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:
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 am. He is correct. But you don't have to be German to study history, as you obviously havent. It's widely known that "Nazi" was a perjorative used by the media and Allied powers. So no, no actual member of the NATSOC party used that term for themselves - just like no imperial Japanese called themselves "jap". I suppose you wont be convinced though until you can get an actual Japanese to confirm.
I'm not "throwing salt." That's an unfair comment, as is your profane assessment of me. I made no such attacks on you personally. The fact that you stooped to this level does nothing to enhance and/or support your arguments. You became offended by what I originally wrote because you devoted a lot of time to your project, and then took my words personally. That caused our exchange to decay into something else than what my original words were intended.
The only reason Germans MAY use the term, "Nazi," is because the cabal-controlled courts declared them criminals, and to this day, revisionists are thrown in jail for speaking the truth. Continuing this lie against Germany is meant to keep them under control, and to hate their heritage. Germans are taught to hate their country through curriculum they are taught in their schools. They have been totally demoralized, and this is very sad. Let me clarify what I meant about Germans not using the term. From the period of pre-WWII through 1945, no German used the term, "Nazi," to refer to themselves.
This messageboard is NOT ONLY about sharing anything and everything conservative and/or controversial, it's also about seeing through what is incorrect, and pointing that out. This is sometimes accomplished through debate. I chose to correct something I see repeated over and over and over on this board, which serves the cabal's interests. The ugly claims against Germany and/or Hitler, repeated ad nauseum, are nothing but propaganda perpetrated and perpetuated by those in control of the media, history books, and Hollywood...for decades. It's time for the world to truly understand the FACTS about WWII and the Third Reich. The reason? It has extreme relevance to what is occurring today, as I'm sure you realize.
I'm totally on board with your claims about Merkel. Some of the things I've read claiming she's Hitler's daughter, etc., are pretty thin, though, as far as I'm concerned. I'm suspicious of these claims, because they are meant to demonize her through association with Hitler -- because he has been demonized unjustly. Who knows...maybe it's true. Certainly what she did opening Germany's borders to the hordes serves the cabal and not her country.
The link you just provided is getting right to the truth of the matter. Yes! THIS is what we need to be focusing our energy upon! If the goal is to be a harbinger of the truth, then all of what we present must be in support of that. Repeating old tropes accomplishes nothing productive, and, in fact, helps the enemy persist.
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.