The masses tend to panic in such situations.
Like many who have suggested the same, I believe one of the reasons Q woke us up is so that we can help people around us understand and cope with what is going on when things get a little scary. There will be people who are jolted awake from a deep sleep and have no idea what is going on.
Maybe your sister is in a panic because the military is quelling riots in the streets and politicians are being hauled off screaming into helicopters. Or maybe widespread power and communications outages have brought a worried neighbor to your door. Or that close friend (who respects you too much to call you crazy but insists on staying asleep) is finally waking up and searching for answers because it looks like the world is ending.
What will you say to start them down the long road to awakening? How will you reassure them that things will be ok, and prepare them for what is next? There is so much that could be said, it is difficult to summarize.
Maybe something like the following?
We are about to begin a years-long period of human history defined by the ongoing exposure and destruction of the greatest evil the world has ever known. A plan was devised decades ago which has culminated in the events unfolding before us. Many good people have sacrificed much and suffered greatly in order for this plan to work. In chess terms, the enemy has been in ‘check’ for several years. Covid - and everything since - has been caused by the enemy in their death throes. They cannot win, and will likely attempt to flip over the table before accepting defeat. But the good people are prepared. They have planned for all contingencies. Hang on because it may get rocky - but do not fear. GOD WINS.
This is going to be the toughest part, because even if the Plan goes off without a hitch, the world that follows is still supposed to be one that is very much made according to the values of Trump supporters.
And plenty of people have regular, non-pedophilic, non-Cabal reasons for disagreeing politically with Trump supporters. There are plenty of normal, sane people who would vote against the existence of such a world.
Clear out the pedophiles and criminals, sure. But Q supporters rarely imply there's going to be room for political dissent once all the non-Trump-supporting politicians are apparently arrested and executed. That's not exactly going to be comforting to people who legitimately have political disagreements with the people who are conducting all the arrests.
So are liberals going to be allowed to continue voting people into office who disagree with Trump's political convictions? Or is everyone who has liberal leanings considered to be secretly pedophilic, criminal, or brainwashed, and liberalism is expected to disappear once the Democrats have been removed from power?
We disagree on environmentalism. Just as one obvious example.
It's baffling that you believe it's impossible people can politically disagree with Donald Trump. He's a man with political positions. People were disagreeing politically long before Trump came around, and his alleged role in dismantling pedophilic cabals doesn't mean that I want the man in charge any more than any other politician with the same platform.
That shouldn't be a strange insight for me to have to offer here.
Why do you disagree with his deregulation?
Because you believe in man made global warming I assume.
The idea that these regulation are in good faith to cure global climate change.
Why do you believe this?
Because scientists have told you.
Why do you believe the scientists? Because they have a good track record of predicting the future? Because they verbally challenged anyone who disagrees with facts to support their opinions.
Or because “it is what all scientists believe”
Why do all scientists believe it?
Because it’s true.
How do you know it’s true?
Because all scientists believe in it.
Should the climate regulation pushers debate people who disagree? Do they ever directly debate the the people who disagree and the arguments of those who disagree? Give me an example of them doing this.
I understand why you’d believe this without question, as well as the Covid response ; “how can all these people be wrong?”
In addition, are these results falsifiable?
If climate change happens, despite regulations bring done: we must keep regulating more to prevent it
If climate change happens and no regulations are done: it’s the fault of not doing regulations, we must do more regulations
If climate change doesn’t happen, but regulations were done: it’s because of the regulations, we must continue regulations and increase them just in case
If climate change doesn’t happen, and regulations haven’t been done: we must do more regulations, just in case
The climate change regulation theory allows for no out to regulations, no questioning the regulation, and no freedom for others to disobey the regulation, since “we must all work together for the greater good”, similar to the Covid push.
What’s now defined as “left wing” now believes some organizations are infallible to questioning; while what is now defined as “right wing” believes any organization or individual is up for questioning and skepticism.
Your “political disagreement” is in reality a disagreement of facts and disagreement of who and what to trust; with you trusting certain groups without ability to be skeptical, and us being skeptical of everything.
People like this will support literally anything without question if told to them in the right ways with the right fallacies at the right time, because it’s all propaganda.
I tend to respect the opinions of scientists because nobody gets a PhD in their field without having contributed research into the field that I can look at if I'd like. Getting a PhD requires transparent work experience, and I respect transparent work experience.
If I'm comparing the opinion of someone with decades of work experience that is openly published and that I can verify in less than a minute, their expertise will be considered more credible than someone who has been arguing that topic for a year on the internet, or who is anonymous, or whose credentials cannot be verified, all other things being equal.
And, to be fair to myself, I've read the arguments presented by both sides. Climate science is enormously complicated, contributed to by countless variables. We know how natural forces affect the climate, and we know how the chemical composition of what we put into the air would similarly affect the climate.
If we can see how cloud cover can trap heat on the planet in natural processes, and then also see that we're adding chemicals into the atmosphere that are not produced naturally, and then also see that those chemicals trap heat similarly to cloud cover, then it's not a leap of logic to recognize that we absolutely can, as a species, put chemicals into the air that mimic natural heat-trapping processes and produce problematic climate effects as a result.
Failed doomsday predictions mean little, because again, this is an enormously complicated problem with no "BIG SOLUTION." It's a problem that gets addressed by a thousand cuts. The fact that an environmental regulation doesn't stop global warming doesn't mean that people aren't contributing to it. It means that one regulation wasn't enough. One regulation may have slowed things. Fifty may have slowed them more.
That, and the fact that we have no one world government that can stop environmentally-terrifying countries like China from continuing to fuck things up while everyone else is giving a shit.
It's a complicated problem to solve. It doesn't mean it's unsolvable or not worth solving. The fact that we can't possibly know the moment we cross the threshold into an inevitable extinction-spiral doesn't mean that we can't predict it's going to happen with certainty should things not change significantly.
When I read the arguments from the other side, it mostly involves attacking the scientists as being bought off, attacking the data as being fabricated, and so forth. The fact that the world has not ended yet is taken as evidence that we cannot destroy it with man-made climate change, and I reject that argument. I reject the argument that it being uncharacteristically cold today is proof that global warming doesn't exist.
I am always willing to read new arguments, but I don't tend to accept "the entire world's climate scientists are being bought off by the Cabal" as a valid argument, as it's unfalsifiable. At least until Q carries out the Great Awakening and proves that such a Cabal does, in fact, exist.