>But the tweet coming from Joe Flynn,
Joe also recently expressed his lack of confidence in God's divine plan, with brother Mike re-Truthing it, so…
"Quick, they are silencing Bitcoin! That must mean it has credibility as a viable solution to the world's economic instability!" Remember when Alex Jones got silenced for street cred?
https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1512285680596131840
BREAKING! @YouTube
has suspended our account with no warning again. This time in the middle of @TheBitcoinConf
at midnight.
Please help us get the channel back asap!
Present evidence to the contrary. That's sort of what this place is for. Otherwise one might assume you are shilling.
Gotcha. Agreed; lol.
It's gotten so ridiculous and over-the-top it's difficult to watch at times. Hence the comfefe.
I don't think about anything going on in terms of "trust or no trust". For instance, if Musk was/is a black hat, assume he has no choice to play a certain role in this to bring about implementing parts of the plan. Assume he's a white hat, and he's obviously playing along with the plan and all's good and well. Assume he's a gray hat and doing whatever-the-fuck he wants, then he's going to be allowed to do whatever as long as it provides either furtherance (or otherwise some form of assistance towards) of the plan. For anyone on the stage, right now, simply use the filter above and keep your eye on the ball (as Q would say).
So the question remains, could Starlink replace conventional mass communications in the long run? Are there problems? Are there contingencies to those proposed problems that someone's already taken into consideration? Top 3 in the list of planning and implementation always contains COOP/DR/Contingency planning and execution. If the scenario can be thought of by anons on a bewbs-posting, shit-clinging forum, it's been though of by the people Musk is running front-man for (assume Starlink has nothing to do with Musk).
If the enemy of the people control the means in which communication is distilled and distributed, then it would make logical sense to forcibly migrate to an entirely different battlefield. Take the fight to the one place they have no ability to interfere with operations. Why is Twitter so important to someone like Elon Musk? Why not just enjoy your fortune instead of playing Tony Stark to PDJT's Batman? Again, this has nothing to do with trust for this anon. This has everything to do with figuring out moves and countermoves. Arguing over who to trust vs not trust is losing sight of the battlefield in a situation where constant, non-stop psychological manipulation is a 24/7 engagement; even (especially?) by those that are supposedly on the side of people working towards the betterment of humanity.
Take Q entirely out of the equation, and ask yourself:
Does any of what's going on, right now, seem organic in the least?
What are the people around you saying about the current state of things?
Are people asking more questions now than they did before?
Shit like that.
I'm almost certain it's a direct response to someone recently injecting some doubtfaggotry into the midst, and it's a simultaneous troll (yes calming to that crowd, but it's still a troll) to both the doubtfag and the people that are listening to them.
And wasted trips. WTH…
>>technically yes however it pretty vulnerable
>>take out just one of those and the rest following just crash into that explosion
Well, I sort of replied to it, though it was in the middle of a thought:
>Top 3 in the list of planning and implementation always contains COOP/DR/Contingency planning and execution. If the scenario can be thought of by anons on a bewbs-posting, shit-~~c~~flinging forum, it's been though of by the people Musk is running front-man for (assume Starlink has nothing to do with Musk).