Sorry, it took me a while. I've been writing this piecemeal over a couple of days.

You can tell me that Q was a left wing psy op all along and I will actually entertain that if proven verifiable true one day.

I operate from parsimony (Occam's Razor). I first have to rule out the possibility that Q is just a nobody who, like a lot of nobodies on the chans during those days, was claiming to be an insider with vague claims and letting his followers interpret. I have not been able to prove this possibility wrong, and since I think Q directly and falsely took credit for the 2018 "tippy top" proof (since "tippy top" was an established part of Trump's speech vocabulary since at least 2016), then I still need to rule that out. I'm nowhere near considering the possibility that this is some sort of targeted psyop against your demographic specifically.

However I will never be able to concede that I overestimated the evil nature of man. To even attempt to do so would be a willful rejection of so much of my life experience.

GOOD! There are TONS of bad people out there! There are indeed pedophiles and conspiracies and famous people who are hiding crimes. No question. Even if Q proves not to be a credible source of the reality of those crimes, I would NEVER suggest letting your guard down. The media absolutely is biased. Experts can absolutely be wrong. Trustworthy people can absolutely be snakes.

First, all of us have an extreme immunity to group think and social conditioning.

With respect, NOBODY has extreme immunity to this. Good researchers will deliberately take steps (like double-blinding) to prevent their own natural biases from affecting their data. They NEVER assume they have some sort of special resistance as a researcher.

Nobody who gets brainwashed believes they are brainwashed. Believing you're immune to brainwashing is the surest way to become vulnerable to it.

There are so many countless examples of these giant, multi billion dollar, big Pharma corporations taking advantage of the blind trust of the public--the very constituents that make and keep them wealthy--as they place profit before their product safety and efficacy, and their honesty of the nature of their products.

This is true. I am no friend of big pharma and have guaranteed taking more productive actions in opposition to their bullshittery than almost anymore here.

What I also recognize is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I can absolutely believe that big pharma would jack up the price of necessary medications when they're necessary. That's very much in character, because they're motivated by profit. And I've seen the evidence of it happening.

The evidence I would need to be convinced that these companies and the countless doctors and scientists working with them and with their data are all part of an airtight conspiracy to spread a poison to hundreds of millions of innocent people by tricking them with a fake vaccine? That would need to be extraordinary.

It's not a binary position. I do not like big pharma. I also don't think the evidence supports the claims about them that Q people make, at least with regards to a toxic vaccine. And the primary Q source of this have been mistaken interpretations of VAERS, so I feel okay with this conclusion so far.

Now if you are going to tell me that these SAME pharmaceutical companies have the audacity to claim that a new product they've developed will be "different this time", without any way of knowing the long term side effects in advance, AND while receiving full immunity from potential litigation--the only means they've ever previously been forced to be held accountable in the slightest--then I will maintain that you are putting just as much, if not more, blind faith in these new vaccines, than anyone here is putting into Q being anything more than a farce.

You'd be right.

Luckily, the pharmaceutical companies are not the ones I put my faith in.

There are way, way, WAY more scientists "on your side" than you think.

The problem is that you think being "on your side" means finding evidence to prove the vaccine is dangerous.

Being "on your side" means "working really, really hard and using expertise to figure out the truth and deliver it to you, even if the truth is different than what you thought."

There are plenty of scientists who have sought real data, done good experiments, and provided their honest and expert interpretations. But the vast majority of them don't support the notion that the vaccine is dangerous. And because that seems like a lie to Q people, that has made every non-pharma company source of pharmaceutical information just as guilty by association.

So now, no university is considered reliable verification of vaccine safety. No watchdog groups. No government entities. No major independent scientific organizations.

It seems the only way to prove that you're an honest, uncompromised scientist in the Q world is to support the notion that the vaccine is dangerous. I can't operate under this assumption.

So with all that being said, whether or not Q ends up being a legit operation, or ultimately just a cleverly construed farce, one would have to be completely naive to believe that these mRNA vaccines are actually "safe and effective", as they are being marketed as, and that the purposeful use of a person's vaccination status being used as a method of additional social coercion, is solely being done with benevolent intentions.

Well, solely benevolent? No, probably not. But not being solely benevolent does not mean "evil" or "catastrophically deceptive" or even "oppositional."

Could their motivation be "not failing miserably to help provide a solution to a worldwide medical problem and establish their importance in the world as a provider of medical solutions?"

That is a perfectly reasonable, selfish, profit-oriented motivation for even an evil pharmaceutical company to take. "They make medicine. So they make a good medicine when people really need it, and people keep buying medicine from them."

I am not going to proceed to cartoonish motivations when that one fits everything just fine and doesn't require dehumanizing a field made up of real individuals.

The reason I know personally that the devil exists, that he manipulates people, uses them for his own dark self gratification, and then deceives them into believing he only had good intentions the whole time... is because I've personally experienced the unbelievable ease at which this is done to people.

Well, I've never seen a devil do this, but I've seen plenty of PEOPLE manipulate people for those reasons. I know you think it's being done to me, but I with equal or greater passion think it's possibly being done to you. At least it's nice that we both care.

And I only got a taste of what people can get away with since I was never as rich or famous as these Hollywood icons or high powered executives and politicians.

Don't let the rich and famous trick you into thinking that actual power has anything to do with being rich and famous. Fame and riches often come to people who have acquired power, and power can be used to acquire fame and riches if someone is interested in such things. But failing to attain one is no real obstacle to another.

With or without Q, I know deep down that the same evil I've encountered, continues to exist unchecked in this world, and I have a sharper intuitive ability to recognize its existence than the average person.

Understand too, though, that the only way to become smarter is to recognize that you don't know as much as you think you do, and to never assume you're interacting with an "average" person.

Which, in general, is why I do not assume I'm smarter or sharper than anybody. Even when I have been, the attitude has never offered me any productive advantage that humility and the assumption of ignorance has not.

I wouldn't be here if I felt like I could prove Q wrong. It doesn't mean that I think Q is right, but I know exactly how I could be proven wrong. I've made my beliefs falsifiable. I am willing to test predictions based on my worldview.

If I am wrong, then I've only become smarter as a result. AND I have the foolproof evidence of it.

Win-win, either way.

And so I feel compelled to do my part to continue to call out those corrupt powerful individuals who continue to take advantage of the trust of the public, and with their allies in Big Tech and the media, continue to obfuscate the truth and push the illusion that the evil I claim to see, does not exist.

That's fine. Fight media bias. Question authority. Fight for transparency. I'm 100% on board with all of this, and have even offered my own advice for taking these actions on this very board.

Just remember that you're searching for the truth, not trying to prove YOUR truth. Don't reject sources, reject arguments on empirical grounds. Don't trust, but verify. Verify, then trust.

If Q is trustworthy, then what he wants are people who know how to find the truth. And that process is FAR more involved than "answer my vague questions" and "watch these bitchute videos."

He'll want people who know how to walk away from misleading evidence that makes this movement look stupid. He'll want people who know how to reject hypothetical fantasy theories in favor of more painful but well-evidenced ones.

Most importantly, Q would not be stupid enough to think that a warless, safe Great Awakening occurs without intelligent, reasonable people putting up a serious defense to the reality Q has presented, and if he really does value high thinkers, cynics, questioning the narrative, and so forth, then he's smart enough to have known they wouldn't have immediately flocked to him based solely on what he's presented so far.

Anyway, I as I said, I appreciate your thoughts, and hopefully didn't say anything too controversial here. I enjoy being here and discussing the perspective offered by GAW users. I hope that eventually people will give up on trying to prove I'm eventually going to whip off the mask and reveal I was George Soros all along.