Yet how can you recognize either one of them? It’s not hopeless, but it’s your job to make your own decisions.
My problem with truthers is that they usually focus on a small part of the problem and cannot or don’t want to envision a global picture and talk about it. Red herrings and limited hangouts are produced galore, and it makes no difference if the author is an AI, an agent, or someone naive. It might confuse a few people that there are so many types of truthers. How can they be assessed and their findings used without stopping where they stop?1
Most recently, appearing in public has become problematic. I have been invited before to give interviews or participate in public events, but I refused, because I knew that being associated with questionable characters can compromise my credibility, and it’s always unpredictable what such events can bring along. While all centalized initiatives are infiltrated, most of them are actually started by the enemy. Well-meaning authors can easily fall into the trap of ending up in bad company.
Obviously, I don’t care for “popular” sources, because the fact they are allowed to exist is already significant indicator that they are meant to misdirect. The most recent large-scale attempt is
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/call-for-your-support-nuremberg-court
The following is particularly interesting, because it is promoted by “small” authors on Substack:
https://truthsummit.info/truth-summit-oct-2023.html
Popular heroes are easy to create as sources of “heroism,” while they only mislead the reader, not necessarily with lies, but mostly by occupying the reader’s mind with inconsequential problems that cannot be solved or make no difference anymore. They are called “limited hangouts”:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/folk-heroes-created-by-the-globalists
Notice that Karen Kingston “escaped” successfully:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/super-karen-on-steroids
Also, there are people who claimed to have been poisoned and survived, as if military-grade poisoning was possible to overcome. The latest folk hero, Fuellmich, has been pursuing the impossible goal of having the globalists indicted in international court, whereas the only such court is the kangaroo court in The Hague, which is in the globalists’ hands and represents a travesty of justice, much in the tradition of Nuremberg. Fuellmich, nevertheless, is one of the participants in the “Truth Summit.” Rittenhouse’s story was similar, yet he occupied people’s attention for a long time and collected over a million bucks in unnecessary legal fees, which resembles the Ana Maria Mihalcea’s “Nuremberg hearing” in Costa Rica2. The way Rittenhouse treated his audience bore striking resemblance to the attitudes of DeSantis and of RFK, Jr.:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-was-rittenhouse-all-about
In my previous article, I pointed out that my knowledge is uncertain, too. That, however, doesn’t have to mean that I’m completely clueless. In fact, my predictions usually come true, because they are based on facts, logic, and experience.
Human cognition is inevitably flawed. My method is to use a global interpretive frame, which ensures at least a certain level of consistency. As for the plandemic, it works the following way:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-path-to-my-current-standing-an
In method can be applied to assessing a wide variety of situations:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-formidable-tool-at-your-disposal
It helps to know the reasons why people consider something true. You cannot find the details from the following article anywhere else and many “academic experts” became “famous” for a lot less than my map for the cognitive levels of truth judgments that explains why people consider something true3:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-you-think-you-are-right
Also, certain principles apply to all forms of mass manipulation:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/re-posting-old-articles-that-remain
Not falling for fads that are meant to make people better without any realistic basis might also help4:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-mass-formation-of-morons-using
Discerning eyes can also pay attention to who is linked up with whom and to what end. That alone can be a giveaway of an agent, an AI, or a previous author’s deepfake…
In my understanding, the moment of truth is always in the present. Without the truth, the world couldn't exist. Moral relativism thrives on the observation that what works in one moment, might not work in the next one or, for that matter, ever again. People are also conditioned to accept certain premises without any more reason then to satisfy their own need for cognitive security.
In the meanwhile, I don’t believe even myself: I keep my eyes open and adjust my concept of reality according to the incoming data all the time.
Hoping to keep you posted.
Nobody, including me, can claim to be an oracle for the Truth, because human cognition simply doesn’t have the capacity to work with constantly-changing (open) systems, and the world, including human cognition, is one of those. I wrote more about this in
The push, nonetheless, is being maintained, as if there was anything to be gained from “winning the fight”:
https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/court-ordered-nuremberg-hearing-dismissal
I had this published in 1999, so stealing it now cannot succeed without a court date.
A fad vs. a trend:
I’m not sure if it means anything, but the numbers of my subscribers have been following the same curve from the start:
The curve suggests a trend, but what is the trend in this case?
Everything is exactly one way and one way only. All things that happened in the past have only one truth. Therefore everything has a truth which often becomes distorted as humans interact with it.
If you discovered something of significant magnitude, researched it further, connected with others who were observing and finding the same, found that patent and study documents confirmed what you were seeing, found that there was historic evidence to validate what you found and were able to corroborate, and realized that many were unwilling to believe or acknowledge the truth of what you found (and in fact are trying to obfuscate and deliberately diminish or discount or even disprove the serious and authentic nature of what you know and have evidence for) yet it poses an extinction-level threat to others (those who submitted and those who did not submit to round one of the test -- round 2 being in progress now with the division among people of faiths about Israel's false flag lure for Hamas and the rest of the spectators and agitators) how would you go about using what you have to both broaden the exposure of it and attempt to get justice or at least legal acknowledgement and resources to further bolster support for formal investigation and for action to stop the process, and to bring those responsible into account for their part in it? What ifs there continues to be evidence to support that what you're finding in fact DOES interact with other technologies for which you believe it is both designed and functions? Should you do nothing or put forth the best effort you can given your resources and breadth of possibilities -- or would you simply remain quiet and become an accomplice to the crimes you see being committed and the vast coverup in place to enable the continuation of the hoax of the century and its true intentions and ramifications? Would you not want to at least be given the benefit of the doubt pending some kind of real evidence to the contrary? Would you not see your role as being to do SOMETHING versus nothing however imperfect and however it may "appear" to outsiders with dubious intent? Pontification from the sidelines where there are no real stakes is one thing -- putting yourself, career, reputation and income-producing practice and license, etc. and even personal safety on the line for something that you believe is important, another. Latest on the proven correlation between the jabs and their content (as seen under microscopy) and its reaction to EMFs and low-voltage stimulation) and microwave technological weapons. and system.... https://zeeemedia.com/interview/todd-callender-bombshell-discovery-documents-confirm-targeting-populations-through-wireless-tech/ We should be encourage all voices to speak and then judge from what is presented rather than trying to defeat them before they have their hearing and present their evidence. Dr David Martin's day before Parliament was a mixed blessing - he got to say I told you so - that the jab patent history goes back to the mid-1960's and has been planned for decades, but he also knows it's been done and the damage inflicted with ongoing implications. People are usually willing to pay for something of value....usually be trying something to determine if it indeed provides just that and then once they see the value, are more than willing to invest to continue its existence and perpetuation. I wonder if you'll delete me or let my observations stand on their own, as evidence that you are not only interested in those who accept your posts and have no issues with them (that includes respectful discourse with the synergistic benefits of having the exchange).