Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area
This General Chat area started off as a place for people to talk about things that are off topic, however it has quickly evolved into a community and has become an integral part of the GAW experience for many of us.
Based on its evolving needs and plenty of user feedback, we are trying to bring some order and institute some rules. Please make sure you read these rules and participate in the spirit of this community.
Rules for General Chat
-
Be respectful to each other. This is of utmost importance, and comments may be removed if deemed not respectful.
-
Avoid long drawn out arguments. This should be a place to relax, not to waste your time needlessly.
-
Personal anecdotes, puzzles, cute pics/clips - everything welcome
-
Please do not spam at the top level. If you have a lot to post each day, try and post them all together in one top level comment
-
Try keep things light. If you are bringing in deep stuff, try not to go overboard.
-
Things that are clearly on-topic for this board should be posted as a separate post and not here (except if you are new and still getting the feel of this place)
-
If you find people violating these rules, deport them rather than start a argument here.
-
Feel free to give feedback as these rules are expected to keep evolving
In short, imagine this thread to be a local community hall where we all gather and chat daily. Please be respectful to others in the same way
Rules For the rest of the Site also accessible on the sidebar.
--
Yes, I agree with you there. But although I think there is a place for in-depth research, it's not necessarily the most important thing. I'd settle for just some basic vetting of information before posting it on the board, and a simple vetting of what is posted before just accepting and commenting.
It shouldn't be a choice between all in-depth research or no research at all.
The question is, how did you come to the conclusion that those sources are reliable? What convinced you? How?
There's a place for news, certainly, and GAW is pretty good at aggregating a lot of it. But I think that there should be reasonably high effort standards for what passes as valuable news vs garbage news.
Hmmmm...
I'm just going to offer a contrasting opinion. Not to assert that you are wrong in some way, but contrast makes for breadth of consideration, right?
Mike Benz - ? I haven't listened much, but I'm sort of wary. Popped up as a source and then broadly promoted, with what sounds like 'inside info' on the surface, so wary.
Tucker Carlson - he's an operative of some description. Doesn't mean that he doesn't engage in pushing certain narratives.
DC_Draino - Inflooencer, cashing in on news and social media influence.
WarClandestine - Heard (implied) by a trusted source that Clandestine ripped off a lot of his content/research when the Russia invasion broke and used it, without credit, eventually blocking that actual source when queried on this. Source of probably credible info, but not convinced about motive.
Catherine Herridge - Solid, good source of some information.
Lara Logan - Jury out, inclined to think she's very legit and not after influence.
Just the News - John Solomon, like Herridge, is a bona fide journo and a reliable source of some information.
WHW - to be continued
Dan Scavino - Rock Solid, but what information he shares needs to be interpreted and evaluated.
As you can see from the above, its a split field for me. It also depends on what information you are seeking. I tend to be a lot more wary and skeptical of influencers who have a meteoric rise and who push narratives that will win them clicks and a following.
I think the main problem is people switching out one source (MSM) for narratives to be trusted for other sources (Alt_media personalities, etc) for narratives to be trusted. This is an issue, I think, because I have no doubt whatsoever that just as the Q movement was attacked with attempted infiltration by certain anons and personalities, the new Media - alt media and "influencers" - are the next target for the Manipulators.
I'll admit, I have some prejudice towards Draino and Clandestine because a bunch of people who for me are more trusted as companions in the journey to truth and deciphering of the war (5G, narrative, actual, etc) have expressed critical view towards these.
But bias aside, Generally, your list seems not bad. On the broad spectrum, they seem generally heavy towards the 'solid source' end of things, although as I said, I have doubts about the motive and direction of some of these.
Re; Bias towards Draino and Clandestine, I'm talking about Folks at Badlands media. Now, I do not consider these 'trusted sources' or necessarily 'reliable' sources, but rather as excellent companions on the journey towards truth etc.
That's because the general approach at Badlands seems to be to pull apart their own views, opinions, recognize disagreements, not have an issue with that, but mostly encourage anyone and everyone to think for themselves and develop critical thinking and in-depth consideration beyond simply narratives.
For longer than any other source of information during the past 7 years, I've stuck with and am consistently drawn to Badlands longer than anyone. Their general approach resonates with me.
IN any case, the idea of relying on others to get the information for me isn't a great way to go. Of course, it doesn't mean no one is a honest source, but we're in the midst of information warfare, and HOW the information is handled seems to me to be far more important than what the information itself is.
Thanks for continuing the discussion, runrun.
You may have missed the point I was hoping to emphasize. That point is, we're in the midst of a massive information aka 5G aka psyop aka narrative aka irregular warfare war. Therefore, simply taking things at face value doesn't work, imo.
There are all sorts of narratives being weaved, because the public mindset is everything. Case in point: Trump needed to win the public mandate that he now has in order to low into the Deep State in the way he and Team Trump now are. he needs to people to support and want what he's doing. That's involved building a narrative war that the Deep State cannot win.
Tucker is tight with DJT, but he is also a former CIA-recruit wannabe. (Recall how Putin emphasized this point in his interview with Tucker). When I say "operative" I do not mean 'evil' operative. Operative means (to me) that he is fighting in a war of information. He's not simply "a reporter", and so I think its important to consider other factors like what his mission might be and what he's really doing.
And although he is tight with Trump, I also think that Carlson is his own person. So the point about him being an operative is that, for me, I take this into account and consider that things are not necessarily what they seem on the surface. Looking deeper, getting a better understanding here, of what is actually happening in a war of which 70%+ is taking place 'under the surface' of things.
Why? Are you considering what assumptions are you making here?
Recall the so-called "Epstein" packets that DOJ handed out to 'influencers'? It doesn't mean they are 'credible' or that they really know what's going on.
Just as the Deep State is making efforts to infiltrate and gain ground and establish control in the "influencer sphere" - which has now replaced the MSM propaganda legacy media as the central force in information sharing, so too the White Hats aka Team Trump knows that they also need to establish influence and control here.
That's not an 'endorsement' - or it shouldn't be for anons - but it shows that Team Trump know where to focus and what to do.
There are a lot of controlled opposition out there on "our' side, as there are opportunists. Just being invited to be part of the shift in the White House press briefing should not be seen in and of itself as if this means "ok, now you used to trust the legacy media. Now, trust <these people>."
No, that's just doing what the deep state did. "trust these sources and stop thinking for yourself". We have to be better than that.
I think we are thinking on two very different levels. I mean, Mike Benz... OK. Great to hear good things about him. But just because some of his work ihas been cited by congressional hearings, does this validate him as someone I should "trust" and stop thinking about with discernment or question? Obviously no. If having one's efforts cited in congressional hearings was evidence of veracity, then what about all the other hundreds and thousands of sources?
Mike Benz might be a good guy. This is not the point, for me. The point is, on what basis do I sign over my 'trust' to someone else for them to make the decisions for me about what information is real, non-real, important or not important? I think that if you are not thinking on this level, you've barely scratched the surface of the war we are actually in.
Switching one set of 'trusted sources' for another is not the kind of progress we need. We need to stop simply trusting others to decide for us what is valid, what is good info, what is important. And the fact that we're in 5G warfare means that even if I think someone is 'a good guy' (white hat, to abuse the metaphor), that doesn't mean I should stop questions "what is he really up to and what is he trying to achieve and what is his mission?"
That's a low blow, really. But at least it shows how divergent our perspective is.
Here's the facts. I have been listening to, and following along with Burning Bright for almost 4 years now, longer than I have ever been with any patriotic Q-friendly anon source. I watched listened to "Defected" for 3 years, and came to have a very high degree of confidence in Burning Bright and Just Human (Kyle) based on their approach and discussions, their honesty and primarily based on how their thinking helped upgraded my own approach and understanding of the war we are in.
For me, he's a 'trusted source' inasmuch as I have great confidence in his motives and thinking / analysis capabilities (as opposed to the notion that he's always right, which he will most readily admit himself, he isn't).
Burning Bright began - before the Russian excursion in to Ukraine - a series of substacks under the title "Righteous Russia".
https://substack.com/home/post/p-46923465
In this series, he looks at how Western thinking has been shaped to think of Russia in certain ways...
A few weeks back, he indicated how when the Invasion broke, a particular 'influencer' then took a lot of his content, without giving credit, and then blocked him. He didn't actually drop the name, but the only significant influencer (probably one of themost significant names) to come up was Clandestine.
I don't know if this who is BB is referring to, but after following Q and going through the length and breadth of the war we are in, I've developed a healthy resistance to simply 'trusting' sources because they have lots of followers, or share certain types of information.
I'm not attempting to throw distrust on Clandestine. I'm just trying to get you to question, and not simply 'rely'. I visited Clandestine on X after responding to you earlier. I mean, I like what I see. But I have learned to simply keep what I consider a healthy level of skepticism regarding almost all sources these days.
"WHW to be continued"
WHW to be continued means, they have just started up, so we don't know anything yet. Do I trust DJT? 100%. Do I trust everyone surrounding him all the time? No way. They have to earn that trust just like he did.
And if I may respond directly, Surely you are NOT not questioning the purpose and meaning and intent of the 'information' coming from the White House?
If you are anon, you simply cannot take things at face value. Day 1: Trump announces tarrifs on everyone!!! Day 2: Trump decides to reduce tarrifs all back to 10% for X, Y and Z. Day 5: Trump announces 130% tarrifs on China! Day 7: Trump says he might wind back the tarrifs on China!
Etc, etc, etc.
The reason normies simply do NOT get what Trump is doing is because they evaluate it all on the face value level. They are dealing with Trump as if he's just a president working on that level of the matrix their minds operate on. But he's working on multiple levels at once. All the time. A master.
Foe me, the question is not "is the information (you call it news) coming form the White House credible?" The question is "What are DJT and his team trying to achieve with the information they are putting out there?"
Normies aren't thinking like that. It's imperative for more and more people to do so, for anons to do so. Otherwise, you're just participating in the war as a cog, as a lever that can be pulled, instead of as a soldier who understands the narrative and psywar that the good guys and bad guys are engaged in, and who supports and aids the White Hat objectives because you understand those objectives.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
I'm wary of high capacity influencers that jump to the top, so some of that rubs on to questioning all sources. It's not just whether the information is 'true' or accurate'. it's also about WHY this information is being released, used.
The Devil can also use truth to manipulate and mislead. The best lies are mixture of lies with some truth.
FWIW, I find your endorsement of the sources you have cited as adding to a positive impression. But I want to try to explain the level of the narrative war that I think anons need to start to plug into. At the end of the day, it comes down to training ourselves to think for ourselves and not simply giving trust based on popularity, wishful thinking, bias, or even comfort.
It's OK to question authority. Because when you really push and pull, then the level of trust you can invest becomes that much more robust, WHEN you invest it.
Hey, I would like to strongly recommend you give a listen to Devolution Power Hour at Badlands. I'd be curious to see what your impressions are.
https://rumble.com/playlists/ZijkKex8gL4
There is a LOT of very solid, deep thinking content at Badlands. The Book of Trump, the Narrative. Used to be Defected, but that wrapped up after 3 years and broadcasts not more.
https://rumble.com/c/BadlandsMedia/playlists
If its news you are after, perhaps listen to The Daily Herold?
https://rumble.com/playlists/AVWenuaxPaY
In conclusion, each of us gravitates to the sources that resonate with us and how we see our own role or objectives as 'digital soldiers' or anons, etc. There is a lot of good stuff out there. Thanks for sharing this discussion with me. I have found things to think about.
wwg1wga