Quality Over Quantity
To get to the truth we first remove everything we know is not the truth.
Introduction
As I’ve mentioned a few times before, the thing that got me mad enough to start dedicating a lot of my time to unearth the gatekeepers was when I realized that Judy Mikovits was a gatekeeper. She wasted close to half a year of my life, and this infuriated me, but not understanding the situation one might think this was an overreaction. Something else I have also tried to clarify to everyone in some of my previous posts (especially A Follow-Up on Mike Yeadon) is how unbelievably easy it is to understand the fact that no virus has ever been shown to exist. When you understand this fact, my reaction towards Judy Mikovits is better justified because the information she produce is not just something she earnestly gets wrong. This is intentional gatekeeping to mislead the masses and this post is an attempt to find a way at minimizing the damage these people do. My proposed solution is Quality over Quantity.
How to Get to Truth
I do not like to propose to people what to do or how they should approach an issue but hear me out on this concept. I had to learn the hard way over the past 4 years to realize this. In order to get to truth, we first need to remove everything we know not to be the truth. Let’s suppose we have a goal we would like to reach, and that goal is truth. The information war is all about preventing people from reaching the goal. One method is to eliminate the source of truthful information, but let’s assume that this method is not preferred because it draws too much attention. Another great way of preventing people from reaching the truth is to saturate the environment with as many gatekeepers as possible. This problem can be visually presented as seen in the below image. We will have to use some imagination because the real situation includes a lot more gatekeepers than what is shown in the image. But let’s suppose we have 6 sources of information of which one is truthful. The maze through which you will have to navigate looks more or less something like the below.
This is the main reason why we would like to get rid of the sources we know are gatekeepers. We don’t consider their work anymore because we know it leads to a misdirection and we also do not recommend their work because we know others might consider them trustworthy based on our recommendation and will not know what information to avoid and what information they could actually trust. Let’s say we get rid of three gatekeepers. The situation will be as shown in the below image and as we can see we don’t just make it a lot easier for ourselves, but we also make it a lot easier for others to navigate this maze. The best scenario would obviously be if we could point out all the gatekeepers. People who start from scratch having as many gatekeepers exposed as possible would have it a lot easier than those who had to puzzle it all out without knowing who the gatekeepers are.
We can take this a step further and think about the possibility that we do not have anyone in front of us giving us good information. This is something that is definitely a possibility, and we should never assume that we are the only ones not being fooled (refer to this talk by Quantum of Conscience Archive). Imagine a situation where there is a second layer of people who source all their information from the first layer and that no one in this second layer conveys the information of the truthful source. The situation can be presented as shown below. The only way we would be able to get to the truth is by the method of eliminating the gatekeepers we know.
Conclusion
It is up to everyone to find their own way of eliminating that which they think is not truthful. Without the ability to do so one will be lost in a mountain of information that is nearly impossible to sieve through and this method can save you a lot of time.
I’ve recently come across some great pointers on the Conscious Living telegram group, which states the following (refer to the post link here):
[ repost, updated some points and added some]
Some general traits of controlled opposition, and possible things to look out for:
> Information overload: Generate as much discussion as possible around a topic, to consume time and energy.
> "Limited hangout": Deflect and avoid revealing other truths (until they think they are becoming widely known and therefore have to be acknowledged).
> Reinforce existing lies, eg viruses, vaccines?
> Speak a fair bit of truth, but throw in misinfo/misdirection ("99 truths, to sell 1 lie").
> Make people feel like "something is being done", to pacify them.
> Heavily promote alternative medicines, that may also be toxic, without offering a balanced view.
> Telling us what we already know, repackaged.
> Keeping people busy, while NWO agendas keep progressing.
> Failing to suggest actual solutions that translate into genuine resistance against the NWO agenda marching forward.
> Suggesting unrealistic or non-impactful solutions.
> Aligning with non-credible people, or discrediting themselves in some way, to undermine a truth they have exposed, and make people exposing that truth seem non-credible ("blackwashing").
Also note:
> Genuine anti-establishment people would find it hard to reach a large audience through regular public platforms or events.
> The establishment would likely sabotage anyone genuine who attracted a large audience, eg shut down social media, silence through other means, frame them for a crime, discredit them, etc.
> A genuine person would need to use "stealth" means, flying under the radar, to reach a large audience.
> Anyone reaching a large audience through regular public platforms or events is almost certainly controlled opposition.
Some more pointers from Proton Magic as seen below (original note here).
The 10 habits of fake freedom Drs:
Doesn’t talk much about, or uses abject denial that there is no-virus.
Avoids all discussion about the index genome of Sars-CoV-2 in the Fan Wu paper that was a software fabricated registration, not a virus, and avoids FOIA responses on these topics.
Makes posts that are too complex-called a “complexity diversion”.
Ingratiates certain groups especially Christians.
Gives good info but says crazy things like “reptiles”, or acting strange-called “discredit by association”.
Over focus on patents rather than reality.
Belief in GOF (bioweapons) , ADE, or false positive tests (suggests there could be a true positive)-called “fear mongering with complex science”.
Wants to sell you meds and supports early treatments that are probably dangerous.
Mentions anything about vaxes making variants, asymptomatic cases, monoclonal antibodies etc. and fear mongers with viruses & immunity.
Knows a lot about DARPA, weaving in how they are, “good guys”.
Obviously there will be a lot of people in this space vehemently opposed to this method of elimination. The gatekeepers far outweigh the people who are trying to put out earnest, truthful information and who do you think would be the ones up in arms when we start to point out the gatekeepers?
Another tactic they use, and this may be covered in your last point, is not mentioning some "fact" (e.g., lab leak narrative), then when the time is right and it is released to the media and presented as the formerly hidden truth, they tout it as truth and even act like they had a role in uncovering it, which gives more weight to that narrative in the public mind. A big performance, as is everything these gatekeepers do to manipulate public opinion. Very twisted.
"- Make people feel like "something is being done", to pacify them.
- Telling us what we already know, repackaged.
- Keeping people busy, while NWO agendas keep progressing.
- Genuine anti-establishment people would find it hard to reach a large audience through regular public platforms or events."
The top three are pet-peeves of mine. Solid stuff. Thankyou