First, in a war, there are casualties. It just happens. Is it better to lose the world to save one life? Q suggested that the final death tally for this war was 4-6%. Would you choose to kill (as casualties of war) or let die, half a billion people to save the world? What if the only other possible choice was to lose 7.5B, and have humanity lost forever? Q said explicitly "NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN." That unambiguously means that some of the choices they had to make to win the war and bring about the GA will be morally questionable to some people.

Second, we were told that someone died. I saw a body with a shirt covering it being dragged out of the bleachers, but I've seen a lot of shit like that during my deep dive investigation these past four years that I am 99% sure were fake deaths (Sandy Hook, Ashley Babbitt, etc.). A false flag must have a dead body, or no one will buy it. Staging such an event is trivial for these people. They have done it thousands of times, on scales far greater with far more witnesses (Ashley Babbitt e.g.). I personally think Ashley Babbitt's fake death was so bad, it was intended to be believed to be a false flag. I think this one was not intended to be seen as a false flag except by anyone who has fully studied Q.

Because if you understand Q, you understand that such a false flag event isn't about getting elected, it's about saving humanity. The stakes are far higher, and quite frankly, casualties are justified.

Everyone must realize by now that Q either put covid out, or allowed it to happen (is there a difference?). Millions died from that (whether from the virus or the treatments is irrelevant). They either put out the vaccines or allowed them to happen. Millions more have died from them, and I think the piper still has yet to be paid on that account.

It's all about understanding the scope. What would you do to save the human race from 10,000 years of darkness (both past and future)?

Not everything will be clean.

And of course it won't be. Because if it was, no one would believe it.

First, in a war, there are casualties. It just happens. Is it better to lose the world to save one life? Q suggested that the final death tally for this war was 4-6%. Would you choose to kill (as casualties of war) or let die, half a billion people to save the world? What if the only other possible choice was to lose 7.5B, and have humanity lost forever? Q said explicitly "NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN." That unambiguously means that some of the choices they had to make to win the war and bring about the GA will be morally questionable to some people.

Second, we were told that someone died. I saw a body with a shirt covering it being dragged out of the bleachers, but I've seen a lot of shit like that during my deep dive investigation these past four years that I am 99% sure were fake deaths (Sandy Hook, Ashley Babbitt, etc.). A false flag must have a dead body, or no one will buy it. Staging such an event is trivial for these people. They have done it thousands of times, on scales far greater with far more witnesses (Ashley Babbitt e.g.). I personally think Ashley Babbitt's fake death was so bad, it was intended to be believed to be a false flag. I think this one was not except by anyone who has fully studied Q.

Because if you understand Q, you understand that such a false flag event isn't about getting elected, it's about saving humanity. The stakes are far higher, and quite frankly, casualties are justified.

Everyone must realize by now that Q either put covid out, or allowed it to happen (is there a difference?). Millions died from that (whether from the virus or the treatments is irrelevant). They either put out the vaccines or allowed them to happen. Millions more have died from them, and I think the piper still has yet to be paid on that account.

It's all about understanding the scope. What would you do to save the human race from 10,000 years of darkness (both past and future)?

Not everything will be clean.

And of course it won't be. Because if it was, no one would believe it.

First, in a war, there are casualties. It just happens. Is it better to lose the world to save one life? Q suggested that the final death tally for this war was 4-6%. Would you choose to kill (as casualties of war) or let die, half a billion people to save the world? What if the only other possible choice was to lose 7.5B, and have humanity lost forever? Q said explicitly "NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN." That unambiguously means that some of the choices they had to make to win the war and bring about the GA will be morally questionable to some people.

Second, we were told that someone died. I saw a body with a shirt covering it being dragged out of the bleachers, but I've seen a lot of shit like that during my deep dive investigation these past four years that I am 99% sure were fake deaths (Sandy Hook, Ashley Babbitt, etc.). A false flag must have a dead body, or no one will buy it. Staging such an event is trivial for these people. They have done it thousands of times, on scales far greater with far more witnesses (Ashley Babbitt e.g.). I personally think Ashley Babbitt's fake death was so bad, it was intended to be believed to be a false flag. I think this one was not except by anyone who has fully studied Q.

Because if you understand Q, you understand that such a false flag event isn't about getting elected, it's about saving humanity. The stakes are far higher, and quite frankly, casualties are justified.

Everyone must realize by now that Q either put covid out, or allowed it to happen (is there a difference?). Millions died from that (whether from the virus or the treatments is irrelevant). They either put out the vaccines or allowed them to happen. Millions more have died from them, and I think the piper still has yet to be paid on that account.

It's all about understanding the scope. What would you do to save the human race from 10,000 of darkness (both past and future)?

Not everything will be clean.

And of course it won't be. Because if it was, no one would believe it.