Theory On Meaning Of "Iron Eagle" In Q Posts
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (67)
sorted by:
I'm suspicious of all this, and words like, "...Remember, Hitler's rise to power was staged." "Nazi," and "Nazi Germany," were terms created by Jews, and circulated in the press to create hatred for Germany. "Nazi" is a play on words, to create a similar sentiment to "Stasi." No German EVER called themselves "Nazi."
Nothing I've read with respect to the truth about post-WWI Germany, or Hitler's rise to power, ever mentioned anything about his position being "staged." In fact, I've noted repeatedly on this messageboard that words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" are used to evoke a continued comparison and hatred for Germany. This hatred was a fabrication created by the cabal, who has controlled the press and allied governments for over a century.
I don't dispute the rest of the content, but the fact that these details I've mentioned are present makes me suspicious of the rest.
If you really want to understand comms and how much history is not what you'd think it is, then I'd start with this blog. It's a great place to begin digging, but try to keep an open mind. It can be a lot to take in and it make take several readings and doing your own research to really digest it.
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/09/03/secret-prep-for-world-wars-tut-merck-cig/
This guy might be a loon.
I get symbolism... But you can't assume a symbol means what you say it does, then base you're entire thesis on your own assumption.
So yeah, that's probably why they use symbols in the first place, I get it. But you're in a house of cards if your jumping off point is incorrect.
OK. So I followed the link, prepared to spend some time absorbing new revelations about German history I'm not aware of, and the links in the posts would have me go to The Guardian and the BBC. Really? I don't have time for this.
If garbage is used for references, then everything that follows is...
I sent it just five minutes ago. You couldn't have done more than scan through it and have just decided to call it trash without giving it more than a 2 minute look.
Not sure what you mean by links to the Guardian and the BBC. If you mean the blog posts where it got some of it's clips from, many here do that. It's providing sauce. Many here do that.
A lot have found the Decode Blog very informative and intriguing. It's a very good resource.
If you don't have time to research and dig, then there's nothing anyone can do.
I concur...this is a great place to garner better understanding of many misconceptions that exist, especially among former norimes (like myself) who've metamorphized into Q following anons.
The only thing I directly disputed was the references I posted above with respect to Hitler and Germany. I said I don't dispute the rest of the content, only that it was suspect based upon the flawed premise. I followed the link you provided, and, right at the top, are links as "reference" to known liberal propaganda media sites. My main argument was what was claimed about Hitler and Germany. If you call this "sauce," then it's propaganda to support a flawed idea.
Nothing I've ever read has even SUGGESTED what you claim about Hitler and the Third Reich. Plus, using the term, "Nazi," is also flawed. I'm willing to entertain something new that I'm not aware of, but give me a better source than what was provided. I will invest quite a bit of time in learning something new, if it is compelling. See below.
Europa: The Last Battle is a good resource to start, and cites many additional resources in its content. This was twelve hours' worth, alone. Yes, I do have time, but choose to spend it wisely.
I doubt you'd ever find stuff in the Cabal-controlled representation of history that would ever contradict their version. Saying "Nothing I ever read" doesn't mean there isn't a lot of evidence. You have to dig and look for it.
I've gone through many posts and books and other resources here. I tried to share one that gives a nice beginner's overview and you glanced at it and were like "this is garbage. I won't waste my time".
I don't think you understand the Decode Blog. The decode blog's goal is to show how the media was using comms to hide the truth in plain site. That is why they use a lot of resources from the "news". That's why you have to read through it and understand what it is about. It's learning comms like Q said. Learn the comms. If you just glance and disregard it won't make any sense.
"Yes, I do have time, but choose to spend it wisely."
Ok, but if you're already decided your current opinion is the truth and will not "waste time" on anything that disagrees with your opinion, then no one can really help you. You've already decided 100% what is the truth and will not let anyone change your mind.
That's your choice. I wish you the best of luck with it.
Again, my dispute was ONLY with what was claimed about Hitler and Germany. Despite what you say, I do have an open mind.
I know nothing about the "Decode Blog." If it is meant to expose the media, then I did not understand that. This is not my fault. You posted something WITH AN AGENDA I was unaware of, without any further explanation. Clearly, there are weaknesses with what you posted. If it was clear, I would have no problem with it. Yes, yes, yes...I'm all in favor of exposing lies from the media! If that's what your document was meant to do, then I apologize.
I have reached my current opinion after hours of study, reading, watching documentaries, etc. I think this is proof that I'm willing to entertain things that are new to me. But when someone uses sources as The Guardian and the BBC to support a position, and then provides something somewhat derived from that content meant to be "covert" and/or revelatory, that raises a red flag to me. Do you see the problem?
Peace.
You already have many flawed statements yourself.
You spoke for Germans. Are you German?
“No German ever called themself a Nazi” is extremely dishonest if you believe this. Such a broad and sweeping statement doesn’t do you any favors for looking pragmatic or open to information either - it really just makes you come off as a pompous prick.
If that’s the intent, cool.
What I am getting at is it’s not constructive and all shit like that gets you from folks you could learn from is a smirk.
I can suggest a small remedial exercise as I have never stopped doing this myself to decode / decipher intent of propaganda. Read any article and write down the individual points it’s communicating whether real or subjective or not. Bullet point the literal list of varying things it claims.
Then step back and compare those things with what you know to be true & then try to change your mind.
For example this body says Merkel embraced Soviet means of Society Management, including the Stasi, and that Nazis are entrenched. Nothing about that is false.
Hell who did they bring to help create the Department of Homeland Security? Markus Johannes Wolf. Then what did Trump do? He put another guy in named Wolf that was unrelated - just by chance?
Why did everyone in the Deep State hate this Trump Wolf so much? https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/09/15/judge-rules-alleged-israeli-spy-chad-wolf-now-dhs-head-holding-office-illegally-for-trump/
There is a lot going on. Help the community by not throwing salt. It’s really just tired.
I found it back in January.
Think THE START.
I use such resources all the time. Using a resource is not about "here is the truth," it's about "here's what this source has to say." These sources hang themselves all the time. Using the words of Guardian or BBC or whoever to show what these propaganda machines have to say about something can be the biggest redpill of them all.
In this particular case these "sources" you think he is misusing are Q posts. Q posted these links that you just dismissed out of hand.
The search for truth doesn't end at a source that says things you think are likely true, nor does it discount "propaganda" sources out of hand. An analyst analyzes.
You are welcome to say "I don't like that source". You are welcome to not engage in a conversation about a source because "its not worth your time." (By welcome I mean, it doesn't make you a bad researcher to do those actions; obviously I'm not telling you your rights.) But if you do those things, recognize what you are doing. You are not discounting their arguments in any way by dismissing them, you are simply choosing not to engage. Attempting to dismiss a source (in the context of a debate or search for truth) without addressing the specifics of the argument is an ad hominem attack, regardless of the source of the argument.
Debate happens through addressing an argument. The search for truth only happens through debate. No one source gives "the truth", at best they can give really good evidence/analysis and an honest report. It is subsequent debate and further evidence that brings us closer to the truth. The search for the truth never ends. In such an endeavor the future is always open to new evidence and the debate that arises from it.
Dude it's a website that decodes the COMMs hidden in mainstream news. Its worth looking through.
Just took a quick glance at the blog, and the first thing I see is that since the Bible mentions Egypt frequently but doesn't mention the pyramids, the pyramids must not be as old as claimed: hundreds of years old rather than thousands.
Based on that assumption, which is quite a leap (and a misguided one, I might add), the writer concludes that the King Tut discovery must have also been fabricated and was used as comms to demoralize Germany after WWI.
Does the entire blog use giant leaps of logic, or was I just unlucky to find this right when I began looking at it?
The pyramids themselves aren't central to the story of Moses vs Pharaoh. There aren't many biblical red's to any man made structures except for those that are central to humanity's story, such as the Tower of Babel, Walls of Jericho, King Solomon's Temple, etc. In fact, the Valley of Kings in Luxor aren't mentioned, yet you'd think they would be seeing as how Ramses' and Moses' father would've been buried there. It predates the pyramids, yet there's no mention of it anywhere in the Bible or Talmud.
On that basis alone, your logic is flawed.
Besides, no one truly knows how old the human race is, how far back in the timeline the Exodus really happened, and because of the faults in radio carbon dating, we likely will never know. And we certainly don't know how old these ancient megalithic structures really are.
Just because what's been presented by OP doesn't fall 100% in line with your interpretation of history, doesn't mean this post is wrong. And it doesn't mean your post is wrong, either. It means that we have to keep searching for the truth, wherever it's hiden.
Please reread what I wrote. My whole point was that the blogger's argument (pyramids aren't mentioned in the Bible therefore pyramids must not be that old) made a fantastic and unsupported leap.
The reason I can say this AGREES with what you wrote: the pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible because they play no role in the narrative being considered.
Therefore, if the blogger has such a hopeless failure of reasoning within the first 60 seconds of me reading the blog, there doesn't seem to be much reason to read the blog further as it is based on fantasy rather than reality.
Previously I’ve read the article on MK Ultra on this site. Definitely gives something to digest.
Using the Bible as a basis for all I can assume from the authors perspective, as the foundation of history and then stating everything about the pyramids is a lie is beyond any further look into that write up. Conjectural stretch made with some broad stroke paint brush logic there screams, i read wiki and watch youtube as the basis of my amazing education and opinion. Unfortunately small things like physics geological ware and erosion say otherwise and the pyramids are 100s of years old not thousands is completely ridiculous.
Agree with you on this one, thank you for pointing this out.
I am 100% agreement with you. This is nothing but another globohomo misdirect.
Nazi was short for Nationalsozialistische, or in English, national socialist. I do believe you are correct in that the Germans didn't use the term Nazi themselves.
The msm have got to be tried and e edited. Nations have been totally warped by their lies. They have to go
The most logical answer is that Iron Eagle is slang for an officer who reached rank of colonel but doesn't care to play politics to try to become a general. They are the highest rank of true military men.
Clif High says those are the white hats. Whatever your thoughts on him are. Makes more sense than Nazi imagery lol.
^ correct
Pretty sure this image is fundamentally wrong in at least one key aspect: "Antifa" was the paramilitary wing of the COMMUNIST party in Germany, not the Nazi party.
That image is from Q post 1953.
What does "Nazi" stand for in German?
the national socialists and russian communists were two piles of leftists scum that couldnt agree on who should control the world.
Yup. Interesting that the "fascists" called themselves socialists which is just another word for communist. They use all sorts of labels to act like there is a different.
Antifa = communists = fascists
Same thing.
The big difference is international vs national.
International communists/socialists were becoming very popular in Germany and the end game was to destroy German history, tradition and culture(as done in Russia). National Socialism was created as a reactionary ideology to the popularity of communism. It took pages out of the playbook of marxism but subverted them to enforce and preserve German history, tradition and culture.
Fascism is the antidote to communism. You cant combat an enemy that mobilizes the entire force of government, media, and military by being a good little libertarian and saying 'let the people choose' - the people have already been indoctrinated throughand through by massive organized power and money. You need to push back with equal force to stand the slightest chance.
communism is just a different type of sales pitch for totalitarian control. the end result is the same.
Exactly!
Iron Eagle in the military is a Colonel who won't promote any higher. That's what the rank Chris Miller was so maybe he is Iron Eagle? Likely has many meanings I'm sure.
It's a colonel who generally doesn't care to become a general as that involves playing politics.
Iron Eagle = eager lion. Double meaning. Was same time as Syria nuke plant take out. Eager lion was joint military training taking place at the same time should things get hot
Oh, that's an interesting take on it. I hadn't thought how you could rearrange the words like that. Thanks for sharing.
This was figured out almost immediately after Q started posting about Iron Eagle.
Afaik, these 'Speed' hasnt been figured out, and 'DeepDream'/Bournr hasn't unless it just references sleepers/mkultra
As I mentioned in another comment,
The most logical answer is that Iron Eagle is slang for an officer who reached rank of colonel but doesn't care to play politics to try to become a general. They are the highest rank of true military men.
Clif High says those are the white hats. Whatever your thoughts on him are. Makes more sense than Nazi imagery lol.
I haven't seen those posts and I'm sure there is many people new to Q who haven't as well. So if this has already been figured out, then a refresher won't hurt. There might be a few details that were missed the first time.
For me this is more new since I only started reading Q after January 20th. I will try to look into the Speed and Deep Dream stuff. I am curious about it if hasn't been solved.
Your totally correct. It IS good for new eyes. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Sorry
Np! Now I know to dig on the Speed stuff and Bourne. Thank you!
Np
There's quite a few movie references.
Snow white,godfather3, etc
Oh. Nice. This brings up a rough theory iv been thinking on.
It's well know the antifa party and the fascist party of germany were enemies. There are notable executions and attacks from both sides.
However. I believe in the spirit of divide and rule, the fascist party and the antifa party, Commie Russia and Nazi Germany, were two sides of the same coin. Britain was certainly weponizing both sides. No matter who won or who lost, the NWO would have come out ahead.
You never lose when you fund both sides of a war.
You can use the divisive tension to destabalize any nation.
We all know they treated the Nazis with a delecate hand after the war. Project paperclip. The numburg trials were for show, a lot of middle men got the rope.
I dont think antifa and fascist partys were aware they were being puppeted by the same people.
The Jew masses were expendable, just like the slavs, just like the loyalist germans (after war) Just like black people and antifa today.
The fascist party and the antifa party had the same goals. They both wanted to take out the German government. They used the same tactics. They were a lot alike in many ways. To the point theyd even work together at times.
Happens all the time now with color revolutions. Look at how feds try to start right wing movments like they do antifa. (Too bad our sides not dumb enough to bite.)
If they can take out an established government with a civilian movment [they] win.
Military is the only way to do it safely.
I like this take. It sort of takes the wind out of the sails of the "Q is a psyop meant to keep us from fighting" argument of everyone who has given up. Well, yeah...Just like in War Games, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
This is wrong, the original Antifa were communists and were avowed enemies fighting the NatSocs in the streets before Hitler and the party took complete power in 1933.
Perhaps there is something in the movie too.
But you’re completely ignoring the context of the Q posts and the other Q posts about Merkel and her involvement in the East German Stasi etc
WWG1WGA
What you have put together is impressive. It might be getting close to answering some of the things on 10 March 2018, where Q says the N in NWO does not stand for New or Nazi. Think sub group.
https://qposts.online/?q=936&s=postnum
https://qposts.online/?q=938&s=postnum
As for the Iron Eagle reference, it always seemed the movie references were metaphors. Something from their plot was relevant to the post. And Iron Eagle is mentioned in sequence with other movies. But of course double meanings exist. And we have more than we know.
Over the target 🎯 👆🏼
Zionism is the most evil thing to happen to planet earth.
It's simpler than that.
What do these "Q signatures" have in common?
Alice & Wonderland
Snow White
Godfather lll
Speed
Titanic
Jason Bourne
The Hunt for Red October
The Sum of All Fears
I’d like to contribute here but only have a few minutes right now and want to put some thoughts out that may be meaningful and be able to be built on by others:
-Symbolism and coding / decoding are key. Some might say a keystone. Symbolism will be their downfall. Nothing is as it seems. Lies are everyone. All truth can’t be revealed as very few could handle it vs losing their mind.
-With that said, some can not handle much of it at all. Most people aren’t ready to decode the symbols and lies. The blog mentioned is excellent and yet many will find it otherwise due to these reasons. Fake history, fake science, fake human understandings. Very hard to unravel, for each of us - and impossible for some.
-As another poster highlighted, Q signatures are movies and/ or books. Iron Eagle is a 1986 movie. George Clinton has a song in the move / soundtrack. Reagan was president in 86, George, Clinton. (If you aren’t ready to look into decoding and media symbols and comms, ignore that last comment as it’s a worthless one for you.)
-Clinton’s SS handle that he chose was Eagle.
-Merkel referred to as Iron Chancellor and what that meant - see note on graphic on post.
-Q also refers to NWO as the Nazi World Order.
-Iron Eagle also refers to a terminal Colonel as others have noted. Chris Miller is an Iron Eagle by that definition and clearly key to Q and this whole narrative. Is he part of the reference to Iron Eagle? I’d venture to say the movie absolutely is, so then who is Chris “in the movie” or how does knowledge of both enhance overall understanding?
-The movie which I haven’t watched is almost certainly stupid. Building movies around “hidden” comms does not always make for good movies - but the comms are what matter. Keep that in mind if you watch it. It will not be a documentary that tells you anything explicitly.
-The basis of the story relates to real life attacks by the United States against Libya over the Gulf of Sidra, in particular the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident.
-Doug Masters, son of veteran U.S. Air Force pilot Col. Ted Masters, is a hotshot civilian pilot, hoping to follow in his father's footsteps. His hopes are dashed when he receives a notice of rejection from the Air Force Academy. Making matters worse is the news that his father has been shot down and captured by the fictional Arab state of Bilya while patrolling over the Mediterranean Sea.
-Seeing that the U.S. government will do nothing to save his father's life, Doug decides to take matters into his own hands and come up with his own rescue mission. He requests the help of Col. Charles "Chappy" Sinclair, a Vietnam veteran pilot currently in the Air Force Reserve, who, while not knowing Col. Masters personally, had a favorable run-in with him years prior to meeting Doug and "knew the type."
-Chappy sounds like an Iron Eagle and also going against the official CoC in this fictitious rescue mission
-(After rescuing the father), The two are summoned by an Air Force judiciary panel for their reckless actions. Seeing that any form of punishment for the duo would expose an embarrassing lapse in Air Force security, the panel forgoes prosecution as long as Doug and Chappy never speak of their operation to anyone. In addition, Chappy convinces the panel to grant Doug admission to the Air Force Academy. Days later, a plane assigned by the President returns to the U.S., reuniting Doug, Chappy, and Col. Masters with family and friends.
Not to detract from this work at all I think it is a good translation or understanding of the original text. Maybe an addition, and something I always found interesting. Nazi Germany was known as the third reich, or maybe the third incarnation of the Roman empire, the french today talk about their government, or maybe the European government in general as the the fourth republic, or perhaps the fourth incarnation of the roman empire. It is interesting to me because the Bible speaks of the fifth kingdom that is to come in the time of the antichrist. Just a thought, maybe could spark some conversation. Thanks fren for your work and sharing your thoughts.
Denver airport hotel looks similar to the iron eagle https://www.gensler.com/projects/denver-international-airport
An iron eagle can't fly.
Underground warfare?
Every war is a rich man's deception.
Can’t even read it