• 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?

  • Military Code Changes Set the Stage

    Article screenshotI'm someone who enjoys putting together a puzzle from time to time, and this entire situation playing out in our government right now reminds me of working a large, intricate puzzle that failed to include a picture of what the finished product is supposed to look like.

    When I start a puzzle, most of the pieces have no meaning to me because I don't understand how they'll fit into the final picture. But then I do the frame and sort out pieces according to similar colors, and slowly but surely the picture starts to make more sense. At that point, I can pick up new pieces and give them general locations and, eventually, fit them into the puzzle to complete the full picture.

    Q's posts are like this. Over the past year and a half, we read his posts and, while we understood some of what he said, much of his meaning eluded us. The Autists have helped us put together many of the pieces, but there are many more left to go. As we look back now, though, we can start to see things that we missed before because we now have a much better idea of the complete picture.

    In this article, Is POTUS Using the UCMJ and MCM to Drain the Swamp?, the Anon (Ami Tiel) shows how these two documents may hold more information than we've originally understood. The day the revisions of the MCM (Manual for Courts-Martial) were posted to the Federal Register was the same day Tillerson was fired and Q posted that we should trust Sessions and gave us a BOOM!

    I think you'll enjoy the read!

  • Censorship of Conservatives

    Jack Posobiec Twitter postDid you ever think censorship would become this much of an issue in America? Did it ever even enter into your mind a couple of years ago?

    Yet here we are in 2019. This quote is from Jack Posobiec's Periscope video after the @AOCPress parody account, run by a personal friend of his, was permanently suspended from Twitter May 6. It's happening to Conservatives in numbers it's hard to believe. The censorship is real and it could be coming for you next.

    I'm a Conservative YouTube content creator and it's been hitting me hard lately. My channel took off with my 24th video on August 24, 2018 and zoomed from 100 subscribers to more than 25,000 in less than a month. I was surprised and quite humbled by the growth. Although there were ebbs and flows, which is normal for any channel (some videos take off better than others), I had a fairly steady growth--until March 17, 2019.

    Suddenly, eight or nine out of ten of the videos I uploaded were deemed "unsuitable for most advertisers" from the moment they uploaded. While this certainly hit me in the wallet, there's more to it than that. From my observations of how many views I got on a video before (demonetized) and after YouTube did a manual review and monetized it, I noticed there was a significant change in how many non-subscriber views I got during those two periods of time.

    In fact, I captured one episode on video using the realtime view feature in my creator studio. There was a significant difference between the before and after view count. This (and the replication of this with other videos) led me to conclude the algorithm YouTube uses to choose which videos to put in the suggested/recommended videos relied heavily on the monetization factor.

    Certainly a part of me is concerned about the financial aspects of it (after all, I'm disabled and there are few jobs you can do where you can work for an hour or two and then lay down and rest for a couple of hours), the point of my YouTube channel is to provide information that people won't find in most news reports. But how can I provide this information if very few people see my videos?

    If it were just me experiencing this phenomenon, I'd mark it up to a fluke. But it's not just me. Conservatives are being permanently suspended from Twitter in record numbers (I myself was shadowbanned for a long time), YouTube accounts that dare to mention Q are completely demonetized and some have been deleted, and Facebook has just done another Conservative purge.

    So, what's the solution? Maybe it's time for us to restart our petitions for an Internet Bill of Rights and this time do it in earnest. We have to stop this bias in social media before the 2020 election in order to stop the election meddling these media giants did in the 2018 and 2016 election.

  • Sue until it's blue

    Governor Scott WalkerIt's the current Democrat strategy to continue suing in Red states until the districts are changed enough to turn them blue.

    Is there no end to their tricks? But then, what else do they have? They're losing on all sides now. There's no way they can stand up under Trump's economic success, and now that the Mueller Report is out, they've lost all hope of impeachment.

    I think Scott Walker's opinion in this Fox opinion piece lays out the Democrat plan perfectly. We're going to see more lawsuits against redistricting until no more Red districts are left. Even if they fail to win the cases, it gives them more air time on the mainstream media to indoctrinate viewers.

    For their part, Democrats are sitting back counting the cash they plan to use on their trial lawyers to fund their strategy of endless litigation. Win or lose they are happy to spend their money on lawyers just for the talking points their liberal judges and academics give them to use on cable news and social media. They are more interested in winning the battle of the courtroom in front of friendly judges than winning the battle of ideas before the voters.

    Until we Republicans start using lawyers to fight back, this type of indoctrination will only continue.