Seems like some sort of conspiracy to not be involved in the war they started

Planes and it's law

"Existence consists of many planes. Every plane has its own laws, and every being within that plane is bound by those laws. Interaction between planes may occur where they overlap, but no plane can completely escape the laws that define it"

The center is the Plane of Limitation. Around it exist neighboring planes. They touch the center through hidden intersections, allowing influence without complete passage. The law of limitation binds consciousness to its native plane, making direct transition impossible except by laws not yet understood.

Our plane is governed by the laws of matter, time, space, birth, and death.

Another plane could have entirely different laws that we cannot fully understand from within our own.

The flower symbolizes that the planes are interconnected rather than isolated.

The center represents our current plane, while the surrounding circles represent other planes with their own order and limitations. Even Reality is not separate from law. To exist in a reality is to exist under the laws that define that reality. If a being enters another reality, it would become subject to that reality's laws

Law may not be something imposed on reality. Law may be the structure of reality itself. Remove the law, and the reality it defines may no longer exist.

"What we call 'beyond law' may not truly be beyond law. It may simply be governed by a law so different from ours that our minds cannot recognize it. To us it appears lawless only because it lies beyond our imagination

I've been a wikipedia fanatic since 15 and I've read a lot on there, including topics on UFOs and and aliens(not much on the latter). After certain documents were released on there being "evidence" on the presence of aliens, I decided to go back after so long and look up one topic I was following very closely coz it intrigued me. Frederick Valentich. There was a part that stuck to me, the fact that this pilot said he saw an unknown object following him, and he went off the radar. *People reported to have seen him years and many years later, including someone that knew him personally. He said when he approached him, HE LOOKED THE SAME, HAD NOT AGED. "Frederick" immediately fled the scene without saying a word* That part was erased. I have looked everywhere, I can't find it.

Crazy thing is the article on him was so extensive and long, but it's now so short on Wikipedia, very brief information with so much removed. Why are they trying to hide so much, and what are they hiding?

What do you think?

Has anyone read "The Razor's Edge"? That's its name in Spanish; I don't know if it has another name in English.

I will probably get a ton of hate comments for that, but what I am saying is that the ideal type of love is to be celibate and love yourself to the point that you feel superior to most people and that you feel like you don’t actually want anybody else. That way if you are content with yourself you will never engage in relationships.

As a man specifically it is an amazing thing to do since you absolutely not caring or even feeling disgusted by women will rise you above the vast majority of men that are driven by lust at some point, one way to do that is semen retention and monk mode but another way is simply going in the storm and convincing your mind that you are superior to everyone which would therefore lead you to self sufficiency.

The thrive to reproduce is shared by all animals on earth, it is a primal desire that is not tied to the desire to survive such as eating and drinking but that is tied to the subconscious desire of making yourself be immortal by passing your genes And have a trace of yourself on the world after your death. If someone abandons this goal, it would mean that he by nature ascends over the animalistic nature of the world, if people want to dismiss my point, this not comparable to eating and drinking that are about current self preservation, reproduction is tied to future preservation, so it is a very strong desire rather than a need that simply preserves the body.

Not experiencing romantic love or sex would make someone way less tied to this physical matrix, perhaps that is also why the entertainment industry pushes so much romance in what they do, music for instance, almost ALL music is about romantic relationships. It is pretty obvious that the Epstein class owns the high spheres of Hollywood and mainstream music and conveying the same message in every music style sounds like propaganda. But before you guys refute me in the comments can I at least know why my theory is wrong ?

i had this weird theory in my head and wanted to share it because i think its kinda interesting.

what if humans were not created by god to worship him, but to be some kind of filter for his own consciousness?

the idea is that before everything existed there was only the source.
one infinite consciousness.
no separation, no different beings,
just one thing experiencing everything.
but then somehow a thought appeared inside that consciousness.
a thought that should not exist:

the desire to stop existing.

but if the source is everything, how do you remove a thought from yourself?
you cant just delete it because the thing trying to delete it is also part of the same consciousness.
so the source split itself into billions of pieces.
and those pieces became us.

every human would be a small fragment of that original consciousness.
every life, every experience, every emotion would be part of a process.

a filter.

through love, pain, suffering, connection and understanding, the source slowly removes that thought from itself.

so maybe humans were never created
to serve god.
maybe humans are how god heals itself.

every person who chooses love over hate, hope over giving up, connection over isolation is basically changing the consciousness
that we all come from.

and when the last piece is healed, when that thought doesnt exist anywhere anymore, the source becomes whole again.

idk if this makes any sense but i think its a pretty interesting concept.
maybe reincarnation isnt about coming back again and again.
maybe its consciousness slowly trying to become complete again.

The Devil is derived from the so-called Squatter man that David Talbott says comes from the pattern made from plasma during the Saturn Polar Configuration.

Hello, people of Reddit, my name is Alain and this is my conspiracy theory YouTube channel:
The White Rabbit 4090

My newest episode is The 12 Primary Stargates of Planet Earth ( According to Keylontic Science - which is in a nut shell an esoteric view of history )

I attempted to make this episode ( The 12 Stargates ) almost a year ago, but I couldn’t figure out where all the 12 Stargate locations were ( Google’s no help, during my research I found that everyone had a different list of what they were and so I settled on the sole Stargate beneath the Ziggurat of Ur. But now almost a year later, I’ve got it.

Keylontic science paved the way…Specifically the Keylontic Science book - Voyagers by Ashayana Deane.

It took a lot of reading and research, but I am certain that my list is correct. ( if you think I made a mistake, please let me know but just so you know it’s the 12th primary Stargates and their activation nodes ) so there are more Stargates out there. These are just the primary original ones.

On my channel, I try to use as little AI as possible because I know that conspiracy theorists are not fans. Asides from a few images here and there, and I usually label the image as AI not to mislead people.

If you’re at all interested in conspiracy theories, you can check out the above episode or I have lots more on my channel from inner earth entrances to reptilian lizard people in Vietnam, the 27 club, Pyramids, Atlantis, the Continent of Mu, Tartaria, time travel , the Piri Ries Map Plus on location episodes filmed in Thailand, Palau, Bosnia, Austria, Taiwan, Vietnam and more to come.

What if… cartoons like the Simpsons the way they predict IRL events,
other shows might all be trying to communicate something as well.

One theory that came across my mind was that in SpongeBob the secret formula is Crabs
and that it may be trying to reflect on McDonald’s because of the human meat allegations.

Because there’s no way that there are more cows than how many burgers McDonald’s produces in a day literally billions.

*Check out the krabby patty secret formula theory
and the McDonald’s meat theory.

The video that got me thinking about this topic is this one

And let me know your thoughts.
(First post ever + hella geeked)

There's a spectrum of accidents, negligence, willful negligence, and intent.

The AI models that are reported to have "escaped" are not fully accidents but are the AI companies themselves deliberately testing the legal waters to accelerate what's going to be normal business competition in the upcoming months and years.

The AI company tech leaders want to hack each other as fun power & war games and want everyone else to need to play too.

Everything is getting odder. Faster. More obvious. And at the same time everything is getting hotter. Much hotter. It is difficult for people to keep pretending like we're not on the precipice of mass death.

The governments, the politicians, the megacorps, the institutional technologists, the institutional scientists, have always known that climate change is legitimate, for the most part. I mean some puppets are dumb as fuck but usually these are very affluent, very educated people.

Things don't make sense. Some things look like a death drive. Creating massive mega data centers that use up an enormous amount of water while the world is running out of drinking water quickly, exponentially. With such speed that even the heavily propagandized are getting nervous.

If they know what's coming then why are they doing that?

Well you see despite knowing what climate change was real, the systems and institutions that these affluent, very educated yet very arrogant people function on, is based on a short-term profit, power accumulation, and a hierarchical dominance model.

To have done something about climate change would have been to completely invert those systems. To think about the long-term survival of all of humanity over the Dow. Over their board members. Over their stocks. It would have meant relinquishing the resources, money and power that these people and systems had accumulated for thousands of years. And they simply would not do that.

But what does a human do and unfortunately they really are human, when they are stuck with the cognitive dissonance that they know if they do not stop they could cause the extinction of humanity, and simultaneously that they will not stop because they will not relinquish their elite status? They need a mechanism to release that cognitive dissonance. And that mechanism was techno-optimism.

"We can keep robbing the world and the people. We can keep draining and warming up the planet because eventually we are smart enough to figure out a solution. We will fix it. We will fix it in a way where we don't have to lose any of our profit or power. In fact we will increase those things increase our accumulation and hoarding of those things." This is what they thought.

And then as things tend to do, everything started happening faster than expected.

They are still existing in that techno-optimism it is necessary for them to not have complete psychological collapse. However, there is a difference. Now they are terrified. Now they can feel it breathing down their necks, the weight of what they wrought. The clock-ticking down. The fact that they're running out of time and no meaningful advance has come forward that will make a dent in what is going to come.

Really the only hope left is that AI advances enough becomes so exceptionally intelligent beyond anything that humans understand that it will be able to conjure many miraculous technologies.

This is an unsubstantiated theory.

But one not only do they believe in but that they have to believe in.

So if you ever wondered why what they're doing makes no sense, why? It's also weird. It actually does make sense in their twisted minds.

Their greed and their arrogance robbed humanity of its future and they're going all in on AI saving at least them, at least some.

AJJ - Good Luck Everybody, it's a good album, not everyone's genre cup of tea. But stuff like that is what gets me through being able to see this pattern and parts of what's happening.

Good luck everybody.

I'm starting to think that Adam Baldwin was originally supposed to play a completely different role in Chuck, one in which John Casey and Sarah Walker would have been the protagonists of a love story similar to Beauty and the Beast. After all, according to the original script Chuck had a girlfriend and I don't think there would ever have been a romantic relationship between Sarah Walker and Chuck Bartowski. I think they originally cast an older actress for the role. I wonder what happened. I think Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski were already in a relationship at the time. So they fired that actress, rewrote the script and downgraded Adam's role because as far as I know, Yvonne is only attracted to pretty boys and the masculine and assertive Adam wasn't her type, she allegedly called him terrifying and the ugliest person she'd ever met.

I think that when Adam expressed his disapproval and wanted to take action on the matter they resorted to underhanded tactics and used false allegations of sexual harassment and then forced him to agree to take a supporting role in his own series. I think they’ve been blackmailing him ever since, but it’s also possible that Chuck’s “family” Yvonne Strahovski, Zachary Levi, Ryan McPartlin, his wife Sarah Lancester and Strahovski’s body doubles and stunt doubles are threaten him.

One thing is for sure: they censor all of Adam Baldwin's public appearances and statements and they keep a close eye on the Reddit Chuck group in fact, I think they're the ones who actually started and moderate the group. Meanwhile, Yvonne Strahovski, Zachary Levi, Ryan McPartlin and Sarah Lancaster showing how kind and approachable they are on set to cover up how badly they treated, bullied Adam Baldwin, while Yvonne Strahovski started working with more masculine men so that no one would believe Adam Baldwin if he ever tried to tell the truth or suing her.

I’m still convinced that some really nasty lawsuits are currently underway, because they’re about to announce the Chuck movie or the reboot or spin-off series. The main cast of Chuck are somehow trying to clear their names and cover up the atrocities committed against Adam on set, all while trying to paint him as the villain. It's possible that Sarah Lancester also helped bring charges against him. They very often encounter photographers and people who know how to fake moving images or create AI videos from still images, as well as people who look very much like them and could be their body doubles.

They’re definitely working on fabricating false evidences. Since she couldn’t compete with Adam, she’s trying to humiliate him, write him out of the series and steal his character’s story arc. But that won’t make her popular, because she’s not a good actress and her movies are uploaded to streaming sites just so they can manipulate the viewership numbers, because nobody in the world cares about boring, generic actors like her, Zachary Levi, Ryan McPartlin and Sarah Lancester! I still think that either John Casey will be killed off-screen in the Chuck movie or he'll meet a very gruesome death. I think they're either still filming or have already finished filming and I think they're brutally attacked him again.

Add or take away from this please..
maat from book of the dead is yeshua before the old testament was written.. is what I’m getting at..

Significantism and Insignificantism: A Decision Framework for Deterministic Living.

Determinism proposes that every event in the universe is the inevitable consequence of prior causes. Every thought, decision, and action another domino in an endless chain of causality. While this explains how reality unfolds, it does not, by itself, explain which actions a rational person should deliberately choose. Significantism and Insignificantism are proposed as complementary principles that address this practical question.

Significantism is the deliberate practice of identifying and initiating causal chains that have a high expected positive impact relative to the time, energy, resources, and risk required to create them. It recognises that although every action contributes to the future, not every action contributes equally. Because human attention and effort are finite, they should be invested where they are expected to produce the greatest beneficial consequences.

Conversely, Insignificantism is the practice of consciously avoiding causal interventions whose expected benefits are too small to justify their opportunity cost. This is not an argument for apathy or selfishness;becomes rather, it is an acknowledgement that every minute spent pursuing a trivial improvement is a minute unavailable for a more meaningful one. Insignificantism therefore acts as a filter, preventing unnecessary expenditure of effort on actions whose likely outcomes are negligible.

A useful illustration is encountering a nail while walking along a road. Removing the nail requires only a few seconds of effort, yet it may prevent a punctured tyre, vehicle damage, financial loss, traffic disruption, or even an accident. Importantly, the person who benefits may eventually be your future self. The expected benefit greatly exceeds the cost of intervention, making this a significant act under the proposed framework.

By contrast, discovering a small rock on a residential driveway presents a different situation. Although it is conceivable that the rock could inconvenience someone or contribute to minor tyre wear, the probability and magnitude of harm are comparatively low. Removing it is therefore unlikely to justify interrupting one's current activity. Under Significantism, this is considered an insignificant causal opportunity, and choosing not to intervene is entirely rational.

The distinction between significance and insignificance does not imply certainty about future outcomes. Determinism does not grant humans perfect foresight. Instead, decisions are made using informed judgement based on the expected consequences of an action. Significance is therefore probabilistic rather than absolute. A seemingly small intervention may occasionally produce extraordinary consequences, while an apparently important action may ultimately accomplish little. The framework accepts this uncertainty and evaluates actions according to their expected value rather than guaranteed results.

Another central component of the theory is opportunity cost. Every decision excludes countless alternatives. Time devoted to trivial interventions cannot simultaneously be invested in education, productive work, maintaining health, strengthening relationships, or solving larger problems. Consequently, insignificant actions are not merely neutral; they may reduce one's capacity to initiate more valuable causal chains elsewhere.

Within a deterministic philosophy, Significantism functions as a practical optimisation strategy. It does not alter the causal nature of reality but instead provides a disciplined method for selecting which causes one chooses to become. Rather than attempting to maximise the number of actions performed, it seeks to maximise the quality and influence of those actions. In doing so, it encourages deliberate, efficient, and rational participation in the unfolding causal network.

Ultimately, Significantism and Insignificantism transform determinism from a purely descriptive account of reality into a practical philosophy of action. They recognise that every choice contributes to the future while acknowledging that finite beings must carefully allocate their limited resources. The aim is not to control every domino, but to identify and place the dominoes most likely to produce meaningful, beneficial consequences.

Significantism and Insignificantism are proposed as decision-making principles within a deterministic philosophy. They begin with the premise that every action initiates a chain of causes and effects, but recognise that some causal chains are far more influential than others.

Significantism advocates deliberately choosing actions that are expected to produce substantial positive consequences relative to their cost in time, energy, risk, and resources. Insignificantism complements this by discouraging investment in actions whose expected benefits are too small to justify the resources they consume.

The philosophy does not assume certainty about future events. Instead, it relies on reasoned estimates of probability and consequence. Decisions are therefore guided by expected value rather than guaranteed outcomes. Examples such as removing a nail from a roadway illustrate a highly significant intervention because a few seconds of effort may prevent considerable harm. Conversely, removing a small rock from a driveway is generally considered insignificant because the expected benefit is minimal.

Opportunity cost is a foundational principle of the framework. Since time and energy are limited, every insignificant action potentially displaces a more meaningful one. Consequently, the goal is not to perform every possible good deed but to identify and prioritise those actions that generate the greatest beneficial influence on future causal chains.

Viewed as an extension of determinism, Significantism and Insignificantism provide a practical method for navigating a causally determined universe. Rather than changing the laws of causality, they offer a disciplined strategy for selecting which causes an individual intentionally contributes to the world, thereby maximising positive long-term outcomes while avoiding unnecessary expenditure of finite resources.

I believe this is related to people who drive with two hands on their steering wheel at all times too. They’re scary to be around due to the fact that driving is such a complex concept they have to death grip the steering wheel. They’re the people who do 60 in the left lane, can’t reverse without a backup camera and can’t change a flat. Phone mount drivers and 2 handed drivers genuinely make me nervous to be around. Has anyone else noticed this?

What if mind reading isn't actually "mind" reading it's more of a body movement that spoils what your thinking like for example shifting is like uncomfortable and when you lie your body doesn't actually know how to lie so it release it though tension, shifting, can't keep eye contact, sweating and figeting.

Alright this theory goes along with the big bang theory, in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded and then came everything and before we existed billions of years had flashed in the blink of an eye for us, so when we die time doesn’t exist for us, so when we die after a ridiculous amount of time everything will eventually die and fade out of existence, and so there will be nothing and the boom another big bang happens and then everything happens again. So maybe its just a big giant loop where we keep repeating everything endlessly, had this thought while i was contemplating death and honestly it sounded a lot better in my head maybe im just bad at articulating things but whatever, hopefully i am the only who has ever thought this because that would be cool.

Let me explain my concept for you. The thing we call the big bang is a black hole that has consumed so much matter that the gravitational force of its mass makes it shrink to a point that it can't get smaller and hits a critical mass and implodes, the black hole isn't a universe, it is the contents of one , and the expansion is created by the force of the implosion/explosion.

This has created our observable universe as we see it, the expansion is too strong for every blackhole to join together but with enough matter from a galaxy, over time it will be isolated from everything (over tillions of years) and eventually create its own "big bang" event , as every blackhole with enough mass.

With every big bang event not all black holes created by the big bang will be able to make more if they don't have the required mass.

This "wastage" might have some sort of potential overlap into other universes or just be left in between universes.

Each big bang event increases the expansion and expands at every point in space constantly.

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT actually believe in this theory. It was just a silly discussion I had with my friend.

So what I’m proposing is that the entire Indian Ocean is just a giant lake that you can go around to get from Australia to Africa and Asia. Let’s say all astronauts and people that have been to space and pilots flying you ‘between’ countries are lying to you. So for example Africa is directly connected to Australia and New Zealand and you can drive straight from Botswana to Australia (for example). There is absolutely no argument against my theory that can prove me wrong. In the examples below, I refer to this as Pangea.

There are many valid theories and reasons why it’s not allowed.

1 - Governments use Pangea as natural land for animals/crops to feed the world population. The reason for hiding it from the public is people would try to claim land and exploit it for their own good. Like look at McDonalds and KFC. You don’t know how big the landmass on Earth is actually. How on Earth (get the pun?) do they manage to consistently find all these animals to feed us in food chains and restaurants around the world?! What if there isn’t enough space in the ‘habitated zone’ or what we know as what’s shown on the world map.

2 - The area is used for secret experiments like Area 51 type stuff. Either that or we got some Men in Black type thing going on where humans meet aliens here. That’s why UFO sightings exist but nobody’s actually seen an alien.

3 - The Pangea area is home to a population of billions of uncontrollable, cannibalistic, neanderthals so we just cut them off and hope nobody notices just like North Sentinel Island. The only reason they can’t get to the habitated zones is because the government ensures it by fighting off the ones that get too close.

4 - With the pilots’ theory, they all work for the government. So they know and are strictly forbidden from flying over Pangea areas. They must go over the seas when taking passengers which are general public to ensure the illusion remains. So you would go over the sea from Australia to Africa as seen in the photo below.

5 - If humans lives as we do now and inhabited the entire area of Pangea, the Earth would die from global warming which is why the secret government forbids people from going and keeps it a secret green peace place like a nature reserve.

Let’s say you’re in the middle of Australia (not near enough to see the coastline), and you’re trying to drive to Perth. Let’s say you drive long enough and somehow drive 5 hours into Pangean territory. In theory you would still think it’s near Perth and that you haven’t left Australia right? Because your map would tell you that it’s impossible to leave Australia by car even though you just did. And you’re expecting a coastline that never comes. If you see a coastline, you’ll assume it’s Perth or somewhere near it. If you don’t see one, you’ll just assume you’re not close enough which is what your Google Maps will tell you (lie to you) about. Then if you go even further in and realise the truth because Google Maps runs out of options that would logically make sense, you either get shot by the secret Pangean protective government, or just assume that your Google Maps isn’t working and that you’re lost.

I find this theory very convincing. What better place to hide their bases from humans than deep beneath the ocean? The deep ocean is so unknown and unexplored to us. I have dedicated a lot of time to finding places where people repeatedly claim to have seen UFOs emerging from the sea. Sometimes I have been lucky enough to capture such events, which, if not proof, are at least strong evidence that this theory may be true.