You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Intel Drop #9 – The Level 4 Attacks Have Begun

in #thegreatreset2 months ago (edited)

Without evidence, this becomes a competition on who is most believable based on the narrative.

Don't say there will be people saying it isn't evidence, as an excuse to not present evidence! Evidence is for skeptics. A true skeptic is also skeptical of denials, so don't let this stop you.

Not wanting to expose your agents - this is used by government and any intel organization. It is true, unfortunately, but saying this does not give you credibility either.

So, who is telling the truth? Who is the better actor? It becomes a question of faith.

The best course might be to spread this far and wide with a firm caveat that the evidence is forthcoming. That way when it does come out it is not buried and will be undeniable. Well, except to those who claim that evidence is not evidence. The point is to put such people in the minority.

The other possibility is that, by naming gatekeepers, you cause these people to lose credibility. Ironically, many of these alleged gatekeepers have been making the claim of others as controlled opposition for a while now. Without evidence, you are engaging in "He said, she said." And may be in fact doing what you say the agents are doing by muddying their message.

How about the Alex Jones bitcoin transaction where he allegedly transferred into his USDR account? Might be helpful if you could leak that one!

  1. I hate it when peakd assumes I don't want to be notified when someone with a negative reputation replies to my post.
  2. I don't send emails lightly. I have considered doing so. I watched the videos on their site - ended up being someone reading the posts that were dropped here. There is mention of evidence, but none posted that I have seen. If I were to say you were a gatekeeper or agent whose purpose was to distract people away from coherant action, and showed only an unverifiable printout as evidence, would you encourage people to email me for more information?

I saw a picture of printouts of sovereign accounts. An id was there but that doesn't help verify. They mentioned Alex Jones made a bitcoin deposit. Those are on a public ledger! They could point it out so the payment chain can be reviewed.

Bitcoin addresses are public. If they saw a deposit and the type of deposit then why not other transaction information like the address? Just one example that would help. Harder to outright fake a $50k bitcoin deposit. Lends considerable credibility to point to a public transaction.

This is a tight fight. If you doubt your allies then that can make the difference between victory and defeat. Therefore, it is a good attack to cause your enemy to do thus. "Divide and conquer"

There may be stuff you can do that makes a difference. You may not bother if you think the whole thing is rigged and your friends are lying to you.

I appreciate knowing what has a real possibility of happening. But, there are two angles that they are liable for:

  1. At any time, there can be a call for a special sale of becoming Sovereign. This is the most obvious, and I see there is much denying they would or could do this.
  2. By naming trusted pundits as Gatekeepers, they are sowing doubt. Pure propaganda of discouragement.

If they are telling the truth then these liabilities are unfortunate and they would do well to further shore up their case by showing supporting evidence of #2. I already mentioned one idea of a bitcoin transaction - the transaction hash ID, but I don't know what else they can supply that is verifiable. #1 is just hanging out there and they are doing all they can to dispel that. If they simply refused to name any gatekeepers they would be more believable to me.

It is possible that they list so many conservative pundits so that they would mention that they have been named and deny it - thus spreading the story. I don't know if this has worked so far. I watched an Alex Jones video entitled something like "Breaking: the technology behind the Great Reset!" ... looking for CSRQ to be mentioned. No, it was not mentioned. Alex himself didn't do the segment, and the host mentioned many times how much Alex has done to expose the Great Reset. In the end, this seemed to play into the CSRQ narrative. But it also could have been they had considered reporting on it but decided not to because it implicated him and he can say he didn't want to spread a baseless conspiracy theory.

There have been stories with verifiable information (Hunter Biden laptop, for instance) that were suppressed. What chance does a fascinating narrative that can only make claims have of spreading around. The gravity of this keeps this from spreading like an urban legend.