Bastard Jon Snow joins the Matt Damon Batch


Take a moment to analyze the two faces above. The left is a young Matt Damon.

Jon SnowI had a funny feeling watching Game of Thrones that we had another Matt Damon Batch member here, the widow’s peak being the tip. So I found a full frontal of Kit Harington’s face, straightened it so the eyes were level, and then set the pupil distance at one inch. I then did a split and overlaid it on to Matt Damon’s.

The results are very close. Harington has lower eyelashes, and the ears are at a different place on the skull (possibly angular distortion), but the nose, lips, chin, head shape and widow’s peak all scream Damon.

Spoiler alert: If you think you might watch Game of Thrones, where Harington plays the bastard Jon Snow, read no further. I mentioned in a previous post that I thought the quality of the writing in GoT suffered after season five, and Jon Snow is part of that. It is not that he was brought back from the dead, but rather that I saw it coming. I am only now in season seven and can tell you that the dragons are going to incinerate the White Walkers, as someone already said they can be killed with fire.

If I can see these things coming, the writing is rather transparent.

PS: A note on facial plate comparisons: There is widespread quick judgment that the work I do with facial plate comparisons is inductive, even sloppy. Further, there is an often unstated assumption that I am merely bringing to the surface family connections.

The work is objective. I will state the shortcomings below. But when I present comparisons as this one, I have not in any way monkeyed with the images to make them appear more suitable to my conclusions. What happens on screen here happens before my own eyes as well. If I do not have anything interesting to reveal, you do not see it. That is most often the case.

Many people, including Miles Mathis, presume that the naked eye is the best judge of resemblance. He credits himself with exceptional naked eye skill due to his work as an artist. It is not good work, not credible, because it is not rigorous. Naked eye appraisals allow the interference of bias and preconceptions. My work eliminates much of this. My own shortcomings are discussed below.

Familial resemblance is not normally so exact that facial plates are alike. Look at your closest relatives.  There is resemblance, objective observers will see it, but it is not the precise lineup of features we see here. I have done a few thousand of these comparisons, and only once, with a father and daughter, did I find a matchup like this. Thus, with Harington and Damon above, as with Damon and a host of others going all the way back to James Dean in the 1950s, Paul Newman in the 1960s, Jack Nicholson in the 70s, Ben and Casey Affleck in the 90s, and maybe twenty others, including women, I suspect something is up. There is some genetic process by which our stars are made before being born. It is not a mere matter of being related. I have maybe 40 first cousins. I do not look like any one of them. Not even close.

Shortcomings of the method: I am not the same room with these people. I don’t imagine that their pupil distances are alike. The precise resemblances only turn up by this method. It could be that Matt Damon has a larger skull than Kit Harington. That does not negate the work because the similarities in feature are still too precise to be explained as happenstance. I am human and have made mistakes, but these were mostly with exuberance in discovery of twins that was really just angular distortion. Mistakes are the best teacher. If you look back through posts here from days gone by, you will find that the only “twins” left are those for whom the evidence is very strong – Paul and Mike McCartney, Janis Joplin, Rihanna and Drake, and a few others where I can tell with naked eyes which is which, or we have photos of the two together. I also drifted off into making comparisons using other criteria to allow me to use side angles. It was fraught with difficulty and yielded bad results. The only other method I find rigorous enough is examination of ears, as no two are alike. Thus did I find with Freddy Mercury and Dr. Phil a match, this in addition to facial plates. Few accept it because it offends common sensibility … how could that be!?!?!? I learned that amazing things happen right before our eyes on this whackadoo planet.

So when you see such resemblance as I have pointed out here, if your first presumption is that I am dotty and your eyes tell all, please don’t assume that in this matter you are the smart one and that I am the dumb ass. You might have it backwards. Some other game is afoot here. Join me in trying to understand what it is rather than merely trusting your own instincts. It is time you questioned those instincts.

43 thoughts on “Bastard Jon Snow joins the Matt Damon Batch

  1. I used to be wishy-washy on your face cutups, but my opinion of them has really turned. At this point, I definitely consider them interesting and valuable. Plastic surgery does not seem like an adequate explanation. Thanks for sharing, Mark. He is drawn straight from the template.

    Here’s a theory: the wealthiest elite have been capable of genetic engineering for a long time. The clones you see could just be all drawing from the “handsome man” template, with some of the parents genetic traits mixed in (Widow’s Peak). Just an idea.


    1. That’s a thought. I have fallen back in some sort of Bokanovsky process where a fertilized egg is split and then planted in different mothers. It is the different mother, different blood types, diets and lifestyles that produce the dissimilarities, but the common fertilized egg that produces their clone-like attributes. But how can we know?


      1. That makes a lot of sense! Probably more than mine, which was off the cuff. Bokanovsky probably would make more sense going back to the late 1960’s at minimum (Damon, specifically, born in 1970). I could believe they’d mastered the ability to duplicate/clone eggs before trait-level genetic engineering. Could it be that the same source egg is known for producing a reliably handsome person (the female-derived X chromosome), and then is fertilized with unique male sperm (which could be either X or Y)? Are there any females who match the Damon template? The presence of unique traits such as the Widow’s Peak strongly suggests a fair deal of unique genetics which you couldn’t get from true clones. I’ll have to re-read Brave New World and brush up on Bokanovsky. As you said, how can we know?

        I do agree with you though that these people being cousins, or plastic surgery, or specifically chosen due to their facial alignment does not seem an adequate explanation. We know that they ARE elites, so they were not chosen specifically for their symmetrical face, and they’re not closely related enough to make their faces such a match. Plastic surgery can’t realign faces to that degree…your eye sockets are where they are. What does that leave? Some kind of advanced ability of the elite to select the appearance of their offspring, going back at least 50 years. A wild proposition, but once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains…

        There is something else going on there. Whether it’s Bokanovsky or Bokanovsky-related, I am not sure. You have to admit, it at least would explain things if it turned out the elites had been capable of genetic engineering for way longer than we would think. The unique genetic traits would seem to indicate different fundamental genetics, but in today’s world we are likely very near to where you will be able to select your baby’s facial symmetry if you have enough money. Maybe this technology isn’t as radical as we think it is.


        1. There are female Brats – Hillary Swank and Jennifer Garner for sure. Weird that Brat Ben Affleck was married to Garner … if anything in Hollywood is real. Garner came on Tonight Show one time and did nothing but complain about the tight-fitting gear she had to wear to enhance her femininity.


          1. There are corollaries to your concept which are very interesting. For example, what if for the biggest major celebrities, those who have significant and lifelong purpose, they would have multiple copies of the same person living totally independent lives. This would explain how they had an identical backup for Paul McCartney ready to go. It would also explain the numerous different Putins pointed out by Maarten.

            Also, I think there is a generic female template in the Katy Perry, Zooey Deschanel vein. Maybe Jennifer Garner came out the wrong gender! Ha.

            Like I said, maybe this technology is just further advanced than we’ve been lead to believe. Technology in general is known to be far more advanced at the cutting edge than what is available for mainstream public use. Usually at least 20 years behind. This would just be a case where the technology is farther along than we realize. That’s really not a wild theory. People do dismiss this concept without really considering the arguments. You really do have a point. It’s an easy topic to dismiss, but there really is meat on this bone.


  2. I often watch TCM without sound or subtitles and I’ve noticed some facial attributes that are as predictable as the sunrise. I’m talking about old films where the men all have very large ears, a widow’s peak, a square jaw (unless interrupted by the round Habsburg jaw- Check out Jason Verlander for a recent example) and , of course, a very long and prominent proboscis.
    The explanation going back to silent film is that big eyes and short, delicate features photographed better. That does not account for Dumbo sized ears and anteater noses that attend these “delicate” features.
    In renaissance Rome, the population was around 160, 000. The idea that one or two families dominated painting and sculpture and the market that moved these products is not hard to accept in such circumstances.
    The idea that a few families run the pop culture industry today should not seem far fetched. They don’t run the military, but their cousins that do would expect a quid pro quo, if assistance is needed to push an agenda.
    Finding first cousins in clusters like the Damon batch should be expected.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If brothers and sisters do not meet the resemblance criteria set forth in our Damon Batch, how is it that merely being an often distant cousin causes such a repeated generation of the same facial plate? I don’t know the answer, and only speculate about genetic manipulation. That is all.


  3. A Good Year All!

    I must say I am skeptical towards fancy fictional stories about cloning chambers, Brave New World embryos, Bokanovsky Brats, etc.

    I think it is much less complicated; they select these actors based on the golden ratio for faces. Not to be confused with the Golden Ratio, that gives funny examples.

    1 – we know about all the bluff of the psychos; the advertisement of their grandeur is always bigger than their power itself (Nuke Hoax is a main example)
    2 – these actors are selected from families who already have the golden ratio in their genes (Miles Mathis has done amazing work on that)
    3 – the self-programming by these “sci”-fi novels; because some things came true, it must mean others also are true (cloning chambers, rockets in space, escape “velocities”, etc.)

    So the “facial analysis” is just showing they select actors with similar facial features that attract the audience and serve as an example of what is considered beauty. I don’t see any deep, dark conspiracy in that, any sane director would do the same.


    1. Golden ratio is a backdoor analysis that eliminates the need to think a little harder. The prominent widow’s peak on all these actors is too much of a coincidence, and it is not part of anyone’s (imagined) GR.


      1. Why do you make it a “coincidence”?

        It apparently is a sign of beauty or other attraction to the people who select these actors to go on screen (I cannot imagine the line of those who didn’t make it; all those crisis actors need to come from somewhere…).


        1. The incidence of nearly identical facial plates is statistically incredibly unlikely. And I know that the attractiveness of movie stars is largely power of suggestion and special effects. They don’t need to look for a GR. Honestly, the centerpiece of our work here, Matt Damon, just isn’t that good looking, in my view, and is not a great actor either. I’m of the view that these rats are not selected, but rather bred for their positions. Hillary Swank and Jennifer Garner, also Brats, are ordinary in appearance, dolled up for movies.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I completely agree with you about Matt Damon. But that only proves our opinions are not necessarily useful in the bigger scheme of things.

            Swank and Garner were not born female in my view.

            You postulate an active bioengineering process based on a hugely biased set of examples that are biased themselves. How could you possibly make that step without the fantastic stories by Wells, Huxley, Musk and others we know (or at least must after looking into this for so long) are bluffing all the time.

            Do you have any credible evidence of genetic manipulation of human beings, etc.?

            Breeding programs are as old as humanity, that is the whole point; we know these actors are bred, that is not the point of disagreement.

            I cannot fathom how you can jump from internet images we know are doctored to incredible stories about genetic manipulation spread by people we know are liars?


          2. Internet images of celebrities are often doctored but most often taken when they look their best, at celebrity events and such. And even with that, the doctoring of the image is to smooth the skin, to de-age them. That does not involve moving facial features about.

            Of course I do not have evidence of genetic manipulation of human beings. All I have is a large group of famous people who share the same facial plate, all from the peerage, and a book written in the 1930s. I connected the dots, but of course it is speculation. Your explanations, natural selection, golden ratio, familial ties, don’t explain enough. Mine explain a little more, but I am speculating, and say so up front. Until I have a better explanation, I am resting on that perch. And no doubt there is a better explanation. Maybe it will come to me in my sleep.


  4. Ah and by the way; indeed a frontal alignment is better than the eyeballing of Mathis, but it still is not a facial analysis. That requires profile views at the very minimum and much more. It is nice for a blog and you do the work others (including me) don’t, but I fear the only thing you have proven here is the golden ratio.

    I am also not accusing you of monkeying with images, but how do you know the images you pull off the net are not monkeyed with to begin with?

    That is quite a rhetorical question; photochop is as old as photography itself and the entertainment industry is the main producer…


  5. As I said, my primary limitation is that I cannot be in the room with these people. Are photos on the Internet designed to fool us? That is too contrived, as hardly anyone does this kind of work, and this small outpost is not worth the trouble it would take to plant fake photos. The simplest answer is that these people have very similar facial plates. Now go and find for me any one of your siblings or cousins who shares your features to this degree of precision. Report back, bring evidence, not words. Bokonovsky was an embryo-splitting technique imagined back in the 1930s by a man known to be juiced with connections. Maybe he knew about something real or in the works. James Dean, the first Brat I’ve come up with, was born in 1931. I’ve wondered now and then if he was a defective prototype in some way, necessitating his fake death.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. First I would suggest that if you think James Dean is the first “Brat”, then go off of him. Why do you use Matt Damon as baseline/starting point?

      They would be Dean Brats, not Damon Brats.

      I have a few photos of my family, but that is the thing; that dataset is not biased; you can compare all men and women alike.

      With taking examples off the internet, and without having a control dataset (you now don’t do science, but scientism; working towards the confirmation of a hypothesis and ignoring the data going against it) that gives negative results, you by definition are either always answering your own hypothesis or never getting to any answers, depending on the viewpoint.

      I look forward to John le Bon’s contributions on this topic.


      1. Gaia, all I see when you comment is a consistent effort to undermine. It gives me a really bad perception of your motives here. Mark may be viewing this from the perspective of thinking that he has indeed found something interesting, but this does not inherently mean anything about whether his hypothesis is valid or not.

        When I think about other professions requiring good looks, like news anchors for instance, I can think of absolutely no similarity whatsoever in this creating any convergence of facial symmetry. So I am VERY skeptical of any explanation which relies on these doppelgangers being a complete coincidence as a convergence of forms exclusive only to this one specific group of people. If such convergences occurred, we should see them in many different professions where attractiveness was a selecting factor. I find this to be a very weak proposition to weigh against Mark’s, especially because it is also without verifiable data behind it. The familial explanation is no good…they’re at best distant cousins. Then plastic surgery doesn’t really explain it. This means that it is either an extremely unlikely convergence, or some kind of genetic engineering. Since genetic engineering has been theorized for nearly 100 years now, it really isn’t so far-fetched an idea. I would go so far as to say that I think it’s the likelier explanation. Nobody has ever studied so specific of a situation as this to say the numbers support their view.

        I’m with Mark though on this being a very worthy unsettled question with substantial implications. He just keeps finding supporting cases. This is not something we should be dismissing out of hand.


        1. Gaia, all I see when you comment is a consistent effort to undermine. It gives me a really bad perception of your motives here.

          You may not know this, but 1.5 years ago I became a guest writer on this blog on invitation by Mark. If my motive really would have been to “undermine” things, don’t you think I would have done that then?

          Do you (still) believe in shills online?

          Then detox from that self-fulshilling prophecy. It poisons you.

          Enjoy the read and subscribe to John le, he shares some very valuable thoughts on this.


          1. A belief in shills poisons me?! Oh God, that’s hysterical. You really are one of the most shameless I’ve ever seen. There’s a thousand flavors to them, and it’s not always just plain shilling. Often, it could just be to inundate any question with irrelevant gobbledygook. Then it becomes guilt by association. People are supposed to see that and think “Gee, look at the worthless nonsense being fed in the comments. This place must be no good.”

            It is a very effective technique. All you have to do is overwhelm the topic, which doesn’t even require that you win a debate, just make the debate itself seem as puzzling and quasi-nonsensical as you can.


      1. I just read that post for the first time. What is “libelous” about it.

        Doesn’t the one claiming he has “the only logic and scientific model of the Solar System” deserve full scrutiny.

        Which “libel”.

        And you know Simon’s current stance on “stellar parallax”, right. That would be the real revolution, the revelation that it is useless data to begin with. Because all calculated stellar distances are based on stellar parallax measurements.


  6. Gaia, you say they’re selecting for beauty, but then agree with Mark that Damon is not good looking? And Swank and Garner not even female, so evidently not great beauties in your eyes?

    Also, how would your control group work exactly to make it more scientific? Not criticizing just trying to be clear on your point.


    1. For what they consider beauty or attraction (that what sells). So not necessarily what Mark, you, me, or anyone else considers beauty.

      You could make the analogy with mainstream bands. The Beatles evidently were designed (selection) to sound catchy. I despise their music; it repels, does not catch on. But my opinion is completely irrelevant.

      No, good you ask. It is constructive criticism; important to clear up.

      In a real scientific experiment you would first select a dataset based on clear criteria (data acquisition), then test that dataset (experiment) and then you end up with positives (outcomes confirming your hypothesis) and negatives or outliers (outcomes not confirming your hypothesis to even debunking it).

      Without these basic set-up conditions, and just selecting (Mark’s bias) images from the internet (data bias), rejecting or throwing away the negatives (confirmation bias) you will not do any science, and will not get any scientifically (=truth seeking) meaningful results.

      As I like to cut the tree at the trunk level; I fear this whole experiment will fail from the start simply because we can never have access to a fair and balanced dataset, see the comparison with our families. The images we use are doctored so the conclusions are at best shaky anyway.

      What fauxlex mentioned above however is interesting enough; is it possible and doable to “design babies”. This video comes across as pretty flashy NASA-like story telling (with a horrible lack of noise reduction of the lady speaker). Is this all fantasy or is just the engineering part fantasy for us, but reality for them?

      Seeing the obsession with transhumanism already (there is no Transhumanist Age “coming”), that question becomes interesting to answer.

      Genetic manipulation of animals is a daily and old phenomenon:

      The ability to produce transgenic animals is reliant on a number of components. One of the first things needed to generate transgenic animals is the ability to transfer embryos. The first successful transfer of embryos was achieved by Walter Heape in Angora rabbits in 1891. Another important component is the ability to manipulate the embryo. In vitro manipulation of embryos in mice was first reported in the 1940s using a culture system. What is also vital is the ability to manipulate eggs. This was made possible through the efforts of Ralph Brinster, attached to the University of Pennsylvania, who in 1963 devised a reliable system to culture eggs, and that of Teh Ping Lin, based at the California School of Medicine, who in 1966 outlined a technique to micro-inject fertilised mouse eggs which enabled the accurate insertion of foreign DNA.

      The first genetic modification of animals was reported in 1974 by the virologist Rudolph Jaenisch, then at the Salk Institute [hmmm, does anyone here believe Jonas Salk injected his own 7 year old with bovine puss?], and the mouse embryologist Beatrice Mintz at Fox Chase Cancer Center. They demonstrated the feasibility of modifying genes in mice by injecting the SV40 virus into early-stage mouse embryos. The resulting mice carried the modified gene in all their tissues. In 1976, Jaenisch reported that the Moloney Murine Leukemia Virus could also be passed on to offspring by infecting an embryo. Four years later, in 1980, Jon Gordon and George Scango together with Frank Ruddle, announced the birth of a mouse born with genetic material they had inserted into newly fertilised mouse eggs. By 1981 other scientists had reported the successful implantation of foreign DNA into mice, thereby altering the genetic makeup of the animals. This included Mintz with Tim Stewart and Erwin Wagner at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia; Brinster and Richard Palmiter at the University of Washington, Seattle; and Frank Costantini and Elizabeth Lacy at Oxford University.

      Such work laid the basis for the creation of transgenic mice genetically modified to inherit particular forms of cancer. These mice were generated as a laboratory tool to better understand the onset and progression of cancer. The advantage of such mice is that they provide a model which closely mimics the human body. The mice not only provide a means to gain greater insight into cancer but also to test experimental drugs.

      The history and application of genetic engineering is long and proven (you can buy flightless flies in any exotic pet store), it is the human part which is either sci-fi, or already widely implemented by a select elite. Or something else, but I fail to see what; if the technology exists it makes sense it is used. If the technology must be fake (space travel), the technology must be covered by something else (towers and cables vs “satellites”).

      It is an interesting line to explore, especially because it is so nuclear (haha) to Transhumanism and thus Agenda 2020.


      1. Well, this time I’m intrigued by your argument, Gaia. Here’s a thought: I don’t believe for one second that the purpose of this work is to “better understand cancer,” unless it’s to better understand how to spread more of it and make more profit from it. The clone narrative does seem far-fetched, but maybe the technology to align certain outward physical characteristics is less complex than the kind of monkeying (so to speak) that they’re doing with DNA to study cancer and God knows what else inside the body.

        The source you cite (at least in the quotation) does not make reference to Dolly, the sheep announced as the first successful clone of adult embryos in 1997. With a little googling, I find that the media is weirdly uncertain about when or if the first cloning from embryonic cells happened. Also, the first Google search result I found on the reality of human cloning contains tells of a bizarre company called Clonaid founded by an even more bizarre “UFO religion” called Raelism (uh…raelly?) which, despite its fringe status and its use of a SWASTIKA for its symbol , appears to have an awful lot of money. The deeper I dig into mainstream accounts on the subject of human cloning, the sillier and “spookier” the stories read. I’m intrigued enough that I’ll look into it more when I have time, but I suspect (along with Mark) that there’s more going on beneath the surface here than meets the eye. Your skepticism of specific theories is certainly warranted though, Gaia.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. With any topic I like to stay away from the obvious candy in the bigger basket.

          “Dolly” indeed is the myth creation psyop (mind control; programming) in our minds. So the one to stay away from imho.

          With you I don’t believe in “cancer research” to “help humanity” to get “accessible and good-for-them-bad-for-BigPharma” “health” “care”. So could all that research be a front for elitist genetic engineering that is presented to us as futuristic and uncertain but already under their hands? Possibly.

          In the end we have to thank the fake “Space Race” for CGI. Would that widespread accessible to all ever have been so well developed if it weren’t for Nukes and Space thingies? Just a thought that occurred to me now.

          Also for such view I see a historical analogy. In my view “1492” and “Columbus” are the myth creators of the real discovery of the Americas. The Canary Islands and Cabo Verde were colonized (genocided in the Canary Case) in the 1440s-1470s. It would be unimaginable nobody went further; the winds sweep the ships to Brazil anyway.

          So my thesis is that the Americas were discovered in the decades before 1492 and only then published as a great discovery story with a main Genoan-Catalan-jewish-to-even-non-existent? CristĂłbal ColĂłn.

          Funny trivia; the only country named after Columbus he has never seen. On his 4th and last voyage he landed in Panama, which until 1903 was part of Colombia, but has never set foot in what is now Colombia. According to official history of course.


        2. Ah yes, all that New Agism and related fringe movements. For some reason people associate me with that, merely because I choose the Greek version of our Mother Earth goddess? Shallow people everywhere.

          It may well be a trick to control a working real technology. Make it sound whacky by attaching it to whacky and physically impossible (aliens) narratives and speakers.

          Like what Flat Earth has done to genuine space travel hoax research. Which in turn leads to Napoleonic complexes by both Simon Shack (SS) and Miles Mathis (MM); that this psyop was especially invented for them. The hubris and mental disorder…


  7. And even more relevant when we talk about Transhumanism and Agenda 2020 (For The Future!)…

    Is our future written in our genes? Recent developments in genetics give the impression of a rapidly increasing ability to predict our individual traits based on genomic information, and even to manipulate those traits through technologies such as CRISPR-based genome editing [the video above]. For some physical traits, like eye color, and for genetically simple diseases, like cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anemia, this impression is pretty accurate—we really can predict those things from a person’s genetic profile and we really could alter [does “we really could” like a diachronous oxymoron to you too?] them in embryos with one or a couple of judicious edits [just like that].

    But could we do the same for more complex traits, including psychological ones like intelligence? Again, recent stories suggest it is possible, at least in principle.

    King’s College London geneticist Robert Plomin, in his new book, Blueprint , presents DNA as a “fortune-teller ” that is “100 percent reliable” and that can “predict your future from birth.” He also argues that the “only systematic, stable and long-lasting source of who we are is DNA.”

    There is more at the Genetics and Society website.

    I am swept between NASA-like feelings I am buying bridges and intrigue if this really is behind the “Brats” presented, even though the facial analysis is not the supporting evidence for it; just the opportunity that the ultra-rich can design their offspring for a couple of million, is enough for them to do it.

    But so far it reads like futurism, just like quantum computing reads.

    And for those believing in a Dino Hoax (Bob for sure) this must read like that to them.


  8. And whatever is actually true doesn’t matter (it is about what is perceived to be true; Nukes are “real”!), what it always boils down to is Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi:

    Early in 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directed a Virginia fertility clinic to stop offering MicroSort to people wanting to use it to select boys or girls in order to balance the children in their families. MicroSort is a sperm-sorting technology that stratifies X-bearing and Y-bearing gametes, allowing clinicians to offer a degree of control over the sex of a child. The FDA licenses this technology for use by parents who wish to avoid sex-linked genetic disorders in their children, so [lol] it is safe [lol] and effective [for who? You get a lot of genetic data of the ones you see and treat as cattle, not?]. However, the FDA said that the fertility clinic could not offer it to parents who want to blend their families in a particular way because that would serve “no public health benefit” [right, like the FDA does, lol].

    2012 – Timothy F. Murphy, PhD – Selecting the Traits of Children Prior to Birth

    Journal of Ethics [lol] – Illuminating the Art of Medicine [LOL!]

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I lean towards Mark’s speculation over Gaia’s speculation, but I don’t think Gaia is “undermining” by presenting his views. To the contrary it’s useful to consider different views. I don’t think Gaia having a different opinion is evidence of “suspicious motives” either, and focusing on Gaia instead of his arguments seems like a distraction and unproductive.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. With Gaia, we are not talking about a single differing opinion. We are talking about a pervasive pattern of magnifying any possible crack in someone’s argument without reference to whether these cracks are actually relevant to the cases at hand (undermining). You could suggest that this person is just an extreme nitpicker, but I have had enough back and forth experience to firmly believe that they are doing this quite intentionally. And the undermining is only one concern, separate from the sealioning that we also see from Gaia. If all you see is undermining and sealioning, then I think it’s fair to say it my concern is a reasonable one.


      1. What an attention for me, that shouldn’t happen, I am not important.

        The attention should be about the points I make. Don’t they stand on their own or are people falling for this DBA strategy of psyop handbook 1.0.

        And what the hell is this “sealioning”.


  10. Something I have wondered for awhile now is, frankly…is it possible they (the “elites”) are not even human? Could they be robotoids or androids of some kind? This could explain their similar features, their many odd pregnancies, and why they are always “dying” strange and/ or untimely deaths. This would also allow TPTB to have complete control over them.

    Ha, as I type this out even I can see how crazy this sounds. My husband thinks I am nuts, but all the programming out there (Westworld,etc.) makes me think things I am not ordinarily inclined to think.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s not nearly as crazy as it sounds. I think back to Blade Runner’s biologically-engineered Replicants. Definitely agree, one explanation is these people being entirely manufactured. Robots, probably not…but Replicants? It’s not as crazy as it sounds. More likely is just that they’re genetically engineered people, but really there’s a fine line between genetic improvements and complete genetic manufacturing.


  11. The elites are lacking empathy or a soul. They are taught it is their birthright to use and abuse the rest of us by divine birthright. Their god is Lucifer or Satan, hence the term ‘gods chosen ones’. Possessed by darkness, their work has increased dramatically the past 50 years. They scarcely hide it now. Time is almost up.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Watcher, do you know or know of a Ricky Rey (not the athlete) from some years back? He had a blog page that was called The Anarchy. ‘Lilith’ was his muse.


  13. Indeed, there was blog purge the past few weeks else where. RR spoke of a few grains of sand left in the hour glass before the round ups begin. New hate laws going in right now to protect the pedo thing. The straw to break the camels back & the curse upon the land will be reigning down.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s