It’s not so much that I’m trying to play devil’s advocate as I am trying to demonstrate the challenges I sometimes have to face in understanding Q stuff when discussing it. For instance:
I understand you're trying to play "Devils advocate", here but in no way shape or form is the establishment interested in spreading conservative, pro gun values across the cultural sphere.
That goes counter to the notion that there is a silent majority of conservatives or any sort of secret group like Q working behind the scenes right now.
Maybe it’s not the establishment that is spreading the message.
You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way.
I’m asking you to abstain from that conclusion and analyze this situation as if you didn’t believe that Q was necessarily the good guy/group that everyone here assumes.
You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag. So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?
"You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way."
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
"You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag."
Not every story in general, but yes definitely the ones that are skewed in such a way to push tighter gun control. I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
"So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?"
What on earth is the "Q narrative"? And how would false flags be used to advance it? This is a strangely thought out proposition so I would ask you to elaborate on the specifics of such a thing.
Lastly I'll reiterate, it's entirely possible that Q (person or persons) had negative intentions. Same with Donald Trump. I trust no man but Jesus christ.
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys thought AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
Lol I will never blame you for coming off as aggressive or hostile even if you do. I've seen how often you get attacked lol. It's only natural to get defensive when everything you say is taken as a personal attack haha.
But alas I'll address your points above:
"Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?"
I understand the point your making and it's a valid one. I definitely find myself super critical of people here when they exhibit confirmation bias which is absolutely prevelant on this board.
However, I've definitely also seen a good deal of skepticism on this board from many (although a minority) and they are a big factor that piqued my intetest and brought me over from patriots.win
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
"Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as 'dooming'?"
If it does, it absolutely shouldn't get dismissed as dooming and ill do my part to call out anyone who tries to shut down reasonable criticism.
"Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?"
Ah I see this is where you and I reach a point of divergent styles of rationalization. I too have met plenty of violent, unhinged people and growing up in the ghetto, you were routinely victimized if you behaved passively and avoided violent altercations.
But I've also met at least two genuine narcissistic sociopaths. And most people have not. And if they have, they usually are completely oblivious to the nature of these people, since they're almost always charismatic and sociable people and blend in almost perfectly into society.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
How this ties into my conception that false flag shootings have definitely existed, is fairly straight forward. I've had first hand experiences with narcissistic sociopaths, two of them were the parents of a friend and held positions of great power, influence and wealth.
One of them was a friend I knew directly. And ALL of them were able to lie reflexively, speak eloquently, behave charismatically, effectively manipulate others into doing their bidding, and will gaslight their victims when they inevitably catch onto their self-serving behaviors.
To brush this off as mere anecdotal and insignificant would be naive. If those two parents were able to build such power and wealth for themselves and their families and get away with their crimes for decades, it is very likely that they werent the only sociopaths who seemed to prosper in a society where it pays to be self serving and ruthless. It is my conviction that there are undoubtedly many more just like them.
Their ability to prosper however, in both cases, ended up being temporary, as one of the parents committed suicide after he could no longer throw off the trail of Federal agents & the Texas court systems as they uncovered he had scammed 50,000 people for several million dollars. And the second parents' son ended up dying of a heroin problem he couldn't overcome after dealing with the lifelong trauma of being exploited for sexual favors as a child.
"Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values."
What I meant by asking "what is the Q narrative", is "which singular Q belief are you proposing is the quote unquote "q narrative"?
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well. I thought of myself as a liberal for all of my adult life, especially after going through the liberal system of Academia in college where you are continuously bombarded with the subconscious idea that God & religion are obsolete, scientific authority is of highest regard, morally is relative to the individual and that truth is subjective.
That system is intentionally set up as to condition those younger generations pursuing higher learning to believe that everything we are taught there and the belief systems that are popularized there, are ones that only the most sophisticated and intellectual of individuals will be able to understand. And you will receive the most "pats on the back", when you demonstrate internalizing these liberal belief systems.
However, just as I previously emphasized the importance of having actors within communities to steer individuals towards questioning their own belief systems, I myself was steered towards questioning all my previously held leftist views and was shown the folly of believing that huge mainstream networks could never be intentionally deceptive and controlling of the masses.
So when you say "the world Q supporters believe that Trump is protecting, is one that prioritizes conservative values", I understand why you would say that. And it's a perfectly reasonable position to have when you are led to believe that morality is relative and truth is subjective.
However, we all live in one plane of reality, friend. Many of the differences in political views between left and right can be attributed to a difference in how each side perceives this one reality.
But therein lies the problem that our so-called leaders so frequently take advantage of. Regardless of how a person "perceives" reality, the consequences of a particular action will always be impervious to the emotional state of those observing the action.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
It still involves taking an preadolescent child with a still developing brain, and coercing them to make permanent, irreversible medical decisions (with many long-term side effects which aren't completely understood) as a solution to the same developmental stresses that often plague every normally developing child as they struggle to adapt and grow within an often unfair and difficult world to traverse through.
Additionally, many of these children who transition at a young age end up growing up to regret their decision and opt to detransition. Yet, these individuals are frequently shamed and criticized by the very community that claims to support them, and never receive nearly as much publicity in the media as those who promote transitioning as "righteous", and portray it as a positive solution.
Even further, it's evidenced by the staggering rate of suicide in individuals POST TRANSITION, that this process does not even closely yield the amount of positive results that are so frequently advertised by advocates of transitioning. Even still, advocates will cry and scream that this is because transgender people are so frequently shamed, discriminated against and marginalized.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
One cannot both be marginalized AND also protected from criticism and provided additional resources by the establishment and corporate institutions. These two conditions are mutually exclusive by design.
But I digress... ultimately, although at first glance, it might appear that the world Q supporters advocate for is one that prioritizes conservative values, it is necessary to "zoom out", to more accurately view the full picture.
It's not so much about conservative values, for many of us on the right differentiate on a few policies such as gay marriage, taxation, immigration, etc... but it's more so about advocating for a world that acknowledges the many objective truths that today are unfortunately obscured from view and warped in order to pander to peoples feelings and self-serving beliefs.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this.
So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I apologize, it took me far longer than I intended to respond. Schedule changes at work tend to play havoc with my Q time, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging.
I'm going to try to respond to main points so my fingers don't fall off. I hope I don't miss anything you intended to hear.
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
We're in complete agreement here. The term "conspiracy theory" carries undeniable negative tone, but I have always tried to use it neutrally. It's a theory that a conspiracy exists. There's nothing insane about distrusting the narrative.
As much as some would object to my saying this, I try to take a very Socratic approach to understanding Q stuff (and non-Q stuff, for that matter). It can come off as combative, but it's really about understanding how someone deals with arguments from any particular perspective. THAT is definitely something I can get behind, and it is an ideal I think most Q people would share with me.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
My own theory (so far) is that conspiracy theorists have an overturned pattern recognition system. That DOES give them the potential to see things that other people aren't, like a valid conspiracy, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that all the patterns they recognize are actually valid. I think conspiracy theorists can see pictures in clouds better than most, but clouds are still random data.
I'm not yet convinced (by results over the years, mostly) that Q isn't a particularly interesting cloud picture yet. I may be proven wrong eventually, but to your point, it's not my inability to believe in a conspiracy that is preventing me from signing on to Q. I've been hanging out with conspiracy theorists for most of my life, and rarely in any combative role.
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
It's true that there is some variability in Q beliefs, but there are definitely some areas where Q supporters typically don't invest heavy research on these boards, and these typically are in areas which could provide an answer that would actually destroy faith in the Q movement.
For instance, how long has it been since this board make an honest attempt to unmask Q? An identity of the fingers typing those words would either drastically support or drastically deflate the Q movement, no middle ground. Most Q people seem content to assume that it's impossible for anyone to figure out, and if it's NOT impossible, then they don't want to risk Q's cover.
Which, conveniently, means that Q people aren't interested in PROVING one of the only falsifiable beliefs about Q: that Q represents a person or persons that has access and authority to make the kinds of claims that Q made, and to carry out a Plan.
Luckily, Q is on my side here. Look up how many times he says "transparency is the only way." (2817, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc)
It's more often than he talks about the military being the only way, so why are people here only focused on that? And not Q being transparent? Since transparency is the only way?
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well.
I understand why you feel it's unfair, but regardless of where you started, it seems hard to reconcile the world that this board wants (and the world Q said he was saving) has anything in common with liberal values.
People change their politics as they age and go through life changes. It's not unusual. I have been around a long while, and have yet to meet anyone with strong liberal values hoping that Donald Trump is coming back to power with a secret military.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
I feel like this would be true if these ideas were impossible to access without higher education. But they aren't. Anybody can read the documents and make their own judgement about the ten-dollar words in them.
It's true that higher degrees are valued in academia, but almost every PhD has research published that you can review. If you think someone is a hack, you're able to literally download their work and publish your own dissection.
This isn't about money. "Intellectual superiority" only exists when you can't access the same source material as the intellectuals, and in the vast majority of cases, you absolutely can.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
To be fair, what you've said here is that conditioning is the same thing as brainwashing. Which I disagree with.
Conditioning has a negative connotation, but it literally just means that someone learns to respond to a stimulus a certain way. This is how we learn things.
If I train a child to finish their dinner by offering dessert, I am conditioning them to eat their whole meal before spoiling their appetite. I guess this COULD be described as brainwashing, but that seems absurd.
So, grooming, brainwashing, learning? These are all just forms of conditioning. You can't define these things simply by recognizing conditioning. You identify harm. And while you may have feelings about how rejecting biological gender roles may cause harm, you certainly can't claim that it's the kind of harm that pedophiles cause by conditioning children to be receptive to being raped.
I don't have the time or will to get into a debate about transgender stuff, as it's not really in the Q stuff that I'm interested in. But I will say, based on my perspective, that Q people tend to generalize literally any event that happens outside of the conservative sphere as "liberal values."
So liberals get stuck with "our values" somehow being supporting child drag contests and forced sex reassignment surgeries just because some Twitter person wanted to post a headline to piss you off and collect conservative clicks. No rank-and-file liberal voter supports coercing a child into sexual reassignment surgery, and I've never met one that would support such surgery on a child.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
Around here, it's common for me to be told to stop believing TV reality.
So, I'd like to, more respectfully, suggest something similar.
Non-binary people are interesting. Some people find them fascinating. Some people find them revolting. Some people feel better for supporting them. Some people will post memes about how irritating it all is. But they are also pretty rare, as an identity.
And despite that, just like liberals, you're talking about the individuals on that television screen, simply because they're non-binary. Which was the point of the station hiring them in the first place.
Liberals aren't ignorant to this. We know that most companies posting pride flags on Twitter don't give a shit. We know that some flamboyant androgynous YouTuber is getting famous merely because he's weird and stupid, and that's frustrating for everyone. We're all getting old and these kids are too weird for us.
At the end of the day, the companies are going to put on television what people will watch on television, and people are going to watch on television the stuff that they don't encounter in real life. Which, typically, are going to be outliers. The vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone and, frankly, for you to not even know they were trans.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
I agree here. And I'll make a similar statement, easily, that truth is far more important to me than any imagined allegiance I've been accused of. I couldn't give less of a shit what position Reddit is supporting, or the Democrats are supporting, or whatever.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this. So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I also still disagree that Q is as cosmopolitan of a movement as you would have me believe. There are definitely forces working to make elite/non-elite class struggles look like racial struggles or political struggles. No question.
But I don't see the Q movement as a fight for "everyone." It's a conservative movement. Trump's positions are politically conservative, and the only people hoping that he is coming back are people who agree with him.
If there is eventually some unimpeachable proof released that demonstrates Trump's proven electoral victory and all the other stuff that Q promised, then a lot of liberals (like me) will eat shit and accept it.
But this Q stuff is a lot of work, and staying motivated long enough to DO that research requires a significant amount of hope and faith that you weren't wrong about Donald Trump. Liberals have no such hope of Trump's competency, and thus, aren't going to be motivated to run the gauntlet.
Which leaves us with this movement being mostly hopeful conservatives, right?
I have no choice but to be extremely suspicious of any political movement that is claiming to be fighting for a non-political truth on my behalf. Wouldn't you?
And my goodness, this is probably the longest thing I've written on here. I hope it's coherent, because I've been writing it for like an hour now and I'm not proofreading it. I apologize if anything comes off as unclear. I'm fucking exhausted and need to take an actual break from today.
This is a fantastic post. I read through about half before I realized there is no way I will have time today to give it a proper response. I do intend to respond, because there are some areas where we agree, and I always enjoy finding those. Give me a day or so.
It’s not so much that I’m trying to play devil’s advocate as I am trying to demonstrate the challenges I sometimes have to face in understanding Q stuff when discussing it. For instance:
That goes counter to the notion that there is a silent majority of conservatives or any sort of secret group like Q working behind the scenes right now.
Maybe it’s not the establishment that is spreading the message.
You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way.
I’m asking you to abstain from that conclusion and analyze this situation as if you didn’t believe that Q was necessarily the good guy/group that everyone here assumes.
You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag. So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?
That’s an honest question, truly.
"You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way."
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
"You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag."
Not every story in general, but yes definitely the ones that are skewed in such a way to push tighter gun control. I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
"So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?"
What on earth is the "Q narrative"? And how would false flags be used to advance it? This is a strangely thought out proposition so I would ask you to elaborate on the specifics of such a thing.
Lastly I'll reiterate, it's entirely possible that Q (person or persons) had negative intentions. Same with Donald Trump. I trust no man but Jesus christ.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
Lol I will never blame you for coming off as aggressive or hostile even if you do. I've seen how often you get attacked lol. It's only natural to get defensive when everything you say is taken as a personal attack haha.
But alas I'll address your points above:
"Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?"
I understand the point your making and it's a valid one. I definitely find myself super critical of people here when they exhibit confirmation bias which is absolutely prevelant on this board.
However, I've definitely also seen a good deal of skepticism on this board from many (although a minority) and they are a big factor that piqued my intetest and brought me over from patriots.win
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
"Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as 'dooming'?"
If it does, it absolutely shouldn't get dismissed as dooming and ill do my part to call out anyone who tries to shut down reasonable criticism.
"Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?"
Ah I see this is where you and I reach a point of divergent styles of rationalization. I too have met plenty of violent, unhinged people and growing up in the ghetto, you were routinely victimized if you behaved passively and avoided violent altercations.
But I've also met at least two genuine narcissistic sociopaths. And most people have not. And if they have, they usually are completely oblivious to the nature of these people, since they're almost always charismatic and sociable people and blend in almost perfectly into society.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
How this ties into my conception that false flag shootings have definitely existed, is fairly straight forward. I've had first hand experiences with narcissistic sociopaths, two of them were the parents of a friend and held positions of great power, influence and wealth.
One of them was a friend I knew directly. And ALL of them were able to lie reflexively, speak eloquently, behave charismatically, effectively manipulate others into doing their bidding, and will gaslight their victims when they inevitably catch onto their self-serving behaviors.
To brush this off as mere anecdotal and insignificant would be naive. If those two parents were able to build such power and wealth for themselves and their families and get away with their crimes for decades, it is very likely that they werent the only sociopaths who seemed to prosper in a society where it pays to be self serving and ruthless. It is my conviction that there are undoubtedly many more just like them.
Their ability to prosper however, in both cases, ended up being temporary, as one of the parents committed suicide after he could no longer throw off the trail of Federal agents & the Texas court systems as they uncovered he had scammed 50,000 people for several million dollars. And the second parents' son ended up dying of a heroin problem he couldn't overcome after dealing with the lifelong trauma of being exploited for sexual favors as a child.
"Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values."
What I meant by asking "what is the Q narrative", is "which singular Q belief are you proposing is the quote unquote "q narrative"?
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well. I thought of myself as a liberal for all of my adult life, especially after going through the liberal system of Academia in college where you are continuously bombarded with the subconscious idea that God & religion are obsolete, scientific authority is of highest regard, morally is relative to the individual and that truth is subjective.
That system is intentionally set up as to condition those younger generations pursuing higher learning to believe that everything we are taught there and the belief systems that are popularized there, are ones that only the most sophisticated and intellectual of individuals will be able to understand. And you will receive the most "pats on the back", when you demonstrate internalizing these liberal belief systems.
However, just as I previously emphasized the importance of having actors within communities to steer individuals towards questioning their own belief systems, I myself was steered towards questioning all my previously held leftist views and was shown the folly of believing that huge mainstream networks could never be intentionally deceptive and controlling of the masses.
So when you say "the world Q supporters believe that Trump is protecting, is one that prioritizes conservative values", I understand why you would say that. And it's a perfectly reasonable position to have when you are led to believe that morality is relative and truth is subjective.
However, we all live in one plane of reality, friend. Many of the differences in political views between left and right can be attributed to a difference in how each side perceives this one reality.
But therein lies the problem that our so-called leaders so frequently take advantage of. Regardless of how a person "perceives" reality, the consequences of a particular action will always be impervious to the emotional state of those observing the action.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
It still involves taking an preadolescent child with a still developing brain, and coercing them to make permanent, irreversible medical decisions (with many long-term side effects which aren't completely understood) as a solution to the same developmental stresses that often plague every normally developing child as they struggle to adapt and grow within an often unfair and difficult world to traverse through.
Additionally, many of these children who transition at a young age end up growing up to regret their decision and opt to detransition. Yet, these individuals are frequently shamed and criticized by the very community that claims to support them, and never receive nearly as much publicity in the media as those who promote transitioning as "righteous", and portray it as a positive solution.
Even further, it's evidenced by the staggering rate of suicide in individuals POST TRANSITION, that this process does not even closely yield the amount of positive results that are so frequently advertised by advocates of transitioning. Even still, advocates will cry and scream that this is because transgender people are so frequently shamed, discriminated against and marginalized.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
One cannot both be marginalized AND also protected from criticism and provided additional resources by the establishment and corporate institutions. These two conditions are mutually exclusive by design.
But I digress... ultimately, although at first glance, it might appear that the world Q supporters advocate for is one that prioritizes conservative values, it is necessary to "zoom out", to more accurately view the full picture.
It's not so much about conservative values, for many of us on the right differentiate on a few policies such as gay marriage, taxation, immigration, etc... but it's more so about advocating for a world that acknowledges the many objective truths that today are unfortunately obscured from view and warped in order to pander to peoples feelings and self-serving beliefs.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this.
So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I apologize, it took me far longer than I intended to respond. Schedule changes at work tend to play havoc with my Q time, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging.
I'm going to try to respond to main points so my fingers don't fall off. I hope I don't miss anything you intended to hear.
We're in complete agreement here. The term "conspiracy theory" carries undeniable negative tone, but I have always tried to use it neutrally. It's a theory that a conspiracy exists. There's nothing insane about distrusting the narrative.
As much as some would object to my saying this, I try to take a very Socratic approach to understanding Q stuff (and non-Q stuff, for that matter). It can come off as combative, but it's really about understanding how someone deals with arguments from any particular perspective. THAT is definitely something I can get behind, and it is an ideal I think most Q people would share with me.
My own theory (so far) is that conspiracy theorists have an overturned pattern recognition system. That DOES give them the potential to see things that other people aren't, like a valid conspiracy, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that all the patterns they recognize are actually valid. I think conspiracy theorists can see pictures in clouds better than most, but clouds are still random data.
I'm not yet convinced (by results over the years, mostly) that Q isn't a particularly interesting cloud picture yet. I may be proven wrong eventually, but to your point, it's not my inability to believe in a conspiracy that is preventing me from signing on to Q. I've been hanging out with conspiracy theorists for most of my life, and rarely in any combative role.
It's true that there is some variability in Q beliefs, but there are definitely some areas where Q supporters typically don't invest heavy research on these boards, and these typically are in areas which could provide an answer that would actually destroy faith in the Q movement.
For instance, how long has it been since this board make an honest attempt to unmask Q? An identity of the fingers typing those words would either drastically support or drastically deflate the Q movement, no middle ground. Most Q people seem content to assume that it's impossible for anyone to figure out, and if it's NOT impossible, then they don't want to risk Q's cover.
Which, conveniently, means that Q people aren't interested in PROVING one of the only falsifiable beliefs about Q: that Q represents a person or persons that has access and authority to make the kinds of claims that Q made, and to carry out a Plan.
Luckily, Q is on my side here. Look up how many times he says "transparency is the only way." (2817, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc)
It's more often than he talks about the military being the only way, so why are people here only focused on that? And not Q being transparent? Since transparency is the only way?
I understand why you feel it's unfair, but regardless of where you started, it seems hard to reconcile the world that this board wants (and the world Q said he was saving) has anything in common with liberal values.
People change their politics as they age and go through life changes. It's not unusual. I have been around a long while, and have yet to meet anyone with strong liberal values hoping that Donald Trump is coming back to power with a secret military.
I feel like this would be true if these ideas were impossible to access without higher education. But they aren't. Anybody can read the documents and make their own judgement about the ten-dollar words in them.
It's true that higher degrees are valued in academia, but almost every PhD has research published that you can review. If you think someone is a hack, you're able to literally download their work and publish your own dissection.
This isn't about money. "Intellectual superiority" only exists when you can't access the same source material as the intellectuals, and in the vast majority of cases, you absolutely can.
To be fair, what you've said here is that conditioning is the same thing as brainwashing. Which I disagree with.
Conditioning has a negative connotation, but it literally just means that someone learns to respond to a stimulus a certain way. This is how we learn things.
If I train a child to finish their dinner by offering dessert, I am conditioning them to eat their whole meal before spoiling their appetite. I guess this COULD be described as brainwashing, but that seems absurd.
So, grooming, brainwashing, learning? These are all just forms of conditioning. You can't define these things simply by recognizing conditioning. You identify harm. And while you may have feelings about how rejecting biological gender roles may cause harm, you certainly can't claim that it's the kind of harm that pedophiles cause by conditioning children to be receptive to being raped.
I don't have the time or will to get into a debate about transgender stuff, as it's not really in the Q stuff that I'm interested in. But I will say, based on my perspective, that Q people tend to generalize literally any event that happens outside of the conservative sphere as "liberal values."
So liberals get stuck with "our values" somehow being supporting child drag contests and forced sex reassignment surgeries just because some Twitter person wanted to post a headline to piss you off and collect conservative clicks. No rank-and-file liberal voter supports coercing a child into sexual reassignment surgery, and I've never met one that would support such surgery on a child.
Around here, it's common for me to be told to stop believing TV reality.
So, I'd like to, more respectfully, suggest something similar.
Non-binary people are interesting. Some people find them fascinating. Some people find them revolting. Some people feel better for supporting them. Some people will post memes about how irritating it all is. But they are also pretty rare, as an identity.
And despite that, just like liberals, you're talking about the individuals on that television screen, simply because they're non-binary. Which was the point of the station hiring them in the first place.
Liberals aren't ignorant to this. We know that most companies posting pride flags on Twitter don't give a shit. We know that some flamboyant androgynous YouTuber is getting famous merely because he's weird and stupid, and that's frustrating for everyone. We're all getting old and these kids are too weird for us.
At the end of the day, the companies are going to put on television what people will watch on television, and people are going to watch on television the stuff that they don't encounter in real life. Which, typically, are going to be outliers. The vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone and, frankly, for you to not even know they were trans.
I agree here. And I'll make a similar statement, easily, that truth is far more important to me than any imagined allegiance I've been accused of. I couldn't give less of a shit what position Reddit is supporting, or the Democrats are supporting, or whatever.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I also still disagree that Q is as cosmopolitan of a movement as you would have me believe. There are definitely forces working to make elite/non-elite class struggles look like racial struggles or political struggles. No question.
But I don't see the Q movement as a fight for "everyone." It's a conservative movement. Trump's positions are politically conservative, and the only people hoping that he is coming back are people who agree with him.
If there is eventually some unimpeachable proof released that demonstrates Trump's proven electoral victory and all the other stuff that Q promised, then a lot of liberals (like me) will eat shit and accept it.
But this Q stuff is a lot of work, and staying motivated long enough to DO that research requires a significant amount of hope and faith that you weren't wrong about Donald Trump. Liberals have no such hope of Trump's competency, and thus, aren't going to be motivated to run the gauntlet.
Which leaves us with this movement being mostly hopeful conservatives, right?
I have no choice but to be extremely suspicious of any political movement that is claiming to be fighting for a non-political truth on my behalf. Wouldn't you?
And my goodness, this is probably the longest thing I've written on here. I hope it's coherent, because I've been writing it for like an hour now and I'm not proofreading it. I apologize if anything comes off as unclear. I'm fucking exhausted and need to take an actual break from today.
Take care.
This is a fantastic post. I read through about half before I realized there is no way I will have time today to give it a proper response. I do intend to respond, because there are some areas where we agree, and I always enjoy finding those. Give me a day or so.
Amen!