Stew Peters reads as a disinformation agent on so many levels. His massive sudden popularity, if anyone was watching it and asking questions, came across as completely inorganic. He has managed to rise to prominence with very little resistance from the MSM. A great example is the fact that he has a relatively benign Wikipedia page (see attached screen shots). Nothing in the landing page labeling him as a far-right, dangerous conspiracy theorist. Nothing trying to direct people away from following him. If you’ve been paying attention, Wikipedia is an OPERATION, and the choice to allow him to be presented in this comparatively neutral way speaks volumes. Mention of his public death threats are buried in the Career section, no mention of him being removed from Spotify for disinformation. Why?

Look up someone like Jordan Sather on Wikipedia. Not only do they refuse to have a page on Jordan entirely, but the few mentions of his name only draw up disinfo on him encouraging people to drink bleach.

Of course I know many are triggered by Jordan right now (I have never had so many irrational emotionally driven attacks against me as those that have unfolded since I went on Jordan’s podcast!! Wow). So then put Jordan aside and compare an even more neutral source.

Compare Peters’ Wikipedia page to that of the Epoch Times. Even the comparatively moderate Epoch Times is labelled “far-right,” in the very first sentence of their entry. So Epoch Times is more extreme than Stew Peters, if a normie is going to Wikipedia for discernment!!! Think this through carefully.

This is an especially large red flag because like all provocateurs (think masked antifa showing up at a peaceful protest with bricks) Peters has publicly called for the execution of public officials on numerous occasions. I can think of few things more harmful to a movement than to have a voice this loud openly telling the public that we want certain people dead, without due process, without absolute proof of their crimes. Despite our own research and convictions, it is absurd and wrong for us to ever state that “through our absolute knowledge of the truth this list of people should be killed.”

Mainstream coverage of Peters includes this article ( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/stew-peters-truth-trump-warning-b2021667.html?amp ), which uses Peters to attack Truth Social as a corrupt failure. Also this article ( https://www.thedailybeast.com/magas-new-shock-jock-is-a-bounty-hunter-with-a-troubled-past ) which of course emphasizes his death threats, his connection to Lin Wood, and admits that he went from being a nobody to a major right wing influencer in only a few months “Peters’ rise reflects the tumultuous environment of digital right-wing media, where a previously little-known bounty hunter can emerge out of practically nowhere to become a power player.”

Notice how they use Peter’s to create broad stroke generalizations about millions and millions of people?

Finally, if that’s not enough, we can listen to Stew Peters openly declaring himself an authority on news and information, shaming anyone who watches Fox News (watch video in my telegram here https://t.me/SimonEsler). He is openly seeking to cause shame in anyone who goes to Fox for news. Even more incredibly, he is dissuading people from following coverage of the Durham investigation!! (Eyes roll out of skull 🙄)

So let’s be clear. This man is surrounded by RED FLAGS, and if there was anyone planted into this movement and given a green card to rise to prominence for nefarious purposes I would say it’s Stew Peters.

However, am I telling you to turn off his show? Am I declaring myself an absolute authority? Not at all. I’m sharing guidance arising from my authentic experience.

All information is neutral. BUT WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL. In fact, as conspiratorially minded people, we are extremely open to new information, often to our own detriment. We have psychological weaknesses as a collective that are as damning as many of the “normie” communities we are so critical of. We are not automatically superior in our capacity to uncover truth, we are only differently challenged. Can we be honest about this with ourselves?

How humble can we become when we realize we were wrong, manipulated in our open mindedness, and lead astray via our own good intentions? It can be painful to come to terms with this, with the fallout of supporting disinfo, with the feeling that we did not discern correctly in the middle of an information war. Many struggle with the shame and guilt of these realizations and will fight against any honest assessment of this reality.

We need a community capable of handling dissent within it’s own ranks. Complete and total disagreement and the capacity to keep going in a mature and focused manner. I don’t say this as an authority or leader myself, but as someone who has personally had to painfully wake up to my own immaturities, my own capacity to be too open, my own tendency to be conditioned in the areas of my being that are susceptible.

If we matured collectively in this way, how much more difficult would we make infiltration into the movement? How much more effective would we become at getting grassroots work done, and developing the practical knowledge of self that makes us formidable opponents for seasoned deep state operators?