That is indeed very suspicious. But how do the feds benefit from that? In the case of Beau it was clear, he was being used to propagate imperialist views under a progressive guise. What are they achieving with Hinkle? Are they using him as a spy? Or do they think that by associating someone as off-putting as Hinkle, who gives off massive grifter vibes, with anti-imperialist causes they can discredit those causes? Is it all about turning liberals off from anti-imperialism?
Because if so, i think they didn’t need to put in all that effort. Liberals are already conditioned to go along with virtually every imperialist narrative. Whereas principled anti-imperialists are going to stick by their position regardless. So what’s it all for? That’s what i can’t figure out. If he is an asset why aren’t they using him to push pro-Zionist and pro-NATO talking points?
And how does someone like Tucker Carlson fit into the picture? He’s also gotten to meet with some very prominent Russians, including Putin, as well as other world leaders like Viktor Orban, who at least outwardly plays the role of an opposition to the EU Atlanticists. Tucker has also been saying some things that you’d think, at least at first glance, wouldn’t be in the interest of the Washington-Langley crowd. Isn’t it possible that this is just genuine reactionary infighting rather than all part of some nefarious master plan?
I’m trying to understand this but it seems too convoluted and too risky. I wouldn’t sign off on this OP if i was managing the CIA psyops division. What if instead of achieving what they want to achieve they instead inadvertently increase the popularity of anti-imperialist views? The only way this makes sense to me is if they are still waiting to “flip the switch” and have Hinkle do a 180 on his position once he’s amassed enough of a following. I could totally see that happening.
Hinkle makes anti Zionism unpalatable and directly leads to the arrest of people like Mahmoud. He got retweeted twice by the state of “Israel” which each time gave him a ton of publicity.
By making his unhinged takes (he’s outright an antisemite, ACP is doing damage control every time he tweets something lol) he associates antizionism with people like him and with antisemitism so that people won’t call themselves anti zionist and if you do, you’ll look like a nutjob.
Hinkle worked with Tulsi Gabbard when he was younger (so 5 years ago), Gabbard being head of the psyop division in the US military or something like that (edit: she’s literally Director of National Intelligence). The info is super easy to find if you Google her name plus military but I forget the exact job title. He interviewed her last year again for some reason and never mentioned this past relationship.
Tucker Carlson’s father, Richard, was the director of Voice of America, close to Reagan, and US ambassador to the Seychelles. He was deeply embedded in US politics at the foreign affairs level, so Tucker is more of an untouchable. And tucker is far from doing any anti imperialism, moreso the appearance of doing anti imperialism
I guess that makes sense. So do you think the ACP are in on this, or are they just useful idiots? You said they do damage control when he tweets something that reflects particularly poorly on them (i don’t follow any of these people so i didn’t know that), would they do that if they were in on the whole grift?
That is indeed very suspicious. But how do the feds benefit from that? In the case of Beau it was clear, he was being used to propagate imperialist views under a progressive guise. What are they achieving with Hinkle? Are they using him as a spy? Or do they think that by associating someone as off-putting as Hinkle, who gives off massive grifter vibes, with anti-imperialist causes they can discredit those causes? Is it all about turning liberals off from anti-imperialism?
Because if so, i think they didn’t need to put in all that effort. Liberals are already conditioned to go along with virtually every imperialist narrative. Whereas principled anti-imperialists are going to stick by their position regardless. So what’s it all for? That’s what i can’t figure out. If he is an asset why aren’t they using him to push pro-Zionist and pro-NATO talking points?
And how does someone like Tucker Carlson fit into the picture? He’s also gotten to meet with some very prominent Russians, including Putin, as well as other world leaders like Viktor Orban, who at least outwardly plays the role of an opposition to the EU Atlanticists. Tucker has also been saying some things that you’d think, at least at first glance, wouldn’t be in the interest of the Washington-Langley crowd. Isn’t it possible that this is just genuine reactionary infighting rather than all part of some nefarious master plan?
I’m trying to understand this but it seems too convoluted and too risky. I wouldn’t sign off on this OP if i was managing the CIA psyops division. What if instead of achieving what they want to achieve they instead inadvertently increase the popularity of anti-imperialist views? The only way this makes sense to me is if they are still waiting to “flip the switch” and have Hinkle do a 180 on his position once he’s amassed enough of a following. I could totally see that happening.
Hinkle makes anti Zionism unpalatable and directly leads to the arrest of people like Mahmoud. He got retweeted twice by the state of “Israel” which each time gave him a ton of publicity.
By making his unhinged takes (he’s outright an antisemite, ACP is doing damage control every time he tweets something lol) he associates antizionism with people like him and with antisemitism so that people won’t call themselves anti zionist and if you do, you’ll look like a nutjob.
Hinkle worked with Tulsi Gabbard when he was younger (so 5 years ago), Gabbard being head of the psyop division in the US military or something like that (edit: she’s literally Director of National Intelligence). The info is super easy to find if you Google her name plus military but I forget the exact job title. He interviewed her last year again for some reason and never mentioned this past relationship.
Tucker Carlson’s father, Richard, was the director of Voice of America, close to Reagan, and US ambassador to the Seychelles. He was deeply embedded in US politics at the foreign affairs level, so Tucker is more of an untouchable. And tucker is far from doing any anti imperialism, moreso the appearance of doing anti imperialism
I guess that makes sense. So do you think the ACP are in on this, or are they just useful idiots? You said they do damage control when he tweets something that reflects particularly poorly on them (i don’t follow any of these people so i didn’t know that), would they do that if they were in on the whole grift?