Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the “Nuke Lie” Lie. So, it seems I’d been chasing the wrong conspiracy with this one. It’s almost inevitable that, when you think you’ve grasped the nettle of some subjects, you instead get stung to blue blazes. There’s long-standing theorising concerning the legitimacy of the nuke threat, and of nuclear technology generally, and as one who’d been dyed-in-the-wool terrified of all things atomic as a nipper, it took me a while to warm to it (mostly over the last three or four years). Warm to it I did, though, and it seemed Q & A answers were confirming the counterfeit nature of the subject (however, as tends to be the case, this was based on misconception of the parameters of the response, as you’ll see).
One might ask, “Why would anyone want to fake such a thing?” One might similarly ask why anyone would want to fake space, Earth shape, Pasteurian virus theory or any other bowdlerising conceit that establishes an artificial paradigm. Control, manipulation and distortion are everything. And, in the case of nukes, fear. In a world where any given disaster, shooting or rampant serial killer is as likely (or more likely) to be a false flag or psyop as the real thing, keeping the public in thrall to the spectre of imminent armageddon for decades would be second nature.
Which isn’t to suggest a contrasting nuke reality automatically means their threat is legitimate. Or at least, one must consider degrees of the same. Something can be “real” at one level and considerably less so at another. And something can be authentic, looked at from a certain perspective, but perhaps artificial when assessed in terms of its official whys and wherefores (conflicts may be legitimate conflicts, for example, but not necessarily legitimate conflicts for the reasons stated). Certainly, I’ve tended to the generalised position that, at the highest levels, elite are elite and so much tension in the world is, to some degree, smoke and mirrors, however much the immediacy of governments may perceive a given threat as genuine (in a similar way to financiers who would never blanche at backing both sides see the world as one big money pot).
It would perhaps be more accurate to infer that there was influencing taking place at the highest levels, but less so outright or direct control (factor into this Khazarian sway and manipulation, and secret societies that may be White Hat or Black Hat, and as such may be working against or for those “in power”, depending on the particulars of the situation). On the more specific basis of the threat under scrutiny and whether, say, the Draco would have allowed the Cold War to escalate into all-out nuclear conflagration: well, read on.
The pursuit of the nuke issue as a Q and A subject developed largely from my understanding that Chris Nolan’s upcoming Oppenheimer is to tell the truth regarding the development of the atomic bomb, and how this surely couldn’t be the case if that truth was nukes being a lie. That’s addressed here. As ever, there’s likely to be a follow-up(s) to clarify or pursue further some of the points raised.
For the background to the Q & A, see the index page.
Q. Are nuclear weapons real?
No.
But see the next question.
This is the one that launched the false trail, as far as Q & As went. And it was relatively easy to go a good distance down the path without any outright inaccurate answers (admittedly, not many questions were asked on the subject).
The notion of the nuke lie can be found in various circles of the conspirasphere. One being professional disinfo agent Miles Mathis; a standard lesson is, if Miles is in favour of a conspiracy theory, treat it with extreme caution. Even if an aspect of the essential idea is legit, something is surely rotten in there somewhere. Others offering support for the premise include the September Clues Forum and Big Lies.org. Mooted frauds include the idea that mushroom clouds were actually created via photography (involving utilisation of lava lamps) while blast footage comprised models, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, not nuked (the atom bomb didn’t work so something had to be made up), and inconsistencies with regard to the effects of radiation.
While I have no beef with the Clues Forum per se, it is curious that both it and Mathis heap scorn on Flat Earth theory, ostensibly because it’s just too absurd and so brings disrepute to good, honest conspiracy theorising. But let’s face it, banishing the subject makes it an elephant in the room (or forum). You can find a Q & A looking at Earth shape here.
My flirtation with the nuke lie has mostly been based on its fear-factor possibilities, rather than the suggestion of it being a failure that had to be fudged (you can find discussion of the subject in pieces on the likes of Fat Man and Little Boy, Dr. Strangelove, The China Syndrome, Edge of Darkness, Torn Curtain, The Mouse that Roared, The Best Years of Our Lives and The News-Benders). I’ve also paralleled its development to that of the space race (The Right Stuff), whereby the sudden leap from numerous failures to success under the constraints of a ticking clock was extraordinarily convenient in outdistancing the enemy. Which is not to say I plan to revise my position on the NASA lie any time soon.
Q. Were nuclear weapons real?
Yes.
If I were in a position to take issue with the manner in which Higher Self sometimes responds to questions, chiefly as it relates to parsing, this would be a primary example. While I can accept that “real” may be interpreted as “present in the world”, my interpretation would be “a fact, not imagined or supposed”. Thus, I was unprepared for the previous question to be answered in the negative simply because they are no longer real (that is, there aren’t any here anymore).
Q. Do nuclear weapons exist?
No.
Again, this one offers slightly more concrete terms, but it’s still very much demanding of qualified statements.
Q. Did nuclear weapons exist?
Yes.
All nuclear weapons have been disarmed.
Q. Is the mushroom-cloud footage real?
Yes.
Nukes having been real wouldn’t, of course, preclude manufacturing evidence. It’s certainly incredibly potent imagery.
Q. Was the atom split?
Yes.
Under circumstances of the aforementioned miraculous breakthrough against a ticking clock redolent of the space race (as noted in the notes to the first answer above); cynicism is a reasonable resting position for any paradigm-instilling subject, retreating from the same if and when it’s appropriate.
Q. Were nuclear weapons’ destructive force derived from nuclear reactions: (a) fission and (b) fusion)?
Yes in both cases.
That would be original atom bomb and the thermonuclear/hydrogen bomb (the latter involving a primary fission stage and a second fusion one).
Q. Was Nagasaki nuked?
Yes.
Q. Was Hiroshima nuked?
Yes.
Hiroshima was nuked. It appears it was also firebombed.
The means of bombing of these cities represents the only answers on this subject where there seems to have been some outright inaccuracy (that is, where misunderstanding the answer isn’t based on a flaw or idiosyncrasy in the formulation of the question).
When these questions were initially posed, answers suggested Nagasaki was firebombed and Hiroshima was neither firebombed nor nuked, but rather bombed in a different way. On the face of it, then, it would appear switching occurred when receiving the responses (that is, inverted answers were received).
Q. Was Hitler developing the atom bomb?
Yes.
How far this got is questionable. Bruce Robinson, in his research for Fat Man and Little Boy, had it that “By January 1943, they knew the Germans weren’t building an atomic bomb”. I read one piece – which I can’t locate offhand – that suggested Adolf nixed development because its potential was unconscionable. And then there were the other reasons for “needing” it…
Q. Was the Cuban Missile Crisis real?
Yes.
It was not a psyop. The threat of nuclear escalation was real during the 1962 crisis.
However, whether this would actually have been allowed to ignite is less clear…
Mark Richards’ account is that Greys were involved and had to be stopped, rather than being about Russian missiles (but also that 3 nukes went off into space in relation to the incident…)
Q. Was the threat of nuclear war between the US and the USSR real during the Cold War?
Yes.
The threat was real. However, it appears it was “controlled” at the highest level.
As intimated in the introduction, my impression is that this level of control was neither as direct nor unqualified as one might assume when entertaining the prospect of a globe-spanning Elite simply calling the shots. That is, there are the factions thereof, ones not necessarily on the same or even similar pages – Ben Fulford has always been keen on documenting such groups, sometimes contradictorily – and then there are those off-world forces, who may have an influence or purview over nations (and again, there are those who may be at philosophical loggerheads). In this instance, I was specifically thinking of the Draco – and by extension Anunnaki and then Khazarians – and whether they would allow such an apocalyptic conflagration (given their purview at the time appears to have been over the USSR, I would assume the positive ET races influencing the US wouldn’t either. But that doesn’t necessarily account for other allegiances of, and influences over, those “in power” in either country).
Q. Was the Cold War conflict real on the highest level?
Yes.
The Cold War was real. However, it was also puppeteered (my suggested word, which was confirmed, although it may not be the most appropriate of all possibilities). Presumably puppeteering does not necessarily require control of both opposing puppets, merely having an ultimate call on the elements in play between them.
Q. Is nuclear energy real?
No.
But see the next question.
With regard to the “nuke lie” position, there are various theories about what nuclear energy “actually” is. These include plants not really doing anything much, and the steam being used for weather modification. Probably the most popular is the “dumpload” hypothesis (they are effectively giant electric kettles that waste energy by heating and boiling water, bleeding off excess power from the grid).
Oft cited is Galen Windsor, some taking away the idea that “He stated nuclear fission is a hoax” (he didn’t) “and that radioactivity is not harmful” (he did pretty much say that, yeah). Windsor was quite possibly a disinfo agent himself, but he had some interesting notions, even besides being partial to consuming plutonium (that “waste” could be converted to safe power; that its essential cheapness meant strict controls were maintained over it; that organised crime used low-level waste as a means to get rid of evidence).
Q. Was nuclear energy real?
Yes.
As with nuclear weapons, it would appear nuclear plants are no longer active. Or at any rate, they are no longer producing energy from nuclear reactions.
This might be a reason Elon Musk Mk II is such an advocate for nuclear energy. Of course, everything with Elon II is some kind of play.
Q. Did nuclear plants produce hazardous waste?
Yes.
This would suggest that, whatever areas Windsor was telling the truth about, the waste side wasn’t one of them. Whether the waste is as potent as officially described (up to, in the case of plutonium, a half-life of tens of thousands of years etc) or indeed there is still any active waste, I’ll have to look into.
Q. Was the Chernobyl disaster real?
No.
It was a psyop.
Further consideration is also required here. Was it about promulgating fear? Impinging on the nuclear programme?
Q. Was the Fukushima disaster real?
Yes.
It wasn’t a psyop.
I recall Ben Fulford at the time suggesting it had been hit by a nuclear missile (with some HAARP scene-setting thrown in) and was about extorting money. And also that there weren’t the expected levels of radiation released.
Q. Was Three Mile Island real?
No.
Three Mile Island was a psyop.
Galen Windsor had that one called and said he worked with those at General Electric who wrote the script for The China Syndrome (as predictive programming). He had it pegged as an insurance scam.
Q. Are nuclear submarines actually powered by nuclear material?
Yes.
I’m not sure if that should be an “are” or “were”…
Per Galen (again), US subs are power through thermionic conversion (in his account, the means by which “waste” can be turned into a safe power source).
Q. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki blown up because of a huge Reptoid base underneath those cities?
Yes.
We’re back in Captain Mark Richards territory for this, and the largely untold ET story of WWII. If we take the above as true, then however much Chris Nolan’s Oppenheimer may be telling the truth about nukes, I don’t believe it will be covering that part.
Q. Were Bikini Atoll and other nuclear tests against other-world intelligences?
Yes.
Mark Richards described there being 4 ET species in the area.
Q. Was there a huge system of portals in Nevada?
Yes.
Again, the tests there were based on ET issues. It seems that, at that time, the only way to close a portal was to nuke it.
Q. Is Christopher Nolan a White Hat?
Yes.
This was re-asked (originally answer received in November 2022) to ensure understanding of the nature of the Oppenheimer film was correct.
Q. Is the original Christopher Nolan still alive?
Yes.
Nolan is a White Hat and has always been a White Hat (“original” is asked to distinguish from a clone).
Q. Is Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer film a White Hat production?
Yes.
Q. Does Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer film tell the truth about nuclear weapons?
Yes.
This is the other answer that inspired much confusion – based on the answer to the first question in this Q & A – with subsequent clarifications requested over the months after it was asked (in December last year). One question that received the affirmative – “Is the Oppenheimer film to reveal that nuclear bombs aren’t real?” – seemed to seal the deal in May, yet in retrospect, it has the same problem of tenses confusing the answer as the first question in the Q & A (while they were real in the period the film is set, the question places nuclear weapons in the present tense).
Other questions pursuing the line assumed from the initial answer elicited confirmation that the truth about nukes in the film was not presented subjectively (it seems much of the proceedings are told from Oppenheimer’s point of view) and that audiences will come away believing nuclear weapons are real. It was the latter that motivated further inquiry, with regard to previous answers and assumptions made.
Q. Did those of Maldek destroy their environment with nuclear weapons?
No.
This is from the Law of One material. Those of Maldek are our Big Foots, but per Ra (“I am Ra”), they destroyed their planet through nuclear war and are working through karma in 2D form. The karma part is correct, it seems, but they are actually from a continent beyond the Ice Wall, were always Big Foots, and were brought here by the Anunnaki (via portals).
Q. Were the Deagel prognostications a psyop?
Yes.
Deagel forecast massive plunges in the populations of certain countries around the mid-2020s (with some contrastingly going up). Its stated reason? Nuclear war. Deagel received added attention when the coof hit, on the basis of a potentially legitimate forecast with only the means at variance (culling the population with the jab).
Q. Was the conspiracy theory that nuclear weapons were not real one introduced by the Deep State?
Yes.
Almost any given conspiracy theory has been suggested as a psyop at some point, from Tartaria/mudflood to Flat Earth (both of which may offer truths but not whole truths and therefore could be considered traps to snare the unwary or send them barking up the wrong tree. And in the latter case – an objection commonly cited within the hollows of the conspirasphere – bring the entire “truther” edifice into disrepute).
Nukes is a fertile one, because it’s a tech conspiracy that can easily be identified as kin to the obvious NASA fraud. There’s also a limit on in-your-face evidence of nukes in effect (not much for more than five decades, and even then). And, being very techy, or physic-y, it can withstand a lot of half-baked theorising (that is, lots of susceptible people nodding sagely because they – I include myself here – haven’t a clue about physics. Which, in any event, is “approved” physics and so not to be wholly trusted).
