Home
About
Articles
Text Decryptions
All Contents

# Judge things yourself

🏷 help · meta-info — by Gerry · Mar 2020 · 1148 words

When researching a global conspiracy by supreme powers, you cannot completely trust any source. To avoid being stalled by paranoia, simply judge things yourself, by applying common sense to any claim & idea.

Miles’ readers know this, but for others it may be new: One of the more uncomfortable truths Miles has found out is that not only are all mainstream institutions captured by the cryptocrats, but most “alternative” media are also fake.

That the supreme powers enact their own fake opposition is not new. Prime examples are all those “communists” leaders from ultra-rich families, who were really the capitalists themselves, in disguise. But sadly, this also explains all the low-quality “conspiracy” websites that popped up after 9/11, who discredit any legitimate criticism by linking it to aliens & Satanism. If both mainstream & alternative media peddle nonsense, most people will believe one of the two, or give up on a subject.

This is done on purpose, to misdirect you from the “door number 3” truth that there is really nothing special behind it all. It’s just a bunch of lazy parasitic rich guys who play their roles, and fake their own death to scare us into crises & wars.

But it doesn’t end here. Miles has gone down further into history. He has shown that even for medieval times, most historical accounts are systematically forged, in their historical times already! That means we’ll have to distrust not only mainstream & alternative media today, but also historical accounts, because the situation was the same back then.

How can we then still research anything? Thankfully, Miles has also found out for us that records are typically not completely forged. He’s also shown us how we can tell the truth apart from the lies, within the same text even, by applying common-sense logic.

The main reason for partial forgery is that the crypto-aristocrats are so full of themselves, they’ll very often include their names, their heritage, and their biographies in the fake accounts, in a thinly veiled way. That way they can lie to us, and still become famous in the fake history books as themselves. One pattern is e.g. that spooks just slightly change their true aristocratic names.

Fake “conspiracy” research will also have to include some truths, or nobody would listen to the lies: A fake researcher will e.g. correctly prove that on 9/11 the 3 buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. But then his analysis will divert into a story how Dick Cheney orchestrated all that himself or somesuch. That’s a “limited hangout” with added misdirection, to conceal the nature & extent of the deception.

But you can trick the spooks by applying common-sense logic:

- Does it make sense that the 3 buildings were detonated on 9/11? Yes, the destruction looks exactly like that, and nothing like planes had anything to do with it.
- Does it make sense that Cheney was somehow responsible? Yes, because he’s an obviously corrupt insider & liar, who’s worked for shady finance & oil companies before & after, who all gained massively from the military-industrial profiteering that ensued.
- Does it make sense that Cheney was solely responsible, or that the crime was perpetrated by a small group? No, because after the event, no scepticism ever came from any mainstream source in any country. That was despite truthers having proven the official account a lie. Governments & media in all countries must therefore be part of some global system.
- Does it make sense that “no one talks” in such a very large conspiracy? It depends: If the conspiracy is small, you can easily control leaks. If it’s large & widespread, that’s much harder. But if the conspiracy is global & total, it’s extremely easy again. If some evidence leaks — and this happens all the time — it doesn’t matter when you control all institutions worldwide, who’ll refuse publication & investigation, and even collectively shout down small, independent sceptics.
- The same logic applies to the Coronahoax: Does it make sense that all the ultra-powerful industrialists & investors on the planet would suddenly accept a shutdown of so many of their projects? The same industrialists & investors who always downplay health risks, always put their profits above the wellbeing of common people, and who always have governments & medical research in their pocket? How come none of them even tried to use the many proven self-contradictions of the Coronahoax to defend their industries? Only a global & total conspiracy can explain this, where there are no truly independent powers.

So, from fake conspiracy research, you can sometimes take away the correct proof for some deception, if you throw away nonsensical claims, e.g. about a tiny cabale orchestrating it. The same goes for all of fake history. You can separate wheat from chaff, within one text even, by judging things yourself and applying common sense. Once you’ve seen the patterns, it’ll often be a breeze.

In my own research, I typically throw away all “explanations” by historians. Rather, I look at presented facts, judge whether those make sense or are forged, and explain things in a way that makes sense to me. So should you. Not because it’s easier. In fact, it’s much harder. Also, thinking for ourselves is not “relativism” or about some “personal truth”. There’s always ever been only one single truth out there. Rather, we have to think things through ourselves, because as historical researchers, we stand on the shoulders of giant swindlers. Judging everything ourselves is the only way to dodge the built-up mountain of false explanations & paradigms that are heaped upon us.

But who am I to convince you of that? You don’t know me. I’m just a little voice on the internet, right? So, you’ll have to apply the same logic to my own claims.

In my “ancient spooks” research, I’ll show you evidence that there’s indeed a conspiracy by the global aristocracy against their collective subjects, and that it’s also very old. But these claims are very far out. Even Miles disagrees somewhat. So, you shouldn’t believe me just like that. Rather, you should have a look at my research, and decide for yourself whether there’s merit in it. If you think only a part of my research has merit, then stick to that part.

I’d also advise you not to spend too much time with this. Wasting our time is also a spook trick. If you quickly get the feeling that I’m mostly wrong, either on purpose or in good faith, or that its impossible to decide what’s right & wrong, then you should just leave my site be, and do something you think has more value to you.

But that’s just my advice again. Maybe you can think of some even better approach. Be bold, and be confident! We common-birth humans are much, much smarter than the aristocrats would like us to be. 😉

🏷 help · meta-info