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.
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.