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:
My being vindicated isn't my purpose, or even an imagined side benefit, beyond having the desired end result.
I think it's a completely unsubstantiated assertion that patriots who follow Q need to be validated or "proven right" for their ego's sake. That's not the motivation whatsoever.
Who would ever assume that an online community that has been the most ostracized in modern history is, deep down, really only in it for social validation?
And it's mostly an online situation. It seems that you imagine I need validation from my friends, family or even casual acquaintances but honestly I have yet to meet someone who actually hates Trump or likes Biden.
I don't think your premise is accurate. It's more about curiosity and having the spare time to research and wanting to do so.
An analogy would be some guy who fixes up antique cars in their spare time, because they have the time to do so, are interested and enjoy doing it. Is everyone else who doesn't want to fix antique cars stupid?
It would depend on how they were exposed to Q, from what source and how much trust they have in that source, coupled with how much it interests them to know and how much time they want to dedicate to finding out.
To many, their only knowledge of Q is the maga shaman from the supposed January 6 insurrection, told to them by news they trust.
Why would they be motivated to even spend a second learning more?
But as for the people you suggest have read all the Q drops but still disagree (yet why would they read them all if they disagreed?) ... those people will still know what's going on when arrests happen.
The money in sex trafficking doesn't come from the fee the client will pay for a trafficked individual.
The money comes with investing millions into getting the politician elected, whom you have a large volume of kompromat on, into office so they can vote yes to send a country multi-billions of dollars in foreign aid, knowing most if not all will be pocketed with no accountability.
Test your theory against my theory. Under your theory, Hunter Biden would never keep a single image of himself having sex with minors on his laptop, knowing its a risk and there being no real reason to incriminate himself. Your theory doesn't make sense in that situation.
Under my theory, Hunter kept all the images because it was a prerequisite for working with China. They demanded kompromat in order to ensure he would perform, else the images be released. They were intended to prevent him from changing his mind as he sold his country out.
For starters, let's not act like the premise of Q doesn't have an inherent built-in expiration date. The falsifiability is if arrests never happen.
"Never happen by what date?" will come as hundreds of thousands of different answers coming from each individual who is following Q and is something you won't have much influence over.
It's a moot question to me, because I've already allotted for the possibility that Q isn't real and that factor is already baked in the cake.
There's no imperative to be convinced. If arrests happen you'll understand and Q will have served its purpose, if they don't then belief in Q will diminish and you will have received your conditions for Q being falsifiable.
Respectfully, are you sure you want to commit to that assertion so completely?
Every day or so, I see posts from non-handshake accounts expressing a desire for public arrests. Why public? If private can accomplish the mission, and it already seems to be the way Q is going with McCain and possibly others, then what is the point of streaming the proof on television?
You haven't seen these comments asking for some sort of vindication? Perhaps you don't need it, but do you feel that comfortable suggesting that members of the Q movement have "no motivation whatsoever" to enjoy the schadenfreude of the "I told you so" moment of the Storm and the sudden confirmed, public elevation to expert on current events?
If they know that some assassin intends to kill them and permanently destroy their legacy unless they get that car fixed?
Yeah, I'd say that's pretty stupid. :)
I have plenty of interest in figuring this stuff out, and I am under no threat whatsoever from Q's success. If Q is actually releasing information that is confirmed as proving knowledge of the Cabal's plans, the Cabal would know that better than anyone, since they're the ones making the plans.
They'd be the ones freaking out over deltas, because unlike me, they can actually confirm their own involvement in the events those deltas are targeting.
So yes, I would very much say that if there is any legitimacy to Q whatsoever, this Cabal would know it better than any of you. And they'd be more interested than any of you in getting to the bottom of it. And they'd have far more resources to do so than anyone around here, unless one of our users has a very interesting secret. :)
I would respectfully suggest that if you are constantly dismissing the capacity for people to act illogically, then I am not surprised that Q is the only way to make sense of the world.
People are dumb. Criminals get caught leaving behind evidence all the time, especially sexual predators who need to keep trophies for their memories.
I don't know if Biden is guilty of the accusations that Q people make around here, but if you're going to assume that criminality corresponds with carefulness or intelligence, then I would definitely take a step back and reevaluate. The vast majority of criminals are caught because they did something stupid to incriminate themselves.
Eh, kind of.
But it's up to each and every individual to decide when arrests haven't happened, isn't it? That's kind of the issue.
The Q movement as a whole is non-falsifiable, because there is no way to prove that arrests haven't happened or will never happen. There's always a chance that disinformation was necessary, and that it's just a longer delta than we thought.
Which means the falsifiable condition is, "when enough individuals get sick of waiting and hit some personal, gut-related arbitrary deadline." Which isn't really falsifiable, as far as the entire philosophy goes.
That's why I've always been interested in this question. If I'm wrong, it's loud, obvious, and undeniable.
If you are, nobody is ever going to prove it. This movement just decays one person at a time, and nobody ever really has to recognize it.
I struggle to differentiate that mechanic with the death of a religion. The condition is only falsifiable on one direction. In the other direction, we're just waiting for believers to lose faith on their own accord. They weren't proven wrong. They just give up.
Most researchable fields are falsifiable through the presentation of evidence countering it, not through the researchers eventually getting bored of waiting for someone else to prove them right.
As a note, I'll state openly that I'm not a child and won't consider retiring this conversation as a "forfeit" by either side. If you think we've milked this conversation as far as we can, then I'm happy to touch base with you the next time we both find a topic interesting to talk about. I don't like accidentally trapping people in discussions.
But I'm always happy to keep talking as long as you think we have something to talk about.
There's two misconceptions in your above statement. The first one, that ego is the only reason for public arrests, and the second one is that public arrests would even necessarily need be associated with Q.
Take for instance the 2000+ mules. If a bulk majority of them were arrested, wouldn't that provide the non-ego-related benefit that future potential mules would stop because the risk is too high?
And if the 2000+ mules were arrested, why would anyone even tie it to Q rather than just say it was Dinesh D'Souza who caused all the arrests to happen?
I can't speak for others but I can give you many reasons people would want public arrests that have nothing to do with "I told you so".
And lastly, public arrests aren't publicly going to be associated with Q. If Durham leads to the arrest of thousands of individuals, Durham will be publicly credited for the arrests.
In other words, some imaginary nerd sitting in their mother's basement, outcast by his family because he dove too deeply into Q, hoping and praying for confirmation to be accepted by his family again ... is going to be disappointed when the arrests happen, because they won't even be attributed to Q.
"Know it better than any of you". People around here are extremely confused, myself included.
If the cabalists know more than I do, that isn't saying much. I thought Trump was going to win in 2020. I thought arrests would have happened by now. I don't even know if the new Q posts are from the Q team. It's 100% fog of war right now.
The thing I'm mostly certain of is that military intelligence and Trump are coordinating and have vaguely stated that they are addressing the situation and that the bad guys will be arrested.
That knowledge and all the proofs associated with it aren't actionable intel that the enemy can do anything with.
And to be clear, I cringe when anyone posts statements of fact like they know what's going on behind the scenes, as though they have an insider connection.
Put yourself in Hunter's head. A laptop, with every email you've ever made in the last decade filled with incriminating evidence. Photos of you having sex with minors, even incest. Information that would absolutely cause your entire family to crash and burn.
And you leave it at a repair place and forget about it.
It went from the most valuable communication asset (he wrote or read over 128k emails that span over a decade if I remember properly), with a complete log of his decadence with photos of him having sex with minors ... to something he just forgot about? I don't see that being the most probable explanation.
In the hypothetical future where arrests never happen, the only one who will care whether they were proven wrong or gave up is probably just you.
I'm abbreviating a bit, because there are some points that I feel you've sufficiently explained, and I'm just looking to understand your perspective, not dismantle it. So thank you explaining anything I don't address.
Well, I don't feel that I am, at least not "extremely". None of Trump's actions, including his stance on vaccination, requires me to assume theater. It seems readily predictable by assuming that Donald Trump denies the existence of problems he can't solve, and then assuming he would readily and happily take credit for the solution (the vaccine) once it became available to him.
It's possible all the bickering, all the alleged mistakes, all the betrayals, all the things that didn't go Trump's way are just ways to make the Cabal expend ammo. But quite literally, the only unpredictable thing Trump has ever done was win the 2016 election. From that point onward, I struggle to think of any time Trump's strategy was a mystery to me.
Trump might be a master at playing to the narrative, but it's also possible the narrative exists because Trump's behavior establishes a predictable pattern to those who don't see him as a genius with a Plan.
Do you have a lot of experience hanging out with hardcore drug addicts?
I have. I know a man who tried to sell his own child for drug money. And worse, for that matter. Drugs can make people crazy, make people forget, make people careless. No question that "leaving behind a laptop full of damning evidence" is the behavior of a drug addict. Drug addicts get arrested by calling the police on someone who stole their drugs.
Well, I will care, because I'm not entirely sure what happens with you guys if the future you believe saves us from a world that is utterly catastrophic never happens. Because that means that you're living in a world that is utterly catastrophic. That's a lot of suffering for me to ignore, regardless of my motivations for caring.
So no, I don't think I'm the only one who would care. I hope not, at least.
In the beginning, before Trump won in 2016, I started following a guy named Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoons. He has his own issues, but what I gained from listening to him is that he's a professionally trained hypnotist who was an expert in various persuasion techniques.
He began breaking down Trump's speeches, tweets, interviews etc. and explained the persuasion power behind Trump's public interactions.
Scott Adams is highly against Q, and treats it like its far worse than BLM. But he considered Trump to be a master of persuasion. I think Trump's persona, which certainly can rub some people the wrong way, is highly calculated. His repetition and dumbed-down vocabulary serve a purpose. You can watch older videos of Trump where he is far more fluent and uses higher word choices. Knowing what to look for, I see the strategies, the pace-and-lead, the Sun Tzu (he even named his book similar to the Art of War).
"Denies the existence of problems he can't solve, happily taking credit for the solution" ... reads like you think he's a bumbling idiot with no strategy who just inexplicably stumbled into being elected president.
Trump was highly against vaccinations in the past. He knows his base better than anyone, and fully realizes how much we loathe forced vaccinations. He knows better than anyone how covid has completely destroyed our economy.
Why did he push it? I don't know for certain, but the "turn the sub into the torpedo to disarm it" sounds plausible to me. Medical tyranny is a worldwide coordinated phenomenon (implying there is a coordinating cabal and it not just being 10's of 1000's of individual criminals). If it was going to happen anyway, perhaps the best strategy was to have it happen under his oversight so there's a limit to how destructive it could be.
You're framing Hunter as the worst kind of drug addict who is so debilitated that he cannot function in society. I don't think that's accurate.
It's clear he was a high performing bagman for his father, who flew around the world collecting money on Joe's behalf for at least a decade. He wouldn't be capable of that if he were as bad as you framed him.
I think you already described what happens. " In the other direction, we're just waiting for believers to lose faith on their own accord. They weren't proven wrong. They just give up."
If Trump's 2nd term comes and goes and Hillary is never actually arrested or any other significant happenings in terms of justice with trafficking, I personally will simply focus more on the local level and ignore the more global problems that are apparently unfixable.
The only reason I continue is because your points are plausible. I don't deny they are possible, I just don't think they're probable. You don't strike me as a concern troll and I don't get offended at people who merely see things differently.
If you have any other questions I don't mind answering.