At this point, seems it's either that or "you're watching a movie" is LITERAL.
Another possibility: "you're watching a movie" is literal, Q has the script, and clown world is the foreshadowing.
In information warfare, usefulness and truth are often unrelated - and if WE knew WHY specific things were being posted, so would the enemy.
It's not like you can just say "We're spreading a false rumor that the pope was arrested to increase the visibility of Italy's actions. If all goes well the intentional misinformation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy." without defeating the point.
My theory is not that it's referring to God or Lucifer, but to the title used by the pope
Nothing that involves humans can be trustworthy forever.
POTUS account still up on my end
I can think of at least one way they could accomplish it...
World economic forum: Preparing for a cyber pandemic.
From Drop 6:
POTUS is 100% insulated - any discussion suggesting he’s even a target is false.
...that said, I think I'm going to pray anyway.
The first sentence got me thinking about the term "conspiracy theorist".
Framing and persuasion may be a stronger force in normie reactions than we realize. Worth some thought?
The current framing is strong, largely because the more accurate "Civilians who look into the potential interactions of criminals are right sometimes" isn't exactly catchy.
Knowing this, I thought about what a good alternate term would look like.
Current thoughts:
- Short + catchy (path of least resistance)
- Not claim what's being said is necessarily true (mental obstacle to using the term, also makes mocking easier when wrong)
- Point out that suspecting some criminals talking to each other sometimes is actually pretty reasonable.
My suggestion: Crime Info Asker.
(Abbreviation intentional)
Definitely not the best possible term, but still might be useful in changing the framing until something better comes along? Any better ideas?
The stimulus was never the point, and they're past pretending:
Whether the deep state wins or hangs, their concerns no longer contain "reelection".
There was plenty of proof that Q was near the president without looking for combinations of numbers in every random piece of content posted by anyone around him.
There are cases that are convincing, but a lot of recent ones were of this format:
"Your post currently has +20 -3
Flip them (think mirror)
302 For Green. Q —end—
The fight is over. Source: Q said end. Proof: Your post is more green than red."
(The fight is NEVER over, and Q never said it was.)
The difficulty of faking a proof is directly related to how valid it is (if you can fake it, it's not proof of anything), and the process for creating "proofs" like that is really easy.
Pick a random number or combination of numbers in a piece of content
Does it look sorta related?
The ones that get posted look like they had to be picked by hand - because they WERE. And in this case we KNOW where the selection process was occurring: in the head of the person who posted them.
A statement being true does not make all arguments in favor of that statement valid. Q almost certainly had some real insider information. Treating insider information like a horoscope does nobody any favors.