Theory On Meaning Of "Iron Eagle" In Q Posts
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (67)
sorted by:
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.