Free streams for your viewing pleasure. Stick it to Big Tech and MSM... don't give them clicks or views! (I'm only watching for the off-chance of a happening)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the following links. Take the proper precautions i.e. adblock, VPN, etc.
If you haven't been keeping up with r/wallstreetbets and the $GME short squeeze, I've provided a quick rundown below.
Latest news: Sellout OG mods who haven't been active since long ago have now taken over the subreddit r/wallstreetbets in order to monetize the sub's recent meteoric rise in popularity. They are planning to make movie deals with Pedowood.
The actual mods who care about integrity have been ousted and replaced with new mods (likely new accounts or bought accounts). Any posts protesting the new changes are deleted and the users banned immediately. The sub is in absolute shambles.
If you are lurk there, don't trust anything on the sub at this time. Nobody can tell how many bots/shills have infiltrated.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/6mErVap
On a side note: still holding $GME????
QRD: Shorting a stock means you speculate the stock price will fall so you "borrow" shares of stock on margin to sell at a high price then scoop it up at a lower price. Shorting a stock=sell high, buy low.
Hedgefunds have typically shorted stocks with impunity, often ruining companies for their gain. Enter Gamestock. Just another juicy target to short, or so they thought. What was to be business as usual was met with staunch resistance from a bunch of self-described "retards" and "autists" over on Reddit's r/wallstreetbets. A DD (due diligence/deep dive) into the stock months ago revealed a rather obvious weakness: HFs overly short position was vulnerable to a short squeeze i.e. they borrowed more than the entire volume of stock readily tradeable (high short interest with regard to float) and so they would have to buy the stocks back at whatever the price when it came time to close out their position.
The stock, which should've continued to drop in price, was bought up en masse, the price surged. This is when it exploded across the internets, from the chans /biz/ & /pol/ to the various subreddits and even here to our very own .win communities.
Buoyed by what seemed to be a sure thing made surer as more shares sold, many jumped on board and the price per share rocketed up past $400. The short squeeze AKA the rocket ship almost took off.
And this is when the DS/establishment/globalists struck (redpilling a whole bunch of people in the process).
- They restricted the ability to buy the stock citing "technical difficulties" and "volatility" among other things. They artificially cut off the demand thereby dropping the price.
- During the time of restriction, they were able to trade freely and make all the backroom deals they wanted.
- They started flinging mud with all the weapons in their arsenal: the MSM, shills, bots, ads.
MSM took a break on attacking the "Qanon conspiracy movement" only to try to strangle the grassroots financial movement.
In typical MSM fashion, they've outright lied and otherwise manipulated the public opinion on the possibility of a short squeeze occurring for the meme stock $GME, all for their hedge fund masters. They've also smeared r/WSB, stating that it was a "Russian op" or "illegal market manipulation" and now they are actively attempting to associate "Qanon" with "r/WSB market manipulators." What a load of bull.
The HFs have since sicced their dog Yellen (bought for $800K) on r/WSB to investigate the "illegalities." To give some semblance of "fairness," some members of Congress "spoke out" against the inequality, but the damage has been done. The brazen and OPENLY CORRUPT maneuvers of the DS are definitely waking up the general public to the truth... "all animals are equal and some are more equal than others."
And now, the subreddit that acted as a catalyst for it all is D O N E Z O.
R.I.P. r/WSB
TLDR: Stop posting War-Castles as if it were true. Russell-Jay Gould and his mentor David Wynn Miller and whomever practices "quantum linguistics" are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists with no grounding in reality. I say again, THESE PEOPLE ARE BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR ASSES.
See reasons below.
ATTN: USA Inc. Conspiracy Theorists
RE: Origins of Conspiracy
Disclaimer: I'm not against theorizing and exploring the hypothetical. In fact, I think it's quite plausible that there was a hostile government takeover conducted by global financiers et al sometime in the past (whether that point in time is 1871 or not is debatable).
However, I think you all might have noticed the recent heavy influx of conspiracy theories and non-sensical plots all purported to be connected to the GA. The bulk of it has come from the handshakes. We do, however, have a few that continue to peddle this BS without doing any real research or scrutiny. We have enough trolls & shills as it is. #savetheMods
There is a real need to practice discernment to its fullest, especially since we have been "awakened" to the reality of our time and have dived headfirst into the rabbit hole in search of the truth. We need to keep our wits about us while we find our bearings. We can let go of all the preconceptions and indoctrination, but we can't let ourselves be swayed by every single plausible-sounding conspiracy theory.
This guy thinks he "captured" a flag and took over the "Unity States." He also used "quantum language" and other esoteric mumbo-jumbo to regain control over our lands, rights, etc.
8::D Russell-Jay Gould (or however you punctuate his name kek) seen here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/arDZQtotkgkJ/
Before you waste your time watching it (unless you're watching it for the lulz), read up on his crazy mentor and the mechanics behind the "quantum linguistics" that he pushed:
This is his Mentos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller
Here he is again, recorded explaining "quantum language": https://www.bitchute.com/video/c9WIUWz9spGl/
They both sound convincing especially Gould's performance in his "tell-all." His story could also fit within the "plan." However, a real quick reality check should completely debunk it: a contract or words have no meaning without enforcement AKA might makes right. Without such a force to execute them, contracts are little more than scraps of paper.
To put it another way, think about all the arbitrary and unilateral decisions that a person or country has ever made i.e. the cause behind our Revolutionary war (stamp tax, embargoes, etc.). What made such actions possible? The answer: brute force, raw power, standing armies.
That makes Gould's claims wildly preposterous and makes him a mere pimp of pedantry. YOU CAN'T ARGUE ABOUT LEGALISTIC SEMANTICS WITHOUT THREAT OF FORCE. He claims to have just "waltzed" up there and became some made up position and then again "waltzed" right up there and reclaimed the U.S. from foreign powers...
Need I say more?
⚠️STOP THE CRAZY USA INC CONSPIRACY THEORIES⚠️
WARNING: WALL OF TEXT
Not a lawfag, but here my 2 pence with regard to the enactment of EOs and direct military action on U.S. soil.
The President has the full authority as Commander-in-Chief of armed forces AND head of Executive branch (aka the executor or chief executive). Meaning any lawful (in accordance with the letter of the law) EOs enacted must be fulfilled by any subordinate (within Executive branch purview) departments, organizations and agencies including the Department of Homeland Securities (DHS), under which the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and its sister agency Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is organized. However, though the heads of these organizations serve at the pleasure of the President, they have the "prerogative" to refuse orders at the risk of being fired or otherwise removed.
TLDR: Yes, the heads of ICE and all other orgs under Executive branch MUST comply or get fired. There's not much holding back outright refusal to follow orders from the civilian agencies as the heads can do so with a mere loss of a job.
As for the military, all orders are under penalty of court martial, meaning BIG consequences for insubordination (military is the only way). EOs will be followed lest any of the brass face court martial for insubordination under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ - 10 U.S. Code § 894).
Oh and a court martial isn't like a civilian court by any means. They will throw everything at you including article 88 (contempt towards officials) and article 94 (mutiny or sedition) so I don't see any single military commander going rogue and disobeying a direct order without a fallback in place (unlike certain heads of alphabet soup agencies who get away with perjury).
The EOs themselves are orders addressing specific issues with broad enough parameters that some operational leeway can be given to those tasked with their execution. The military commanders will likely work with Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCoS) and National Security advisor to "flesh out" the order through use of memorandums and the like.
Now for the question about 11.3:
Firstly, a synopsis for the Rip Van Winkles out there: The current working theory is that the Q drops mentioning the dates 11.3, 11.4 & 11.6 all refer not to dates but to the the subsections within the Department of Defense (DOD) Law of War Manual (pub. JUN15, updated DEC16 - direct link) Chapter XI which outline the procedures for military occupation AKA martial law or military government. If, in fact, this turns out to be correct and the military IS currently occupying Washington, D.C. as an occupying power of enemy territory, then much of what we have seen makes sense. Of course this all falls under the assumption that Biden et al have clearly and provably committed seditious acts with the aid of foreign influences.
Secondly, in standard Q fashion, we must tease out the answer and first define lawful military occupation (when military can take action on US soil):
11.2 WHEN MILITARY OCCUPATION LAW APPLIES
11.2.2 Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied:
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile force
[footnote 54 HAGUE IV REG. art. 42 (“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”)]
What constitutes a hostile force?
This can be seen in at least two ways:
- Biden is party to hostile foreign power(s) a la election interference and thus the highest office in our land is occupied by a foreign agent. Furthermore, all subordinate agencies including DoJ can be seen as extensions of that foreign agent. In contrast, military officers swear to uphold the Constitution rather than even a duly elected President, much less an unduly elected one.
- Washington, D.C. can be considered a city-state outside the Union, under the control of foreign powers.
The movement of military into D.C. can also be seen in two ways:
- Liberation of Friendly territory
- Occupation of Enemy territory
Mix 'n' Match.
11.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation:
Military occupation must be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and the Occupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority. It is sufficient that the occupying force can, within a reasonable time, send detachments of forces to enforce its authority within the occupied district. Military occupation does not require the presence of military forces in every populated area, although the occupying force must, inter alia, control the most important places. The city is mostly locked down but ALL places of importance are under NG control.
Similarly, as long as the occupation is effective, there is no precise number of forces that are considered necessary to constitute an effective occupation. The number of forces necessary to maintain effective occupation will depend on various considerations, such as the disposition of the inhabitants, the number and density of the population, the nature of the terrain, and similar factors
NG troop count in D.C. is winding down (rumored to be down to an estimated 7,000), but it is still effectively under occupation.
Further down:
11.2.2.2 “Under the Authority” – Suspension and Substitution of Governmental Authority:
Occupation also requires the suspension of the territorial State’s authority and the substitution of the Occupying Power’s authority for the territorial State’s authority. The territorial State must be rendered incapable of publicly exercising its authority in the territory, and the Occupying Power must substitute its authority for that of the territorial State. Invading forces in possession of the territory must have taken measures to establish their authority. For example, such measures may include establishing its own governmental authority for that area and making regulations for the conduct of temporary government. The suspension and substitution of authority may take place with local authorities continuing to administer territory subject to the paramount authority of the Occupying Power. On the other hand, routine measures necessary to provide for unit security (e.g., warning private persons not to threaten or interfere with military operations) would not necessarily constitute measures to establish authority over enemy territory. The substitution of authority by the Occupying Power may be shown by a proclamation of occupation, although such a proclamation is not required.
11.2.4 Proclamation of Occupation:
[...] the fact of military occupation and the territory over which it extends should be made known to the citizens of the occupied territory and to other States. However, there is no specific legal requirement that the Occupying Power issue a proclamation of military occupation. No need to proclaim an occupation is taking place, just need to force it. Also of note in §2.2.2: the examples of "measures to establish their authority" include "making regulations for the conduct of temporary government" whilst "[t]he suspension and substitution of authority may take place with local authorities continuing to administer territory subject to the paramount authority of the Occupying Power." What this implies: all governance and functions of government can continue to operate under the authorities in place but are subject to sole discretion of the Occupying Power (military).
TLDR for the smooth-brained: it's plausible that the military took over and is running the government. Under such considerationAll officials and authorities are effectively puppets running a puppet government for the duration of this occupation all without any announcement whatsoever.
Lastly, comes the "assumed" subsections referenced by Q. The drops only explicitly (if you can consider it so) reference §3, 4 & 6 but the fulfillment of duties under §5 is pretty much a given.
11.3 END OF OCCUPATION AND DURATION OF GC OBLIGATIONS
11.4 LEGAL POSITION OF THE OCCUPYING POWER
11.5 DUTY OF THE OCCUPYING POWER TO ENSURE PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
11.6 PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OF AN OCCUPIED TERRITORY The content of 11.4-11.6 is all self-explanatory (see titles of sections above...) and is also referenced by Q albeit indirectly (do your own research). Now for the meat and potatoes.
11.3.1 End of Occupation
[...] the status of belligerent occupation ceases when the invader no longer factually governs the occupied territory or when a hostile relationship no longer exists between the State of the occupied territory and the Occupying Power.
[...] if a new, independent government of the previously occupied territory assumes control of the territory and consents to the presence of the previously occupying forces, then such a situation would no longer be considered a belligerent occupation. Similarly, if a peace treaty legitimately transfers the territory to the sovereignty of the Occupying Power, then the Occupying Power would no longer be characterized as such.
As we all know, the legitimacy of Biden's presidency is still in question due to fraudulent elections process. Perhaps military action and subsequent military trials will clear this up and depose of Biden.
Which leads us to several possible scenarios:
- A second election directly administered by the military
- An election of an independent government under the auspices of the "occupying" military
- The arrests and trials of leaders of the former government. New interim government is formed and consents to occupying force OR ratifies peace treaty to transfer the territory to the sovereignty of the occupying force
11.3.2 Duration of GC Obligations in the Case of Occupied Territory
In the home territory of parties to the conflict, the application of the GC shall cease on the general close of military operations. In the case of occupied territory, the application of the GC shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such State exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the GC: [omitted for brevity]
Perhaps this is what Q also meant when it came to future safeguarding.
Disclaimer: this is all hypothetical. If the anons' interpretation of the "dates" in the Q drops is correct, then military occupation is LIKELY what we are currently witnessing.
Originally posted as a comment in another thread, now a stand-alone post for discussion
