I remember that evening, when he was livestreaming his conversation with the feds on the phone on his way home. And the comments by his sister. And I looked into his visits to various events before 1/6.
My impression was that he was a kind of a friendly happy guy. Nothing like Antifa or any of the normal malcontents who hate us. I also thought he was very intelligent and articulate.
In the end, I decided he was an operator. He had a specific mission and that was to become the face of the event for the press to focus on. At the same time he was cheerful and non-violent.
He also is having to do real prison time while Ray Epps hasn't had any consequences whatsoever. This despite video of Epps directing the people to attack the capital and all sorts of sketchy stuff.
If Chansley is a bad guy, why are they prosecuting him, and not Ray Epps?
But we don't have to agree. I understand why people think Chansley was a plant to make us look like wackos.
Just going off my own intiuition and observations of that event, it all seemed way to staged. I agree he is an operator, which side is anyone's guess.
I tend to follow three rules when dealing with any information or scenario:
Pay attention to your surroundings (observe)
Trust no one. Period. This does not apply to faith.
Question everything.
To answer your question of why prosecute him and not Epps, the answer is simple. Optics. I believe shammy's role was to always be in the camera. Both during and post J6.
Which leads me to your last sentence. Yes, I believe his role is to paint a broad picture of anons for the normie MSM zombies.
If Chansley's role was to paint anons as violent extremists, wouldn't he have at least had verbal confrontations with the capitol police and encouraged people to misbehave like Ray Epps did?
Chansley instead just appeared to be an amiable goofball.
I never said his role was to paint us as violent. The propaganda machine already does that.
His role (assuming) was to make us look absolutely crazy and to rabble rouse while at the J6 event.
Just because he didn't do a Braveheart Freeeeeedom! scream and storm the bldg does not mean he did not lead gullible folks and unknown bad actors inside. He was to be used as a figure head, both during and after J6 because as anons, we have no face to our movement. The enemy needed an identity to attach for the cameras.
Well, we can agree to disagree on this. I think Chansley is a good guy operator and he did his job well. You think he was a bad guy operator and did his job well.
Yes, people have different ideas about Chansley.
I remember that evening, when he was livestreaming his conversation with the feds on the phone on his way home. And the comments by his sister. And I looked into his visits to various events before 1/6.
My impression was that he was a kind of a friendly happy guy. Nothing like Antifa or any of the normal malcontents who hate us. I also thought he was very intelligent and articulate.
In the end, I decided he was an operator. He had a specific mission and that was to become the face of the event for the press to focus on. At the same time he was cheerful and non-violent.
He also is having to do real prison time while Ray Epps hasn't had any consequences whatsoever. This despite video of Epps directing the people to attack the capital and all sorts of sketchy stuff.
If Chansley is a bad guy, why are they prosecuting him, and not Ray Epps?
But we don't have to agree. I understand why people think Chansley was a plant to make us look like wackos.
Agreed to agree but disagree.
Just going off my own intiuition and observations of that event, it all seemed way to staged. I agree he is an operator, which side is anyone's guess.
I tend to follow three rules when dealing with any information or scenario:
To answer your question of why prosecute him and not Epps, the answer is simple. Optics. I believe shammy's role was to always be in the camera. Both during and post J6.
Which leads me to your last sentence. Yes, I believe his role is to paint a broad picture of anons for the normie MSM zombies.
If Chansley's role was to paint anons as violent extremists, wouldn't he have at least had verbal confrontations with the capitol police and encouraged people to misbehave like Ray Epps did?
Chansley instead just appeared to be an amiable goofball.
I never said his role was to paint us as violent. The propaganda machine already does that.
His role (assuming) was to make us look absolutely crazy and to rabble rouse while at the J6 event.
Just because he didn't do a Braveheart Freeeeeedom! scream and storm the bldg does not mean he did not lead gullible folks and unknown bad actors inside. He was to be used as a figure head, both during and after J6 because as anons, we have no face to our movement. The enemy needed an identity to attach for the cameras.
Well, we can agree to disagree on this. I think Chansley is a good guy operator and he did his job well. You think he was a bad guy operator and did his job well.
I'm not sure we will ever know the answer.