Just another crazy conspiracy nut from 2014

Pay no attention. He gets nothing right at all.

(A couple of important notes on this video. While I find a lot of it mind blowing in some ways, he did use this scenario material to advance an ugly agenda. The quote attributed to Kissinger was never found to be anything he said, and all sources lead to neo-Nazis. Also the attempt to massage in the 911 conspiracy stuff is odious at best.)

We must remember to add him to our daily 3 minutes of hate if there is any energy left after Trump.

This is the document he is quoting from.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Just another crazy conspiracy nut from 2014”

  1. Thank you, I will read with interest.

    The European Plan was to avoid war by amalgamating nation states, and their One World Government has similar ambitions. Except, they are directly up against Islam, Communism and Sexual-Identity. The femaleds of Fatherland, Motherland and Neverland owning property by association. The brittle and vain. These plans did not take into account human corruption, so that they will enable them to flourish as Protected Characteristics, until one lethal despot infected with the three rages, rules.

    “The Rockefeller Foundation supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens
    resilience to social, economic, health, and environmental challenges — affirming
    its pioneering philanthropic mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of
    humanity. We take a synergistic, strategic approach that places a high value on
    innovative processes and encourages new ways of seeking ideas, to break down silos
    and encourage interdisciplinary thinking.

    One important— and novel — component of our strategy toolkit is scenario planning,
    a process of creating narratives about the future based on factors likely to affect a
    particular set of challenges and opportunities. We believe that scenario planning has
    great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions, simulate and
    rehearse important decisions that could have profound implications, and highlight
    previously undiscovered areas of connection and intersection. Most important,
    by providing a methodological structure that helps us focus on what we don’t
    know — instead of what we already know — scenario planning allows us to achieve
    impact more effectively.”

    A review of this document by, Holy Ghost April 11, 2020:

    “Consistent warning and signs were given, and ignored.
    Such blasphemes against the father, may be forgiven, and surely will be.
    Such blasphemes against the son, may be forgiven, and surely will be.
    But such against the Mother will not be forgiven on Earth nor in Heaven.
    Repent, now”

    My only comment is that the Holy Spirit dwells in god and Jesus, and is masculine.
    This is why, when the disciples of John, and later Jesus, went out in pairs, they brought along no attachments of money or extra belongings so that their conversations were always immediate, honest and direct. No punches pulled. Wiith no robes of office, no Apostle, no Welfare, and no Caste-Identity turning their objective of healing (catching pride with no clothes on), into a feminized debate about fairness. In auld-speak, ‘their devils had nowhere to hide.’

    • Philanthropy.

      As Ayn Rand onced observed, “The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time.”

      “In this episode of New Ideal Live, Elan Journo and Keith Lockitch analyze a recent Vox article, “These are the trade-offs we make when we depend on billionaires to save us.” The article warns that by involving themselves in charity work during the pandemic crisis, billionaires will only cement the power they wield over our lives.”

  2. 9/11 was a controlled demolition. How else do you explain the twin towers imploding perfectly straight down into themselves? At the very worst, and still likely impossible due to its build, maybe the sections above the impact point could tip over and fall off, but it was built to take a direct hit from an aircraft just 1 size below what was used. All jet fuel ignites on impact, and jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel I beams. How was the metal in liquid form in the pile of rubble, how was the metal still burning, melting and dripping days and days later as they did the cleanup? (Thermite? was used apparently, if I remeber correctly, only military/ gov can get their hands on that stuff, it will burn metal for days apparently)
    Also, if that doesn’t make anyone question the narrative of this “terrorist attack”, how can anyone explain tower 7 imploding also into itself hrs after twin towers fell? Building 7 was not involved at all in the “attack”. No fire, no damage, just implodes. Impossible for a building to collapse like that. Demolition experts, without realizing what building is being shown to them implode in a video, say it is an expert demolition. Many documentaries made on this, I think “Loose Change” was a good one. In the history of sky scraper fires, only 3 have collopsed, and they all “collapsed” on the same day.

    “Once you know the government lies, you know a lot”

    • I don’t blame people as much as I used to for questioning the attacks of 911. But I can answer all those questions and i am very familiar with the details of the first attack on the WTC in the 90s. I am content that it was jihadis at that time and in 2001.

      Again though, it becomes increasingly tempting to dismiss anything we are told by agencies that increasingly spend their time and effort waging informational war on people with an intellectual inheritance from the Greeks.

      • It’s my common sense that tells me it is impossible for 2 massive buildings to perfectly implode in on themselves, and a 3rd building not having damage implode. Can you explain how building 7 imploded without being attacked? No damage, just implodes in on itself. It’s an impossibility, takes a lot of effort and expertise to implode a building and sometimes with all that, they still don’t implode properly. A building cannot implode by accident. Sky scrapers will burn for days and weeks, and don’t collapse, they don’t even need to be demolished.

        • Against my better judgement, Ill get drawn into this so far but not much farther. I don’t mean I insist Im right, I don’t. I really don’t. Nor does it mean I take the last word. I don’t care about that either. But because I think, somewhat like the Kennedy assassination, which I think was done by Oswald from the book repository, it isn’t a good use of time or energy to dig on them at this time. In fact it may be harmful to the cause of freedom, and then again, it may not be.


          Popular Mechanics did an excellent multi page edition to answer exactly your questions. If you are interested in a scientific and solid answer, check that out. Its pretty old now, but as I recall, it was very good.

          Here is my take:

          In order to build anything tall in NYC you probably have to include in the design, a way of taking it down that doesn’t destroy the whole block. Ideally a way of bringing the building straight down. Its how I would insist buildings were designed if I was mayor or chief engineer etc. of a large city. The WTC twin towers especially so because of potential for horror should they need to be taken down for any reason, and eventually just for age.

          If you remember the plot for the 1st WTC attack, it was to plant explosives on one side of the parking lot in order to cause one tower to fall into the other. This didn’t work thankfully but even if they had enough explosives I think it would have collapsed as we saw it do on 911. I think it was a design feature. Hell maybe the explosives where in the structure to make sure it came down that way someday. But you don’t need that exotic an explanation.

          The leggo like massive steel squares which formed the exoskeleton of the WTC are crazy heavy.

          It might also explain why it came straight down. There is a video from that week where then contractor Trump suggests there is no way this could have happened. But his explanation actually made it make more sense to me, not less.

          Finally, Building 7. As I understand it, there was a massive tunnel network under these buildings. When the towers came down, of course the tunnels collapsed and or lost integrity across the network of tunnels. You wouldn’t have to remove all that much supporting walls or whatever they call them in tunnels to make a building square on top of one fall down.

          But like I say, I could be wrong. At this point I don’t believe much of anything. But the principles of physics, classical physics at least, seem pretty reliable.

          • Thank you for your response. I have never heard of that explanation. I appreciate other points of view. I still dont believe yours is possible though. I think its important, its one of the events that opened my eyes to the reality we live in, the world we live in. I think it was a glaring mistake they made, in hindsight, it opened many peoples eyes. Of course I thought it was real at the time, we all sat around the tv, watching and hearing the narrative, over and over again. Similar im sure to some people now with the china virus

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.