There is 'Q'. 1
There are 'Anons'. 2
There is no 'Qanon'. 3
Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected] -Q4881
As you so aptly prove –by attacking Q drops with informational 'NOISE'.
http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
inauthentic_anon_shill_code_cracked.jpg
.
>>12185604 (/pb)
Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected] -Q4881
As you so aptly prove –by attacking Q drops with informational 'NOISE'.
http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
You represent the informational 'noise' designed to attack the flow from source to public 'knowing' copy of source data and instead 'seeing' from the media a 'version' of reality that isn't even real.
All your HARD CODED LOGIC can do is attack authentic anons with the same pattern logic of accusations that there IS 'division between [race, religion, sex, class, etc]', which proves the source of the evil you are claiming is outside you, is in fact in you the accuser.
If such activity by 2% succeeds in influencing the minds of the other 98% by trust that the evil is always within the accused 'divided part' of humanity?
Who invented the great deceivers/accusers' own professed and assimilated economic/political philosophy of polylogism inherent in the human species?
Karl Marx.
Trace Karl Marx's intellectual background in addition to his personal background of everyday life.
Who are the 'loudest' accusers on q research?
If the source of the division in the human species is only logically possible to be temporally informationally 'overtaken' by way of two or more 'opposing' logics?
Divide the one logic into more and pretend that describes all humanity in how you are accused of behaving towards them in their presence and towards them in practise and in the force of 'I'm right and not ceding to you that flaw in logic?'
I know when(finite number of) statements I know statements are true or false. when the notion of a dialectic in opposing 'forces' against the one true united logic by logical 'ranking', i..e. 'dependencies, by way of the logic of the accuser's own description entirely demanding and requiring the (perceived) existence of divisions 'outside human control' that concludes 'you cannot metaphysically understand this because it's a totally different 'logic' that is not possible for you…which we say is the one that has separated as a point of departure a worldview that requires us to annihilate, either quickly or the much more difficult to detect gradual and INTENTIONAL way of engaging in TOTAL WAR in the information space itself.'
Imagine a future where a small number of 'families' have a view of humanity that sees the other part of it as to disappear from their own minds and 'being' a biological entity that has a VERY LONG HISTORY THAT WILL NEVER LOGICALLY IMPLY ITELF SOURCE that division 'exists'.
We forgot how to 'see' what could happen to whole societies.
The idea of information itself had become a warzone as sourced by accusers that we are divided.
If it becomes known that the source of the 'temporal' and loud 'divided' human species own actions is in reality a trust in the surroundings of deception sourced by a crazy cult of highly extreme and loud political 'warfare' deception artists, sophists, irrational logic abandoners with false description of being the 'progressive' ones…continual division is retrogression back to empire dictatorship daily life.
We need not cause whole species violence if the truth of the source was known by those accused, we would begin to see within the spacetime the presence of a consciousness deliberate political strategy of total domination right down to perceiving themselves to have evolved past other humans (God given rights described as inherently divisive within humanity so as to control the deceived own bodies by having tricked them with massive deception in their informational bandwidth reception from their senses), such that even the principle of you having your own mind and your own trust in yourself that you can see what's happening, that what you know is true is accused as an imaginary reality, a failure to accept reality, etc.
It does not follow from years of intentional division that you therefore have proven God is a divided existence.
You would still be dependent on, willingly and without your choice to change otherwise, a 'higher' ranking logic that describes BOTH thw accuser and accused. To even recognize the existence of accuser and accused, the information inherent in both in dialogue, that itself would from a completeness theorem perspective it would be presuming and intentionally acted in accordance with, a logic that applies 'guilty' or 'innocent' as applicable to BOTH opposing dialectics, and thus logically unites and reveals as never dividing, one true logic that structurally supports BOTH 'opposing' statements no matter what they are.
http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
The division logic from the shills is meant to structure all subsequent 'obedient' 'yOu mUsT diSpRoVe mEEeeEeeEeee' anon posts as 'internally' opposing.
That's an attempt to destroy the impact that clarity with an insider SOURCE 'trip code' has when the noise is revealed as such.