Or perhaps one of the 20,000 informants (that we know of) employed by the FBI? Or the 5-10k domestic secret police employed collectively by the NSA, CIA, and NSC.
And so he can't say anything too dangerous if he wants to remain credible.
[ - ] prototype 1 point 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 03:30:42 ago (+1/-0)
He wears a kabbalist bracelet, has for years.
The subsegment of the Q types that overlap the anti-(((subversion))) camp will cope and explain this away with the idea of 'camouflage'.
I don't know if thats true, but I do know he would have never made the career he made, or ended up where he is at, if he were not vetted. And if he were effective at his job, whatever his job, he'd probably be dead, just like breitbart.
Your "our guy" is correct. He's not. He's controlled opposition.
Just as well, is his message useful in moving the public in the correct direction? If it is, then theres no harm in keeping him--until his message starts to be harmful, or non-useful. Sort of a 'pay-as-you-go' model of credibility, so common with controlled opposition. Then they cash in later on, and get us into things like the war in iraq.
Not much any of us can realistically do about him.
[ + ] Puller_of_Noses
[ - ] Puller_of_Noses 8 points 3 weeksMay 23, 2024 21:02:25 ago (+8/-0)
America must do the same.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 3 points 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 02:59:38 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 0 points 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 03:16:16 ago (+0/-0)*
Accurate. But assuming tucker were 'our guy', and anti-goldstein, how would he know the person asking the question (and presumably on his side) isn't one of the DOD's 'signature reduction' domestic spies setting him up? You know, one of the sixty thousand plus employed by the DOD?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230603213818/https://jacobin.com/2021/06/us-signature-reduction-program-william-arkin-interview
Or perhaps one of the 20,000 informants (that we know of) employed by the FBI? Or the 5-10k domestic secret police employed collectively by the NSA, CIA, and NSC.
And so he can't say anything too dangerous if he wants to remain credible.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 03:27:11 ago (+0/-0)
"Our guy"
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 1 point 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 03:30:42 ago (+1/-0)
The subsegment of the Q types that overlap the anti-(((subversion))) camp will cope and explain this away with the idea of 'camouflage'.
I don't know if thats true, but I do know he would have never made the career he made, or ended up where he is at, if he were not vetted. And if he were effective at his job, whatever his job, he'd probably be dead, just like breitbart.
Your "our guy" is correct. He's not. He's controlled opposition.
Just as well, is his message useful in moving the public in the correct direction? If it is, then theres no harm in keeping him--until his message starts to be harmful, or non-useful. Sort of a 'pay-as-you-go' model of credibility, so common with controlled opposition. Then they cash in later on, and get us into things like the war in iraq.
Not much any of us can realistically do about him.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 2 points 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 06:39:23 ago (+2/-0)
He's a gatekeeper, not dissimilar to Charlie Kirk.
https://files.catbox.moe/fp1c4l.png
[ + ] GeorgeBailey
[ - ] GeorgeBailey 2 points 3 weeksMay 24, 2024 04:34:27 ago (+2/-0)
This is North Korea level shit.
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 2 points 3 weeksMay 23, 2024 20:10:20 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 weeksMay 23, 2024 21:03:18 ago (+1/-0)
How is this possible?
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 0 points 3 weeksMay 23, 2024 23:42:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan 0 points 3 weeksMay 23, 2024 21:32:31 ago (+0/-0)