Nine hours ago, Elon Musk created a poll on Twitter. The poll says, ambiguously, Reinstate former President Trump Interesting choice of words? Subtle meanings? Let's apply some anonysense here.
Timeline - A Very Rough Overview of Some Data Points Worth Considering
February 2022
Truth Social boots up. q > Q account is revealed, Kash Patel shows he's hanging out with Q. "Oh, we're just having fun and you know, trolling the lamestream media".
April 2022
Musk bids for Twitter. Ruckus is created. Did such a ruckus draw MORE attention to Musks acquisition of Twitter, and twitter itself, or less?
May 2022
Folks on DJT's team start doing interviews with anon commentators, like X22, InTheMatrix, etc. Big hat tips to the anon / Q community. Increasing validation of Q.
June - October 2022
Twitter Ruckus increases. Battle. "Not gonna buy!" "No, you're gonna buy!" > Right before the Midterms: "Ok, I'll buy! You're fired!!!"
Musk acquires Twitter, begins kickings butts, doing a massive clearing.
DJT Team continues 'courting' anons and anon commentators. DJT starts using wwg1wga theme song at his rallies. Begins retruthing Q-related content more and more on TS.
Recognition of Q gradually increases.
November 2022
Just prior to Midterms, DJT announces the announcement. Nov 15.
November 8, Midterms take place. DS - MAGA war intensifies. Lots of dooming.
Nov 15 (speculation) DS drops false flag to divert away from DJT "announcement", DJT only announces 2024 run, DS backpedals false flag.
Following Midterms
Musk starts ramping up Twitter clearance, triggers massive layoffs and resignations from staff.
Just before or after Nov 15 (cannot verify as no access to TS, and qagg isn't helping), DJT re-truths recent Q drop "End the Endless"
Corrupt DOJ announces special counsel in to 'criminal activities' allegedly related to DJT. DJT declares he will NOT cooperate.
Seems like things are really heating up.
November 18, Musk posts poll "Reinstate former President Trump"
Are We On Track? How Can We Know?
If you consider even the very sparse collection of data points above, it should be obvious that something is going on, and that things are habbening.
For me, however, I consider our recent (and possibly ongoing) wave of doomerism is another signal that things are heating up.
I wrote about my own personal experience of this here
All the doomering we just went through - in my view, this is a VERY clear sign that the spiritual war is intensifying, and that we have just passed through a significant, major milestone. That doomering isn't merely psychological. It's also spiritual. Anyone who has experienced spiritual attack knows that a toxic mix of despair, fear, anxiety laced with lies or visions of doom are a staple weapon of the satanic realms. Purpose? To demoralize, to destroy.
In information warfare, the material aspect of information / propaganda etc, it used to facilitate such emotional experiences, reactions, shaping behavior that is destructive. But in essence, it's a spiritual attack.
Example: 2020-2021 Covid19 Psyop
Look at what was done to our entire populations with covid19 - it wasn't just psychological, but also spiritual (IMO).
People of faith especially understand this from experience. We know the devil sneaks up to you and whispers in your ear: "you're no good" "you are crap" "you are going to fail" God doesn't even love you" "your family doesn't love you" etc etc.
So how does the devil sneak up to the ears of a group? A community? A people? A population? What impact would it have? Answer: mass dooming. In the advanced stages, this becomes mass formation psychosis.
The Great Awakening is a war that is being waged in all dimensions: material, financial, economic, institutional, psychological, emotional, intellectual, spiritual.
So with that recent INTENSE wave of Dooming, do you think we are we on track, or what? I do. Over the target. The devil will hit you all the harder when you are over the target.
The Tweet, The Poll, The Concept, The Idea
And right now, Elon the Musk posts a tweet "Reinstate former President Trump"
Coincidence? Timing?
Technically, this is a statement, not a question. If it was a question, it would include a question mark (?).
"Reinstate former President Trump?"
If you know anything about hypnosis or NLP-like techniques, you can recognize the built-in ambiguity here, and ambiguity is a powerful tool for precipitating trance-like mental states. It does things to the mind. It opens doors, and pathways, and shuts down others.
On a conscious level, most people reading this, seeing this poll context, would go "oh, it's a poll about bringing DJT back to twitter". Which is what most people are responding to.
Some recognize, however, that the text itself is ambiguous. That ambiguity works on several levels.
- One, is this (really) about Twitter or is this actually about the White House (Presidency)?
Textually, ambiguous. The poll does NOT say what the reinstatement is to. People assume it's twitter, but is it? Ambiguous.
- On another level, more deeply, the ambiguity revolves around "is this a question, or is this a statement?"
If it's a question, then ostensibly, yes, it's simply a poll. But imagine if Musk just Tweeted this without the poll? What would it be saying?
It would be saying: "Reinstate former President Trump"
As in: Hey, United States! Reinstate former President Trump!!!
So which is it? Well, we don't know. It's ambiguous.But is that deliberate?
At the least, we can recognize here one aspect of how psychological operations work: even if people do not consciously realize it, on an unconscious level, the idea of, the very concept of, "reinstating Former President Donald Trump" somehow has now been imbedded in the thought processes of the audiences of this tweet. That's because an idea, once introduced, will often stay there until it is processed, removed, developed.
Example: Politician A debating another politician B
Politician A asks the question to his opponent, Politician B: "When did you stop beating your wife?" It is framed as a question "when did you stop?", but embedded in the question is a presupposition that B is beating his wife. And because the idea is embedded presupposition, it's harder to question or challenge it consciously.
IN the debate, B objects, and A withdraws the question. But now the concept, the idea of politician B beating his wife has been embedded in the psyche of the audience. It is there, as a seed, which potentially over time can germinate and grow. In the unconscious.
In my view, this is also how the Awakening happens. Long before an anon wakes up, God and the forces of good are constantly implanting ideas in the minds of people, ideas that germinate over time and grow until they break through the surface of the mind and emerge in the conscious realm.
The Matrix film illustrates this process when Morpheus says to Neo
“What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
So the idea of 'reinstating DJT' is now, on some level, either deliberately or accidentally (kek) being embedded into the thought processes of the twitter community and others around them. (Musk's tweet will genere waves of attention around the idea of "reinstatement" outside of Twitter as well. Just do a google search for the word "reinstate" and scroll down.
What's Going On Here?
Now, Musk is no dummy, right? According to reports/rumors, Musk is a highly functioning autist (on some level), right? If so, Musk HAS to be aware that his phrasing is ambiguous. If he is an autist, a thinking person, or a genius, he will have to be aware of this. To me, that implies that the choices are deliberate. How to further consider this?
It seems to me that in the context of everything that is going on over the last several months, and where we are today, there is a very real possibility that Musk is actually introducing the idea, the concept, of the reinstatement of Donald Trump to the presidency. He's doing it in a psyop type manner, creating a poll that is directly (and in my view, deliberately) embedding the language and the concept in the public square.
I mean, why else did Musk use that particular language? And what does "reinstate" actually mean?
reinstate /riːɪnˈsteɪt/ restore (someone or something) to their former position or state.
Why didn't Musk write something like:
Restore Former President Trump?
Unban Former President Trump?
Remove Ban From Former President Trump?
etc.
It's an interesting choice of words.
Ok, let's be devil's avocado for a minute.
Maybe this is merely a coincidence. Maybe Musk being the largest US gov contractor, Musk cozying up to Babylon Bee (Christian, conservative fun site), Musk acquiring Central DARPA CLOWN voice piece Twitter and flipping it on its head, the Storm intensifying for ALL - stakes getting higher, precipice looming, people and anons dooming, DJT doing a head fake throwing DOJ (and everyone else) off guard, triggering the DOJ to install a SC (he knew this was coming), and then Musk Tweeting the phrase "REINSTATE Former President Trump" are all just coincidences.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that devolution theory and anons have been hyper focused on "reinstating DJT" for the past 2 years and at this juncture, Musk posts for the entire twitterverse "reinstate".
Even IF it is a coincidence, heheh, it STILL embeds the idea of a Trump reinstatement. So, whether Musk did this consciously or unconsciously, it still serves the Plan as understood by Devolution Theory in a big way.
And, even IF it is a coincidence, it also functions as a marker for increased interaction between the awake anon thinking world and the normie thinking world. That interaction has been advancing more and more and more. Covid19 put the Great Awakening into a massive launch. The Collapse of Covid19 did it even more. The Lamestream Media has been unable to stop it, and Streisand Effect, only increased it, even as they attempt to 'debunk' and delegitimize Q.
So, no date fagging here. All I am saying is, that in the context of well, everything, this little tweet by musk seems kinda well, interdasting. Interdasting indeed, if you ask me.
But we'll have to wait and see. I mean, future proves past, right?
Either way, it seems to me like things are getting very spicy. So: ratchet up the memes, pedes. We go work to do!!!! Steady as she goes! WWG1WGA!
Q#4963
"Patriots in trusted positions. Trust yourself. You have seen the truth. Time to show the world."
Addendum
On the issue of the head fake, Praying Medic on Telegram writes this:
Let's analyze it logically:
Since Trump told us in advance the 2020 election would be stolen and it was, it logically follows that if he plans to return to the White House, it will be by a path other than another rigged election. Trump has no faith in that system.
But if he plans to make a surprise return, would you expect him (and his surrogates) to openly signal their plan to everyone?
Or would it be wiser to make everyone (including the deep state) think his path back to the White House will be another hard-fought, rigged election?
We're not going to get any clear, obvious statements from Trump or people close to him about the real plan to return.
We will however, get subtle confirmations through memes being re-truthed.
edit: typos
Great points all around - and I thought the same thing; the question he posed has a lot of room for other interpretation. Also, the last I checked it was 60/40 in favor of, which is what we have been told by Lindell and other election truth seekers, was around what Trump truly won by in 2020 (it actually may have been a little higher than that).
Great catch!
And remember, there are a LOT more globalist lefties on Twitter than Faithful patriot types. Many, many 'conservatives' were pushed way, and they might be coming back, but I would bet the globalist marxists are bigger in current numbers.
This is a vote to show the military that most of the country has woken up. The military could then use this to step in and do their thing.
It probably does a number of things, including:
Allows Elon to run a massive bot check to see the anti-Trump botty accounts more clearly
Embeds the idea of reinstatement in the public mind
Provides some clear gage or indication of where the public stands
If such speculations are correct, it's really a very good idea. Almost like, um, planned.
It's 52-48 now, the yes's have been on a steady slide for like the last 8 hours.
Are those the remaining bots chiming in?
Just like elections.
Double meaning of the poll. What you so elegantly described and to expose Bots that do the no vote. Smarter than me!
Just like Q said
u/#q2493
Where have we seen those numbers before🤣
Great stuff anon! You really nailed the implanting in the subconscious of the concept of reinstatement. It's inescapable now, whether they want to or not, people are thinking about President Trump being reinstated.
What's funny is, I never for a moment even thought of it meaning reinstate to Twitter until I read your thing. I automatically assumed it was the obvious, reinstate to the presidency. LOL
Kek. And yet, thou art not a normie, pede. Thou are... a frog. (Praise Heaven)
Devil's avocado? (Chuckle).
Read about 2/3rd of this (gotta run, will get back to it tonight) and agree with your perception of the poll so far (wording intentional, implanting the concept in people's minds, etc).
:D
I would never truly advocate for the Devil (except when he wishes to surrender). But avocado? Sure, anytime!
TL:DR - Go Vote!! Even if you hate Twitter, let’s get our beloved President the majority of what we all know is true.
Inception!
I can only read tweets as my account is permanently suspended. Vote is currently around 52% to reinstate. Get in a d vote if you can
I have two accounts. One for my real job and one for, well, you know… real life. I voted on both.
I'd like my original back, Il be following ur lead in meantime
I had my account suspended way back too. Recently I requested to be I suspended, and after a day, they let me know I was approved. Keep trying.
I’m thinking it may also be serving as a honeypot to catch bots voting on the poll.
Reckon there is probably that too!
Very well thought out post, fren. Thank you for this. Well put together and connections cited.
"Ok, let's play devil's avocado for a minute." Haha, that was cute. Made me chuckle.
:D
Thank you for laying everything out.
Brilliant assessment on all points!
Thank you Joys! I always appreciate your feedback and voice on the board.
Thanks fren!
This Twitter vote also seres the purpose to show the lefties that they are not the majority after spending years in the Twitter echo chamber thinking they are. This will hep take wind out of their sails to fight when he is reinstated because now they know they are the minority
Wow. Great point.
I love it.
Jeepers. This thing keeps getting better and better.
Regarding the poll, there’s a shit ton of people outside the US that we also need to account for + bots / alts. Wouldn’t be very valid imo.
Of course. However, it may also be a maneuver to catch bots, alts.
I was thinking about that this morning. Could twitter, for example, identify when X number of accounts all use the same IP address? Something like that? Not a techy, so I don't know, but imagine they have lots of different ways to see the bots.
The previous mob loved the bots.
I mean, being that Elon musk literally tweeted about watching the bots during the poll around 4am.. I don’t think it’s reach. Elon wasn’t going to decide Trump’s fate with a simple poll. Ofcourse it was nice to win but I’m sure they were analyzing a lot during that time. Hopefully good news follows. Also, how nice of musk to not only show Trump winning, but also re-instated on Biden’s birthday.
"I don't think it's reach"
I don't understand this. Do you mean, you don't think it's real?
My opinion, formulated on the basis of a number of things, but for which I do not have any hard and fast proof, is that Musk was not intending to decide the Trump fate with a simple poll, that the poll was likely conducted in order to achieve a number of different things, many of them strategic, and that Musk is very likely in collaboration with high level forces seeking to take down and destroy the Cabal.
https://media.greatawakening.win/post/HUadJovfQVxt.jpeg
You: “However, it may also be a maneuver to catch bots, alts.”
Me: “being that Elon musk literally tweeted about watching the bots during the poll around 4am.. I don’t think it’s reach”
I’m saying that it’s more than likely true. It can’t be a reach. “You’re reaching” Usually when people seem a little too far fetched, should I say? but not in this case. I’m pretty confident that Elon Musk had people overseeing activity during the time of that poll and if so, he should gathered a lot of intel.
I think you are right.
Saving this post to read again. Great work. I think the part I copied above is forgotten by a lot of people and they tend to just concentrate on the political side of things. People need to realize this is way more than just a change in leadership and a financial restructuring.
kek. I actually FORGOT to put "political". Doh!
With over 10 Million Votes Trump is at 52%. Also, I found it interesting that Elon posts Reinstate former President Trump. With Former not capitalized. But I think that is the correct structure for this sentence.
Do you mean you think "former" should have been capitalized?
I believe "former" is not part of his (or anyone's) official title, so it's correct for it to not be capitalized.
I think (not sure), that former presidents get to keep the title President, don't they? As in, Mr President? Dunno.
You forgot to mention that Elon launched this poll just a few days AFTER he cleaned house.
I was running out of character space!!! There's a limit on post size.
But you are 100% correct. In my original draft, I had that jotted down. But then I went back and refined the timeline stuff, to be more accurate and that got washed out.
The fact that the poll came after the big Twitter employee meltdown of '22 is interdasting and very likely quite relevant!
I won’t trust Musk until he unblocks these accounts:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6qIoYXQ/thousands-of-twitter-accounts-ar/
Hey, is anyone asking you to trust Musk?
We look at facts, actions, empirical data. We evaluate. We don't assign trust based on emotions or pre-concieved biases.
Of course, if you are saying that you don't trust Musk to run your twitter account in a fair and appropriate manner, by all means, don't trust.
But otherwise, WHAT would you be thinking to trust him with? Your savings? Your kids? Or... your emotions? Your expectations?
Another point I think is worth considering that Rome wasn't built in a day. Don't you think that after 15+ years of Clown control over Twitter, that it might take more than 3 weeks to clear things up and get it running differently?
I do. I mean, let's have realistic expectations. But either way, you don't need to 'trust' Musk. Just observe.
I got your point and I can partially agree, e.g. if you limit the world to Twitter only.
Looking at other people here - the answer to your question is: it’s about expectations.
No trust means: even if this avenue is making some progress “no trust” means: assume it will fail or betray and plan and action accordingly / don’t rely on that one avenue only.
My comment comes with a context when G20 countries have already decided to move on and implement covid passports for travels, so they’re progressing their agenda and we cannot wait for Musk playing his role, acting like hi is on board with Q but not activating mail accounts posted by Q.
“Just observe” is like asking for … “2 more weeks”. If your intention was “ … when it comes to Musk, but don’t give up other battlefields”, then we’re aligned.
I shared by opinion “no trust” so others can compare with theirs and see how many people think the same.
All good. I guess i kind of react when pedes on the board say "I don't trust X" or "I don't trust Y" etc. particularly when it is coupled with "without N condition".
It's just really far outside my thinking and my approach. I can observe what Elon is doing. Does it affect my work in the war? Not really.
Just observe is NOT like asking for (who is asking?) or saying "two more weeks". Just observe = just see what others are doing, but do not alter your own work, approach or stance based on what they do or don't do. Don't make them a deciding factor in how or what you contribute.
I guess the thought of 'relying on one avenue only' is just so far from my thought processes that I find it hard to imagine. But again, rely for what?
Not to sound too harsh, but if you are waiting on anyone or anything, I think you have missed the point of Q. As if "Oh, I have to run for or keep my local school council in check, but Hey, Elon Musk bought twitter and is going to fix everything, so now I don't have to! I can wait, and do nothing!" I mean, that's what it seems to me that the whole "I don't trust N" headspace is coming from for me, often times.
If someone could confirm to you 100% that Musk is united with and cooperating with Q team, how would you behavior or actions change? I really do NOT think that mine would in any way, so I'm wondering why its an issue.
In short (my view) each of us has to do what we have to do. We need to make choices and decisions based on how we perceive the world and what is going on. But N's responsibility and Y's responsibility do NOT affect my responsibility. So whether I trust N or Y is immaterial. To see things otherwise, then yes, you do things like "just wait".
Whew. That took some effort to digest your syntax, but I think we're there.
I mean, that's what I mean. I don't see the need for trust in order to engage. There is someone I trust, and that is DJT. But Regardless of what DJT does or doesn't do, I still have to take care of MY family, MY country, MY responsibilities. No one else on the macro battlefield really comes close in terms of the 'trust" issue for me.
I guess I think there is a problem with the way some people "trust" others, by which they really mean, I am going to accept an expectation that THIS person/entity will take care of MY problems. Seems very disempowering to me.
Anyway, that's just my view. There's only so much we can really understand about others via text communications on a board.
A flip side is this: I trust Lin Wood, for example. I trust that Lin Wood is going to do whatever he can to undermine the Freedom movement. It's not that I distrust Wood. I trust him, to be a completely bad player. So, then, I would not trust anything he says or his motives for doing anything. But that's a negative thing. It means I avoid him.
I think Reagan had a good approach. "Trust, but verify". Anyway.
Thank you for sharing your view. I think that's important.
If you read again the only 1 line I posted you will notice the condition:
Other than that - looking at your detailed comment above - we both seem to agree that Musk and Twitter should be considered one of many areas to look at and our fate shouldn’t depend on this hopium so I’m glad to see you think the same.
Exactly. You coupled "I won't trust Elon .... until (without) condition N"
That's what I'm saying. It almost implies that if Elon DOES to N, you WILL trust him, which to my mind is ALSO a false approach. You don't NEED to trust Elon at all, in any thing. Let Elon be Elon, and do what You need to do.
That said, I think we are in some basic agreement. Yet, to be honest, I have a critical view of some practices I see among some anons. That's what I'm reacting to here. (sorry, but I do.)
Allow me to sum up my view re: hopium.
https://media.greatawakening.win/post/H0UW5XF9.png
I don't do hopium. I do hopermectin.
Hopium is like a narcotic. Not good. Antithetical to the Q approach, imo.
Hopium is not faith. It's pseudo-faith.
https://greatawakening.win/p/140vaJGjfd/turn-off-the-hopium-ingest-the-h/
The whole "anon's" interaction with, or digestion of, hopium is problematic from my viewpoint. It perfectly illustrates a condition where anons are NOT applying Q's methods of using logical thinking, expanded thinking, empirical data and information. It's like drunk driving as opposed to cautious but urgent driving.
Mature faith means faith with understanding. If you're fixating or ingesting hopium, it means you need to grow more and become more robust.
I know that not everyone is there. We're all at different points in the journey. And, yes, in the difficult moments between Nov 3 and Jan 30, I ingested lots of hopium. But after a 4-month hangover, I realized: Hopium is crack. Hopermectin works with your mental and spiritual system to reinforce your natural immunity to doom.
(Hopermectin is raw useable data and verifiable/ reliable information that contributes to understanding the situation. Hopium is data and information that is not only unreliable, its data/info that triggers your emotional reaction systems because your system is low on fact-based faith. All mature faith is based on understanding.)
I think there is a strong connection between the "trust/distrust" practice and hopium ingestion. Hopium fosters distrust in the long run. Hopermectin is better!
IMO.
hth
Sorry to go on so much. But I think these points are worth making.
wwg1wga
Me:
You:
Why you’re injecting “without” into my sentence if you can see it clearly that the condition is there? ” … until (condition)”.
I don’t have to form my sentence using IF … THEN …
Free speech isn’t a programming language.
The last thing:
Logic doesn’t work this way. A=> B doesn’t mean B=>A, so no worries, I won’t stop if he does B.
Feels like a lot of fiddle faddle. There is some serious cross-purposes talking going on here (meaning neither of us is getting what the other is saying because we are focused on different things).
But anyway, I put (without) behind "until" to indicate that the until fills the same function (in my view) that "without" does in my original statement, quoted below.
"I kind of react when pedes on the board say "I don't trust X" or "I don't trust Y" etc. particularly when it is coupled with "without N condition"
What I was saying is that when someone expresses the view that "I won't/don't/can't trust P until he does/unless he does/without him doing Y...." I find that approach objectionable. In other words, when the viewpoint is expressed that the trust will only be forthcoming on some sort of condition that purported person or group has to fulfill.
It's that attaching some condition to the giving or withholding of trust that personally, I think indicates something else going on. Some sort of attachment.
I think you then misunderstood my comment after that, highlighting that you DID have some condition (aka "unless")!!! Seems like you thought I was saying you did not attach some condition to your I won't trust....", but I was in fact emphasizing that point, that you attach some condition!!!!
Crossed wires!
But whatever. Maybe that means nothing to you. It doesn't really need to. It looks like I failed in being able to communicate or express my thinking in a way that you can understand or relate to. Not saying the failure is yours or mine. Just that the wavelength appears to have not been accomplished.
”That's what I'm saying. It almost implies that if Elon DOES to N, you WILL trust him.”
Er? huh? you may think logic doesn't work that way, but human communication does!!!
"I won't go out until it stops raining!!!" A perfectly normal, coherent sentence of communication in everyday normal English. And, it implies I WILL go out if it stops raining.
I said what you wrote "almost implies". If you think it doesn't ok. I disagree.
I think we can leave it there. It seems pretty clear that this exchange is not very productive. I'm not suggesting, implying or stating that you have to form your sentences in any way whatsoever. Please don't draw such an inference!
I have merely been attempting to discuss some of the thought structures and ideas that to me, your writing is expressing, and to communicate some of the thoughts I have around that, and the topics that were raised by your comment.
But I think we can scratch this one up to: <no common wavelength>
And if that's my fault, I'm sorry for that.
Thanks for commenting to the post originally! And thanks for being on the board!
best of luck with everything, fren. Maybe we'll have better luck if there is a next time.
From my understanding of God's Word, the Bible, GOD alone gets to decide judgment and punishment for a nation and He alone gets to decide to affect it or withdraw it in mercy.
We pray for strength and endurance and His presence with us as we go through it. And He provides according to His will.
Did I misunderstand what I read?
You correctly understood me and affirmed what I said regarding judgment. God decides, executes, and we discern and speak about it. Perhaps you did not verbalize or address our ability to recognize it, but your comment demonstrates you understand the difference, which is what I elaborated on in my original comment.
Almost nothing Biblical is provable. Hence one is forced to rely on faith that the assortment of Middle Eastern men who actually wrote the various books were all telling the God's honest truth, the whole time, without exception. The greater one's degree of faith in that which can be neither seen nor proven, the more effectively one can pull off that feat.
For those who believe.
There is a difference between drawing conclusions about Satan and dooming, and historically/theologically accurate things that can be proven. For instance, saying, “Satan uses dooming against the anon community and Q team” is an example of something that is uncharacteristic of Satan. Does Satan cause doubt? Yes. Doubt in and about God (Genesis, Adam, Eve, the fall). Human beings are otherwise intimately responsible for their hearts, thoughts, words, and deeds (and doubts). Again, yes, Satan can and does cause doubt, but it is an overreach to equate human engineered predictions/theories/desires regarding Trump and his team, their resulting failures that lead to our doubt, and dooming, and then equate that with doubting assurance of salvation, or blinding people from the gospel by way of religion and doubt etc (things provable by the Word of God). Doubting the plethora of devolution theories is not an example of how Satan operates via doubt against God and His Word.
On the other hand, archeological discoveries corroborate Scripture, which concludes that things happened the way the Bible says (Scripture comports with reality). The Bible is historically accurate and much is provable, which is how God determined it would be. That very thing is what God has used to draw historians and skeptics to himself, hence Lee Strobel and countless others. Unfortunately, people like Flavius Josephus lived to see the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. but still is the most credible historian. Did Satan use doubt and religion to blind him from the gospel? Yes. But again, that’s not the same as creating the argument of dooming and then forcing Satan to fit into that scenario to further the patriotic cause. Using Satan as a crutch to justify why people doom about wild theories removes and disregards reality, how things unfold, and the natural responses to those things… and just chalks it up to “oh, that’s just the devil.”
God never promised a human institution would save the world (especially in the devolutionary context). Additionally, God does not say our nation will prevent His judgment from falling on our nation or any other nations (judgment, broadly, being a concept provable and obvious, especially regarding the U.S, Israel, and other nations).
I’m sorry, but slapping a “mustard seed faith” on the DoD LOW, Q team, and the plan to save the world is invalid. Furthermore, doing all that for the mere sake of arguing against dooming (as some seem to do) is a massive waste of time and misuse of Scripture and faith all together.
....which is an overreach that YOU created, not I. (I never equated these things.)
You have misunderstood what I wrote. You have applied your own existing worldview/scripturalview and interpreted what I wrote inside that bubble, and in the process, both missed what I was saying and created a false concept about what I WAS saying. Which you then proceed to argue against! A pharisee technique if ever I saw one!
If you have never counselled someone in despair, or a teenager whose life is full of tragic experiences and who wants to commit suicide, then perhaps you simply cannot understand the point that the Devil is the father of despair.
I think you have completely misunderstood everything that I wrote, and the stance from which I wrote it.
But given our handle, I suspect that you actually see yourself as some kind of prophet, and are NOT open to the possibility that you have actually misunderstood what I wrote. Am I right?
That statement of mine was used as an analogy, speaking to the original issue of dooming about putting faith in man being the work of the devil versus real biblical doubt in God. That is the overreach I was referring to. Merely dooming in response to the failures of Trump and every other human, president, administration, cabal, etc., is not the same as the satanic influence of real doubt. That was my point because that was what I gleaned from your post. If I incorrectly believed you were saying dooming regarding humans/administrations etc., is the work of Satan, then I acknowledge my faulty perception of what you meant.
Thank you for the cordial reply. It is appreciated.
Perhaps I can clarify somewhat my thoughts on the matter.
I'm come back to this later today.
Of course, sir. I also want to be sure I’m understanding people (especially since it is a dark time for me and many as of late). Sleep will soon come and I’ll find your reply in the morning.
I think there are a multitude of different presuppositions between us that create very different interpretations, not only of scripture, or terms of expression, but also of events.
I think it is perfectly fine to disagree, and to agree to disagree. However, in the case of a multitude of differing presuppositions (such that the starting point for appraisal, aka worldview), it will very often be the case that there is such a difference in viewpoint (vantage point) that no real agreement or even disagreement will be possible, because (we) are looking at and talking about very different things.
For example, attempting to discuss the Plandemic issues from an anon viewpoint with a normie person often cannot proceed at all because the two vantage points are so radically different that the normie cannot even grasp what you are saying, and ends up denying it all because he has to CREATE an interpretation that he can conceive, and interpretation of what you are saying that is radically different from what you are actually saying.
I hope that makes sense.
So I think that rather than attempting to pin down whether there is even agreement or disagreement here, the more pressing necessity is to learn to identify our differing concepts, definitions, and language.
Let's start here: "Dooming about putting faith in man being the work of the devil"
As far as I can tell, I neither thought nor expressed that "dooming about putting faith in man" is the work of the devil.
I don't think we even have the same idea of "dooming". By dooming, I mean something like "experiencing an overwhelm of negative emotions causing faith or trust or belief to evaporate or slide out of reach". I would draw a strong distinction between that on the one hand and a) feeling discouraged, disappointed or despondent, which are natural and healthy responses in my view, and b) applying critical thinking and being critical of perceived failures, flaws or faults.
In this sense, to me, "dooming" means "responding or reacting to overwhelming or overpowering negative feelings such that one embraces a negative vision being promoted (by either a worldy presence or a spiritual presence)".
Example: Trump didn't deliver a big Q announcement! Oh, no! Shit. It's all false then. We're never going to get out of this! We are screwed! Trump is a failure! The United States is going to fall!
To me, that's an example of "dooming"?
It is worth noting, I think that I very likely do not share your concept of, or interpretation of scripture that, the nations are doomed and that the destruction of our nation's is a result of judgment by God. (That's what I got from your previous comment.)
I think our two views of what God's judgment is, how it is exacted, in what way, are very likely very different. Possibly, also how we view God as working through the world, both through the spiritual realms and angelic world, and also through His instruments on earth.
Anyway, for the record, My faith and belief is that judgment is and has been falling for many decades now, that the purpose of God's judgment is to separate the wheat from the chaff, such that the chaff suffer the unavoidable consequences of their choices, while the wheat are maintained, upheld and protected by God, and used to further His work.
So, putting aside whether we actually have the same concept of what dooming is, I never said that 'dooming' in response to failures by Trump or others is the same as satanic influence attempting to break someone's faith in God. They may overlap, but I do not think they are the same, unless someone responded to the current situation in this way: "Damn. I believed in Trump because I believe in God, and I can see now that Trump is a failure, so I must conclude that God does not exist!"
I think tho, that the core of misperception here is that we have two entirely different views of what exactly "dooming" is in the context of my post. Obviously, my post was written from the vantage point of what I mean by "dooming", not what you mean by "dooming", if indeed there is variance in how we see "dooming".
Thank you for elaborating on the issue more. This was helpful. It may very well be that we have differing views on eschatology, the extent of Satan’s authority and operation, God’s providential working in and through His creation and creatures and the subject of dooming. Personally, my study habits and learning were Berkhof, Grudem, MacArthur, and a multitude of others writings on Systematic Theology, and this is just to share some perspective and background on what helped shaped my understanding and lay the foundation for my Christian beliefs on various subjects on which the Bible speaks. Initially, I perceived your post as equating 2 mutually exclusive realities, as I see them. That was my error it seems. My apologies,
Although I’m not convinced faith in God and salvation can cease to exist (per the analogy you used: Trump failure = non-existence of God), as the scenario and context of my argument is based solely on the Christian biblical worldview (a genuine believer wrestling with the subject of dooming), I think I understand you’re drawing the distinction between faith in man and faith in God. I’m not necessarily saying you believe faith or salvation can be lost (as Scripture reveals God loses none of His own/His sheep)… Perhaps the analogy and quote slightly overstep the line to make the point very clear. Nevertheless, that clears things up and I’m appreciative of you taking the time to explain further. Much appreciated, anon. 🕊️
I'm glad we appear to have made some progress here.
Additionally... The father of despair leading to suicide or serious trauma is, again, not equal to dooming about Trump/Biden/the cabal. If we must agree to disagree, I accept that also. I will not likely belabor and drag it out with a lengthy thread. I will easily just let it go and move on. I have never counseled someone in the context of dooming, that is true. Any and all personal counsel has been mostly matters of personal faith, doubt in God, doubting salvation, etc. I am content with that as my experience thus far.