>>135847
I'm glad that they didn't sign as Q.
however, some anons aren't too bright (or are qfanfags), and believe all of these types of posts to be Q, then that discussion goes for hours. A disclaimer at the beginning or something would be nice.
Having said that, to >>135248 anon, good questions
HEY! Stay focused
the arguefags are back
don't fall for the bullshit, reply once if at all. we've got work to do.
So anyway, rereading crumbs, and:
>Think logically.
>We haven’t started the drops re: human trafficking / sacrifices [yet][worst].
>Those [good] who know cannot sleep.
>Those [good] who know cannot find peace.
>Those [good] who know will not rest until those responsible are held accountable.
>60% must remain private [at least] - for humanity.
What I see here, is that the [good] outnumber the [worst] (maybe 3X). So dismantling the entire FBI, DOJ, etc, by full disclosure due to the acts of a few, it's overkill. Let the [good] people out here that still believe in the system, keep their belief in tact [at least].
>Nobody can possibly imagine the pure evil and corruption out there.
[yet]. We'll know, yet think logically, it's not [good] that all know.
>Could messages such as those be publicly disclosed?
Yes they could, but, SHOULD they?
New age, or science?
Science has clarified what religion attempted to explain prior to modern-day scientific discoveries. What's known as spirit, is a measurable energy thanks to modern-day technology. This is no different than the discovery of infrared or x-rays which have always existed in the "unseen", yet couldn't be quantified a few thousand years ago. Just electromagnetic ENERGY that can't be detected with the naked eye which is limited to ROYGBIV.
Yes, I'm well aware of the new-age idea of spirituality, and I'm not an advocate of it as it also ignores science, replacing it with pseudo-science. Yet, everything that not Christian, isn't automatically "luciferian". Thanks for your well-intended warning, it's unneeded though.
.>>136428
Let's take it to the micro. Presuming that you're a man, say a group known to you is out to harm your family, and you're in a position to handle it. Does everyone in the house need to know EVERY detail of how you're going to handle it? Or, do you tell them what they need to know to keep them safe, while you handle the rest? Do you traumatize & freak out your wife sons and daughters by giving them all of the gory details, or handle it as an adult and tell them when they are ready to handle it, which will be after the fact? It's not a hard choice for me, I'd go and handle the threat, while keeping my loved ones on a need-to-know basis.
Now, multiply that by 300 million+. Imagine the freak out of telling them all of the gory details. That would be a bit hard to manage, don't ya think?
Let's take it to the micro. Presuming that you're a man, say a group known to you is out to harm your family, and you're in a position to handle it. Does everyone in the house need to know EVERY detail of how you're going to handle it? Or, do you tell them what they need to know to keep them safe, while you handle the rest? Do you traumatize & freak out your wife sons and daughters by giving them all of the gory details, or handle it as an adult and tell them when they are ready to handle it, which will be after the fact? It's not a hard choice for me, I'd go and handle the threat, while keeping my loved ones on a need-to-know basis.
Now, multiply that by 300 million+. Imagine the freak out of telling them all of the gory details. That would be a bit hard to manage, don't ya think?
And what does this have to do with a need-to-know-basis?