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:
Q alluded to the country of Ukraine. Which was in the news a lot when he was posting, considering that Trump's first impeachment was (in part) due to the alleged attempt to leverage Ukraine against Biden.
I'm not seeing anything here providing a concrete prediction that Ukraine was housing bioweapon labs on behalf of the US, or that Putin would be responsible in dismantling them on behalf of the White Hats. Ukraine's mere presence in the news perfectly explains why Q was talking about this at the time.
Which is kind of the point I've been making about Q. He is "just asking questions" about current events, and the implied answers are only that the narrative may not be true. Nothing else, no other predictions after those first early ones.
Any time Ukraine is in the news for the next ten years, it could conceivably be in relation to what Q was discussing here.
Any event in the past, present, or further that takes place on the 70% of this planet covered in liquid might conceivably fit the prediction of "watch the water." Why on Earth would Q waste his time saying this if it was actually supposed to prepare people for something?
What exactly is this information good for if it gives me not a single specific I can use to know what I should be looking for? I’ve been staring at the water running from my sink for two years now and still haven’t seen anything interesting.
Theories that have no provable predictive value aren't really theories, they're mythologies. I didn't see a single Q researcher here predict that Russia would be attacking biolabs in Ukraine on behalf of the Cabal before Russia’s invasion, despite these posts existing.
So can you tell me the next major international event that's going to happen, according to Q? Can you tell me which country will make headlines in October of this year, with all the Q posts you have at your disposal?
The difference between a scientific theory and a faith-based one is predictive capability and falsifiability (which are related). Anyone can make up a narrative AFTER the event has already occurred; this is how literally all mythology works.
That's all Q ever was. A bunch of questions which got people thinking actively about what was going on in THEIR government.
No. I can't. I can only speculate.
Q trained us by questioning us selectively on particular topics that are uncommon so that we are more familiar with them when they DO come up in the social ecosphere.
Q posts aren't predictions into the far future. That's a mistake many, including me, continually make. These last 2 years has shown us Q posts have a half life of about a month. Past that, it's just regurgitation of past events like an echo coming back to the source. It's not reliable.
But that doesn't mean past posts are useless. They inform us of what happened on that day -- as a time capsule and an example of how to interpret the themes of today to form expectations of where those themes may end up.
Q's posts are training exercises. That's all they ever have been. Means by which to train the general public on the methods used in sensitive Military Intelligence and Analysis.
Q posts are a crash course in Military data analysis and awareness.
https://qalerts.app/?n=4700
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf
All part of a COIN intel operation to provide an outlet for domestic civilians an opportunity to resist insurgent political groups like ANTIFA and BLM, without devolving into violent Civil Conflict.
Maybe… but do you know what typically happens when I ask questions here?
I provide an answer. I am told that I am brainwashed. I provide another answer. I’m told to turn off the television. I provide another answer. I am told I am believing the lies from the Deep State. I provide another answer. I am told that I am simply an idiot too stupid to salvage.
I provide the answer that supports the notion that Trump is a genius and fighting Satanists and Q is a mastermind and that everyone who hates Trump is a pedophilic cannibal?
I hear, “FINALLY you’re starting to think like a free thinker!”
Being dismissed as “a brainwashed sheep” for literally any argument that makes Q look potentially wrong or fraudulent isn’t any more open-minded than simply telling me what to believe.
And I’m not accusing you of it directly, but I don’t think you can deny it that simply “making people think about their government” is clearly not what the Q community believes the endgame to be.
I’m not really convinced of that yet.
I’d challenge you to go into the wackiest, most ridiculous conspiracy community you can find. Really, look for the outliers among outliers. Hang out there for a bit.
If they take themselves seriously, they will also be congratulating themselves as intelligent critical thinkers in a world full of sheepish idiots. They will also be citing Legitimate Documents that seem to parallel with their definition of what constitutes critical thinking.
I’m also not convinced of that. Suggesting that Q is a counter-intelligence agent and that “disinformation is necessary” means that Q can be wrong, and supporters will write it off as disinformation.
“Huh. It appears I’ve been tricked. THAT’LL show the Cabal.”
It’s exactly the sort of fraudulent claim I would imply if I wanted to ensure that I would get the benefit of the doubt any time reality disagreed with me. Because obviously, if I’m wrong, it because I’m fighting a war and need the enemy to “expend ammo.”
No part of Sun Tzu suggests hiding the identity of your real commanders, allowing false commanders to give orders in order to “expose them”, letting the enemy conquer your country just to “awaken” your populace, and causing such a sense of confusion in your own army that even your soldiers don’t know who they’re supposed to be listening to for valid information.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.
My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.
Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.
If someone were trying to hide something under their shirt, and kept their back to your and their arms in a cradle, it does not mean he is hiding something from you under their shirt -- but if he were hiding something, he would be acting no differently.
That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?
It's not the Occam's Razor argument. Instead, it's a process of deduction. If Q were a psyop, then the numerous proofs that connect to Trump and his reluctance to denounce Q are simply baffling.
Consider it this way: If you were in a government position right now, how might you work to overthrow the corruption without getting killed?
https://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/aow21.htm
All warfare is based on deception. 1
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. 2
If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. 3
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. 4
If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. 1
If his forces are united, separate them. 2
Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand. 3
Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. 4
Sun Tzŭ said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle, will arrive exhausted. 1
Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him. 2
By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord; or, by inflicting damage, he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near. 1
If the enemy is taking his ease, he can harass him; 2 if well supplied with food, he can starve him out; 3 if quietly encamped, he can force him to move. 4
Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected. 5
All of those teachings and more only work when you feign weakness.
Sun Tzu never expounded deeply on what to do when the enemy is entirely from within.
That's what a COIN operation is.
If there is ANY attempt to stop the Domestic Insurgency, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE than to use a domestic COIN operation as the defense.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE!? If not Q, then what, in your mind, would fit the bill?
There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint. So, what would your COIN operation look like? How would you possibly avoid suspicion when the enemy surrounds you on all sides from the safety of the shadows?
Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.
Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.
And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.
You think so?
I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.
I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.
“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”
No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?
Well, see my point here from earlier?
I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.
I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.
My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.
But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.
You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.
I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.
Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.
I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?
A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.
Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.
And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.
At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?
And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.
If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.
Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.
You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool. Couldn’t happen, right?
Has anyone considered that Q, the obvious cinephile who posts about movies constantly and whose narrative seems ripped out of a spy thriller, might have told you guys that “you’re watching a movie” as a clue that he was playing with you?
Maybe he was describing a reality based off his movies, and then told you so with double-speak? Just to see if anyone here was smart enough to catch that he was fucking with them?
If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?
We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.
Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?
If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?
I appreciate your answers to the questions.
I want to respond to this but ran out of time to keep talking. Do you mind if I come back to this soon? There's quite a bit of stuff here worth talking about.