u/catsfiveu/bubble_burstssticky request for MuckyDuck here, this post is titled in a humble way, Anons who were here in 2021 would be blessed to see this.
it gives honorable mention to GAW anons of 2021 in a respectable way for herein GAW is recognized for lead-thinking in what was “going on”
great find! “and the place to go here is, here for Q, the Q stuff” = GAW! at 1:19:28 marker, showcasing GAW! Head pollster of Rasmussen Reports is talking about GAW!
several anons’s posts shown at 1:21:25
at 1:26:28 — Head Pollster Rasmussen Reports discussed the idea that Pres. Trump had some form of COG in place using actual laws in place to post 2020 election, “a plan.”
at 1:32:24 Pat Gunnels talks about the why and then “who” set up COG = Ezra Cohen Watnick____ and then brought in Christopher Miller “who was not even a general” to be Secy. of Defense for remaining days of Pres. Trump administration 1. Miller = a Colonel, specialization in Irregular Warfare____ 1:34:18 - 2 days before Byden “inauguration” **CogCon was activated (1 to 4 rating system equivalent to DefCon). Q3606 they display: “There is no STEP FIVE” (Gunnels’ take on Q 3606)
Note: Gunnels was a regular guest on Patel Patriot's Devolution Power Hour and so he'd be well informed re: PP's Devolution Theory, but apparently earlier this year, Gunnels departed from Badlands to do his own independent podcast work (afaik).
When they joke about “who’s the fed” on badlands, I tend to wonder if it’s not several of them, but from among the white hats.
They’ve done a great job of sowing seeds at any rate. It’s been nice to see some of our thoughts bleeding into mainstream thinking over the last few years.
It’s so frustratingly slow.
As far as Gunnels, he was the one who brought Jon “Patel” into the picture by reading his threads off Mastodon, after following the originator of the theory over there. I forget that guy’s name but he had some wild info. Gunnels went on to be one of the original founders and brought several hosts in whose threads he’d previously read.
Also tried to beat Crenshaw in the race for that House seat. He’s been a significant figure in all this.
Yes. Wictor was great on Twitter before he ever jumped to the Mastodon instance after the Great Whitewashing (we should absolutely get a branded name going for that event), and before Jon ever showed up.
I remember seeing Jon’s first posts on that site that they attacked him on before they got deleted.
This has to be about the closest to mainstream exposure this forum has ever been, other than back when it was being cross-posted on the_donald.
I hope my hair is combed properly.
In all seriousness, I do hope the things I’ve (and we’ve) written here are digestible. Always assumed sooner or later they could be [more] public. Hopefully we present to the not-quite-as-off-the-well-trod-road’ers relatively well.
While it was pretty awesome, I kinda felt like Gunnels' comment that "there are people on these boards now that are so good at doing analysis...." kinda overshot the mark. Kek. Unless of course he's talking about the super secret GAWW.win, which no one knows about, even me.
“Mainstream exposure” has always been a triple edged sword, yeah, but it’s probably necessary for momentum and/or growth.
I tried my hand at comms yesterday. It’s never really been my thing, but it could be plausible. Dunno if anyone else agreed. Then again, while say SB2 for example was always extremely fascinating, I never once saw a definitiveness to anything he claimed either.
At some point I’m going to put together a few posts I’ve had in mind for a long while that I think people will appreciate.
I'm a bit irritated that they all agree during their shows that the Biden we see on TV is the real Joseph R Biden, when it doesn't take an expert to notice how he's changed since 2017.
Does this mean that Badlands truly doesn't see the differences, or have they collectively been told / agreed to avoid opening that can of worms? Are they being coached, or do they worry that talking like that might cost them subscribers?
Could the White Hats be saving them for a future Press Pool position and they don't want to scare away any noob Q followers? I agree with that approach as the "GREAT AWAKENING" is the end goal.
Some of us are just further along than others, which is perfectly fine.
I don't think that badlanders do not see 'he's changed since 2017'. Rather, their interpretation of the data is different to those that advocate the 'not Joe Biden' narrative. Personally, I think the 'not Joe Biden' narrative is full-on bunk.
Case in point, the amg-news.com website you link to has a lot of the hallmarks of disinfo/clickbait website. (I did a short dive on them and ms 'Medeea Greere' perhaps 2 years back.)
Why is it that fake disinfo website constantly promote the 'not Biden' theory?
If I were to write an academic paper on the phenomena that the 'Not Joe Biden' narrative is a prime example of, it would be a long paper. There is a LOT there that, imo, proponents simply refuse to recognize.
But long story short, you have to be able to buy in and invest yourself in certain unprovable 'beliefs' to accept the Not Biden narratives.
I agree with the Badlanders. It's pretty ludicrous (and not rational). But as I haven't written that paper yet, I'm going to leave it there.
That AMG News site is new to me also. I only linked it because it was recently shared on GAW and it had a lot of examples of old vs new Biden.
My semi-photographic memory works best with faces, shapes, patterns, cars and places / scenery which makes me really good with names and faces.
Watching the first Trump v Biden debate live in 2020 is what first got me scratching my head. Shortly thereafter, I started searching older photos of Obama and Biden together. That's where the vast majority of the differences can be seen. Eye color, forehead prominence, different ears etc are more obvious to me.
I assume that ol' Joe was swapped out in 2019. Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
You contribute a lot of great content here and I'm glad we are on the same team.
Thanks for the great reply. I gotcha on the "I only linked it because..." but the fact that it is (in my view) a clickbait site isn't a plus in terms of the premise. (But I know there will be other places sharing that sort of content, too).
I know that there are plenty of folks who hold to the Not Joe Biden theory. And there are others who do not. Thankfully, we don't need to agree on everything to appreciate each other's strengths and contributions. More than anything, I think it is an opportunity to explore different perspectives and different ways of thinking in how we and others approach how we interpret reality or view the world.
Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
Maybe. (Personally, I'm convinced we will not, but maybe I'm wrong.)
A few of the objections I have to the theory (among the many, many issues - and I'm NOT going to write up an academic paper on it!) include:
The morality issues: For decades, the CIA (as far as I understand it) used the rationale that their enemy was so bad that they had to be able to do all the worst things - "they are all 'justifiable' because of who we are fighting". In other words, the ends justify the means.
But the end justify the means is essentially satanic reasoning, and its why it lies at the root of the entire Marxist / Communist mindset.
So, if Joe was switched out, who did it? Was it the good guys? the bad guys? Why? For what purpose? If it was the good guys, how is this morally justifiable? It means that the good guys, including Trump, are OK with deceiving the entire population and the world because 'the end justifies the means'. No? If it was the bad guys, then WHY ON EARTH would Trump team go along with it? rationale?
Motive, purpose and necessity need to be accounted for, imo. Bubble Bursts has some good reasoning on this, if I recall, although he did not convince me or bring about my agreement. As for me, I cannot conceive or accept that these have been shown or proven to me: motive, purpose, necessity - not to mention moral justification.
Then, how many people would need to go along with the 'scam'? Isn't it axiomatic that the MORE people involved in a scam or ruse, the more likely it is that someone will blow the whistle? Relatives? Friends? Acquaintances? Staff?
They could not keep the lid on Bill Clinton doing crap in the White House. A 5+ year scam running a fake guy in prosthetics? The technology would have to be proven. Just going "oh, I'm SURE they can do this now, for long extended periods of time, like days, weeks, months, etc" isn't evidence. It's speculation (unless the evidence of the technology is established, by ... evidence).
Another factor in my reasoning is exactly this point:
Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
The same talk about this narrative has been going on for years. Personally, I find it very weak because, as far as I can see, it can NEVER be proven. You either choose to believe or you do not. And if you are right, so what? What does that mean? What are the practical outcomes of 'being right' on this? And what are the practical outcomes of being wrong on this?
It seems to me that by and large, the only outcomes are warm and fuzzies because I think I see X and I cannot conceive of an alternative explanation.
(Also, I am yet to come across a clinical or forensic analysis of a decent level been presented on why "this man is not Biden". Lots of people offer layman opinions, but where is the forensic analysis offered by a specialist trained specifically in human physiology and biology? The absence of such studies are a BIG gap, in my view.)
Is it possible that stand-ins have been used? I.e. by Biden staff, the clique around him, etc? In specific short-term situations? Sure. yes, I think that's a reasonable supposition, given what we DO know about the technology and the situation, etc, but this is a very different idea from the "Byden is not Biden" narrative.
And, fwiw, the "Byden is not Biden" thing is NOT Q. It is anon. That's not a deciding element, but it is worth noting.
There is 'Q'. 1 There are 'Anons'. 2 There is no 'Qanon'. 3
Anyway, just throwing this in here. Not to convince you in any way. (Don't have a bone in that dogfight!) But just to share a bit of my thinking process.
There are many other factors and elements that formulate the way I view the matter, but the above are a few of them.
Ps. Thank you for the generous compliment! So glad to have you here, too.... !
Yeah, I’ll be certain to look more closely at potential click-bait sites in the future. For several years I used to share a link to a convincing Telegram post, but the post has recently gone dark. 🤷♂️
I also struggle with the morality of installing a fake Joe. The only justification I can think of is; that any other option where they didn’t have full (presidential figure head) control resulted in a massive genocide event across many nations. Maybe the baddies can deploy HAARP to liquefy the soil of entire nations, or maybe the vax will kill more if it lays dormant too long without an antidote / detox, or possibly a sky event will hypnotize millions to walk off cliffs like lemmings. They weighed the options & timelines and this was the path that made the most sense in a reasonable timeline.
Certainly as you pointed out, too many people involved in the scam means more opportunity for leaks and even sabotage. Maybe “Military is the only way” to manage command and control from the top, especially if this script has been playing out for 40+ years.
Good point also, there is no practical benefit of being right or wrong about any matter on the Great Awakening. Neither of us will be invited onto Hannity to explain how we “figured it out”. We can only help wake people up. TELLING people what we’ve convinced ourselves of is a waste of time. Skillfully utilizing the Socratic Method to let them develop their own conclusions carries more weight, just as long as 94% of the population eventually wakes up.
It's refreshing to have a discussion where someone isn't attempting to crowbar their convictions on the other! I mean, I have lots of good engagements here, but you and I are approaching this from a very different starting point, and to me, that makes the contrast all the more interesting.
btw, given the scenarios you describe, in that context, such a move would probably make sense. I don't think of things in those terms - I guess there is a fundamental different angle on the threats that Evil has for us - but the context supports your perspective.
On a tangential reflection, I guess we might look at the Q drops (and the adjacent facts/narratives) as a join the dots scenario, where various people join the dots in different ways to create widely different pictures or representations. For example, by analogy, if the join-the-dots page here draws the picture of a dragon, the dragon you see (draw) and the dragon I see (draw) may look quite different. One is large, glowing with blue and green scales, blowing a massive fire breath, and the other is more moderately sized, more sleek, sharper fangs, and big haunches, and the breath is only smoldering.
As an analogy. Not meaning to indicate anything other that a different picture drawn from the same set of 'dots' - data points. (Actually, we probably draw on different sets, drawn from the same meta-set.)
What's the most valuable here, tho, I think, is that we very likely agree on core principles. Freedom, the value of truth, the power of the human liberated from evil, etc. That's what counts. That's what real diversity is. Variations based on the same core principles. That creates unity within diversity. The neo-Marxist 'diversity' however, is variations based on contradictory and conflicting principles, so that there is only unity in destruction and degradation. IMO, anyway...
Good point also, there is no practical benefit of being right or wrong about any matter on the Great Awakening.
I think you may have misread me there. I do think there is of great practical benefit of being - I won't say right or wrong, but rather more accurate or less accurate with regards to - more accurate or less accurate on numerous matters of the Great Awakening. What I mean to say was that in the case of 'fake Joe Biden' narrative, I don't see any practical benefit to being right or wrong. It's not ... consequential.
I don't think that holds for lots of other things. Understanding that much of the upper echelons of the political establishment in many nations (our nations) are controlled by powers we do not see - via corporations, cliques, organizations, etc - has the practical benefit of directing how I choose to engage with the political establishment, who I vote for, how I engage with that level of society, etc. Direct practical benefits.
I just don't see the Biden is Fake yes/no as being something that helps or impacts on my concrete choices.
Yes, most certainly I agree. As long as humanity is liberated from evil in the end.
I dream of a day where we can visit those that we are told were our enemies and break bread with them, exchange hugs, gifts and apologize for any pain we unknowingly caused them in the past because we were duped by a bigger common real enemy.
This Awakening has trained me to question everything, so I'm determined to continue learning how the controlling powers have manipulated us for decades. Collectively we may eventually learn the truth, but a lot of past narratives will likely have to be undone.
u/catsfive u/bubble_bursts sticky request for MuckyDuck here, this post is titled in a humble way, Anons who were here in 2021 would be blessed to see this.
it gives honorable mention to GAW anons of 2021 in a respectable way for herein GAW is recognized for lead-thinking in what was “going on”
great find! “and the place to go here is, here for Q, the Q stuff” = GAW! at 1:19:28 marker, showcasing GAW! Head pollster of Rasmussen Reports is talking about GAW!
several anons’s posts shown at 1:21:25
at 1:26:28 — Head Pollster Rasmussen Reports discussed the idea that Pres. Trump had some form of COG in place using actual laws in place to post 2020 election, “a plan.”
at 1:32:24 Pat Gunnels talks about the why and then “who” set up COG = Ezra Cohen Watnick____ and then brought in Christopher Miller “who was not even a general” to be Secy. of Defense for remaining days of Pres. Trump administration 1. Miller = a Colonel, specialization in Irregular Warfare____ 1:34:18 - 2 days before Byden “inauguration” **CogCon was activated (1 to 4 rating system equivalent to DefCon). Q3606 they display: “There is no STEP FIVE” (Gunnels’ take on Q 3606)
Note: Gunnels was a regular guest on Patel Patriot's Devolution Power Hour and so he'd be well informed re: PP's Devolution Theory, but apparently earlier this year, Gunnels departed from Badlands to do his own independent podcast work (afaik).
When they joke about “who’s the fed” on badlands, I tend to wonder if it’s not several of them, but from among the white hats.
They’ve done a great job of sowing seeds at any rate. It’s been nice to see some of our thoughts bleeding into mainstream thinking over the last few years.
It’s so frustratingly slow.
As far as Gunnels, he was the one who brought Jon “Patel” into the picture by reading his threads off Mastodon, after following the originator of the theory over there. I forget that guy’s name but he had some wild info. Gunnels went on to be one of the original founders and brought several hosts in whose threads he’d previously read.
Also tried to beat Crenshaw in the race for that House seat. He’s been a significant figure in all this.
I'm thinkin' you're thinkin' of Thomas Wictor.
According to Jon, the kernal of his thought process jumped from Wictor who was (reportedly) the OG in putting out a devolution/cog theory.
Yes. Wictor was great on Twitter before he ever jumped to the Mastodon instance after the Great Whitewashing (we should absolutely get a branded name going for that event), and before Jon ever showed up.
I remember seeing Jon’s first posts on that site that they attacked him on before they got deleted.
The Great Whitewashing? Do you mean, the reddit purge?
Mah old memes:
https://imgur.com/a/8asMMSU
https://imgur.com/a/uhYHyIB
https://imgur.com/a/oHcmGmr
(From before the time when the MSM hjijacked 'qanon' and Q taught us to draw a line between Q and anons)
It woulda been pretty funny if Rasmussen had gone to show the site, but forgotten to sign out from being logged in as longtimelistener2.
:O
thanks, good note! later in the video at 2:20 Devolution was discussed but Gunnels had left this show early, cool that he was a reg. guest Patel P.!
Hey u/joys1daughter you’re on tv on the Rasmussen Reports too!
Kek
nice you let her know, I think it’s at 1:21:25. ____ + interesting comments too for this thread
This has to be about the closest to mainstream exposure this forum has ever been, other than back when it was being cross-posted on the_donald.
I hope my hair is combed properly.
In all seriousness, I do hope the things I’ve (and we’ve) written here are digestible. Always assumed sooner or later they could be [more] public. Hopefully we present to the not-quite-as-off-the-well-trod-road’ers relatively well.
While it was pretty awesome, I kinda felt like Gunnels' comment that "there are people on these boards now that are so good at doing analysis...." kinda overshot the mark. Kek. Unless of course he's talking about the super secret GAWW.win, which no one knows about, even me.
But yeah, 'mainstream exposure'.
“Mainstream exposure” has always been a triple edged sword, yeah, but it’s probably necessary for momentum and/or growth.
I tried my hand at comms yesterday. It’s never really been my thing, but it could be plausible. Dunno if anyone else agreed. Then again, while say SB2 for example was always extremely fascinating, I never once saw a definitiveness to anything he claimed either.
At some point I’m going to put together a few posts I’ve had in mind for a long while that I think people will appreciate.
Thanks mate
welcome! great Rasmussen show find! — one for the Anons, especially for the ones who were here in ‘2001
This was very good. A great listen while work fagging or chore fagging.
Updooted and shared.
@1:05 starts talking about Q.
Kek.
Bubble_bursts, Fractalizing Iron and Catsfive.
I gotta get my Merch store up and running!!!
Really good show! Interesting that PGunnels didn't plug Badlands. Good to know my trust in Emerald & Tony Schaffer?sp? is not misplaced.
He seems to have left there over a disagreement. It doesn’t need to reflect negatively on either one. Disagreements happen in business.
Jon has stated it was Patrick’s decision and he supports it. No reason not to leave things there.
Are you saying you've lost faith in Badlands?
I'm a bit irritated that they all agree during their shows that the Biden we see on TV is the real Joseph R Biden, when it doesn't take an expert to notice how he's changed since 2017.
Does this mean that Badlands truly doesn't see the differences, or have they collectively been told / agreed to avoid opening that can of worms? Are they being coached, or do they worry that talking like that might cost them subscribers?
Could the White Hats be saving them for a future Press Pool position and they don't want to scare away any noob Q followers? I agree with that approach as the "GREAT AWAKENING" is the end goal.
Some of us are just further along than others, which is perfectly fine.
I don't think that badlanders do not see 'he's changed since 2017'. Rather, their interpretation of the data is different to those that advocate the 'not Joe Biden' narrative. Personally, I think the 'not Joe Biden' narrative is full-on bunk.
Case in point, the amg-news.com website you link to has a lot of the hallmarks of disinfo/clickbait website. (I did a short dive on them and ms 'Medeea Greere' perhaps 2 years back.)
Why is it that fake disinfo website constantly promote the 'not Biden' theory?
If I were to write an academic paper on the phenomena that the 'Not Joe Biden' narrative is a prime example of, it would be a long paper. There is a LOT there that, imo, proponents simply refuse to recognize.
But long story short, you have to be able to buy in and invest yourself in certain unprovable 'beliefs' to accept the Not Biden narratives.
I agree with the Badlanders. It's pretty ludicrous (and not rational). But as I haven't written that paper yet, I'm going to leave it there.
That AMG News site is new to me also. I only linked it because it was recently shared on GAW and it had a lot of examples of old vs new Biden.
My semi-photographic memory works best with faces, shapes, patterns, cars and places / scenery which makes me really good with names and faces.
Watching the first Trump v Biden debate live in 2020 is what first got me scratching my head. Shortly thereafter, I started searching older photos of Obama and Biden together. That's where the vast majority of the differences can be seen. Eye color, forehead prominence, different ears etc are more obvious to me.
I assume that ol' Joe was swapped out in 2019. Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
You contribute a lot of great content here and I'm glad we are on the same team.
Γo
Thanks for the great reply. I gotcha on the "I only linked it because..." but the fact that it is (in my view) a clickbait site isn't a plus in terms of the premise. (But I know there will be other places sharing that sort of content, too).
I know that there are plenty of folks who hold to the Not Joe Biden theory. And there are others who do not. Thankfully, we don't need to agree on everything to appreciate each other's strengths and contributions. More than anything, I think it is an opportunity to explore different perspectives and different ways of thinking in how we and others approach how we interpret reality or view the world.
Maybe. (Personally, I'm convinced we will not, but maybe I'm wrong.)
A few of the objections I have to the theory (among the many, many issues - and I'm NOT going to write up an academic paper on it!) include:
The morality issues: For decades, the CIA (as far as I understand it) used the rationale that their enemy was so bad that they had to be able to do all the worst things - "they are all 'justifiable' because of who we are fighting". In other words, the ends justify the means.
But the end justify the means is essentially satanic reasoning, and its why it lies at the root of the entire Marxist / Communist mindset.
So, if Joe was switched out, who did it? Was it the good guys? the bad guys? Why? For what purpose? If it was the good guys, how is this morally justifiable? It means that the good guys, including Trump, are OK with deceiving the entire population and the world because 'the end justifies the means'. No? If it was the bad guys, then WHY ON EARTH would Trump team go along with it? rationale?
Motive, purpose and necessity need to be accounted for, imo. Bubble Bursts has some good reasoning on this, if I recall, although he did not convince me or bring about my agreement. As for me, I cannot conceive or accept that these have been shown or proven to me: motive, purpose, necessity - not to mention moral justification.
Then, how many people would need to go along with the 'scam'? Isn't it axiomatic that the MORE people involved in a scam or ruse, the more likely it is that someone will blow the whistle? Relatives? Friends? Acquaintances? Staff?
They could not keep the lid on Bill Clinton doing crap in the White House. A 5+ year scam running a fake guy in prosthetics? The technology would have to be proven. Just going "oh, I'm SURE they can do this now, for long extended periods of time, like days, weeks, months, etc" isn't evidence. It's speculation (unless the evidence of the technology is established, by ... evidence).
Another factor in my reasoning is exactly this point:
The same talk about this narrative has been going on for years. Personally, I find it very weak because, as far as I can see, it can NEVER be proven. You either choose to believe or you do not. And if you are right, so what? What does that mean? What are the practical outcomes of 'being right' on this? And what are the practical outcomes of being wrong on this?
It seems to me that by and large, the only outcomes are warm and fuzzies because I think I see X and I cannot conceive of an alternative explanation.
(Also, I am yet to come across a clinical or forensic analysis of a decent level been presented on why "this man is not Biden". Lots of people offer layman opinions, but where is the forensic analysis offered by a specialist trained specifically in human physiology and biology? The absence of such studies are a BIG gap, in my view.)
Is it possible that stand-ins have been used? I.e. by Biden staff, the clique around him, etc? In specific short-term situations? Sure. yes, I think that's a reasonable supposition, given what we DO know about the technology and the situation, etc, but this is a very different idea from the "Byden is not Biden" narrative.
And, fwiw, the "Byden is not Biden" thing is NOT Q. It is anon. That's not a deciding element, but it is worth noting.
Anyway, just throwing this in here. Not to convince you in any way. (Don't have a bone in that dogfight!) But just to share a bit of my thinking process.
There are many other factors and elements that formulate the way I view the matter, but the above are a few of them.
Ps. Thank you for the generous compliment! So glad to have you here, too.... !
wwg1wga
Yeah, I’ll be certain to look more closely at potential click-bait sites in the future. For several years I used to share a link to a convincing Telegram post, but the post has recently gone dark. 🤷♂️
I also struggle with the morality of installing a fake Joe. The only justification I can think of is; that any other option where they didn’t have full (presidential figure head) control resulted in a massive genocide event across many nations. Maybe the baddies can deploy HAARP to liquefy the soil of entire nations, or maybe the vax will kill more if it lays dormant too long without an antidote / detox, or possibly a sky event will hypnotize millions to walk off cliffs like lemmings. They weighed the options & timelines and this was the path that made the most sense in a reasonable timeline.
Certainly as you pointed out, too many people involved in the scam means more opportunity for leaks and even sabotage. Maybe “Military is the only way” to manage command and control from the top, especially if this script has been playing out for 40+ years.
Good point also, there is no practical benefit of being right or wrong about any matter on the Great Awakening. Neither of us will be invited onto Hannity to explain how we “figured it out”. We can only help wake people up. TELLING people what we’ve convinced ourselves of is a waste of time. Skillfully utilizing the Socratic Method to let them develop their own conclusions carries more weight, just as long as 94% of the population eventually wakes up.
Carry on soldier, you helped expand my thinking!
Thank you, WMW
Thank you, WMW!!!!
It's refreshing to have a discussion where someone isn't attempting to crowbar their convictions on the other! I mean, I have lots of good engagements here, but you and I are approaching this from a very different starting point, and to me, that makes the contrast all the more interesting.
btw, given the scenarios you describe, in that context, such a move would probably make sense. I don't think of things in those terms - I guess there is a fundamental different angle on the threats that Evil has for us - but the context supports your perspective.
On a tangential reflection, I guess we might look at the Q drops (and the adjacent facts/narratives) as a join the dots scenario, where various people join the dots in different ways to create widely different pictures or representations. For example, by analogy, if the join-the-dots page here draws the picture of a dragon, the dragon you see (draw) and the dragon I see (draw) may look quite different. One is large, glowing with blue and green scales, blowing a massive fire breath, and the other is more moderately sized, more sleek, sharper fangs, and big haunches, and the breath is only smoldering.
As an analogy. Not meaning to indicate anything other that a different picture drawn from the same set of 'dots' - data points. (Actually, we probably draw on different sets, drawn from the same meta-set.)
What's the most valuable here, tho, I think, is that we very likely agree on core principles. Freedom, the value of truth, the power of the human liberated from evil, etc. That's what counts. That's what real diversity is. Variations based on the same core principles. That creates unity within diversity. The neo-Marxist 'diversity' however, is variations based on contradictory and conflicting principles, so that there is only unity in destruction and degradation. IMO, anyway...
I think you may have misread me there. I do think there is of great practical benefit of being - I won't say right or wrong, but rather more accurate or less accurate with regards to - more accurate or less accurate on numerous matters of the Great Awakening. What I mean to say was that in the case of 'fake Joe Biden' narrative, I don't see any practical benefit to being right or wrong. It's not ... consequential.
I don't think that holds for lots of other things. Understanding that much of the upper echelons of the political establishment in many nations (our nations) are controlled by powers we do not see - via corporations, cliques, organizations, etc - has the practical benefit of directing how I choose to engage with the political establishment, who I vote for, how I engage with that level of society, etc. Direct practical benefits.
I just don't see the Biden is Fake yes/no as being something that helps or impacts on my concrete choices.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify that.
A blessing on your day. Me? I ain't worrying!
Yes, most certainly I agree. As long as humanity is liberated from evil in the end.
I dream of a day where we can visit those that we are told were our enemies and break bread with them, exchange hugs, gifts and apologize for any pain we unknowingly caused them in the past because we were duped by a bigger common real enemy.
This Awakening has trained me to question everything, so I'm determined to continue learning how the controlling powers have manipulated us for decades. Collectively we may eventually learn the truth, but a lot of past narratives will likely have to be undone.
God Bless