>>6446595 pb

^^^This

>>6446831 pb

"What would be the point of the disinfo "RR is good" ?

Should have read:

"What would be the point of the disinfo "RR is BAD IF HE WAS ACTUALLY GOOD" ?"

&

Should read:

"You can't prove a lie.

And that's why the "RR is White Hat" dudes can't prove it.

And don't even seem to try.

Their "trying" is "historical FICTIONALIZATION" "NARRATION" some thing everybody in our culture is very used to."

why do they have teams on this?

They can convince people black is white and vis versa; why is that?

>>6447069

Is it an ego thing

"we know the real, secret [improble] story everyone else missed"?

while overlooking the obvious and the tons of evidence which runs counter?

If you are born to dig then everything you see is a "Rabbit hole"?

This plays into the MASS MEDIA's exact critique of "anons" and "conspiracy theorists" in general.

"Confimation Bias"

You believe RR is good guy, since he's such a stupid [an pretentious] liar, so everything you see tends to enforce that belief?

Anons WANT to believe he's good because the notion such a seemingly squeeky clean [how he pretends] is too painful to realize he's a double-cross. ?

Anons don't want to admit that someone like him could be such a good liar.

If you study psychopaths you'll find out they very good at tricking people that they are good.

Amazing stories of how they can manipulate.

If you ever have time weighing on your hands read up on it.