So, to be clear, you believe that Q may potentially be incorrect in post 2610 that 2020+ elections are safeguarded, and that Democrats may still successfully cheat and win in the midterms?
Or is there a different way to interpret that drop?
No problem. Your follow-up made your point clearer.
I can definitely agree with the take that information about these situations is often unreliable while in-progress.
I can think of innocuous reasons why this keeps happening, though. In the panic of a shooting, and with limited information, I can’t really blame officials for putting out anything that might conceivably help people on the ground avoid getting shot.
Maybe shooters being on the roof is over-reported. But if there is any evidence it could be true, warning people to get indoors and out of the open isn’t unwise advice.
In general, I expect officials to err on the side of caution until the shooting actually stops and there is a reasonable belief it won’t be restarted.
So in other words, even though I agree we should be skeptical of any details for a while, I am also think there are reasonable excuses for assuming the worst about lethal situations and making these kinds of mistakes, when they do happen.
I don’t think it necessarily requires malice for this potential error to occur, even if I accept the possibility of malice. So the only word I’m really questioning here, in light of your explanation, is the word “confirms.”
I’d wait a bit before using that word, is all.
The argument that “firing while crouching confirms this is a fed” seems to suggest that the only competent shooters in the United States work for the federal government.
That would make the 2nd Amendment little more than a superficial courtesy. “Don’t worry, let them have the guns. No civilian has anywhere near the training or competency of a federal employee. They don’t even crouch while shooting a rifle.”
I’m not saying it’s impossible it’s a fed, but I wouldn’t say it’s “confirmed” based on the fact that this American knows how to shoot properly.
Well, at least open a window and it’ll feel like you’re outside. Have a good Independence Day.
You mean the one from a couple of years ago up on the big screen, or is he doing something out there tonight? I wouldn’t be surprised if Noem was doing something like that.
I agree and said this when the decision was released.
I was largely resigned to Republicans doing well at the midterms, because Biden is boring and many rank-and-file would love nothing more than to take a break from politics for a session. Without Trump on the ballot, it was going to be hard to get Democratic turnout.
But Roe changed everything.
Now, in a sense, Trump is back on the ballot. His legacy is that the SCOTUS he picked just made abortion a legislative problem. A problem which we can directly affect at the voting booth.
A major issue which liberals thought was safe is now being put up for a vote.
Which means, now, Democrats have a BIG reason to show up for not just this election, but 2024 as well. Not only will abortion either directly or indirectly be on the ballot, but in a sense, Trump is as well. Democrats just got reminded HARD what happens when Republicans win elections.
Regardless of who orchestrated the Roe decision or what their motivations were, they succeeded in ensuring every single Democrat is going to crawl over broken glass to vote for the foreseeable future, and definitely for the next President.
This isn’t a problem for you guys if you’re correct that Trump supporters drastically outnumber non-supporters, and any election results suggesting otherwise are the result of fraud.
If Q was correct and 2020+ midterm elections are safe, then this election should have no fraud, and therefore, our vote totals should be accurate, and any wins by Democrats this year should be legitimate and representative of real Democratic votes.
I’m looking forward to seeing how it pans out.
I will single-handedly change that.
Hello, SuzanneX. How are things?
There's no way Q could operate with plausible deniability while allowing a public execution of a traitor and announcing the reasons for his execution. It appears to be that the plan requires people's reputations to remain intact.
So this sort of demands a question, then.
What if the Plan successfully eliminates the Deep State’s influence and power, but never publicly vindicates you?
What if the Plan requires that Biden serve out his term uneventfully, Trump not to return to office, no public arrests or executions, and that Democrats might actually get elected, even to the Presidency?
But no more Satanists or child sacrificing. Nobody will ever know you were right, and you’ll never be able to prove it.
Is that a Plan that works for you?
The only reason the cabal is not pissing in the bathtub is because they believe they are winning, and they believe they'll be the owner of the bathtub at the end of the day so they should preserve it.
So, to be clear, literally every believer of Q is smarter than every Deep State operative by a high margin, correct?
The NSA has some of the most naturally-talented codebreakers who ever lived. The CIA has access to intelligence resources far beyond what anyone here can access from their laptop.
And none of these people can see the alleged inevitability of Q’s victory? None of them are smart enough to decode what you have?
I think that would be a profoundly arrogant assumption for anyone to make, and completely unworthy of the strategic brilliance Q is supposed to be representing. Always assume ANY messages you publicly send to your own people can be decoded, in context, by anyone else listening.
If the Plan relies on the Deep State being too stupid to do what the people on this site can do, I think that’s an uncomfortable level of naïveté, and definitely not the work of an experienced military operator.
“No (P)lan survives first contact with the enemy.”
A day is coming when the president of the US will be arrested. When most of the congress will be arrested. When some members of SCOTUS will be arrested.
For falsifiability, how do you plan to test whether or not this belief is incorrect?
Is there a specific date that the Plan MUST have happened by in order to make sense? If we reach the 2024 election, and Trump is just running again, and no mass arrests or Awakening is occurring in any obvious way, does that mean that the Plan hasn’t happened?
I just worry if the belief is “some day, this will happen,” then you have no way to know whether you’ve been fooled. You could wait for decades, and assume Q was just operating on a forty-year delta.
Every theory should have a way to prove it’s wrong. What would prove your belief in this reckoning by Q to be incorrect? Is it possible?
Take the average individual who heard someone speak about Q, but thinks they're crazy. Even they will understand what is happening on the day of arrests. They won't be speculating that it's a coup, instead they'll say to themselves "Oh, I guess that crazy relative was actually right".
Good! That means it’ll be loud, obvious, and falsifiable. And if that day comes, I have promised to be here and take my licks for it. It’ll be super easy for me to see I was proven wrong.
But if that day doesn’t come, it’s not going to be a big, loud event. It just won’t happen. The world will continue moving on without Q.
And again, if the day doesn’t come, how will you know? What’s the signal that the Plan isn’t occurring or isn’t real? It won’t be super easy for you to see if you’ve been proven wrong, certainly not as easy as it would be to prove me wrong.
You know the cabal exists, you just either think it's such a small problem that it's no big deal or haven't put 1+1 together to understand the full ramifications of what it means when laws are written by blackmailed congressmen, enforced by a blackmailed presidency and ruled to be just by a blackmailed SCOTUS.
Contrary to the accusations that are often thrown my way on this site, my view of how the world works is not more simplistic than Q’s perspective. In fact, I’d wager it’s more complicated, by far.
I don’t believe in one Cabal. I believe in thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of criminal organizations, many of which have nothing to do with each other, and some of them that traffic children.
Epstein was one. Just one. Of thousands.
And when Epstein was taken down, someone else probably took his place within the month. Someone who may not have even known Epstein, but who has some new source of trafficked children.
I don’t see crime a solvable problem. There will always be a demand for things people aren't supposed to have. want things they aren’t supposed to have. Drugs, illegal weapons, illegal sex, whatever. This is never going to change as long as people are capable of sin.
Q is not going to save people from sin. Q is not God. You can’t win a battle against evil as long as a single human is still alive. You can only refuse to lose until the end of humanity.
The glory isn’t in beating evil. It’s in fighting it anyway, even knowing you can’t even stamp it out completely.
I believe in bad people, and I believe that bad people sometimes work together to do bad things, and I absolutely believe that rich people and politicians have an easier time than most doing bad things without getting caught. I believe these people should not be allowed to do bad things unopposed.
We agree on these facts.
What I don’t yet believe is that there is a single unified Illuminati-like Cabal. I don’t yet believe that Satanism has anything to do with literally any of this. I simply don’t see the good guys and the bad guys being divided into two discrete sides.
Most importantly, I don’t think Donald Trump has any role in any such conflict. At all. I think he believes the election was stolen from him, but I don’t believe he has any Plan to rectify it, nor does he have anyone around him who can help, even if they agree.
And I absolutely don’t believe in any Plan that claims to achieve such a massive victory against a unified army of evil, but secretly, and with some degree of permanency that makes the “sacrifice” Trump made by leaving the White House worth it.
I think Trump is probably just watching the news like everyone else these days.
I have looked for Trump to talk about this Deep State in a context that doesn’t benefit him or shift blame away from him. I have looked for Trump to accuse a supporter of being Cabal. I have been looking for some reason to counter the argument that the DS is just a scapegoat for Trump, so that he doesn’t have to tell his supporters he fucked up or couldn’t make the deal or, in other words, lost a battle publicly.
I am open to being convinced, but if you’re correct, I won’t need to be convinced. I just need to wait until the day that the arrests start.
I have no reason not to wait for the next twenty years. What about you?
I really do appreciate the time you’re putting into this conversation. Even though I know my questioning style can seem combative, I am learning quite a bit about your perspective, which I am hoping is what we both want.
I think you could be right about the time zone situation, or at least convincing enough that I will defer to you on it for now. Interesting catch.
Which leaves us where I said, that the evidence you have is that Q suggested McCain would be “in the news” when he was in the news every single day. And that vague prediction was one month, apparently to the minute, before McCain’s death, which you consider to be highly suspicious.
Your suggestion is that the most reasonable explanation for this connection is that Q is responsible for, or at least knowledgeable about, McCain’s secret execution, in lieu of his death being from his publicly known brain cancer and being 81 years old.
That seems like an incredible extrapolation to me. I understand (though disagree) that you believe there is a great weight of evidence in deltas that supports this, but your explanation for Q’s involvement still leaves me scratching my head.
Why did McCain get a deal? Didn’t Q usually capitalize “NO DEALS”? The Great Awakening is happening by trying and executing people for their crimes in secret?
Instead of revealing it?
I’m trying to reconcile a world in which Q is trying to “awaken” people to the truth about how evil people like McCain and Clinton apparently are, but then carrying out the justice secretly, DELIBERATELY covering up the real cause of death, and ensuring the only people who believe the truth sound like crazy people to the outside world by matching up deltas.
Everything about that strategy screams that Q is someone trying to protect the legacy of the Cabal that he’s executing and ensuring that the truth, if it ever leaks out, is attributed to the wild conspiracy theories of that QAnon guy.
I don’t even believe the notion of Q being a “black hat” (since I haven’t even been convinced of the Cabal that Q and Trump blame for their problems), but that narrative seems like a Bad Guy narrative to me.
Interesting. I don’t want you to feel like I’m dodging if this is correct and I don’t immediately capitulate on Q’s prophecy, because whether it’s off by an hour or not, I’m still not exactly certain what narrative I’m supposed to believe as a result. That Q knew to the minute when an elected official would die of apparently natural causes?
There aren’t a whole lot of non-villains that would have foreknowledge of something like that, so I’m curious what the next step is. It’s not exactly a strong proof, but what do you want me to believe it’s proof of?
But I definitely want to look into this time zone thing, because your argument doesn’t look wrong on its face, and I want to see if it pans out when I have access to something less mobile.
I need to check into this some more when I have some time. It seems there may be some conflicting information regarding EDT, and I’ve gotten different results on different calculators with the same conversion. I will check back in tomorrow after I’ve looked, but you’re free to beat me to it.
I think you're right about how decentralization of information works. It's not really a new concept. You're really just stating how great the internet is, which I agree with. I also am against big media.
I just don't feel like the fact that we disagree on the exact shape of the threat makes us irreconcilable, as you seem to.
You are absolutely correct that it is impossible to effectively censor information that has no central source. That is definitely a power of the Q movement.
Zeitreise, if you're going to insist on invading every single one of my conversations with your cohorts, please at least take the time to read the conversation fully before responding.
I was referring to a point made by u/magavoices, quoted below.
What is the ramification of us and "a greater number of people than Q supporters" being confused? None? ... There is no ramifications to my being confused.
McCain died at 4:28PM MST. Arizona is in Mountain Standard Time.
Q's post was 7:28PM EDT, per your screenshot. 6:28PM CST, per my source, which is the same time.
4:28PM MST = 6:28PM EDT. Not 7:28PM EDT, when Q posted.
Not to the minute. They were one month, and one hour apart. It's stretching badly to call this a delta at this point.
Especially since Q's only prediction was "McCain would be in the news." No duh.
The answer is yes, I did know this already. I was hoping the questions I asked would encourage you to double-check your research on this. As I said, I have yet to see a single proof that didn't have these kinds of problems.
Given that, would you like me to respond to the rest of your post, or would you like to address this first?
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.
Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.
My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.
And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.
Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.
You think so?
I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.
I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.
“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”
No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?
That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?
Well, see my point here from earlier?
I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.
I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.
My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.
But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.
You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.
I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.
Sun Tzu stuff:
Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.
I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?
A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.
Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.
And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.
At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?
There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.
And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.
If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.
Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.
You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool. Couldn’t happen, right?
Has anyone considered that Q, the obvious cinephile who posts about movies constantly and whose narrative seems ripped out of a spy thriller, might have told you guys that “you’re watching a movie” as a clue that he was playing with you?
Maybe he was describing a reality based off his movies, and then told you so with double-speak? Just to see if anyone here was smart enough to catch that he was fucking with them?
If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?
We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.
Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?
If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?
I appreciate your answers to the questions.
I want to respond to this but ran out of time to keep talking. Do you mind if I come back to this soon? There's quite a bit of stuff here worth talking about.
I unexpectedly ran out of time today to keep talking, but if you'd like, I'll try to come back later, since it looks like you have a lot of good stuff here.
Can I ask why Q needs plausible deniability?
If Trump is in control, and “we have it all”, and the White Hats have the game in the bag, and NCSWIC…
…then exactly who is Q afraid of being exposed to? Is Q afraid of the Deep State?
Is Q and the Plan so fragile that Q’s mere identity being exposed Can Stop What Is Coming?
If Q is right, he doesn’t need plausible deniability. He’s doing the right thing for the right reasons, and can apparently prove it, since “we have it all.” He doesn’t need to be afraid of a court system when Trump is back in charge.
And besides, since everyone in the Cabal apparently knows each other, it’s probably not hard for them to figure out the few people out there from Trump’s sphere who are not members of the club.
If the Deep State was that bad, they could narrow the list of Trump-supporting people with the necessary credentials pretty easily and wipe everyone off the map.
If they can’t do that, then Q has no reason to stay hidden.
Plausible deniability is used to protect Important Figures from being associated with Terrible Things.
So if this whole thing is really in the bag, and Q is who he claims to be, then I don’t see the point of plausible deniability, especially when Q’s identity as a high-ranking military or intelligence operative would benefit this movement ENORMOUSLY.
That's all Q ever was. A bunch of questions which got people thinking actively about what was going on in THEIR government.
Maybe… but do you know what typically happens when I ask questions here?
I provide an answer. I am told that I am brainwashed. I provide another answer. I’m told to turn off the television. I provide another answer. I am told I am believing the lies from the Deep State. I provide another answer. I am told that I am simply an idiot too stupid to salvage.
I provide the answer that supports the notion that Trump is a genius and fighting Satanists and Q is a mastermind and that everyone who hates Trump is a pedophilic cannibal?
I hear, “FINALLY you’re starting to think like a free thinker!”
Being dismissed as “a brainwashed sheep” for literally any argument that makes Q look potentially wrong or fraudulent isn’t any more open-minded than simply telling me what to believe.
And I’m not accusing you of it directly, but I don’t think you can deny it that simply “making people think about their government” is clearly not what the Q community believes the endgame to be.
Q trained us by questioning us selectively on particular topics that are uncommon so that we are more familiar with them when they DO come up in the social ecosphere.
Q posts are a crash course in Military data analysis and awareness.
I’m not really convinced of that yet.
I’d challenge you to go into the wackiest, most ridiculous conspiracy community you can find. Really, look for the outliers among outliers. Hang out there for a bit.
If they take themselves seriously, they will also be congratulating themselves as intelligent critical thinkers in a world full of sheepish idiots. They will also be citing Legitimate Documents that seem to parallel with their definition of what constitutes critical thinking.
All part of a COIN intel operation to provide an outlet for domestic civilians an opportunity to resist insurgent political groups like ANTIFA and BLM, without devolving into violent Civil Conflict.
I’m also not convinced of that. Suggesting that Q is a counter-intelligence agent and that “disinformation is necessary” means that Q can be wrong, and supporters will write it off as disinformation.
“Huh. It appears I’ve been tricked. THAT’LL show the Cabal.”
It’s exactly the sort of fraudulent claim I would imply if I wanted to ensure that I would get the benefit of the doubt any time reality disagreed with me. Because obviously, if I’m wrong, it because I’m fighting a war and need the enemy to “expend ammo.”
No part of Sun Tzu suggests hiding the identity of your real commanders, allowing false commanders to give orders in order to “expose them”, letting the enemy conquer your country just to “awaken” your populace, and causing such a sense of confusion in your own army that even your soldiers don’t know who they’re supposed to be listening to for valid information.
Q alluded to the country of Ukraine. Which was in the news a lot when he was posting, considering that Trump's first impeachment was (in part) due to the alleged attempt to leverage Ukraine against Biden.
I'm not seeing anything here providing a concrete prediction that Ukraine was housing bioweapon labs on behalf of the US, or that Putin would be responsible in dismantling them on behalf of the White Hats. Ukraine's mere presence in the news perfectly explains why Q was talking about this at the time.
Which is kind of the point I've been making about Q. He is "just asking questions" about current events, and the implied answers are only that the narrative may not be true. Nothing else, no other predictions after those first early ones.
Any time Ukraine is in the news for the next ten years, it could conceivably be in relation to what Q was discussing here.
Any event in the past, present, or further that takes place on the 70% of this planet covered in liquid might conceivably fit the prediction of "watch the water." Why on Earth would Q waste his time saying this if it was actually supposed to prepare people for something?
What exactly is this information good for if it gives me not a single specific I can use to know what I should be looking for? I’ve been staring at the water running from my sink for two years now and still haven’t seen anything interesting.
Theories that have no provable predictive value aren't really theories, they're mythologies. I didn't see a single Q researcher here predict that Russia would be attacking biolabs in Ukraine on behalf of the Cabal before Russia’s invasion, despite these posts existing.
So can you tell me the next major international event that's going to happen, according to Q? Can you tell me which country will make headlines in October of this year, with all the Q posts you have at your disposal?
The difference between a scientific theory and a faith-based one is predictive capability and falsifiability (which are related). Anyone can make up a narrative AFTER the event has already occurred; this is how literally all mythology works.
We don't know. There's been no clear answer to that question, from Q or any other. On 8chan, Q trusted CM (CodeMonkeyZ, Ron Watkins) enough to pat him on the back:
That is extraordinarily suspicious to me, to both avoid any answer to the obvious question while praising the guy everyone is suspicious of.
Q only required mods not have any operational control over the thread.
But since Watkins apparently maintained admin control of 8chan beyond that of Q, then Q had no way of enforcing this. Did Q trust, but forget to verify?
If Q themselves set it up, there would be no anonymity. Q can't have a paper trail to function. Plausible Deniability must be maintained. If Q were a Military Operation, revealing certain details about the government would be treason, regardless of clearance level. That's why the Chans were the chosen platform to begin with, because they allowed full anonymity and laxness in censorship.
I'm sorry, but I just plain don't accept this argument.
Chans are not complicated pieces of software. They are not hard to set up. And it's not hard for any group with experience and resources to set up a secure website that protects the identity of its owners. This community believes that governments routinely set up false flags and other fronts to conceal their involvement in secret operations.
Are you really telling me that the Q Team, despite having been pulled from these same government and military officials, lacks the expertise to create a site with anonymous ownership? That our digital soldiers have to rely on the expertise of Watkins for their security?
That's... a shockingly poor assessment of the Q Team's technological capabilities, even beyond what I would suggest.
All this talk of dates "coming and going" are BS. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm tired of people using that same failed argument of "none of Q's predictions come true." Which ones? Give me a few to reference.
The predictions are absolutely there, but they aren't falsifiable. Which is why nobody can directly disprove Q: "disinformation is necessary" pretty much means that anything you don't like from Q World, you can toss out as probably irrelevant.
And since deltas are apparently allowed to be considered valid, then Q can say, "midterms are safe" (1197: 4/19/18), have that prediction fail, and then afterward say, "Oh, I was talking about 2022, not the 2018 election that was coming up when I made that prediction” (2620: 12/12/18).
The fact is that if you accept a prediction on the basis that it will EVENTUALLY come true, without knowing anything about HOW or WHEN it will come true, or what specific events will prove that it's happening, then you're allowed to wait literally forever for the Plan and still never be proven wrong.
I could come visit you on your deathbed in however many decades it would be, and you could still technically jab at me that I haven't proven Q's predictions wrong. It just might be operating on a 17 year delta.
Which is why Q seems to me to require faith, and I don't really like faith in my research movements.
Do you know the phrase "Military is the only way?"
Actually, I already made this argument for you. :)
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXpKkAgj/x/c/4OZqiNb1XPz
Why are the media choosing NOW to cover Q's return, when there have been previous "returns" from imposters since his absence?
I did answer your question, but I'll be clearer.
The media is watching you, not Q. They care about the Q community.
And due to the trip codes and such, the Q community is far more trusting of this particular variation of Q than previous returns.
The media is reporting on it because the Q people think it's news, and as this board has fondly said, you are the news now. What you think about Q's return IS news, and lots of people think he's returned. Which means lots of people think the Plan is about to kick off, which means the media is going to be interested in reporting on those people.
When I was a kid, I remember watching a doomsday cult on the news. They had sold their possessions, said goodbye to their family, and smugly told everyone else they were going to hell.
So of course the news cameras were rolling when the prophesized doomsday came and went. Everyone wanted to see the faces of the believers.
The cameras are pointed at you because the news wants to see your face when you're proven wrong, just as badly as everyone here wants to see me and people like me when I'm proven wrong.
What story did Q tell? Honestly, tell me what you think, because I have no idea what you think Q has said, so I cannot confirm or deny your stance's validity on the matter.
Most generally, Q not only supported Trump's allegations of a Deep State working specifically against him and his role in fighting them, but promised an inevitable victory. Most generally.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I believe about Q's posts. It matters what the Q community does with those posts. Q never talked much about COVID or the vaccine, considering how huge it a deal it became. Q never really discussed biolabs in Ukraine being the first shots in the hot war against the Cabal.
So why are people talking about these things here as if Q endorsed them?
Probably because if they ONLY stuck to the stuff Q talked about directly, then it would appear that the world quite moved on without Q. If Q never talked about COVID, then was he surprised by COVID? Was this not accounted for in the Plan?
I don't see a strong interest in exploring that theory here. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Respectfully, are you sure you want to commit to that assertion so completely?
Every day or so, I see posts from non-handshake accounts expressing a desire for public arrests. Why public? If private can accomplish the mission, and it already seems to be the way Q is going with McCain and possibly others, then what is the point of streaming the proof on television?
You haven't seen these comments asking for some sort of vindication? Perhaps you don't need it, but do you feel that comfortable suggesting that members of the Q movement have "no motivation whatsoever" to enjoy the schadenfreude of the "I told you so" moment of the Storm and the sudden confirmed, public elevation to expert on current events?
If they know that some assassin intends to kill them and permanently destroy their legacy unless they get that car fixed?
Yeah, I'd say that's pretty stupid. :)
I have plenty of interest in figuring this stuff out, and I am under no threat whatsoever from Q's success. If Q is actually releasing information that is confirmed as proving knowledge of the Cabal's plans, the Cabal would know that better than anyone, since they're the ones making the plans.
They'd be the ones freaking out over deltas, because unlike me, they can actually confirm their own involvement in the events those deltas are targeting.
So yes, I would very much say that if there is any legitimacy to Q whatsoever, this Cabal would know it better than any of you. And they'd be more interested than any of you in getting to the bottom of it. And they'd have far more resources to do so than anyone around here, unless one of our users has a very interesting secret. :)
I would respectfully suggest that if you are constantly dismissing the capacity for people to act illogically, then I am not surprised that Q is the only way to make sense of the world.
People are dumb. Criminals get caught leaving behind evidence all the time, especially sexual predators who need to keep trophies for their memories.
I don't know if Biden is guilty of the accusations that Q people make around here, but if you're going to assume that criminality corresponds with carefulness or intelligence, then I would definitely take a step back and reevaluate. The vast majority of criminals are caught because they did something stupid to incriminate themselves.
Eh, kind of.
But it's up to each and every individual to decide when arrests haven't happened, isn't it? That's kind of the issue.
The Q movement as a whole is non-falsifiable, because there is no way to prove that arrests haven't happened or will never happen. There's always a chance that disinformation was necessary, and that it's just a longer delta than we thought.
Which means the falsifiable condition is, "when enough individuals get sick of waiting and hit some personal, gut-related arbitrary deadline." Which isn't really falsifiable, as far as the entire philosophy goes.
That's why I've always been interested in this question. If I'm wrong, it's loud, obvious, and undeniable.
If you are, nobody is ever going to prove it. This movement just decays one person at a time, and nobody ever really has to recognize it.
I struggle to differentiate that mechanic with the death of a religion. The condition is only falsifiable on one direction. In the other direction, we're just waiting for believers to lose faith on their own accord. They weren't proven wrong. They just give up.
Most researchable fields are falsifiable through the presentation of evidence countering it, not through the researchers eventually getting bored of waiting for someone else to prove them right.
As a note, I'll state openly that I'm not a child and won't consider retiring this conversation as a "forfeit" by either side. If you think we've milked this conversation as far as we can, then I'm happy to touch base with you the next time we both find a topic interesting to talk about. I don't like accidentally trapping people in discussions.
But I'm always happy to keep talking as long as you think we have something to talk about.