Firstly, Elements. Q team (and others) will have always known that Iran was a proxy state for the Globalist bankers, that the centre of Globalism buried itself in the European Union, that the Globalists were deliberately undermining their own populations in order to set up their global totalitarian system, that sanctions and blockades are always viable for the rough and tumble of international <ahem> politics and force, that the Dark Side (Clinton, Obama, Cabal) intended to use Iran to acquire nukes and set off a global war between USA and Russia, etc.
Secondly, Confluence. All the elements in Qdrop 1454 are and were present when Q posted this in 2018. It is so wild to think that, over time, these same elements are going to emerge on the screen again? (rhetorical question: answer: nope)
If you play any board game, each time you play it, the SAME elements are used, and engaged with, but each game is different because how those elements emerge in the game play varies.
Could the "Iran Deal" have been planned 8 years ago? Yep. In some form. And, that doesn't require the exact nature or shape of the deal being defined back then. Just that, in order to dismantle the Globalist Agenda and its infrastructure, at some point, these elements would have to be brought together and brought to a specific point.
Game theory. Move and countermoves, but the party in overall control of the board shapes the direction the game goes in, even though both parties have free will and options. Control shapes outcomes, even if the specific path or sequence (or timeline) arriving at them is not predetermined.
Excellent exploration of a complex subject however I must complain about your incorrect use of the phrase "devil's avocado". The devil is not generally known to be Vegan, indeed the opposite he is thought to be a fan of life's darker pleasures.
Surely you meant to write "Devil's Amontillado" being a variety of sherry wine characterised by being darker than fino sherry, but lighter than oloroso sherry.
I'll allow the objection, as it based in a solid reasoning (and not a Riesling), and the articulation of said position is well stated. Nonetheless, I must inform you that devil's avocado ain't goin' no wheres.
I'm a tolerant frog in general, but at some point, I must draw the line. Devil's avocado stays with me.
(Devil's armadillo, on the other hand.... hmmm....)
Once again the ephemeral time machine raises its head.
Let me play devil's avocado here.
Firstly, Elements. Q team (and others) will have always known that Iran was a proxy state for the Globalist bankers, that the centre of Globalism buried itself in the European Union, that the Globalists were deliberately undermining their own populations in order to set up their global totalitarian system, that sanctions and blockades are always viable for the rough and tumble of international <ahem> politics and force, that the Dark Side (Clinton, Obama, Cabal) intended to use Iran to acquire nukes and set off a global war between USA and Russia, etc.
Secondly, Confluence. All the elements in Qdrop 1454 are and were present when Q posted this in 2018. It is so wild to think that, over time, these same elements are going to emerge on the screen again? (rhetorical question: answer: nope)
If you play any board game, each time you play it, the SAME elements are used, and engaged with, but each game is different because how those elements emerge in the game play varies.
Could the "Iran Deal" have been planned 8 years ago? Yep. In some form. And, that doesn't require the exact nature or shape of the deal being defined back then. Just that, in order to dismantle the Globalist Agenda and its infrastructure, at some point, these elements would have to be brought together and brought to a specific point.
Game theory. Move and countermoves, but the party in overall control of the board shapes the direction the game goes in, even though both parties have free will and options. Control shapes outcomes, even if the specific path or sequence (or timeline) arriving at them is not predetermined.
Excellent exploration of a complex subject however I must complain about your incorrect use of the phrase "devil's avocado". The devil is not generally known to be Vegan, indeed the opposite he is thought to be a fan of life's darker pleasures.
Surely you meant to write "Devil's Amontillado" being a variety of sherry wine characterised by being darker than fino sherry, but lighter than oloroso sherry.
I'll allow the objection, as it based in a solid reasoning (and not a Riesling), and the articulation of said position is well stated. Nonetheless, I must inform you that devil's avocado ain't goin' no wheres.
I'm a tolerant frog in general, but at some point, I must draw the line. Devil's avocado stays with me.
(Devil's armadillo, on the other hand.... hmmm....)