That only way you can discern things in the middle of a 5G info war, is to assess outcomes.

I suggest this is the best way to ascertain the reality of all of history as well. When you dig into history (especially the past three centuries, though not limited to that period), everything seems to have a single source in both funding and propaganda (control of information). When you understand how widespread this "single source"ness is, and how far back it goes, you stop assuming that the outcome was unintentional. Thus, the outcome (who really benefitted) is, I suggest, the evidence of intent. It is certainly a much better indicator than the official narrative (who writes the history books?).

If I was the DS and was worried about the popularity of Tucker... [I'd] sow the seeds of doubt to contain him.

I agree this looks like a DS hitpiece, and it probably is. But it is also important to realize that if you don't understand the larger operation of Q, and you look at all the Controlled Opposition operations of the past, it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that someone like Tucker is also Controlled Opposition.

That is the problem with coming to any "conclusions." There exists esoteric knowledge, obfuscated pieces of evidence all over the place, that can only be found by digging deep, that can drastically change the perspective of how to incorporate other evidence into any theory of "what is really going on." We have the advantage of Q. Now, if Q are themselves CO, then our perspective is also skewed by missing evidence to support that.

Do the best you can with the information you have, but keep your mind open to new evidence, no matter where it leads.

Its also important to not lock yourself into certain assumptions and be willing to change them as the facts change.

As you suggest.

That only way you can discern things in the middle of a 5G info war, is to assess outcomes.

I suggest this is the best way to ascertain the reality of all of history as well. When you dig into history (especially the past three centuries, though not limited to that period), everything seems to have a single source in both funding and propaganda (control of information). When you understand how widespread this "single source"ness is, and how far back it goes, you stop assuming that the outcome was unintentional. Thus, the outcome (who really benefitted) is, I suggest, the evidence of intent. It is certainly a much better indicator than the official narrative.

If I was the DS and was worried about the popularity of Tucker... [I'd] sow the seeds of doubt to contain him.

I agree this looks like a DS hitpiece, and it probably is. But it is also important to realize that if you don't understand the larger operation of Q, and you look at all the Controlled Opposition operations of the past, it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that someone like Tucker is also Controlled Opposition.

That is the problem with coming to any "conclusions." There exists esoteric knowledge, obfuscated pieces of evidence all over the place, that can only be found by digging deep, that can drastically change the perspective of how to incorporate other evidence into any theory of "what is really going on." We have the advantage of Q. Now, if Q are themselves CO, then our perspective is also skewed by missing evidence to support that.

Do the best you can with the information you have, but keep your mind open to new evidence, no matter where it leads.

Its also important to not lock yourself into certain assumptions and be willing to change them as the facts change.

As you suggest.

That only way you can discern things in the middle of a 5G info war, is to assess outcomes.

I suggest this is the best way to ascertain the reality of all of history as well. When you dig into history (especially the past three centuries), everything seems to have a single source in both funding and propaganda (control of information). When you understand how widespread this "single source"ness is, and how far back it goes, you stop assuming that the outcome was unintentional. Thus, the outcome (who really benefitted) is, I suggest, the evidence of intent. It is certainly a much better indicator than the official narrative.

If I was the DS and was worried about the popularity of Tucker... [I'd] sow the seeds of doubt to contain him.

I agree this looks like a DS hitpiece, and it probably is. But it is also important to realize that if you don't understand the larger operation of Q, and you look at all the Controlled Opposition operations of the past, it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that someone like Tucker is also Controlled Opposition.

That is the problem with coming to any "conclusions." There exists esoteric knowledge, obfuscated pieces of evidence all over the place, that can only be found by digging deep, that can drastically change the perspective of how to incorporate other evidence into any theory of "what is really going on." We have the advantage of Q. Now, if Q are themselves CO, then our perspective is also skewed by missing evidence to support that.

Do the best you can with the information you have, but keep your mind open to new evidence, no matter where it leads.

Its also important to not lock yourself into certain assumptions and be willing to change them as the facts change.

As you suggest.

That only way you can discern things in the middle of a 5G info war, is to assess outcomes.

I suggest this is the best way to ascertain the reality of all of history as well. Everything seems to have a single source in both funding and propaganda (control of information). When you understand how widespread this "single source"ness is, and how far back it goes, you stop assuming that the outcome was unintentional. Thus, the outcome (who really benefitted) is, I suggest, the evidence of intent. It is certainly a much better indicator than the official narrative.

If I was the DS and was worried about the popularity of Tucker... [I'd] sow the seeds of doubt to contain him.

I agree this looks like a DS hitpiece, and it probably is. But it is also important to realize that if you don't understand the larger operation of Q, and you look at all the Controlled Opposition operations of the past, it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that someone like Tucker is also Controlled Opposition.

That is the problem with coming to any "conclusions." There exists esoteric knowledge, obfuscated pieces of evidence all over the place, that can only be found by digging deep, that can drastically change the perspective of how to incorporate other evidence into any theory of "what is really going on." We have the advantage of Q. Now, if Q are themselves CO, then our perspective is also skewed by missing evidence to support that.

Do the best you can with the information you have, but keep your mind open to new evidence, no matter where it leads.

Its also important to not lock yourself into certain assumptions and be willing to change them as the facts change.

As you suggest.