(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
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.