Lisa Mei Crowley on Truth Social - responding to the blackpillers about Gen Flynn's latest statements....
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
um, okay?
By the way, what are you doing? Do you have a video channel where we can go to hear about all this? Where is your newsletter mobilizing people to work on these issues you think are more important than anything else?
Have you considered at all what Flynn IS doing, instead of being obsessed or hyper-focused on what he is NOT doing?
Then, have you considered comparing yourself to Flynn and asking, if others applied the same standard and attitude I have towards Flynn but towards me, how many people would consider me 'suspicious'? How many people would trust me?
As it is, I'm a LOT more inspired by Flynn and what he is doing than I am by your - what seems to be really quite petty or narrow or arrogant - attitude on display here.
What clinched it for me with Flynn was when he clearly came out and stood behind something that I discovered for myself in a process of a number of years working in my country: That self-governance requires, demands, engagement by the population, and that simply voting is not enough. That ALL the fundamental government-related problems in our Western nations are derived from the key fact that people are NOT being engaged and doing the hard yards in order to run THEIR governments, not just to keep them accountable, but to ensure taht they function properly. By being engaged. By saying "I'll be responsible for this".
I have found no one else yet who has emphasized this point to the same extent that Flynn has, which to me, as I said, was something that I came to grasp via a number of years tackling issues in my country. Until I bumped into Flynn, I found no one who expressed this, what is to me, the most essential and critical point in our societies today, vis-a-vis government.
Aside from this point, everything else, everything, is just fluff. Distraction.
Your focus on hyper-emotionalized data points, like spirit cooking, like other things you've mentioned, says to me that you are not really aware of what's driving you here, and why you are so emotionally attached to these things. A negative attachment, yes, but it's still clearly there.
You seem upset because Flynn isn't validating your own attachment to these things. Maybe he's just a whole lot more focused on actually ending the causes of these things than you are.
So, like I said, where is YOUR video channel? Where is your telegram channel? Your facebook page and your tens of thousands of followers? Where are the organizations that you've established and created and the service done to your country to end the crimes and the cabal?
What are you actually doing to bring about an end to these things? The causes? And why do you think you're so much better than Flynn, such that you feel justified in being suspicious, criticizing or judging his work based on your own .... what, standard?
Maybe, just maybe, judging Flynn, being suspicious of him, critical of him because he's not reaching your perfect standards (standards you are setting up and then criticising him because he fails them), maybe that's really just coverage for the inadequacies you feel because you are not doing more, and are not doing anything at all near the level that Flynn is doing things at.
You seem to have such a very negative focus, although its true that text messages on a internet board probably don't really light up the whole picture, so maybe my impressions are just .... impressions. I guess you can consider this feedback. If nothing I've written resonates or makes you think, then I guess just put it aside.
Well, I've shot my mouth off, I guess. But that's what your responses make me think about. But then, I guess, I believe in Flynn. You don't. Your choice. We all make our choices and then have to live with the consequences, right?
Thanks for sharing.
I don’t trust his duplicaty. It’s interesting that this board has people that are treated like sacred cows and cannot be criticized but yeah other people who are demonized on this board. For example, General Flynn & Ron DeSantis are treated like sacred cows. Lin wood is treated like a Lepper.
And then o Lin has gone so far as to say that he believes he Q is real; Flynn has gone so far as to say that Q is a psyop. That’s a pretty HUUUGE if you ask me. You. Purekiss, are dedicating your life to this board. How does it feel that have General Flynn profit from the Q movement in public but disavow it in private?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michael-flynn-lin-wood-qanon-disinformation-campaign-1263735/amp/
I share Lin Woods intellectual curiousity. Why does the General have two opinions? Is he a Freemason? These things matter but no one is in a position to question him directly; I think People ought to have the room in their mind to question him. Don’t you agree?
If this is the guy you want to go down defending… have at it. It’s your life.
You're assuming way too much. Did I ever say don't question him? I'm saying, I have come to different conclusions from the questioning, and I'm (personally) suspicious of your ... thinking. (by which I mean, I think your thinking is NOT something I'd promote to others.... )
We just spent a lot of time discussing this topic. So how on earth is it s sacred cow?
I mean, that sort of logical leap is another thing. Disagreement does NOT equal censorship. Criticize Flynn or whoever all you like. But don't make the leap that if someone disagrees with your conclusions, and questions your approach, that somehow this is censorship (aka 'cannot be criticized'). It's not. It's disagreement.
Imo, Lin Woods is treated here like a leper (actually, he's not. He's treated like a scumbag disinfo shyster, but that's another story) because enough people have draw that conclusion looking at the information. You're free to disagree, but don't get out of joint if people don't agree with your disagreement, right?
FWIW, I also disagree with your characterization of this board, for what its worth. Hey, at least we've learned a lot about what we disagree on.....! Maybe we'll find something we agree on in the future? I hope so.
No, of course I agree. Sure, no problem with you questioning him, or his actions. But just as you question Flynn, you have drawn your suspicions about Flynn, I'm also drawing ... thoughts .... about your direction here. I disagree. Simple as that.
By which, I don't mean to imply you are acting in bad faith. I definitely don't think you are acting in bad faith. But, your particular line of reasoning and thinking don't resonate with me at all. So, I've offered you feedback. Take what you want, and discard the rest. If it resonates, then use it. If not, just discard.
What a silly statement. I'm not 'going down' anywhere. Am I defending Flynn? Not really. I think I'm defending my position on Flynn. I'm questioning YOUR reasoning.
Sigh. It's sad this discussion has descended into this. I think we'd best leave it here. We've discussed, and share our views to some extent. We've found disagreements. So what? They are allowed.
If anything I wrote seemed disrespectful or vindictive, then please put it aside. I'm pretty sure we both want to see the other get to a better place, in terms of understanding and action.
Let me wrap up on a positive note. I like the way you articulated this point:
I mean, I think its good and healthy to ask questions, although to my mind, you make way too many assumptions or clearly have drawn very different conclusions about a LOT of things.
Example, I would never really consider the Guardian or the Rolling Stones magazine as any sort of reliable reference when they attack someone in the Q movement.
Anyway, best of luck with it all. Thanks for sharing your views. We disagree on a lot, but who knows, maybe our views will change or evolve over time?
Be blessed.
I was in the military when Obama purged Senior Officers across the military. You really think Obama overlooked Flynn? You think Obama was stupid enough to put Flynn as the head of DNI because Flynn was a patriot? 1-800- c’mon now. Give these Satanists a lil more credit. I do believe Flynn is a Freemason & not to be trusted.
I personally think your bias towards Lin wood is showing & I trust Lin more than Freemason Flynn. I know, I know, I know… I risk being banned if I disagree with you. I think I’ve planted enough seeds. Best of luck, kiss.
Wait. Um, I'm not purkiss. Did you think I was?
Also, am I biased towards Lin Woods. Absolutely, I think the guy is a ...scumbag, DS shyster.
Also, I really don't think you have any chance of being banned for being a Lin Woods fan. That isn't in the rules to the side. Don't get over melodramatic....
Anyway, thanks for the best of luck. Likewise.