Standard preamble: (1) These are my opinions and nothing more. I could be wrong about every single assertion I make. Deal with it. (2) Do your own research and come to your own conclusions like a functional adult.
I’ve received some criticism from a precious few that my articles do not include enough footnotes and source material to justify my conclusions. To be clear, I welcome criticism and mean no disrespect toward anyone — this is only about the ideas. I actually do have a lot of respect for those criticizing — they’re not stupid. My intent here is only to point my opinions about what I see as the flaw in their reasoning.
I view this criticism as misplaced and coming from those who mistakenly think they know more than they do, suffering from an overabundance of misguided self-righteousness. In my opinion, they would do best to look in a mirror and ask themselves if their assumptions and expectations aren’t blinding them to higher level thinking.
In this article, I’ll explain why. The short answer is this: “If you think you know better, watch out. There’s always someone who knows more than you do. Expect it.”
I live by this. I do not think I know it all. I don’t tell others what is needed. I’m learning huge amounts every single day. I am often shocked by the simplicity and obviousness of things I learn. I often marvel at how I overlooked things that now seem so obvious.
That said, I am very confident about the things that I think I know and I’m willing say that and state why. I am also occasionally shown to be wrong and I freely admit this. At the end of my last article, I made a prediction which turned out to be wrong and I amended the article to reflect this before anyone called me out on it. That’s because I value the truth more than my reputation. Over time, this should be a testament to my reputation, but I concede that my reputation is for you to determine — not me.
Being wrong helps us learn and I welcome it. This is why I still make predictions.
The Ruse
In November of 2017, I guessed the URL to the 4chan message board where Q was posting and anons were shit-posting. (Note to future self: Don’t guess URLs. It can hurt!) My life would never be the same. In the boards, one of the most common (violent) retorts anons would spew at each other was “Sauce or GTFO!”
Put as politely as possible, this meant “You’ve just made an assertion. If you cannot provide your sources [sauce] to justify your claim(s), then nobody should believe you. You are fake and gay.”
If you were on the Q boards for months or years, you know that this quickly became a standard requirement. If there isn’t sauce, it’s fake and gay.
A simple rule. It makes sense. Everyone saw that assertions backed by documents confirming the assertions appeared to be true. Anything else was disregarded as bullshit, probably made up by clowns.
But was this a ruse?
The Magician’s Trick
Imagine you are sitting in the audience of a magic show with a perfect view of the stage. The show is impressive and you see many things that are clearly impossible, yet there they are.
The show is so impressive, you go a second time with permission to set up several cameras from various vantage points. You record the entire event with perfect video and audio. Now you have proof!
You publish the videos online and write an article claiming the tricks on stage are actual magic and include references to your videos.
You have sauce.
Does the sauce make the tricks magic?
After all, there is sauce!
Of course not. The sauce only documents the lie. Only the severely retarded (and most MBA’s) would believe this because they aren’t thinking at a higher level. They are taking sauce at face value and assuming those responsible for the sauce are not intentionally trying to deceive you.
The obvious reasoning here is that as a member of the audience at a magic show, you know it is a magic show. We all know that there are hidden tricks and knowledge behind why the magic tricks look real. We just don’t know what those tricks are or how they work. The magicians won’t tell you their tricks because if they did, nobody would pay to watch it. If you know how the tricks work, you know it isn’t magic.
The trick here is the difference between understanding what you see vs. seeing it and making a false conclusion.
Stings
A sting is a law enforcement action which lures would-be criminals into a situation ripe for crime. This often includes undercover agents who act like criminals in order to deceive the targets. The identity of these agents is falsified and includes fake credentials, background information, etc. All of this false information must appear to be legitimate in order to deceive the targets. They’re not stupid, after all. This fake information must be indistinguishable from legitimate information in order for the sting to work.
Another attribute of a sting is that law enforcement does not broadcast that a sting is happening. For more information on large-scale historical stings, I suggest taking a look at Operation Greylord1 and Operation Mincemeat2. (Note the footnotes here, proving I am fully capable of adding footnotes when appropriate.)
What this all tells you is that when the topic you are contemplating is, in fact, a sting, the sauce will likely be wrong. This isn’t just a possibility — it is a certainty.
5th Generation Warfare
Gen. Michael Flynn and Sgt. Boone Cutler have thus far published two civilian guides to 5th generation warfare. I recommend everyone read them.
Anons know about these books and many (including myself) have copies of them and have read them.
Although they are couched in a pseudo military motif, these books simply describe the mechanics of deception. This type of deception has been used for thousands of years and the Magi specialize in knowing as much about deception as possible. (Note the lack of a footnote here. Do your own fucking research, you boob!)
We Are In A Huge Tapestry of Stings
If you have looked around the information landscape, it should be painfully obvious to any thinking person that we are in the biggest shit-storm of misinformation/disinformation in Human history. In such a mess, one should expect large amounts of misinformation. I assert that you should question everything, including documents, books, etc. I can understand how people wouldn’t be able to believe so many documents could be faked, but I suggest that those people should look deeper into just how massive the scale of this operation is. For an example of one theory, see The Pershivelt Theory.3
As I have stated in previous articles and abundant interviews, I believe that the largest series of stings in Human history is happening right under our noses. Of course it isn’t obvious because of the structure of stings briefly described above.
Expand Your Thinking
Q said “Expand your thinking.” …43 times.
This might be important.
Maybe the point of this statement is that people should stop thinking they know everything, increase the expected size of this operation in their own mind and keep looking for scenarios are bigger than they can imagine. That’s what I’ve done and it is working out very well, indeed!
What if the scope of the Q operation is so huge that it would be necessary to fake millions of documents? What if they wrote thousands of books in support of it? What if back-dated books were inserted into the Library of Congress to cause confusion and conspiracy theories? (Ingersoll Lockwood, anyone?) What if Q had to set up thousands of even tens of thousands of individual sting operations to rid the world of criminals? What would that look like to us lowly, unwashed sheep?
Maybe we can’t trust documents, folks. Maybe we can’t trust books. Maybe we can’t even trust dozens of books written by multiple authors, based on different source documents that all say the same thing. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
Most people haven’t considered this. This limits their ability to consider larger scenarios.
I believe this is why most people are all bleating out the same flawed theories and none of them are quite correct. Instead of focusing on the flaws in these theories, they are advocating that everyone else look at the theories. This is essentially an example of wrong things going viral. Don’t be the problem — be the solution.
Impressive (But Wrong) Theories With Sauce
There are a few popular theories that are almost completely based on sauce (source documents and books) that I think are all incorrect because in a huge sting environment, we should expect huge amounts of carefully constructed false source information.
I won’t name these theories because I respect the fine effort of those promoting them. I just think their overall conclusions are wrong for the reasons I’ve stated above — you should not be trusting the source information.
However, don’t be misled. The people pushing these theories are genuine and generally correct, assuming their source information is correct. Unfortunately, just as when watching a magic show, what you see can be incorrect. Trusting what you see can and will lead you to an incorrect solution. Make no mistake — I have great respect for these people who have done so much digging and are trying as hard as they can to make the puzzle pieces fit. But if they don’t fit, they don’t fit. If their theory contradicts even one thing that is definitely happening, the entire theory is false. Science.
One example of this could be the history of the Bush family. In The Pershivelt Theory, there is so much top-tier spycraft going on for so long and with no budget, that entire family histories may have been completely fabricated in order to carry out the plan. Is this the case with the Bush family? I don’t know and you don’t either. However, I correctly assert it is possible. If this is correct, then ALL of the information about the Bush family must be assumed to be shit. Think about that for a while. Let it hurt your brain. The pain eventually subsides.
I could explain why you shouldn’t be trusting the source information in more detail in this article, but I won’t. The reason is that if you have adequately digested The Pershivelt Theory and spent enough time reading my other articles and watching the associated interviews4, then you should be able to grasp the biblical scale of what must actually be happening. Or maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.
By the way, your disagreement won’t hurt my feelings.
Ignorance of Non-Sauced Patterns
In an environment where you cannot trust most of what you see, what can you trust?
At the fringes of available information, there exist millions of historical details that collectively describe the entire situation you can see. These include patterns which are not documents or even direct descriptions of events. They include things like personal histories and associations, descriptions of people’s personalities and works of fiction written by specific people that indirectly describe their mental disposition.
When analyzed en masse, these abstract patterns stitch together a logical progression through time which either makes sense or doesn’t make sense based on what intelligent people can deduce of Human behavior. For example, Hugh Johnson wrote The Dam in a publication called Science Fiction by Gaslight, a fiction piece illustrating the brilliance of the military tactic of bluffing as compared to the more rigid Prussian-style tactics of direct assault. This tells us a lot about Hugh Johnson’s understanding of deception as a superior tactic. This tidbit of information is critical in understanding the likelihood of Hugh Johnson’s later behavior, especially as related to John Pershing5.
This is just one example among thousands that
and I have considered when putting together our understanding of what is actually going on in the world. Do we know? NO! I suspect the reason we don’t know is because whatever is going on has been intentionally designed to be virtually unknowable. This, in itself, should be seen as a remarkable understanding. and I freely state that the source information for our theories are usually based not on classically sourced documents, but on large-scale historical patterns, understandings of Human behavior and logic/reason. How do you put a footnote on such things without writing many voluminous books to justify each one? (Hint: You can’t and you shouldn’t.)The moral of the story for this section is that if you are not including abstract patterns in your analysis to verify your theory, then your research is incomplete. This omission is why both
and I reject the more popular heavily sourced theories most people are getting stuck on. We have found patterns that appear to disprove them or at least point out that the intent isn’t what is asserted. The concluded purpose must be wrong.There is no shortcut to understanding large-scale theories like The Pershivelt Theory. You can’t skim it or watch one episode and absorb all of the rationale. You have to dig. One of the reasons I don’t include a lot of footnotes is because people need to learn to dig this stuff up themselves. As you do it more and more, you get better at it. I aim to encourage this because it makes everyone better. May those who adapt survive. By giving lots of footnotes, I would be both increasing my overhead and encouraging laziness. I don’t give a shit about those who refuse to find truth through their own effort.
As
and I say, patterns don’t lie. If you find a plethora of behavioral patterns that all lean the same way, the odds of coincidence drops toward zero. At what point does it become mathematically impossible to be any other way?You decide.
Be Careful Who You Follow
First, let me just say that I don’t follow anyone. I monitor many sources, including people I disagree with. In their work, they sometimes highlight tidbits of information that help reinforce or refute my current operating theories. Just in the last two days, I noticed a piece of information advanced by a person I disagree with overall. Their factoid (if sufficiently demonstrated) will reinforce one aspect of The Pershivelt Theory substantially. Their intent was actually to prove the opposite conclusion. But that’s how the sausage is made. We get information from all sources and derive our own conclusions.
If you have come to believe some theory about what is actually happening based on someone else’s theory, beware. Science isn’t a popularity contest. You may even really like their personalities. You may even think “They could never be wrong.” You may be uber-impressed with the huge body of work it took them to create their theory.
But what if they are flat-out wrong because they are depending on bad source information? What if the hundreds of footnotes they relied on in their research is wrong? How would you know?
If you haven’t considered that possibility, then you’re an unthinking sheep.
Don’t be a boob6. Think for yourself. Don’t trust anything except your own ability to learn and process information into your own opinion.
If you are defending someone else’s conclusions because they have footnotes7 and sources, you might just be really gullible and ignorant. Maybe you were dropped on your head as a child or let some fancy university convince you of some really stupid shit. Or maybe you’re right. You decide. Others will decide for themselves, too. Hopefully they’re thinking completely before they actually decide.
But the fact remains, if your best reason for believing a paper is because it has a lot of footnotes, then you don’t know.
One final affectionate note: Boobs.
- sapioplex
Operation Greylord on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greylord)
Operation Mincemeat on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat)
This is a footnote I’ve included just to underscore how sometimes it is retarded to add footnotes. Note that just before this footnote appears in the text above, there is a hyperlink that goes directly to the source. Said hyperlink makes this footnote pointless. You may also notice I have hyperlinked many things in my previous articles. These hyperlinks serve as an alternative to footnotes, which I see to be pointless because of the hyperlinks. It may be worth thinking about this as an acceptable alternative to footnotes when publishing articles on the Internet. Your opinion may vary based on your complete acceptance of what you have been taught in expensive classical educational institutions.
Just a note to say that with
‘s manly and inviting contributions, I would be just another asshole on the Internet. Instead, he brilliantly elevates me to an asshole with an incredibly lovable person who tolerates me. Why he is willing to do this baffles me to this day.Do your own research. Stop depending on other people to tell you what is true.
For the record, I cannot adequately express how much I love boobs. These are not the kind of boobs I’m talking about in this article. I just included this footnote as an excuse to talk about the wubbly, bubbly female fun-bags that we all love. This is not to say that I don’t equally love the other remarkable female bits — I do. I really do! But in good taste, plunging too deeply into them would risk turning this piece into a hot, steaming — even tawdry and emotionally life-changing — a different category of fine and respectable literature. Of course, I want to stay stoically on message. I need to not think of such wonderful things. Somehow. Some day. …Anon…
Pointless footnote about footnotes, included to annoy those who irrationally place undue importance on footnotes. (https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/what_are_footnotes.en.html).
So good. Clever, clever clever. Thank you. Love the article and especially the finish. 😉 How do ya like them apples 🍎?
What an entertaining read. Must say, I'm so impressed with your loyalty to the boob lol
Chuckles all throughout this article and the point was well made. As soon as we look to another/let another be our authority on what is true, we end up in troubles. And in the end it's all a mind exercise filtered by our belief systems, but it's fun. Appreciate this post.