The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”

And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.

The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”

Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).

Not a good foundation to build your argument on

Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).

Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.

Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.

Association is not the same as guilt.

Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.

You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.

The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”

And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.

The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”

Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).

Not a good foundation to build your argument on

Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).

Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.

Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.

Association is not the same as guilt.

Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.

You know damning things about some people. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.

The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”

And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.

The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”

Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).

Not a good foundation to build your argument on

Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).

Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.

Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.

Association is not the same as guilt.

Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.

You know damning things about some people. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.