Please note that u/zeitreise specifically asked me to dissect this Q post from my perspective.
So first, remember that this post was almost five years ago at this point, and scientists cannot permit the concept of "non-linear time." The reason is not because it could be wrong, but because it's non-falsifiable. There is absolutely no way to demonstrate "future proves past" type of stuff until it happens, so that's in the area of "faith" rather than logical deduction, so I can't consider that possibility in a logical analysis. Science can't work with non-falsifiable premises, so out the door I have to ignore the possibility that Q is a time-traveler or something.
Also, the Law of War Manual is NOT a legal document, but a military manual. If you don't have much experience with military terminology, manuals are not legal documents, but they describe best practices and customs. Their conclusions can be derived from law, but manuals do not enforce it.
Military uniform wear is described by a manual. Marching is described by a manual. Properly holding a rifle is described by a manual. These are not regulations, these are descriptions of best practices.
Manuals don't get cited in legal cases. The Laws of War themselves are legally binding, but only at the level of the legal wording itself and only in the appropriate court.
The Law of War Manual does not contain the Laws of War. Those are in actual laws. The Law of War Manual just gives some overviews of these laws and expectations.
That's like saying you're an expert on Shakespeare and then citing a Sparksnotes summary.
From the Law of War, Section 1.1:
This manual is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
You routinely ignore these caveats in many of your sources. Law of War, VAERS, so forth. Most sources will directly tell you the limitations of its authority if read closely.
So no, I do not need to cite the Law of War Manual, since it has no prescriptive or legal power, just like I do not need to cite Wikipedia. I will cite existing laws on the books.
Let's go from there.
1) Who controls the NG?
That depends on what they're being used for. They can be activated under the sole funding and authority of the governor, or they can be activated by the federal government. Who they're answering to depends on the mission.
2) Why was the national guard recently activated within select US cities?
Yeah, this is kind of weasily.
The National Guard gets activated at the state level all the time, whether it's for disaster relief or pandemic support or whatever. There was plenty of this in 2017.
So by using the phrase "select cities", Q is implying SOME of those deployments were important somehow.
Which ones? Q won't say. So instead, you get to go through all the national guard deployments at that time and pick which cities must be the ones he was talking about. Maybe he was talking about two big cities. Maybe he was talking about fifteen smaller ones that weren't even reported on.
But it's up to you to guess, and if you believe Q isn't lying to you, then you're welcome to choose whichever "select cities" seem to fit into the story you want to tell. Who can prove those weren't the cities Q was talking about?
You see how this kind of prophecy works to trick you into filling it yourself?
3) Can the NG work in coordination w/ the Marines?
...yes. Anyone can work in coordination with the NG if both parties cooperate. The law doesn't bind the NG from working with other US organizations.
Did they work with the Marines? Well, probably, at some point, for some occasion.
Any chance Q could be a bit more specific about which case of the NG working with the Marines is supposed to be of interest, or are we just answering softball questions to build my confidence that Q knows what he's talking about?
4) Do conditions need to be satisfied to authorize??
Authorize WHAT, Q? Authorize activation of the National Guard? At which level? By who?
Come on, Q, since you never gave me enough information to specifically answer your first question, I can't really precisely answer this one, because Q isn't offering context.
On purpose, I think, since more context = easier to prove wrong. I think Q learned that after the first few posts.
4) What former President used the military to save the republic and what occurred exactly?"
Again, Q is implying there's an objective answer to this, but there isn't.
What exactly is the objective meaning of "save the republic"? From an invasion? From liberal homosexuality? From the Deep State? From a terrorist attack?
Was it Bush saving the Republic from the Taliban? That seems stupid. Was it Roosevelt defeating the Nazis? That's too long ago, probably. Did it have to do with the Cold War. What about Grenada?
Is it a secret war being run by a secret shadow President to fight a secret enemy?
There are a million answers to this question. Pick whichever one supports your worldview, and that's what Q meant. If that interpretation is wrong, you'll have plenty of other Presidents using the military in plenty of other fights to choose from.
5) Biggest drop ever to be provided on Pol. Study and prepare.
This was five years ago. So if this drop occurred and nobody cared, then Q was wrong about 94-96% of people waking up, or you can prove him right by doing the experiment I suggested earlier. Show 100 people Q evidence and get 94-96% of them to sign up here at GAW.
If the drop did not occur, then you're waiting on deltas hoping that Q was just talking about a drop that was going to happen at some point in the near future. Even though he never implied that to be the case.
If a drop of some sort occurred on Pol at the time of this post, but it didn't wake everyone up and we're still waiting on the REAL declas, then Q was either wrong or lying about this being the biggest drop.
6) The masses tend to panic in such situations.
Really? People reacted in a blind panic when finding out that Nixon lied and resigned? That Bill Cosby was a rapist? That Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophilic trafficker?
No. Nobody panicked, because people understand there are bad people in the world. Revealing them does not cause war in the streets.
The "everyone is going to panic so things have to be very quiet and secret right now" excuse seems like, "I could totally beat four guys with one hand, but I just don't want to right now."
I've worked with many military and former military. I've heard more than a couple claim to be SEALS working in top-secret capacities, and they're so secret that the military won't even confirm they're in the military. But they're definitely badass, just trust them.
7) "No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift."
Yeah, that... has not aged well, has it? I can point to war and civil unrest and anything but a "clean", "swift" end to all of this over the last five years.
This won't satisfy you, Zeitreise. That's fine. But you asked me to address it and I did.
And you're welcome to call me an idiot questioning the certainty of your interpretations regarding a post that offers no real context beyond the context it existed in five years ago, which is all I could use and still call myself an honest, evidence-based researcher.
Because I don't call people here idiots. I do the research and respond to the points being made. I don't reject sources just because of the sources. I don't reject arguments just because of who made them.
Real researchers understand and appreciate the importance of contrasting opinions and respectful debate when doing real research.
I suspect the mods here are probably closer to "real researchers" than many of the userbase and understand that having someone who intelligently disagrees with you and talks about your evidence is what differentiates GAW from a religious movement.
I've never had an unreasonable interaction with any GAW mod. This is a research site, and research can't occur when people aren't allowed to disagree about the evidence and conclusions.
You claimed to be with us since Q's first post on 8chan. But Q started on 4chan.
So... I have spent about four hours talking with you today. I am not going to take more time to figure out what the logical fallacy you think you've found here is.
After Capitol riot, 15,000 National Guard members could be deployed in D.C. during inauguration.
So by applying mirrors and deltas to this Q post, finding a date, and then searching for notable Qincidences on that date, I was able to find a story about the National Guard?
By decoding a post talking about the National Guard?
How many coincidences until mathematically impossible?
Who controls the NG?
Well, what other clues can we get?
Biggest drop to ever be provided on Pol."
Interesting. Pol.
I know you're making a surface-level normie assumption about what that means. But Q wasn't talking to you. He was talking to autists.
And high IQ autists know that Q must be military intelligence.
Pol must be a military term.
Pol: Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants. This is a military term used to associate to these supplies as a discrete unit. Pol.
This post doesn't say we're going to see a drop on the Pol board. That's the obvious trap to confuse the Cabal.
We're going to see a drop ABOUT the petroleum, oil, and lubricant industry, and the way that they've been controlling the highest levels of the National Guard.
You see, it's been happening since the original oil spills, when the guard was deployed out there to help clean up the mess of these companies.
Maybe because the National Guard was bought by Big Oil?
So therefore, I have just found a new Q proof. By doing heavy research and learning from Q's decoding lessons, I've determine this post means that the National Guard is compromised by what they've coded as Pol: Big Oil. These companies can now deploy the National Guard at will (Who controls the NG?), and Q gave us a VERY clear hint that the National Guard deployed to the inauguration were compromised agents of Big Oil.
Obviously.
I know it's hard to accept how I got there, but it's not the only one. How many of these do I need to show you before it's mathematically impossible that I'm right?
You didn't dig deep enough, "boy." Think Mirror.
You really think a military operation designed to code things from a Cabal that's controlled the world for thousands of years would use a code of "use the actual date and just kind Google what was going on"? He would need hardcore researchers for that? You think that's all it takes to really understand how to read Q properly?
Or do you think this entire strategy I just used is perhaps a questionable way of reaching my conclusion?
Dismiss the source, even if I can't source it. Never attack the argument.
-A lesson from Zeitreise.
Thank you for offering me an opportunity to dissect one of these Q posts in public. I don't like to do that unless asked, as I'm not really here to change minds. But since you twisted my arm as hard as you did, I am happy to oblige.
But be careful. There have been a few people around here who have take pride in the role of becoming my dedicated arch-nemesis, and usually it's met with suspicion (eventually) from everyone else that you're working with me as a straw-man foil.
I'm not here to change minds. I'm here to understand how you think through questions and critique. That's how Socrates did it, and that's how I try do it. Your insistence on making this a battle between us is motivated only on one side.
The problem is that, to a normie, there is absolutely no difference between what I just did and the logic that you're using to justify your belief that Britney Spears is sending coded messages about the CIA via social media.
And, of course, the notion that Donald Trump of all people is fighting in a secret war against a cabal of pedophiles, let alone on the right side of that war.
If you think your decoding strategy is better than mine, then you'd better be prepared to explain that to the normies eventually, because right now, that's how Q is explained in every video, in every proof, in almost every thread here.
Which is what I'm trying to help fix.
Some of the leaps you ask us to do look JUST like that. Some of the things you ask me to dismiss or accept look JUST like that.
And until your arguments stop looking JUST like that, normies are going to respond to you exactly the way I expect you'd respond to what I just did up there.
Haven’t lied about a thing. I’ve been with Q from the beginning-ish (he blended in to a lot of similar accounts on 4chan and didn’t really stand out until 8chan, which most people on 4chan avoided going to without reason given the risk of the material they hosted).
Whether you were there from the beginning is a matter of conjecture. You have demonstrated more passion for believing in the world Q described than technique in applying the principles Q described.
You don’t believe in a reality where someone could have been there, participating, reading stuff, and not believing. You have no reason to believe this except for pride and myopia.
You don’t believe it’s possible to be intelligent, honest, and to have a different perspective from you.
You can still change that about yourself, you know. It costs you nothing.
As I suspected, the differences between our look at this post was predictable.
You and I both identified holes in Q's post that he offered no answer.
You decided to fill in what you believed those answers to be. You chose events that fit the conclusion you believe to be true. Therefore, you have determined on your own that Q intended you to identify those events, and fill in his questions with those EXACT answers.
And now that you've provided your own evidence to support the conclusion you already believe was true, you've now esablished, in your own brain, that Q's evidence supports you, because you've MADE it support you by explaining what pieces of evidence Q DEFINITELY wanted us to use here.
I do not make such assumptions.
And because I don't make such assumptions, I can't assume anything about what Q supposedly wanted me to conclude here.
Because Q claimed to be a Socratic thinker, and if that's the case, then he wasn't trying to prove a point, he was trying to teach you how to question.
And I don't think you learned that lesson.
"Reject everything in the MSM as a lie!" is not questioning everything. In fact, that's not questioning anything. It's a fallacy to think that rejecting what other people accept is the same thing as questioning what other people accept.
You don't question. You insist that you know the truth, and everything else is a lie.
That's not research. That's zealotry. And goodness to gracious, if there is ANYTHING you take from you conversations with me, it's in understanding that intelligent people NEVER reject ANY source of information just because of the source.
I think Q is not a good source of credible and predictable information.
But I haven't rejected anything Q has said simply because he's said it. I've debated it. I've researched it. I've tried to fit it against observations.
Because real researchers never reject anything except a bad argument, and only when they've demonstrated empirically and falsifiable why the argument itself (not the source) should be rejected.
I do this for Q. I do not get the same respect from you.
Then you provide nothing of value to the board. You provide no new opinions only regurgitated beliefs of your cult. We invite unique thought not worship of greek gods (3 letter agencies).
Good heavens, please, please, please do not suggest that evaluating Q's posts without assumptions is harmful to this board. Please don't do that, because that's exactly the sort of thing I think infiltrators to this movement would be saying and the whole reason I worry I've been talking with a shill from my own goddamn Reddit board.
Please do not suggest that me approaching Q without assumptions of his credibility means that I am somehow against the values of this board.
Neutral, objective evaluation of the truth is the ONLY objective of this board. This board may believe Q can offer a means to achieving that, but nobody, not even Q, is protected from the techniques he taught to people. Even Q "himself" deserves scrutiny, because if he doesn't, then you're adding evidence that this is a cult, rather than a research group. Don't poison the board with that nonsense that having assumptions of Q's credibility is a strength.
Assume NOTHING. Verify, THEN trust.
Q is just asking questions in a staircase manner.
If you're seriously suggesting that Q was "asking questions in a staircase manner", then you're suggesting that Q wasn't actually teaching anyone to question anything.
You'd be suggesting that he was simply telling you what was true by asking questions and rejecting every answer until you got the one he wanted you to believe.
That's how you make someone feel smart for accepting exactly what you tell them is true.
Again, I would NOT be in the habit of suggesting that this was Q's mechanism for teaching you anything if I were you, because that's how brainwashing works, not freeing minds. Don't throw that kind of evidence to the normies, it'll just make things harder.
You attempted a single Q post.
I've been dissecting Q posts since Q was still making them.
Please provide unique and new opinions.
Again, this is a common attack line with you, but every time you've been challenged to prove where my specific arguments are coming from, you have never found anything.
I understand it's bad for the narrative if smart people have logical and reasonable disagreements with the Q movement, because that means it's far less likely that the evidence that has convinced YOU is as obvious and overpowering as you think it is.
But continually repeating this same line of attack against me over and over again is earning you nothing. Not only have you never been able to cite whatever source you think I'm stealing my analysis from, but it has also given you an easy way to dismiss the source without addressing the argument.
"Everything in the MSM is a lie. Your arguments agree with the MSM. Therefore, it must come from the MSM. Therefore, it must be a lie. Therefore, I don't even have to bother addressing your argument."
There are at least three logical fallacies in that line above, perhaps more. Can you find them?
And please note that despite me not thinking Q is a legitimate source of his information, despite thinking it's "a lie", I still respond to arguments from any source, including Q.
So I end up addressing almost every argument here, even the ones I think are based on lies and misunderstandings, while you dismiss almost every argument on assumptions of where they must have come from and whether those arguments are even worth addressing.
You have a poor case in accusing me being the one participating here in bad faith.
LOL - y’all seem to dislike each other, but in my opinion, every thread on this site should look just like this. You both bring valuable insights to the discussion. Thanks to both of you for your contribution. It’s been a loooong time since I’ve seen something so productive on this site (including my own contributions).
Please note that u/zeitreise specifically asked me to dissect this Q post from my perspective.
So first, remember that this post was almost five years ago at this point, and scientists cannot permit the concept of "non-linear time." The reason is not because it could be wrong, but because it's non-falsifiable. There is absolutely no way to demonstrate "future proves past" type of stuff until it happens, so that's in the area of "faith" rather than logical deduction, so I can't consider that possibility in a logical analysis. Science can't work with non-falsifiable premises, so out the door I have to ignore the possibility that Q is a time-traveler or something.
Also, the Law of War Manual is NOT a legal document, but a military manual. If you don't have much experience with military terminology, manuals are not legal documents, but they describe best practices and customs. Their conclusions can be derived from law, but manuals do not enforce it.
Military uniform wear is described by a manual. Marching is described by a manual. Properly holding a rifle is described by a manual. These are not regulations, these are descriptions of best practices.
Manuals don't get cited in legal cases. The Laws of War themselves are legally binding, but only at the level of the legal wording itself and only in the appropriate court.
The Law of War Manual does not contain the Laws of War. Those are in actual laws. The Law of War Manual just gives some overviews of these laws and expectations.
That's like saying you're an expert on Shakespeare and then citing a Sparksnotes summary.
From the Law of War, Section 1.1:
You routinely ignore these caveats in many of your sources. Law of War, VAERS, so forth. Most sources will directly tell you the limitations of its authority if read closely.
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/law_war_manual15.pdf
So no, I do not need to cite the Law of War Manual, since it has no prescriptive or legal power, just like I do not need to cite Wikipedia. I will cite existing laws on the books.
Let's go from there.
1) Who controls the NG?
That depends on what they're being used for. They can be activated under the sole funding and authority of the governor, or they can be activated by the federal government. Who they're answering to depends on the mission.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title32&edition=prelim
2) Why was the national guard recently activated within select US cities?
Yeah, this is kind of weasily.
The National Guard gets activated at the state level all the time, whether it's for disaster relief or pandemic support or whatever. There was plenty of this in 2017.
So by using the phrase "select cities", Q is implying SOME of those deployments were important somehow.
Which ones? Q won't say. So instead, you get to go through all the national guard deployments at that time and pick which cities must be the ones he was talking about. Maybe he was talking about two big cities. Maybe he was talking about fifteen smaller ones that weren't even reported on.
But it's up to you to guess, and if you believe Q isn't lying to you, then you're welcome to choose whichever "select cities" seem to fit into the story you want to tell. Who can prove those weren't the cities Q was talking about?
You see how this kind of prophecy works to trick you into filling it yourself?
3) Can the NG work in coordination w/ the Marines?
...yes. Anyone can work in coordination with the NG if both parties cooperate. The law doesn't bind the NG from working with other US organizations.
Did they work with the Marines? Well, probably, at some point, for some occasion.
Any chance Q could be a bit more specific about which case of the NG working with the Marines is supposed to be of interest, or are we just answering softball questions to build my confidence that Q knows what he's talking about?
4) Do conditions need to be satisfied to authorize??
Authorize WHAT, Q? Authorize activation of the National Guard? At which level? By who?
Come on, Q, since you never gave me enough information to specifically answer your first question, I can't really precisely answer this one, because Q isn't offering context.
On purpose, I think, since more context = easier to prove wrong. I think Q learned that after the first few posts.
4) What former President used the military to save the republic and what occurred exactly?"
Again, Q is implying there's an objective answer to this, but there isn't.
What exactly is the objective meaning of "save the republic"? From an invasion? From liberal homosexuality? From the Deep State? From a terrorist attack?
Was it Bush saving the Republic from the Taliban? That seems stupid. Was it Roosevelt defeating the Nazis? That's too long ago, probably. Did it have to do with the Cold War. What about Grenada?
Is it a secret war being run by a secret shadow President to fight a secret enemy?
There are a million answers to this question. Pick whichever one supports your worldview, and that's what Q meant. If that interpretation is wrong, you'll have plenty of other Presidents using the military in plenty of other fights to choose from.
5) Biggest drop ever to be provided on Pol. Study and prepare.
This was five years ago. So if this drop occurred and nobody cared, then Q was wrong about 94-96% of people waking up, or you can prove him right by doing the experiment I suggested earlier. Show 100 people Q evidence and get 94-96% of them to sign up here at GAW.
If the drop did not occur, then you're waiting on deltas hoping that Q was just talking about a drop that was going to happen at some point in the near future. Even though he never implied that to be the case.
If a drop of some sort occurred on Pol at the time of this post, but it didn't wake everyone up and we're still waiting on the REAL declas, then Q was either wrong or lying about this being the biggest drop.
6) The masses tend to panic in such situations.
Really? People reacted in a blind panic when finding out that Nixon lied and resigned? That Bill Cosby was a rapist? That Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophilic trafficker?
No. Nobody panicked, because people understand there are bad people in the world. Revealing them does not cause war in the streets.
The "everyone is going to panic so things have to be very quiet and secret right now" excuse seems like, "I could totally beat four guys with one hand, but I just don't want to right now."
I've worked with many military and former military. I've heard more than a couple claim to be SEALS working in top-secret capacities, and they're so secret that the military won't even confirm they're in the military. But they're definitely badass, just trust them.
7) "No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift."
Yeah, that... has not aged well, has it? I can point to war and civil unrest and anything but a "clean", "swift" end to all of this over the last five years.
This won't satisfy you, Zeitreise. That's fine. But you asked me to address it and I did.
And you're welcome to call me an idiot questioning the certainty of your interpretations regarding a post that offers no real context beyond the context it existed in five years ago, which is all I could use and still call myself an honest, evidence-based researcher.
Dear God, what’s going to happen to you? Every time I’ve said anything resembling this I’ve been banned.
I applaud you for your integrity.
Because I don't call people here idiots. I do the research and respond to the points being made. I don't reject sources just because of the sources. I don't reject arguments just because of who made them.
Real researchers understand and appreciate the importance of contrasting opinions and respectful debate when doing real research.
I suspect the mods here are probably closer to "real researchers" than many of the userbase and understand that having someone who intelligently disagrees with you and talks about your evidence is what differentiates GAW from a religious movement.
I've never had an unreasonable interaction with any GAW mod. This is a research site, and research can't occur when people aren't allowed to disagree about the evidence and conclusions.
So... I have spent about four hours talking with you today. I am not going to take more time to figure out what the logical fallacy you think you've found here is.
Take care.
I did respond to him. Directly. You even responded to my response. You didn't care for the response, but... it wasn't for you. So I don't care.
https://greatawakening.win/p/141s6xKC74/x/c/4OUhcSvBjiT?d=50
Perhaps if you're losing track of things like this, you shouldn't be trying to play GAW police volunteer.
Bullshit. You have no way to prove that and no way to know that.
Dig Deeper.
Listen to Q. Think Mirror.
11/01 becomes 01/11.
January 11.
But not 2017. This is post #22.
2 + 2
This post requires a four year delta to interpret. You see?
So, what happened Jan 11, 2021?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/01/11/national-guard-protests-riots-capital/
Wait, WHAT?
So by applying mirrors and deltas to this Q post, finding a date, and then searching for notable Qincidences on that date, I was able to find a story about the National Guard?
By decoding a post talking about the National Guard?
How many coincidences until mathematically impossible?
Well, what other clues can we get?
Interesting. Pol.
I know you're making a surface-level normie assumption about what that means. But Q wasn't talking to you. He was talking to autists.
And high IQ autists know that Q must be military intelligence.
Pol must be a military term.
Pol: Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants. This is a military term used to associate to these supplies as a discrete unit. Pol.
https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/cpc-source/petroleum-oil-lubricants-storage-distribution-systems-knowledge-area
It's coming together now.
This post doesn't say we're going to see a drop on the Pol board. That's the obvious trap to confuse the Cabal.
We're going to see a drop ABOUT the petroleum, oil, and lubricant industry, and the way that they've been controlling the highest levels of the National Guard.
You see, it's been happening since the original oil spills, when the guard was deployed out there to help clean up the mess of these companies.
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/577099/gates-approves-federal-money-for-guard-units-in-gulf/
That was in 2010.
Weird how right before that, we see an increase in NG deployments, isn't it?
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/574062/alabama-guard-deployments-increase-this-year/
Maybe because the National Guard was bought by Big Oil?
So therefore, I have just found a new Q proof. By doing heavy research and learning from Q's decoding lessons, I've determine this post means that the National Guard is compromised by what they've coded as Pol: Big Oil. These companies can now deploy the National Guard at will (Who controls the NG?), and Q gave us a VERY clear hint that the National Guard deployed to the inauguration were compromised agents of Big Oil.
Obviously.
I know it's hard to accept how I got there, but it's not the only one. How many of these do I need to show you before it's mathematically impossible that I'm right?
You didn't dig deep enough, "boy." Think Mirror.
You really think a military operation designed to code things from a Cabal that's controlled the world for thousands of years would use a code of "use the actual date and just kind Google what was going on"? He would need hardcore researchers for that? You think that's all it takes to really understand how to read Q properly?
Or do you think this entire strategy I just used is perhaps a questionable way of reaching my conclusion?
Dismiss the source, even if I can't source it. Never attack the argument. -A lesson from Zeitreise.
Thank you for offering me an opportunity to dissect one of these Q posts in public. I don't like to do that unless asked, as I'm not really here to change minds. But since you twisted my arm as hard as you did, I am happy to oblige.
But be careful. There have been a few people around here who have take pride in the role of becoming my dedicated arch-nemesis, and usually it's met with suspicion (eventually) from everyone else that you're working with me as a straw-man foil.
I'm not here to change minds. I'm here to understand how you think through questions and critique. That's how Socrates did it, and that's how I try do it. Your insistence on making this a battle between us is motivated only on one side.
The problem is that, to a normie, there is absolutely no difference between what I just did and the logic that you're using to justify your belief that Britney Spears is sending coded messages about the CIA via social media.
https://greatawakening.win/p/142AwNW4Yu/x/c/4OUhcXXKUxc
And, of course, the notion that Donald Trump of all people is fighting in a secret war against a cabal of pedophiles, let alone on the right side of that war.
If you think your decoding strategy is better than mine, then you'd better be prepared to explain that to the normies eventually, because right now, that's how Q is explained in every video, in every proof, in almost every thread here.
Which is what I'm trying to help fix.
Some of the leaps you ask us to do look JUST like that. Some of the things you ask me to dismiss or accept look JUST like that.
And until your arguments stop looking JUST like that, normies are going to respond to you exactly the way I expect you'd respond to what I just did up there.
I don’t use terminology from the old days that people here aren’t likely to know it just to swing my dick around about being an OG.
The point is to communicate, not masturbate.
Haven’t lied about a thing. I’ve been with Q from the beginning-ish (he blended in to a lot of similar accounts on 4chan and didn’t really stand out until 8chan, which most people on 4chan avoided going to without reason given the risk of the material they hosted).
Whether you were there from the beginning is a matter of conjecture. You have demonstrated more passion for believing in the world Q described than technique in applying the principles Q described.
You don’t believe in a reality where someone could have been there, participating, reading stuff, and not believing. You have no reason to believe this except for pride and myopia.
You don’t believe it’s possible to be intelligent, honest, and to have a different perspective from you.
You can still change that about yourself, you know. It costs you nothing.
As I suspected, the differences between our look at this post was predictable.
You and I both identified holes in Q's post that he offered no answer.
You decided to fill in what you believed those answers to be. You chose events that fit the conclusion you believe to be true. Therefore, you have determined on your own that Q intended you to identify those events, and fill in his questions with those EXACT answers.
And now that you've provided your own evidence to support the conclusion you already believe was true, you've now esablished, in your own brain, that Q's evidence supports you, because you've MADE it support you by explaining what pieces of evidence Q DEFINITELY wanted us to use here.
I do not make such assumptions.
And because I don't make such assumptions, I can't assume anything about what Q supposedly wanted me to conclude here.
Because Q claimed to be a Socratic thinker, and if that's the case, then he wasn't trying to prove a point, he was trying to teach you how to question.
And I don't think you learned that lesson.
"Reject everything in the MSM as a lie!" is not questioning everything. In fact, that's not questioning anything. It's a fallacy to think that rejecting what other people accept is the same thing as questioning what other people accept.
You don't question. You insist that you know the truth, and everything else is a lie.
That's not research. That's zealotry. And goodness to gracious, if there is ANYTHING you take from you conversations with me, it's in understanding that intelligent people NEVER reject ANY source of information just because of the source.
I think Q is not a good source of credible and predictable information.
But I haven't rejected anything Q has said simply because he's said it. I've debated it. I've researched it. I've tried to fit it against observations.
Because real researchers never reject anything except a bad argument, and only when they've demonstrated empirically and falsifiable why the argument itself (not the source) should be rejected.
I do this for Q. I do not get the same respect from you.
Good heavens, please, please, please do not suggest that evaluating Q's posts without assumptions is harmful to this board. Please don't do that, because that's exactly the sort of thing I think infiltrators to this movement would be saying and the whole reason I worry I've been talking with a shill from my own goddamn Reddit board.
Please do not suggest that me approaching Q without assumptions of his credibility means that I am somehow against the values of this board.
Neutral, objective evaluation of the truth is the ONLY objective of this board. This board may believe Q can offer a means to achieving that, but nobody, not even Q, is protected from the techniques he taught to people. Even Q "himself" deserves scrutiny, because if he doesn't, then you're adding evidence that this is a cult, rather than a research group. Don't poison the board with that nonsense that having assumptions of Q's credibility is a strength.
Assume NOTHING. Verify, THEN trust.
If you're seriously suggesting that Q was "asking questions in a staircase manner", then you're suggesting that Q wasn't actually teaching anyone to question anything.
You'd be suggesting that he was simply telling you what was true by asking questions and rejecting every answer until you got the one he wanted you to believe.
That's how you make someone feel smart for accepting exactly what you tell them is true.
Again, I would NOT be in the habit of suggesting that this was Q's mechanism for teaching you anything if I were you, because that's how brainwashing works, not freeing minds. Don't throw that kind of evidence to the normies, it'll just make things harder.
I've been dissecting Q posts since Q was still making them.
Again, this is a common attack line with you, but every time you've been challenged to prove where my specific arguments are coming from, you have never found anything.
https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDzTUMb/luciferase-was-bad-but-it-gets-w/
I understand it's bad for the narrative if smart people have logical and reasonable disagreements with the Q movement, because that means it's far less likely that the evidence that has convinced YOU is as obvious and overpowering as you think it is.
But continually repeating this same line of attack against me over and over again is earning you nothing. Not only have you never been able to cite whatever source you think I'm stealing my analysis from, but it has also given you an easy way to dismiss the source without addressing the argument.
"Everything in the MSM is a lie. Your arguments agree with the MSM. Therefore, it must come from the MSM. Therefore, it must be a lie. Therefore, I don't even have to bother addressing your argument."
There are at least three logical fallacies in that line above, perhaps more. Can you find them?
And please note that despite me not thinking Q is a legitimate source of his information, despite thinking it's "a lie", I still respond to arguments from any source, including Q.
So I end up addressing almost every argument here, even the ones I think are based on lies and misunderstandings, while you dismiss almost every argument on assumptions of where they must have come from and whether those arguments are even worth addressing.
You have a poor case in accusing me being the one participating here in bad faith.
LOL - y’all seem to dislike each other, but in my opinion, every thread on this site should look just like this. You both bring valuable insights to the discussion. Thanks to both of you for your contribution. It’s been a loooong time since I’ve seen something so productive on this site (including my own contributions).