This came from the first comment to OP linked here:

From: u/uhtred

Neil says at the end we have until march

Clif High is saying 2 months for "the big ugly

If they both say a couple months, then I am inclined to start to believe. Soon, for sure. We are in for a world of pain in Europe imminently and so much of not only the surface narratives but the deeper details have been pointing in that direction for quite a while now.

The U.S. posture towards Ukraine has screamed that the Cabal is readying its two sides to begin playing "all out war" any minute now. There won't be an end to support for Ukraine because that's not where the story is supposed to end.

This in itself is a means to an end for what some would consider to be an even larger problem, that being the global financial system's collapse. They have always used World Wars to help reset and continue the global debt slavery scheme in the past and this time will be no different. There is a reason that most of Europe remains surprisingly calm even as battles rage a mere few hundred miles west of them. Even the children know "the Yanks will pay for it."

Two moves almost guarantee an outbreak of hostility has been scheduled on the calendar: The removal of Russia from the SWIFT global monetary system - well publicized - and the U.S. Federal Reserve's decision to move from LIBOR to SOFR as the overnight rate measurement benchmark (which subsequently changes a whole BUNCH of things with respect to financial interactions) - not well publicized or understood.

For that understanding in brief I'll give you a part of a decent write up:

In terms of communication, LIBOR represented a very rich message – it communicated not only interest rate expectations, but also systemic credit and liquidity expectations. Treasury securities overnight yesterday (SOFR), or is it expected to cost over the next few months (Term SOFR) – a very minimal version of interest rate expectations.

In terms of risk, SOFR takes the systemic credit and liquidity risk that was for(merly dispersed across the entire syst marketem and concentrates it on to financial intermediary balance sheets. If banks were gas stations, it would be as if the price at the pump was tied to the consumer price index (CPI), rather than to the wholesale price of gasoline – the same amount of risk in the economy is concentrated on fewer entities.

In a SOFR-based world, a dislocation such as occurred in 2008 or 2011 or 2020 will likely have very disparate impacts on the asset and liability sides of FI balance sheets.

Entire article here. Essentially what began to happen a few years back was a narrowing of the gap between LIBOR and SOFR as concerns of U.S. public debt rose along with the balance sheet of the Fed itself. The line from the regulators is basically: It became a bit redundant to rely on the LIBOR which took into account international rates and fluctuations in other national economies when indeed those entities all look to the Fed and Treasury markets to determine their risk profiles anyway. In short they want you to hear that we'd been "overstating systemic risks" due to LIBOR.

In reality we are butting up against a major systemic threat and everyone knows it. In the past, the LIBOR had prevented the Fed from going very far up on the fed funds rate because if they did this and went too far, they'd send other markets and national economies into collapse due to their connections via the rate. This allows the Fed to be much more heavy handed by no longer accounting for the sensitivity to Europe's markets specifically. If we go further than we should and allow OUTRAGEOUS LEVELS OF RISK TO PROLIFERATE because of the financial globalization in the past, tough shit for you I guess. The U.S. and global banking created incredible sensitivities to our rates and markets worldwide, so why account for them in our discovery of overall systemic risk when all that really matters is that WE SURVIVE? We will just start looking inward to evaluate risk and take them out of the equation, since they're so incredibly dependent on our markets to continue, and because the entire concept of risk management and what constitutes acceptable levels has been perverted since 2008 anyways.

This is a really dangerous narrowing of how we evaluate risk and perhaps even more importantly it will now predict winners and losers - that's the "disparate impacts" piece.

That is not just relegated to financial institutions as the article scope covers but entire nation's economies. So if war breaks out and many smaller nations get caught up and thrown into receivership, who is the likely beneficiary of this, even if their national balance sheet is the best of a bad bunch? Hey, if you're trying to globalize and run the whole thing under one world government, I suppose there are more conspicuous ways to go about it. 😑

By the way how is the LIBOR doing?

Just because we don't use it as our yardstick anymore doesn't mean it has any less power to explain what is happening. And it certainly doesn't mean it WON'T predict what events come next. The collapse can manifest in a million ways, whether we are looking for the right or wrong indicators. In essence, this is another example of how they want to change a definition to ignore a fact. It's always a dangerous bargain doing this and no one can say whether it will work. Perception is not always reality.

This will pave the way for a wartime emergency economic state to take shape in the form of increasingly more front-facing, direct financial ownership of the world at large. For much of the world has already been turned into puppets and indentured servants in the global debt slavery scheme that's existed for centuries and the only thing left to do is sweep through one final time and complete the capture with finality. This was always the end game: debt slavery was good for a while but eventually that system would allow too much autonomy for the owner class among us."

Hopefully I've been able to explain the money part of this which they've set up to:

• increase the hegemony and control of the financial institutions and carve out winners and losers in that sector, which will in turn trickle down to the other sectors and effectively put the financiers in charge (more than already) of all businesses globally; the emergence of the mega Corp

• in turn the financial institutions will further amalgamate with what we consider to be the state and entire nationalized economies will be under direct supervision of the U.S. / power elite

• try and prevent their exposure to the world through an unintentional collapse economically.

Now one thing I would say this strongly implies is that they are not yet ready for the full transition to CBDC and have plans to engage in the implementation of that program later on.

My guess is the likely time would be in the aftermath of the coming "war" following the pattern of other major changes to our financial institutions and accepted exchange which seem to always take place around the time of large wars. It seems to be better suited to post-war implementation as a way to better integrate the places that will be left in rubble into the power structure more fully.

Hope you enjoy the read!

Here is the original thread

Responding to u/cvqfefe and u/beardedpepe :

Wonder why he's picking now all of a sudden to pound on Bolton as a dumb, stupid moron.

...I was turned off when he added Bolton to his cabinet back then. Now I know not every decision was meant to be liked but every decision was made on our behalf.... Using Bolton as a tool for negotiations makes so much sense now given his reputation

Hey guys. I thought both of you brought up interesting points and when I looked and considered things, I believe this was a pretty significant post for several reasons I will outline below.

u/cqvfefe - It seems strange on the surface, why would he waste time with Bolton, an imbecile no one cares about and is long past his prime. I think there is a bigger message here. The direct logic for mentioning Bolton is to give him a little bitchsmack for some foolish comments he made weeks prior, also to blow up his laughable "campaign" for President a little early if possible.

u/beardedpepe - It was cool to read that! I definitely don't think you were alone scratching your head when Bolton got in with Trump, many of us were perplexed. However the whole thing was so brief that I think we all resolved not to fret over it and move on. So in that sense, I am happy to now hear the explanation which comports PERFECTLY with the Art of War-style moves we expect of GEOTUS.

That said I also find it a little unusual for him to be directly explaining strategy. That is pretty atypical of his style, rare even. So I think there were good reasons to show some cards here, even with risks of letting your enemies have information. It must have been worth more to divulge this than the risk of letting them know when they gamed it out.

I think that Bolton is a proxy for someone else recently in Trump's orbit that MAGA is not fond of. Trump recounting this story and giving us the Why so we can relate back and understand what he might be doing associating with that guy. Additionally it serves as a reminder for other well disliked people Trump deals with in the future - there have been quite a few such moments just lately too.

We sometimes forget, its ALL 5D chess baby. 😎

Let's get to it:

• This post reminded me of the one he had about firing Dr. Birx recently right off the bat. He ALSO explained in that one that she was an idiotic [DS] tool and how he EASILY saw through her bullshit. There was also buried in there a definite ambiguity on his vax stance (up to now) which others mentioned in a sticky post here. He might be doing something similar here - giving a nod that his thoughts about Ukraine (or our current foreign relations generally) are FAR MORE nuanced than it might seem in the media.

• Several days this week Trump has released a video outlining policy goals for his 2nd administration, or recommendations of what course to take for House committees like Federal Weaponization under Jordan etc. So this might preclude a video coming out on foreign policy goals for his next term.

• Bolton is a big red COCK and Never Trumper grifter trying to sell his shitty books, not a serious candidate. However since he did announce Trump is beginning to bring the fight to him, possibly in hopes of crushing him and disposing of him long before he even gets to a debate stage. This is retaliation for Bolton's attacks on Trump a few weeks ago (already proven inert because of the changes in the document scandal)

• There are definitely some comms in this one; someone else pointed out "CONCEEDED" misspell letter e. EE = 55 5:5 that looks right to me.

• Also capitalized words: ALL NOTHING WARMONGER CONCEEDED ... also he wrote out the number 7 Seven Trillion Dollars. Someone smarter than me is going to find more in here for sure I think.

• Bringing up Bolton to give a rare look into just how Trump "uses" certain people we in MAGA find distasteful. Trump has been questioned for some of his endorsements and associations lately, and I think possiblt its begun to worry the team. So I think they are giving us a RARE REVEAL into the way Trump conducts political strategy.

• This is actually fairly unprecedented because of how direct the language is recounting why he hired Bolton and what he was useful for. Trump almost NEVER tips his hand like this so it definitely has SIGNIFICANT MEANING.

• Specifically, I think Trump is using Bolton here and the story as a PROXY for Lindsay Graham. Trump was scheduled to appear with him in SC (it may have happened already) and we find similarities aplenty between Bolton and Graham, who is commonly known as the biggest WARMONGER in all of Congress.

• As Kash Patel recently said to an audience when questioned about certain people Trump was seemingly bumping butts with, you have to make CONCESSIONS and work with distasteful people sometimes to accomplish plans.

• Trump is echoing that, but more importantly showing why he brings in questionable people like Bolton and that they mean NOTHING to him accept when they can help him achieve a means to an end.

• Again, it must be critical for Trump to come out and tip his hand while reminding MAGA that every decision is planned and that he has full control. If he is backing someone inexplicable to us such as Ronna McD, Lindsay Graham (No Name's bestie), or McCarthy there are good reasons why that is happening.

• This rare look into Bolton's short tenure, what Trump aimed to achieve (successfully) by recruiting him, and what his actual feelings about Bolton's track record of decisions are. He wants this story to be our reminder for the future, when he may align himself with other actors we find controversial.

• Last but not least: I get this odd feeling this may tie to Ukraine somehow. Trump's mention of the incredible costs of the war, all for nothing, just feels of a tap on the shoulder to me. Bolton was one who advised escalation constantly so I wonder if this isn't a hint that our recent decisions to up the ante in arms by sending advanced tanks to Ukraine will not result in greater tolls/costs later on down the line.

• Trump reminds us he is firmly against these type of hostilities and the wasteful results they inevitably produce. He negotiated favorably by using peace thru strength and Bolton was a tool to project that when Trump required it, nothing more. Trump is the premiere anti war candidate and has a proven track record of peace and incredible success in foreign policy matters.

Over and out.

## HERE IS THE CLIP.

Sorry no Rumble version, Joe doesn't fuck with free speech. 🤣

What can I say except, I really hate this guy. No really. Mike Baker is SUCH a cocksucker and it's amazing how literally EVERYONE seems to think so.

But first lets go to CIA cuck and golf ball polisher Joe Blowgan, who is now an official FEDBOY and the epitome of what he hates most likely:

I noticed something. A few times Joe and him both have odd body language and at one point in another clip, 10:20:

JOE: "For someone like me WHO'S ON THE OUTSIDE just trying to pay attention to as little as I can AND STILL TALK ABOUT IT" then he kind of looks up, blurry stoned expression at Baker.

Baker immediately gets a shy kind of body language and just says "Uh yeah, it's odd odd" smiling weirdly.

The whole thing looked and felt like two people who just met on Tinder and trying to act natural before they find a way to make out. Awful awkwardness.

Baker is definitely a handler or something for Joe. Rogan is REQUIRED to do these it's not his choice at all. Probably goes down to collect all the JRE data for his buddies in the biz and does these podcasts while he's there to help spread "the message"

Either way this is not something Joe wants to do. There are other moments of both of them having awkward or confused body language too, I noticed quite a bit once I was looking for it. These guys do NOT like each other. It makes sense too: Joe is kind of a dumb bro leftist type, he probably has a natural revulsion to Feds and cops, most weed smokers and psychedelic enthusiasts do. So he must HATE having to be such a DICK GOBBLING NARC FED deep down inside. He can make himself play along and try to get beyond it, forget about it for short periods, tell himself its all about the money, I'm rich and I'm the shit.

But we all know its fucking lame. He used to hate the man and now he is the man. They probably steal his analytics and other data too (I am sure they called it "sharing" and told him he's helping the country!) and use this smiley gladhand dirtbag that no one likes to come on his podcast and deliver Gov't approved talking points whenever they want.

Think about it: are YOU gonna say No to an ex-Spook when he asks to come on your pod and get some shine? He AIN'T some good ol' boy and **Baker is the type of asshole who WOULD retaliate and make life hard for crossing him.**Have you ever seen a FEDBOY who ISN'T like I just described?

Sitting there staring at that goon and realizing that he IS NOW THE SAME THING must really hurt Rogan in his soul a tad bit. Like I said, I might be fooling myself but I kind of see it coming out of him a bit. He looks just slightly disgusted at this guy, a type of person he's likely always had an aversion towards, and having to be in the room with him and talk about shit he doesn't want to in a way that isn't natural is probably very depressing.

Ever hear them talk about doing anything off-air together? Any mutual friends between them?? Or stuff they've done together? How many serial guests does Joe Rogan have that have almost ZERO common hobbies or friends or interests with him?

No elk hunting bro, the only possibility is that Mike could take Rogan fishing one day. 🤣 Congrats Joe, you are a FUCKBOY FEDBOY NARC now. How's that Spotify money helping?

Okay, on to Baker now, and the whole context and clues he LITTERS everywhere with that response:

First of all: when Joe prods him about Tucker Carlson and JFK, what does Baker say? "Ehhh you never know." VERY DUBIOUS. *MOTHERFUCKER SOUNDS LIKE BILL GATES TALKING ABOUT EPSTEIN.

*Was THE WHOLE POINT OF BAKER COMING ON (and when he had just been recently) TO "DISCUSS" THIs 🤡 ?

I had been entertaining the possibility that Rogan showed him that to fuck with him, but I'm doubting it now. Baker is a guy who GOES ON Fox, for Christs sake.**

The first thing he goes to is something that didn't even occur to 98% of us who watched it - WHO is the source? He gives his motives away by repeating it about eight more times in a minute of talking, and also seems to be almost chiding Carlson and that source by saying they have potential to be a "conspiracy theorist" (immediate red flag in that term) and saying if they have proof that they have almost a duty to come forward. Huh!?

"I would want to know who the source was..." and then talks about "the source" like EIGHT MORE fucking times, the source "probably is into conspiracy stuff," without knowing who the source is "maybe you have a duty" LMAO ROFLCOPTER.

What the fuck is that? Only Feds think and talk like this - the majority of us did not immediately doubt AT ALL. In general, Tucker has a proven track record of credibility - he hasn't directly lied to the public before on his show and he maintains viewpoints that our crowd agrees with and regards mostly as common sense. Unlike, you know, the fucking agencies, who lie all the time and then double down by justifying it when they're caught.

If anything it was a lack of confronting certain topics that disturbed and angered people. He is literally the standard bearer of credibility and the only remaining in-road to the silent Trump majority that Fox still has left currently. Tucker is like Atlas holding up the entire fucking thing; and they are well aware the numbers will go to Newsmax levels with one wrong move.

Why act dubious toward the validity of this statement? As mentioned he comes on Fox as a Contributor and even sits for shows in-studio - if you have doubts or questions why not send a text?? What is your relationship if YOU CAN'T get an answer to that question? Is there no one who will answer you? Have you already tried? (Yes!)

What does it say about you, Mike Baker, if someone was reticent to tell you WHO the source Tucker claimed was? That you, a Fox guest, doubt the sincerity of Tucker & his source MORE than the audience? Are you just asking who the source is because you legitimately question CIA involvement in JFK's death? Are YOU BEING SINCERE?

No no no. None of this is good. It bodes VERY poorly for all involved. Either Baker knows that Tucker is as full of shit as the next man up at Fox and legitimately doubts the information he transmits nightly ... or Baker is not just a "retired guy" running an innocent little Intel store down the street.

Baker comes on JRE, acts like this is all new to him (even if it is, he NEVER EVEN mentions being able to contact anyone at Fox to find out) and goes right to questioning the sources. We know Tucker is highly insulated and does NOT do his show from the main studio these days. Bongino once mentioned before that his writers and Tuck's are next door to one another in the cubicles, though - I mean, isn't there someone Baker could ask?

Here's the finality of this. Baker is one of however many 🤡 reps and plants they STICK into the MSM places and thus it's likely he isn't exactly Prom King over there. He tried already to finagle the identity of this source person and didn't catch the fish.

So we'll put him back on JRE to stage this reaction and have Mike poke the bear, see if we can jar it loose. The #1 podcast for the #1 TV show - maybe someone will get a bruised ego and respond DIRECTLY! Why else? If you're really buddies with the Fox fam, why deride Tucker with the "conspiracy" tag and say the source "owes it to America" to come out from the dark? Why give up the usual nothing speak and sound frustrated and adversarial for a moment there?

Mike Baker: "Hey Tucker and whoever your source is, IF YOU GUYS AREN'T PINKO UNAMERICAN PUSSIES, COME OUT OF THE DARK SO WE CAN BLOW YOUR BRAI- UH, I MEAN THIS IS VITAL TO AMERICA & INCUMBENT ON YOU TO COME FORWARD WITH YOUR INFO!

There is some dark shit that goes on right in front of us. Underneath what it claims to be is what it REALLY is - when you catch it in moments like these it can be pretty profound.

Darren Beattie goes off the reservation about Lex Fridman and the power of the algorithm

Glenn Greenwald interviews Revolver's Darren Beattie about their new expose piece of Lex Fridman

"Lex Fridman is who you wake up to when you fall asleep listening to a podcast."

Ever had this happen to you? I certainly have. As someone who consumes a lot of news and information via Internet and particularly video hosting websites, YouTube among them. No other podcaster gets as much attention from and has had algorithms springboard them to popularity like Lex.

Beattie gives an interesting breakdown of exactly what Lex is, how the MIT-A.I. researcher claims are false and spurious and the shocking, unexplainable deference other EXTREMELY POPULAR podcasters seem to show Lex Fridman.

In particular Beattie referenced a moment where Joe Rogan gives Lex his favorite watch, a clip which has since gone viral.

(Linked from YT BUT NOT Lex's account, hah)

The whole thing is definitely surreal.

One possible answer to the "why" part of this is that the algorithm seems to push content like Lex, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson to folks who have sought out "spicy" right-leaning content that would clash with the current corporate and government sponsored narratives.

Susan Wojecki of YouTube references this answering a question during a lecture she gives at Google, specifically mentioning the data shows that Shapiro tends to 'lower the temperature' on those specific types of people, almost acting as a calming panacea for those who are looking for right-wing truths that are hotter (and y'know more truthful)

In other words these people are promoted by the algo because there is a proven deradicalizing effect shown from pushing their content onto a certain base of users.

Beattie describes it almost like a chaser to the shot of whatever "harsher" content the user originally sought out and if you've ever listened to any of these IDW (intellectual dark web) types this makes sense.

They market themselves as clear-eyed intelligencia who have nuanced views and most importantly, are willing to disagree with prevailing narratives even if someone doesn't like it. BUT IS THAT REALLY WHO THEY ARE? FOR EXAMPLE CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE BEING CANCELLED OR CENSORED FOR THEIR SUPPOSEDLY 'OUTSIDE MAINSTREAM' VIEWS?

No.They are controlled opposition for midwits. Just there to give a faux edginess in appearance and occasional soundbites when in fact they have totally common, mainstream views on nearly everything and offer very little that actually deviates from the centrist, by the book takes. Let alone anything revolutionary.

In this time of fifth generation warfare, where the battle is being fought for your attention and your mind, its important for us to recognize and point out these type of phony constructs who offer nothing of actual value or deviation from the corporate/university/government allied word bank of acceptable viewpoints.

They want to show us "radicals" who deradicalize. We can't let them control us this way and allow ourselves to submit to these constructed individuals who say a lot of things that sound good but offer nothing truly meaningful or actionable.

Darren Beattie deserves credit for continuing to find and expose these sorts of topics (like the J6 pipebomber story) which fall through the cracks.

Earlier I responded to a comment where some guy was dooming heavily and going at it with one of the mods here. I poked little fun at the situation and my co-conspirator replied saying its not right to make fun of doomers and blackpilled folk, equating it to kicking your fellow Anon when he's down.... but darn if you don't just ENJOY doing it sometimes.

It got me thinking about blackpilled types and WHY its enjoyable, and like so many posts for me, out of my reply this emerged.

So, to define what I am calling someone blackpilled: exceedingly negative, hates Trump or thinks Trump/Q are bullshit or controlled ops, thinks we have NO control, thinks we've all been lied to and NOW are seeing the truth, elections will be stolen forever no chance of getting back, etc.

So the major pivot point is Trump everytime. How you feel about him is how you feel about our world, since he is our last hope to get back on track today before it is too far gone VERY SOON.

So we tend to forget with Trump,

The pattern is ALWAYS:

• Trump does something seemingly off-putting or weird or outright bad
• We wrack our brains nervously and make a good guess, or just are mystified and stumped
• We make up our minds to trust it and remember he doesn't let us down, even when it seems like he is
• BOOM! When it all shakes out Trump fools them and wins bigly, and we see WHY he didn't just run out directly and lose to them

I think the name of the game with Trump is LOYALTY. I think he considers it to be the most important quality in his followers.

The blackpilled types end up letting the siren song of MSM noise (and the frustration of NOT HAVING AN ANSWER) overwhelm them and that is how they justify their betrayal and loss of faith.

Very clear to me that Trump actually wanted some of these people to go ahead and DROP OFF over the last two years. I think part of that is because if we don't separate the wheat from the chaff BEFOREHAND we'll be in bad shape.

Much like you just saw in the Congress, some friendly adversity can be beneficial and help sharpen one another and be better prepared to fight these battles ahead. I think Trump wants his supporters mentally strong and immunized from the Psyops that surround us in today's world.

It was too easy to get on the bandwagon and LOVE DONALD TRUMP when he was pissing off the Establishment, winning big every day, dodging all the traps they set and causing them to walk into them and expose themselves.

Once Trump started having to make choices you didn't necessarily understand, or doing things that YOU WOULDN'T what were your feelings then? Is he supposed to only do what YOU THINK HE SHOULD DO? Do you know more than he does, are you certain of WHY you feel 100% sure he was not doing what was in We the People's best interest?

It's easy to back someone that is doing obviously sensible, good stuff for the country and making common sense decisions any pragmatic person could see were right.

This war is fought on more than just one playing field, however, and sometimes different kinds of reasoning have to be applied, different paths taken to secure the best outcome. They knew that would have to happen LONG AGO.

Precisely, I think Q came to us in a time where things were making logical sense to start preparing us for a time when things WOULDN'T make sense.

The goal was conditioning and trying to strengthen our psyche and willpower for the times ahead.

People who are blackpilled or dooming jumped ship too early because they let emotions and short term thinking overcome their better, stronger mindset even though the Q drops taught time and again that resolution always comes, sooner or later and the answer always connected back to the beginning in a neat way, and brought out something fundamental. .

Often, you'll hear the blackpilled types say "If Trump was really X" or "Trump is done" and then give something which on the surface appeared either as a defeat or a sign of weakness. That is giving the basic premise that because Trump didn't do what I WOULD HAVE DONE it's clear he is full of shit. They mock anyone who doesn't reason in this incredibly narrow, selfish way, as though WE ARE ALL STILL FOOLS and they figured it out first. Trust the plan!

Its not enough to point to how many times Trump SEEMED defeated; the "walls were closing in"; all of it. Every time, what happened? It turned around no matter how bad it seemed. The impossible happening, again and again.

Odd enough, I think by the time Trump is in position to return (be it a month or years from now) a lot of the blackpilled ones will be BACK ON THE TRUMP TRAIN.

This was always a lesson about patience and timing. As I stated, it was EASY to go to bat for Trump because it was straightforward and simple. Each time Trump was embattled, he prevailed in a fairly short time frame. When Russiagate concluded, ending in [DS] despair and nothingburgers, many on the fence or otherwise doubting became utterly convinced. It added a layer of innate confidence and belief with his supporters.

This time is going to be the longest stretch yet, and so the biggest TEST. This time when he beats them and returns to the White House triumphantly, the faith will become so unshakable no one has seen its like.

For those of us who were strong enough or were helped by Q in fortifying their perception and resistance to the Psyop dirge, we will get highest marks as resilient soldiers. We can proudly know we are the ones MOST PREPARED to fight the enemy on the frontlines.

The blackpilled ones, the dormers, whatever name you like - will return too, but with a different set of feelings within. The joy of victory shared by with our greatest President - they are allowed that, certainly. But they will also have to kick themselves for doubting - and to ask themselves - why would I have EVER turn away? What got into me that I started to think like that?

The answer once more, as it was for all of us once before: THEY FOOLED YOU, AGAIN. YOU STARTED TO BUY INTO IT AGAIN. They attached themselves to the feelings we've all been taught by the Psyop since childhood to revert to under pressure: hopelessness, inferiority, fear, giving way to the worst of all, doubt and apathy.

We only lose when we don't care. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - and the Psyop is meant to ultimately breed the lukewarm "nothing can be done and it doesn't matter" more than hatred or resentment.

They want you to be weak and powerless.

Q and Trump prepared us to stay committed, engaged, and strong in our psyche for a time when there would be no Q or Trump to give us the answers or lead us to victory.

We need to be unflappable and unshakeable to get across the finish line and accomplish our goals is what this tells me. They wouldn't have spent the time to test our mettle if it weren't of CRITICAL importance.

There will come a time when we can NO LONGER simply jump on or off the bandwagon based on our faith or belief waning or some temporary lapse. These tests of resolve and lessons imparted on those who buckled under the pressure are coming because before too long, supporting Trump will be a brand you carry with you forever. We've heard the whispers of camps and segregation for our "CULT" as they so venomously call it already.

Let's hope after Trump makes the doubters into believers this next time, everyone will stay buckled in. We can't win without unity and the willingness to take leaps of faith.

No one has suffered more, no one man has mentally endured so much weight trying to break them as Trump. Before Jan 20 2021 we could only sympathize. We had won far more than we'd lost, and we hadn't had to open our eyes to do it. We had daily injections of hopium from our wisest, strongest members and exceeding confidence that good would triumph every time over them.

Most importantly, we only needed to follow. Q and Trump showed us every path and opened every door; we merely needed to walk through.

The pandemic slipped the pattern. Fewer and fewer answers from Q and Trump, more and more questions. Things were getting blurry. Divides began to widen after the years of drifting closer. Things stopped being so clear cut; tough decisions were made and it was not so apparent what was going to happen next.

The lights went out and we stopped having a guide. We had to lead ourselves and find our own answers. We had to defend ourselves and learn how to endure many losses. Some forced themselves to find the good in defeat and others buckled under the weight.

We searched for justice and answers and found no one to give them to us. We learned we were on our own and we learned the evils outside the door - there was no Q and there was no Trump standing guard there now. We had to trust what they told us about this and trust our own voiceand stand watch for ourselves.

What it has all meant is that now we CAN EMPATHIZE with Trump. What we have gone through as a country has given us a small share of Trump's determination. We are now TRULY AWARE of the consequences of a defeat. It could NEVER have been that way if he had not made those choices that blackpilled some.

Now in ever greater numbers, with stronger resolve and better resistance to their Psyops than any time before in human history, we're moving forward once more. The moments that blackpilled will one day be told as the moments we grew TOO POWERFUL for them to SUBDUE ANY LONGER.

In our TRIALS and TESTS we have built a BOND like no other between people and their political leader.

In our SHARED victories and defeats, in our turns taken LEADING and following, in our lowest moments of DOUBT and our joyful memories of finding HOPE that carried us through, WE ARE LOYAL TO A FAULT NOW. This was always the place we had to come to in order to succeed against the system.

We needed this last two years because there is more learned in defeat than victory, and even if we could've had our victory any day before now it must be one which is not gained without tribulation and suffering

Or it is NO VICTORY AT ALL.

NO ROOM FOR DOOM.