FF is their discredit tactic for larger movements.
9/11's discredit tactic was the 'no planes' people (who would turn up outside protests to try to discredit the protests).
PizzaGate had the literal actor (has an IMDb page - if it hasn't been scrubbed already) turned 'shooter'. Curiously he never actually killed anyone (they won't kill their own unless leaks), unlike all the school shooter types (vulnerable children = okay, pedophiles = free pass? How weird).
So a Q movement discredit attempt is brewing. Even if it wasn't, some people still go off the rails and get the wrong message. The real tell for an FF: an elite never dies in it.
Where was George Bush on 9/11?
Not in the White House.
>Hint:
Someone has been studying far too many of my posts. Pro-tip: I leave certain terms as tip-offs that someone has been reading my posts. You just tripped up on one of them.
Assigned handlers are always so disappointing, they always end up influenced by my writings - a sign I'm getting to them.
I wouldn't use the 'salty' remarks either.
Allow me to regale you a story.
Undercover agent asked if I, at the time a pacifist, wanted to 'riot against the government'? I knew he was fishing for a 'breach of the peace' or justification for surveillance, but either he was shit at his job (and failed to profile me correctly) or he didn't care.
I asked him plainly: 'what would that achieve?'. He couldn't answer. He also didn't realise I had encountered enough drunks to know that they don't wear alcohol on the outside of their bodies.
>P.S. Not shadowing you! I do like to check in with Clowns and TTDDTOT though because they are kind of like walking off the busy street(ie Research) into a library.
Didn't really consider you a shadowing type, more concerned you were one of those 'try to earn their trust' types, which for the record, never works.
I'll have to think of what I could pass you in terms of info, smartphones aren't ideal for research and they leak info like a sponge. What sort of knowledge do you possess? No need for specifics, a general field will do.
Depending on field of knowledge I can likely throw questions to you that you'd likely be able to answer or refine.
>And the books you did read, you read because they were assigned reading.
The shill doesn't strike me as the kind to have done any reading.
They're what I like to call a 'hanger-on'. Their only purpose is to 'hang around' you and maybe try to reference obscure things in some lame effort to 'spook' you.
They're usually lacking knowledge (hence bot-accusers only line of attack being 'herpderp ur a bot'), try to rely on Goebbels tactics of repetition-reinforcement (largely aimed at audience).
They're like low-grade mooks. It's when you get qualified blackops agents out of the woodwork that stuff gets interesting. They prefer to harass or spook rather than murder, but as seen with Mollie Tibbetts, they run a very real risk of being profiled on even on first pass if they're not extremely careful.
I hope bot-accuser isn't both gingerhaired and bald, that would be a shame.