk about it?!? Way to go to build up the hype. Maybe also go on air and sob into the microphone about receiving death threats? It is bound to bring some of that much craved attention… Cha-Ching.

Do you see where all of this leads? Mostly it leads to a never-ending excuse as to why the proof is not possible. Some say it is not even needed as it can hinder your spiritual development, unless you find it on your own, and as always you do not have to look far since supposedly all answers are already inside of you.

It gets worse

The so-called vetting is done by the presenters, by the people presenting us the story, the information, the claims. Vetting is based on what they know but have never told the public. You can not do anything about it yourself, since you do not even know what it is.

They use this know-how of theirs, to supposedly verify new sources of information, before they go public with whatever they tell them. Such a process requires an absolute trust into the presenter and its authority. Sadly, there is yet to be a presenter to earn that kind of trust.

Sometimes whistleblowers or witnesses are said to turn on their presenters. The claim is this happens due to them being brought back into the fold, as in - they never left in the first place. Allegedly the witnesses can also suffer remote influencing which makes them back off from their stories or even demanding complete removal of their testimonies.

Another catch is the time or time lines and time shifting or converging timelines. Apparently or, so they say, the future is yet to be determined, and is based on the collective consciousness. A vision or prediction of something today might simply show the current state of collective consciousness and is a subject to change. Something not happening is not a question or problem of credibility of the presenter or the source, as everything is subjected to an ever-changing/shifting/converging time lines.

Whenever possible; world events mentioned in the news are used to back up the claims, or to add to the claims and expand on them. Sometimes even to make new ones.

An example of such news is a dead scientist or a banker, missile or satellite launch, planes flying in formation, comet passing near Earth, military equipment being transported on a train, odd cloud formations, hurricane and earthquake events and any other so-called back channel chatter. Matters little as to actual background, since news is all fake and Illuminati controlled anyway, so as long as some far-fetched connection can be made it is made.

The Illuminati control part does not matter as long as the news can be of some use. Apparently Illuminati can conduct invisible space battles, but cannot have 100% control over the news, unless it is all intentional, unless it is the Cosmic Law they tell us, unless…

To add to the overall confusion there are the black hats and white hats. These hats, they are everywhere. Like in the military. Apparently there are military commanders who are pro world war 3 and those who are against it. All part of the same military. In most, if not all cases, it is mentioned as the USA military.

If the black hat part of the military wants to start a war, by dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran, Israel or on some major American city, the white hat part of the military prevents that by shooting them down. Does not budge, does it? Especially when we are also being told Anunnaki are walking the halls of the Pentagon and why even bother using conventional methods of deployment and armament, the secret space program must have much better and more efficient means to carry out a mass destruction attack. It could always be blamed on whoever at a later time, claiming usage of nuclear weapons.

Divisions such as white and black hats go to the extreme, where you finally end up with multiple groups, secret societies and syndicates battling each other on multiple fronts for dominance over planet Earth.

Discernment

One can often encounter the yada yada about all this information [claims] being needed for YOU, the public, to be able to make informed decisions. Frequently, such statements are accompanied by discernment vomit. Discern this, discern that… How does it vibe to you, dumbass?

What exactly can one discern from all the claims thrown out by these presenters? Aside from a bunch of unverified bullshit? Where there is smoke there is fire? How very intelligent of you, now do go and apply this generalization over everything without a pinch of critical thought. Do not mind your thoughts at all, since they are holding you back anyway, they might not even be yours! So just go along with the feel…you know…ride the wave.

For any actual truth regarding the topics discussed in the conspiracy circles, these people sure are doing a great job of turning it into a joke. If you are too baffled to understand any of this, go read stuff from 4 or 6 years ago. Read what you were being told at the time. Read about the hypes, the deep insights, impending disasters and marvel at the abhorrently ignorant approach to everything they do in the alleged service to others.

Related Content

No related content as of yet.