Well stated and I completely concur. However, we cannot pretend to know exactly who has good intentions, who has malicious intentions, and who is simply being predictably used.... well, all of them are the latter in a sense, but you get what I'm saying. It is better not to vehemently attack nor defend any such media source. As you stated, it's a division tactic and many anon's are falling for it. Sure, some idiots are super obvious. IDK, take those dumbass Krassenstiens or Shapiro or Loomer for example. Not too hard to guess their allegiances. Yet, even those buffoons are being used by WH whether they realize it or not.

• "...but but but muh Candace or muh Tucker or muh Rogan or muh Muslims or muh Juice..."

This shit is beneath us. Frogs should be wise to all of this by now. But, here we are nearly a decade deep and some folks here still believe Juan O Savin is a super duper secret WH asset! So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that frogs latch onto alt-stream punditry that is literally designed to pull at their heartstrings with information that may actually be true or appeal to the universal trust no one/everything is a conspiracy stereotype.

See, in this picture you dont need WHs to inject any narrative to anyone. It all happens organically...

Yes, my point entirely. Good, bad, ugly... it doesn't matter when it comes to punditry. They're all being fed information, both good and bad, to predictably control the narrative geared towards normie optics. Which is why this whole back and forth daily on here is getting rather repetitive and boring: Frogs shouldn't be wasting time arguing about aspects of the movie that are ultimately intended for the normies.

• Talking point: Oh, so ISR did XYZ?! A: Probably.
• Talking point: Oh, so govt lied about XYZ?! A: Probably.
• Talking point: Oh, so (insert pundit here) is controlled?! A: Probably.
• Talking point: Oh, so (insert actor here) is bad/good?! A: Sure, if that's how you have been programmed to see it.

Point being, frogs should be having the type of conversations as yourself and u/mmtwo had. It all starts there in order to understand the movie scenes as they play out. The hot garbage daily twitter takes from the $7000 club and repetitive "I support the current (insert pundit here) stance" are probably doing more harm than good here in the pond. Then again, by my own logic delineated earlier.... perhaps it is totally fine and we are supposed to croak back and forth about all of this hot-button hyperbole. After all, that is a major part that we play as anons: pushing the narrative for normie consumption utilizing dank memes and attacking the normie's brain-cases and safe spaces.

Anyhoot, just chewing on my breakfast blend of crayons and I wanted to commend you and u/mmtwo for seeing and discussing both sides of the bigger picture at play. May this entire thread encourage others to drop their punditry pennants and realize that sometimes, they are the one's in the movie theater who are annoyingly using their cellphones during the film.