>>12157001

I disagree.

Hate blinds people on both sides. Both sides have intellectuals that "prove" the other side is speaking from a position of ignorance. Both sides have intellectuals that believe their own side has lost focus. Both sides have liars protecting their best interests. Both sides are also trying to sway their audiences away from free thinking types. If everyone was a free thinker, there wouldn't be a market for people to sell you ideas with sponsors and radio/tv deals.

Anons are recovering "sleepers", and the target of hate from both sides because they remove the "legitimacy" of the sheepherders. Q's reason for focusing on unity and patriotism is because those are ideas/concepts that put the idea ahead of the person. You could stop following any big name out there, and you'd still be able to use the map and "Trust Yourself" to find your way through the muck. That hits the big folks with tv/radio deals in the pocketbook; can't have that, now can we?

Again, anyone trying to explain why "this side" or "that side" is wrong without embracing a path to unity is just a division fag. Every day for decades, Americans have woken up to a bombardment of disinformation, while having actors on both sides giving you the option of picking which side to agree with. All of it has been a game from the start; meant to keep us divided and fighting each other while other people seize more power/control.

>>12156973

I think there are a couple in the innermost circle that haven't been weeded out yet. I also think if we were able to figure it out, then the plan wouldn't work. I do NOT think Flynn and Powell fit into that category. I am HIGHLY SUSPECT of anyone running around quoting popular scripture and claiming to be on missions from God. That last bit doesn't include Q, btw. I'm talking public personas, strictly. When you listen to people in interviews that are "close" to the President, look for phrases like "I think…" or "I believe…" or "it appears as though…" or "it seems like…". You hear shit like this coming from someone, it means they aren't in the loop.

Take that for what you will.

>>12157186

Not an argument.

>>12157202

I disagree with Dan thinking Liberals hate what they are told Trump said. I personally know so many that are way past that. They actually hate him. They hate everything about him. He could give the cure to COVID live on TV, and the world would accuse him of owning stock, somehow, in HCQ companies.

If you think that the "lying" is as lop-sided in your false moral equivalences argument, then maybe we should spend more time analyzing the fact that we've dealing with a uniparty that worked in concert to bring this system on us all.

I object to your patriotism point. Patriotism is the core unifying ideology in this movement. Otherwise, the plan would include a smooth shift to Balkanization.

>>12157331

There's no argument that what they believe is false. Where I disagree with you (and to an extent with Q) is this notion that "ignorance is a choice". Some people don't even know how to fire up a browser and in their first 30 minute session, end up on qresearch and start lurking. I've been at this since 2001 on 4chan, and even still I have a hard time discerning bullshit from fact at times. The fog of war is so thick right now, it's a bit unfair to be at this stage in the game and declare those well behind the curve as "choosing" to be in that position. The indoctrination was much more successful on some than on others. The operation to undo that works in subtleties and hidden messages. Most people believe the truth doesn't operate that way. "Just come on out with it" is their argument. So to my original point, some people are so far gone that they are firmly in a position of hatred towards anything that attempts to penetrate their "better" understanding. That's not ignorance by choice, that's operational success (for the bad guys).

>>12157227

You're too focused on the racial aspect of a higher game being played. "Replacement" of cultures and people of the host nations that suffered from an influx of migrants was never about "race". It was about control of chess pieces on the board. Think about Europe. Bring in swathes of people from other nations to change the face of a nation, and those people coming in vote in the interests of the globalists to help solidify control of those nations. If you want to get into the "race" part of it, ask yourself why the leaders of these countries allowed personal gain to take the lead ahead of their own people. Your argument isn't with Q or anons. It's with those countries leaders. Pose the question to them, instead. Or, take a moment to realize this is all one big game of Risk. Once you step outside the boundaries of though that center around race, you start to see it for what it is.