I am very confused by some of Q's fore knowledge of events of the Russia\Ukraine War. Of course, there are many events where Q has proved he knows what events will happen in the future, and makes posts exactly on the delta date of the event.
Q stated riots planned across the country exactly a few years before the BLM riots. He used the word Afghanistan, on the delta (3 years before?) the US chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He seemed to know the exact number of votes required to get McCarthy as Speaker, on the delta of finally winning the vote.
I get it that many of these events are just a show. Q said himself that he knows the future via "control."
What about the Ukraine and Russia war though? There are very small signs that Putin is aware of the Q plan and is playing along with it (like placing his watch on the table next to a pen. Like Putin having an interview with Tucker on the exact delta of the Q post saying "Russia, Russia, Russia. What happens with the media loses control of the truth?"
We all know by now, there are no coincidences. These were not lucky guesses are they?
This war is something that is not simply just a show of actors is it? Literally hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been dying in this horrible war. If the "White Hats" is allowing these people to die just to continue a show, they really don't seem like White Hats to me.
There are numerous obscure channels on YouTube and Telegram that regularly play endless videos of slaughter and warfare daily. Even with AI, I don't think it would be possible to create such fake content. There have been many eye witness reports from Russians and Ukrainian people that have lost loved ones. It is impossible for me to believe this is a show.
So, how then does it seem that Q war aware of how the Ukraine Russian War might be at this point of time? Maybe he really does have a science fiction computer "Project Looking Glass" that can see into the future.
What are your thoughts on this?
We have to be willing to give up our excesses and comforts that are causing the worst problems. No more internet, no more TV, no more credit cards, no more stock market, no more Tylenol or ibuprofen, no more electricity. We need to live as we were originally created to be and things won't change until people learn to accept that.
While I think a "back to basics" approach has great merit, and I myself am working towards that for my own life (if perhaps a little less extreme than you suggest), I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't need to throw out all knowledge. I think we just need to recognize the fuckery injected into our "truths." We've been placed in carefully crafted boxes. All the different boxes, that act in opposition, get their beliefs from the same source. We need to see that.
Our problems are not what we've learned, but what's been left out of that learning. We all exist in a bunch of different carefully crafted boxes of beliefs. Each of those boxes receives it's own specialized training that leads to our insistence that "we know the truth," even though all of those boxes of truth differ substantially.
Currently in our society the Science Box holds dominance. We need to see the flaws in that approach. We need to understand who created that box, and the fuckery they put in it to mislead. Like all other boxes, there are useful tools in the Science Box. We need to understand the difference between "useful tools" and "truth." In addition, all the boxes need to appreciate the useful tools in the other boxes. I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in our approach to knowledge and discerning truth. I do not think we need to reject the fruits of our labors entirely.
Most importantly I think, there needs to be an appreciation for the Ultimate Authority of the Individual, and what their Jurisdiction is. That understanding is something we have completely lost in our learning. While it persists intuitively. Our training subverts that intuition. That is I think the greatest fuckery. It is this lack of appreciation of our own Sovereignty over our own Domain, and what that Domain is, that prevents us from appreciating and respecting both ourselves and others. We are trained constantly to think of "the collective" over the individual. This training is what holds us in slavery, even more than the economic fuckery. Once we see that fuckery, I think everything else will take care of itself. No Luddite World required.
What do you suggest?
Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.
Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.
That is why my responses are often so long.
In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been misled from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.
In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. "Listen but don't trust." That is the key. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)
While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.
We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).
So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there; purposeful exploitations designed to mislead us from the truth.
But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. But the Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.
This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.
Thank you for responding to me here. Your response helps me understand better where you're coming from. And I asked in honesty.
Couple of things:
Does this statement apply to itself?