https://bioclandestine.substack.com/p/the-enemy-told-me-everything
The Enemy Told Me Everything
People ask me all the time how I got so deep into Ukraine, and how I knew to look where I was looking.
The enemy told me.
They told on themselves, when they unleashed an Orwellian censorship campaign on me, for getting too close to the answer.
Their panic showed me the way.
I wrote one viral Twitter thread about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, it caused a global media stir, I was nuked on all social media simultaneously, IP addresses blacklisted, MSM/fact-checkers wrote hundreds of articles ‘debunking’ me, and the US government started wiping their own embassy pages where I got the information. Only for Victoria Nuland herself to prove me correct, just a couple weeks later in public testimony.
At that moment in February 2022, I knew that I had stumbled onto something way bigger than I had ever imagined, and found myself right in the middle of it. So I abandoned my job, dedicated everything to independent journalism, and I’ve been hellbent on exposing it ever since.
The enemy’s reaction confirmed they were desperate to cover this up for whatever reason, and destroyed my life for getting too close to their secret. You receive the most flak when over the target, and boy, did I receive a lot of flak.
So if you’re ever wondering why it is I’m obsessed with Ukraine, it’s because the enemy told me that this is what they fear most.
It’s not a guess.
From my recollection, nobody knew for certain who he was until he showed up on Alex Jones, confirming his identity.
And you seem new to the concept that people who try to prop themselves up as Q community leaders typically not accepted as such by the majority of Q followers.
Ever heard of SB2? CodeMonkeyZ? NeonRevolt?
Did you enjoy it when Ron Watkins went on HBO as your emissary?
Heck, even SB2's claim to fame came from Q referencing his post calling out another Q grifter.
The list goes on and on, Jack Posobiec prior to Q outing him, Alex Jones before Q labeled him and all his associates as Mossad agents.
If the cabal can identify leaders in a movement, then they can destroy the movement by destroying the leaders. That's why Q wants us to be anon.
It's not about reputation and building followings, its about the information.
Correct again. You've been here since the beginning like me.
Man, I had compartmentalized the Watkins saga.
I agree with everything you said but I don't think Clandestine was self promoting on the back of Q. I had no idea who he was until he wrote about the biolabs in Ukraine. The days following that the boards were full of fedbois running covers of mis/dis info and spamming. He was doxed and shut down. Since that time and his reappearance on twitter, sure, I can see where you are coming from with this. This person does seem to find relevant info and get it out there though. I take it all with a grain of salt but we are imo passed the days of Guy Fawks masks and voice changers.
My main point was that being online creates exposure to personal info. Your point was we are Anon and don't self promote. I don't think he started out self promoting other than a twitter handle is required if ya wanna make the tweets.
I still don't know much about Clandestine, I really don't care quite honestly but I don't think he is shilly like Neon or Z or Jones. Just my thoughts fren, if I'm wrong then so be it. I just want truth and justice.
Honestly, my biggest beef with Clandestine is that every point he tries to make seems to only exist for the purpose of establishing himself as a Q leader.
The Q movement doesn't need a leader. We're called to be anon.
For him, it seems all about proving his points, establishing his past posts as truth while laying down a thick tale of how much he has suffered.
Maybe he is legit, or maybe he is building a following so that he can fall and bring his followers down with him.
My point is there's no reason to trust anyone, just lay out the information and let it be researched ... any drama beyond that is detrimental to the Q community.
In fairness, I always got more of the impression of people even here propping him up as a "leader" than him doing it himself, at least up until recently.
I criticized him heavily a long while back for similar.
In general, I agree with you. This is a decentralized movement and it's better than way.
However, I also don't think it's a bad thing for what is essentially new media to be paid in recognition and sometimes cash. It takes time and energy to do a lot of this, and it's beneficial overall until it isn't.
Okay, maybe so. But, if he is posing as a leader, where is he leading? At worst, it seems to be a search for anyone who will listen to him and pay heed. I get the impression that he started on this path without being prompted by exposure to Q.
Kind of like the little boy in the story who cried "Wolf!"---but sincerely---was beaten down and muzzled, then arrives at a time when what he tried to advance has become more widely known. Maybe this is "I told you so," to a friendly audience. My question is, "So, what then?" If he has nothing new to say, his message is Old News. If he has no advice, he has nowhere to lead. Maybe, he is temporarily trapped in his present modus vivendi of "Clandestine" journalist and has no way out.
One thing I've found about leadership is that if you are not going somewhere, you are not leading anyone. There are people who want attention, but if they are not going anywhere, they are not leaders. It's important to make the distinction. (Hint: "Leaders" lead, and they don't depend on followers. They're going.)
I'll start by saying that I have no idea if he's a bad actor.
That being said, his initial exposure to the world as he self-doxxed himself was being revealed on Alex Jones. That is potentially a red flag.
The fear is that he gathers a following, then does something stupid to the detriment of the Q community.
There's many examples of this.
Jack Posobiec was often quoted by this community. Eventually, he came out and said "Oh, by the way, I know who Q is. It was a friend of mine named Microchip. It was a hoax we perpetrated on you all. Ooops, my bad."
The method, in psychology, is called pace and lead. The person who is attempting to influence you starts by mimicking you, or "pacing" you. Then, after you say to yourself "this person thinks the same things I do, I believe the things he says", that is when they switch to the "lead" part, which is to lead you away from what you used to believe, in the above instance that Q is actually legit.
A second example. In the days of Q being on reddit, there was a guy named SerialBrain2 (or SB2). One day he gained fame in the Q community when Q directly referenced one of his posts, that a certain individual was grifting on the Q community. His popularity rose, his posts became more popular. Then he got very weird.
He got hung up on gematria, and started weaving together wild narratives of things going on behind the scenes with Q and Trump based on wild leaps of logic based on counting letters in Trump posts. Quite frankly, he was an idiot, and he tarnished all Q followers simply by association.
Third example, NeonRevolt. This guy was a "decoder" and worked hard building a following. Long story short, by the end he was scolding Q, scolding Trump, encouraging everyone to abandon the community because things weren't going exactly the way he wanted to.
Fourth example, Ron Watkins, aka CodeMonkeyZ. He went out of his way to position himself at the top of the Q community. Whether cognizant or not, he ended up going to HBO to be mocked and derided, and suddenly all the flaws of Ron Watkins became the flaws of the entire Q movement.
I could go on and on, but the gist of it is this: there's a huge downside to having someone attempt to become a leader/influencer in the Q community. There's ZERO upside.
What would have happened if Clandestine went to 4chan/8chan/other boards frequented by anons and presented the data without seeking fame and recognition? He would have accomplished the exact same thing, without any of the drama.
Which you aren’t addressing.