Satanists (KM, Rothschilds, name stealers) have infiltrated the following:
- Israel/Zionists (research Netanyahu and his family; also Kissinger, Schwab backgrounds)
- Catholic Church (research the Pope, his WW2 background, Jesuits, images of Vatican auditorium that look like serpent)
- Saudi Arabia (research House of Saud and their true origin, as well as the massive human trafficking that was going on in SA until 2017)
- Church of England (research infiltration by Catholics as punishment for breakaway; see UK Royals direct involvement in changes)
- Protestant Church (research infiltration by Catholics as punishment for breakaway and Megachurch pastors involvement in pedophilia)
- Mormon Church (research Mitt Romney and his ties to Ukraine; also research current Mormon Church leadership and look at infiltration going on in Utah)
That is sometimes worth pointing out. Right now though, it just sounds like you're trying to cast doubt on OP's premise.
The whole point of the Q operation was to send anons down rabbit holes. Khazarian mafia is one of the bigger rabbit holes.
But is it one that Q sent us down?
I've been playing close attention to Q since Jan 2018, so why is it I've just heard about the Khazarian mafia this year, via folks like Clif High, for example?
I found High's introduction and discussion of the Khazars fascinating. BUt really, I have not dug enough on this to really know what is what, and well, yes, I currently put it in the "there is quite likely to be something to this, but I don't have enough data to really put too much confidence into people's views or conclusions".
There are many things which, via Q and via other channels, I have full confidence about. The Khazars being the name stealers that infiltrated each and every organization is not one of them.
There are also many topics out there that many people have hard and fast convictions about, convictions expressed as certainty, that I am quite confident aren't clearly or properly understood.
The OP's premise is certainly not helped by the fact that he/she makes very, very bold assertions and gives zero reference or source. How to take seriously someone who makes bold and hard statements as if fact, and yet provides ZERO data to corroborate?
So, yeah, I guess, sign me skeptical of the frame of these assertions until I have more info. Maybe it's just my conditioning under Q, but [hard assertions + zero references, source, evidence] just triggers my "be careful here" red flag.
When such red flags are raised, I adopt the practice of sticking to what I know, and knowing a lot about Q (enough to qualify my analytical thresholds), I'll naturally fall back on: This is a Q board. Did Q actually lead us or guide anons to the "Khazarian" narrative?
If I missed it, I'm all ears. But in the absence of information and knowledge, I place a lot more stock in Q than I do in folks like Clif High (who, no fault of his own, has his own way of looking at things and his own worldview) or others.
I know the Khazar narrative is popular these days. But the truth sphere is ALSO awash with deliberate disinformation not to mention certain theories and ideas that certain people latch onto because they believe it, and hold it to be true.
Just spend a few days combing through the GAW board will reveal how true that is.
I guess my particular interpretation of due diligence and caution isn't popular in some area?
Anyway, maybe I'll learn more. With the world tumbling down the rabbit hole as it currently is, my desire to do deeper digs focusing on less than practical topics is kind of on the wane at the moment!!!
But thanks for the comment fren. It's given me food for thought. (I guess I should have lead with that... derp)