>>1220815

If you mean studying it in context, then I don't think it would be a problem if you aren't easily influenced by others. But alchemy? It's just…stupid.

There's a reason why they made a distinction between alchemy and chemistry:one is science and the other is bullshit. Study chemistry instead: you will get real results, and it pays. If someone told me they were an "alchemist", by the time it travels from my ears to my brain it sounds like "neckbeard with no redeeming qualities trying to be exotic to make up for it". Same as Wiccans.

USEFUL TOOL

Anons, found something useful:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/databases/trump-white-house-visitor-logs-and-records/index.html

It's a log of people that visit the WH. POTUS has made the log private, most likely for opsec…so it can be difficult to verify things. For instance, it took me awhile to verify that Schumer visited on Feb. 7th. But this page has a pretty comprehensive list.

Politico has been consistently Leftist for most of their existence, so take whatever they say with a grain of salt. But they've had a few bright spots, and I don't see any bs commentary. Pic related is evidence that Mueller visited POTUS the day before RR hired him,

>>1221038

Rather, it was Jan 19th…and they don't have it logged. Guess I'll have to find that article again…

>>1220970

I haven't read deeply into Jung, but I consider him to be the real father of psychology, based on his Jungian archetypes. His work was furthered by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, then clarified into something evident by David Keirsey. After that it has been plagiarized and bastardized into the "Big Five" personality types…which came about because Keirsey laid out some uncomfortable truths about psychologists: namely, that they were more emotional than scientific. This bears out in the abysmal replicability of their experiments, and willingness to fabricate and endorse entirely new theories based on the prevailing winds.

I would suggest you pick up Keirsey's 'Please Understand Me". It's hard to find, but mind-blowing.

>>1221072

What do you mean? He just posted an article two days ago explaing the situation (4d chess). Read the other article by that same author on the same site for further clarification; Q hasn't muddied the waters at all. Could you please post something from Q that backs up your claim?

>>1220869

181 days of following, closing in on 1000 hours of contributing, almost 30 notables, three of them huge (everybody knows them or uses them], a stickied thread, and no (youl). It makes me paranoid that there's something wrong…but then you think about other people that do more…like the ones running the websites.

Then again, he has posted things that seemed like answers to my posts, without the (you). So it keeps me going. That, and the sense of common purpose.

>>1221105

There may be less disinfo than you think. The biggest revelation that I had was when I realized that a lot of the posts refer to future events,. He can hint and allude to things in order to give us an idea, but for him to say it outright would put him at risk of jail time. National security laws.

For instance, his first post mentions Podesta 11.3 and Huma 11.4 (something). A lot of people left when they didn't come out as expected…but if you consider they might have meant 11.3.18 and 11.4.18, you see they line up with one of his rare complete dates: celebration on 11.11.18. Also the midterms.

>>1221190

One back at (you) :;