.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
strengthandcourage
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by strengthandcourage
-
-
12 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:
Therefore, you can attack anyone you dislike. The mental illness of antifa....
-
6 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:
Look who is talking.
Someone who actually pays attention to the facts which you abhor, obviously.
Ignorance is bliss....
-
17 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:
The policeman is the one who is a juvenile, he lost his temper because she disrespected him by giving the finger, like some 14 year-old school boy, picking on someone smaller, he went for the neck, dragging her around, she could have done anything she wanted with her arms being free, from playing ding dong with his balls to stabbing him. He would not last long on the streets of South London with an arrest technique like that. You keeping defending the indefensible act of a thug in a uniform. Classic police closing ranks when there is wrong doing.
....aaaaand broke record, skip, skip, skip
-
1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:
Yes, she was frozen with fear, just a bystander. It reminds me of the police officers looking on with the George Floyd murder. I suspect the policeman is a very unpleasent, domineering and aggressive person.
Or, perhaps he is following orders and fears he will lose his job if he doesn't.
-
4 hours ago, rooey said:
ok. it's kind of obvious when threads are going in constructive directions or are more floundering. But then in a topic about trauma based mind control that (diversion) would be expected. If we had such a thing it's possible our own minds would seek to divert us from addressing the core issues
The end result sadly is that even many of those who are more informed than average still are incapable of dealing with facts rationally and instead resort to juvenile name calling, wishful thinking and deliberate denial of the relevant evidence. At least one poster has posted the exact same post at least three times in total denial of the evidence from the alleged "victim" herself!
-
3 hours ago, Orange Alert said:
I do not question reasonable force and technique to carry out a lawful arrest by a constable. An unlawful arrest is another legal matter, given that you said it was not a fully lawful arrest. However, if that Australian cop, using unwarranted gutter street fighting, making me in fear of my life, grabbing me by the throat with both hands, like Jack the Ripper, he would in a second come unstuck with a simple and highly effective commando, close-quarter combat, counter measure.
I would never dream of arresting someone, in such a situation, by grabbing the throat with both hands, but I suppose I am not a pyscho on a power trip and have standards of civility, self-control and understand how much danger it would put me in by using such a reckless technique to arrest.
END OF STORY!
Again, instead of addressing facts about the actual technique, overall "by the book" and some of it unwarranted (neck control), yet clearly not resulting in any injury, let's resort to name calling, ad hominem and with a total refusal to address the totality of relevant evidence. I expected better from this forum. Hysteria rules instead. You can't mount an effective resistance through wishful thinking, much less delusion.
-
4 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:
1. I should stop here because I clearly have no idea of the history of Australia or Britain.
2. Ever cross my mind that refusing to identify yourself, resisting arrest and assaulting police are are all criminal offenses? No, because facts are irrelevant to me and I rely on my fluctuating emotions instead.
Staggering...I exaggerate wildly like a female and claim she is being choked to death fearing for her life when in reality she is being gently rolled over and having her tummy tickled because she wants to play fight. Charming.
d. I am going to talk about the non-existent virus now to distract from the fact that disobeying lawful commands of a police officer to identify herself, to comply with detention or arrest and assaulting police are all criminal actions, none of which she will be prosecuted for.
Again...I am under the delusion that you do not need to comply with an officer unless you are suspected of a crime. I won't admit or acknowledge that an officer can order a citizen to identify themselves and failure to do so is a crime.
QuoteAlso, I'm just going to ignore the fact that she was stupid enough to apparently go through the trouble of obtaining a medical certificate and then when she had the opportunity to present it, she flipped off the officer, resisted lawful commands and instigated a confrontation.
Wouldn't you be utterly disappointed with yourself if you went through the trouble of obtaining a certificate and at the first opportunity to use it, you refused to show it and instead instigated a physical altercation to become youtube famous and perhaps even win a monetary award in a lawsuit?
So the officer politely asks why she is not wearing a mask and the suspect is a knuckle dragging baboon wearing a fancy dress costume instigating a fight hoping to file a lawsuit and make herself famous. The officer could have gone about it better but all she needed to do was IDENTIFY HERSELF AND COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER's LEGAL ORDER.
I'm a broken record I say? Yes I am, but since I have no command of the facts and am swayed by my emotions at all times instead, I'll just keep repeating my illogical and irrelevant talking points ad infinitum hoping to wear out my opponent through sheer repetition. I know it won't work, but I'm not bright enough to attempt anything else!
What I think I should do is try to listen to the facts instead of ranting hysterically instead, but I know that's never going to happen since I lack the intellect to do so. My apologies everyone, some of you are far more capable than I am!
All relevant and fair points indeed.
-
I don't think it's irrelevant or derailing: just an example of folks who can't think straight being corrected.
Bizarre delusions of "I can do whatever I want to people I don't like" or "policeman always wrong" doesn't fly here. Or anywhere really.
-
41 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:
The officer behaved lawfully for the most part.
So, it was not lawful then. An officer can ask, but a citizen has the right to stay silent. The arrest technique was bad, brutal and a joke, any semi-trained fighter could get out of that hold and finish the issue with ease. The movements of the cop were like some crazed, robotic pyschopath who had lost it. I look forward to seeing that policeman being busted down to a toilet attendent.
Escalation of force is allowed. Theoretically, you should only use as much as is required to effect arrest.
Neck control looks bad, but clearly, there are no injuries of any kind suffered by the citizen arrested. She was in high spirits during the ensuing interview, and clearly egged on and antagonized the officer in order to elicit as extreme a response as possible.
Overall, the officer performed with reasonable restraint. Again, neck control is poor PR but not necessarily poor policing. These are instantaneous judgement calls and there is literally no way in those inclined to convince them that any form or degree of force is justified.
Notice that your characterization makes no note of any action that officer took. Grabbing an arm, a gentle sweep, sitting on her bum, none of this is even remotely dangerous. Neck control looks bad but left no injury. The officer was in the right, and there was little he could have done to prevent a violent reaction on her part.
The reality is, police have little choice to comply with the directives of superiors, or they themselves will be fired. It is up to their superiors to give top down orders instructing their officers to either obey the Constitution or not. In Australia, the directives are clear. In some counties and cities, sheriffs have taken the opposite approach, which I commend.
Right now, if you choose to escalate rather than defuse a situation with a police officer, you risk a physical confrontation, one which are very likely to lose.
-
3 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:
Judging by your prickly reaction, it sounds like you have never experienced any form of malevolence whatsoever by morally bankrupt police officers. Your justification of this video leads me to assume you are actually in the police or perhaps retired (whereby you will be telling all newly acquainted people you meet that you were a prison officer to obviously avoid the shame.)
For the sake of clarity here I will believe you are an innocent member of the public. I will address your points chronologically.
It was not a small fragment of the video - rather it was all of the footage that was quite disturbing.
2. "Citizens must behave lawfully".
Laughable in the extreme! Are you seriously telling me that in a country like Britain or Australia where many hundreds of thousands (probably millions over time) of children have been subjected to establishment paedophilia, Satanic / Masonic child abuse rituals (SRA) and where the perpetrators are judges, politicians, police chiefs and top lawyers committing the most heinous crimes upon the most vulnerable in our society, that they should grow up to be 'law abiding citizens' ? If that really is the case, you should contemplate another career.
3. " so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged."
What planet are you on? Have you ever watched 'Crimebodge' (Rob Warner) on YT or looked at his web site? His drive, rationale and angst in producing such great work in confronting the police in the streets and the courts emanated from the time a couple of knuckle dragging neanderthals in uniform who thought that they could do what they liked with him simply because he had an argument with his wife one day. He learned the law, applied it in the streets and the courts and now the police will come nowhere near him but he produces videos of police aggression regularly to help others. He told me this personally in an email when I bought his books (for a ridiculously low price...£10 for three. ) Lawyers charge you £300 an hour just to sit in their fucking leather chair staring at their pearly white capped teeth for the same information.
4." But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind."
NO! Allow me to expand your intellect please. What has led to people joining rancorous groups like BLM and Antifa to indulge in rioting, pillaging and looting is millions of pounds paid into the leaders bank accounts from George Soros, AT&T, Cisco and Pepsi Cola. It's a really weird thing I know but if someone pays you mind blowing, life changing, staggering amounts of money, you tend to do the little things they ask...a bit like mercenary soldiers you understand in the old traditional wars. Black Lives Matter began their lives as the Black Panthers in the 60's where their mission was to kill policemen (and they did that successfully). Then they morphed into the Black Liberation Army led by a woman who was charged with the murder of a security guard during a bank job, received 16 years in prison but managed to escape where she still hides out in Cuba.
5. "The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer."
Wrong! Since when was it law not to wear a mask? 2,3,4 weeks?? What you fail to understand here is that the person being choked to death and fearing for her life was wearing clothes of her own choosing. Hear me out now. She did not wake up that morning and put on clothes that she was told to wear in order to look alike and think alike her colleagues or peers. She demonstrated an independent mindset unlike the officer who blindly and dutifully obeys his paymaster without question. Are you likely to submit yourself to a person who is told what to wear every day?
What you have to grasp here is that if this law was brought in on some spurious order from some psychopathic billionaire controlling your rancid politicians who the likes of you subjugate yourself to, what's to say that next week, killing people will be perfectly acceptable and legal in the eyes of those psychotic bastards. The police are there to protect the establishment and big business not members of the community.
6. "After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest."
She resisted arrest because she was completely legal...she had a medical certificate which allowed her to be exempt from wearing a mask. She was not choked as you rightly say, but at the time of being throttled did it ever actually cross your mind that she actually thought she was going to be choked to death. (1 nod for no and 2 nods for yes.)
The 'gentle sweep' as you say is extraordinary language. This brain dead costumed buffoon was just pissed that his little uniform and his authoritative tone didn't quite resonate with a person so more advanced in intellect. (What the fuck is a sweep anyway.) He'd obviously worked his way up the career ladder from a night watchman on a building site to the police and was angry with this little miscreant.
Neck control doesn't LOOK GOOD! Well now, I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I'm willing to wager that 'neck control' DOESN'T FEEL TO GOOD either.
7. "The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times."
Agreed! Many people have died in police custody but not many police have been charged. In fact the figure in the UK is ....0. However, while three yobs were rightfully sentenced to 6 years in prison for the manslaughter of PC Andrew Harper inside a few months, we await he outcome of the knucklehead in costume who tazered the footballer Dalian Atkinson ....and for every Dalian Atkinson case there will be many more we never here about. The officer was in the wrong because the victim was actually in the right due to her medical exemption. If she had a knife and reached into her pocket and thrust it up into the jaw of the officer killing him while coming under such an unwarranted attack, would she have been charged with murder?
Self defense is 'by the book' believe it or not.
(Many people carry knifes and other weapons now who wouldn't have in the past since rape and murder by illegal immigrants have been allowed to happen with impunity. The same people who allow those people in also pay your salary.)
8. "And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable."
Spoken like a true denier and an advocate of multiculturalism.
The Pakistani rape gangs were brought into it just as a reminder to you that there are tens of thousands of young people who were let down massively by the entire political and judiciary systems. I don't know where you are but in Britain, people just like this victim had their lives destroyed in crimes so unprecedented that it's almost unbelievable. Then of course your paymasters (if you are/were a police officer) were also raping and abusing children for decades which is how and why the immigrants got away with it for so long. Of course if you are a police officer, (and I'm beginning to suspect you are not due to your exemplary spelling,) then your mind will not be sufficiently receptive to the plight of others - nor will you be aware of the atrocities your pay masters carry out so that you and your family have food on the table allowing you to taint the sewers with your excrement.
9. "And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also."
Not so since the police officer would not have jumped and attacked this person so vociferously had she walked out of a corporate building or bank in a 'power suit', designer sunglasses and a Guchi handbag. You see...the police are quite weak in some respects, i.e. they shit themselves if they think the victim may have the necessary clout and support to launch a legal case destroying the policeman's career, propelling him back faster than a speeding bullet to Block A on the building site as a junior night watchman.
10." After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard. "
What relevant evidence? I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Please take on board what I say here. I sincerely hope you are not a police officer otherwise I will have wasted an hour writing all this.
Kind regards,
Again, your facts are totally wrong. It is clear that you will engage in both:
1. ad hominem attack (irrelevant)
2. factually incorrect statements.
a. failure to provide identification, a lawful order, subjects you to arrest or at least detention (the former in this case), at officer's discretion
b. failure to comply with any lawful order of an officer subjects you to arrest
c. verbal and/or physical belligerence subjects a citizen to arrest
d. not showing medical documentation COULD be interpreted as failure to comply with a lawful order.
Failure to comply with ANY lawful order subjects one to detention or arrest. In this case, the citizen not only failed to comply with one, but also resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer.
Bringing up anything about paki rape gangs, the appearance of the boyfriend, ad hominem speculation, are all irrelevant to this case.
Again, she was NOT arrested for not wearing a face mask. She was arrested for assault, resisting arrest, and failure to comply with one or more lawful commands from an officer.
Repeating your erroneous statements over and over again doesn't make you right. It just means you keep stating inaccurate, false statements over and over again. This is precisely the strategy of the Orwellian police state you claim to despise. Two birds of a feather, it turns out. Along with the irrelevant name calling to distract from being wrong....
...you're a broken record quite frankly. Best get that checked out before it becomes a habit.
-
5 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:
Your guidelines are all fine and dandy if you happen to come from a nice middle class family, work in a bank and have been sheltered throughout your life from all forms of state abuse. I've read a few books now on the dark side of Britain and wonder why these people don't lash out more. The thousands of female children who were drugged and gang raped by Pakistani Muslims for example. which had the police arresting victims (for being drunk and their fathers for complaining.) If you don't follow Crimebodge's channel on, YT you should.
Personally, I wouldn't give the police the steam of my urine in most cases.
Here, a 21 year old is guilty of uncouth behavior by sticking her finger up at this policeman. He should understand that most people detest the police now because a lot of them love being aggressive with the public because they can get away with it. There were two of them FGS. I've seen two police detain six or seven people in London.
Judging by the boyfriend's dress style, they look more hippy than hyper. Half the police out on the streets are just brain dead thugs now like this guy. She probably said she was exempt while showing the finger just because of his aggressive attitude knowing that she was in the right. As for laughing during the TV interview....immaturity, and excitement at being on national TV and global internet. I hope both officers are booted out. The female could have intervened but as usual with female police officers, they only rush in (with their mouths) as soon as any situation is controlled. Absolutely useless !
Now you have changed your tune quite a bit. You claimed I was not portraying the situation accurately. The reality is is that you took a small fragment of a video and claimed it was an instance of police brutality. Far from it.
Now you claim that anyone can behave in any manner they like, as long as the person subject to their illegal behavior is unlikeable or unpopular. This claim is out of touch with reality. Citizens must behave lawfully. There are instances where police do not, and I disagree with this but so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged.
But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind.
The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer. Once you do so, you are subject to arrest. After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest.
The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times. However, the "suspect"/citizen did not. An officer can ask a question. An officer can require someone to identify themselves. This is lawful. Pretty much everything the officer did was "by the book" appearances aside.
And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable.
And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also.
You keep changing your argument and introduce ancillary irrelevant points to distract from the fact that no, you don't grasp the reality of the situation because you refused to gather the relevant facts in the first place.After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard.
-
She was subject to force not because she was not wearing a face mask, but because she was resisting arrest. In the videos above, you notice two things:
1. she admits that she was confrontational and abusive towards the officer, she gave him the middle finger, when the officer asked why she was not wearing a mask.
2. the officer attempts to restrain her, either because he is concerned about a possibility of her attacking him (see no.1), or because he was initiating an arrest.
3. she has refused to comply by showing ID, and/or exemption, been verbally abusive, and is now resisting arrest after possibly several lawful orders.
4. she kicks a second officer repeatedly
5. the officer rolls her over to her back to handcuff her in a rather gentle sweep.
6. He appears to sit on her lower back and butt, which would not restrict breathing, and probably not painful if his weight is on her bum
7. the citizen then rolls back on to her stomach, and refuses to comply several times to arrest. He attempts to control her neck (unnecessary as wrist control is what he's after).
8. the citizen is interviewed later, and is clearly not injured, and is smiling throughout the post arrest interview
9. it is unlawful for a citizen to interfere with the lawful activity of a police officer. Police can lawfully order citizens to move away from an officer or officers effecting an arrest.
That is certainly not a strategy I would recommend or try personally. Police can lawfully order a citizen to provide identification and it may be lawful to require documentation of an exemption (I doubt it, but possible).
If you do not comply with lawful orders by an officer, you are subject to arrest, period. If you are verbally or physically belligerent, and the officer fears for their safety, you can be lawfully restrained.
The officer utilized some degree of force, grabbing her by the arm, and the woman then clearly resisted, and then the officer escalated use of force. A choke hold is probably excessive in this case regardless. Sitting on her lower back which did not restrict her breathing is almost certainly not.
Having said that, it is quite clear that almost every western country is operating unlawfully, treating guidelines and recommendations as if they were lawful, which is almost always unconstitutional.
However, this does not give citizens a right to abuse officers, resist complying with lawful orders or to resist arrest after having done so.
So this woman in no way shape or form followed the model I indicated.
-
It's a great idea and I hope and trust you'll find success.
The reality is, the normal bonds of community have largely evaporated. Friends of family, stable social circles from school and work are all increasingly uncommon. People change jobs every year or two, and tend to move from one city to the next almost as frequently. The common bonds of language, culture and nationality are largely a thing of the past in many parts of the west, especially in large cities.
To put it simply, the corona hoax has made what was once challenging but manageable, a frightening and even unimaginable prospect for perhaps a majority of people these days. You can make do, just be at peace that there are many fewer options for real interaction at this moment than in the past. That's not to say things couldn't change on a dime....
-
All of it. This includes both news media and entertainment/fiction.
Absolutely all of it is designed to imprint us and get us familiarized with the new cages and prisons we will be living in in the near future, or simply to upset and traumatize.
Simultaneously, each of these forms of media also highlights how we can DEFEAT those who seek to imprison us.
This is the gambit of the evil-doers in power: THEY MUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO US, AND NEVER IMPOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY WE ARE SUBJECT TO IS ONLY WITH OUR CONSENT. WE CAN OPT OUT AT ANY TIME.
For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over. Now, if you choose to "fight" against face masks when you could simply ignore this pseudo-requirement on absolutely solid legal and moral grounds, then you face hazards and risks associated with fighting any phantom: you can never win.
You can't defeat something which doesn't exist: example: "coronavirus."
-
1
-
-
There's been a broad consensus among conspiracy researchers in terms of overall trends, but remarkably poor rates of prediction about specific events. For example, Alex Jones is clearly correct that authorities are rolling out a police state. David Icke has a solid analysis of how a very small number of people are able to control a population of billions.
But how many of these researchers have actually predicted or foreseen specific events? The only one was Bill Cooper, who correctly predicted 9/11. Clearly NO ONE predicted that a hoax virus would be used to roll out sweeping authoritarian measures in just a few months' time, this caught everyone by surprise.
Likewise, there's overwhelming confusion about who or what is actually in control of global affairs. In that sense whoever is controlling us has done an extraordinary job of remaining in the shadows.
-
1
-
-
On 8/6/2020 at 4:52 PM, Teardropexplodes said:
As others have mentioned, this post is rubbish. I've heard loads of what would be lazily labelled by zionists as "alt-right" commentators taking apart the corona narrative.
Such as who? That's right, NOONE in the "alt right."
-
On 8/6/2020 at 12:18 PM, SimonTV said:
What absolute nonsense post in the OP. The alternative media is greater and bigger than ever and there are people all across the right from libertarians to national socialists to right leaning liberals and everything in between. This constant attempt to demonize the alternative or new media as I call it as far right and white supremacist is ridiculous. It is just a cheap attempt by the legacy media to smear the new competition in the market.
PROLIFERATION OF SHITE =/= higher quality.
-
Perhaps the corona hoax is a way to cull the herd itself? Those who can figure out it's all a scam create a society independent of the demons, the rest are enslaved by them.
-
1
-
-
I'm not even sure the ultimate goal is population control....
...this narrative may be servant to their ultimate goal: constant fear, uncertainty and anxiety 24/7.
-
Social Media has been a HUGE factor in promoting this stupidity.
Basically, it's all geared around and towards gathering "likes." In other words, social media is geared towards the pursuit of popularity through conformity at all costs. In order to gather "likes" you have to pursue whatever narrative is dominant, prevalent, ubiquitous.
People at first become addicted to the dopamine rush of new followers, new likes, more "popularity" and higher fake status with in the tribe.
Eventually people become dependent upon likes for their identity. At some point, they confuse virtual likes with their own survival, since their entire identity and link to the tribe is contingent on more and more likes.
Social media becomes their new drug. This is ON TOP of traditional mass media which is straight up brainwashing. So they are brainwashed externally then they cooperate in their own brainwashing through social media participation.
All of this facilitated by playing "follow the leader" as they ape whatever celebrity promotes whatever lie is being told on any given day. These celebrities in turn are being controlled, abused, and manipulated by their satanic jewish masters, the same ones who control banking, the medical industrial complex, education, media, "high fashion and art" and so on.
The key then, or at least one key, is to pull the plug on social media and it's addictive gambling like quality in pursuit of likes, acceptance and mimicing supposedly beautiful, high status people.
-
4
-
-
2020 is stupid on steroids.
-
1
-
-
The crazy thing is, 99% of all churches are all in on this insanity too!
I was going to watch a vid from a church on "end times" or something to that effect. The pastor admitted he's hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole so he agreed to "reopen" "requiring" face masks.
So now almost every single church is compromised too.
This shit's gonna be straight up like the hunger games where we're shooting pigeons, or digging up worms and nibbling on crickets. WTF?!?
I simply could not have imagined the extraordinary levels of stupid and passivity I see all around me.
I just read back the last two sentences. I wasn't even trying to be negative, just stream of consciousness. I'm going to report back on some positivity, some of the push back I'm engaging in and the successes we are having.
-
2
-
-
I suppose I'll have to settle for snippets or nuggets of accurate information.
After all, while Ted Broer continually insists it's not all about the jews (which I'm sure he says in order to avoid a total media ban), today he did in fact, admit that the jews are responsible for just about every disaster that is incurred upon us.
He just lets it slip every once in a while otherwise the cognitive dissonance gets to be too much for him and he has to spill the beans.Unfortunately, he's still claiming that viruses are real, almost certainly because he hawks vitamins in order to stay afloat.
As you may or may not know, "Dr." Ted Broer is not a doctor. That's an honorary title he was given after donating large sums of money to a college so they could build a football stadium.
That's the way it's gonna have to be: find bits and pieces of the truth here and there, knowing that just about every single media source is severely compromised.
-
1
-
-
The point being the media is lying left right sideways, upside down etc.
There are SO many lies being spun, it shouldn't take very long for just about anyone to stumble upon at least one whopper, leading to what I would assume would be questions about how many more lies are being told. Instead, we have senior citizens acting like antifa terrorists taking on people half or a third of their age!
I still say that even with media monopoly ownership, or even because of it, there will be so many more lies being told, it should at least theoretically be inevitable that mass numbers recognize the lies and act accordingly.
All Mainstream Media is Trauma Based Mind Control and Predictive Programming
in General Chat
Posted · Edited by strengthandcourage
And yet you support the antifa goon squad claiming you can attack anyone at any time simply because you personally dislike them.
The defining feature of the liberal/antifa is that they rely on their EMOTIONS, not facts. All they have to do is dislike you and that is al the excuse they need to terrorize you with violence.