(from PrayingMeduc)
Transitioning From a Culture of Trusting Others to Trusting Ourselves
The title of this article is bound to raise a few eyebrows. I am not proposing that we should ignore the biblical admonition to trust God. Nor do I intend to argue against the fact that the human heart is deceitful. The narrow question I'll address here is where we get the information we use to understand current events.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve trusted members of the press to investigate current events and report their findings. Recently, I learned that my trust was misplaced. The media have been feeding me half-truths. Having been made aware of this, I began looking for a different source of information.
In 2018, I stumbled upon Q—an anonymous entity who encouraged people to dig through publicly available news articles, videos, and government documents to uncover the truth for themselves.
As I thought about the questions Q asked, and plowed through the linked documents, I learned that the media had been covering up institutionalized corruption.
A new view of the world began taking shape in my mind. Not surprisingly, it was completely different from the model the media portrays.
The Research
Q has posted hints on hundreds of subjects. I learned that I could usually find the truth of a matter if I did a little digging.
Because I didn't have time to research every subject myself, sometimes, I'd look at the work of other researchers (anons). I’d examine their research and conclusions and see if they had connected the dots correctly. If they had, I would share their work with others.
The anons that follow Q have created a sweeping narrative of culture that opposes the one disseminated by society’s corrupt overlords.
A sublime truth emerged from all of this. I realized I didn’t need anyone to tell me how the world works. I discovered that truth for myself by doing my own research. Q merely suggested where I should look for information.
Many people still prefer to get their information from someone else—especially if a source appears to have information not available to the public.
As I've said previously, I'm not interested in sources of information that are not in the public domain. Such information cannot be verified, is easy to fake, and is often proven false at a later time. One cannot build an accurate picture of current events based on rumors and anonymous sources.
We got ourselves into this predicament because we trusted others to tell us the truth and they betrayed us. Many are still betraying us, though we're unaware of it because their claims can neither be verified nor falsified.
I’ve learned (along with millions of anons) that we don’t need others to tell us what’s happening in the world. We can uncover the facts ourselves. And that is the primary goal of Q’s operation. Q did not intend to make us dependent on intelligence insiders for information. He trained us to become citizen journalists—free thinking people who do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
We are, at this moment, transitioning from a time when we trusted in others to tell how the world works to a time when we must trust ourselves.
People often ask how do I know which subjects to focus on and which to ignore. All my research and every Q decode is guided by the Holy Spirit. Although I’ve come to trust my research, it would be useless if not for the guidance of God. When Q says “trust yourself,” he is not telling us to ignore our relationship with God. It is God's Spirit that leads us into all truth.
Think for yourself.
Research for yourself.
Trust yourself.
Clickbait opinions are designed to attract reader to subscribe and/or follow and/or shape a pre-designed narrative.
FOLLOW THE FACTS.
SHEEP NO MORE.
Q
If you’re looking for an honest answer to this question, I generally don’t get told what to believe here, but every single belief that doesn’t agree with yours gets ridiculed and dismissed until there is no option left but to believe your theory. It’s telling me what to believe by process of elimination.
For instance, the “ballots from suitcases under the table” video might be a good example. You guys believe that the story is that the observers were forcibly ejected from the count, and once they were removed, secret ballots were pulled out and counted to commit fraud.
That’s a possible explanation. But I can’t prove it using the video. All the video shows is people counting ballots from a case. I can’t see the proof in that video that the observers were ejected, I only have their word. I can’t see the proof that those ballots under the table were supposed to be hidden, or that they were illegitimate, or that the counters were waiting for the observers to leave before counting them (despite the fact that they knew they were being videoed).
A malicious, fraudulent explanation is absolutely possible. But the video doesn’t even have sound. The video doesn’t prove this story whatsoever.
But around here, it’s credibility suicide to doubt that the video PROVES fraud. It’s “a smoking gun.” Not because of what it shows that can be proven, but because of how it MIGHT show fraud if I assume the narrative you want me to believe is the right one.
And if I choose to not believe that narrative, I’m just an idiot shill who believes the MSM and is falling for Democratic lies and so forth. And until I accept the narrative that the video is a smoking gun proving fraud, I am an idiot.
So be honest. Is calling me an idiot and a sheep until I believe your theory any different than telling me to believe your theory?
The video shows them scanning the same stack of ballots multiple times.
How do you know that these ladies knew they were being videotaped? The videos came directly from State Farm Arena... it’s very possible they had no idea. I’ve been there and I’ve never noticed cameras yet they are apparently all over in every single room. The rooms are gigantic with very tall ceilings.
I think in this particular example, you have to weigh both options and decide what makes the most sense.
Every single person leaves with the exception of 2-3 people. They don’t pull out the suitcases of ballots until everyone else leaves. Then they pull out these ballots and scan the same stack ballots multiple times. There’s signed affidavits from people who were there stating that they were told to leave because ballot counting was done for the evening. There’s also evidence showing a large dump of Biden only ballots during the exact time frame that these ladies were scanning.
There’s another video from earlier in the day showing Ruby and her daughter talking to one of the election officials. In this video they discuss having to stay late that evening to “fix things”, the election officials talks about the extra money he’s paying them, etc. this video keeps getting scrubbed from the internet.
If all of this together doesn’t seem suspicious to you then you probably wouldn’t believe it even if there was sound of them literally saying “we are cheating right now”
If no cheating occurred, why did Fulton county hire 2 criminal defense attorneys to stop the unsealing of 150k ballots that a judge previously approved for an audit?
If no cheating occurred, why is big tech working so hard to censor anyone who comes forward as a witness to cheating? If their stories are made up BS, why spend so much time and effort silencing them if no one would believe them anyway?
If no cheating occurred, why have democrats fought the AZ audit every step of the way? If there’s nothing to hide, why not cooperate and work with the republicans to get this audit completed so that it can show no cheating and you can put all this “nonsense” to bed?
I don’t think scanning any ballot multiple times counts multiple votes. A ballot isn’t just a tally mark for a candidate, it’s a vote connected with a person, a county, and a party.
So if a ballot that says, “John Doe, a Republican from Maricopa County, votes for Donald Trump as POTUS in 2020,” then scanning that ballot over and over again isn’t going to add tallies. It’s just going to be reentering the information that John Doe voted for Trump in 2020 over and over again.
If a ballot could be scanned multiple times to add votes to a candidate, then there would be no point in having any identifying information on a ballot in the first place. And that sort of flaw would not have required an entire forensic audit to uncover.
Seems more likely to me that the ballots just didn’t get scanned correctly the first time. Same thing happened when I worked in libraries and people would get freaked out when I checked a book out to them more than once. No, it’s not checked out to you multiple times, because like a ballot, a library book has a unique ID. It’s not just a tally.
I’m not saying nothing is suspicious and we should accept the party line on everything. But you’re also expecting me to accept that Trump’s observers who were there specifically to gain evidence of wrongdoing did absolutely nothing to record any hard proof they were kicked out. No cell phone video, no recordings. Nothing that proves their story, despite the fact they were there specifically to get that sort of proof.
And if there is ever going to be action taken to rectify real fraud, it has to be hard proof, not suspicion that, if combined with a narrative, implies fraud. That whole, “innocent until PROVEN guilty” thing gets in the way, and I have a hard time believing Trump’s observers were so incompetent as to miss getting exactly the sort of evidence of them being removed that they were there to collect in the first place.
I don’t want to get too into the weeds here, but that’s the sort of problem I’m talking about. I can’t endorse changing Presidents based on suspicions and “what if’s.”
Honestly, I am looking forward to this audit thing being released so we can actually examine the hard evidence of fraud that you guys believe must exist. Because if I’m wrong, then the audit should figure out how to prove it.
I appreciate that.
I can tell you I’m not here for disinformation. I tend to avoid debating here unless someone specifically asks for a non-Q challenge to their position or in a situation where I feel my own expertise or research can help clarify some question.
I’m pretty open about not being a Q supporter, but I have a tendency to hang out almost exclusively with people I disagree with.
People who agree with me have nothing to teach me. My desire to get smarter means I need to make myself vulnerable to being proven wrong, and people who agree with me aren’t going to accomplish that. It’s extraordinarily boring limiting myself to only those who see things like I do.
And like I’ve said before, one of us is extraordinarily wrong about Q. Neither of us is going to prove who that is until either the Plan comes to fruition, or we talk to one another. And like I said, I love talking to people who disagree with me.
Republican observers weren’t there to specifically find and collect evidence on behalf of Trump. Most of them are just volunteers for their state’s GOP. I know this, because I am one and I know many others. The ones that witnessed what they believe to be fraudulent activity made statements & signed affidavits, some took photos, and some were brave enough to testify in the senate hearings last fall.
If there’s nothing to hide, why are democrats doing everything in their power to stop real audits (not recounts) from happening?
If the voting machines are so secure, why did Kamala Harris make a statement on the senate floor in 2018 talking about how easy it is to hack them?
If you honestly believe nothing shady happened and this was the most secure election of all time, there is nothing I can tell you to open your mind to another possibility.
Yeah, I appreciate the conversation and would be happy to go into this in detail in its own thread if you like, but I was more just trying to answer the original question in good faith and used that as an example of “proof” that requires faith in a narrative in order to accept.
Trust me, I am open to the possibility of fraud and shadiness. I probably spent more words in 2015-16 against Hillary Clinton than anyone on this board, and I am certainly no fan of Biden. But certified election results don’t get overturned because of shadiness, and so we’re both hoping that this audit can actually provide some sort of falsifiable proof for us to examine, because debating shady maybe’s doesn’t get us anywhere.
I appreciate the bravery in coming out directly here. Seriously, thank you. We need more of this.
Yes. You're right in that we don't know for sure. But that's why we've been pushing for an audit. Proof and evidence are two completely different things, understand. Proof is when evidence is overwhelming enough that it shows the whole truth. Evidence is a part of said truth.
You said you don't think scanning any ballot multiple times counts as multiple votes. Of course we all have our biases. I think it does, but in a genuinely democratic (technically constitutional republic) country, suspicious activity should be checked to ensure that every t is crossed and every ballot is counted. Once.
An investigation is called when there's evidence to suggest a crime. People don't investigate a crime scene if they have the proof - there wouldn't be need to. The point is to gather evidence until it can be proven either way so that there are no extenuating questions.
Trust me, I'd love to believe there wasn't any fraud. I'd love to believe that multiple scans doesn't mean anything because, yes, in other systems, there are methods in place to rectify such anomalies. A database that wants to ensure there's an accurate tally on books, for instance, would need to have something like that in place. But we can't use other systems in the absence of definitive proof either way, your side or mine, in the same sense we can't "solve" every mystery with some analogy. Some cases of missing wallets are indeed theft whereas some are just a simple matter of misplacing them. Just because one case is a certain way does not automatically solve every other.
Onto the topic of Georgia, there are a few points you may have missed and Idk, maybe I got wrong. But from my understanding, the events happened as follows.
A water main leak is called and everybody is called to evacuate.
Everybody does evacuate. Except 2-3 people.
Briefcases are pulled from underneath, timestamps are available, and scanned multiple times.
This was done during a time when nobody else was in the building at the time, including observers who had to leave the premises.
It is by law each party's right to have their own observers there while votes are being counted which, for whatever reason, wasn't respected.
Cellphones, as is to my knowledge but I'm fine if proven wrong on this, as this is more of a supplemental argument rather than part of the main argument, are not allowed on the premises. This is private information and, clearly, cameras exist in these booths that can be subpoenaed for in a court of law should the need arise.
This, too, is supplemental, as it branches off a bit, but in many States, there as as it stands, thousands of affidavits from observers around the country. If you go on Rumble right now, you can find some of these people, at penalty of perjury aka they can go to jail if proven to have lied, who have testified saying that there were areas Republican observers could not get into. Understand that observers are colour coded, and there were even testimonies about suspicious activity from people who didn't have a colour associated if memory serves.
All of this mounts up to pretty substantive evidence. But the difference between proof and evidence is akin to this. You see someone on camera pick up a wallet. That is evidence of theft. But there is a possibility that he picked it up with the intention of handing it back to their rightful owner, so it's not proof of a crime. What is proof, however, is evidence that, not only did he pick up the wallet, but that he also used credit cards that were inside to make payments to his house that were not authorized by the original owner. But you can't know until you've investigated it. Now imagine if your wallet went missing and nobody would investigate it for you. You can never prove it was stolen.
And the fact that the D's have been stonewalling investigations, even-so-far as literally taping windows shut in Illinois, is evidence to start one given a) prior precedents, b) mathematical evidence that the chances of States swinging so late is quite literally astronomical, something to the tune of one in several powers of a quadrillion if memory serves, the formulas fraud investigators (can't remember the specific fraud organization right now as it's been a while) use to determine if something should be investigated as a matter of fact and something that is readily available for anyone to plug in themselves, and c) and perhaps the most poignant of all - a democratic and constitutional republic cannot exist if inquiries into whether their election process is sound are not entertained. Whether right or wrong, if the country intends on staying unified, this must be by all means investigated.
Like I said, I am happy to debate stuff or address evidence you think I may have missed, but I don’t like hijacking threads to do it. I think some of you hang out here to get away from the constant debates, and I try to respect that.
But I think we’re both waiting quite impatiently to see if this audit of yours proves what you believe it will.
Like I said, I appreciate you coming forthright to have a conversation. Everywhere else I try to go, I'm banned and censored and, where I'm not, I too get hostility so I know what it's like. Read my comment through at least, though. Have it saved or something cuz it is a bit of a novel ngl, lmao. Then we can have a private chat or a thread like you mentioned. Idk. I just don't want to write the entire novel over again, haha.
But you're dang right in the impatience. It's like waiting in line to use the toilet. Can't stand it anymore.
I agree 100% with your comment about what happens when your beliefs don't match 100% with the majority of those here. And if you're not in lock step with them, you're a shill.
And God forbid if you ask someone where they're getting their info on something. For example, someone was saying that VAERS showed 200,000 people dying from the Covid vaccine. So I went to the VAERS site, and it lists less than 6,000 deaths from the Covid vaccine. But people get absolutely hostile if you ask them where they're getting their info on something. I think it's because they realize, too late, that random internet memes isn't a high quality source for VAERS info when anyone can go to the VAERS website to check for themselves.
This entire mantra of "Do the research" is bullshit, for all the reasons you've listed above.
It’s also worth noting that VAERS is basically like Wikipedia or IMBD. Literally anyone can submit a report that they’ve had an adverse reaction. You could do it yourself right now if you wanted to. They lay out how easy it is on the site:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html
VAERS is designed so that medical professionals can look for trends and such. It’s completely raw data, and since literally anyone can submit a report, it’s not considered reliable data on its own. It needs to be processed and vetted by people who actually know how to use this kind of data.
Trusting VAERS as a reliable source on which to base your beliefs about vaccines is no different than basing your beliefs about Donald Trump completely upon whatever his Wikipedia page currently says. Except that Wikipedia is moderated and monitored, while VAERS just collects data from anyone who clicks the button.
excellent point