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.
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.