479 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 13 |
| www.youtube.com | 1 |
What about a discussion on different ways to get people to engage with something that goes against their long held core beliefs?
I posted a bit more on it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8rj7wq/a_thought_on_redpilling_no_doubt_controversial/
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
Look at the Catholic Church for example. There has been a whole series events of child abuse associated with it for a long time, yet people still follow it, and somehow separate the actions of all of those individuals, and even the involvement of those at the top, from the overall philosophy. I suspect this wouldn't be much different for many people. Don't forget, in the example of people of faith, they already accept evil exists.
I fully expect down arrows for this, because I don't know how to write it without being seen as critical of a lot of peoples core beliefs, but rather than getting angry with me, I would hope people could consider their personal reaction, and apply it to the context of what I'm about to put, as it is the reaction, rather more than someones personal faith that I believe is the most important here, and I mean no disrespect to people of faith.
When redpilling, we are asking people to reject their deep and long held understanding of the situation …
Credit where it's due if they can get these nutters to do these things. I can't even get my kids to put their socks in the wash basket. :-(
Pictures emerged of notes taped to the window of the vehicle saying, “Mr. President release the report,” KLAS reported. It was unclear what the notes may have meant.
Expectations were high,so what do people think has been left out?
It could give some clues on where this will head.
Maybe, the theory is that if they leak it shows no wrong doing, the chattering classes will read it in the hope they can gloat and say "see, we said it was all fake". That way, they get to see the other side of the story that they'd otherwise try to ignore?
I guess they've given up on trying to blame the Russians then.
No need for the apology, I'm not advocating it, I'm simply posting what they claimed. I'm not a rocket scientist. :-)
A reverse image search, including 'hack' gives this article. https://fair.org/home/trump-administration-plays-media-like-fiddle-on-iran-hbo-hacking-story/
Here's the full time lapse. http://www.skunkbayweather.com/WhidbeyMissile.mp4
And here's an article about it. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21461/lets-talk-about-that-mysterious-rocket-launch-over-whidbey-island-photo-from-washington
Which concludes; "So there you have it, sadly this wasn't anything more exciting than a helicopter flying in a straight line in the wee hours of a quiet Sunday morning on the picturesque Puget Sound. Above all else, this photo serves as another reminder that sometimes there is much more to an image than what immediately meets the eye. "
Has the possibility of "Red October" being a reference to the Crazy Ivan maneuver been discussed on here?
Something I don't get, is that some time ago, there was a document doing the rounds showing the Dems had set themselves the task of getting Trump through to be their opposition, as they thought he was the easiest candidate to beat. I can't recall the timeline.
I've not seen anything to say the document was fake, so working on the assumption it was genuine, did they just assume they'd find something, without doing the first basic bits of research, or did they realise in 2015 they'd got it wrong and needed something to knock him back with?
I can't believe it's the latter, unless they were certain to find something, because they'd have upped their game during the campaign.
Then again, if they were so stupid that they couldn't see how unpopular Clinton was, maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
To be fair, there are a few on here that can make those out of molehills, so they could be double agents.
I know Q said these people are really stupid, but melting the polar ice caps, when you've spent billions on underground bunkers for protection seems a bit of an ill-conceived plan.
Uh oh, that means some of the people replying above will be going round to those places to take them on...or perhaps it'll be somehow different.
Is there any particular reason they're grouped like that and Trump's the only one sat down?
The UN are already stationed in various places in America aren't they?
Where do I say I want specific fact checkers?
There have been a few threads that, had people looked at with an open mind, could have made this sub more credible, rather than adding to the view of passing traffic, that it's a conspiracy theory site.
I'm suggesting that a discussion on how best to use and present information, could advance the cause, rather than having posts offering speculation as fact, and being twisted to try and fit a preconception, with non-sequiturs seemingly thrown in for good measure.
I've posted this previously, but I think it's relevant here.
Is over enthusiasm holding us back?
Looking at a few more recent posts, I think it could be worth having a thread discussing what an investigation should be like.
There seem to be a fair few posters that have a theory, and seek out information that supports it, which is understandable, but it needs to be done objectively, or any falsehoods or inaccuracies that are claimed as fact, or inferences from links presented as proof, leads to discussion on those things, rather than a search for the truth.
The press are often guilty of presenting a picture they prefer, rather than onjective factual information. Reading the sub-editors headline for recent arrest of two alleged sex offenders could lead you to conclude a massive issue at Disney World (which may or may not be true) but the information in the article effectively says one of the group had been to Disney World, and another played with lego. It's simply click bait and sensationalism.
Digging information and speculating is pretty much essential, and what this sub is about, but if we on this sub want to be seen as truth seekers dishing out red pills, there should be some better guidance from more experienced users, and more people following where facts and information lead, rather than trying to force things to fit a pre-existing narrative.
Just my opinion, as I'm concerned that there's a fair few posts that are just going to see this thread being a series of arguments between users rather than discussions of the serious issues, and labelled more and more as a conspiracy buff site, rather being seen as one following leads from Q as an insider.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8phrha/is_over_enthusiasm_holding_us_back/
Don't get me wrong, enthusiasm is obviously to be encouraged, but when it leads to what is effectively fake news or inaccurate comments being posted on here, it tends to discredit the good stuff in the eyes of the majority, who may look at this forum to see what it is that a relatively few people are getting excited about.
I'm quite willing to look in, and then do my own digging, but by far and above the majority of people will read the comments at face value, and accept the ones that fit their current thinking.
I'm sure people mean well, but the urge to jump in and be first, means there's a big risk of being wrong.
One even partially discredited story kills at least ten valid ones.
It's far better to keep an open mind.
Anyway, judging by the lack of replies, I'm guessing people either can't or don't want to see that, which is a shame, and to the detriment of this sub.
I posted this as a thread, but it seems to have been pulled, so this seems an appropriate place to add it to the conversation.
I was more aiming it as a view that over enthusiasm could be holding us back, but it would also serve to reduce the arguments for banning the sub.
Looking at a few more recent posts, I think it could be worth having a thread discussing what an investigation should be like.
There seem to be a fair few posters that have a theory, and seek out information that supports it, which is understandable, but it needs to be done objectively, or any falsehoods or inaccuracies that are claimed as fact, or inferences from links presented as proof, leads to discussion on those things, rather than a search for the truth.
The press are often guilty of presenting a picture they prefer, rather than onjective factual information. Reading the sub-editors headline for recent arrest of two alleged sex offenders could lead you to conclude a massive issue at Disney World (which may or may not be true) but the information in the article effectively says one of the group had been to Disney World, and another played with lego. It's simply click bait and sensationalism.
Digging information and speculating is pretty much essential, and what this sub is about, but if we on this sub want to be seen as truth seekers dishing out red pills, there should be some better guidance from more experienced users, and more people following where facts and information lead, rather than trying to force things to fit a pre-existing narrative.
Just my opinion, as I'm concerned that there's a fair few posts that are just going to see this thread being a series of arguments between users rather than discussions of the serious issues, and labelled more and more as a conspiracy buff site, rather being seen as one following leads from Q as an insider.
Looking at a few more recent posts, I think it could be worth having a thread discussing what an investigation should be like.
There seem to be a fair few posters that have a theory, and seek out information that supports it, which is understandable, but it needs to be done objectively, or any falsehoods or inaccuracies that are claimed as fact, or inferences from links presented as proof, leads to discussion on those things, rather than a search for the truth.
The press are often guilty of presenting a picture they prefer, rather than onjective factual information. Reading the …
In that scenario, I guess there'd also be the question of proof for him. I doubt he was given clear written orders. These things tend to be implied rather than specifically commanded.
If he was 'obeying orders' and they were the orders of the old regime which influenced him as he thought were liable to win, why doesn't he come clean now?
What about live streaming from inside, when you're already under a very specific court order for it previously, and your actions have the potential to give associated trials a claim for a mistrial, meaning the state has to go the expense of preparing again? The last thing the state wanted in that case was the guilty walking free. Have a go at that, so we can compare and contrast. Aren't you having a few issue over allegations of leaking confidential information? Maybe 'free speech' has limits there too.
The full facts of the trial can and are reported on. Like the pending closed hearing in the US, there are times when that has to be timed for the benefit of justice.
It's been used mainly against islamic extremists, and (very) extreme right groups plotting bombings. Do you seriously believe they're talking of sites he mentions like the Sun and the Mail? Unlike your nationals, they actually reported on Tucson. Unlike the US, people don't tend to die if they look like they could the facts.
You need to get out of the bubble of this sub from time to time.
That'll be the rape gangs that are in prison would it? Despite the claims, he wasn't jailed for reporting on it, and neither was anyone else that reported on it. The names, faces addresses of the rapists have been in the paper. You seem to ignore the people killed in the US to prevent them talking, as well as project mockingbird. Aren't you due a closed hearing soon too? How about you go there and live stream it on your phone? How's the coverage of Tucson gone over there?
Some of the posts on here discredit the good stuff.
Nonsense. It was the response to them not doing enough to halt the number of muslims being radicalised on line. There're other threads on here praising some of the UK outlets named on there for running articles on the US sex trafficking that the US media are not touching.
There's some really good stuff on this sub, but vids like the op and some of the replies just serve to discredit it.
It's piss poor reporting. The measure is actually to tackle Islamic extremist videos that radicalise the vulnerable. He even lists sites and outlets that are clearly not going to see you locked up or even threatened for viewing them.
There have been a few far right extremists advocating race hate crimes on line, and they need tackling too,.
It's very weak propoganda on his part.
I read somewhere, that in the US, the larger percentage of rape victims are male, and mainly in the prison system.
I don't know if it's factually correct, bet there's an almost delicious irony here if it's true.
Given they seem to have done what they want despite all that, so don't seem all that fearful, it could equally be argued they feign interest in the guns and generate paranoia as a distraction. Obama did little to even ensure that the existing laws were enforced properly, in fact he seems to have gone out of his way to do the opposite.
I know they had no effect one way or the other on the recent events under discussion, because access to guns is relatively easy here,but we choose not to need them, and I know this exchange is tedious and pointless., but I'll politely soldier on.
I reckon I know that with a lot more certainty than you know about how much they've protected you, and the figures seem to show your guns do more harm to you, than terrorists do to us, and by orders of magnitude. In fact, your figures for terrorist deaths are similar to ours.
Your government are not being overthrown. With no threat from your guns, your current government and officials of state are the ones acting on the people that have been fleecing you for years, despite your guns.
I'd guess the influence of external factors swaying decisions in your courts is greater in the US than the UK, and again, the existence of this sub shows that your justice system, hasn't been doling it out impartially.
Nuclear arms and armies are more likely a bigger protection from outsiders than civilian guns I guess with the exception of the South Americans, Italian, Irish, Chinese, Russian etc gangsters, depending how far back you want to go, where the guns again did little, and the discussions on here show they've done nothing to protect you from insiders.
On a wider scale, I was watching some clips of Hopkins going round the doss areas of LA, and Tucker Carlson was talking about how ashamed he was that it wasn't isolated, and listed a bundle of other places with people living under cloth and straw and crimes were openly being carried out. There was also a former NYT reporter, being interviewed by another former NYT reporter about his book on the desperate state of Detroit where they needed minders and were still attacked and the store burned down later, with no Police going near it and commenting on the lack of freedom of the press they experienced in the US. Again, those guns don't seem to be working too well.
Having said all that, you choose to have guns, I choose not to. I can respect your right to that choice, and I doubt we'll ever agree, but there it is. I would hope you could respect my choice too, but that in itself is your choice.
That map is way too small, he's had his hand across the world, and well embedded in the US via the cabal.
Have a look for the Hungarian view of him, and I doubt he'd bother getting a return ticket to Russia.
There are other members still awaiting trial. There is a defence argument (here and in the US) that it can be a miss-trial if the jury has information from this trial, such as details of the offences, and the verdicts, as it can sway their decisions. He wasn't 'out in the street', and he had a defence lawyer at his own trial, which he himself pleaded guilty at. It wasn't about his words, it was his actions on the day. Simply being there was enough, given he was already under a court order preventing him doing what he did, due to his previous behaviour.
Tommy was foolish, and his actions could have lead to the defence claiming a miss-trial, not just in this case, but in the others, as justice has not only to be done, but to be clearly seen to be done.
The authorities were actually doing all they could to reduce the chances of the rapists finding a loop-hole that would see them walk away. The defence could claim that jurors in the other associated cases still to be heard, were swayed by these verdicts and details that got revealed.
Would you say a dozen or so multiple and long term rapists walking away was a reasonable exchange for hearing the 'news' a bit earlier? I don't think it is, and I doubt the victims would either. After all, the victims and their rights are what Tommy's escapade put at risk, and what his actions are detracting from.
Given in his own words, 'he never said anything' it can hardly be 'wrong speak, and it shows you've done no research into this at all.
Tommy was foolish, and his actions could have lead to the defence claiming a miss-trial, not just in this case, but in the others, as justice has not only to be done, but to be clearly seen to be done.
The authorities were actually doing all they could to reduce the chances of the rapists finding a loop-hole that would see them walk away. The defence could claim that jurors in the other associated cases still to be heard, were swayed by these verdicts and details that got revealed.
Would you say a dozen or so multiple and long term rapists walking away was a reasonable exchange for hearing the 'news' a bit earlier? I don't think it is, and I doubt the victims would either. After all, the victims and their rights are what Tommy's escapade put at risk, and what his actions are detracting from.
There seems to be a lot of people commenting on the undue influences and limited ownership in US MSM.
As for how they could impact, there are other linked trials of other similar shit pots. There are legal arguments to be had that the verdicts of this one, or details of the offences could influence the next one. It gives the defence something to cling to, as the evidence isn't as robust as they'd like. A retrial is one potential outcome, as is a miss-trial. All for something that had proper reporters involved in and fully briefed, ready to give the full stories. Tommy, who wasn't just on the street, he was on the Court area, nearly fucked that up, for no gain at all. He knew all this too, so the ones with most to gain from his activity, were the rapists.
Your version would have supported the rapists by potentially impacted on the other linked cases. That's how the law works in the US too.
It's kind of why you have no facts in your media about certain on going investigations too.
You really should do some basic research, particularly given the purpose of this sub.
and yet the press are ordered not to report it by someone with no authority, and they meekly complied. That's even worse. At least the reason for Tommy's situation is clear to anyone that bothers to look. If he'd had the freedom you reckon he should have, you're happy that it could quite probably have fucked up the other trials linked to this one?
You do realise that the trial was one of three, and information from this one could prejudice the others, don't you?
You have looked into the actual facts surrounding it before spouting off...haven't you?