If youve been reading Q since Oct 2017, you know what I mean
Edit to clarify--what I mean is there is a Q way of speaking and this lacks it.
Ok eg this stood out immediately: Use your logic
Tell me why this is not Q like
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (253)
sorted by:
Is the Cabal the only entity with a justifiable interest in manipulating Q supporters and the capability of doing so through the chan?
Not everybody with hostile intentions are on the same side against you. Just like how not every sympathetic voice is necessarily “on your side.” The world is far more complicated than that.
It would take a lot of resources for someone to hijack the tripcodes.
I'm outright dismissing any which don't bear the original tripcode at the moment, as everyone should until further verification. The TOR posts should be ignored until proven otherwise.
This is not the first time they've attempted to dupe us with fake Q posts, but it is the first where there has been monkeying with the tripcode salt.
Q is posting on 8kun. 4Chan effectively kicked him off when the mods refused to provide tripcode protections. Selection of mods was thought to be more secure on 8kun
I never made that claim.
Consider the landscape. If this was just like any other fake Q, why the media coverage? This time is different because it caused the MSM to expend resources to announce Q's supposed return with mainstream articles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=q+returns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjopKjJsNP4AhWyQzABHWj2DdkQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1
The Cabal, specifically, have proven a financial interest in promoting these Q posts.
So, yes... There is hostile intent behind these posts from the same group of people behind all MSM outlets. That's the Cabal I'm referring to -- the same 6 companies behind all National media outlets.
It would take a lot of resources for some people. Not everyone.
I can’t imagine why anyone would think that. Moderator selection is as simple as clicking a button. There is no formal process for moderator applications beyond what the site administrator has decided.
So Q and Q supporters trusted Watkins to provide moderator protection worthy of something as important as the Plan? Why? Who on earth would trust him for such an important task?
Are chans really too difficult for the Q Team to have set up their own, that they fully controlled and secured? We wouldn’t be dealing with this problem right now if Q wasn’t relying on the 8chan administrator as his gatekeeper.
I’ve discussed this before. The outside world, the media, and so forth are not concerned about Q or his predictions. Very few people from the outside even know what those predictions are.
The outside world keeps an eye on Q people because they worry what happens when the Plan fails to come to fruition.
Lie or not, Q-adjacent beliefs are considered partly to blame for Jan 6th by the outside world. Everyone knows what the “ammo box” is.
If the Q team never shows up to execute all these alleged pedophilic Satanist cannibals, do Q people give up and consider that maybe they were misled, and that these politicians, while despicable, may not be responsible for what Q and Trump suggested?
If not, then THAT is why the media is going to breathlessly report on the Q movement, rather than Q’s words. Because Q’s words are less important to the outside world than the actions and influence of the people who believe the story he told.
We don't know. There's been no clear answer to that question, from Q or any other. On 8chan, Q trusted CM (CodeMonkeyZ, Ron Watkins) enough to pat him on the back:
https://qalerts.app/?n=474
u/#q474
Q only required mods not have any operational control over the thread.
So long as the BO kept his nose clean, there seemed to be no issue.
If Q themselves set it up, there would be no anonymity. Q can't have a paper trail to function. Plausible Deniability must be maintained. If Q were a Military Operation, revealing certain details about the government would be treason, regardless of clearance level. That's why the Chans were the chosen platform to begin with, because they allowed full anonymity and laxness in censorship.
Q has made only a few predictions, and the vast majority of them very early on. The majority of Q posts are questions which demand Anons find answers for themselves. If Anons make predictions, they aren't Q's predictions.
Look for yourself. Read Q's last 3000 posts and spot a bonafide prediction with a set date. All this talk of dates "coming and going" are BS. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm tired of people using that same failed argument of "none of Q's predictions come true." Which ones? Give me a few to reference.
The truth is, no one bothers to read the posts to verify whether Q has made a single prediction. The argument is a fabrication of the "Qanon" strawman the MSM push.
Do you know the phrase "Military is the only way?"
How many times has Q ever said that phrase?
https://qalerts.app/?q=military+is+the+only+way
ZERO times. Yet it's thrown around here like bread and butter.
The only reference that comes close is this one:
https://qalerts.app/?n=26
Every time I see someone say "Military is the only way" I know for a fact they are listening to the MSM strawman, not actually referring to Q posts. Q has ALWAYS said TRANSPARENCY is the only way. Not the military.
https://qalerts.app/?q=transparency+is+the+only+way
That people are still falling for it is starting to piss me off, honestly.
That still doesn't answer my question:
"Why NOW?"
Why are the media choosing NOW to cover Q's return, when there have been previous "returns" from imposters since his absence?
What story did Q tell? Honestly, tell me what you think, because I have no idea what you think Q has said, so I cannot confirm or deny your stance's validity on the matter.
FINISH HIM
That is extraordinarily suspicious to me, to both avoid any answer to the obvious question while praising the guy everyone is suspicious of.
But since Watkins apparently maintained admin control of 8chan beyond that of Q, then Q had no way of enforcing this. Did Q trust, but forget to verify?
I'm sorry, but I just plain don't accept this argument.
Chans are not complicated pieces of software. They are not hard to set up. And it's not hard for any group with experience and resources to set up a secure website that protects the identity of its owners. This community believes that governments routinely set up false flags and other fronts to conceal their involvement in secret operations.
Are you really telling me that the Q Team, despite having been pulled from these same government and military officials, lacks the expertise to create a site with anonymous ownership? That our digital soldiers have to rely on the expertise of Watkins for their security?
That's... a shockingly poor assessment of the Q Team's technological capabilities, even beyond what I would suggest.
The predictions are absolutely there, but they aren't falsifiable. Which is why nobody can directly disprove Q: "disinformation is necessary" pretty much means that anything you don't like from Q World, you can toss out as probably irrelevant.
And since deltas are apparently allowed to be considered valid, then Q can say, "midterms are safe" (1197: 4/19/18), have that prediction fail, and then afterward say, "Oh, I was talking about 2022, not the 2018 election that was coming up when I made that prediction” (2620: 12/12/18).
The fact is that if you accept a prediction on the basis that it will EVENTUALLY come true, without knowing anything about HOW or WHEN it will come true, or what specific events will prove that it's happening, then you're allowed to wait literally forever for the Plan and still never be proven wrong.
I could come visit you on your deathbed in however many decades it would be, and you could still technically jab at me that I haven't proven Q's predictions wrong. It just might be operating on a 17 year delta.
Which is why Q seems to me to require faith, and I don't really like faith in my research movements.
Actually, I already made this argument for you. :)
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXpKkAgj/x/c/4OZqiNb1XPz
I did answer your question, but I'll be clearer.
The media is watching you, not Q. They care about the Q community.
And due to the trip codes and such, the Q community is far more trusting of this particular variation of Q than previous returns.
The media is reporting on it because the Q people think it's news, and as this board has fondly said, you are the news now. What you think about Q's return IS news, and lots of people think he's returned. Which means lots of people think the Plan is about to kick off, which means the media is going to be interested in reporting on those people.
When I was a kid, I remember watching a doomsday cult on the news. They had sold their possessions, said goodbye to their family, and smugly told everyone else they were going to hell.
So of course the news cameras were rolling when the prophesized doomsday came and went. Everyone wanted to see the faces of the believers.
The cameras are pointed at you because the news wants to see your face when you're proven wrong, just as badly as everyone here wants to see me and people like me when I'm proven wrong.
Most generally, Q not only supported Trump's allegations of a Deep State working specifically against him and his role in fighting them, but promised an inevitable victory. Most generally.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I believe about Q's posts. It matters what the Q community does with those posts. Q never talked much about COVID or the vaccine, considering how huge it a deal it became. Q never really discussed biolabs in Ukraine being the first shots in the hot war against the Cabal.
So why are people talking about these things here as if Q endorsed them?
Probably because if they ONLY stuck to the stuff Q talked about directly, then it would appear that the world quite moved on without Q. If Q never talked about COVID, then was he surprised by COVID? Was this not accounted for in the Plan?
I don't see a strong interest in exploring that theory here. But perhaps I'm wrong.