Friday, November 22, 2013

Anti-gravitic hypocrisy and research and development in the news

 Why in 2013, is this  "officially" allowed to be released innocently enough to the public…

And in 2003, this was not allowed to be "officially" released and caused the executive producer of the documentary to be drugged and awakened in his shower the next day with his jaw broken in two places? 

I guess the "official" "sanctioned" information is allowed to go through/get out through the proper Illuminati channels when they say it does. It should be a surprise to no one at this point that MIT just happens to be a pretty "officially" Illuminati run and funded organization and proximics being what they are,  I personally know from being MILABed right up the Charles River a bit,  I was apparently taken to an underground facility right under Harvard University!

So do with that what you will the next time you wish to donate to either of those institutions, tech plutocrats who read this blog obsessively (Hi SP!) and other "do-gooders". I'm sure there's absolutely no Illuminati funding going on at Harvard either and any technological unveiling/suppression before or during its time was all just a big coincidence. Certainly always and ever without the use of unwitting human test subjects! 

These "people" (and trust me, they aren't) who run these things/oversee the allocation of funds are thugs, plain and simple. You look behind the curtain before the curtain is ready to be unveiled, and traditionally it's been a pretty safe bet you'd be treated pretty badly. 

That's the message they wish to entertain/transmit, at least. I can't really say that anymore as the veil keeps getting lifted more and more each day. But if/when it does keep happening, if people just refused to participate in that hierarchal charade/lie, the world might be a lot smaller, but it might also get a lot better as well. As long as the information wasn't given to psychopathic sociopaths who want to rule the world. As long as it was information transmitted responsibly.

Here's an idea about responsible dissemination and transmission of information: how about a checks and balance system that doesn't involve busting people's jaws in two places to get your point across, buds? How about that instead? It tends to make you look a little bit out of control and perhaps not the most responsible caretakers and self-appointed gatekeepers of said information when you send people to do that to other people. Just sayin'! 

No comments:

Post a Comment