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?
Hell if I know, this 5D info war stuff can get pretty insane, I'm trying not to go insane thinking through it
Kek. Yup.
Good ideas, plenty of room for thought work and thought experiments.
Or maybe you can re post / update it?
I'll take a look at revisiting it. It could probably do with some editing and refining (if not a slimming down - I wonder how much of my stuff is accessible to the whole board. I do tend to write lengthy expositions, not everyone's cup of tea.....)
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?
Tanks, winn.
Kek. Yup.
Good ideas, plenty of room for thought work and thought experiments.
I'll take a look at revisiting it. It could probably do with some editing and refining (if not a slimming down - I wonder how much of my stuff is accessible to the whole board. I do tend to write lengthy expositions, not everyone's cup of tea.....)