It was actually 17-10-27. The "10" was also clearly there, obscured by the youtube button on the screenshot. That would be Oct. 17, 2027 (or 1927, or 1827?).
At one point they moved around and it was 10-27-17 (the day before first q post?).
Or it was 17+10=27...
The numbers are interesting. I'm just not sure why, other than "17."
As long as it's not written in stone, there is a reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, cognitive dissonance will resolve to "You can go about your business. Move along, move along."
If, on the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt left, then, and only then, will people be forced to do something about it.
The people may not be the same, but the institution (C_A) is still the same. The evidence of it's shadyness is easy to see if a person is motivated to look. What if everyone was given evidence that proves, by their own account, that they killed JFK in conjunction with both MI6 and Mossad? Would everyone be motivated to look at the details of their general fuckery? Would they be motivated to look into their origins? Would people see that the C_A was actually created by the Rockefeller family?
So much is connected to that event. Once you are motivated to connect the dots, the dots paint a very different picture of our world. The JFK stuff is proof of a black swan. You can't unlearn about black swans.
you might as well tell me. I'm too far gone already
I promise you, you are not that far gone. Not enough that the cognitive dissonance won't harm you. And if you would have no problem with it, others would. It's too much. The programming is too powerful, too pervasive.
Either I would just say it ("It's ____"), in which case people would hate me, and everything I say afterwards will be ignored, or I give all the evidence for it, and make a convincing argument, and THEN people will hate me, or it will hurt them. Seriously, some programming is just too powerful. They're only a few who could see that evidence, and they already know or suspect.
Conspiracy? Our Subverted History, Part 2 - The Scythians and Their Kin | Asha Logos
I often link Asha Logos as a starting point for people interested in this investigation. The problem is, Asha Logos gets a lot of things wrong. They miss too much of the evidence. Most importantly, they know almost nothing about the Royal Scythians.
A long time ago some tribal asians interbred with Aryans and their descendats became the Tartarians and Mongolians.
The primary way of hiding history has been through the creative use of separation. For example, all the pyramids or other megalithic architecture are all virtually identical. They have similar architectural styles, the same dimensions, the same glyphs, same pictures or pictograms; they are written in stone telling the same stories, etc. and yet they are all proclaimed by official history to be completely different, having nothing to do with each other. History won't even consider that they are connected, because it doesn't comply with "the story."
The same thing is done through cultures.
The Romans, for example, were multicultural. ALL Empires have cultural and genetic diversity. Scythia was an Empire. Of course they had genetic and cultural diversity. The Roman Empire was a dot, a spec, compared to the Scythian Empire, both by landmass and population. Both China and India were tributaries of Scythia for example, at least for some of the time (maybe most of the time). The Scythian Empire was MASSIVE, and existed for millennia. Why do you think that all these smaller areas were fundamentally separated when there is so much evidence, including explicit statements to the contrary? Specifically, there are numerous statements that state that Mongolia was all part of the same Scythian Empire.
History uses the facts of their differences of those areas, or "kingdoms" (Khanates), to provide evidence of their separation, ignoring the Empire that ruled over them (an Empire rules over a Kingdom; Emperor > King). History has lost an essential component of the "Empire" part of that region. The most important piece of that history, and the piece that links it all together and makes it an Empire, is their system of government, ruled by the Royal Scythians; a single ruling family, noted by their Blue/Green eyes, and Blond/Red hair (and other genetic components). Genghis Khan for example, had green eyes and red hair. Reading the stuff from really old (13th to 18th centuries) states that the reason Genghis Khan was able to rule was because of his red hair and green eyes. It was essential to have those genetic markers for people to accept them. Indeed, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that Genghis Khan wasn’t even of mixed race, but was pure Caucasian.
To think that the Tartarians were genetically Mongolians exclusively is ludicrous. Of course some of them were. Genghis Khan may have been. But the EMPIRE was much bigger than Mongolia. Their ruling class was almost certainly not Mongolian. The Kingdom of Mongolia may have been primarily of the genetic class as we think of them. It may be that the ruling family may have been mixed. But the Rulers of the Mongolian Khanate were of the same family as ruled all the other Khanates, because they had to be. It was the only way they could possibly rule.
Importantly (incredibly importantly) they are the same family that rules Europe today through the Merovingians (the Merovingian was given the right to rule by the Church because he stated he was a Royal Scythian). Primogeniture, as it is traditional in Europe now, wasn’t a thing in Scythia according to my research. On the contrary, the Emperor (or even a King) was only allowed to lead if he or she was strong enough. It was both a meritocracy AND a nobility, all in the same family.
Book after book about the Kingdom of Mongolia (a part of the Empire), suggest that Genghis, and his entire family, were part of these Royal Scythians, and the only way that Genghis could possibly claim leadership was because he had both the genetic proof and the merit. Of course you have to read the books written before the late 19th century to learn anything about this, right about the time that Rockefeller/Rothschild were rewriting history.
Scythians were free horse nomads
SOME Of the Scythians were nomadic. But they had cities, roads, infrastructure, trading networks, etc. They built the entire Silk Road and Amber Road ffs. As an example of a city, Samarkand is one of theirs, built at least 1000 BC, but they had numerous cities and towns. The Scythians are attributed with inventing chariots, the wheel, gunpowder, iron (they started the iron age), and several other things I don’t remember off the top of my head, but were huge with regards to technology. The idea that that huge Empire didn't have infrastructure is beyond ludicrous. Did they create the smithies to invent steel while on horse back? Their "nomadic" culture was because it made them so effective warriors, both internally and externally, and likely because of their origins. But to think that in their expansion that they didn't expand culturally or in infrastructure is at odds with the evidence. Some part of that culture was as mobile cavalry and the camp followers and mobile housing to support them. They won battle after battle because they could move so quickly. That was a component of life for sure for some, but that doesn't mean it was their only component, nor does it mean that everyone was a nomad, any more than everyone in America is an infantry.
The Scythians were huge in their technical impact, and get barely a whisper in official history. Most people don’t even know the name “Scythia,” much less that they are the Tartarians or the Khazarians. Remember, the Scythian Empire was multicultural. Almost all of that history is just gone. You have to dig deep to find it, but it’s there.
They did not have a writing system
Bullshit. They have been rewritten out of history. Samarkand for example, has a ton of writing. There is a ton of writing about Scythia. The nomadic section of Scythia (probably mostly the warrior caste) probably didn’t do much writing, but all the border towns (trading hubs on the Black Sea e.g.) almost certainly had a ton of writing. Maybe they didn't write a lot about their internal history as an Empire, or maybe it was destroyed or stolen. Who knows. But they weren't incapable of writing.
The Scythians ruled most of the world for three to five millennia. They had many components to their Empire. If you separate out parts of it in our "official history," then you only hear a part of it, and lose the whole picture to "history." You have to dig to see more. When you do, that “more” is amazing.
What kept them in tact and strong was they had a culture of not accepting luxuries, only living with what was needed
Haha, what? They were the richest Empire that ever existed. They took tribute from everyone. Those “nomads” had gold horse bridles, and bronze boarding. Their HORSES were made of gold. The Tartarians were called the Golden Horde ffs, because of all their gold and bronze armor. They were rich as fuck. My god, 20th century (Rockefeller) history has been so convoluted. Read a book written prior to the mid 19th century. Please.
I’m not just saying these things, speaking out of my ass. I’ve written hundreds of pages on this topic, with hundreds of references; archeological, genetic, historical account, personal account, etc., etc. I don't fuck around. I intend to include that writing as part of my larger report. I hope I include it soon.
Implying Scythians are the Jews or the ones hiding in the shadows is disgraceful.
First, I barely mentioned the link to the Scythians (here). I’ve barely even begun to talk about what their connections are, even though there are many. Second, The truth is whatever it is. The truth is WHATEVER it is. Third, the Scythians are the Khazarians, and the Khazarians are intimately connected to the Jews (specifically a group of higher up Jews married into the Royal Scythians of Khazar in the 7th century AD). The only question is (not really a question, but takes a bit to show), are the Khazarians the Ashkenazim?
Again, the truth is whatever it is. There are some very interesting connections there. To suggest that talking about those connections is "disgraceful" is itself disgraceful. We mustn’t be afraid to look where the evidence leads, no matter where that is.
Ancient Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome...were they ever running the show?
The Scythians received tribute from all of those groups. I'm not sure if they took tribute from all of those groups for all of that time (I don't think they did), but they are a component of this that is hidden from history. The Scythians are perhaps better known as the Tartarians (so named in 1200ish by Genghis Khan, the leader of the Scythians at the time). Scythia is also called Magog. The leader of the Mogogians/Scythians was Gog at the time (I think).
The Scythians ruled the world (Europe and Asia at least) for the better part of 3,000 - 5,000 years (as Tribute). When the other powers got uppity, and didn't pay their taxes (tribute), the Scythians put them in their place; see Genghis Khan as one example of the workings of the Scythian's tax collection system (even worse than the IRS). See Attila the Hun for another, e.g..
I'm not saying the Scythians are "the head of the snake," nor did the Scythians control the entirety of Europe/Asia for the whole time (though they did at some times), but like I said, the Scythians, and especially the Royal Scythians, are a very important component of this that is completely erased from history.
Another tidbit: all the current ruling families of Europe/Northern Asia are explicitly stated descendants of the Royal Scythians; a subgroup of Caucasians (where the word comes from) noted throughout history with blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes. The name for this genetic group of Royal Scythians is the Aryan Race (I shit you not).
Israel has only been a state for ~80 years yet I'm supposed to believe that some loose group of Jews have been ruining the earth for the last 2,000 years without a headquarters or any real structure?
Israel has only been a state for a little while, but the people who created that "new" state are the same group of people who have controlled all of the Western World for all that time. They have been controlling all of the world through economics and belief. They have been the power behind the throne for at least two millennia. The "State of Israel" is not the power. It's the group (people) that controls that power, associated with Israel, and they've been around for a VERY long time.
It's very important to remember though, it's not "the Jews." It is the TOP LEVEL of the Jews. Just like it isn't the "Americans," it's Rockefeller et al who sit at the TOP LEVEL of America (through economic control, and propaganda/psyops). The controlling group is not "The Jews," it's what I call, the Jewish Trust.
That group does indeed, without doubt (in my mind) control everything. EVERYTHING. They controlled Rome from the early days. They controlled the Church (indeed they created the FORMAL SYSTEM ) from the very beginning of the Church at 325 AD). They controlled all of the Kings and Queens of all of Europe from the fall of Rome (eastern Roman Empire). All of those Kings of Europe were all explicitly stated at descendants of the Royal Scythians, allowed to be in power by the Roman Church, and controlled all of Europe and Asia ultimately by The Jewish Trust, both through economic control and by their belief systems.
After the "fall of Rome" (a gross misnomer, but I'll go with it) they immediately set up shop in Venice. From Venice, the Jewish Trust ruled the world (though they are a distributed network).
there is absolutely no way in hell they are the top dogs.
That doesn't mean there isn't another, even powerful, and more insidious power, one that controls the Jewish Trust. On the contrary, I think there is. Who is that power? You don't want me to tell you who I think it is. The cognitive dissonance is too great.
They got the order of things wrong in this picture. It is not that the "government controls the NGO's," it's that the "NGO's control the government." How do you think they got the money? Really it's more proper to say "NGO's ARE the government," or rather the people who run the NGO's.
He's been in the flight logs multiple times. When I looked at it a couple years ago it was a dozen or so I think? Don't quote me on that, but it was definitely more than twice. As far as I can find, it was just flights from NY to FL, but he was a frequent flyer. His family has also been on the list multiple times.
In addition, his whole family is in the "black book," which has his phone numbers and addresses. I didn't find DJT's phone# and address though, which is ludicrous. How is his name not in the book? He interacted with him countless times. He explicitly stated he was friends with him. He is seen acting together, talking together, doing things together multiple times. His entire family is in that book, but DJT is not? Sus as fuck.
I'm not trying to imply anything. I am simply state facts, and stating that I am very suspicious that DJT's name was not in the black book. Indeed, I would be less suspicious about DJT working against the Cabal through his association with Epstein if his name was actually in that book. It's omission is just not even possible, given all the other information.
Which means his name was removed, or he was in an even more special book.
The purpose of Q is not to make the government "conservative," or put Trump in charge, or to put all the people into power that we think "should" be in positions to effect the changes we like, the purpose of Q is to WAKE PEOPLE UP. This is a SHOW. Everything that is happening is for that purpose; to wake people up; to unveil the lies that have controlled We The People for thousands of years (at least three thousand years, maybe many more).
There will be twists and turns in this Show. It may be that people that we trust, or who currently have been put into charge, are shown to be not good (controlled opposition). It may even be that Trump goes down (he is on the Epstein flight list multiple times and had years of personal interactions). Who the fuck knows what is intended in this Show? The purpose is about waking people up in a way that We The People take charge of our world, nothing else. Whatever it takes to make that happen is what happens, assuming Q is legit and not controlled opposition itself (which I doubt, but is not impossible).
Rockefeller used Prohibition to create the entire legal, police, and prison systems. He used propaganda (and no small amount of pay offs and dirty politicians) to create Prohibition through a Constitutional Amendment. Then he created "think tanks" (mostly the Brookings institution) to create "investigations" and "reports" that "influenced" (paid off) the government (published somewhere around 1926). Then they used that paid off government to create the same "investigations" and "reports", using the exact same people, publishing the exact same reports, only now "official" and using the tax payers dime (somewhere around 1931). Then he made a new Amendment to repeal Prohibition.
Prohibition was never designed to stop people from drinking. It was designed to make everyone a criminal. You take your ability to buy a beer after a days work, you turn a regular person into a criminal. Couple that with the propaganda push that made everyone want to party ("roaring 20s"), it was fuel to the fire. The same person (Rockefeller) created both the desire to party, and took the ability to party legally.
EVERYONE became a criminal. It became trivial to remake the legal system.
I've written up a couple hundred pages on that investigation. At some point I hope I can write that formally (as part of my report).
I don't understand the question. What quotes am I supposed to be supplying? It is your question that makes me think you have no idea what I am even talking about. The question is nonsensical from my perspective of the conversation. In other words, I don't think we are having the same conversation. I have provided the two quotes. There are no others. That is the point.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
These two things were stated:
The X quote:
“Reacher” actor says Christians are disgusting, cops are murderers, and Trump is a rapist.
And the actors quote:
Donald Trump is a rapist and a con man -- and yet the entire Christian church seems to treat him like he's their poster child and it's unreal. I don't understand it!
These two quotes are very different. The first says nothing about the second, yet it pretends to do. Instead, it is designed to incite rage against an entire class of people. Yet there is nothing there that that group should feel slighted (in the context of an attack).
Regardless, I have no idea what "QUOTE" you are talking about, and why you asked that question. I don't think you are actually listening the the words I am speaking.
You are trying to add words spoken two years ago. Those words WERE NOT SPOKEN in the context of the quote. You have to add TONS of extra stuff, that are necessary for it to make sense; to "make the case." That is a misquote, pure and simple.
Besides, that has NOTHING TO DO with what I am talking about. Please read what I wrote again. Not what you imply what you think I believe about the actor, or what I feel about the X post, or whatever, but what I am actually talking about. I am talking about psyops and rhetoric that causes division, nothing else.
What in the hell are you talking about? How does anything you said (extensively) have anything to do with what I said?
Misquoting people and use it to drive division harms EVERYONE, Christian or otherwise. What are being employed here are psyop techniques. All the other stuff you are talking about is just justifying beliefs that are implied from the quote (not really, but if you try really hard), having almost nothing to do with the quote itself. Abusing such emotional laden, egregious misquoting can only cause harm. If you have some grievance against the person, use better arguments, not misquotes and personal attacks.
That is irrelevant. Also, without an actual quote, it is out of context.
These statements create division. They accomplish nothing positive and everything negative. It is pure glowie psyop behavior, whether it was intentional.or not.
The quote in the picture is not congruent with the quote from the X post:
Christians are disgusting, cops are murderers, and Trump is a rapist.
The quote says nothing about "Christians are disgusting." It says nothing whatsoever about cops, much less that they are murderers. They do seem to have the opinion that Trump was a rapist, but there is evidence to that effect (specifically a court case with an affidavit with that allegation with Epstein a couple decades ago. That court case was swept under the rug, as was everything Epstein). Note: evidence is not proof. But evidence does exist, so the belief that Trump is a rapist isn't "completely crazy."
As to the rest, this is the worst sort of misquote. This is exactly the type of shit that glowies do because it causes conflict and division.
The IRS was founded in 1933, though "founded" is not the right word. It was incorporated in Florida (if irc). It is just a corporation. It has a bunch of branches. Each state has it's own IRS corporate subdivision.
It is not a national agency, it is not a branch of the US Treasury, it is just an LLC.It looks like it is a part of the US Treasury, well, because of fuckery, but also because it is the only subcontractor authorized to manage Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), as a sub division of the Fed. No one else can be a subcontractor because no one else can touch the FRNs.
Because "money" (FRN) is actually property of the Fed, and only the IRS (a division of the Fed) is the only one who can handle money, the control of the economy is a monopoly,controlled by JD Rockefeller et al. Those who own the gold make the rules. Bonus points if you create fake gold, have a monopoly of that fake gold, and make everyone believe it's better than actual gold.
Kennedy tried to make US money again. That didn't fly. It got shut down post haste. FRNs are the key. Use some other form of money (US Dollar e.g.), and their control goes bye bye (at least that particular part of their control).
The problem with GMO corn isn't that it's GMO, it's that it's genetically designed to kill people.
It's like saying "all hammers are evil." No, no hammers are evil. When Dexter kills people with a hammer, that is evil.
Blame Rockefeller (AKA Monsanto), not the technology.
Yes. I think that will happen. But the build up is important.
The Tesla is a bastion of Lefty culture. By turning it in to a Nazimobile it unconsciously confuses the narrative. That unconscious confusion primes people for the impact event.
Any good movie has a build up. Just slapping someone in the face is insufficient if your intention is to a "moral to the story." You first need to understand the evil of the slapper, the details of the hand doing the slapping, and the history that motivated the slap itself.
Turning a Tesla into a Nazimobile is GENIUS as part of that build up. The confusion of "who's the bad guy," which is probably the most important moral to this story, is an essential part of this Movie we are watching. This may have been done by a BH, but this has WH control written all over it.