Covering up their genocide by creating theater in Ukraine and calling that genocide.
War captures everyone's attention and forces them onto the topic and off their other topics, such as how COVID was all planned out and humanity was attacked.
Humanity was attacked with 1) erosion of cultural traditions 2) insane levels of propaganda 3) pathetic amounts of obvious censorship 4) a gain-of-function bioweapon and 5) shady mRNA clot shots with mystery ingredients and Russian roulette built in.
What are you talking about? He even told Maria on Fox that "Russia is killing all these people and it needs to stop now". He's changed his tone entirely. Sometimes in convo not everything has to be spelled out exactly for it to mean what it means.
Those are the words he used, but what did he really actually mean? Think critically. Hint: it’s not that the Russians are actually killing any civilians (because they aren’t).
Who is reading these posts? Most of the people I know are normies and I can tell you they aren't here. They're watching MSM and looking at facepage. Most of them only get alternative views or "decodes" from me. It's because of us that these normies are beginning to mistrust their normal sources.
With all of the wokeism in the western militaries, I’d unfortunately agree that NATO is far behind the Russians in fighting ability. The US military used to be one of the best, too, but now the remaining soldiers are just not equipped to fight.
NATO isn't a military, it is an alliance of countries. Countries don't pay anything to NATO, they just agree to spend a certain percentage of their budget on their military.
Our military alone would obliterate Russia, the Russian army has revealed itself to be a shit show of poorly trained conscripts, fighting with soviet era weaponry and horrid command structure.
They can obliterate Russia. The only thing that stops them is Russia's nukes. The USA could reduce Russia's military capacity to a level similar to WW1 within days or hours. The only thing that stops us is Nukes, Russia, just like us, has the ability to basically end all life, via nuclear holocaust.
We don't "use" NATO, NATO countries use us for security, they won't get nuked if we promise to nuke anyone who nukes first.
We want countries to join because of trade. Ukraine has cheap grain and gas, that is why "we" like them.
Looks like he's saying that the happens in Ukraine amount to genocide (not specifically Russia) and that people would be wondering why NATO and the US haven't stepped in.
I can see two possibilities here:
Trump is staying ambiguous to stay neutral.
Trump is highlighting the fact that if Russia were indeed committing genocide and NATO and the US were the good guys, why aren't they making a stronger move?
It could be both, but to me, it really does seem to be more of a "if you look at the situation with a critical eye, the narrative doesn't add up"
Looks like he's saying that the happens in Ukraine amount to genocide (not specifically Russia) and that people would be wondering why NATO and the US haven't stepped in.
I can see two possibilities here:
Trump is staying ambiguous to stay neutral.
Trump is highlighting the fact that if Russia were indeed committing genocide and NATO and the US were the good guys, why aren't they making a stronger move?
It could be both, but to me, it really does seem to be more of a "if you look at the situation with a critical eye, the narrative doesn't add up"
It seems like "neutral" would mean "not talking about this stuff at all and letting things play out quietly" rather than "taking the side of the liars and feeding their greatest weapon with exactly the narrative that the White Hats are trying to dismantle."
You believe that the Cabal controls the population with lies fed through a controlled television media, correct?
Well, Trump is a part of that television media. He's going on television and saying things to the cameras and the talking heads.
And in the cases of Ukraine and vaccines, the vast majority of those words agree with the alleged lying narrative that the White Hats are working to destroy.
Giving the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon that they don't even need from Trump doesn't seem neutral to me. That seems like he is very purposefully going out there and at least appearing to throw his weight behind a narrative.
If he stopped talking about this stuff and giving his opinions, the media would keep pushing the same narrative, but Trump would be very clearly, neutrally, staying out of everything. Trump doesn't stay neutral on much, so that would have actually been a pretty powerful piece of evidence in support of Q if he actually was staying neutral.
Yes. The world looks pretty much like what I would expect the world to look like if Trump lost the election and Q was nonsense.
I understand that you see this as optics.
What I haven’t understood is how long the optics have to go on before it’s considered reasonable to doubt that you’re looking at optics.
I have read Sun Tzu. I do recall his advice for not advertising your weaknesses.
That is not the same thing as appearing to lose every significant battle since the 2020 election. That is not the same thing as projecting an image that has a good portion of his own base believe he’s no longer in power.
It’s not the same thing as having no real leadership for your army and every major supporting voice to be viewed with justifiable suspicion by your own forces.
It’s not the same thing as having most of your recent words to your own supporters be viewed as disinformation by them meant for a spying enemy.
The reason Sun Tzu’s tactics work is because the vast majority of the time, when someone looks weak, it’s because they ARE weak. When they appear to lose, it’s because they lost.
And to date, Trump has never had a strategic victory that has led me to believe this kind of tactic is in his wheelhouse. I have no reason to believe he’s an exception. Having a ghost writer write in his autobiography that he enjoyed Sun Tzu is not exactly convincing.
Don’t forget that the inverse is more often true in real society: appear strong when you are weak. Considering that most former Presidents don’t have rallies and start social networks and so forth, I’d argue that Trump is trying far harder to appear stronger than an ex-POTUS, not weaker.
Notice how I can describe your fake reality but you can't even BEGIN to describe the reality I see? I wonder why.
I describe a predictable reality, and have done a pretty good job predicting it without Q.
So far, you're assuming that I've done a terrible job, because anything confirming my predictions is a lie, and it will be revealed as a lie. Eventually.
Stories that are applied after the fact are not predictions. That's what every religious explanation in history has done. "Lightning? Obviously a god going to war with someone. Haven't you been paying attention when we've taught you Greek mythology?"
Nobody around here predicted COVID or how big a deal that was for the Plan. Nobody around here predicted that Ukraine was apparently the major hub of Cabal activity and that Russia would play a major role in attacking these labs while it would be slandered as an unjust war by a tyrant. Nobody here predicted that poisons would be delivered by vaccination by the Cabal.
Hell, until a few hours after Trump left the White House, nobody around here was willing to believe that Trump would allow even the appearance of Biden's inauguration, let alone the appearance of his Presidency. Anyone claiming this as a possibility was a doomer and blackpiller.
These theories all came to fruition after things happened and you tried to make sense of it.
Which is why I think your faith in a normie awakening is misplaced. Because every doomsday cult on the planet has watched the predicted doomsday pass by, and then said, "Oh, yeah, it was obvious. We interpreted this number in the Bible incorrectly. It actually predicted a future date the whole time. How wily! Stay tuned!"
Once some brilliant Q researcher starts being able to accurately predict the future in a verifiable way BEFORE things actually start happening, then "Q Theory" will be seen far more credibly.
But until those predictions come BEFORE the events, and until those predictions are specific and obvious (and not poetic riddles that could apply to a million different things), then Q is going to struggle with falsifiability, and without that, it's going to struggle to resonate with any non-sympathetic scientists and researchers. We need falsifiability. It's really that important.
I really think you should re-read this argument later and see if it’s something you still stand behind.
It’s hard for me to accept that you don’t accept the cult comparisons when you describe being a member of a group of self-labeled geniuses who were chosen for a special mission by an anon who called you geniuses for believing the things he claimed about the world.
I don’t accept those claims, and it apparently can’t be because of a reasonable disagreement with your evidence. It must be because I’m not a genius, like Q said you were.
And Q knows geniuses. After all, you agree with Q, and you’re a genius. And Q knows geniuses, since he’s a genius, and you agree with him, as a fellow genius. Your whole club is made of geniuses who recognize other geniuses. You don’t really know anything about any of these other geniuses, but if they agree with you and Q, then they must be geniuses.
Genius logic, right?
I’ve said stuff like this before, but burying stuff like this in your posts that seem perfectly set up to straw-man Q supporters as cultists, combined with your obsession with telling people how much you hate Reddit despite the amount of time you apparently spend there, makes me justifiably suspicious about your motives in representing yourself as a Q supporter. It’s very much a “lady doth protest too much, methinks” situation.
Plandemic was the genocide.
Covering up their genocide by creating theater in Ukraine and calling that genocide.
War captures everyone's attention and forces them onto the topic and off their other topics, such as how COVID was all planned out and humanity was attacked.
Humanity was attacked with 1) erosion of cultural traditions 2) insane levels of propaganda 3) pathetic amounts of obvious censorship 4) a gain-of-function bioweapon and 5) shady mRNA clot shots with mystery ingredients and Russian roulette built in.
Game theory.
By condemning the actions in Ukraine the lame stream media can’t paint it onto Trump.
The hill is pure propaganda
Yea I understand that but why is he calling it a genocide lol
Did you hear him say that? Did you hear him say Russia is committing genocide? Or did he simply say genocide is happening?
What's the context? Is "the hill" manipulating his words to fit their agenda?
What are you talking about? He even told Maria on Fox that "Russia is killing all these people and it needs to stop now". He's changed his tone entirely. Sometimes in convo not everything has to be spelled out exactly for it to mean what it means.
Listen closely. Use your brain, not your emotions.
I understand that to you it's a decode. To the average normie or Trump normie, it is just more "Russia bad" nonsense.
Too many people in here can't separate the two because of the bubble that's been created.
Those are the words he used, but what did he really actually mean? Think critically. Hint: it’s not that the Russians are actually killing any civilians (because they aren’t).
Think like a normie for a second instead of us here. This is a small bubble. Not everything he does is gonna get decoded by his supporters lol
Who is reading these posts? Most of the people I know are normies and I can tell you they aren't here. They're watching MSM and looking at facepage. Most of them only get alternative views or "decodes" from me. It's because of us that these normies are beginning to mistrust their normal sources.
Then why are you even asking? You clearly know the answer, but yet ask this question in the “bubble” that you know will also know the answer.
With all of the wokeism in the western militaries, I’d unfortunately agree that NATO is far behind the Russians in fighting ability. The US military used to be one of the best, too, but now the remaining soldiers are just not equipped to fight.
We'll send in the gay parade, and laugh them damn russkies to death. God help us.
Russia's military is a paper tiger. They don't have the man power to do jack shit.
I know it goes against the narrative here, but this has been a fucking disaster for Russia, even they are beginning to admit it.
Russia's military is one of the most corrupt institutions on earth.
NATO isn't a military, it is an alliance of countries. Countries don't pay anything to NATO, they just agree to spend a certain percentage of their budget on their military.
Our military alone would obliterate Russia, the Russian army has revealed itself to be a shit show of poorly trained conscripts, fighting with soviet era weaponry and horrid command structure.
They can obliterate Russia. The only thing that stops them is Russia's nukes. The USA could reduce Russia's military capacity to a level similar to WW1 within days or hours. The only thing that stops us is Nukes, Russia, just like us, has the ability to basically end all life, via nuclear holocaust.
We don't "use" NATO, NATO countries use us for security, they won't get nuked if we promise to nuke anyone who nukes first.
We want countries to join because of trade. Ukraine has cheap grain and gas, that is why "we" like them.
Looks like he's saying that the happens in Ukraine amount to genocide (not specifically Russia) and that people would be wondering why NATO and the US haven't stepped in.
I can see two possibilities here:
Trump is staying ambiguous to stay neutral.
Trump is highlighting the fact that if Russia were indeed committing genocide and NATO and the US were the good guys, why aren't they making a stronger move?
It could be both, but to me, it really does seem to be more of a "if you look at the situation with a critical eye, the narrative doesn't add up"
Pseudo hawk
There’s a reason he’s using these words, even though they’re untrue. It makes sense to me.
Looks like he's saying that the happens in Ukraine amount to genocide (not specifically Russia) and that people would be wondering why NATO and the US haven't stepped in.
I can see two possibilities here:
Trump is staying ambiguous to stay neutral.
Trump is highlighting the fact that if Russia were indeed committing genocide and NATO and the US were the good guys, why aren't they making a stronger move?
It could be both, but to me, it really does seem to be more of a "if you look at the situation with a critical eye, the narrative doesn't add up"
I think it's cause he knows biden doesn't control the military, therefore he's trying to make him look feckless.
It seems like "neutral" would mean "not talking about this stuff at all and letting things play out quietly" rather than "taking the side of the liars and feeding their greatest weapon with exactly the narrative that the White Hats are trying to dismantle."
You believe that the Cabal controls the population with lies fed through a controlled television media, correct?
Well, Trump is a part of that television media. He's going on television and saying things to the cameras and the talking heads.
And in the cases of Ukraine and vaccines, the vast majority of those words agree with the alleged lying narrative that the White Hats are working to destroy.
Giving the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon that they don't even need from Trump doesn't seem neutral to me. That seems like he is very purposefully going out there and at least appearing to throw his weight behind a narrative.
If he stopped talking about this stuff and giving his opinions, the media would keep pushing the same narrative, but Trump would be very clearly, neutrally, staying out of everything. Trump doesn't stay neutral on much, so that would have actually been a pretty powerful piece of evidence in support of Q if he actually was staying neutral.
Yes. The world looks pretty much like what I would expect the world to look like if Trump lost the election and Q was nonsense.
I understand that you see this as optics.
What I haven’t understood is how long the optics have to go on before it’s considered reasonable to doubt that you’re looking at optics.
I have read Sun Tzu. I do recall his advice for not advertising your weaknesses.
That is not the same thing as appearing to lose every significant battle since the 2020 election. That is not the same thing as projecting an image that has a good portion of his own base believe he’s no longer in power.
It’s not the same thing as having no real leadership for your army and every major supporting voice to be viewed with justifiable suspicion by your own forces.
It’s not the same thing as having most of your recent words to your own supporters be viewed as disinformation by them meant for a spying enemy.
The reason Sun Tzu’s tactics work is because the vast majority of the time, when someone looks weak, it’s because they ARE weak. When they appear to lose, it’s because they lost.
And to date, Trump has never had a strategic victory that has led me to believe this kind of tactic is in his wheelhouse. I have no reason to believe he’s an exception. Having a ghost writer write in his autobiography that he enjoyed Sun Tzu is not exactly convincing.
Don’t forget that the inverse is more often true in real society: appear strong when you are weak. Considering that most former Presidents don’t have rallies and start social networks and so forth, I’d argue that Trump is trying far harder to appear stronger than an ex-POTUS, not weaker.
I describe a predictable reality, and have done a pretty good job predicting it without Q.
So far, you're assuming that I've done a terrible job, because anything confirming my predictions is a lie, and it will be revealed as a lie. Eventually.
Stories that are applied after the fact are not predictions. That's what every religious explanation in history has done. "Lightning? Obviously a god going to war with someone. Haven't you been paying attention when we've taught you Greek mythology?"
Nobody around here predicted COVID or how big a deal that was for the Plan. Nobody around here predicted that Ukraine was apparently the major hub of Cabal activity and that Russia would play a major role in attacking these labs while it would be slandered as an unjust war by a tyrant. Nobody here predicted that poisons would be delivered by vaccination by the Cabal.
Hell, until a few hours after Trump left the White House, nobody around here was willing to believe that Trump would allow even the appearance of Biden's inauguration, let alone the appearance of his Presidency. Anyone claiming this as a possibility was a doomer and blackpiller.
These theories all came to fruition after things happened and you tried to make sense of it.
Which is why I think your faith in a normie awakening is misplaced. Because every doomsday cult on the planet has watched the predicted doomsday pass by, and then said, "Oh, yeah, it was obvious. We interpreted this number in the Bible incorrectly. It actually predicted a future date the whole time. How wily! Stay tuned!"
Once some brilliant Q researcher starts being able to accurately predict the future in a verifiable way BEFORE things actually start happening, then "Q Theory" will be seen far more credibly.
But until those predictions come BEFORE the events, and until those predictions are specific and obvious (and not poetic riddles that could apply to a million different things), then Q is going to struggle with falsifiability, and without that, it's going to struggle to resonate with any non-sympathetic scientists and researchers. We need falsifiability. It's really that important.
I really think you should re-read this argument later and see if it’s something you still stand behind.
It’s hard for me to accept that you don’t accept the cult comparisons when you describe being a member of a group of self-labeled geniuses who were chosen for a special mission by an anon who called you geniuses for believing the things he claimed about the world.
I don’t accept those claims, and it apparently can’t be because of a reasonable disagreement with your evidence. It must be because I’m not a genius, like Q said you were.
And Q knows geniuses. After all, you agree with Q, and you’re a genius. And Q knows geniuses, since he’s a genius, and you agree with him, as a fellow genius. Your whole club is made of geniuses who recognize other geniuses. You don’t really know anything about any of these other geniuses, but if they agree with you and Q, then they must be geniuses.
Genius logic, right?
I’ve said stuff like this before, but burying stuff like this in your posts that seem perfectly set up to straw-man Q supporters as cultists, combined with your obsession with telling people how much you hate Reddit despite the amount of time you apparently spend there, makes me justifiably suspicious about your motives in representing yourself as a Q supporter. It’s very much a “lady doth protest too much, methinks” situation.