I don't think it's a red herring. When you told me it's better to put my faith in God, I am trying to understand the argument you're making.
Beyond what I know from religious intuition and personal prayer, literally everything I know about God comes from what I was taught by a person, or what was written by a human hand.
Yes, I know that Christians believe that the Bible was written by God using humans directly, but that faith still is justified by what those people themselves wrote. "This book of rules I'm writing is not actually by me, but by God, so you can trust me to do a good job, because God is controlling me."
A skeptic would say, "And how do I know they didn't lie?"
And a Christian says, "Because God wouldn't let them."
And a skeptic says, "And these people wrote this proof in the Bible?"
And round and round.
We all have to rely in some sense on getting much of our information about the world from others in which we have some measure of trust. We can't directly know or observe everything, so we rely on second-hand information.
Sometimes, that second-hand information comes from someone telling me what happened in Japan. Sometimes, it's what someone is telling me the vote totals were in 2020. Sometimes, it's someone telling me information about their medical studies.
Sometimes, it's someone telling me that they translated with unimpeachable accuracy an ancient collection of religious texts from its original language, into a few more languages, and finally into your language, over the course of thousands of years with no deliberate or unintentional modifications from the original, allegedly-divinely-inspired primary document.
Literally any information I have to accept from a human source is susceptible to propaganda. I understand that. The possibility of humans manipulating ANY information I accept from them is first and foremost in my mind literally any time I learn anything. Religious, political, whatever.
Being a critical thinker requires that you never fully trust ANY information from ANY human source, even if you're willing to consider it.
So that's why I asked. You said it's best to put your faith in religion. Clearly, then, religion must have some protection from human influence, and that protection must obviously be guaranteed by some power outside of humanity's control, and that power must obviously be demonstrated in some way that is observable outside of faith that humans wouldn't lie about it.
Can you explain what makes religion less vulnerable to propagandizing efforts and human corruption than any other information that humans are responsible for sharing?
It's better to not build foundations on propaganda, but instead build a solid foundation like faith in God which helps people rightly divide the truth. Then you can be nimble and work with many different possibilities without attaching to any until you can solidly confirm to be true.
Do you believe it's more difficult to propagandize religion than it is to propagandize political information?
To be fair, it's not always easy for people on the outside to keep track of who Q people consider to be allies.
Session and Pompeo have been bouncing in and out of favor for years, the President of China is being floated as a possible ally of Trump's against the Cabal, Musk is assumed to be a wildcard, people like Wood, Powell, and Greene cause all sorts of confusion, and so forth.
So while I get blaming people for being "misinformed" on Q stuff, the list of Trusted People in Q World can be notoriously fickle and definitely differs from person to person. I am sure there are some Q people here who are "thinking mirror" on Abe, just in case there's something to find.
I didn’t miss that you believe this to be true.
I am only speaking in the context of the law as it is written and as Schiff’s amendment would apply to it.
If you believe Trump found a way to stay within the confines of the law, then Schiff’s amendment presents absolutely no threat to Q.
Eh, not a lawyer, and that’s beyond anything but me wildly speculating. But I would imagine that even if the amendment doesn’t get adopted, it would eventually end up in court anyway, because anyone who is accused of a crime due to evidence collected via commission of a crime is going to have a decent chance of getting it thrown out.
That’s why I guess I don’t see Schiff as needing any unusual motivation here. This is the same logic you’d use to defend against the use of blackmailed confessions or evidence collected by a burglar against the… burgled…
It would only be a “legal out” under this scenario:
The Q Team either is military, or has military components. They have used their expertise and resources to gather evidence of a major crime, and eventually, they conduct mass arrests of numerous civilians, mostly politicians, scientists, industry leaders.
Normally, this case would be under the purview of civilian law enforcement, but as is the common belief, the Q Team, in this scenario, used military resources, and may have had the military conduct the arrests and carry out sentences.
Now, in this scenario, the Q Team had no Congressional authority, and nothing from the Constitution gave the military in Q’s Team authorization to participate in this operation.
And in this scenario, Q’s Team was willing to fall on their sword. Yes, it was illegal for them to build and conduct the case with the military, but they would happily suffer the consequences, because the evidence would exist and back up their prosecutions. They would be legitimized by their evidence, even if it was criminal to obtain.
In this scenario, Schiff’s amendment would fuck them. Because now, it would ensure that if you are a criminal and committed a crime to build a legal case, your evidence is considered invalid.
Essentially, this would stop the evidence from being useable only if the Q team is already convicted of having violated the law in using the military for law enforcement purposes.
If Q did not involve the military, or had Congressional approval for his team, or otherwise did not already violate the law regarding the separation of military from civilian law enforcement, then the Q team cannot be touched by Schiff’s amendment.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my untrained, unprofessional reading of it.
Schiff’s motivation could be as simple as “he’s a lawyer and ensuring criminals can’t commit a legal suicide-bomb by benefiting legally from their crimes.” But that would require the benefit of the doubt, and such things tend to be rare here. :)
I believe that is correct, yes, but only if this military operation is in violation of the law you quoted.
Here is the actual proposed amendment by Schiff:
https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/SCHIFF_073_xml220705100307358.pdf
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information obtained by or with the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces in violation of section 1385 of 9 title 18, shall not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof.
So let’s see. Your info says clearly it’s illegal per section 1385 to use any branch of the military in service of law enforcement without express authorization by Congress. Attempting to use the military to arrest criminals without Congressional approval or under a Constitutionally-protected scenario would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment would ensure is that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in a law enforcement capacity, nothing carried out under the justification of that act would be admissible in the legal system.
Sort of like how cops can’t charge you with weed possession if they illegally break into your house to find it.
It’s important to note that this proposed amendment specifies that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law. I bolded the relevant text in Schiff’s proposal quote above.
So the only way that Q would be a potential target of this amendment is if Q’s evidence was gathered by a military operation that is already in violation of the existing law. If Q has been gathering evidence legally and with some sort of Constitutionally or Congressionally-recognized authority, then this amendment, even if passed, would not have any effect on Q’s case.
You misunderstand. I 100% believe people are capable of evil.
In fact, I believe that humans are capable of random acts of evil, like mass shootings.
But I would say back to you that it’s difficult for us to talk if you refuse to believe that human beings can be fallible, and not every single action that enables or even propagates evil must be the result of a coordinated campaign to cause evil.
Do you believe that people are fundamentally incapable of random acts of evil? That in a country of over 300,000,000 people, and enough guns for all of them, a rare few aren’t going to do irrational things with them?
Is that impossible?
Sometimes, even most times, people fuck up. People do things randomly. People are not always motivated by reason and logic, and people can be evil at an individual reason without a desire to fight the things you care about.
I accept this. I have often experienced such people firsthand. I know how absolutely chaotic such people can be and how much confusion they can leave behind.
But you prefer to think of this evil as being contained under a single banner, identified and understood in whole by a champion, whose mastery of reality and control of its unimaginably complex variables must literally rival that of a god.
I just think that perspective is far simpler than my own.
But please remember that an illogical society is not an illogical world. The world doesn’t make much more sense without Q than it does with Q. You might feel that you have more answers, but at the end of the day, you and I are both still sitting together, still waiting for the Storm to hit in the way that Q promised.
I’m out of time, but I enjoyed this conversation and appreciate the time you took for it. I will read any reply you send. I know that you don’t believe me, but I do learn from your perspectives on the issues we discuss.
For the first article, what you’ve found is a therapist who fucked up. You will get no argument from me that there are incompetent therapists and ones who drop the ball. It’s a big field, and mentally unstable people are an unpredictable group of people.
Is there any evidence in this story (or any other related documents) that prove this therapist deliberately allowed or encouraged this violence to happen?
How have you ruled out this being a therapist who fucked up? How would you know if it was or wasn’t, besides faith that Q said there is something being hidden here?
For the second article, I’m confused. Can you show me where in the article it says that therapists handed over their information to the FBI in order to target this young man?
It says they knew he was schizophrenic. It also says that he was declared legally incompetent and hospitalized numerous times, which would be recorded in legal records, not just medical records.
In fact, the parents blame legal records people, or someone associated with them. They don’t mention a therapist.
The State of Oklahoma found him mentally incompetent and we, his parents have legal guardianship over him by the Court. These documents are sealed from the public, which is why no news media outlet has been able to obtain them.
These types of records would go far beyond the patient records of a therapist.
FBI have access to legal records, and frankly, I can tell you from experience that people with untreated schizophrenia are not exactly hard to identify. They had an informant talking to him. Of course they knew he was mentally ill.
If you’re trying to bait me into defending the FBI targeting mentally ill people… good luck.
Why do you assume merely by the FBI having information about a legally-relevant and super-obvious psychiatric condition that it must have been a result of a betrayal by this therapist?
Is it because Q suggested this as a research avenue, and you have faith in Q’s theory of a conspiracy involving these therapists?
These are the sorts of assumptions I don’t make, but I think they’re easier to make if someone you trust, like Q, told you to look closely.
I am willing to examine the claims of sources I do not trust, but if you said that Q researchers have provided the Hard Proof for Q’s claims on this, I’d still like to see that.
I don’t even see evidence that either of these therapists were Satanist or Communist. Can you provide that proof, at least? Have the Q researchers found proof of these two therapists’ allegiances to Satan?
The world used to have ZERO logic in it because of the lack of a system with logical gates and values.
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
Communist. Satanist. How many fucking times do we have to tell you this?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.
“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”
He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.
What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.
He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.
As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.
But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.
There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”
The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.
Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.
This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”
That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.
Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?
Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?
Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?
Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.
In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.
I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.
It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.
I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.
Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.
I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.
Zeitreise, can you please explain how it's not equally possible that mentally unhealthy people, including violent ones, might have a therapist because... they're mentally unhealthy?
Is it, at least, equally possible?
How is this not bread-and-butter correlation error? "Shark attacks and ice cream sales", and all that?
I have a hard time imagining something less suspicious than people with mental health problems seeing mental health professionals, even if that treatment sometimes doesn't prevent tragedy (since successfully-treated people don't commit mass shootings, and therefore don't end up in the news).
Although I know this may be controversial around here, given how Q people typically view medical professions, but there may be another reason that so many people with oncologists die of cancer than "oncologists are giving their patients cancer."
I wanted to let you know that even though I didn't give a full response, I did read through everything you sent (twice). I don't always have time to respond to things that I don't have a good response for, but I didn't want you to think I ignored the work you put into explaining things, and I appreciate it. It's a good bit to add to my background for further conversations on this stuff.
I'm abbreviating a bit, because there are some points that I feel you've sufficiently explained, and I'm just looking to understand your perspective, not dismantle it. So thank you explaining anything I don't address.
"Know it better than any of you". People around here are extremely confused, myself included.
Well, I don't feel that I am, at least not "extremely". None of Trump's actions, including his stance on vaccination, requires me to assume theater. It seems readily predictable by assuming that Donald Trump denies the existence of problems he can't solve, and then assuming he would readily and happily take credit for the solution (the vaccine) once it became available to him.
It's possible all the bickering, all the alleged mistakes, all the betrayals, all the things that didn't go Trump's way are just ways to make the Cabal expend ammo. But quite literally, the only unpredictable thing Trump has ever done was win the 2016 election. From that point onward, I struggle to think of any time Trump's strategy was a mystery to me.
Trump might be a master at playing to the narrative, but it's also possible the narrative exists because Trump's behavior establishes a predictable pattern to those who don't see him as a genius with a Plan.
It went from the most valuable communication asset (he wrote or read over 128k emails that span over a decade if I remember properly), with a complete log of his decadence with photos of him having sex with minors ... to something he just forgot about? I don't see that being the most probable explanation.
Do you have a lot of experience hanging out with hardcore drug addicts?
I have. I know a man who tried to sell his own child for drug money. And worse, for that matter. Drugs can make people crazy, make people forget, make people careless. No question that "leaving behind a laptop full of damning evidence" is the behavior of a drug addict. Drug addicts get arrested by calling the police on someone who stole their drugs.
In the hypothetical future where arrests never happen, the only one who will care whether they were proven wrong or gave up is probably just you.
Well, I will care, because I'm not entirely sure what happens with you guys if the future you believe saves us from a world that is utterly catastrophic never happens. Because that means that you're living in a world that is utterly catastrophic. That's a lot of suffering for me to ignore, regardless of my motivations for caring.
So no, I don't think I'm the only one who would care. I hope not, at least.
Ah, I see it.
You said that "47 is often a CIA marker" and then provided this article as evidence. I read it. All I found supporting your assertion was this:
Note the number 47 on his head, telling us he is CIA. 1947 is year one of the CIA.
So the argument is that because the CIA was formed in 1947, the number "47" must refer to the CIA. And because this number refers to the CIA, the number "47" being tattooed on this shooter must indicate he is a CIA-brainwashed false flag being used by the Cabal.
Is this the full argument, or did I miss something?
I don't see any further discussion on the subject in this source. I looked around the website, but this guy has been writing about conspiracy stuff since at least 2004 and has thousands of essays, which do not appear readily searchable. So if there is some other information you meant for me to read, you'll need to help me find it.
Why is this dated four days before the shooting occurred?
Let’s see what information is apparently being suppressed, according to the article they reference with their accusations.
Crimo has ties to the Democratic Socialists of America as noted by the tattoo on his neck.
I’m looking hard at that picture. I might see roses, but I don’t see the logo for the DSA. Need a better way picture than the one they provided.
So the police were supposed to report that he had a rose tattoo, and the DSA also uses roses in its iconography, and therefore, he could be a leftist?
Crimo also has ties to Antifa. In one picture on social media, he shares his dark Antifa outfit.
Note that the “dark Antifa outfit” is a helmet with a black balaclava. This isn’t an Antifa uniform any more than it’s a SWAT uniform. It’s what literally anyone who wants to protect their face from both identification and glass bottles would wear. Saying, “only Antifa covers their face with tactical gear” seems like an enormous stretch.
So the police were supposed to announce that this guy was probably Antifa because he was wearing a ski mask and helmet in a picture once? That’s a connection to leftism?
He makes fun of Trump and his followers in his social media posts. Crimo attended a Trump event dressed up as ‘Where’s Waldo’ outfit. This appears to be sarcasm and an attack on President 45
That doesn’t sound like he’s making fun of Trump. It sounds like he’s highlighting that there are so many diverse people at a Trump rally that it looks like a Where’s Waldo book.
So the police were supposed to announce that he might be a leftist because he showed up in a silly costume to a Trump rally?
His social media posts appear as if he wants to kill President 47.
So the “47” meaning Trump in his art would mean that this alleged Antifa guy believes Trump is/will be the 47th POTUS, which seems like a weird thing for Antifa to be depicting. And if he wanted to threaten Trump with a number, 45 is a number that Trump already had and would make immensely more sense.
I would bet dollars to donuts that 47 is a reference to the Hitman games, where you assassinate bad guys as Agent 47. Just a guess, but one far more in line with Occam’s Razor here.
Crimo’s work is also very dark. He uses an icon throughout his social media. This icon comes from ‘mystic set with magic circles, pentagrams and imaginary chakras symbols. Collection of icons with witchcraft and occult handwriting letters.’
This is the “occult” symbol. Take a close look at the actual patch in the picture, and compare it to the symbol GP wants you to believe it’s referencing.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Bobby-Crimo-Occult-icon.jpg
Not quite the same. It’s missing some details, isn’t it? Most notably, there is no cross in the middle.
Now compare it to the logo for Suomen Sisu, a far right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalist organization.
https://www.suomensisu.fi/introduction-to-suomen-sisu-english/
Now that looks like a much better match to me. Anyone else?
When you hear hoof beats, it’s probably not a zebra.
If you assume every shooting is a false flag, planted operative, you WILL find evidence to support that. Verify, THEN trust, not the other way around.
Or… just see the evidence that Q people insist I never look at…
Sheesh, learn to take yes as an answer. :)
Did you know it's the Berenstain Bears, not the Berenstein Bears?
CERN has cost us too much already. Now this?
I'd be curious to see it if you ever dig it up.
Well, the movie Kazaam starring Sinbad apparently doesn't exist anymore. Other than that, I'm not noticing anything weird.
That's a fair prediction and I really have no reason to contest it. A few months away is only a few months away, and anything can happen.
Thank you for the thorough response. You and I both can be wordy, so I want to make sure I understand the core of the answer to my question.
Don't think of it as a team sport. Think of it as puppet show for the idiots but you can determine the outcoming by twisting enough [R] and [D]. Red Vs Blue is a HEGELIAN DIALECTIC. It's entirely Kabuki Theatre for the idiots. The way the votes come out has nothing to do with what we the people want. Instead it's about the usage of blackmail, bribes, etc.
So you're saying that even if Democrats win big these midterms, you would not consider this to be a failed prediction of Q's post-2020 election "safeguard" guarantee, correct?
You seem to suggest "safeguard" doesn't necessarily mean "the election is unrigged for Democrats", or "MAGA candidates will sweep."
It seems to mean, "Even if Democrats rig the elections and steal everything, that's fine, because it was done under White Hat safeguards this time and therefore serves some purpose in service to the Plan." Safeguarded just seems to mean that Q is in control, and even if Democrats and RINOS do well, they'll be under Q's control.
Is that in the right ballpark?
Look, my personal goal is to understand the Q stuff as well as possible, and to be able to translate that to the outside world. Because even if I have not yet been convinced by it, and don't intend to convince others, I do think it's important to get as good a picture as I can of your beliefs.
Because you guys exist in numbers that aren't insignificant, and I don't think a failure of the Plan to manifest means you guys just turn to mist.
My job as a mod on QHC there has involved mostly getting rid of ad hom nonsense. Sometimes, I've even removed misinformation about this site and its users.
My job isn't to lead people to some objective truth. Moderators aren't leaders. I have no objective over there to spread any sort of philosophy.
And, in general, I haven't removed information unless it's unrelated to Q, or if it's something that will get the subreddit banned for misinformation, like any other community that promotes Q theories.
I don't necessarily agree with Reddit's stance on this, but I also have absolutely zero power to do anything about it.
But while I don't necessarily agree that Reddit is the best place to get a view into Q stuff, it's also a WAY bigger audience than anything GAW has.
You can choose to have the Reddit mods staffed exclusively with people who aren't even willing to talk to you and think of you as unsalvable idiots, if you'd prefer, but I can't imagine how that would benefit either of us.
You want a Great Awakening, and I like being able to talk directly with the people I'm trying to understand. Because I like to cut out the potential for propaganda when I am investigating Q supporters, and talking to you here is the best way to do that.
It's as if everyone here assumes that every semi-intelligent nonbeliever on the planet is simply going to stand aside and do weeks of research while the Q Team arrests and executes our politicians and business leaders.
I know that people here have continuously assumed I am here for nefarious reasons on the basis that I have not capitulated to Q Theories after reading the evidence. As if no intelligent person can possibly require a better standard of proof than you did to accept Q's Truth.
But I will continue to insist, to the best of my knowledge, that I am a pretty good harbinger for the readiness of the Great Awakening, because exactly none of the questions I ask or points I make are going to be ones that are not made by regular, non-corrupt, non-Cabal, mostly honest people with actual authority and resources to stand against the Q Team.
I can tell you right now that if some nameless military agent started trying to arrest Democratic politicians and execute them, and when questioned, told me to read Devolution and I would "get it", I would try to stop that person, because I'm not going to let someone get kidnapped and executed on the possible delusion of someone.
So I'm hoping there HAS to be better evidence coming, for the sake of me and the many people like me, because otherwise, Q is going to have to gun down a lot of well-meaning people who aren't willing to give Q and Trump the benefit of the doubt and do weeks of research in order to justify Trump's apparently legal return. That research is going to need to be done, revealed, exposed widely, and packaged in a way that will convinced a cop who is unwilling to lower their gun from Q's operators long enough to read Patel Patriot.