Perhaps. But I also consider that the only reason this man’s attack was even in the news was because of his interesting work history. How many other elderly men were attacked in the US on that same day?
Probably a lot. But if they were homeless, boring, otherwise not likely to get clicks, then they aren’t likely going to be in the news. We don’t really get to see whether this story is relevant, because the news doesn’t provide a baseline for “elderly attacks.” It doesn’t report on the vast majority of them.
It’s called “survivorship bias.”
The only elderly attacks you hear about are the ones that the news thinks will interest you, and it minimizes how usual or random an event is simply because the news decided that this specific elderly man was more interesting a victim than a random recluse who was robbed or the homeless drug addict who was beaten for no reason.
Although I know how this board typically feels about CDC reports, this one suggests that attacks on the elderly are a rising, if you’re interested in some background reading.
So I know that many of the Q posts are vague enough about their timing that potential deltas for the event they predict may stretch out years, but the three “suicide weekend” posts all seemed to talk about something fairly imminent, within weeks, of their posting back in 2018.
For instance, in 1933, Q posts:
BIG week ahead.
So because this was posted years ago, what is the hint that the “BIG week ahead” was describing a week many hundreds of weeks into the future?
In 700, Q posts:
[Next week] [Next week] [Next week] Suicide weekend?
So, three weeks might be a reasonable interpretation, but again, this post was from 2018. What is the clue that this prediction was meant to predict something years into the future? How can I know when Q means “years” when he says “weeks”?
You can read the entire text here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7900/text
Search "SEC. 222" to find the relevant text.
This is just a pilot study to offer the option for individuals to eat a non-meat burger.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than March 1, 2023, the Secretary of the Navy shall establish and carry out a pilot program to offer plant- based protein options at forward operating bases for consumption by members of the Navy.
I see no indication that these products will be forced into anyone's diet or are being substituted entirely in lieu of meat products.
In fact, Rep. Greene seems to have either missed or ignored this part of the text when she Tweeted:
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent offering livestock-based protein options alongside plant- based protein options at naval facilities identified under subsection (b).
It is absolutely worth researching the original text rather than trusting any politician to tell you what things say.
All they're doing is trying out a new item on the menu for those that want it. There are already vegetarians in the military, and they’re already skipping burgers at chow. Now they might not have to.
So... per the title, what could go wrong?
I believe that. Which leaves us with two possibilities:
-
One of the groups of colored hats is putting vague spotlights on the disaster agencies that will be responding to some upcoming planned crisis for some reason.
-
People who are plugged into "the narrative", regardless of the narrative's truthfulness, are worried about Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and that passively feeds into people researching exactly how we are prepared for such a potential, predictable threat, which leads to spotlights on these agencies.
So, in regards to the second possibility, I would predict we see stories about FEMA more often when there are reports of a potential hurricane, for instance. Not because a Hat is leaking a prediction of a fabricated disaster using secret weather manipulation technology, but because the Google searches for "what do i do in a hurricane?" go up when the weatherman warns of a potential hurricane.
Can you explain your headline as it relates to the actual article?
This article is describing complaints against the AP test for being biased against minorities, and that the AP test is covering up its bias by refusing to publish data on racial disparities in its results data.
This appears a complaint from the “liberal” side toward the AP test makers for hiding racial bias in their test by concealing racially-sorted results data.
The College Board has come under fire for peddling products like the AP and SAT tests that critics perceive as disadvantaging marginalized groups in higher education. Underrepresented students, such as those who are Hispanic and Black, were generally scoring lower on AP exams compared to their White peers, according to prior years’ data. The testing provider has said the SAT is not a racist instrument.
Since the article doesn’t appear to be posted yet, here it is.
Here is the full article without needing to register.
https://zipe-education.com/if-nuclear-disaster-strikes-us-hematologists-stand-ready/
To answer the question in the thread title, here is how the article responds:
While RITN keeps a low profile, it’s been in the news lately amid anxieties about the Ukraine conflict, nuclear plant accidents, and the potential launching of nuclear weapons by foreign adversaries.
And they aren’t wrong. That’s just not all the suffix is used for.
Consider the suffix “-er.” It is often used to compare qualities.
Bigger: one thing is more big than another thing.
Funnier: one thing is more funny than another.
But it’s also can be used to denote a person who is taking a particular action.
Baker: someone who bakes.
Fighter: someone who fights.
Both are valid uses of the -er suffix, even though they have different linguistic purposes.
Same for -ment. It can mean mind. But sometimes it just describes “state of” or “thing that produces a state of.”
Any symbological analysis not only has to establish the symbology being asserted, but rule out the other established translations of that symbol in order to attain any sense of confidence in the theory.
Yeah, prefixes and suffixes don’t always have a single translation. This isn’t unusual: lots of words in general have more than one meaning.
The term “ment” can mean mind, but also is used simply to turn a verb or adjective into a noun.
Government: a thing that governs.
Development: a thing that is being developed.
Sacrament: a thing that is sacred.
Abandonment: a state of being abandoned.
Encampment: a place where people camp.
Alignment: a state of being aligned.
None of these words are related to the word “mind.” Although it’s fun to consider how they might secretly be “neurolinguistic programming.”
Basement: foundation of the mind?
Basement-dwellers rejoice!
The posted article links to Breitbart as proof, so here is that article.
The “Pedo Peter” phone number was previously thought to be from Hunter’s iPhone, but Breitbart News’s forensic analysis of Hunter’s digital footprint shows the contact alias is from Hunter’s iPad, which appears to belong to Joe Biden’s grandchild named Hunter. Joe Biden’s grandchild named Hunter is the son of Hallie.
I wasn’t intending to be pedantic, and apologize if that’s how I came off. I was simply asking if you were interested in a response or not. It’s not easy to read nuance in text.
Hey, I won’t assume you actually wanted an answer to this post since you were demonstrating how you would respond, but I am happy to type up a thing to this if you’re actually interested in discussing it.
Yeah, I don’t have many other ways to explain this, so I will try to be very direct.
The outside world, including QHC, does not care about what is in the Q posts. The Q posts are not a threat to anybody.
What the outside world, and QHC, care about is what people who believe in Q believe in.
Which is not necessarily the same thing as a direct translation of Q.
Some people take literally what you assume to be disinformation by Q. Sometimes vice-versa. Some people have different motivations assigned to Trump’s vaccine support and build entire new theories based on that.
And some people who believe in Q have used Q’s philosophy to justify examining every other theory. Including lizard people. Why not? Could the Cabal not cover that up?
To be perfectly clear, Zeitreise, your theory on what Q “really meant” is one of thousands. And nobody else is less of a Q believer than you for finding different answers to Q’s questions, since Q never directly answered most of them.
If you’re refusing to accept that different, potentially valid conspiracies that Q may have revealed that you simply are unable to see, then you either believe yourself to be smarter than every other Q researcher alive, or you’re simply wrong.
So, are you the smartest researcher on this board, Zeitreise? Is there even a point in having a research board over any topic you’ve investigated?
I don’t “let flourish” anything simply by refusing to censor it. And people from my sub don’t provide me the conversation I’m interested in having. I’m not going to spend my limited time talking about Q to people who aren’t contesting what I already believe I know, obviously.
You are so insistent on connecting that sub with this place. You aren’t my nemesis. You’re just someone I disagree with, and someone who spends far more time obsessing over Reddit than I do.
You’re upset that lizard people are associated with the Q movement because you don’t believe in lizard people and it makes you look like you’re associating with lunatics.
Some people around here believe the same thing about Flat Earthers. And yet, despite the feeling by some that Flat Earth and other such conspiracies dilute the Q movement, it’s tolerated.
Neither you nor the GAW at large is the arbiter of what is and is not a philosophy associated with Q people. This is not the only Q community out there, and others disconnected from this place have their own philosophies, such as the JFK Jr stuff or medbed technology.
You don’t get to tell me that isn’t related to Q stuff. You don’t get to decide who is and isn’t a True Believer based entirely on whether or not they agree with your specific conclusions when you Questioned Reality.
Your perspective isn’t the only one out there, and not everyone who agrees only partially with your worldview is a Deep State plant or False Flag designed to make you look stupid. There is a wide spectrum of belief, even here on GAW.
A diversity of thought should not be threatening or suspicious, friend.
Moderators are not leaders. I am not certain what led you to that belief. Users can do their own research and make their own arguments.
Frankly, the only person from the internet that is following me appears to be you. :)
Also, would you like me to be more heavy-handed in my censorship? Right now, the only things I remove are posts in violation of Reddit’s TOS, which includes violence and, to your displeasure, some stuff related to Q posts. Luckily, we can discuss that stuff here, without Reddit’s TOS having any say over it.
And frankly, given how anti-censorship you claim to be, it is surprising that you sometimes call for me to be banned from here or for me to enact more heavy censorship on Reddit. Neither of those suggestions indicates a comfort with speech that contests your own, but I am open to an explanation.
I understand what they're saying is the motivation. They're saying it's irritating them that these mass shooters are usually advertising their intentions with colorful animated gifs on Facebook, and nobody knows that when selling them a gun.
However, this is kind of a stupid and superficial way to approach it. It's not going to solve the problem. If someone wants to shoot up a school with a new rifle, and decides to post about it, then they could just... not provide that account. Say that they don't use social media.
It'll catch people who are essentially willing to turn themselves into the police through a background check for a gun. Which means it will catch some people, because some people don't act rationally, especially from the population of potential mass shooters.
But probably not enough to be worth collecting this type of data on gun owners merely because they're gun owners. That's far too wide and deep a net to use for such a small potential benefit, if any at all.
I do not like being forced to provide data so that the government can go searching for a crime in it.
If he's defending Communism by pointing to the self-proclaimed enemies of Communism (Real Americans) doing bad things sometimes, then he doesn't have a point. That's a false binary and a fallacy. Even if America is "evil", that doesn't make Communism the proper response by default. There are a LOT of other philosophies to consider, even if you personally don't like American capitalism.
If he's defending Communism because he actually believes in Communism principles or is suggesting that Communism has been a successful model in either real or hypothetical situations, I'd have to look at the individual argument to know how to respond to it. I don't like to respond to a hypothetical argument.
Also, don't be shocked that there are liberal "conspiracy theorists." Liberals were looking to paint Bush as capable of 9/11 before Trump ever seriously entered politics. It tends to be easier to uncover potential conspiracies in people you don't like, and there were plenty of Kerry voters.
You can watch older videos of Trump where he is far more fluent and uses higher word choices.
You can do the same thing with Biden, but Q people have a very different explanation as to the reason.
"Denies the existence of problems he can't solve, happily taking credit for the solution" ... reads like you think he's a bumbling idiot with no strategy who just inexplicably stumbled into being elected president.
While I wouldn't word it quite that way, I haven't proven it's impossible that somebody who is unprepared and unqualified for the Presidency, but gifted in the power of persuasion and gifted with money, could technically survive a Presidency with a significant base of support. I would like to prove that this is impossible, because it's certainly less unsettling to believe it's impossible.
It's clear he was a high performing bagman for his father, who flew around the world collecting money on Joe's behalf for at least a decade. He wouldn't be capable of that if he were as bad as you framed him.
I don't like to dox myself, but I do have a significant amount of experience around drug addicts, and can safely say this is exactly how most drug addicts get caught.
As I stated a moment ago, I do not underestimate the capabilities of subpar people to exist at higher levels of society despite themselves, as long as they have resources and/or the right kinds of people looking out for them. There is no question that Hunter Biden likely had far more responsibility than he would have earned without his last name, and you won't bait me into defending him as a human being.
If Trump's 2nd term comes and goes and Hillary is never actually arrested or any other significant happenings in terms of justice with trafficking, I personally will simply focus more on the local level and ignore the more global problems that are apparently unfixable.
I can tell you that if the Storm arrives and Q turns out to be right all along, it will REQUIRE me to strongly reevaluate how I process evidence.
If I'm wrong about this, I need to ensure that I am smarter and not tricked again, because I am currently voting based on my beliefs. If I truly care about this country, which I believe I do, then Q's arrival would MORALLY COMPEL me to abandon my beliefs and reevaluate from the perspective of the people who were not wrong.
Because otherwise, I'm allowing the lie to continue to hurt people, through me. And if I'm proven wrong, then I have a responsibility to ensure I am not a vessel for liars.
I am hoping for the same commitment from Q people, but I understand that it's a BIG commitment. I make it readily and happily. It would be wrong for me to simply "focus on something else" if it turns out that my foundational beliefs about the world and how I interact with it are proven to be a lie.
The only reason I continue is because your points are plausible. I don't deny they are possible, I just don't think they're probable. You don't strike me as a concern troll and I don't get offended at people who merely see things differently.
I feel the same way, to be sure. As I've stated, there is nothing inherently impossible about the Q Plan, at least in any general way. I can acknowledge that there are probably instances in the multiverse where Trump and Friends did put such a Plan into action. I don't think it's true, but I also don't have any problem whatsoever testing my beliefs against yours.
Because at the end of the day, the absolute worst outcome for me is being proven wrong, which results in me getting smarter. As well as having an interesting new set of political allies, many of whom I've now known for over a year. :)
And, if things go the other way, and Q's Plan never shows up, I also hope that some people from Q World might feel there's at least one person from the "other side" that isn't looking to rub their face in it.
I have prayed to the Lord for the patience to deal with people like you so please forgive me if I attack you. I don't mean to demean or insult.
I have noticed and appreciated that, truly. The problem is definitely that you and I both have the stamina to argue for weeks without sleep, and you perhaps just have a little more than I do. I do always read and absorb the things you write, even if I don't agree or have the time or energy to follow you down that particular rabbit hole.
Your problem is you have repeatedly obsessed over Q instead of the subject material and as a result it positions you in sort of this alien place that no anon is willing to go.
I get that you don't see Q as an important part, and rather look at Q's words.
But I demonstrated last time why that can't be good enough for me. Because Q's personal credibility DOES MATTER to you.
Because when Q tells you to look at something, you look until you find the evidence that you believe he wanted you to find.
And if Q's identity actually doesn't matter, then you would be suggesting that if I proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Q was Ron Watkins, that wouldn't shake your belief in the Plan whatsoever. Because Ron Watkin's words would still be as credible as any military operative. Only the words matter, after all.
Is that something you're willing to stand behind?
If Q's identity or credibility didn't matter, then you would have no reason to, say, "look at the therapists." I asked you last time, when Q told you guys to research that, the end result was that you, Zeitreise, believe that many, if not most mass shootings are the result of objectively Satanic or Communist therapists purposefully manipulating their patients via MKUltra brainwashing techniques on behalf of the Cabal.
When I asked for even one story of a Satanist therapist provably turning their patient into a mass murderer, any primary source document for this, I didn't get one. I got stories in which you wanted me to assume the therapists were Satanist, and assume the therapists betrayed their client, and assumed that (relatively common) mistakes were done on purpose, with purpose.
Where is the template of the Satanic therapist that is creating mass murderers? Who, by name, has done this, and proven that this concept has ever occurred?
As I've said, I am always impressed by you and Q World's ability to identify potential vulnerabilities in any system. If there is a place where a Satanist could potentially cause a mass shooting event, I can rely on you to find it.
But can I rely on you to follow up from Q's prediction, and produce the actual hard evidence I would need to prove that a therapist was Satanist? To prove that a Satanist therapist deliberately set a mass shooter on the world? To prove that even a single therapist was answering to a Cabal?
Can I rely on you as an objective prosecutor, or only as a defense attorney?
I live to please. :)
Maybe you should research that assumption. I spend exponentially more time talking to you guys than I do on Reddit.
He informs us of a Plan, but then takes steps to conceal the Plan.
“What I’m saying may lead you to the truth. If you don’t find it, you aren’t looking hard enough and need to dig deeper. If it’s the opposite of what you expect, think mirror. If I appear to have misled you, disinformation is necessary, in order to force the enemy to expend ammo.”
He calls for a Great Awakening, but insists on plausible deniability. He points us to where he insists we will find evidence, but warns that he might be lying and spreading disinformation.
“Transparency is the only way,” but he refuses to be transparent about who he is. “Accountability is the only way,” but insists on secrecy and plausible deniability to protect himself from accountability.
Honestly, I have taken WAY fewer steps to stop the Awakening than Q has, by that measure.
So, like I said, regardless of the reasoning, Q has a lot of work to do to ensure that he isn’t fighting an army of good Samaritans who are unwilling to read the legal justifications of PatelPatriot while our politicians are executed by some Secret Authority that the vast majority of people have not verified and whose identities are not even known.
I can promise on whatever you want that I am not being paid to be here. I do not have an interest in dismantling the Q movement. I have no interest in convincing anyone here of anything.
And I put fifty times the work into understanding this movement than anyone I’ve met. I am convincable and willing to do the work. I am exactly the kind of person who, if convinced, can do the work bridging with the normies who can’t or won’t do the work.
I am doing the work that Q people asks normies to do. I am just not coming to the same conclusions in my research.
Zeitreise constantly suggests that I am too stupid to get it, and that I am some sort of outlier whose position on the Q World is completely unrepresentative of the real world.
Do you think that’s true? Do you think that most cops, lawyers, military officers, and other authority figures are going to put more work into understanding your justifications for the Plan than I do?
Do you think any of the millions of people in a position to stop Q from carrying out some or all of the Plan will listen as patiently as I have?
Perhaps it should be clear to everyone.
So why isn’t it?
Why does Q still have to rely on disinformation and secrecy and plausible deniability if the evidence already out there “should be clear to everyone”?
And as long as Q is still playing optics, still apparently hiding his probable role in carrying out justice, and as long as plausible deniability must exist, then Q is actively making it harder to prove the Plan, on purpose.
That is completely unaffected by whether or not Reddit permits Q posts. That has to do with the actions Q is purposefully taking to hide his identity and the proof of his actions (such as McCain’s arrest and execution, for instance).
So why do you blame people for being skeptical of Q’s claims when Q is still taking so many steps to hide the Plan’s existence and results from the world?
It is a complicated question, understandably.
One the one hand, the Bible relies on the notion that it is the word of God, written under divine inspiration, and therefore can be considered a direct communication from Heaven.
On the other hand, the source making this claim tends to be the Bible, and the people who maintain power when people follow the Bible.
There is no reason to reject the possibility that the fallible humans who physically wrote the Bible lied, or at least were wrong, about their divine inspiration. It’s possible that the advice and rules from the Bible were just written by regular guys who nonetheless believed strongly in their moral system and divine inspiration.
But, that would mean God left us without a trustworthy guide to moral rules, which seems out of character for the Christian God, and that means that we all have to kind of figure it out on our own through introspection and personal prayer, and when those views inevitably don’t line up, we don’t get the kind of communities that tend to make religion a religion, and not just a personal morality.
I’ve been hesitant to talk religion too much here, but I’ve found these kinds of questions fascinating ever since I was a kid. Most religions have a book that claims to be a communique from God, and all of them were penned by human fingers. And in most cases, I can’t interrogate those writers to see if I believe them.
Frustrating and totally worth the mental resources.