Firstly, we covered this quite a few weeks back. It's NOT new information.
Secondly, the interview took place 3 months ago. It's old information being rehashed for clicks.
I appreciate your efforts here, but in my opinion you post far too many x posts that are not vetted, not examined or researched, from multiple dodgy accounts on X like Joe Rambo. These people do NOT research. They do NOT investigate and dig and verify or do anything with the information they put out there.
It's always dodgy stuff that certainly generates lots of clicks from anons or awakened folks who themselves do NOT research but instead just forward stuff because it aligns with their bias or they have a rush on endorphins because, you know, "shared information!"
But the quality if the information seems to never be considered.
This is the original tweet. The account op linked to posted it afresh, perhaps leading to the confusion here.
You know, after recalling this from when it first dropped, and in hindsight now, I wouldn't be surprised if this unsure stance on Pompeo is beneficial to the plan. I could say the same for Bill Barr, and maybe Flynn also. The only other options would be that Tucker Carlson is a renegade gray hat, or a black hat, seeding disinfo into our movement, but Trump really seems to like the guy so I can't be too sure...
I wouldn't be surprised if this unsure stance on Pompeo is beneficial to the plan.
I think that is a possibility. It provides some narrative cover for him. In the case of Barr, certainly, (Barr's activities in media since 2021 indicate that, imo), Flynn, well, yes, Mike Flynn has been sowing the confusion himself, quite deliberately.
But in the case of Pompeo, I'm not so sure. The normie view anyway is that he is pro-Trump, with a good possibility of being in a 2nd administration. So who or what does he need narrative cover for? Hmmmm....
It might possibly be a narrative designed to implicate the CIA and highlight it, to keep it in the news, but..... the entire Kill Assange story found it's entry point with some very DS lefty mainstream propaganda artists (aka 'journalists'). Was it fed to them? Possibly. But I cannot see a "why" here, aka what is the benefit?
Either way, anons should not simply be reacting emotionally, and should look deeper, instead of responding like a bunch of normies with their heads cut off. (IMO).
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems that Tucker would simply suckup a story planted by Marxist globalist critters like the reporters that made the story, so...
I don't think Tucker is either gray or black. Most certainly not. But, he is also not infallible. My initial conclusion was that for some reason, he slipped up. Now I think that's pretty unlikely.
So perhaps a deliberate deployment is the most logical reason. The "Pompeo is evil" argument makes as much sense as "Assange is a triple-agent Globalist spy" one.
the entire Kill Assange story found it's entry point with some very DS lefty mainstream propaganda artists (aka 'journalists'). Was it fed to them? Possibly. But I cannot see a "why" here, aka what is the benefit?
Maybe it's good for optics for the CIA to take an anti Assange stance, but to avoid tarnishing Pompeo's reputation fully, they let some lefty rag be the ones to report it, which gives plenty of room for doubt while still putting the narrative out there enough to be in conversations. Hell if I know, this 5D info war stuff can get pretty insane, I'm trying not to go insane thinking through it 😂
Either way, anons should not simply be reacting emotionally, and should look deeper, instead of responding like a bunch of normies with their heads cut off. (IMO).
Yep. It took me a few years to mature past the reactive "OMG LOOK OMG" stage. Clickbait has gotten pretty sophisticated and I still get caught by some of it but have learned to not POST it as quickly as before. Just gotta work with anons and help them get to that point.
Didn't you make a post a while back about how to recognize clickbait / how to logically determine if a story is solid? I'll start dropping that in peoples comments section if you can link me to it. Or maybe you can re post / update it?
https://twstalker.com/ThrillaRilla369/status/1817185051378909370
Joy, why did you even post this?
Firstly, we covered this quite a few weeks back. It's NOT new information.
Secondly, the interview took place 3 months ago. It's old information being rehashed for clicks.
I appreciate your efforts here, but in my opinion you post far too many x posts that are not vetted, not examined or researched, from multiple dodgy accounts on X like Joe Rambo. These people do NOT research. They do NOT investigate and dig and verify or do anything with the information they put out there.
It's always dodgy stuff that certainly generates lots of clicks from anons or awakened folks who themselves do NOT research but instead just forward stuff because it aligns with their bias or they have a rush on endorphins because, you know, "shared information!"
But the quality if the information seems to never be considered.
Please reconsider your approach.
Sign, frog.
https://x.com/Red_Pill_US/status/1782216490349220301
This is the original tweet. The account op linked to posted it afresh, perhaps leading to the confusion here.
You know, after recalling this from when it first dropped, and in hindsight now, I wouldn't be surprised if this unsure stance on Pompeo is beneficial to the plan. I could say the same for Bill Barr, and maybe Flynn also. The only other options would be that Tucker Carlson is a renegade gray hat, or a black hat, seeding disinfo into our movement, but Trump really seems to like the guy so I can't be too sure...
I think that is a possibility. It provides some narrative cover for him. In the case of Barr, certainly, (Barr's activities in media since 2021 indicate that, imo), Flynn, well, yes, Mike Flynn has been sowing the confusion himself, quite deliberately.
But in the case of Pompeo, I'm not so sure. The normie view anyway is that he is pro-Trump, with a good possibility of being in a 2nd administration. So who or what does he need narrative cover for? Hmmmm....
It might possibly be a narrative designed to implicate the CIA and highlight it, to keep it in the news, but..... the entire Kill Assange story found it's entry point with some very DS lefty mainstream propaganda artists (aka 'journalists'). Was it fed to them? Possibly. But I cannot see a "why" here, aka what is the benefit?
Either way, anons should not simply be reacting emotionally, and should look deeper, instead of responding like a bunch of normies with their heads cut off. (IMO).
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems that Tucker would simply suckup a story planted by Marxist globalist critters like the reporters that made the story, so...
I don't think Tucker is either gray or black. Most certainly not. But, he is also not infallible. My initial conclusion was that for some reason, he slipped up. Now I think that's pretty unlikely.
So perhaps a deliberate deployment is the most logical reason. The "Pompeo is evil" argument makes as much sense as "Assange is a triple-agent Globalist spy" one.
(makes no sense)
thx for the res
Maybe it's good for optics for the CIA to take an anti Assange stance, but to avoid tarnishing Pompeo's reputation fully, they let some lefty rag be the ones to report it, which gives plenty of room for doubt while still putting the narrative out there enough to be in conversations. Hell if I know, this 5D info war stuff can get pretty insane, I'm trying not to go insane thinking through it 😂
Yep. It took me a few years to mature past the reactive "OMG LOOK OMG" stage. Clickbait has gotten pretty sophisticated and I still get caught by some of it but have learned to not POST it as quickly as before. Just gotta work with anons and help them get to that point.
Didn't you make a post a while back about how to recognize clickbait / how to logically determine if a story is solid? I'll start dropping that in peoples comments section if you can link me to it. Or maybe you can re post / update it?