If you’re interested in the Weiner Laptop, this is a thread you want to read.
It’s not mine, but taken from Finch - if you don’t know who that is, just understand that he’s the kind of guy you listen to, especially on things like this.
9. *note - for those of us following “dog comms,” remember that @SecretService tweeted a pic of a Belgian Malinois with a collar that had “Prince” on it just a few weeks ago.
Given the connections between Western intel & NeoNazis in Europe & the FBI's funding/use of them here at home, the presence of both in Ukraine, and the thing behind the latest Trump attempt bringing up many questions, I'm opening up this post & podcast for all before initially planned.
Links to both will be in the comments.
Topics covered in this post
-Introduction (the dark side of the Olympics ceremony)
-Satanism vs Luciferianism vs Thelema
-Left-hand path groups
-Accelerationists, Order of Nine Angles, Temple ov Blood
--The start; Gladio, Combat 18, Column 88, intel blowback or useful domestic violence
-Thule -> Nazis -> the Banderites -> Ukraine’s Azov battalion
-Fin
Let's play a game: Frauds, grifters, clout chasers, and liars in the January 6 reporters, researchers, media, and narrative
Part 4: Bad faith actors as journalists & witnesses held up by the J6 committee & media as arbiters of truth
I'm pretty sure we all remember the staffer who was held up as an arbiter of truth by the J6 committee despite her "testimony" alleging that Trump violated simple laws of physics (humans can't pass through solid matter, i.e. internal limo barrier walls).
She was allowed to change her testimony to the J6 committee multiple times afterward, but the committee and media narratives had already done what they were designed to do.
How many were held up as good-faith actors by the committee and media when every indication showed that they shouldn't have been - and when the media even knew it in some cases?
Did the media ever purposely choose not to report certain factors about those "witnesses" to present them in a less-than-truthful light?
Did the media present laughable at the time and fully debunked hoaxes now to attack innocent people?
Let's go through some examples where I have first-hand experience with people, journalists, and witnesses who were held up as good-faith-actors but should not have been...
If you've spent any time over on BlueAnon X - which I, unfortunately, have had to do a lot over the past few years - you may find quite a few of the same names popping up all over the threads of those who drive their narratives, especially pertaining to January 6th.
Some of those names, interestingly enough, were known as "conservative" researchers just a few years ago, but suddenly changed their game and became cause celebs in the progressive media and Blue Anon shortly after J6.
Weird, huh?
Another one who you may find is a self-style journalist who I first came into contact with in a private chat group many months before J6.
We will get into my experience with this individual, how I first came into contact with him, and how he has tried to misconstrue that meeting (and my outting him as something other than what he was claiming) below.
But first, here's a recent FOIA release of an investigation into some (provably false) claims he and another made about another Green Beret they were attempting to smear:
Now that people are finally realizing what BLM is/supports, something needs to be abundantly clear:
-they had destruction of the nuclear family as a stated goal on their website
-Colours stated plainly in interviews they're Marxists...
-other interviews admitted their "chants" are actually spellcasting
-and of course, public interviews stated their desire to decolonize Israel years ago
BLM never lied about who they were. They stated it quite plainly...
The western media, however, just like for Joe Biden's campaign, elevated absolute dirtbags.
The question should be asked: why does the media spend so many calories gaslighting the public to put strength behind absolute scumbags?
When bad things happen in the world or things get especially crazy, I'll often be asked by people IRL who know my background for my take on what's going on.
It's very easy to get bogged down in the micro and confuse normies who don't pay alot of attention...
Many (but not all) like me see all of the chaos around us at present as campaigns in a larger strategy (one that has been waged for a very, very long time IMO), and so it can easily get confusing to others when you try to break it down...
.@ConceptualJames is an excellent resource in this war for those who are high or mid-level information people, but his level of detail can frequently turn others off.
Still others don't truly "get" what we're up against and/or don't want to admit it to themselves...
Equilibrium, a centrist nation, and the progressives' astroturfing dilemna:
I harp on the need for equilibrium often, because it is as strong of a natural law as any - and I believe it's behind much of the strife and anger that we see today...
It also is an enormous problem for the progs.
Let me explain my thinking here.
Everything in the natural world demands equilibrium - from cellular structure to society and politics. If this get too far out of balance, there will be a forced rebalancing...
Your skin gets wrinkles in water because of your cells seeking osmosis with the water you're in. Forest fires happen when clearing has been put off. And societies will force change when the political balance gets out of whack...