This phrase was used to describe to Reagan how he should interact with the Soviets regarding nuclear power.
These are the same Soviets (historically) that are responsible for Operation Trust, BTW, and that very much relied on trusting people being fooled into thinking they were verifying. Which is how they were able to capture Reilly and Savinkov.
It might be good advice when dealing with public-facing international politics against an equal-level nuclear power.
Not really good advice for a research site. At all.
It would take a lot of resources for someone to hijack the tripcodes.
It would take a lot of resources for some people. Not everyone.
Q is posting on 8kun. 4Chan effectively kicked him off when the mods refused to provide tripcode protections. Selection of mods was thought to be more secure on 8kun
I can’t imagine why anyone would think that. Moderator selection is as simple as clicking a button. There is no formal process for moderator applications beyond what the site administrator has decided.
So Q and Q supporters trusted Watkins to provide moderator protection worthy of something as important as the Plan? Why? Who on earth would trust him for such an important task?
Are chans really too difficult for the Q Team to have set up their own, that they fully controlled and secured? We wouldn’t be dealing with this problem right now if Q wasn’t relying on the 8chan administrator as his gatekeeper.
Consider the landscape. If this was just like any other fake Q, why the media coverage?
I’ve discussed this before. The outside world, the media, and so forth are not concerned about Q or his predictions. Very few people from the outside even know what those predictions are.
The outside world keeps an eye on Q people because they worry what happens when the Plan fails to come to fruition.
Lie or not, Q-adjacent beliefs are considered partly to blame for Jan 6th by the outside world. Everyone knows what the “ammo box” is.
If the Q team never shows up to execute all these alleged pedophilic Satanist cannibals, do Q people give up and consider that maybe they were misled, and that these politicians, while despicable, may not be responsible for what Q and Trump suggested?
If not, then THAT is why the media is going to breathlessly report on the Q movement, rather than Q’s words. Because Q’s words are less important to the outside world than the actions and influence of the people who believe the story he told.
Back in the earlier days, I asked a question I had struggled with regarding Q’s credibility.
If Q represented a highly-sophisticated, detailed Plan, and part of that Plan is to wake people up through the Q drops, then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?
I know that some users here see that site as a haven of geniuses whose autism is apparently a superpower, which is not exactly how I remember my time there.
But even beyond that, it’s a chan site. The security it provides is somewhat superficial and sufficient mostly for tricking people into thinking they’re anonymous. It was never that hard to create or manipulate a chan site.
So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised? Do these digital supersoldiers lack the funding or expertise to anonymously start and manage their own secure site?
The answer I got back at the time from Q people?
“Q DID start his own site, or at least take it over. 8kun is controlled by Q. Watkins is controlled by Q. You’re a fucking idiot if you think Q would entrust his drops to a site outside of White Hat control.”
Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.
Which is something that, two years ago, Q people assured me is impossible.
So, from this point in time, I have to examine the following possibilities:
-
Q is legitimate, but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating with his followers (“no outside comms”), due to a very foreseeable issue with Watkins owning the boards and manipulating them.
-
Q is legitimate, and “You are watching a movie with actors. Disinformation is necessary. Watkins is under control and you are being fooled by optics designed to cause the Deep State to expend yet more and more ammo.” I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.
-
Q is legitimate, but didn’t honestly put much effort into the “communication with anons” because, since NCSWIC, Q drops are ultimately not that important. The Plan doesn’t require your participation or understanding, so Q didn’t care much that Watkins could potentially lock him out or impersonate him.
-
Q is not legitimate, because a legitimate military or intelligence operation would not entrust such an important component to the Plan to an outside source like Watkins if such a Plan actually existed. This would mean Q either is a 8kun admin manipulating things like time zones to create deltas, or just a random channer who had a enough lucky coincidences to fertilize years of confirmation bias.
Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?
Is the Cabal the only entity with a justifiable interest in manipulating Q supporters and the capability of doing so through the chan?
Not everybody with hostile intentions are on the same side against you. Just like how not every sympathetic voice is necessarily “on your side.” The world is far more complicated than that.
Kind of wish this phrase would disappear. “Trust but verify” isn’t a thing.
The definition of trust is not having to verify things all the time. If you’re verifying constantly, you don’t trust it. By definition.
When was the last time you had someone taste-test a meal for poison when it was provided by your spouse?
When was the last time you asked your boss to verify their identity so that you knew you weren’t working for a fraud?
When was the last time you cautiously approached the old family dog that has never bitten anyone in his life?
Are you not verifying the things you trust in your life?
The only phrase that makes sense is “verify, then trust.” THAT is how you avoid ending up in a cult mindset. Once you start trusting people promoting the thing you’re studying, you’re already losing your ability to research it properly.
My eyebrows won’t raise until there is a day that I am alive Texas isn’t mulling over secession.
Since the Tweet you referenced seems to have been deleted, I believe I have posted the link to the original story you were trying to share.
It happened yesterday. Give it a little time before deciding that this is a cover-up.
Cause of death is a legal and medical determination, and with so many casualties will likely take more than a single day to verify. You can’t establish cause of death just by eyeballing a body when the body could have been damaged post-mortem.
It appears the Tweet was deleted, probably because the Pentagon said no such thing. They have only released a statement that they are looking at how to proceed in accordance with federal law.
I can find no further statements on it suggesting that they intend to ignore the SCOTUS ruling as implied by this post, but someone else is able to verify with their own research.
While I cannot say I endorse your degree of self-confidence, I certainly envy what it must feel like to be so certain of your interpretation of the world. I’ve never felt that.
What a wonderful milestone, CS. Congratulations, truly. People really underestimate how insidious substances can be. Nobody knows they have addiction problems until one day, their “normal drinking” keeps them from doing something they usually liked doing.
And by that point, it’s too late to just stop on a dime for most people.
And as you probably know, people who have never accidentally found themselves hooked on something like that are just never going to understand how much of a fight it is to get unhooked. It takes a great deal of strength to recover from addiction, and unfortunately, not everyone has that strength.
You and all the other recovering users in this thread have my sincere respect. That is a battle that never completely ends, and you deserve to celebrate every day as a new victory.
Boy, I wish I had put money on betting that you were reading that book when you posted this. :)
I agree completely and support any floor vote to unmask Q. His/Her/Xer/Their identity is the single most important falsifiable question this movement could answer.
If Q is someone with the credentials and authority to make the sorts of claims Q makes, that puts a lot of strength behind Q’s claims. Even nonbelievers would grudgingly read through what a high level intelligence or military operative wrote.
If Q is not such a person, then that invalidates the credibility of a lot of Q’s claims. Even if you believe in the world Q described, this movement would have some soul-searching to do.
That makes the truth about Q’s identity interesting to the outside world (and perhaps motivating enough to lead to a Great Awakening), but absolutely vital to the people following him.
You want to awaken people? Enter the normie world, and turn Q posts from “disjointed ramblings of an anonymous channer” into “secret messages sent from Generals X and Y in support of a secret war”, and all of a sudden, you’ll see Q posts in collector’s editions at your local book stores, because the authorship will have been verified as someone worth hearing out. Even if for no other reason than simple curiosity.
And if Q was right in post 3029, 94-96% of that book’s readers will walk away from the experience hand-in-hand with you.
Do you know what Q said far more often than “military is the only way”?
TRANSPARENCY is the only way.
-Q, posts 4686, 2816, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc
Maybe “transparency about the election fraud and Cabal” wasn’t what he meant here. Maybe there needs to be another form of transparency first.
To be clear, these were not nitpicked examples. The 310 proof was the first one from the provided video, and the tippy top proof was the first video in a provided list of linked proofs.
https://greatawakening.win/p/142B0wDBGj/x/c/4OUhvkKISno
Neither of them was chosen because they were bad proofs; they were the first proofs offered from two different lists.
And it’s not just these two. I have not yet found a falsifiable Q proof I’ve closely examined that has not had these same types of problems.
Which means that when you say there’s a totality of proof that lends weight to the weaker ones, I can’t say that I have seen evidence of that yet. To believe that there is such a mountain of proof, I would need to see at least a few unambiguous, slam-dunk proofs that had no obvious, simpler explanations, and I haven’t yet.
I’ve tried to find those proofs that are concrete and impossible to deny, just to establish that common ground. But given the gravity of Q’s claims, he deserves every ounce of skepticism and not a single benefit of the doubt. I have no problem holding his “proof” to a very high standard, and if he is serious about his philosophy, he would wholeheartedly support this standard in researching the truth about this movement.
Luckily for me, Q is posting again. We can just do this in real time again.
I've responded to the video before. It doesn't really help your case on deltas.
For instance, the first proof they talk about is between post 310 and Trump's tweet three minutes later. They both mention the word "military."
Q then posts four more times within a few minutes before post 315, in which he claims credit for the delta between his post and Trump's post.
It's worth noting that Trump's tweet was talking about the Army vs Navy game, which is a big deal, usually covered by the national news. The fact that Trump said "military" at this time is unremarkable, and it would have been weird if he DIDN'T say "military" on Dec 9, 2017.
So, the timeline on this proof?
-
Q posts 16 different posts within the span of one hour on Dec 9th, 2017 (he posts more on that day, but this was all in one sitting).
-
In the middle of this post storm, Trump posts a "yay military" Tweet in response to the very well-known Army vs Navy game taking part that day.
-
Q (or a Q researcher) notices Trump's post and Q's post both mention the same common word within a few minutes of each other, and Q claims credit for the delta.
It's possible he's responsible. It's also possible Q is just taking advantage of the three factors I named above producing a coincidence, and a somewhat unimpressive one at that.
I've also discussed the famous tippy-top proof.
https://qanon.pub/data/proofs/01b6f3c7b899e31528bf3355bd28f666957ecd7490ec8263a2ce562602ffaeb3.jpg
A Q supporter says they want to hear the phrase "tip top", and Trump says "tippy top" in the speech shortly after. Q then claims credit in post 991.
This would be a HUGE proof of Q's connection to Trump under ONE or BOTH of two conditions:
-
Q took credit for making this specific connection happen BEFORE Trump said the phrase, and therefore guaranteed taking action on one of the hundreds of requests he got before every Trump speech.
-
Trump was not known to use the phrase "tip top" or "tippy top" before this speech, and therefore, there is no other explanation than it being a signal and a response to the Q supporter.
Unfortunately, neither of these things are true. Q only took credit for this delta AFTER it had occurred, which means it's possible he watched the speech, and then scanned through the requests to see if anything matched up. If it did, he claimed credit. I can't rule that out, because Q didn't specify that he would be accommodating ANY request, let alone that specific one.
The second point required some digging on my part. Had Trump ever used such a weird phrase as "tippy top" before in a speech? Was this a part of Trump's usual vocabulary?
As it turns out, yes. The speech that Q took credit for was in 2018.
However, this other video was uploaded in 2016. And in this video, Trump makes a REALLY big deal about using the word "tippy top."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYy-WMuyiU&t=6080s&ab_channel=DonaldTrumpLiveSpeeches%26Rallies
And this was two years before any request for the weird phrase. So, clearly, this was already a part of Trump's lexicon, not just a random out-of-place word that showed up in 2018 for the first time. Predicting that it would occur in a Trump speech is as unusual as predicting the word "malarky" in a Biden speech.
So, once again, the mere connection between these two things is pretty soft. It seems absolutely possible that Q just took credit for this after it happened and let people believe that this wasn't something Trump had said before.
We can make all sorts of excuses why Q would not confirm these connections before they actually happen, in order to make the proof actually convincing, but the fact that he only takes credit for connections after they occur means that any skeptic can simply say Q is a grifter who relies on confirmation bias to make coincidences look like "Q meant for that to happen, because he said so after it happened."
And I think if Q was serious about his philosophy, he would wholeheartedly agree with me about this analysis, and would have a very good explanation as to why I should give him the benefit of the doubt when he could, but never does, confirm a delta connection PRIOR to it actually happening. Because that's not unreasonable critical thinking.
This is a wise approach. I've always been quite skeptical of deltas, on the basis that there are several factors that can influence when people post.
-
During Q's active time, he would often post many times a day. Trump was also an active Twitter user and would post many times a day.
-
Trump and Q both are likely operating within North America, and therefore are posting in roughly the same time zone. This would mean their active posting hours are likely going to line up.
-
Trump was known to tweet in response to news stories as he was watching them. Q was also a huge news junkie and was constantly posting stuff from the news as soon as he saw it, possibly in response to the same new story on the same channel.
So when I look at it from this perspective, it's not exactly surprising that two conservative news junkies who posted many times a day from roughly the same time zone about politics in response to breaking news stories would sometimes have posts that are pretty close to one another.
They don't need to have any real connection beyond those three in order to have a lot of potential overlap in their posting habits. Anyone who wants to share deltas with Trump just needs to be awake when he is, post many times a day, and respond to the same types of news stories that he does when they break.
In fact, I'd bet that if some diligent researcher out there collected the tweets from a sample of North American twitter users who are prolific in the political discussions, you'd find many more deltas with those accounts and Q than you'd expect.
Without doing that, it's kind of hard to establish a baseline on how many "coincidences" is too many coincidences. Which means that "how many coincidences" to convince me is probably going to be pretty high, and will probably require more connection than mere similarity in posting times.
Consider this: if there were no Q, and no reason for you to believe in a Plan, what would you be doing right now? What would you have been doing since the election was called for Biden?
Would you be out protesting the Biden administration? Rioting, even, if you didn’t feel like protesting was enough?
Even if you weren’t doing it, and had other plans on responding, would you think lowly of angry conservatives who feel there is no other way to fight back against a government that has betrayed them? Would you blame those people for reacting angrily to the election apparently being stolen and nobody offering a legal solution?
If Q had never posted promises about inevitable victory, I doubt anyone on this board would think poorly of conservatives protesting and even rioting in response to the alleged fraud. I would bet some here would be out in the streets themselves, but Q has promised a different way.
Liberals don’t have a Q, so when liberals get fucked over without recourse, they don’t have anyone prophesizing a secret Plan that will vindicate them.
They are as angry about Roe as you are about election fraud. I rarely speak in absolutes, but all the rage you feel from the “stolen election” is absolutely mirrored by liberals with SCOTUS and Trump right now.
My point isn’t that violence is excusable, but I understand how angry Q people are about election fraud better than I am credited. And I understand how people react when they feel justified in their rage, and are enraged en masse.
I understand that about Q people, and I understand that about anyone who is angry about SCOTUS right now.
And I believe that without the bro-check from Q, and if this were about unresolved election fraud rather than abortion, you would be able to sympathize with how some people are going to express that anger.
Hopefully, non-violently. But I’m sure it will be loud. Just like Q people hope the Storm will be.
Again, not excusing it. But rage at being oppressed is rage at being oppressed, regardless of the source or validity, and surely you can at least understand the emotion itself.
I’m happy to see the account is reactivated. I had my doubts that it would be, but even if Q had nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision, this would be the best time to pop back in and say hello.
Now that it’s happened, I’m looking forward to seeing this play out in real time again. Finally.
I was thinking the same thing today.
Midterms typically favor the party out of power, especially when that party is Republican. Biden is unexciting and if things were quiet, Democratic voters would have been happy to take a break from caring about politics without Trump on the ballot. We would have seen a lot of apathy compared to when Trump was in office.
But now? Abortion is officially something that's up for a vote at the legislative level. Right before midterms, Democrats have been reminded that even with Trump out of office, we're still seeing the effect of his Presidency, just as he promised. And with Thomas pushing to relitigate a lot of previously-settled decisions on conservative hot-button issues, it's like they WANT to draw out every apathetic non-Trump voter in this country.
I know that many of the users here strongly believe that Trump supporters outnumber non-Trump supporters by a significant margin, and you better hope you're right, because this RvW situation is going to have every Democrat in this country in the voting booth for the next two elections, at least, and definitely as long as Trump or any of his proxies are on the ticket.
Definitely an interesting turn of events. Before this, I would have agreed that Republicans were likely to sweep the midterms, but now? I suppose we'll see. If the "midterms are safe" as Q predicted, then fraud should not be able to give the Democrats a win, and therefore, we should get a more accurate representation about how this country feels about a Trump revival.
I'm looking forward to this midterm. It's far less predictable than usual.
somehow it is going to match a Q post
Could it match a Q post now and be used predictively?
I would imagine this cements Donald Trump’s plan to run in 2024. I’d bet we hear an announcement no later than shortly after midterms. This is going to be an excellent campaign line.
The post where he guaranteed midterms were safe was 1197, posted April 2018.
The post where he apparently clarifies he was actually talking about 2020+ is post 2610, which was posted in December 2018, shortly after Democrats took back the Senate in the midterms.
This is an important point when it analyzing this particular argument. It’s easier to make those “proofs” when they’re clarified after the most obvious goalpost has been missed.
It seems surprising that anyone on this board would give the media that much control over what they believe about reality.
Rejecting a narrative based on the media reporting it is just as sheepish as accepting a narrative based on media reporting.
Hm. I’m curious how easily they’d be able to defend firing someone for not turning over their phone records to an employer as part of a wide-net search for something that hasn’t specifically been labeled as a crime and does not yet involve law enforcement. Leaking a SCOTUS opinion doesn’t appear to be illegal on its own; there may have been crimes like trespassing or stealing of government documents, but nothing like that has been demonstrated yet.
It’ll be interesting to see whether there’s any actual teeth to this or not.
Agreed completely.