Truthification Chronicles


  • Manifesto FIRST POSTED on INSTAGRAM--NOT on 8chan!!!

    Before 8chan went down, I saw posts about the timestamp on the manifesto of the El Paso shooter being AFTER the shooting. Of course, I was too busy at the time to download the info so I could study it. Rats!

    But today I was given the link to this video by the OWNER of 8chan that confirmed the manifesto post on 8chan was NOT by the original poster. It was done for research purposes by an Anon, and that's why the timestamp was AFTER the time of the shooting. The shooter posted the original on INSTAGRAM.

    So, this whole thing about Cloudflare booting 8chan is VERY bogus! 8chan did nothing wrong!

    Here's 8chan's owner to tell you about it. (You might want to set the speed to 1.25 or 1.5. He speaks very slowly!)

  • Is 8chan Dead???


    According to Ron @CodeMonkeyZ, they switched to a new company, but then that company also dropped 8chan. I'm sorry but I forget what it was called. Not sure what the status is now, but at 5 pm eastern, it's still down for me.

    Here's an interesting video that did a bit of a dig on Cloudflare. My only comment is the YouTuber said Q was inadvertently caught up in this attack on 8chan. I don't believe that to be true. I think Q was the target!

    Update at 5:15

    Here are Ron's tweets from this afternoon.

    Here are Ron's tweets from this afternoon. Seems the Bitmitigate was deplatformed for hosting 8chan. Hopefully they'll get it worked out soon.

  • 8chan and the Battle for Free Speech

    Make no mistake, folks. We're in a real battle for the minds of people. No, it's not the type of battle where bullets zing overhead, but the fighting is real.

    After the El Paso Walmart shooting, now the 8chan site is under attack.

    There's a concerted effort to link 8chan to hate crimes.

    For those who don't know, 8chan is a site that allows true free speech without moderation, and this is offensive to many people because sometimes individuals say stupid things. It's just a part of the human condition.

    Yet this freedom is why Q chose this site to post his messages to us on.

    Now the media is claiming that because the El Paso Walmart shooter posted a manifesto on there prior to his rampage (although, the time stamp would appear it was posted later), all of 8chan should be shunned because of the actions of one person. This is just one more example of the many being punished for the sins of one.

    After pressure from the mainstream media, Cloudflare has succumbed to this mentality and decided to end their business relationship with 8chan. At the time I'm writing this, 8chan is down, but I'm confident it won't stay that way for long.

    In Cloudflare's blog post on this move, they hate on 8chan all the while they are denouncing 8chan for hatred. Anyone else see the irony in this?

    Cloudflare claims this is all done because they support the "Rule of Law." Another irony. Their definition of this term shows a woeful ignorance of what it means: to apply the same standard to all so everyone is treated equally under the law.

    How is singling out 8chan for special treatment fulfilling the "Rule of Law"? It isn't.

    Not everyone is fooled, though. The comments prove some are awake to what's really going on. This isn't about any real concern for law, but it's really about silencing those who disagree with the "official" narrative.

    "In this blog post, Cloudflare even admits that this decision was not about whether 8ch violated the law. They've denied service to 8ch, simply because they believe 8ch has 'created an environment that revels in violating [the law's] spirit.'"

    In other words, 8chan allows users to say things they don't like.

    As with guns, if someone is set on committing an act of terror, laws won't keep them from doing it. If someone wants to post a hateful manifesto (sorry, I haven't read it yet, so I apologize if I'm not characterizing it correctly), they'll find a way to do it. Laws only restrain law-abiding people--not crazies.

    And then there's the cry that there's no moderation on 8chan...but yet, the shooter's post ws removed in under 10 minutes. Does anyone remember the Christchurch livestream that remained active for 45 minutes before Facebook took it down? Oh, such an inconvenient truth, huh? The calls to vilify 8chan are exposed again.

    So, will this work? Will Cloudflare's decision to cut ties with 8chan spell the end of 8chan and one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet?

    Pepe's Ghost and I agree.


    We'll find a way. Somehow.


  • Questions to ask about the WalMart shooting

    YouTube has a rule that prevents me from even suggesting that an event might not have been genuine. While that urks me to no end (I got a strike on one video and they removed it), I'm going to play along and use my blog here to express my views on topics that aren't approved by YouTube.

    I saw this post on the 8chan board and thought it needed to be brought to people's attention. I'd love to do a video on this, but I don't have my Bitchute account up and running yet. Anyway, here's the post. Please note: there is some bad language. But hey, it's 8chan, right?


    1. How many cameras are in a Wal Mart? Why, if this shooting lasted for 20 minutes, is there not at least 10 consecutive hours of shooting video from 30 cameras? There's more than 30 in a Wal Mart, but let's guess 30 caught it REAL GOOD. Where is that video?

    2. How in the * did this shooting continue for 20 minutes? How long does it take for people to bail from a Wal Mart? What would be the reaction of people hearing gunshots in a Wal Mart? My guess is that all opportunities to nail people would be totally over in 1:30 yet it continues for TWENTY DAMN MINUTES. Not believable.

    3. Let's say this shooting really DID continue for 20 minutes - WHY THEN, did this shooter not get a can of cream of mushroom soup in his left ear at 57MPH from weak throw willie? I'd have probably delivered one at about 81 MPH. SHOOTING OVER. Ha, they claim Wal Mart had no guns on site, so the shooting continued and continued and continued . . . . when the store was full of places to hide from the shooter and throw something back at him, like, you know, perhaps a cordless drill? A can of spray paint? How about a small exercise weight?

    No, that did not happen, instead, everyone went back to the toilet paper aisle rather than run out the door and waited THERE, in the paper aisle because there was enough paper towel and nearby cat litter in that section to clean up the BIGGEST blood spill. They knew someone needed a story, and were polite about getting it done.

    20 minutes? People were there for 20 DAMN MINUTES? Yeah right, this story is STUPID folks.

    I have successfully, in a hurry with Claudia waiting, parked over 100 feet from the door, gone in, got something, hit express checkout and got back to the car in under 3 minutes. That's quick for a Wal Mart, but it is possible, and an ENTIRE SHOPPING PROCESS. I PROMISE, IF THIS SHOOTING WAS REAL, THAT NO ONE WOULD HAVE HIT EVEN THE EXPRESS CHECKOUT. The store should have been empty in absolutely NO MORE than 1:30, thus leaving the shooter with no one to hit.

    SHOOTING IN AISLE 5. REPEAT: SHOOTING IN AISLE 5. Ha, that's great, I am in aisle 43, I'll get those Ramen noodles . . . . . and you can't say the shooter had them cornered, there are two widely spaced exits plus emergency exits in a Wal Mart.

    4. So he killed 20 and injured that many more. By himself. That's a lot of bullets for a 30 round clip. IS THAT WHY WE GET NO WAL MART VIDEO? BECAUSE THERE'S NO MAGAZINE CHANGES? Look folks, THEY GOT THE REQUIRED EVENTS FOR THIS SHOOTING TO BE REAL, ON VIDEO, IT'S A WAL MART. Let's see video of a magazine swap! If we don't have that the day after, well, that can be deep faked now, it DID NOT HAPPEN, that's a PRIME moment they would have released already.

    5. Why, in ALL the CNN videos (and I watched quite a few) is there only ONE ambulance and ONE stretcher showing up? Hell, they had at least 40 people needing ambulances. Where was the overwhelming paramedic support? I have seen a few tards post that "if they are dead, they don't move them". That is true, IF and ONLY IF the body is so dead it has riga. All these were fresh. They should have all been pronounced dead at the hospital. Why ONLY ONE DAMN AMBULANCE?

    You can see in the videos the BORDER PATROL, FBI, and regular cops were there, plus ONE fire truck and ONE ambulance. That's a repeat we see at these shootings- totally underwhelming EMT support. And I'll tell you why: EMT's are GOOD PEOPLE, and they could not get 165 of them who were corrupt pieces of shit to front this lie. But they could find five. (including driver). The FBI and border patrol would be EASY to pull enough dirt bags from, but the local police presence was weak too.

    I could go on and on with this but I have probably said enough. BOTTOM LINE: They can't do one of these false flags, because they have SJW'ed unqualified people onto the scenario planning teams. Harpreet, who was in the Indian military, said you can't get that high a casualty count with people trying to avoid you in a short time, so the shooting had to be a long one, and Polly gave the go ahead for it to be TWENTY DAMN MINUTES LONG without considering the fact that the place had doors. That's an EMERGENCY GAFFE, and I mean, an F-5 cow throwing gaffe, a product of sheer stupidity and poor planning. That alone kills the story, on the outside edge I might believe 3-5 minutes because Aunt Edna had the electric cart and got lost in the clothing section on the way out . . . . and then only she would have been dead, the casualty count would not have been that high with so many places to hide, in Wal Mart you would never get a clear shot at ANYONE who was not handicapped after the first few seconds.

    These are great questions that need to be addressed. I'm not saying this is a complete hoax, but these questions raise that possibility. Or possibly it's a hybrid. We won't know until more of this unfolds.

  • The Difference Between a Hoax and a False Flag

    On October 28, 2018, I uploaded a video about the difference between a hoax and a false flag to clarify these terms that many people confuse. YouTube decided it violated their guidelines and they removed it, labeling it "inapropriate content."

    Why? Because I gave examples. And YouTube's rules under Harassment and Bullying say that you cannot post "Content claiming that specific victims of public violent incidents or their next of kin are actors, or that their experiences are false." In other words, don't ever question the official narrative, no matter how ludicrously obvious the fakery is.

    But YouTube's gag rule ends on YouTube and I own this domain, so no censorship on these items. (However, I'm not a rich person so I'm going to try to avoid things that will cause lawsuits. Those behind both of these types of events are quite litigious and have very deep pockets.)

    Many people confuse the terms "hoax" and "false flag." In fact, if you use the term "false flag," most will assume you mean nobody was hurt or died. That's simply not true. So, here's the difference.

    A HOAX is:

    • A staged performance
    • Meant to mislead people into thinking it really happened


    A FALSE FLAG is:

    • An actual event
    • To drive a specific agenda behind the scenes


    In a HOAX, the perpetrator is often a fictitious person. Photos are usually faked or usually obviously photoshopped. (Example: Adam Lanza and the photoshopped picture with a straight line on his neck, badly used cloning tool, and mug-shot-esque blue background.)

    In a FALSE FLAG, the responsible unnamed group allows blame to fall on an individual or a small number of individuals who actually carried out the event. This person (or persons) may or may not be knowingly complicit. Mind control is often involved so the perpetrator has no control over his/her actions and may not even remember what they did. (Example: Sirhan Sirhan, a clip is in this video, but I recommend viewing the entire video)

    In a HOAX, "authorities" are relied on to perpetuate the hoax. Actors may be hired for television purposes, such as when Sandy Hook's Robbie Parker was caught smiling only moments before he assumed his character to give his performance. Most importantly, in a hoax nobody is killed or wounded.

    In a FALSE FLAG, some "authorities" will be in on it, but others won't be so the event comes off more realistically. Actors are inserted into the event (or inserted after the event) to drive the appropriate narrative and are usually the only ones interviewed on television or in the media. Some witnesses are also interviewed to add more realism, but if they stray from the narrative (like saying the perpetrator had a different type of weapon or was dressed differently or there were more perpetrators than the official story), their segment is never aired again and scrubbed so nobody else ever sees it.

    The most important aspect of a false flag, though, is that real people are wounded and die. Unfortunately, the minute someone calls an event a false flag, most assume they are saying it never happened or that nobody died. This is why they're often irritated or even angered by the term.

    It's hard to believe there are those in this world who are so evil they don't care if people are hurt or killed just to further their agenda, but it's true. With the definition of a false flag I've given above, you can see that it would only require a small group who received either financial gain or some other reward for their participation and a complicit press to create any scenario and make it believable to the majority of the public.

    In southern Indiana, Camp Atterbury Army Base has 30,000 acres, and over 1800 buildings that simulate various regions of the world as training areas for the Indiana National Guard. Each of those parts of the camp are designed to look as realistic as possible so the troops will experience what it's like in those regions. My brother toured it and said he was surprised at how detailed those various sections were. If our Army can create these places that look like they're real and Hollywood regularly creates sets that are expected to be realistic looking for movies and TV shows, is it such a stretch to think groups with enough money and media connections might create "movies" to drive their agenda?