An interesting topic of conversation came up over Thanksgiving. My sister is pretty savvy on what's going down. She's aware of the Cabal. She's hip on Q (or at least mostly aware of the Q story). I don't think she is fully aware of everything, but far more than most.
But she also is not a fan of Trump. She recognizes that most of what is said about him is a lie, but she just doesn't like him. She thinks he's a blowhard and overly divisive. I agree with her, but I've explained to her (albeit briefly) why I think both of those qualities are intentional. However, she doesn't care. She does however love RFK, Jr. She said she would vote for him in a heartbeat no matter what party flag he waves.
I thought about it, and I think RFK, Jr. could very likely be a unifying force, not to mention that there is both a sense of justice and closure to the effort of Q if he became President.
What do you think? What if RFK is the democrat nominee, or even an independent. Would you vote for him over Trump? Even if not, even if you think such a statement is sacrilegious, do you think he would be good for the country? Do you think he would be a unifying force? Do you think him as President would bring honest debate to the table on the "hot topics?" Do you think he would be able to put an end to the propaganda driven division (not by himself of course, but rather, as part of the Q plan)?
Of course, I don't know what The Plan is, and I don't think anything can change the course, but there are layers upon layers to The Plan, and there is nothing better than a surprise ending, especially one that feels like Justice. Who knows. Maybe RFK, Jr. IS The Plan.
What do you think of him as President for 2024?
I think you are just playing with words and dancing around what you are really trying to say, this is why this conversation is so painfully jumping all over the place.
So let me ask you directly.
Do you believe that you have presented "damning evidence" that Trump abused underage kids to become successful in the business world?
There is an idealism within this community, especially surrounding Trump, that I suggest is foolish to indulge, and quite possibly influenced by agents provocateur.
Listen to Q:
Q made it explicit. Not everything will be clean. The idealization of Q and/or Trump is not only foolish, given the nature of the enemy, it is against what Q said.
The Q team have to do things where people are hurt, people are killed. There are three lines where Q talks about "4-6%". The first two are almost the same:
But there is one more that is different.
"Never wake up", "brainwashed". That's 4-6% that simply choose to not wake up. However, "LOST FOREVER" is something completely different. I think it is possible that that will be the final death toll of this war, almost half a billion people.
Most of those lives will be innocents. Many of them will be children.
The Q team knows this, and they are doing what they are doing anyways.
Every undercover agent acting in earnest to take down bad people knows they will have to do things that are bad. That they have to hurt people to be a good undercover agent. The system is designed such that they are legally allowed to sell drugs, terrorize people, murder people, etc. all to keep their cover. That is simply how these things work.
I understand that people don't want that to be true about anyone involved in the Q effort. They need to idolize. They need to believe in "wholesomeness." Not a single war was won with wholesomeness. Not one. Q told us this one would be no different. This war MUST BE WON. THERE IS NO PLAN B. Why do you think that any aspect of it will be wholesome, especially the parts of it that have evidence otherwise?
If you understand the real nature of the Cabal, the real depths of their system. the full scope of The Matrix, you would understand the cost of freedom, and that any price is worth paying.
The Q team knows that. And they told us that explicitly. Why is it so hard to believe that Trump, or any other member of the Q team, may have done some bad things to take down the Cabal?
I have presented evidence (overwhelmingly damning, within my report) that in order to "play ball" you must play ball the Cabal way, by signing a deal with the devil.
I have shown you damning evidence that Trump has done exactly that. HOWEVER, without the context of understanding how the system actually works it is not evidence that you can see. It remains completely hidden from view.
Context is king.
That is the answer to your question.
As an aside, I would like to tell you what I think happened.
I think the Trump story goes one of a couple ways, but they all start off the same:
Trump did what he had to do to play ball, just like everyone else who makes it that high. I see no signs that he liked it. I see no signs (or very few) that he repeated his "entry requirements." It seems to me he just did what was necessary. This is where the stories split.
One:
The Q plan has been in motion for decades, and Trump has been a part of it for decades. Just like all "secret agents" Trump did what he had to do to infiltrate the Cabal. Having done my investigation, and having at least some understanding of the scope of the problem (far beyond what most think), you must be an insider to take down the Cabal. In story one, Trump was that insider (or rather, one of them. I think quite a few, and possibly all of the Q team are Cabal insiders).
Two:
Trump was just a regular Cabal guy. Compromised, but not deeply compromised. At least no more than average. He was approached, likely quite a while ago (90s maybe?) by the Q team to take on the Cabal, taking them down from the inside. He agreed.
Three:
Trump is higher up in the Cabal than it appears. There are signs that this might be the case. The whole "Q thing" is the necessary agency of controlled opposition that is set up during every single "social transition" operation.
You would be amazed how many elaborate agencies of controlled opposition there have been in the past. I mean, once you start really looking into these organizations that are "against," it is AMAZING how elaborate the whole scheme is.
For example, the next part of my report elaborates the IWW (International Workers of the World). They were the "anti-Capitalists" of the early 20th century. They were the foundation of all the Unions among many other things. Digging in shows some incredibly elaborate contrivances, false flags, etc. that they were a part of in their "fighting the Capitalists".
The thing is, once you really dig in, all of their leaders have direct ties to Rockefeller (e.g. Margert Sanger was one of the most famous Wobblies). ALL of their leaders were compromised. Looking at the history as presented to the public in the period newspapers, the opposition was clear. There was NO FUCKING WAY, within the rhetoric and actions presented to the public that they were really all working together. Yet with the lens of being able to look at everything all at once, with the internet and internet archives, it becomes completely obvious that they were intentionally created to be the "opposition", so that "both sides" could be controlled for the transition into our "modern world" where the Capitalists of the 19th century, and their monopolies "lost" to "social progress."
As it turns out, the exact same people who were the IWW, who were actually Rockefeller agents, were the same people that created the Soviet Union (at least some of the top level people).
Of course it goes much deeper than that. The point is, there are similarities to today that are a bit frightening. And these types of controlled opposition agencies are all over the place in history. Every single transitional event in history has them, all controlled by the exact people history reports as the "losers" in some social change.
It is not impossible that Q et al are just Cabal in "We The People" clothing. Now, I don't think this is the case, because it appears to me that we are working towards a genuine solution to the problem. BUT, it is not impossible, and once you understand how prevalent it is in history, and how elaborate, and how everyone was fooled, on all sides of the equation (except at the very top)...
Well, it is something worth keeping an eye out for, even if I think it is unlikely given all of the evidence.
This comment has finally something solid we can debate. Will get back later.