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
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.