No. Epstein was not yet doing his financier schtick at that point.
Well that confirms it.
I have it on good authority, too, that Donald Trump hung out with Epstein. I've seen the photos! Guilty!
never stop believing .... in all those evil, dirty, traitorous people that I completely get off on hating...
regardless of information or facts
you do realize that this bullcrap from Project Veritas (really? So do you think, like, they got rid of James Okeefe because he was just doing a crumby job, and they are really the good guys, zero corrupt motives, right) is about as solid as the twin towers on September 12, don't you?
I mean, are you so bought in on your own prejudices and beliefs that you don't even think for a moment to question what you are being told?
It's total BS.
Whether Barr is DS or patriot, that can certainly be discussed. But just accepting a bullshit story without any discernment because it confirms what you believe, comon. We're better than that. Or should strive to be.
You kinda seem a little obsessed with hating / and knowing with certainty / certain people you view as traitors and then hanging on to how you got downvoted because people disagreed with you. But you, you know it all. Cannot be wrong.
neverstop, it seems to never stop.
(with apologies, but when I see otherwise sane frogs just swallowing cow dung whole because it speaks directly and plays into their biases, dang, that's rustles my jimmies. that's MY bias.)
You may want to check if there is ANY foundation to this bullshite, before parking it in the 'this absolutely confirms my bias' space holder.
... because Project Veritas is certainly a legitimate source, nothing dodgy there at all. I mean, they overthrew James Okeefe because he's obviously deep state. I'm sure that Project veritas is Very upstanding, bona fide investigational operation.
I'm certain they wouldn't use, as a source, a convicted pathological leftist liar who is currently charged with serious crimes related to immigration fraud in the US, who has a track record of making accusations against well-known figures in her home country of Brazil and using fabricated documentation to try to make it stick, who hates Boilsenaro and supports the current Marxist Lulu,
On the other hand, if you think a headline = confirmation, you really might consider re-thinking your approach to the world of information. Dig deeper. Apply some skepticism.
See below for how this so-called 'whistle-blower' is like Juissie Smollet on steroids, x 100.
some of the 'whistleblowers' history:
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bt2VsdQB/x/c/4eVKU9zfDns
a comment about stoopid the idea of her 'notes' are
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bt2VsdQB/x/c/4eVKUA1udT3
A comment from longtimelistener on how much our confirmation bias is exploited:
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bt2VsdQB/x/c/4eVKUA332Fo
Check out the interaction with PV and her with Jordan Sather on X.
https://x.com/Jordan_Sather_/status/1953093552348561486
https://x.com/Jordan_Sather_/status/1953101236431110591
Looking at this, there are NO emails or texts from Barr, there are only the emails related to Fani, and the notes of the 'whistleblower'. The entire PV post is purposely misleading.
nonsense.
I reckon we need another flair to add to the collection:
Peacemaker
Gonna see a lot more of this as things roll out, I suspect...
just an idea.
"expand your thinking" ~ Q
Thanks Change. My comment was addressed to the folks who chimed in on/accepted the story without any question. It wasn't addressed to you.
I thought your comment was on point. you questioned their motive, which is always a salient point.
I think that PV are exactly trying to make a name for themselves, or recover some semblance of some sort of credibility, but they have chosen the dodgiest and slimiest of sources to utilize.
Very strategic, too. Completely targeting the biases that (perhaps) many MAGA have towards Barr.
Me? I guess I'm biased too. Until I have a lot more evidence to the contrary, I think that at a minimum, the jury should still be out on Barr.
Timing is everything. By the time that the Cabal stole the 2020 election (aka Nov 3), Team DJT knew well what was going on, and plans were already in place ready to go for the next phase of FOFI, aka 'Biden Admin', and all the incredible hundreds of boomerangs it created against the DS, which we see happening right now.
If Barr had come out and said, yes, yes, lots of fraud, etc, well, lets just say, firing the gun too early can be disastrous.
"Don't shoot till you see the white of their eyes"
People love to hate a villain. Barr became one of those for folks on our side. But I think that view is a lot more driven by emotion and unquestioned assumptions, rather than reason. but that's my bias, I guess.
Project veritas (remember, that took out their founder James Okeefe?) using a whistleblower that is being charged with serious fraud crimes in the US, has been charged numerous times with fabricating documents, etc, diagnosed as a compulsive liar, who loves the Left and hates Bolsenaro?
Credibility rating - 5 (minus 5)
So if this is true it just might be a hit against the Christian faith as a whole.
I certainly got that vibe. Also, pairing that with the assertions by the website that children were being trafficked at 'Trump's Mar-a-lago just the same as at Epstein's Island' and "trump is a zionist controlled by Israel" assertions, I find it hard to take the website seriously.
39, have you found any evidence to corroborate the un-sauced claim that Barr was involved in any way in founding EAC?
Asking for a frog...
welcome, frog.
jeepers. I don't know what is worse: We're all going to die by covid mass hysteria, or the predilection for so many otherwise normal frogs to just run with bias confirmation, willy nilly.
Me too. here's the proof.
The alleged connection between William "Bill" Barr, former U.S. Attorney General, and European Adoption Consultants (EAC) stems from a claim on the website Freedom's Phoenix, which states that EAC was established in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush and Barr, who served as Attorney General from 1991 to 1993. However, this claim lacks corroboration from credible primary sources, and no definitive evidence directly ties Barr to the founding or operations of EAC.
Oops. I mean, just ignore the "this claim lacks corroboration" part. No need to even consider that.
I mean, Freedom Phoenix just gotta be 100% legit, right? Even if they provide no evidence or sauce.
Not like typical fake news, clickbait websites across the globe. At all.
/sarc?
Where does this information even come from? Does anyone here do any due diligence anymore
Thank goodness someone had the sense to state this, harleygirl.
The article starts here:
The European Adoption Consultants (EAC) is a business that was set up in 1991 by then President George H.W. Bush and Bill Barr, his Attorney General.
Sauce? No sauce or evidence is given for this claim. It is a single claim made, and then the article proceeds to rant on about EAC, never actually addressing the intiial claim.
Still, those who have a preset bias about Barr, will swallow the claim whole:
I knew he was a crook
etc
The source website has a lot of red flags imo, red flags that point to: clickbait scam disinfo news with an agenda to grind. But, that's an opinion.
Also from this website:
Top Stories This Week
Young Girls were Sexually Trafficked at Trump's Mar-a-Lago same as at Epstein Island
Wow. Yeah. Sounds 100% legit. Trump's a trafficker, man.
/sarc
Looks like this is an anti-Trump ("Trump is a zionist working for Israel") website.
Upholding PV as a creditable source because they were founded by Okeefe long before the scumbags took it over, is like saying "Joe Biden must have been OK. He was the President, after all"
Because, project veritas, right?
Just a reminder: Project Veritas are the assh-les who dislodged James Okeefe and took over his company, hostile-like
Note, the so-called 'whistleblower' here is a leftist Brazilian, who supports Lulu, absolutely hates Bolsenaro, has been charged with fraud on multiple occasions, many times of fabricating documents, and medically diagnosed with compulsive lying. Apparently.
Anyway, here are some snippets from Grok re: this woman. As usual, check results, don't take them as gospel. But there does appear to be a lot about her.
If true, it speaks volumes about Project Veritas and who they work for.
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1953789105743233123
tell me about Patrícia Lélis, what kind of history she has, and if she has been charged with crimes etc
faces serious criminal charges in the US
-
comes from a reportedly affluent and religious family and initially aligned with conservative, evangelical, and right-wing politics
-
By 2017, Lélis publicly embraced leftist ideologies, aligning herself with the Workers’ Party (PT) and expressing support for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. She apologized for her earlier anti-PT activism, claiming she had been misled.
-
ran for federal deputy in São Paulo in 2018 with the PROS party but was not elected, receiving only 1,605 votes. She faced accusations of failing to pay campaign workers, who shared evidence of unpaid agreements.
-
gained national attention in Brazil through high-profile accusations against prominent politicians, which were later dismissed or deemed false:
-
accused pastor and congressman Marco Feliciano of attempted rape, assault, and holding her in captivity. She also alleged that his aide, Talma Bauer, held her in private confinement and coerced her into retracting her claims. The case was investigated, but in 2018, the Ministério Público of the Distrito Federal found insufficient evidence to proceed, and the case was archived by Judge Aimar Neres de Matos. Lélis was indicted by São Paulo police for false reporting and extortion related to these allegations. A psychological report, later contested as fraudulent, labeled her as having mythomania (compulsive lying), though she claimed she never met the psychologists involved
-
Lélis claimed to have dated Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, and accused him of threatening her after a public dispute. She alleged he called her derogatory names and threatened to “end her life.” A 2021 police report concluded that the messages she presented as evidence were fabricated
-
In 2022, Lélis was linked to spreading false information, including fabricated content targeting congressman Nikolas Ferreira during Brazil’s elections, using derogatory terms in her posts. In 2024, she accused Venezuelan presidential candidate María Corina Machado of receiving $3.2 million from Chevron, an unsubstantiated claim spread through falsified documents
-
Lélis is currently wanted by the FBI for a series of serious charges related to a fraudulent immigration scheme in the United States, where she resided in Arlington, Virginia. In January 2024, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted her for:
Wire Fraud, Unlawful Monetary Transactions, Aggravated Identity Theft, Threats and Cover-Up:
Dunno. Seems not hard to believe that this is a ploy on her part to gain personal advantage. Coupled with PV (which in my view, is entirely discredited), I'm not going to take her accusations seriously.
She has "lots of notes"? Easily written up. Not as if anyone could fabricate that, right?
(Hmmmm.... Be careful. Your confirmation bias is showing! jks. but....)
Some sources call into question the veracity of the so-called whistleblower' Patrícia Lélis
See here the Project Veritas post. Note: Project Veritas ejected Jame o'Keefe, stole his organization, and O'Keefe is currently not affiliated with Project Veritas in any way. Do you think the 'good guys' took over Project Veritas because O'Keefe is a 'bad guy'?
https://x.com/Project_Veritas/status/1952763440247853416
'readers added to the context of this video':
Patrícia Lélis is not a reliable source.
She falsely reported men for harassment, faked a son with edited photos, got booked by the police in the US for false reporting, and is under an FBI investigation for fraud. She was also once diagnosed with mythomania.
https://x.com/EDVAnews/status/1745889661749215395 https://x.com/mfriasoficial/status/1747017673542648217 https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/processo-em-que-marco-feliciano-era-acusado-de-tentativa-de-estupro-e-arquivado-23305714 https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/geral/noticia/2021/10/policia-do-df-conclui-que-mulher-que-acusou-eduardo-bolsonaro-de-ameaca-forjou-denuncia-cku3x0k6z00a7016saz9m2o7.html https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2024/01/15/patricia-lelis-e-procurada-pelo-fbi-por-aplicar-golpe-milionario-como-falsa-advogada-de-imigracao-nos-eua.ghtml https://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/jornalista-e-indiciada-por-crimes-contra-assessor-de-feliciano.ghtml
See here here interaction with Jordan Sather:
Sather:
Project Veritas shits the bed.
Apparently this "whistleblower", Patrícia Lélis, is apparently notorious in Brazil for lying, such as faking rape allegations and false reporting. She's a diagnosed mythomaniac (psychological condition of compulsive lying).
The comments under this post are not good.
https://x.com/Jordan_Sather_/status/1953089295021162527
Project Veritas (not OMG) responds:
Didn't take you for someone who falls for internet psyops from radical leftists.
Sather:
But your "whistleblower" is literally a leftist in Brazil - projection much?
Something's fishy with your "primary sources" or Patricia
Investigate further before platforming a fraud just because confirmation bias
(picture of Patricia with Lula)
https://x.com/Jordan_Sather_/status/1953093552348561486
Patricia responds:
Let me get this straight — you, who know nothing about Brazilian politics, are judging me based on the fact that I voted for Lula? Honey, I’d vote for the devil before I ever voted for the Bolsonaros. What they do is not only horrible — they’re corrupt, and I dare say they’re tied to the CIA. Now they’re deceiving all the Americans. I hope you start thinking more critically.
https://x.com/lelispatricia/status/1953097759466164681
Sather:
Let me get this straight — you, who know nothing about me, are based in D.C. and Brazil and you support the commie who is destroying your country, and we are supposed to believe your story about American matters.
Meanwhile you've been charged for fraud in this country.
But I'm the one not critically thinking?
Ok, lady.
Regardless of what you think of Barr, discernment and critical thinking are still important, and just because you see a GWP headline, it doesn't mean you have to just swallow it without any critical thought... (not saying that you did, speaking about the 'general' you)
Did I hit a nerve or something? Why are you and Veritas both responding to little irrelevant me?
The wrap up:
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
Hmmm. To be quite frank, this feels quite argumentative. I mean, I have absolutely ZERO interest in either convincing you to adopt any specific view on either this matter. I approach this as engaging for discussion, not to prove my capabilities of reason', nor to challenge or deny yours.
I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interesting in the open exchange of ideas, and approaches to those ideas, ideally in an effort to a) gather more <ahem> evidence aka data input to augment what I have already gathered b) expanding my perspective and c) hopefully doing the same for the other party in the engagement, assuming they have an interest in that.
At a minimum, the engagement doesn't really require c) for it to be beneficial for me (and to further my aims of being more effective in the war and making a contribution), but I find the best results - the proverbial win-win - happens when a, b, and c are all in there.
If you want to be convincing,
Yeah, nah, I do NOT want to be convincing. The world and the information war-space is rife with people obsessed with 'being convincing'. It often speaks, in my experience, of people being identified with their beliefs and views, as if somehow, they either 'know the truth' and require some sort of validation from others by them also accepting 'the truth'.
I'm not saying this is you; I'm saying, in general, that I have found that overall approach to be unproductive and ultimately ineffective.
But also, if you feel compelled to be convincing, I don't judge you on that. You may have very good reasons that compel you to want to do that. (I can think offhand of many scenarios where one might very appropriately feel compelled to try to convince someone of something. "Don't fricken' drive! You've been drinking, you're drunk. Don't do it!!!" just being a very mundane but real example.
People should convince themselves. They should consciously, and morally, set up their own preferred threshold of what convinces them, and then invite information and perspectives in that can engage with that threshold. I think most of us here would accept the premise that you cannot force people to think or accept an idea they do not want to.
Anyway, convince, persuade: all these are good, but in my opinion, ultimately, people need to convince themselves.
But, I also know that my perspective (held view) in a wide variety of matters is not perfect. So, I'm keen to engage, hopefully to learn, hopefully to teach by sharing or at least facilitating the expansion of thinking. But I don't have a bone in the fight. I'm not interested in winning an argument.
I have always found your comments to be potent and insightful. Which is why, frankly, I began my response with "all due respect" and 'not a fan of...'. I think the topic at hand might be worth exploring more, BUT I'm more keen on understanding how you think. If I can expand my view by being open to trying to see more from your perspective, how good is that?
I noticed that your report was created three years ago, and assuming that you uploaded it when you registered the site, you just passed your three-year anniversary.
Congratulations. Seriously. Even a glance at the report shows your evident passion and fervent dedication to what you are doing.
I hope that future discussions we have might be of much mutual benefit. (Even though I have not gone into the actual details of exploring the examples your gave and the base topic in general. Maybe what I've written here simply helps to illuminate 'approach' aka the frameworks you and I are working with.
wwg1wga is not just a slogan. Thank your for your continued efforts and presence on the board. FI
There were a couple of points that for me are a highlight of this response. Plus also some further information that shows you've paid more attention to this than I have, and that further information / articulation is helpful. I hope I can respond in a constructive way.
Two or more highlight points included these:
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Linguist here, so actually 'proof' is a noun, the verb being 'prove', but your point is very well taken. This set of axioms are constantly in my ind as I engage with theories, ideas and conclusions that folks present here at GAW or elsewhere.
In other (my) words: evidence is not proof, and proof (something being proved) is a matter of the accumulated evidence meeting a specific (often personally chosen) threshold. The factor of choice here is absolutely critical. And, its one that far too many people seem willing to ignore or otherwise overlook in the entire engagement process.
To me, choice entails responsibility. Make your choice, but then be responsible for that choice, and acknowledge your role in deciding what you choose to believe, or accept as a standard, etc.
For me, this is the ethical foundation that is key and critical for me when I approach information and the beliefs I derive from that information.
employing the process of reason (a verb). Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof.
You give a great description of this 'process of reason', one which resonates powerfully with my own thinking on the matter, although I feel like you articulate it particularly well, better than I could, which I chalk up to perhaps a greater of level of 'study' in the area. Case in point:
In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Whew. How often I want to raise this point with people when they present their thinking or rather, conclusions on any of the various topics that get raised here. Of particular note to me is this: "Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic." I can immediately see how this is often very true. The issue is not so much the logic, as the axioms.
In particular, the failure of people 'to recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions' seems to me to be something I constantly encounter in discussions. And especially 'or even that they have made those assumptions'.
Failure to recognize, acknowledge or take responsibility for one's assumptions feels like an ethical failure to me. To me, it harkens back to the issue of responsibility; people constantly fail to take responsibility for their thinking, their choices, and the beliefs they attach to. Which is one reason why some people become so defensive of their beliefs; they are self-identified to the belief itself, rather than understanding it as an expression of their volition, their capacity to act, their agency. In doing so, they dis empower themselves.
Biden is an excellent example.
I'm glad you raised this. One of the key issues I have with the Biden isn't Biden narrative is the APPROACH (aka methodology) that I've observed many, if not most people, taking.
And, I'll iterate a point I wrote earlier but edited: for me, the HOW of the engagement with information is far, far more critical than the mere WHAT. because ethically, the process involves choice and responsibility. To me, it has to be an ethical engagement. Without that, it's devoid of constructive meaning. Am I being responsible for my choices? Am I recognizing that I make choices, and am therefore ethically obliged to take responsibility for them?
Like a fundamentalist in <chosen religious view or doctrine> who refuses to recognize his own role in choosing what he decides to believe, and instead places all the 'responsibility' on an external being or object. "Why do you believe that?" "Because its in the Bible. Its the truth. The Literal truth!!!!"
Instead of recognizing that what I consider to be the truth the Bible is telling me is MY belief (my interpretation), and therefore my choice, one that I need to recognize AND be ethically responsible for. Which also requires a capacity to recognize, 'Hey, I might be wrong'. The issue is not lack of conviction. It's about lack of responsibility. I recognize that I might be wrong about my views, BUT I choose to believe them, and hold them as my views, because they seem the best, most suitable, and most aligned with truth TO ME.
In other words, humility becomes a factor here. Not being identified with one's belief allows one to consider alternatives, and also to be open to learning.
In too many cases, I have observed people jumping on to the 'Biden is not Biden' narrative with approaches that lack, in the extreme, a rigorous approach based on reason and intellectual clarity. Confirmation Bias. Again and again. Then, a full investment in the belief, and incredulity that anyone might have a different perspective.
As an example, I have never seen a fully forensic, anatomical analysis offered by a professional in the business. Someone who has professionally and clinically studied the human anatomy, including what changes occur or can occur in the aging process. It has always (by and large) been laymen giving their opinions based on.... very often, a bias.
Coupled then with a few other issues, including the morality of public deception, the need (or rather my belief in the need) for the 'White Hats' to do things by the book, law and order, etc., aka questions of ethics, etc, I have always, and still do, find myself falling (erring?) on the side of: in the face of not finding compelling arguments, I'll go with MY biases, which I prefer, based on the entirety of my ontological and ethical world view.
There have been a few instances (far too few) when someone has made what I think are good and reasonable arguments to counter my chosen explanation (view), and those instances give me great opportunities to expand my thinking and consider alternative possibilities. Which I relish. Because (I think) I'm quite devoted to acquiring the most effective truth perspective I can.
One example is Bubble_bursts view on the topic. He is, as I understand it, in the Fake Biden (Fake <persons>) camp (if you'll allow me to put a binary framework on the issue, i.e. a person being in one of two camps), which was contrary to my view, but his arguments were good, presented well and logically developed well, with reason. I came away being more amenable to the fundamental proposition, even if my own view wasn't shifted too much. But it was expanded. Heck, I'm certainly, most certainly, still - gathering evidence -.
And, until I find the evidence I've found reaches my own internal threshold, I'm a skeptic. And, that is a position I've chosen, because it both ethically feels right and also because it feels most effective.
Which is an important factor for me. How can I show up most effective in this information war? How can I make the best contribution I can?
I'll put aside your actual argument here, but while commenting that you offer a compelling approach, and to me, that provides greater inspiration to consider alternatives. My reasons for my beliefs do not include any reliance whatsoever on 'the media' or their narratives, so I won't comment on that aspect, except to say that I think we're in agreement that the media lies, and also that I am quite inclined to the perspective that media and medicine are both fields that have been profoundly corrupted. I am also quite sympathetic to the view that we can trace that corruption back to, certainly in part, if not wholly, the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal.
Just one comment here: I have not felt so compelled to research into that area: the intricate details of the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal. It's a dark world, and I'm not all that keen on diving into darkness, for a number of reasons. What I have found along my journey has been enough to convince me of certain core beliefs and if you will, axioms, to the extent that feel enough to propel me to be more effective in what I want to do.
But that's largely because of how I see my own role in things. For those that specialize more in those very important (overall) investigative areas, I have a lot of respect, and I hope, appreciation.
I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
Again, strong agreement with this statement.
On top of all this, you make some good counter-arguments re: public deception, and although I think those finer points could be further discussed, my primary concern in responding is to articulate the value I feel your approach is offering, not to mention the very similar way we conceive (as far as I can see) the very core issues of: evidence, proof, logic and axioms, choice and failures to see these for what they are (and how choice is a factor).
For now, I'll wrap up.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing
Well, hang on now. It seems like you are objectifying the matter by putting it into passive voice (which linguistically removes the active agent). What I actually wrote was:
I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying
For me, the core thing here is 'I don't find....'. It's directly related to MY subjective standards, and passes no 'objective' judgment on whether the framework you offering is 'sufficient', unless its to say, it is 'insufficient for me, to persuade me that its something I should adopt'.
To my mind, that's important. I'm attempting to communicate something about my perspective, and what works for me. Not to pass some sort of objective judgement that negates my own choices and subjective agency.
why you think it was unconvincing
See? I did not say passively, "it is unconvincing". I stated that I (personally) found it unconvincing. Perhaps the fault is with me, and not with your framework. BUT, even if so, I'm not just going to adopt something because someone argues it better than me.
Why did I find the framework unconvincing? To be frank, I did offer some explanation:
Binary offerings often come across (to me. Should have emphasized this perhaps, 'to me') as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions.
Why unconvincing specifically? If I had to analyze it, its because it hinges on the axioms: 1. They are using body doubles (in ways and volumes that are defined in a way that you appear comfortable with (ie. see as evident and clear) and 2. They are lying about using body doubles (i.e. creating false narratives that say they are using body doubles (again, in the way that appears well-defined for you).
I'm not objecting to these axioms, but they are outside of the conjectures or theories that I currently find compelling. I'm not saying they are wrong. I can respect that you have come to your conclusions for reasons (and evidence) that you find compelling. But I think I would have to be a fool to just accept, well, Joe finds them compelling, so they must be right! I'll adopt them!
(Cont)
This is a really great response. I hoped to get to replying today, but sadly I won't. But this is the sort of response that makes engaging GAW worthwhile.
After (during) 8 years of Q, I've seen theories come and theories go, I've seen all sorts of nonsense and all sorts of passionately held perspectives, a very wide spectrum indeed.
As things have unfolded, many, many of those theories have just fallen away and their relevance to what is unfolding often seems (feels) distant.
People are strange beings. We have emotional needs, intellectual needs, and the need to see accomplishment. Navigating all of that, while attempting to make real progress, requires above all else, balance. At least, so it seems to me.
Some interpretations of the Q message (board) appear to me to be lacking in various forms of balance, and for those reasons, I find myself not gravitating towards them. They might spike interest for a time, but very few really have staying power.
I put the mask-wearing fake/false/replaced 'person' theories (if you listen to some, they are not theories, but self-evident facts!) in that basket. There may be some measure of truth there (as there is in almost any perspective) but the way that some grasp it appears to me like a person coming into the roulette room at the casino, and putting all their hard earned cash on No. 7 to win. Or even just splitting up their chips, on this or that etc.
I don't find that sort of approach to be all that productive, personally. But I guess some do.
It must be done by the book.
And, there's the real kicker. It has to be done properly.
Thanks for following up on this.
I'm still quite skeptical, given how much clickbait bulldust floats around the alt-media, and when headlines are touted as fact without any discernible (verifiable) basis, it raises all sorts of red flags for me.
I'd be interested to know more about the source here brass balls blog.
but either way, this is good follow up.
I look forward to taking a deeper look.
Thank you 39.