Explore the messenger first, before trusting the message

We have a watch list accessible from the navbar at Unherdables and it’s not the usual Obama, Blair etc. known-knowns … but the players behind the scenes in the current punditry, the ones who go under the radar because they’re the Paul Reveres they’d have you believe.

There are any number of people, often under reinvented moniker, who “rush” “breaking news” to you … they’re never there to examine in depth and to learn … watch out for these is my advice, just who are they? Whom are they representing in reality? Which lobby?

Part of the sum total of non-Wokerati pundits are the “would be big stars of punditry”, often with their own big followings and own site, e.g. Guido, but also a new breed, often found on substack for some reason, e.g. Dan Wooton. As one who uses substack himself, it has severe limitations … it’s for the pundit who wishes to bring the scoop or column in simple form, centre page, to be a “highly respected oracle, a go-to quotee” … these are the minor media empire builders.

What I’m asking you the reader to do is to be a bit more circumspect, a bit “uh huh, I’ll read you but what are your own antecedents, whom are you shilling for?” Before taking onboard and parroting. Beware those who are always wanting to bring the big scoop, the “Breaking News”.

I didn’t say dismiss … I’m saying place it alongside, on the table before you, with all the other “incoming”.

Slow down, examine, even against your own bias, your own natural inclinations. Sometimes a labelled “hostile” who may well be that due to his/her bad decisions on who’s good/who’s bad may have been diverted offtrack on some things. To my mind, blind faith in Donny is just as dangerous as TDS … slow down, examine via “trusted” sources you’ve built over time. Just whom are they lobbying for?

An obvious “be careful” is Ben Shapiro who may or may not have had a hand in the CK demise but is a known Nethanyahu European Zion exponent. Against that are almost the entirety of Whitehall, quite pro-deathcult and flooded-in illegals. Candace is another … I’ve read the criticisms, usually Zionist, which does not necessarily mean Jewish, which is another thing (see Revelation 3:9).

Beware those who immediately turn on you for quoting from the NT … what are they themselves? The secular Settled Science is god set? Again, be circumspect instead of grabbing your bat and ball and storming off.

Currently, I’m looking at this about Susan Wiles, gatekeeper to Donny, also exploring Ann Vandersteel:

…who seems more ultranationalist in a Stew Peters way, similar to Red Ice. I’m also posting this:

The links you need for that are currently at NOWP 1203:3 (Evets 1). And anyway, how sound are Natural News? And how about Gateway Pundit? Again, don’t dismiss out of hand but be circumspect.

Which brings me to navigation and transparency. If you visit any site, you should go straight to the About, to who’s funding this guy/gal? If it’s hidden away somewhere under all the waffle, if he/she won’t state his/her bias … then be most circumspect, reader. Some, like Rhoda at Expose, are basically sound, just derivative … as I am … name me a pundit who is not derivative … that’s quite different to carving out an empire on the back of other people’s resources and investigation.

Flag is often an indicator … my flag is the Cross of St George but also the Union Flag, but am also MAGA, pro-Orban, secret liking for Giorgia, I like people who use ✝️ in the profile but beware again … so does the socialist Chicago pope and the Canterbury graffiti loving new archbish to be, the rainbow ratbag. And the jargon “ratbag” is a giveaway too, it says Oz influence … I could have said “tosser” instead for her, or for Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Obama, Holder, McCarthy (ex House Speaker). Could have used “jerk”.

Then we should note strange likings, e.g. mine for Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Rupert, not Farage. But even here, apply the 70/30 rule. For every person we have misgivings about … do we like less than 70% of what they’re about? If we like 70 to 90% about them, then they’re on the “fairly trusted” list. I’d worry if you were 100% for any human.