We will be persecuted by such people because by seeing our light they can see their defects and believe it would be easier to hide from such light than to grow with God.
Evil and weakness are deeply entwined at their core.
I consider rebranding to be akin to a snake shedding its skin.
Like many things these degenerates are accused of, their inability to denounce it while denouncing anything and everything else they dislike to even the slightest extent is the most telling.
How long before they go "so what, we're better than you!" publicly? Taking mock bets now!
Agreed. Regardless of personal belief if there are people that actually believe in satanic things and law of attraction-ish effects, this may actually be intentional at some point and now it's repeated regardless of any actual belief "just because."
My guess is that you had fewer distractions around the end of the year than at the beginning of the year. Planning for summer takes time. Working through summer takes time. Prepping for winter (in fall) takes time. Winter is just kind of hunker down and enjoy the holidays with family and friends.
That said, this is a very interesting observation and I will definitely keep it in mind when relevant topics come up in the future. Good find!
My primary prediction, albeit divided, is that Ukraine will be accepted by NATO. Nations already considering joining NATO will protest and attempt to stay neutral. A minority of member nations will complain. Russia will beat the war drum and say "don't touch my new territory."
Pretty vanilla, but that's how I see it playing out. I don't expect a lot of major military movement this month. Mostly political nonsense.
I currently have zero predictions for any "Red October" kind of stuff. I expect to be blindsided if that happens. All I can expect is Dems doing Dem things to try and get the early voting in their favor before any bad news comes out. No real prediction otherwise there and it's kind of expected to be honest.
I take it more as we're in a transitory phase of the conflict. Right now Zalensky and Putin are both posturing to intimidate the other.
Putin is basically saying "this is mine now. attack at your own peril" and Zalensky is basically say "well I'll go crying to NATO and they'll kick your ass, take that!"
So Putin has effectively established a foothold in Ukraine now and he's been courting an alliance the whole time with BRICS nations. Zalensky's application to NATO can be seen as a natural response and WILL escalate tensions if it goes through.
My question is will NATO/EU actually try to become aggressors here and start war with Russia? If the Ruskies aren't joking, they may very well start bringing real conflict to the heads of the EU. Meanwhile, people like Meloni are getting more and more in power. That's dissent among the ranks. Perhaps EU wants to clean house of its rebellious element?
If Putin were smart, he'd play the long game of "liberating the people of Europe" by severing the bureaucratic heads and letting them rule themselves, although maybe part as an alliance or member of the Russian federation. This would be a long and hard path of politics as much as military, but I could see it.
At the end of the day, man-hours are still king for most efforts. It's why slavery continues to be a thing. It's why the internet makes us strong by allowing us to coordinate our hours. Gotta get that labour!
This is also why AI will become terrifying. It won't be perfect for where we are, but they'll try to force society to accommodate it so it won't matter overall. That's the real battle.
This 100%. The genius in the book doesn't understand basic evolution.
Intelligence, love it or hate it, is a survival technique. The "elites" don't really need to be smart. They just need to "follow the rules" to keep in power. Natural selection picks based on that in their environment. This is why they get increasingly disconnected and frankly retarded over the generations.
Likewise, the comfortable masses also get dumber since all they have to do is work, be entertained, and not complain. Basic slavery grooming, but that's another topic.
Now they want to insert a fit test in the masses to prune for who is stupid and obedient? They're literally signing their own death warrant when they had a good thing going.
Total. Idiots.
There are a lot of things to consider when trying to redpill. I say chin up, learn what did and didn't work, and remember that if they're truly committed to idiocy, you can simply enjoy their company otherwise, but work redpilling elsewhere.
The sheep will naturally follow once they see the herd moving. Keep the faith and be that anchor for them if SHTF. You'll both appreciate it.
Assuming there are aliens, why haven't they been revealed already?
Option 1: Global panic based solely upon reveal. I don't really buy it these days, but maybe 100 years ago. With mass media we have whole generations conditioned to accept the possibility of alien life and all sorts of wacky forms of it from Star Trek to Rick and Morty. This isn't what's holding us back.
Option 2: We're not allowed to know by our "leaders." This is the more ominous option because Option 1 is reasonably ruled out. This leads into a whole realm of speculation itself, but I see the two branches here as either cooperative or adversarial between our top dogs and them. A hybrid of cooperation and adversarial would hilariously enough be akin to the movie Men In Black.
Option 3: The "X" factor or "wildcard" scenarios. For some reason the reveal of aliens to the masses will have an effect we publicly aren't aware of yet, but is deemed undesirable. This would make sense in a Lovecraftian scenario where such beings can ravage the minds of humanity with ease. We also cannot rule out these "aliens" are also religious in nature and such a reveal may trigger a significant event, but the classification as "alien" would be a misnomer in this scenario. Maybe the reveal puts our leadership in a bad light and now they're painted into a corner. Many exotic possibilities fall under this group.
Honestly, don't know. Don't particularly care until I know what it means in practical terms, but even as children we can comprehend the vastness of space and the likelihood it would spawn life other than ourselves. This particular topic actually interests me the least from Q.
Just remember the point is to expose their close-mindedness. There's no need to be excitable or angry when you do it. Stay cool as ice. Confidently act like you've already been there a thousand times before and this is "a thing" from their types. Be the zen master.
"yeah, kinda figured. so about that new episode that came out"
If they bite and ask for something, you can either provide it or say they're unreasonable if it applies. This require prepwork on your part.
"I know the official federal data shows exactly that. What data are you relying on? Lemme pull it up for you real quick. I love learning about this stuff"
This is best when you aren't in a group of leftoids. They'll just start mocking or being loud to ignore what you have to say. No sense engaging that zombie mob. Best used around those that will be on the side of open-mindedness. Win at least one over and you have a start.
Deduction alone, sure. That's why you apply known truth to test the validity of it. Until it gets confirmed in a sufficient manner that's why it stays a hypothesis or theory. Without deduction you don't have science.
Without speculation and challenging of the accepted knowledge, you end up in a status quo. If you don't challenge inherited knowledge once in a while, you're vulnerable to historic lies.
The poison is in the amount and application method.
Some people have amazing intuition. If you've often been right before Obama, she would've been wise to consider it. Those are objective results.
There are three main factions to the "truth is subjective" group.
- The mentall ill. Self-explanatory. They're legitimately unable to process reality and think it's all made up. Think pre-schizophrenic imo. They cling to the group for validation and security.
- The deniers. These are the people that should know better, but can't accept the ugly reality. They stay plugged in to the matrix. They make all the rationalizing excuses to justify it, which digs them deeper.
- The hustlers. They know it's a lie. They do believe in truth. They just want to control others by mentally hobbling them. They're evil fucks and should be hanged.
It's that simple.
My post kind of highlights exactly that but asks the inverse: what trail of logic was avoided by Q entirely?
If you start connecting all of the data points Q pointed out, one leads to another which leads to more and a "web" starts to appear if you represent this visually.
However, these aren't the only data points. My question here is if you follow that these areas he covered are "lit up" then what are the areas he avoided that he reasonably should have explored given the topic?
This could be seen as a "dark to light" sort of approach. "Think mirror" could be exactly that. Q itself was leading us in one direction, which was productive, but the other side of the coin was the real reveal.
Maybe this question was too esoteric, but I felt it was worth a shot.
So if I'm understanding your greater point it goes something like this:
The KM narrative types are too fixated on this mythical group that may or may not actually exist anymore. They also have an odd tendency to focus on antisemitic remarks and pro-Nazi/Hitler talking points. As a result, you feel this is derailing the overall movement from focusing on real crimes by real "elites" and hindering real progress.
While I argue the anti-Jew element and pro-Nazi stuff can be simply hijacking by different groups, I think your basic premise isn't necessarily wrong.
What strikes me are the attacks on you. The top post here actually calls you out for strawman arguments while doing exactly the same! Not to mention a lot of it is reddit-tier critique. Seems you poked a nerve somewhere.
Personally, keep it up. We need to remember we have priorities and chasing unicorns doesn't really help us on here. Focus where we can. That I agree with.
Their inability to accept evidence they don't like is something I actually use against them.
"Do you actually want to see evidence or are you just repeating talking points?"
"Is there anything that would actually change your mind?"
"What would be a smoking gun here for you to change your mind?"
"Is this a good faith question or are you being rhetorical here?"
Things like above are a great way to call their bluff and put them in a weird spot. Question the very premise that they're open-minded and now they are painted in a corner. Most have difficulty with this basic tactic.
Enjoy.
Honestly, it's probably a lot of things working in tandem to generate the force-like effect you mentioned.
You want my take? It's pursuing Truth.
When you pursue Truth, you have the same destination as everyone else. No matter where you start, or how you travel, as long as your internal compass points towards Truth, you will find your way eventually.
The other component is the weird way in which our mind/psyche/etc. is layered. Most people seem to think the conscious mind is the "king", but in reality it is a weird amalgamation of instinct, survival techniques, defensive mal-adaptive tendencies like denial, cognitive dissonance, and a variety of other influences. This would warrant a whole post on its own.
Point is not to say we lack free will, however, but that we simply have a lot to influence/distract us as well. The human brain is actually amazing at pattern recognition that the conscious mind has almost zero awareness of. We simply see it as "intuition" a lot of the time.
Perhaps the rest of the time it is a source like God. I would be happy if that were the case.
I appreciate the mature, rational critique. You bring up good points to consider with what sparse amount I put up.
On the surface my theory is kinda silly and I'm not really committed to it (as alluded in the post). I think it's more of a "there's smoke there's fire" in a theory-crafting sense. I strongly believe something fishy is up with all this Queen business and I'm not subscribing to the mainstream Q theorists take on it.
That said, in defense of it (and after a good night of sleep), I will flesh out a little bit that may complement what you said.
On the note of espionage and psyops, what is the first thing you do if you're a state actor and see a psyop going on that you hate intensely? Say...Q for example? Obviously, you want to find the source of it. I argue by focusing so much on the United States that's good evidence that Q is NOT primarily US based as it would greatly decrease the efforts needed to find them.
If you were in another country, however, using the US as a proxy would actually be very productive as it holds a lot of sway and still holds onto the image of being "by the people for the people." If you can tame that wild horse, you can get away with a lot. Additionally, you force your hunters to exhaust searching the US to find you. After all, maybe you are that reckless and just say "yeah, I'm clearly in this country despite all common sense that you'll try to hunt me down."
Personally, through my own experience in government, if they want to know what one of their spooks are up to, they'll likely know or know soon enough when the heat comes on. This would've happened years ago, but didn't? Fishy for a prolific cabal to flub such a basic detail (from their perspective). This suggests they couldn't find Q locally.
So I'm convinced Q is not only multi-national, but also NOT based in the US. We can disagree on this point, but two interesting points of consideration are the following:
- The United States and the British have intel agreements to share information. This would create avenues to coordinate on this whole affair. For both pushing it and subverting the investigation into it.
- While generally unspoken and unofficial, there is also an understanding that intel agencies from allies will usually overlook said allies operating in their territory. The basic rationale means they can operate in each others' territory with impunity in return for favors now and then. The FBI has to follow US laws, but MI6? Well, let's just play dumb and pretend it never happened. They're an ally after all! No need for an international incident.This would make for great cover for such an op.
When you combine the two, I say it's HIGHLY likely that the "main" Q team is affiliated with a nation we share such intel agreements with. People often overlook this because Q is seen as US-centric and the Smith-Mundt act was changed/repealed, but that just means the US is equally a possibility, not the only one.
And who is one of our closest allies for whatever reason? Britain
So it isn't perfect, but some of the dots kind of connect in odd ways I don't see mentioned a lot.
Less hopium, more "these dots connect in a weird way" kind of thing.
Do I honestly believe the old gal was personally orchestrating a complex world-changing op? Not really, but I think these connections warrant consideration. I also think a lot of our theory is too centralized around the US and the US ALONE. If memory serves, this was a criticism brought up early in researching if not by Q himself.
If the Queen were secretly a collaborator, even if only for putting out the public facing posts, that would have implications elsewhere, would it not?
Q can mean a lot of things, including red herrings for those of us trying to figure it out. Or it could mean nothing and be pure distraction from who they really are.
Drats, you've foiled me. I knew I missed something.
And I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddlesome rapscallions!
If he legitimately died in a vehicular accident like this, I will have to start going to church more. What are the actual odds?
Look up "light pillars." They are understood atmospheric effects that with ice crystals in the and light interaction in a specific way.
I know, I know. I'm a party pooper here, but this makes us look bad. Don't feed the disinfo.
Wikipedia page on Light Pillars