re: Ballard and accusations now being brought forth....
Hmmm... Doing a bit of a dive on this. Lots of fodder there for speculation. However....
You can often ascertain the direction that certain information and messages are coming from by deconstructing the techniques and methods they use to impress, direct and /or manipulate (aka psyop) the audience's response.
So, for me, rather than digging on all the accusations and claims, my first port of call is to look at what is being said, by who, and in what manner.
Sometimes you can just get a sense of the spirit behind things. (If I was unable to do that, i would never have listened to Q or pursued Q in the first place.)
Is it a mean spirit? is it intended to be divisive, to inspire mistrust as opposed to trust? When it inspires trust, is intended to inspire trust that is reactive and emotional, rather than trust through discernment and independence rather than by appealing to authority?
Yes, there are things that can be questioned.
However, a few things I find encouraging, because they are great targets for deconstruction of (psyop) effectiveness:
WHO
Lin Wood and such ilk are heavily attacking Ballard and Caviezel, and Gibson. (apart from anyone or everyone associated with MAGA and Q, etc). I find that encouraging because if Lin wood is attacking it, that's pretty much like CNN attacking it in my book.
HOW
A LOT of people are attacking Ballard, etc. Some of the questioning is valid, but they ALSO rely heavily on set prejudices, association, etc., that trigger (in certain people's minds) reactive and negative responses. Religious prejudice, guilt by association, innuendo, etc.
WHAT
That's another point in the favor of Ballard etc, because the psyop technique of attacking in order to cast doubt by triggering 'bogeymen' and prejudices is well established and by now, hacky.
I found another "investigative" Mormon Stories piece 'raising concerns' about Ballard, OUR, etc, which in the same breath as certain concerns, also cites
"using false statistic to over-state the prevalence of sex trafficking worldwide to lure donors"
"using excessive emotion and religion manipulation to lure donors by claims to be called by God and being protected by God..."
"Drawing money away from legitimate charities who are meaningfully providing solutions...."
Plus the kicker:
"Associating with and taking advantage of known false conspiracy theories like QAnon."
All those things tell me something about where the 'investigator' is coming from.
aka
'false statistics' = Child sex trafficking is not really that big a problem; "Claims to be called by God" = "how dare you say that God has called you to this work?!?!?!"; "legitimate charities" = red cross, oxfam, and all the establishment charities under Cabal control; "False conspiracy theories like qanon" = self-explanatory
This is just s small sample. Only a few data points in a big lake, but for my purposes, they are enough to quickly lead me personally to conclusions about what is going on here. (Maybe my training with Q for 5 years has paid off?)
I don't wish to spend much time on this, but at this juncture, it seems clear to me that the disinfo machine and agents (aka the infiltrators on 'our side' whose mission is to sow discord, confusion, blackpills and division) have been activated to attack Ballard, Caviezel, Sound of Freedom, and Mel.
I see the same spirit that attacks Trump (when they can) because he's evil, he's one of the 'elite', he had a photo with Epstein, he's deep state mobilized to keep us all asleep, etc.
Sound of Freedom is a massive red pill for the wider public. Unless of course we have more than 50 million anons in the USA (I guess that's possible, but where are they all?). As such, the DS Cabal will pull out ALL the stops to cast doubt, dismay, discord, distrust, etc.
It will mobilize the 'LEFT' aka the neo marxist propaganda arm of the media world. It will mobilize the 'RIGHT' aka the infiltrators and disinfo agents and provocateurs within the Q movement and the Great Awakening sphere. All attacking the same thing.
If that isn't a tell, I don't know what is.
PS. I'm not posting links etc here. If you spend even a short time digging on Ballard, OUR, i.e. "timothy blain ballard" or Carlos Slim Ballard, etc iv afreespoke or google you'll find the muck. And, it's mucky. So if you want to dive in, do so. What I'm reporting here is simply my own findings and my own conclusions.
One anon's opinion. Research for yourself. But be prepared for the muck, and ask yourself "what is the spirit active here?" The masters of deceit are masters for a reason. Learn to identify their tactics and their ... vibe. What feelings do they inspire?
A couple of comments while I'm still very cool and detached regarding Ballard...
Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a weak point. Maybe it takes an accomplished huckster to recognize a competing huckster when their "attention" space overlaps?
Substitute the words "nomenclature" for "manipulation" and "encourage" for "lure" and this is factually the case as far as I've seen. It's a common thread among a lot of personalities and orgs that have tie-ins to the topics of concern for the anon communities. Even the ones that go out of their way to claim no affinity to the anon communities.
One can take with that as one chooses. For myself and past experience, I will make this point: the moment an individual or org makes a direct, overt connection between their work and God's work in some special way, in context of putting out content that includes requests for financial assistance for them to continue, when the target audience is known to share convictions about both God and the purpose of the individual or organization's cause.... well, I turn around and go the other direction. I give no benefit of the doubt because that is the easiest way to fleece people, period. Does that mean Ballard and Caviezel are specifially doing that? Not necessarily, but its a bad look at least to anyone who pays attention to movements at this level.
Just set emotion aside and be wary, folks. Keep digging and don't be satisfied with someone else's "research" and conclusions if something doesn't sit right with you.
I definitely understand what you're saying here. However, I'd point out the the reason Tim B did what he ultimately did was because of his, and his wife's particularly, religious convictions. I don't think you can tell this story without mentioning God, and God's children. That was almost the point of the movie.
Did you see it?
No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.
Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.
Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:
fraud
unethical levels of control of their members
hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership
financial corruption
violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)
large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups
delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority
Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? Has Ballard or Caviezel gone on record to criticize their own institutions for the above criminal and unethical practices? If not, how do we assess their genuine ability to experience and interpret reality and experiences, to investigate, to question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, to not be vulnerable to pressure from higher up authorities, to do and speak what is right and true despite consequences, to not package a message to garner publicity and protect others, etc.
I definitely see the harm that has been perpetrated through religions (religion being organized/controlled spiritual beliefs).
However, in this case it would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say because the actor is a Catholic or Tim is Mormon that this film should be discredited.
I could tell from your post that you had not seen the movie. If you had seen it you would probably have posted a way different opinion. Just saying.
I don't think you can have a good read on the movie or what it's about, then, to be completely honest. I see your point about religious institutions and motives, but I suspect you're being overly cynical. I am no fan of churches or institutions. Religious talk CAN put me off, depending on the context. I am cutting Jim and Tim some slack in this regard, considering the subject matter, and considering that I believe them to be genuine in their faith.
Let's put it this way. It was suspicious/odd to me that Jim Caviezel in particular went full Q anon mode before the release of the film, yes. But I am convinced there is a reason for that. He is clearly effected from what he's seen and looked into in the time since filming. I think it's a genuine thing, and I also think it's part of the marketing strategy, along with everything else. If you look honestly at this movie, everything behind it, connected to it and involved in it's release are deliberate, strategic choices. It is no coincidence, nor is it coincidence what follows. This is the big awakening moment for the masses and I think you should be slightly less critical of the personal faith of some of the individuals involved, in this instance. Do yourself a favour and WATCH the film
Fair, constructive insights.
Agreed.
Agreed. It's a weak point. What I really offer in the post is by no means conclusive. However, personally, my view is that Woods is not just a huckster but a serious DS asset, so in combination with a number of other factors, I find this element 'encouraging' in terms of a pro-Ballard view. That's all.
I cannot speak to the claim, as I haven't investigated Ballard's actual 'donation soliciting behavior'. I agree with you that the combination of solicitation for financial (or other) support with religious or spiritual claims are an area fraught with exploitability.
On the other hand, if the man and organization have a genuine belief and faith that God called him and is protecting him, what then should he do?
Your stated choice to "turn around and go in the other direction", giving no benefit of the doubt is a personal choice (well stated), but I'm inclined to think that [it's (sic) a bad look] only to people with your particular angle of skepticism and choice. I don't know that it is a bad look in all cases. Then again, as I said, I haven't review Ballards soliciting methods or rhetoric, so that's really simply opinion on my part.
All in all, you make good arguments for your chosen view on the topics.