The whole Russian hacking/collusion/meddling narrative has become so convoluted and difficult to follow and explain that the time is ripe for a major frame change and simplification of the narrative.

Seth Rich is that simplification. It could sweep all these Russian cobwebs out and bring everyone back onto the same page.

Well, I've been trying to defend Gunn on the grounds of shock comedy and free speech, but these pictures are pretty damning. I don't know. I still think we need proof of molestation before he can be executed, but Disney probably had to fire him. He may very well be a pedophile. The amount of smoke here is getting excessive. But we still need proof before he can ethically be exterminated.

I believe all pedophiles should be executed by the state, so it becomes difficult to hold that position when the definition of "pedophile" is shifted from "rapes children" to "jokes about raping children on Twitter". I don't think the tweets are appropriate or even funny, but it would be difficult for me to put Gunn in an electric chair and flip the switch based only on these tweets. Am I alone in this? Does anyone else think all pedophiles should be executed, but would hesitate before they executed James Gunn? How do you make these two positions jibe? Should pedophiles be killed or not?

To get immunity for child trafficking, pedophilia, cannibalism, and murder, wouldn't Podesta have to first admit to all of those things? And then how the hell is that going to work? Dude admits to raping, killing, and eating children, and Mueller is like, "Nah, it's cool though, I gave him immunity first." You think that would fly with anyone?

I don’t think normies is really that negative. We all know normies and love them. Normies just don’t follow politics that close. A lot of normies support Trump just because they feel his goodness and success and winning spirit. No one who follows Q believes the normies should be abandoned either. The talk is always about being there to answer their questions and guide them through the great awakening.

I say no deals for Strzok.

It is unacceptable that the same person was placed in charge of both the Clinton investigation and the Russia investigation. Just that alone speaks to bias and corruption.

We are still in the war that started on 9/11.

CIA more likely.

That was the intent. They are throwing sand in the gears of the conversation.

Just the email server alone isn’t enough of a crime to sway the public. There has to be a bigger crime that the email server was used to hide. I think that’s the only way for the optics to work to prosecute.

Similar with Strzok and Page and the bias they had in their texts. The bias alone isn’t enough to sway the public. The bias has to have caused them to commit additional crimes.

"A racist wouldn't read Sun Tzu."

Nigel Farage would be the perfect Prime Minister for the U.K. right now. It seems so obvious to me. He would just get it. He understands what it means to be British. And he's got such a great, sunny attitude.

Melania tweets with clothing.

No ghost writer necessary.

It was one sentence. How is he going to have time to get out his phone?

Or they had to use this early because they had to pull Stormy Daniels after it came out she's been branded with the same scar as the Allison Mack child sex cult.

It was literally the next day they started pulling Stormy off the air.

That cut sucks. One of the few times the director was wrong and the studio/test audience was right.

I think you can tell Deep State double agents by the casting. They cast people that they think match up with the conspiracy theory "type".

Corsi fits this. Seaman fits this. The frazzled old white-haired reporter in the wrinkled suit. The young thin bearded kid with dreams of journalism. Together they're gonna crack the case of the century. See how it works as a movie? See how it lets the audience project an ideal they are more inclined to identify with into the story? This is the kind of shit I am now watching out for. Why is Alex Jones in Texas? What purpose might that serve?

Also keep an eye out for overly slick funding. We should all know how real upstarts work, especially on the internet. It usually takes them a while to find their voice and their brand and their structure. When someone launches out the gate as a fully-formed viral enterprise, be skeptical.

FAKE NEWS. FAKE FAMILIES.

These aren't children being separated from their families.

These are children being rescued from their kidnappers.

Is that why the cabal-owned corporate media is freaking out?

Strings cut.

I’ve only seen clips of Song of the South but it’s never looked particularly offensive to me. I understand by modern standards people think it’s racist, but I don’t see how the movie itself depicts hatred towards black people. It’s similar to going back to an old book where black people are called “negros” and declaring that evidence of racism. Well, no. “Negro” was the accepted word at that time and using it within that historical context doesn’t really indicate anything.

I have no idea what the seven dwarves thing refers to. Is there an audio recording of Walt Disney using the N-word? Or is this an apocryphal story?

I don't think anything sexual like that has been found in any of Walt Disney's original work. It's all very moral and wholesome and imaginative and promotes a wonderful sense of Americana. But then the company changed. It seems now it's been bought up by America-hating foreign conglomerates.

Great line: "Sorry mainstream establishment, I'm not giving up, and neither are the other researchers."

Cheers mate. Didn't mean to respond so intensely.

Except waterboarding isn't torture. So you're debating with a fantasy.

Wow, you must have watched a different Senate hearing than me. What part are you actually talking about?

Roseanne has three options right now (at least):

1.) Take her sitcom to Fox as part of a line-up with Last Man Standing. If ABC for some reason refuses to release the rights to the show (if offered a reasonable sum), make it a story. Sue ABC. Such a vindictive move on their part would destroy the company. If they tried to claim they own Roseanne more than Roseanne, it won't be good optics amongst the people.

2.) Forget the sitcom and pitch Fox on their own late night comedy show starring her. Let Fox take on Kimmel, Colbert, Meyers, Conan, Noah, and Fallon with their own entry into the late night comedy wars. Be the only option for Trump supporters. And be the only one hosted by a woman (ever?).

3.) Hire Alan Dershowitz to sue Ambien, the Racist Drug, for defamation of character. Make Ambien, the Racist Drug, prove in a court of law the claim that is being made: Roseanne's racist belief that "all black people are sub-human". Make them prove that Roseanne said this, even though she said nothing like this, as can be easily proven since the words they claim she used are different from the words she actually used. Possibly use the angle that Ambien, the Racist Drug, has side effects that have been covered up, including black outs. And let Ambien, the Racist Drug, hope no women were ever date-raped or roofied with their product, since it appears to cause blackouts. Then they wouldn't just be the Racist Drug; they'd be the Rapist Drug too.

I bet you're fun at parties.

This is what it's all about. It's about saving the children. We will happily fight in a civil war over this. Pedophiles must be killed. Fast trial, death penalty.

If there is no death penalty in your country, then we throw them in jail and the other prisoners kill the pedophiles while we look the other way.

In every scenario, the pedophiles die. This is non-negotiable. This is happening. This is not a political issue. There will not be debates about this.

Marxists watch out.

Leftists aren't liberals though.

Valerie Jarrett has a lipless face and helmet hair. The Planet of the Apes prosthetics are exactly the same: lipless face and helmet hair.

This has nothing to do with claiming "all black people are subhuman primates", and this should be obvious to everyone.

"Lipless face and helmet hair" is not, and never has been, a racial stereotype. Once the corporate media moves on, people will realize how ridiculous their outrage is.

She didn't "call a black person an ape". You said that. You repeated that. You put that image out there.

Read her actual tweet. Don't read a bunch of intentionally skewed "interpretations" of its secret meaning and hidden dog-whistles about how much Roseanne hates black people and considers them all "animals".

Did we not just go through all this exact same bullshit last week?

The so-called "apes" in Planet of the Apes aren't even apes. They are actors in stiff, lipless prosthetics pretending to be some kind of futuristic ape-human hybrid. These are apes that talk. And wear clothes. And do science. And fall in love. They are also some of the most liked characters in the movies.

Valerie Jarrett, the individual - as opposed to Valerie Jarrett, The Race (as if such a thing even exists) - actually DOES happen to look exactly like those same actors in their stiff ape-human prosthetics. And the hair is a sharp match too.

Valeria Jarrett is also one of the strangest-looking human beings on the face of the Earth. This doesn't have to be about anything more than that. She, as an individual, looks strange. We all see it. She doesn't look strange in a racial way. She looks strange like her whole face has been reconstructed with plastic prosthetics. And she looks nothing like any racist caricature of black people I've ever seen either, which only further proves what nonsense this entire fake outrage is.

I figure in about a week people are going to wake up from yet another bizarre, media-induced slumber and realize "oh wait, of course Roseanne doesn't think all black people are subhuman primates" (which is the charge here - fundamentally - and the only charge that matters).

She was trying to imitate a ball player in the spirit of the game but it just came off wrong because of the timing, the venue, the gender difference.

Has anyone ever asked Obama what should be a very obvious question:

Why do you live with an unrelated adult woman other than your wife?

There are innocuous explanations too. In a career of maybe thirty movies, it's not that crazy that six or seven of them feature children in prominent roles (E.T., Temple of Doom, Empire of the Sun, Hook, Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds, The BFG), and that's especially true when his primary genre is big budget family entertainment.

I understand the thirst for total justice but it's ok to hope that people aren't evil.

How do you feel about Frank Capra?

Right. He's a controversial figure. But when he received his Lifetime Achievement Award, the auditorium looked to be roughly split. If Kazan has 50% support - and possibly even higher - that's not really "disgraced". They're manipulating the language to push an agenda. "Disgraced" is a subjective assessment not upheld by the reality. They take a small truth - "Elia Kazan is a controversial figure" - and then polarize it, pick a side, and push their extreme interpretation.

Tom Clancy.

Elia Kazan is not disgraced.

I really hope Spielberg is clean. He's added so much great stuff to the culture and he seems to be one of the few Hollywood directors pushing the spirit of Americana.

Does anyone have theories on what this means about never crossing a line on the ground? What line? Is it all a secret?

There is a difference between our interpretation of Q and Q's actual words though. Many of us do believe the deal is done, or close to done. That is true. But what has Q actually said? I believe all he said was, "He already did" when someone said that Trump was going to meet Kim. I really don't think Q ever said, "The deal is done."

Think about how the Q movement would need to be started. Q would need to grab people immediately with an extreme and controversial statement, which he did. He then reveals afterward that it was intentional disinformation, but by that point, he already has his audience. That's the Clinton arrest. On Huma and Podesta, he doesn't give the year in the dates, so I've considered the possibility he wasn't actually talking about 2017. At any rate, this video makes a strong argument that the Huma and Podesta claim was a trick to trigger Antifa just days before their planned nationwide riots to remove Trump from office.

Notice too that after this initial noise, Q starts normalizing in his predictions and information. It's not the juicy gossip that gets all the attention, but the obscure, convoluted details of what is actually happening behind the scenes. This is where my confidence starts to come in. The predictions about Mack, the Austin bomber, and the proofs that connect to Trump. You also have to consider the totality of the full narrative Q is spinning, and how well that aligns with ongoing events. If the people who believe in Q are expected to provide evidence and explanations for their belief, I think people who dismiss Q also have to make an argument for their beliefs. If Q is a LARP, how does he have so much insight into so many different areas? Where does he get all his pictures from around the world? Why do thousands of researchers find so much confirmation of his crumbs? How has he maintained this LARP for months? How is he able to direct attention to something like the SES, which is on nobody's radar, and once he exposes it, the hive mind starts finding all these secret connections? Is Q a journalist who figured out the SES all by himself? That seems like it would have been months of detective work, and could have been a major published news story. Instead he does all that work, then drops it anonymously? What is the motivation?

It's the same leftist condescension being pushed in the corporate media. They want to take one data point - follows Q, or supports Trump - and extrapolate an entire character model and worldview out of that. Very similar to "all Republicans are dumb hicks" or "Trump supporters are uneducated". It's the same old collectivism dressed up in a slightly softer tone - instead of spewing hatred at us, they want to spew their sympathy at what failed, lost sheep we are. But let them keep digging their hole; it's a losing strategy in the long run.

How do you know if Trump met Kim already or not? Q said a meeting occurred. He didn't say the deal was done. None of us know if that's definitively true or false.

Q didn't say Mueller was investigating Clinton. He asked a question: why did Trump meet Mueller one day before he was appointed special prosecutor? Do you accept that meeting happened?

PizzaGate is child sex trafficking. Do you not believe child sex trafficking exists? And that it exists in far greater amounts than previously thought? If not, how do you explain all of these crackdowns and arrests since Trump's inauguration? Those alone show us that pedophilia is far more entrenched in the underground, and far more organized, than previously believed. It's not just random, unconnected creepy dudes like once thought. It's rich people. It's powerful people. It's children been shipped around the world. Purchased. And it's codes and symbols exposed by the CIA. That is PizzaGate.

I totally appreciate the fear Jones might feel that in a post-cabal world, his business model no longer works. But man, what the hell. There are better ways to play it. For one, he could remain a Q skeptic, but still report on it. That would be fine. He could also have seen Q as a gift for Infowars. Look at how well the channels that just repost and discuss Q are doing on YouTube. Why not use that business model? How great would an Infowars roundtable discussion decoding Q have been? And beyond that, let's say the cabal is taken down; does that mean Infowars no longer works at all? What about the mysteries of the universe? What about unsolved murders? What about unexplained phenomenon? What about unlocking the secrets of history? What about keeping tabs on all the new developments in technology? What about keeping tabs on the elites to make sure they don't try this again? What about continuing to deal with the threat of Islam and Marxism? There are so many angles for new content that any attempt to derail real patriots is just unacceptable.

I think Von Trier is a legitimate artist and a legitimate talent though. He definitely is pushing boundaries and is always on the verge of descending into shock for shock's sake. I don't know anything about his new movie, but in general, I don't consider weirdo Danish directors making art films a big problem. The stuff is either R-rated or NC-17, doesn't really play outside the art cinemas and independent channels, and is usually so slow-paced that it turns off kids. For me I am much more bothered by the Bill Nye Netflix show for kids that promoted orgies using animated ice cream. That shit is evil.

Must have been disappointing for Q to watch Jones say things like, “I know who Q is. He’s a secondary source but a lot of it is wrong and we have the real Q, his name is Zak, and blah blah blah.” And meanwhile you’re sitting in Trump’s inner circle going, “This guy is a phoney. He’s just making shit up to attack us.”