/qresearch/ - Q Research Board

>>945070

We share common cause with many of you–and rest assured that there are many like you among us. It is important to note that these oligarchs are the same "1%-ers" that many Liberals have rallied against for years—except it's really more like the 0.01%: the same ultra-rich who somehow got richer throughout the entire Obama Presidency. How do you think that happened? Was he not voted into office with the expectation that he do something to address the disparity? What about Bernie Sanders–was it right that he never had a chance? Why was that just "brushed under the rug" by the media, despite an admission from the head of the DNC (Donna Brazile) herself? Isn't democracy the most fundamental principle behind Democratic Socialism?

It turns out that the richest of the rich are using -our- government to solidify their positions. They achieve this through various channels, gaining leverage on certain key members of our government through a variety of methods–some obvious, others nefarious. It is important to realize that what Conservatives refer to as the "mainstream media" is actually owned by this group of elites: https:// clarityofsignal.com/2017/01/07/a-breakdown-on-mass-media-consolidation-in-the-united-states-of-glossy-fascism/

This is not a hidden conspiracy—it is knowledge available to anyone that is willing to look. It's just not something that the msm likes to talk about. Some of the more enlightened ones among you will note that this is the same consolidating trend that has happened in almost all industries–food, drugs, the internet, telecoms…and consolidation is good, to a point. But why is it that the consolidation always seems to fall into the hands of the same people, who frequent the same circles, marry into the "right" families…who often have zero experience in the industries they're charged with leading? Why do so many former politicians land plum positions after their tenure is up? Is that not indicative of ‘'something?''

In order to make our arguments, we must first provide you with an orientation. The majority of research is contained in the "Q Research General" threads, of which there are 1150 at the start of this writing. With some exceptions, each of these threads have been made in chronological order, and each contains roughly 750 individual posts which can range from a single image or word to an article significantly larger than the NY Times piece. If one were to assume an average of, say, 25 words per post, you would have a corpus consisting of 21,562,500 words in the General threads alone. That is the equivalent of about 27.5 copies of the King James Bible. Furthermore this forum is not the first, but rather the third home for this research: originally it was at 4chan.org/pol, then 8ch.net/cbts, then finally here–the research conducted at the two previous homes are only marginally less voluminous than that conducted here…so a conservative guess might put the total at roughly 50 million words thus far. Then you have the work going on at reddit, voat, et. al…

Q has posted on several platforms–originally at 4chan.org/pol, then on his own board at 8ch.net/greatawakening. He has also posted in each of the main research boards–answering questions, indicating answers, and providing guidance. At a few points, Q has wiped his own board–removing all of the previous posts. That indicates that a new phase in the operation has begun; as such, there are several websites dedicated to capturing and posting all of Q's posts the moment they are made; I personally use Qanon.pub, and all references to Q's posts will be using the numbering found there:

https:// qanon.pub/?

Because of this, and because Q has exhorted us to keep meticulous records of all of his posts (Q post #81, + more), and because of the rather obsessive nature of most chan denizens, you can rest assured that the information you read on each of Q's posts is accurate. Think about how much of an argument you would get if the NY Times decided to push the idea that "from now on, 1 = 2". The kinds of people that would have an absolute meltdown are the ones you'll find here.

Each of the General threads begins with a list of resources at the top, and a summary of recent notable findings. These can help get you up to speed, if so inclined. It is easy to debunk many of the media items that likely led you here by simply looking at the evidence therein. However, I will take this opportunity to speak on the one from the NY Times two days ago:

https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

>>945088

Let us also recall some of their other notable predictions, by their resident "genius" economist Paul Krugman: "The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'-which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants-becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

Admittedly, these are two cherry-picked examples…but the difference is that I am admitting that they are cherry-picked–if only the NY Times would have done us the same courtesy. The article reeks of sardonic irony, suggesting a longing for the old days when the NY Times and other establishment media served as kingmakers in awarding the title–back when families huddled around the wooden box in the living room, waiting to be told what to think. They have proven themselves unworthy of such devotion in a fair market, now that the internet has helped us to gather the information they so conveniently leave out. It is amazing what one finds, if one simply looks; even more so, when one is told where to look; exponentially so, when one is thousands.

Let us find a middle ground and admit that the definition of "genius" is tenuous at best; perhaps we can all agree on an alternate one; if stupid is as stupid does, then genius is as genius does…and if the measure of Donald Trump's genius comes by way of delivering on his promises to "drain the swamp," then by those standards we consider him to be a tactical genius. Perhaps the better question you should be asking is "why does the media insist on portraying him as an imbecile? What do they have to lose?" Do you think he is as stupid as they say? If so, then explain how he is able to breathe without suffocating on his own saliva.

The point is that there is a definite sense of desperation and united purpose in these headlines—as someone that has been through a fair number of presidencies, it is fair to say that the coverage has never taken on a tenor unlike any we’ve witnessed in a generation (at least). But this is nothing new—google “journOList,” go through the Podesta’s emails at wikileaks, and you’ll quickly find that they are colluding.

Let us point out this movement is not just about supporting Donald Trump; you've found the website, now explore–are we predominantly speaking about Donald Trump, or are we digging for evidence of corruption? While most of us support Donald Trump, the vast majority of us are not mindless followers–for instance, look at some of the General threads around the time that Trump suggested that we "take the guns first":

>>520616

Furthermore, Q stated on January 13, 2018 that this intel drop has been planned for three years (Q post #520); even if the plan had been completed on that day, it means that planning would have begun well before Donald Trump had been elected. The indication is that our President is not so much the architect of the plan, but rather the complicit executor–perhaps the architects saw in Donald Trump someone willing to actually -do- something about what was going on; that doesn't make Donald Trump a genius–it just makes him a hero.(Q Post #14)

The author attacks Roseanne Barr's tweet claiming that "the president has freed hundreds of children a month from sexual bondage." Roseanne Barr's claim is true; the reason that you may not realize it is that the truth has been withheld from you:

‘’Executive Order’’

https:// www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

‘’How it is implemented’’

https:// home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0243

‘’Some relevant headlines’’

http:// www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-human-trafficking-20180130-story.html

https:// www.dailynews.com/2018/02/01/valley-human-trafficking-task-force-arrests-top-750-in-2017-lapd-says/

‘’from Thursday 4/5/18 alone’’

https:// www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2018/04/06/backpage-executive-michael-lacey-indicted-prostitution-charges/310430001/

http:// www.cjonline.com/news/20180405/city-state-federal-officials-team-up-to-declare-war-on-human-trafficking

https:// www.whitehouse.gov/articles/loopholes-child-trafficking-laws-put-victims-american-citizens-risk/

>>945095

In the next paragraph, the author suggests that this movement is "revealing about the lengths to which some Trump supporters will go to convince themselves that his presidency is going well." The lengths to which we have to go "convince ourselves" aren't very far:

https:// www.express.co.uk/news/world/940784/Donald-Trump-approval-rating-poll-Barack-Obama-US-president

The author then characterizes 4chan and 8chan as "online message boards" and "troll playgrounds." You should familiarize yourself with 4chan.org and 8ch.net: 4chan.org is the original home of Anonymous, and 8ch.net is an offshoot of 4chan that grew after 4chan implemented certain censorship policies. "Members" of Anonymous often frequent both sites. If you do some research on the aforementioned, you'll learn pretty quickly that these are not the places for people seeking emotional validation. To suggest otherwise is truly indicative of ignorance. Go to 4chan.org/pol and tell them about how they should validate your feelings on being overweight–you'll feel the warmth in seconds, I guarantee you.

The truth is that the vast majority of memes you see online have their origins here (http:// knowyourmeme.com/). We are the true voice that speaks what people are really thinking, without fear of being identified–nobody knows your name, your gender, your sexual orientation, what you look like, so on and so forth, so you can be completely honest. Nobody cares. The only thing that has merit are your words alone.

Toward the end of that paragraph, the author suggests that the presidency has presented a "facade of chaos and incompetence." That facade is largely a media construct. For instance–NK has recently expressed a willingness to de-nuclearize without the prospect of war; Trump accomplished this about 14 months into his first term. North Korea openly started testing in 2006. How was he able to do this, when Obama could not? It is simple: he was willing:

’’Executive Order 13810’’

https:// www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=804513

Regarding Obama's big talk, no follow-through approach:

http:// freekorea.us/2016/10/11/white-house-heatedly-debating-whether-to-enforce-north-korea-sanctions-law/#sthash.UvivbnNj.dpbs

http:// freekorea.us/2016/09/27/treasury-sanctions-doj-indicts-chinese-for-violating-n-korea-sanctions/

Reading the last link, we find that two bright young people with no budget and no security clearance were able to fine-tune the sanctions that brought North Korea to its knees, using methods available to all US Government investigative branches for ‘’years’’–basically, it consisted of tracking the boats going into North Korea's harbor, seeing what companies they were associated with, then sanctioning those companies. Without downplaying the importance of the work done by C4ADS, does that not sound like an obvious strategy for implementing sanctions? If so, then why wasn't it ever implemented during Obama's presidency? One would be generous in suggesting that Obama was merely incompetent.

"From these clues, a sprawling community on message boards, YouTube videos and Twitter accounts has elaborated an enormous, ever-mutating fantasy narrative about the Trump presidency. In the QAnon reality, Trump only pretended to collude with Russia in order to create a pretext for the hiring of Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who is actually working with Trump to take down an inconceivably evil and powerful network of coup-plotters and child sex traffickers that includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros."

"ever-mutating": This is a lie, as detailed in the description earlier. Q has made perhaps four standing edits to his 1000+ posts, and we have the befores-and-afters. Often the edits are symbolic, and if not, Q notes it. The only thing that evolves is our understanding of what has been said. While we realize that this statement might raise alarm bells, allow us to elucidate: much of what Q has posted comes under the pretense of "future proves past." In other words, he is telling us something that will be revealed in the future–so by definition, we are meant to come to a better understanding as time goes on…and we have, dozens of times over. When we are able to decipher meanings, whether it be through obvious correlation or Q's direct confirmation, that information is used to "unlock" Q's other messages.

>>945105

"Trump only pretended to collude with Russia…": I have never seen anyone suggest that Trump "pretended to collude with Russia" for said reason. It is as if she is trying to suggest that we believe that Trump actually even pretended to collude with Russia in the first place–we don't. Do you know any Trump supporters that believe he colluded? If not, then why would we lend any credence whatsoever to this dead horse they've been whipping for over a year now by saying that he even "pretended"–there is absolutely -nothing- to this narrative, and the fact that she has to indicate that we even believe that it's "for pretends" shows that they can’t even admit that people ‘’exist’’ who don’t believe he colluded–they are trying to conceal the fact that they have been fabricating innuendo for over a year now. If you would like a real, well-sourced article on the matter of collusion, read this article:

https:// www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/

It is true that we do not believe that Mueller is investigating President Trump–rather, the real investigation is into matters of corruption in the government. Think logically–what benefit would it provide for Donald Trump supporters to believe that he really wasn't being investigated at all?

Wouldn't it benefit us more to actively attack Robert Mueller's credibility than to go about pretending that nothing is happening? Again, I refer you to our modus operandi–delusion is not our forte. That would be reddit.

“QAnon points out that this is the beginning of the end for the Clintons,” said Jerome Corsi — a prominent proponent of the lie that Obama was born in Kenya — on a YouTube broadcast in January. He warned that the world would be forced to contend with “films of innocent children pleading for their lives while people are butchering them.” Once that happens, presumably, Trump will be revealed as a master of 12-dimensional chess who successfully distracted smirking elites with his buffoonery while he was quietly saving the world."

There seems to be little regard for Corsi here, or others that have been using this as a way to gain personal notoriety. We do believe that certain tactics are being used to effectively control politicians and other key members of society in various countries; these tactics range from bribery to extortion, and these globalist societies use illicit behavior both as a means of controlling said members and ensuring that they will do as promised. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, right? Oh, wait a minute, what's this article from the NY Times…

https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/world/europe/cambridge-analytica-ceo-suspended.html

"Posts on other websites, as well as YouTube videos, Twitter accounts and even a book, have taken the theory in countless directions, encompassing characters from the model Chrissy Teigen to disgraced politician Anthony Weiner. The creativity poured into QAnon is striking; it’s like something between a sprawling work of crowdsourced postmodern fiction and an immersive role-playing game."

Yep. You will find other websites devoted to this, likely thousands, besides the main ones here. Most of you will find other forums examining the same clues more welcoming, although here you have the benefit of anonymity.

"But for many people, QAnon is very real. Barr has tried to make contact with Q on Twitter. InfoWars, the website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — who has a close relationship with Trump confidant Roger Stone — has consistently promoted it. Last month, Cheryl Sullenger, senior vice president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, posted an article on the group’s website about an “intel drop” from Q revealing a White House plan to end Planned Parenthood. Sean Hannity retweeted a post with the #QAnon hashtag."

>>945116

For everyone that has researched what Q has dropped, it is obvious that Q is real. Here are a few (minor) examples:

Nov 14, 2017: Q post #155:

>_Conf_D-TT_^_v891_0600_yes

>_green1_0600

>Bunker Apple Yellow Sky [… + 1]

>Yes

>Godspeed.

Nov 17, 2017:

http:// www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-42045632

–note that it was Captain Green that perished

–note the corellation between "Bunker Apple Yellow Sky"

and Buckinghamshire A yel sbury

–note that it happened over Waddesdon Manor, owned by the Rothschilds

Dec 19, 2017: Q post #393

>21_[ f ]_SEQ1239

>22 _SEQ_FREE_9-ZBA

>22 _WH_POTUS_PRESS

>Divert-ATT_CAP_H

>Q

Dec 22, 2017:

https:// www.c-span.org/video/?438901-1/president-trump-signs-tax-reform-government-funding-bills

–what does Trump say around 3:20 into the video?

Nov 2, 2017: Q post #41

>What a coincidence the mountain that housed NK’s nuclear weapons and testing collapsed. Unbelievable timing. I wonder if critically important materials as well as scientists aka the bomb makers were inside when it happened. Shocking no global news agency suspects we had nothing to do with it. Enjoy the crumbs.

March 3, 2018:

https:// www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/asia/north-korea-summit-intl/index.html

"Some elements of the QAnon conspiracy theory — secret elites, kidnapped children — are classic, even archetypical. “In all Western culture, you can argue that all conspiracy theories, no matter how diverse, come from the idea of the Jews abducting children,” Chip Berlet, the co-author of “Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort,” told me. Stories about globalists stealing children for sex aren’t that far removed from stories about Jews stealing children to use their blood making matzo."

Sorry Mr. Berlet, but you cannot. You cannot make that argument unless you have no fear of being revealed an idiot. This as a blatant attempt to make this “all about them” in order to attain a sort of ‘victim’ status. To suggest that the culture of Western Society is structured around its obsession with Jews is condescending, revelatory, and easily debunked by historical evidence. Here's a quick, informal refutation:

https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling

Was there a mention somewhere of "Jews stealing children"?

The foundation of this accusation stems from the fact that Q has identified the Rothschilds and George Soros as being two of the three major families (the House of Saud being the third, addressed swiftly by their new scion) orchestrating maneuvers designed to destabilize the US. Soros has already demonstrated this sort of behavior in the past (see how he devalued Thailand's currency)–is the author really trying to convey victimhood on the most powerful family in the world? While it is true that there are some anti- Semites here (see the censorship policy), the majority recognize the Rothschilds as being bad individuals, not representative of all Jews…just as we recognize the Clintons and John McCain as being bad people, not "the Whites." Furthermore, this board is frequented largely (not exclusively) by Americans; if you remember, we were the ones that ‘’rescued’’ the Jews, not the ones that killed them. So the sad attempt at a guilt trip is pathetically misplaced–if anything, we are owed a debt of gratitude and will continue to reveal the ugly truth regardless of who is caught committing them. No, the author of this post, like many other anons, is not White.

>>945125

"One twist, however, makes QAnon unusual. Conspiracy theories are usually about evil cabals manipulating world events. QAnon, by contrast, is a conspiracy theory in which the good guys — in this case, Trump and his allies — are in charge. It’s a dream of power rather than a bitter alibi for victimhood. It seems designed to cope with the cognitive dissonance caused by the gap between Trump as his faithful followers like to imagine him, and Trump as he is."

Look at her "Jews stealing children" comment, and ask yourself who is trying to create an "alibi for victimhood." This is what we call projection—where they accuse you of what they are trying to do. Beyond that, she got it right in the first sentence then got it wrong through the rest of the paragraph. Most people here never hoped that Trump would be a NY-Times-minted "genius" like Obama–we wanted a hatchet man to core-out the corruption in government. This anon couldn't be happier with his performance thus far, as much as the NY Times may feel threatened by it.

"On Thursday, the usually even-keeled Mike Allen published a piece in Axios titled, “The case for extreme worry,” about how those close to Trump are panicked by his erraticism. The president’s whims and resentments have led to stock market convulsions and may soon result in painful tariffs that affect

American farmers, an important part of his base. Mueller’s special counsel investigation continues to close in. Republicans have lost special election seats in red-leaning areas all over the country. But QAnon offers assurance that everything is under control."

Here's some news about "even-keeled" Mike Allen:

http:// gawker.com/emails-show-politico-s-mike-allen-promised-positive-cov-1744201426

Besides that important, omitted fact, the majority of us recognize that Donald Trump's tariffs serve several purposes: first, it is a matter of national security–if we cannot supply our own products, what happens if we go to war with the suppliers? Second, tariffs are a means by which to protect middle America–Bernie Sanders supported them as a way to revive the middle class, which has been decimated through the competition brought on by NAFTA and the promised TPP. If nothing else convinces you that Trump cares for the middle class and the poor, then consider this: how does it benefit him to push these through, when the ones who stand to lose the most from them are the 1%? Third, tariffs provide a powerful, non-violent deterrent for bad behavior–they're the most potent form of diplomacy we have, something which past Presidents were content to allow the WTO to arbitrate. No longer.

"Barr, for example, retweeted a QAnon post arguing that conservative criticism of the omnibus spending bill, legislation many on the right deplored, was shortsighted. In releasing funds to the military, it said, the bill would set off a climactic series of events: “Swamp drain begins, military seizes TRILLIONS in cabal assets, returning them to the people.” An inspector general report would then reveal the establishment’s unspeakable crimes, after which “the strings will be cut from the propaganda machine and people will stop falling for the garbage MSM,” or mainstream media. Trump, and those who believe in him, would be vindicated."

The only place where Roseanne Barr erred is that she stated that the omnibus bill would start the process, when in fact it has already begun:

https:// www.theepochtimes.com/justice-department-may-have-something-big-in-the-works-over-9000-sealed-indictments_2401511.html

"You don’t create a wild fantasy about your leader being a covert genius unless you understand that to most people, he looks like something quite different. You don’t need an occult story about how your side is secretly winning if it’s actually winning. Publicly, many right-wing politicians and pundits disdain

the Mueller investigation and pretend to believe that Trump’s ties to Russia are negligible. But among part of the Trump base, the effort to explain them away appears to be creating psychic strain."

Like when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

>>945134

Again, this paragraph is utter nonsense. The argument is largely that the opposite is true: the sense of desperation is coming from the media, and pieces like this show it. This is a typical, unquantifiable claptrap, none of it backed by anything other than the author's claims backed by the tarnished reputation of the NY Times. It means nothing to us here, and little everywhere else:

http:// wjla.com/news/nation-world/main-stream-media-continue-to-lose-the-publics-trust

We have no need to pretend that Trump's ties to Russia are negligible—after over a year of searching, with essentially no limits to his investigation, Mueller announced that the President is not a criminal target. That is a -fact-. Meanwhile, the NY Times continues to allude to it, with absolutely -zero- evidence. None.

http:// www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-mueller-trump-investigation-20180403-story.html

“You cannot possibly imagine the size of this,” said a Q dispatch last month. “Trust the plan. Trust there are more good than bad.” Q almost certainly doesn’t know any state secrets, but he, she, or they understand that some fervent Trump supporters require more reassurance than they’re willing to admit. Their desperate conviction that they will be proven right about Trump betrays a secret fear that they will be proven wrong."

Q absolutely knows state secrets. He has repeatedly predicted events that have come true. He has repeatedly mentioned events that later came to bear. We have already mentioned a few–dozens more can be found in this site, and hundreds more are coming. Besides those, he has “connected the links” so that we might understand why the conclusions are coming about. Here is a chain of resources that speak on Obama’s complicity in allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons:

>>945144

>2008-2016: Project Cassandra–Obama undermines efforts to go after key Hezbollah

>operatives. John Brennan advocates.

> https:// www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

>

>2014-2016: Iran starts receiving $700 million/month from lifted sanctions

>("unfrozen assets"). Ultimately amounts to $11.9 Billion.

> http:// freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-may-received-much-33-6-billion-cash-gold-payments-u-s/

>

>July 14, 2015: Iranian Nuclear Deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)

>created.

> Non-shill media aghast at how bad it is. Difficult to tell if Kerry is

> world's stupidest-and-most-naive man, or if Obama getting revenge for petty

> feud with Netanyahu.

>

>~July 2015: Obama wires $848,000 to Iran. This is revealed roughly 14 months later,

>after Obama lies about the need to send cash due to effective sanctions.

> https:// www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324

>

>October 18, 2015: JCPOA adopted.

>

>Jan 16, 2016: $400 million cash delivered to Iran. Obama states that it is to

>pay off a 1979 legal decision. Four US hostages released. Obama signs EO

>13716, revoking Iranian sanctions outlined in EOs 13574, 13590, 13622, 13645,

>and 13628.

> https:// www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/jcpoa_eo.pdf

>

>Jan 19, 2016: $1.3 Billion wired to De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) in Amsterdam.

>DNB is the equivalent of their Federal Reserve.

>(search Department of State, Jan 19, 2016)

> https:// jfund.fms.treas.gov/jfradSearchWeb/JFPymtSearchAction.do

>Letter from Orrin Hatch asking for clarification:

> >https:// www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/9.13.2016%20Letter%20to%20Treasury%20on%20Cash%20Payments.pdf

>Response from Treasury Dept. IG Eric M. Thorson:

> https:// www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/ig/Audit%20Reports%20and%20Testimonies/OIG-CA-17-006%20Iran%20Payment%20Inquiry.pdf

>Jan 17, 2016: Obama releases Iranian prisoners, misrepresenting them as

>civilians despite their work to deliver and advance Iranian weapons capability.

> https:// www.politico.com/story/2016/09/ushttps:// www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324

>

>Jan 22, Feb 5, 2016: $1.3 Billion in non-US currency delivered.

> http:// www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html

> http:// freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-may-received-much-33-6-billion-cash-gold-payments-u-s/

>

>April 2016: US wires $9 million to Iran.

>

>August 4, 2016: Obama lies at press conference, says that $400 million cash was sent because sanctions were too

>effective.

>

>September 8, 2016: Possibly as much as $33.6 Billion to Iran in total?

> https:// financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-114-ba09-wstate-mdubowitz-20160908.pdf

>

>Q #50: "How did Iran obtain Uranium?"

> Sihai Cheng of China exported parts to Seyed Abolfazl Shahab Jamili, who

> gave them to Eyvaz Technic (end user). Obama released Jamili despite this, along

> with many others convicted of similar crimes. Obama was complicit.

> note: Sihai Cheng worked for MKS Instruments, in Pudong, Shanghai*

> https:// www.wisconsinproject.org/chinese-man-convicted-on-charges-of-exporting-u-s-origin-pressure-transducers-to-iran/

> https:// www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/extradited-chinese-national-sentenced-nine-years-providing-us-goods-iran-support-its

Clearly, Netanyahu was not pleased with the negotiations. Where was the author at, when real evidence of anti-Semitism presented itself?

>>945151

You've already seen a small portion of what we know about North Korea–we can bring more if you like.

To those of you who have come, perhaps you’re here because you have deeper reservations. Perhaps you wonder why, no matter who gets into office, no matter what they'd promised, it always seems to result in crumbs for the "rest of us", and steaks for those at the top. Perhaps you've started to notice the difference in how the media treats Republicans and Democrats–it's all a show to convince you that there's a difference, but there isn’t; the globalists have won every time. Except this last one.

At what point do you start to ask yourself if you are being misled? At what point do you start to realize that the media itself has an agenda? Go take a look around–how many things have you learned here that you hadn't known? Would you consider some of these items to be important? If so, then -why- hadn't you heard them?

It is time for you to open your eyes and look. Because change is coming—and absolutely nothing will stop it.

As it is likely that you were referred by the MSM, it may be a good time to go over some of the other information that has been withheld from you–namely, instances that prove media collusion.

Let us consider that only 7% of reporters identify as Republican:

https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/?utm_term=.203abbb943e4

Let us also consider that 96% of persons working in the media (out of 430 identified) donated to Hillary Clinton:

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton

Most reporters would say that it is because the Republicans are so much worse today than they were a decade ago, but anyone that remembers 2008 (or earlier) knows that simply is not true.

You may not have heard that 65 reporters had private group dinners with John Podesta before the 2016 election:

https:// twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790635169174720512?lang=en

In itself, that might not be alarming…except that, when you start digging through the names and searching through the emails, you find evidence of coordination and collusion:

https:// www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/john-podesta-emails-wikileaks-press-214367

Here's the NY Time's own John Harwood, who moderated one of the debates:

http:// dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/nyt-john-harwood-lavishes-praise-on-hrc/

https:// wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=harwood&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult

Bear in mind that these are just the emails sent to John Podesta. What about phone calls–to Hillary, Huma, John, and any other number of persons coordinating on her behalf?

How about when Donna Brazile leaked the debate questions to Hillary Clinton?

https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.d7cff612519e

Ever hear of the JournoList?

https:// www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/the-journolist-scandal/60206/

How about its spawn, the CabaList?

https:// www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/meet-the-new-journolist-smaller-than-the-old-journolist/60159/

What's notable about the last one is that it was brought to our attention by ethical Liberal reporters:

<my colleague Andrew Sullivan has a point when he wrote that some of what happened on Journolist smacked of secret plotting: "This collusion is corruption. It is no less corrupt than the comically propagandistic Fox News and the lock-step orthodoxy on the partisan right in journalism - but it is nonetheless corrupt. Having a private journalistic list-serv to debate, bring issues to general attention, notice new facts seems pretty innocuous to me. But this was an attempt to corral press coverage and skew it to a particular outcome."

Then there was the WeigOList:

http:// www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/24/a_conspiracy_so_vast.html

Besides those, who can forget John Stewart's montages of dozens of reporters parroting the same headlines, every night? Is this any different than what we see today?

Of course, one could be forgiven for not knowing about this minute sampling of media bias (hopefully some other Anons will present more)…when the media itself seems unaware of what's really going on:

http:// thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with

1/2

>>1094327

How many of you knew that 90% of the media outlets are owned by six corporations?

http:// www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

(don't miss the link to the Bilderberg Group story at the bottom, it's a revelation)

Does it not make sense that these media organizations might have an interest in promoting policies that help their parent companies? Why are so many of these organizations allowed to continue operating at a loss? Even if the reporters are not directly (or even knowingly) doing so, it would be a simple matter of hiring the ones that seem to have the particular viewpoint that one might like to see in print. And that viewpoint is: more government power, less individual rights, run cover for the politicians and you'll get the good scoops. Better to lose a hundreds of thousands in revenue from lost media subscribers than hundreds of millions from lost government contracts. As much as the media likes to pretend that corporations and big business don't like big government, that is an outright lie–one need only look at how businesses have consolidated over the years, and consider how mom-and-pop stores cannot afford to take advantage of the tax loopholes, congressional lobbying, offshoring of funds, no-bid contracts and dozens of other luxuries afforded to the big businesses that cater to big government.

Even today, at a time when Donald Trump is on the verge of brokering peace between North and South Korea after 70 years of war, without having dropped a single bomb…the only thing we hear from CNN and the NY Times are tabloid articles about peeing prostitutes and porn stars? This is a triumph for peace-loving Americans, a historic achievement, a relief to those living on the West Coast, and a life-changing (and life-saving for many) event to those living in both Koreas. If you are a Liberal and are unhappy about this…why? Why are you meant to be unhappy that Donald Trump ordered the destruction of Syria's Chemical Weapons factories, which was carried out without a single casualty?

Because you were told to be unhappy. That's why.

If you consider yourself to be a person who is seriously concerned about our country, then I ask you to consider this: how is it that media narratives seem to coordinate so perfectly with political narratives? Watch the next time some damning news comes out. Rest assured, you will see several stories the next day telling you what to think, and why such an event is right and reasonable. Your gut instincts are wrong and misinformed. Your hesitation is uneducated and banal. Here's the righthink–accept the blue pill, you can get back to comfort with the sheep sophisticates.

You cannot trust the media if you want to know the truth. You cannot allow yourself to be satisfied with what they give you, because they are no longer working for us. They crave a place at the lavish dinners, the posh spots in society with the movers and shakers. There are so few real reporters left on the national scene.

As mentioned before–we share common cause. This is not what you have been told; even if our motivations are different, the things that we desire are often the same: we want justice, we want the truth, we want a fair playing field, and we want to root out corruption.

It is time to wake up, and question authority.

2/2