DEFCON ZERQ Ep. 019: Flynn’s Signal, Trump’s Moves, and the Ghost Army Awakens
(rumble.com)
— 𝓦𝓦𝓖1𝓦𝓖𝓐 —
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Yet he deplatformed Rambo, Stormy Patriot Joe (he was mentioned in the drops), and others because they were "diluting the brand".
Yet Rambo and SPJ are on target all the time.
Jon is a gatekeeper and more interested in money than truth.
No need for ad hominem Fractal, we are gentlemen here are we not?
kek. Only got to this reply AFTER reading the first and then bashing out a very long (overly long) reply.
Off the cuff, I do not think you can say that he 'de-platformed' someone when he simply removed them from HIS platform. Which Badlands is, right? (Kek, disputed)
If he is the boss of the company, then its his duty and responsibility to remove them if they aren't in tune with it. They are still completely free and active to post, be present on the web, wherever they want. And are. They just aren't on Badlands anymore.
You cannot call that 'deplatforming' as if Badlands is a global public social media platform like Twitter, Youtube, Fluffbuk or Instaspam, etc, banning people for their political views, and thereby actually silencing them from the broder marketplace over which these entities have almost monopolistic levels of dominance.
I still like Stormy, but I've never really liked Rambo. I for one do NOT think he's on the target. Rather, when I see his stuff, it seems a little dodgy to me. Just saying.
Kek. Hey, you know, I've never called anyone person to person a moron on social media, let alone GAW. So, consider it a badge of honor? I think the 'POS' comment kind of caught me off guard. That's certainly ad hominem, no?
But, seriously, I wrote in response to extremely harsh (imo) opinion/judgment you threw at Herold.
Really, I eschew that sort of (very) low level of dialog all the time. Throwing epithets like 'POS' or 'moron' at people, whether in person or 3rd party, just ain't my style.
I hope you'll forgive the extremity of it, with (perhaps now) view the comment with some understanding of where I'm coming from on this issue.
Anyway, yes. We're frog bros, and even if we (end up) disagreeing on this matter, that's ok.
My conclusion: you have reasons for the view you have. I respect you for it. I disagree, and disagree strongly. And, I guess I'd conclude that maybe the info we've been exposed to is different. Plus, personal preferences, too.
But disagreement is not a bad thing. No one would ever learn or improve if everyone was simply always in 'agreement'.
I think a lot of how we interpret things like (what you quote. From who?) "diluting the brand" depends on our starting positions, sympathies, and lots of other things. Also, if we like or gravitate towards Person Y and he says bad stuff or a negative opinion of Person Z, we're more inclined to give that view weight than otherwise.
In any case, I think you can have a different opinion on the matter (or rather, the person) and it don't mean you or I or anyone is a moron.
A sentiment I can wholeheartedly embrace. Thank the Lord that at least one of us is (ahem, it's you?).
Take care, fren.
No problem fren, perhaps I did go a little far calling him a POS grifter. The info war is real even amongst the truth tellers. You got some people saying "MUH FLYNN NETWORK" etc. It's tiring at times.
Yes, very true.
Curious what you you find dodgy about him? I won't argue against it, I'm open to hearing it. Maybe I have a blind spot.
Thanks fren,
re: Rambo, I don't know... I've not paid much attention to him, pretty much only when someone posts his X stuff here at GAW, but the impression I developed over time was such that i put him in the "sensationalistic, reaction-oriented, stretching and playing strongly to the biases of folks in <our> community" basket.
Perhaps I'll take a closer look. Maybe my impression is wrong.
And for the record, I have never watched Kate's shows. She isn't my style, she says more surface level stuff that I've heard a million times. I prefer listening to decode shows. And no, I am NOT Kate 😂
Yeah, nah, me either. BUT, I certainly buy in to Herold's viewpoint and opinion, for reasons previously stated.
I guess I should note: I'm not that big on the decoding stuff these days, either. I sometimes feel like some people are stuck on the Q drops, focusing too much on them now in order to keep the emotional charge going. (It was certainly emotionally charging to be following Q in real time and tuned in during the drop phase of the operation, and that was a good thing, I think)
I would say that my basic view is that the Q operation had a deployment time, with specific objectives, and that those objectives were met, more or less, but that we're in a completely different phase of the operation. I feel like <some> people overly attach to the drops, trying to decode everything into them still, like people who never graduate from high school, but who continually stay in that high school place.
From that perspective, the Q operation - as far as the drops were concerned - was like a school from which we should learn and then graduate, rather than being fixated on that level. Not to say that stuff doesn't line up now and then, but I think the real message of the Drops was to trigger a great awakening (which by and large has actually gone mainstream), mobilize a civilian decentralized digital research and intelligence militia (anons, etc), and for individuals, help us to break free from the group think and programming.
But some people simply swap their 'truth community' truth tellers for the MSM, rather than learning to think independently, critically, and reflect on the inner and outer thought processes.
I guess that's why I like DPH and Burning Bright and folks of that strain so much. They use the drops as a reference point, but are squarely focused on what is happening today, and understanding that from todays perspective...
I kind of like Gordan Mccormick (?) Based Ghost of Patrick Henry's approach paradigm: four lenses: The Q drops, Devolution Theory, The Sovereign alliance concept (Trump - Putin - Xi) and Trumpomania. The idea is that you need all four of these lenses to be able to accurately and correctly interpret what the heck is going on....
Research and analysis plus 10,000ft views plus solid and transparent thought practices?
I like that.
let me look at Rambo again. Perhaps I'm think of someone else...
Well, I really only have your word on that.... :p
(but nah, Kate wouldn't not watch Kates shows, so I guess I can trust you.)
I just noticed this came out. It's very soap opera to me and I really don't want to spend any more time on this subject. Jon seems very controlling. Selective editing. Recording people without consent. Meh.
https://rumble.com/v72fqle-the-whole-story-of-brenner-v-herold.html?e9s=src_v1_cmd%2Csrc_v1_upp_a
I guess I could watch the Gunnels video, but I'm biased against him.
Sounds about right to me. Glad we could at least flesh out where each of us is coming from. I'm good with that.
On to other, more interesting and fruitful topics!!!!
See you on the board!
Ps. I don't like listening to this sort of stuff, but I've listened to Gunnels so far for and hour and 18 mins.
What a mess.
So far, it paints a different picture. So sad. It looks like they had a pretty dysfunctional relationship, but who knows. In the stuff that Gunnels is reading, Jon comes out worse than Kate. I feel like I get her perspective, and Jon just sounds... yeah, like he's got some issues.
What a mess.
Badlands is a very good project, but boy, what a mess this is. I don't know that I'd ever call someone a POS, but then, I'm not personally involved. People are flawed, and people do stupid and yes, sometimes wrong things.
I hope they both get out of this OK.
Anyway, just thought I'd wrap it up. Happy to move on. Yeah, I do appreciate you engaging with me on this, in such a civil manner.