scott adams/Q

(Part 1)

>youwrotesomuchtext.jpg

>>2524177 (bread #3184)

>>2524187

>>2525765

>>2525853

i watch scott too and feel there is something deeper about all of this.

>he never really mentioned Q until the day after he met POTUS.

this was a huge signal for me. he continually said that he would not discuss his visit with POTUS, yet shortly after he jumps in and starts discussing Q (which he's never done before). very odd.

i've never felt SA is anti-Q, he leaves it open to interpretation. he admits that people who follow Q are of above-average intelligence and that they are generally good people concerned about the country/world. he brings up confirmation bias and addresses very valid points on how a person can perceive reality.

scott's recent video lays out points of argument that seem to go against Q.

>cult defense

true, we were warned attacks on the movement would continually get worse and those people don't have our best interest in mind.

>bible code

true, 'everything has meaning', 'mis-spellings/spaces matter', 'learn our comms' ... we see a code with Q.

>invisible elephant

tough one. this seems to boil down to whether or not a person believes in the 'conspiracy elephant' on a grand scale, aka 'the cabal'. is there really a group of evil people secretly controlling the world? some people can't wrap their head around this because the cognitive dissonance is too great. why do 'we' (or some people) believe in things like this? for me, this has been an organic process of discovering information over the past 25-30 years. my first red-pill was JFK and seeing the zapruder film for the first time. this led me to read every single book on the subject (pre-internet days), including the books who were anti-conspiracy and pushing the Oswald theory. the physical evidence supports conspiracy, and so it began. was confirmation bias a factor in the beginning? it doesn't seem that way, but i don't know. is it a factor now? most certainly.

>crowd effect

what interesting about the chans is that the crowd effect works differently here. because of the anonymous, free-flow exchange of ideas and opinions without the restraints of political correctness (free speech) theories and arguments against those theories can be presented until eventually a sense of truth bubbles to the top. isn't that why Q chose the chans? don't autists find the deepest, darkest truths of the world we live in? autists explore every avenue until all possibilities are covered and somewhere in there lays the truth. on the flip side of this, we've been dealing with Q for almost 10 months now and there is definitely a crowd consensus about what is true (Q) and what is not (non-believers, shills, etc). anybody who questions the consensus are attacked viciously.

>some smart people disagree/no experts agree

true. however his examples consist of 'well-known' experts... NYT, Fox News, investigative reporters, etc. knowing what we know about the fake news/MSM, does it even matter that no 'experts' agree? the 'experts' have been lying to us for years, why would it matter what they say (or don't say) now?

...

scott adams/Q

(Part 2)

>youwrotesomuchtext.jpg

>economics

scott implies that if the Q information was real, then idea would be to sell it (for money) because it has 'value'. but Q has always been against this.

'be careful who you follow'.

patriots not pay-triots.

profiting off the movement has been looked down upon and certainly Q has not pushed any sort of thing that would result in monetary gain. does it make the information Q drops invalid? i don't believe so. scott does say that it doesn't mean its not real... it's just unusual. agreed.

>not predictive, maps to past.

>cold read

>magic trick

this is where scott failed bigly. Q has never been about predicting the future. a lot of people have been burned because they thought this was the case. people read Q drops then they predicted to all their friends that an event was about to happen and it never materialized and they looked like kooks. the goal is consistent, but the plan is fluid, changing and not set in stone. therefore events cannot be precisely predicted on a specific timeline. (think game theory)

the crumbs are given in a manner that create a circular flow diagram that can be cross-checked with actual news events as they happen to reveal the larger operation that seems to be taking place. that's why we re_read the crumbs! it's not about predicting specific events, it's about painting a picture of the operation without violating OPSEC and not telegraphing your intention to the enemy. disinformation and mis-direction are real (see pepe pic related). it is also a way to show transparency to the general public. 'we are watching a movie.' scott mentions the 'trick' that if a person can get some things right, it's easier to convince people that other stuff is right. this is where the coincidences come in ... how many have to happen before it's mathematically impossible for it not to be real? i wish i had the answer to that... but we've had a very convincing set of coincidences with Q.

>if true, gov't would shut (it) down

false. scott thinks that if Q were real then everybody in the gov would know who it is. if this is a MI operation then this whole argument goes out the window. 'less than 10 can confirm'. an operation of this magnitude would be heavily compartmentalized. only POTUS has the authority to confirm it.

which brings me back around to what these anons were saying

>>2524227

>>2524364

>>2524498

i believe scott (whether he knows it or not) is now a part of this phase of the plan. he's (and others) are dissecting the weaker parts of the 'proofs' and leaving the viewer to critically think about Q. scott's persuasion skills are on the level of DJT and i believe he could be doing exactly what he did with bringing people around to Trump during the election. if POTUS confirms Q then scott can very easily say he was wrong and then explain why he was wrong. all the while bringing more people into the light.

meanwhile all the MSM and other idiots totally denouncing Q followers as crazy will be BTFO and lose all credibility. this is the [killshot] for the last pillar of control of the cabal (the mainstream media/fake news) if POTUS pulls the trigger. i guess we'll see. either way, it's been a great ride and much good has come out of this movement.