Better Question is how was this loon able to Legally acquire such a weapon and ammo? How Exactly was he able pass through Illinois strict gun registration system , all the while being on a law enforcement Watchlist??
Because this is obviously an exposure op revealing their fake shooting playbook. Freemason faggotron "fraternal order" losers who pass off these fake exercises as real events are shitting their pants right now. How many take the easy way out?
Because their is no real progressive movement.
It’s a fake movement that is really the arm of the 3 letter agencies. Their supporters are being used and they don’t know it.
How can these unemployed scrawny shitbags get new FBI issued AR15s and all the 5.56 ammo they need? It’s bullshit. First off where can you get free 5.56 besides the FBI?
well, here is a deleted social media posting of his that claims he is a product of MK-Ultra and he is a Liberal, maybe all Libs are MK-Ultra victims? as such, he would be an FBI asset.
They have the education system, the TV programming, and pharmaceutical industries to all do their part, to prepare the ones susceptible to it from many angles.
They have a huge field of mostly prepped individuals that they can pull from for the rest of their programming.
This folder or file was reported to contain objectionable content such as Child Exploitation Material, Violent Extremism, or Bestiality. The link creators account has been closed and their full details, including IP address, have been provided to the authorities.
The way that they have been able to nuke everything from every single platform big or small in concert shows that there is a very small group of people moderating almost every website and file hosting site on the entire internet.
Crimo has ties to the Democratic Socialists of America as noted by the tattoo on his neck.
I’m looking hard at that picture. I might see roses, but I don’t see the logo for the DSA. Need a better way picture than the one they provided.
So the police were supposed to report that he had a rose tattoo, and the DSA also uses roses in its iconography, and therefore, he could be a leftist?
Crimo also has ties to Antifa. In one picture on social media, he shares his dark Antifa outfit.
Note that the “dark Antifa outfit” is a helmet with a black balaclava. This isn’t an Antifa uniform any more than it’s a SWAT uniform. It’s what literally anyone who wants to protect their face from both identification and glass bottles would wear. Saying, “only Antifa covers their face with tactical gear” seems like an enormous stretch.
So the police were supposed to announce that this guy was probably Antifa because he was wearing a ski mask and helmet in a picture once? That’s a connection to leftism?
He makes fun of Trump and his followers in his social media posts. Crimo attended a Trump event dressed up as ‘Where’s Waldo’ outfit. This appears to be sarcasm and an attack on President 45
That doesn’t sound like he’s making fun of Trump. It sounds like he’s highlighting that there are so many diverse people at a Trump rally that it looks like a Where’s Waldo book.
So the police were supposed to announce that he might be a leftist because he showed up in a silly costume to a Trump rally?
His social media posts appear as if he wants to kill President 47.
So the “47” meaning Trump in his art would mean that this alleged Antifa guy believes Trump is/will be the 47th POTUS, which seems like a weird thing for Antifa to be depicting. And if he wanted to threaten Trump with a number, 45 is a number that Trump already had and would make immensely more sense.
I would bet dollars to donuts that 47 is a reference to the Hitman games, where you assassinate bad guys as Agent 47. Just a guess, but one far more in line with Occam’s Razor here.
Crimo’s work is also very dark. He uses an icon throughout his social media. This icon comes from ‘mystic set with magic circles, pentagrams and imaginary chakras symbols. Collection of icons with witchcraft and occult handwriting letters.’
This is the “occult” symbol. Take a close look at the actual patch in the picture, and compare it to the symbol GP wants you to believe it’s referencing.
Yes but You missed a big piece - the ‘47’ is often a C-A marker. Miles mathis does a nice little blurb about the shooting you can read at the end of this article:
Just looked - he said he tacked it onto the end after the paper was published. Look towards bottom of p2 he says he held onto it and added it on the fourth or fifth so I think it’s not like a ‘precognition’ or anything just added later
You said that "47 is often a CIA marker" and then provided this article as evidence. I read it. All I found supporting your assertion was this:
Note the number 47 on his head, telling us he is CIA. 1947 is year one of the CIA.
So the argument is that because the CIA was formed in 1947, the number "47" must refer to the CIA. And because this number refers to the CIA, the number "47" being tattooed on this shooter must indicate he is a CIA-brainwashed false flag being used by the Cabal.
Is this the full argument, or did I miss something?
I don't see any further discussion on the subject in this source. I looked around the website, but this guy has been writing about conspiracy stuff since at least 2004 and has thousands of essays, which do not appear readily searchable. So if there is some other information you meant for me to read, you'll need to help me find it.
Yeah it’s buried in one of the other essays I’m sure. Maybe he is wrong I think he could be but I noticed the 47 and it has come up before. Keep your eye out for it and see if you notice a pattern
What ever his personal goals were, he is a totally messed up person. That one "music vid" came off as a twisted cry for help, what is that black and white symbol in it btw? He as well has that symbol in his room next to mirror. From the video seems to be along the lines of hypnosis and crazy town thoughts and knowing he is separated from himself (dont know his meds but, do know that is how I felt while on anti depressants for a short time years ago though, not violent, just NOT MYSELF. hated it.) People are too much focused on rather he was left or right politically but, for all we know he is just a satanic anarchists that hates all of it.
Zeitreise, can you please explain how it's not equally possible that mentally unhealthy people, including violent ones, might have a therapist because... they're mentally unhealthy?
Is it, at least, equally possible?
How is this not bread-and-butter correlation error? "Shark attacks and ice cream sales", and all that?
I have a hard time imagining something less suspicious than people with mental health problems seeing mental health professionals, even if that treatment sometimes doesn't prevent tragedy (since successfully-treated people don't commit mass shootings, and therefore don't end up in the news).
Although I know this may be controversial around here, given how Q people typically view medical professions, but there may be another reason that so many people with oncologists die of cancer than "oncologists are giving their patients cancer."
So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.
“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”
He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.
What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.
He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.
As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.
But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.
There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”
The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.
Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.
This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”
That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.
Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?
Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?
Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?
Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.
In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.
I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.
It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.
I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.
Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.
I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
The world used to have ZERO logic in it because of the lack of a system with logical gates and values.
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
Communist. Satanist. How many fucking times do we have to tell you this?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?
Better Question is how was this loon able to Legally acquire such a weapon and ammo? How Exactly was he able pass through Illinois strict gun registration system , all the while being on a law enforcement Watchlist??
Clown Delivery Service 🤡
Because this is obviously an exposure op revealing their fake shooting playbook. Freemason faggotron "fraternal order" losers who pass off these fake exercises as real events are shitting their pants right now. How many take the easy way out?
🤣😂😆
u/#topkek
Kid could pass as Podestas little bastard
Because their is no real progressive movement. It’s a fake movement that is really the arm of the 3 letter agencies. Their supporters are being used and they don’t know it.
How can these unemployed scrawny shitbags get new FBI issued AR15s and all the 5.56 ammo they need? It’s bullshit. First off where can you get free 5.56 besides the FBI?
well, here is a deleted social media posting of his that claims he is a product of MK-Ultra and he is a Liberal, maybe all Libs are MK-Ultra victims? as such, he would be an FBI asset.
That would explain a LOT. https://mega.nz/folder/5so0HYYQ#aJKcF8MGoAw33TfXHgZM2A/file/xhYikbYL
https://mega.nz/folder/5so0HYYQ#aJKcF8MGoAw33TfXHgZM2A
There are an awful lot of liberals. The CIA doesn't have enough manpower to perform that many successful MK Ultras.
But they do.
They have the education system, the TV programming, and pharmaceutical industries to all do their part, to prepare the ones susceptible to it from many angles.
They have a huge field of mostly prepped individuals that they can pull from for the rest of their programming.
Sorry, I meant to download and re-up to another archive, Mega doesn't usually censor it's content.
I never saw any of the subject matter that is being alleged, it's just empty lies.
perhaps another Anon may have d/loaded the content?
The way that they have been able to nuke everything from every single platform big or small in concert shows that there is a very small group of people moderating almost every website and file hosting site on the entire internet.
Why? You know why. They are the party of death and hatred, but don't want too many normies to figure it out.
Let’s see what information is apparently being suppressed, according to the article they reference with their accusations.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-exclusive-information-uncovered-overnight-shows-highland-park-shooter-bobby-crimo-tied-socialists-progressives-antifa-occult/
I’m looking hard at that picture. I might see roses, but I don’t see the logo for the DSA. Need a better way picture than the one they provided.
So the police were supposed to report that he had a rose tattoo, and the DSA also uses roses in its iconography, and therefore, he could be a leftist?
Note that the “dark Antifa outfit” is a helmet with a black balaclava. This isn’t an Antifa uniform any more than it’s a SWAT uniform. It’s what literally anyone who wants to protect their face from both identification and glass bottles would wear. Saying, “only Antifa covers their face with tactical gear” seems like an enormous stretch.
So the police were supposed to announce that this guy was probably Antifa because he was wearing a ski mask and helmet in a picture once? That’s a connection to leftism?
That doesn’t sound like he’s making fun of Trump. It sounds like he’s highlighting that there are so many diverse people at a Trump rally that it looks like a Where’s Waldo book.
So the police were supposed to announce that he might be a leftist because he showed up in a silly costume to a Trump rally?
So the “47” meaning Trump in his art would mean that this alleged Antifa guy believes Trump is/will be the 47th POTUS, which seems like a weird thing for Antifa to be depicting. And if he wanted to threaten Trump with a number, 45 is a number that Trump already had and would make immensely more sense.
I would bet dollars to donuts that 47 is a reference to the Hitman games, where you assassinate bad guys as Agent 47. Just a guess, but one far more in line with Occam’s Razor here.
This is the “occult” symbol. Take a close look at the actual patch in the picture, and compare it to the symbol GP wants you to believe it’s referencing.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Bobby-Crimo-Occult-icon.jpg
Not quite the same. It’s missing some details, isn’t it? Most notably, there is no cross in the middle.
Now compare it to the logo for Suomen Sisu, a far right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalist organization.
https://www.suomensisu.fi/introduction-to-suomen-sisu-english/
Now that looks like a much better match to me. Anyone else?
When you hear hoof beats, it’s probably not a zebra.
If you assume every shooting is a false flag, planted operative, you WILL find evidence to support that. Verify, THEN trust, not the other way around.
Yes but You missed a big piece - the ‘47’ is often a C-A marker. Miles mathis does a nice little blurb about the shooting you can read at the end of this article:
http://mileswmathis.com/new1.pdf
Why is this dated four days before the shooting occurred?
Just looked - he said he tacked it onto the end after the paper was published. Look towards bottom of p2 he says he held onto it and added it on the fourth or fifth so I think it’s not like a ‘precognition’ or anything just added later
Ah, I see it.
You said that "47 is often a CIA marker" and then provided this article as evidence. I read it. All I found supporting your assertion was this:
So the argument is that because the CIA was formed in 1947, the number "47" must refer to the CIA. And because this number refers to the CIA, the number "47" being tattooed on this shooter must indicate he is a CIA-brainwashed false flag being used by the Cabal.
Is this the full argument, or did I miss something?
I don't see any further discussion on the subject in this source. I looked around the website, but this guy has been writing about conspiracy stuff since at least 2004 and has thousands of essays, which do not appear readily searchable. So if there is some other information you meant for me to read, you'll need to help me find it.
Yeah it’s buried in one of the other essays I’m sure. Maybe he is wrong I think he could be but I noticed the 47 and it has come up before. Keep your eye out for it and see if you notice a pattern
Because they know that people WILL NOT believe that he is Pantifa, progressive, and occult.....and Republican at the same time.
Because the police and FEDS are NOT on our side and never have been. They take orders from there masters and obey.
Because he was created by Executive Order just like the FBI.
While they seem to have played up his presence at a Trump rally, supposedly.
As of today, 7/6, Mega has deleted the content, here is a commentary from The Truedefender.com which includes the title content.
https://thetruedefender.com/breaking-news-information-uncovered-overnight-shows-highland-park-shooter-is-linked-to-socialists-progressives-antifa-the-occult/
Someone posted a mega.nz link yesterday of a photo dump. Does anyone have the link? I cannot find it.
Mega have taken it down, which surprises me.
try this link for your "starter for 10"
https://thetruedefender.com/breaking-news-information-uncovered-overnight-shows-highland-park-shooter-is-linked-to-socialists-progressives-antifa-the-occult/
Why? Because he doesn't fit their preferred narrative, that's why.
Is that really a question?
Because he was an MK Ultra victim.
Obvio
What ever his personal goals were, he is a totally messed up person. That one "music vid" came off as a twisted cry for help, what is that black and white symbol in it btw? He as well has that symbol in his room next to mirror. From the video seems to be along the lines of hypnosis and crazy town thoughts and knowing he is separated from himself (dont know his meds but, do know that is how I felt while on anti depressants for a short time years ago though, not violent, just NOT MYSELF. hated it.) People are too much focused on rather he was left or right politically but, for all we know he is just a satanic anarchists that hates all of it.
Not a shred of evidence in TGP article.
I mean, yeah, let's get the truth, but unless I missed it in the sea of ads, TGP made claims, supplied no evidence, and published.
Zeitreise, can you please explain how it's not equally possible that mentally unhealthy people, including violent ones, might have a therapist because... they're mentally unhealthy?
Is it, at least, equally possible?
How is this not bread-and-butter correlation error? "Shark attacks and ice cream sales", and all that?
I have a hard time imagining something less suspicious than people with mental health problems seeing mental health professionals, even if that treatment sometimes doesn't prevent tragedy (since successfully-treated people don't commit mass shootings, and therefore don't end up in the news).
Although I know this may be controversial around here, given how Q people typically view medical professions, but there may be another reason that so many people with oncologists die of cancer than "oncologists are giving their patients cancer."
So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.
“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”
He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.
What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.
He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.
As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.
But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.
There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”
The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.
Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.
This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”
That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.
Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?
Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?
Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?
Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.
In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.
I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.
It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.
I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.
Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.
I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?