Maybe Dave has "checked it out himself" Maybe he hasnt. Does any anon know for sure?
I do know Dave has interviewed Patel Patriot, the person who originated and popularized the Devolution Theory that's focused on Trumps possible use of Devolution so Dave has some foundational understanding of the theory.
However, checking out the Devolution Theory =/= checking out someone who's talking about the theory thats now popular in some alt media circles.
Also, interviewing someone =/= trusting someone.
Q trained anons distinguish between guessing and knowing. They also typically prefer to say "I don't have enough information right now to have an opinion" to avoid mind clutter and confusion.
Personally, when I'm interested in Devolution I turn to the originator of the Devolution Theory, Patel Patriot, because he has written 33 plus, heavily researched and primary sourced articles on the subject and has done countless interviews, including with Dave, since 2021.
For me, this topic is so densely complex it requires careful reading, follow up research and reflection that's impossible during an oral presentation.
Others may feel differently, especially those who weren't part of the chans and/or didn't go through Q training from 2017 through 2020 and that's OK with me.
what if ... instead of reading Patel or listening to Derek or X22 ... you actually read the documents? Look at the EOs. Peruse Law of War Manual. Double check the UCMJ. Rather than wait for someone to chew your food for you, actually make an effort to read legal documents for yourself and form your own opinion.
what if I prefer to read all of the documents you mentioned in articles that organize those documents in a coherent way, adds timelines that are sourced and offers questions that inspire further research rather than digging through hay stacks of raw public data looking for needles?
"Just a thought" perhaps avoid conflating those who choose not to make everything they eat from scratch with those who expect others to chew their food for them?
"Just a thought" perhaps avoid conflating people who prefer to read primary sourced "legal documents" that have been organized in a coherent way with someone who won't make the effort to read those documents, do further research and form their own opinions?
idk why dave keeps interviewing this larper
Maybe because Dave trusts him and his source of information and have checked it himself?
Maybe Dave has "checked it out himself" Maybe he hasnt. Does any anon know for sure?
I do know Dave has interviewed Patel Patriot, the person who originated and popularized the Devolution Theory that's focused on Trumps possible use of Devolution so Dave has some foundational understanding of the theory.
However, checking out the Devolution Theory =/= checking out someone who's talking about the theory thats now popular in some alt media circles.
Also, interviewing someone =/= trusting someone.
Q trained anons distinguish between guessing and knowing. They also typically prefer to say "I don't have enough information right now to have an opinion" to avoid mind clutter and confusion.
Personally, when I'm interested in Devolution I turn to the originator of the Devolution Theory, Patel Patriot, because he has written 33 plus, heavily researched and primary sourced articles on the subject and has done countless interviews, including with Dave, since 2021.
For me, this topic is so densely complex it requires careful reading, follow up research and reflection that's impossible during an oral presentation.
Others may feel differently, especially those who weren't part of the chans and/or didn't go through Q training from 2017 through 2020 and that's OK with me.
what if ... instead of reading Patel or listening to Derek or X22 ... you actually read the documents? Look at the EOs. Peruse Law of War Manual. Double check the UCMJ. Rather than wait for someone to chew your food for you, actually make an effort to read legal documents for yourself and form your own opinion.
Just a thought.
what if I prefer to read all of the documents you mentioned in articles that organize those documents in a coherent way, adds timelines that are sourced and offers questions that inspire further research rather than digging through hay stacks of raw public data looking for needles?
"Just a thought" perhaps avoid conflating those who choose not to make everything they eat from scratch with those who expect others to chew their food for them?
"Just a thought" perhaps avoid conflating people who prefer to read primary sourced "legal documents" that have been organized in a coherent way with someone who won't make the effort to read those documents, do further research and form their own opinions?