Gather round. Gather round. One and all!

Think you're the smartest cookie around? Think you got what it takes to stand before every critic and call the play? Ready to flaunt that amazing predictive capacity?

Well now's your chance! Show us what you have!

The rules are simple:

• You must predict something that will occur within the relevant time period (in this case, October 2022).
• The prediction must be quantifiable and reasonably acceptable to others. Proof needs to be more than speculative in nature in most cases, but considered on a case-by-case basis.

If you make a shitty prediction that cannot be actually proven, no one will agree and laugh at you. This will frustrate you greatly. Please do not do this and make your predictions as clear as possible to avoid this. Use this thread to clarify if others have questions or concerns.

Finally, credit is ONLY given for correct predictions. We do not care how you do it. You can use snails and tarot cards or count your toes for all we care. All we're concerned with here is if you make the right call, because that's all that matters, right?

The goal here is not debate/argument. The point is simply to say "I called it here."

And most importantly, have a little fun with it! Sometimes a sense of humor is the best intuition.

So we know Q likes mind games and alluding to things. Think logical. So I got to thinking based on some information I have regarding certain...groups.

What I noticed is that there is a tendency in said groups to bypass restrictions on secrecy by asking tangential questions to the one you wish to divulge with. In this process the recipient of the question is expected to deduce logically what the truth is. This allows the sharer to shield themselves with "I didn't tell them. They figured it out" and the information gets shared. Personally, I think it's childish logic, but if that's how it's done in Rome, that's how it's done in Rome.

My point here is that Q operates almost EXACTLY the same way with many questions. It really triggered* my autism-level pattern recognition when I first noticed it. As a result, I think there's high chance that Q is at least in the orbit of such groups (assuming it's not a red herring).

What this means for my original point is that there are likely two tiers to this process. Obviously, if you share secrets through a Socratic method, your peers will eventually get mad, but maybe overlook it due to norms. However, if you share something truly sensitive, they're going to ding you anyways. Excuses be damned.

In other words, there are the things you can allude to, and the things you can absolutely never refer to. This is my theory.

So that end, I'm wondering if anyone has done a deep dive of things Q has explicitly avoided talking about or answering in situations where it seemed odd or out of place. We're ideally talking moments where Q would be talking in relation to a subject, a question may get asked, and Q either ignores it outright or deflects in some fashion (like not actually addressing it). These will be tells of something Q cannot talk about.

I know this will invite a lot of galactic-level weirdness, but we're mature enough to filter for that, right? We're looking at something more down-to-earth, less Alex Jones inter-dimensional demons and lizard people.

Think of it like "blind spots" in the Q narrative. What's hiding in the darkness? What was missed?

It's late. Probably a not worth the brain power, but I do feel this past week that things are genuinely building to a boil in a way we haven't seen before. Something is up and the timing with her passing is kind of what drove this line of thinking. Future proves past and all. Really might believe something is coming in the next week or so despite the numbness we've all developed for "two more weeks" type of garbage.

The reason for the killswitch is because even if her children went "dark side", no mother wants to see them undone in her lifetime, but she did feel a duty of some sort to her countrymen. Perhaps she pressured them to turn over a new leaf in vain efforts to save them. Perhaps she sought salvation for herself and the evil she allowed. Who can say. I do recall at least one member sort of giving up "the life" though, but I barely follow any celebrity or royal drama.

I do know that Maxwell's family allegedly had ties to British Intel or something in that vein. Something-something boating "accident" for her father or something, right? Would help explain Epstein/Maxwell going down which is one of the biggest things we've seen. Britain is also one of the first countries to openly resist the EU in such bold fashion as Brexit, but again, the corruption was deep and wide in the government so it's been like pulling teeth. Some of the Russiagate hoax that's been exposed? Tied to British assets. The list kind of goes on.

Dunno, just felt like this should be posted. Don't really expect a lot out of it, but maybe it'll be useful in some way? Thanks for reading. Keep up the good work all!

Haven't really seen this brought up, maybe it was implied to some, but I feel it needs to be brought up for full awareness. Shit's uncanny once you see it.

So sometimes you just can't say the quiet part out loud, right? We know the left does this and speaks in a quasi "code" of sorts to signal intent while maintaining deniability.

Thinking about the money laundering in Ukraine and the constant hissy fit they throw when they don't get "muh climate change" funds, I started to wonder something.

Is "climate change" just elite-speak for "commoner uprising" "peasant revolt" or other similar concepts?

PART 1: Modern usage of the term

Let's look at some examples of climate change rhetoric in modern headlines and see how well this holds up.

Simple search for "climate change" and similar topics while specifically looking for headlines and less historical/wiki/science pages and more news/punditry/etc on the topic turns up examples like these:

• "Why is Pakistan so susceptible to climate change?"
• "Climate change could cost Canada's economy $139b by 2050: report..."
• "High-tech wooden cities could fight fire, climate change, study says"
• "From Prince Harry and Leonardo DiCaprio to Emma Watson and Radiohead: What famous people are doing to help fight climate change"

So again, there's a good split on this, but what I'm looking for are less "science-y convince the normies" styles of articles and more "I'm speaking in comms to express support of the idea." It's nuanced, probably not perfect, but you'll notice that a lot of this ties up nicely in a moment.

So at an elementary level, let's replace those few examples above from terms like "climate change" to equivalent terms regarding revolutions, rebellion, etc.

• "Why is Pakistan so susceptible to revolt?"
• "Civil uprising could cost Canada's economy $139b by 2050: report..."
• "High-tech wooden cities could fight fiery revolution, study says"
• "From Prince Harry and Leonardo DiCaprio to Emma Watson and Radiohead: What famous people are doing to help fight dissent"

So I take a little artistic liberty here, but these are comms, right? They're supposed to be flexible. The underlying concept is the same regardless of word selection and grammar: we cannot let the people rise up.

Not enough? That's fair, that's just part one. Let's move on.

Part Two: Very brief history

In case you didn't know, Pakistan and Canada have had instances of revolts, unrest or other issues crop up in recent times. Pakistan in general is particularly bad, but the whole area has a long history of violence so we can leave that to your own research to explore in depth. Point is that in modern times many of these "climate change" calls seems to be primarily in areas with more "resistance."

So what about history? Well you'll notice a very nice little gem: "climate change" just so happened to become a "thing" within about 50 years of the founding of the United States. Specifically, the early 1800's a fellow called Joseph Fourier is credited with founding a theory about greenhouse gases and being the "father" of the concept as best I can tell.

However, that's not all. In fact, there were many revolutions and uprisings in Europe and across the world in the 1800s. If there was a time for the "elites" to say "Houston, we got a problem. The sheep are rising up." This would be the time. France in particular, where Fourier is from, also has a long history of civilian uprisings. Nasty ones too where even nobles get a quick shave off the top.

I recommend further research on this point. There's a lot and a history buff would be better suited, but the key data points are that there was a large spike in civilian uprisings, likely inspired in part by the USA and other issues at the time. The globalists of their time were taking a beating and they had to strike back, in my opinion.

Part Three: Test for accuracy

So we have this neat little theory and it certainly would be interesting, but how can you prove it? Well, just like their inconsistency with actually fighting climate change debunks their stated goals, a consistency in usage of this term in this fashion would be good proof that they're thinly veiled comms.

So I did some basic research for "countries most at risk for climate change" and some recurring names I found may pique your interest:

• United States (self-evident cases of unrest)
• The Phillipines (at least since 2019 civil unrest and "insurrection")
• Germany (constant unrest from gov persecution)
• Madagascar (2009 ousting of president who fled)
• India (complicated but history protests and unrest from citizens)
• Sri Lanka (2018 coup)
• Kenya (2017 unrest regarding elections)
• Rwanda (Civil War/genocide; 1990s)
• Canada (Trucker protests)
• Fiji (2000 coup)

So what catches my eye with this is that while there are some island nations, not ALL island nations are listed. Every island is affected by global changes in oceans, are they not? Meanwhile a country on a major landmass like Germany is often listed, but not China? Ukraine? You will find random articles on some, but the focus appears elsewhere.

Part Four: Summary, conclusion, and other thoughts

So to put this all in a simple, digestible theory it goes something like this:

• Climate change (comms) are about civilian uprising and mitigating the threat therein to the "elites"
• Climate change ("science") is about justifying the measures taken with useful idiots on the payroll
• Climate change ("solutions") are about dis-empowering the "rowdy sheep" into compliance and submission while bolstering the power structure of the "elites."

At first, I was skeptical on this idea because I saw articles that would focus on places like China. Why would they do this? Then it hit me. It's specifically for deniability in a weird way. Think of it like this:

• The useful idiots pushing these articles are acting semi-autonomously not realizing they're a pawn in all of this. This explains the "misfires" with such articles that don't gain a lot of traction.
• If you're "in the know" these articles about controlled populaces are irrelevant. Disregard the article.
• If you're not "in the know" these articles appear to debunk the theory, creating deniability. Disregard the theory.

It's as simple as that. This explains climate change PERFECTLY. This isn't even with going into how all of their "solutions" have the same end point of enslaving the common man to the powers that be. That's its own topic entirely.

So this is my go-to theory regarding "climate change". It's a perfect metaphor and mechanism to abuse us by. I really can't unsee this now.

Any other thoughts on this?

ok, so this is crazy, but regardless of how it started, this whole Ukraine coverage thing seems odd to me. Let's recap.

So at some point earlier this year, Russia moved military forces into Ukraine. Ukraine claims it was unjustified (naturally), and Russia claimed they were basically trying to save their own people from persecution (not surprising). Basic premise is set and old bad blood fuels the hate in every direction. No surprise there.

For a few weeks, we see a major media blitz on the topic (also not a big surprise). The obvious intent here is to strum up public opinion, maybe even encourage war proper with Russia, right? Get that sweet, sweet WW3 going amirite?

Then...it stops. Almost overnight. After tens of billions in aid and countless hours of whoring out, the media just drops it like a moldy potato. Russia is still there, they can still shill about Zalensky. What gives? Even if Russia is winning that should be a boon for their "muh evil Russia" propaganda, right?

I argue they achieved their objectives. I theorize one of them was getting money. The way congress quickly and expeditiously handed out over 40 BILLION dollars for Ukraine supports this notion. Given we know Ukraine has been a money laundering hub and the way Zalensky was pimping his "cause" to everyone with money he could find, I wonder if that was his scheme all along. This would also explain the sudden change of heart in the media. The quota was met and the midterms were about to kick off in full.

But why would they need money in the states? They can just print money, right? Well that's where it gets complicated. If they could just print themselves money, they wouldn't need the services of Ukraine or like what the Panama papers entail. They would just openly do it. However, we have many laws for fundraising and such for elections in the US and extra scrutiny after the Zuckerbucks fiasco. This suggests there is a form of resistance to them using this tactic on our side (white hats, perhaps?). However this function is served, they can't just give themselves the money for whatever reason for these midterms. You really think they want to give a cut to the launderers? Hell no!

Additionally, we know that the corruption in the power structure is funded by money. We also know they undoubtedly paid BILLIONS in 2020 across everyone involved from ballot box stuffers and mules, to media outlets, corporate heads like facebook, judges, politicians, and everyone else. No money, no play, after all.

What if they are actually at a point where they cannot spend more money without breaking their fiscal stability? That would explain Ukraine perfectly and why the timing was the way it was. This also fits with bigwigs like Blackrock and Gates buying up land en masse. Their liquid funds are probably tied up.

If this were the case, this would suggest that Dems thought after 2020 and the Jan 6 committee stuff last year that they were untouchable. Trump lost. They "knew" that his movement was over and they could coast on midterms.

Except we haven't stopped. We only moved further. They realized this was going to stick through midterms around fall/winter and that's when they started planning accordingly. The problem? They were functionally broke from bribing 2020 and preparing for the economic collapse (ie. buying land/property).

So if I'm reading this right, the following is likely true in some way:

• Dems got away with 2020 and 1/6 and felt super confident going into 2021
• Big money players like Blackrock and Gates start buying up assets and property while the Federal Reserve assures us there is no inflation, tying up their funds
• MAGA/Anti-Dems became stronger, not weaker like expected and Dems notice around fall/winter of 2021
• Russia invades Ukraine early 2022 and Dems seize moment to launder tens of billions of dollars because they now expect a good fight in the midterms, among other needs.

To further support this idea, why do you think we're taking back smaller districts across the country? The cost of winning each smaller area is too large for the gain it provides them. If there's any cheating in the midterms, it will be for the most influential areas like governor. They are literally rationing their corruption now, which furthers the idea that they're nearly bankrupt (or already are, given backwards Keynesian economics).

Furthermore, what did Russia do almost immediately after the conflict in Ukraine started? Started playing economic hardball with oil and transitioning away from the dollar, setting up BRICS, etc. It's very likely that there's blood in the water and economics are the tell here.

Also notice how no one tried to outbid Musk when it came to Twitter? It's almost like all major investors are scared of investing in Twitter or simply can't afford to pool their money together right now to protect such an important key in their globalist utopia. That's weird, right?

The more I think about this, I think there's something here. Ukraine is a tell about something and I can only see it implying ill for the DS. It's like they're standing in quicksand and it's slowly becoming more apparent. Anyone seeing something similar?

The United States has a storied history of success and prosperity that seemingly has disappeared in the last few decades. What if I told you that this may very well be intentional. As we run around chasing fires of culture, economics, and everything else, what is the cause of our woes?

Demographics

No, not race. That's usually a red herring that distracts us from the real demographics that matter: adult male, adult female, and child. How each of these are influenced greatly affect the involved society.

In a basic sense, the natural societal narrative is thus: Women choose the men they prefer, the men seek to satisfy this need, children are made of this union, and society keeps churning. Legitimately patriarchal societies are a gray area depending on how they manifest, but that's an entirely different side tangent.

But what happens when the women prefer strong men and the strong men protect the women and children from bad actors with ill intent? You have to break the virtuous cycle somehow. This is what protected us.

So when the Civil War failed, and we kept churning, they had to try again, but how? First they just went for a straight coup. This was recorded in the decades prior to the Great Depression, but is rarely taught in schools anymore. That failed too.

Ok, so we use a Great Depression and general economic turmoil to strum up war not just in the United States, but EUROPE too. Enter World War I. Now the plan starts showing: make the good, strong men kill each other. Then what happens? The war ended too soon and now they're starting to recover AGAIN.

Well that won't do..Let's have ANOTHER world war. This time with extra violence and death of good men. We gotta REALLY hammer the hate on this one guys. Enter Hitler, who did exactly that.

So at this point, the "takeoff" of their plan worked, but they learned a thing or two along the way. To simplify the rest of this post, here's a general synopsis of what they did:

• Remove the number of good men from society via multiple wars. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc. Intentionally pull at the heartstrings of strong, virtuous men about their patriotism and "standing up to evil" as they enter the meat grinders. Now you have disproportionately more weak or less virtuous men running around. The draft dodgers, the disabled, drug addicts, dishonorable discharges, etc.
• Once the good men are dead or damaged, they will not serve their functional part of society afterwards. Now you target women, who were previously protected and "liberate" them. Make them hate the strong, virtuous men. This ensures that when good men start appearing, the women will not take them. This buys more time.
• Now that the men and women are in check, you have to hold influence for about 20 years to fully indoctrinate one generation of children in the ways you desired. Start pushing a culture that is so far removed from the prior one that you won't even recognize it anymore. Think the 70s and 80s here. The idea is to hold this long enough that it normalizes among the masses and the original culture seems like a distant fairytale. Then demonize and mock it (rednecks hillbilly rural types, right?)
• Finally, once you have the first "crop" of indoctrinated subjects, you start pushing them into positions of power to automatically push your agenda. Think 90's and 00's here. The silent march through institutions and cementing power structures in place.
• The final stages are "slapping the collar on" to the remaining masses and stopping the return of "good men." The easiest way is to subsidize the members of society that contribute nothing but squawk loudly and attack those that would criticize their shortcomings. You see this with media, news, but also things like welfare.

The way this ultimately works is to remove good character from society using the fundamental mechanic of evolution. If good men are selected, then good men will prosper. If bad men as selected, bad men will prosper. This is why feminism appeared in force after the major world wars preaching division disguised as empowerment. This is also why heartless government officials try to appear as if they will ever replace good men in the lives of women.

The reason for welfare and gatekeeping with things like HR and ESG scores is to forcefully select the weakest of society so that they out-populate the good members.

The problem with this is that they keep having to exert inordinate amounts of time and energy to maintain such a society. This is likely why mass genocide called depopulation is coming up. They literally can't keep the system going and it will revert back. No bird can actively fly forever, after all.

A little proof? 9/11 of all things. For those that remember, everything was starting to get good again in this country. The bad things were going down and the good things were starting to bloom again. They missed their targets through the 60s to 80s and they had to "reset" and try again.

So TL;DR, what do we do? What we're already doing, but with a little more insight: Protect our children from groomers and rebuild the positive relationships between men and women. Support people of character and strength in positions of power. Once our character as a nation returns, so will our prosperity.

So this board knows that intel is clearly involved in likely every aspect of our lives now. There are whole books on the topics, but I would like to focus on one small aspect of intel that we can reasonably deduce a few things from: assets

So in a most basic, oversimplified sense, an asset is simply that, an asset, used by the IC or similar groups to gather info or exert influence. They can go by other names such as agent, but we'll stick with the broad term here for simplicity.

These usually come in a few varieties:

• willfully complicit - "I share your cause, please let me help!"
• opportunistic/mercenary - "How much are you paying?"
• coerced/blackmail - "Don't make the photos public; don't 'suicide' my family!"
• unwitting - "That helped their agenda? No way! I just wanted x"

If we look at Congress for example, it's very likely that many forces want to exert control over each member of both houses. Let's play pretend here and ask ourselves "what does that actually involve on a day-to-day basis?"

First, a puppet-master wants to confidently know who they have on "strings" for obvious reasons. The problem with all assets is that they also have to keep up appearances. RINOs often will try to save face and pretend they care about something, but when the rubber meets the road, they're suddenly voting like Democrats, right? Simple, low-hanging example.

This process results in a very tenuous relationship between owners and puppets because it can be very hard to know how many hands are up the puppets posterior and which one ultimately has control. Imagine a chess game where your knight decides to move in a different direction than you wanted on your turn. Infuriating, right?

So what's my point? If you're an asset with multiple masters barking at you to work and all of them are ultimately coercive in nature, how do you keep your head on straight? You play to all of them at one point or another. This means getting your hands dirty.

If Crenshaw comes out tomorrow and starts being a pure constitutionalist (1A and 2A absolutist, for example). What do you think the Cabal would do? They'd know they lost control and see him as a "rogue asset" who needs to be brought back on the plantation or "handled" accordingly.

What does this mean in practical terms? If we're seeing assets flip black > white, we're going to see what looks like "relapses" of their behavior. They have to keep their old owners strung along or else they will face dire consequences. Unfortunately, this will be almost indistinguishable from grifting or similar behavior to the public (us). Ironically, are they grifting us or the puppet-masters now?

Does this necessarily excuse these politicians selling us out? No, but it does provide an explanation for the apparent lack of legislative progress. In a way, the gridlock suggests we ARE seeing assets flip and there's a power struggle going on that likely transcends the MAGA/Dem+RINO paradigm.

Additionally, when you remember that many of these people are not necessarily into the nasty stuff like Epstein's island, they could just be worried about their families. There are layers and differences in many ways. Sure, the higher up you go the more corrupt they likely are, but of the nearly 600 people in Congress how many do you actually hear about on a day-to-day basis? Many are very likely well-meaning people who unknowingly got caught up in the DC meat grinder. The reason they don't make the news like Swalwell or Crenshaw is because they haven't sold their souls, so to speak, but they play ball when it comes to voting certain ways. The Cabal would get what they want anyways, and the lawmaker and their loved ones avoid the cruelty they would incur.

I know this can be very frustrating, but we need to remember that telling people to look their young children in the eye and go "well I wanted to keep you safe, but my personal sense of virtue is more important than your well-being" is incredibly twisted. What we should be doing is finding ways to support leaders who legit break away from the machine. Once that ball starts rolling in the form of meaningful results, we'll know the wind is at our backs.

TL;DR: Assets have to keep up appearances after they flip (in any direction). Don't assume anyone in politics is going to appear "pure" unless they're relatively new like MTG or Youngkin.