Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jeannettecally Modified's avatar

There can NOT be a better way to cover up Convid deaths, then to put Fentanyl on the streets and in the media & claim that everybody is now dying from this drug instead of the bioweapon.

THAT said ... WORDS used as weapons by the babbling, for the babbling, lack CONtext & create several dimensions of dementia with little effort on the part of the powers that pee on us. (stole that from You...Love it!) This keeps us terminally confused & under false Contract. Maybe THAT is the good news?

Sticks & stones may break my bones, but WORDS are the original bioweapon?

Expand full comment
Dee's avatar

I love PMJ so thanks for slipping in some music to prove your point. The truth appears to me to be hidden in all forms of entertainment.

WORDS are WEAPONS which is why the anagram is SWORD. The SWORD can cut, slice and dice, so as with any weapon, I try to use it wisely when dealing with others. The SWORD is also a very good tool when needing to physically cut and slice. An axe is a form of that tool and cutting wood can ensure that you stay warm is cold weather. Duality rearing its ugly head upon us again and again.

I equate psychologists with bibble babble and in THeir "field" they hold a position of a priest of Babylon. I remember listening to an interview with Carl Ruck who insinuated that Jung was taking psychoactive drugs while writing the Red Book. I smiled and thought that sounds right on target.

Being in the last third of my life, I have found that it's a constant game of trying to keep yourself balanced in Hell. If you don't, this place will drive you mad. When facing contentious people, letting go is often the course of action one has to take to remain balanced.

There is a fellow that has a channel called Uneducated Economist. He has said that the Federal Reserve is working under the Credible Threat Theory. "Credible threat theory is a concept in game theory that states that a threat is credible only if it is rational for the threatened party to believe that the threatening party will carry it out. The threat must serve the best interest of the threatening party, and the threatening party must be willing to carry through with the action that is being threatened regardless of the choice of the other party. Threats and promises can be used to alter other players’ expectations of future actions, and thereby induce them to take actions favorable to the threatening party or deter them from making moves that harm the threatening party."

This credible threat theory seems so spot on to me. A prime example would be "C0vid".

Expand full comment
62 more comments...

No posts