Still next to no interest (according to Youtube) in my readings of books by those who knew firsthand one of the most famous and heroic men in history.
Back when I was posting “truth community” content on YouTube, I walked away because I became disgusted with all of the agents trying to trick people over there. Then when I gave up their scene and started posting Napoleon memoirs all of these “new helpful” commenters told me that there is lots of competition on YouTube. I’d lose viewers. No one wanted to hear my Napoleon garbage. Look at my views now. Those commenters sure knew what was coming. They were so sure no one wants to learn a thing about this man whose legend towers over pretty much everything. Interesting, right?
I tried turning off my numbers on YouTube but I can’t. I have to let them put whatever numbers they want to on my posts. Isn’t that interesting? I just want to keep my work honest and I don’t trust those numbers. Yet I have to keep numbers on there that I don’t trust if I want to use that platform. That’s just how it is.
Memoirs of Constant about Napoleon, Book 3, 20-52
After the Austrian government declares war against Napoleon - again - Napoleon takes Vienna - again.
https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2019/2/11/napoleon-memoirs-linkst
A retired RAF individual tells the internet that Napoleon’s son died in a perfectly normal way at 21 with no proof whatsoever.
The Quora post also enjoys a massive amount of upvotes. I’ve noticed this pattern a lot lately. The internet keeps getting told that the Hapsburgs definitely didn’t rub out Napoleon’s son. Always with no proof in a very confident style. Just because someone says something is case closed on the internet - doesn’t mean anything.
What type of person or group has final say on the major internet platforms? The patterns reveal perfectly exactly what sort.
Now that I understand that platform better, I am honored to not be a part of Wikipedia.
Go check out what nice things Wikipedia has to say about Hillary Clinton, James Alefantis etc. The truth is plain to see for anyone with the courage to open their eyes to it.
Is Wikipedia there to somehow trick and subvert the public? Why couldn’t there be on there an honest entry about me otherwise? I think there’s a group with way to much money and power out there who are dead set against the truth. But why?
They sure put me in their crosshairs over the past year. What group would have the capacity to send me that many infiltration/subversion agents? I left everything up (and saved all messages) so there is an exact reproduction of much of the trickery and patterns. It all played out live and I certainly remember every name who came for me - even if I didn’t name them on this blog. A lot of real familiar names in the YouTube “Truth Community” are amongst them. I always prefer it when people see what I’m writing about for themselves so I usually restrain myself a bit.
The lie is so big, it really is challenging to see it at first.
The person who hates themself because they can’t ever acknowledge that their parent obviously never really loved them
This happens all too often.
Song of the day: I would do anything for you.
Who really is in control of Wikipedia?
Memoirs of Constant about Napoleon, Book 3, 1-20
Napoleon gave his whole bag of tricks to Alexander for no good reason.
https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2019/2/11/napoleon-memoirs-linkst
