>>11014093

If we can get Blockchain adoption to kick off before the faggots implement their controls on it (central banks and the technocrats), we can effectively use it to regain our economic freedom.

We cannot be scared of progress, but we must stand in defiance against further encroachments upon our freedoms.

I'd advise anyone reading this to revisit their perspective of Blockchain and read the Cypherpunk Manifesto so that you understand the differences between how /ourguys/ view "digital assets" vs how the banksters and slavers view "digital assets".

Keep in mind, Blockchain does not equal Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is its own beast and I refuse to encourage anyone to buy it. My only intent is to encourage others to do their own research and form conclusions by themselves.

>>11014238

>he fell for stonks memes

You poor, poorfag.

>>11014376

Oh, [they] do a lot more than that.

Taxation is theft and none of us deserve to have our livelihoods stolen from us.

Taxation is the very reason we fought both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

It's weird that Q talks about having funding for governmental functions, but doesn't recognize this.

This is one of the biggest discrepancies I see with Q.

There's no way they forgot about the Tea Party…

>>11014475

We should meme his wearing the mask improperly.

>>11014449

>>11014482

Either way, notables are for the lazy or wagies.

It's no one here's fault that normies can't come here or don't want to.

They can do things just like we did and figure it all out for themsevles.

>>11014522

Maybe for normies.

On the days of /pol/, we refined info and took it to normies via social outlets like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.

I fully understood why Q said this. I just don't really agree.

None of us necessarily want normies here in the first place.

To be frank, I'm not that invested in notables and don't always check them when I come here anyway. I can read through the breads just like every other anon.

With that being said, I do recognize that aggregators are useful for disseminating info and I do recognize that I'm not just some normie that needs my hand held, so it's possible that my perspective is skewed.

>>11014523

Yes, there's some glaring issues with Q, like being an obvious Biblefag, not wanting to talk about these subjects, especially the loosh system and accompanying martime/admiralty system.

You are not alone in wishing these things get addressed some day.

I would also like to see further disclosure, but I think when Q mentions us taking baby steps, these subjects are the very thing they're referencing.

I hate to have to hope these things are addressed, but I suppose we can't have our cake and eat it to.

No matter what truly unfolds, I intend to teach normies about all of these things with more detail once saving the world concludes.

>>11014644

All fields of science are decades behind what's classified, some even fifty to a hundred years behind.

Think of how things functioned in the eighties or so and compare to what we can do (publicly) nowadays with the technology we have.

Think about what tech will exist in, say, 2050.

We can do that now, just not publicly.

In other words, no shit they have contingency upon contingency.

>>11014752

>Does your biblefag point determine that you don't trust mans recital of God's word but a controlling instrument with some truth?

That's pretty accurate from my perspective, yes.

Plenty of anons have had overlapping experiences where we slowly progressed through evolving comprehension of spiritual/religous texts and matched those with the old stories/lore/mythology.

This has, seemingly, lead us to have an aggregate perspective of mythology as a whole and allowed us to decipher what I would guess most of us consider to be a more genuine record of events, taking in allegory and historical accounts alike.

Once you part ways with the Bible being the sole source and recognize the Hebrew influence that has tainted the Catholic system, you realize what Christianity is supposed to be.

In fact, I consider myself a Christian, just not what you think a Christian is (I'm guessing here).

I would say Esoteric Christian before I would agree to any other label, but I don't really do labels.

>>11014768

Yep, my post explicitly says this.

You should know anon, reaching consensus is unimportant here.

Despite agreeing that notables have vivid use, we can't escape acknowledging that it's an attack vector… hence FastJack's outburst.

>>11014827

>Iron in our blood.

Well…

>>11014834

The first part of The Bible was quite literally plagiarized from the Hebrews.

Do not be mistaken, anon. You have not yet been afforded the whole picture as marked by Q's acknowledging it.

I'm not saying Hebrews are all evil. I'm not saying I bear any hate for them. I merely recognize how they feel about Christians and that has a clear effect upon my perspective of things.

I certainly agree the muhjoo guys are just sliding, but that doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.

Besides, the ones anons are talking about when they spam shit about "Jews" refers to Canaanites.

Hebrews and Canaanites aren't necessarily the same, but understanding the Hebrew/Canaanite influence that lingers over the Catholic Church is imperative and I'm of the firm opinion that it's more or less what Q is pointing us toward and also why Q is saving Israel for last, which intimately connects back to the Rothschilds who established Israel as a state via the Balfour Declaration.

>>11014863

>Do you agree they use language and purposeful misinterpretation as a means of division, control, and separation from original truth?

Studying Linguistics and Etymology reveals bitter truths about this reality.

We do not speak "English". We only write it.

The spoken language we all use is a modern form of "Latin" which is loaded with magical precedent that shapes communication avenues such that our physical world molds around them.

Different versions of The Bible, for instance, bear more specific messages, which it seems to me would be very complicated to delve in to in this setting.

You've got the right idea though. Limitless translations and purposeful misinterpretations plague The Bible and only the original Hebrew versions, Greek versions and maybe to some extent Latin versions really hold their original meanings even vaguely, I'd guess (especially in comparison to modern versions).

tl;dr Obviously.