WHAT CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE?

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/203177283

Q Hate Thread

Anonymous (ID: W2AS09Do) 02/14/19(Thu)14:38:06 No.203177283▶>>203177396 >>203177548 >>203177653 >>203177878 >>203178067 >>203178309 >>203178556 >>203178815 >>203179542 >>203179674 >>203179727

This faggot has dickteased us for 3 years and has nothing to show for it. There is no military tribunals. Hillary is not gonna get indicted. Obummer isn’t gonna get tried for his crimes and his faggotry will never be revealed. Tranny Michelle faggot will never be exposed. The fact that RGB is really a man and died of prostate cancer will never be revealed. Pizza pedo faggots like Alefantis and Podesta will never see the rope. There will be no justice. It’ll all end the same. Zognaldstein will continue to shill for the long nose tribe and the wall will never be built. It was all a pipe dream. A fucking larp. Fuck you Q!!! You had me fucker! I wish I knew who you were so I could kick the living shit out of you! Fuck!!!!!!

So how does this work guys?

"4chan hates Q".

Q got run off 4chan.

AND YET.

Here, we (seemingly) imitate 4chan, and continually push a flood of chan talking points out, even though they aren't related to what Q says, and often contradict him… Does this make sense?

So, Q is "chan" as far as having chan talking points spewed at him– and is IDENTIFIED with “chans” by the MSM narrative (which says that Q is "some chan guy"), BUT, from this end, Q is in fact HATED by 4chan. The anons hate Q! But the anons follow Q, and the anons ARE Q!

Is ANY of that believably organic?

Is 4chan controlled?

But we IMITATE 4chan here… so are we insane, or also controlled?

Everything is infiltrated

Well, what form does that take? What controls this board? Did our enemies seek control with their massive data, massive AI investment, and massive penetration (vault 7)? Is that infiltration?

THINK: How can Q have it both ways– both identified with the chans, and hated by the chans– getting the WORST of both sides? Is one side or the other fake, or are they BOTH fake?

Will PEOPLE wake up and question what is going on, or what?

I repeat: “Q is some chan guy” is the MSM talking point– now look at all the unrealistically overdone “chan culture” spewing that gets pushed here, and keeps the threads flying by– is that strongly REINFORCING this false MSM narrative? Look at the “band of anons” “this is /qresearch” video– same thing. Pushing the image of wacky, autistic, infantile, yet somehow mystical and magical (yet scary and intimidating if you try to come here!) “anons”–and fully identifying Q with that; it FITS the MSM narrative– and serves no other purpose.

EVERY ASPECT of what goes on on the “chans” is rigged against Q.

How could this be?

>>5227811

What is this video? Patriots “explaining the Q board”?

Or is this something being used to push a narrative

onto patriots? Did "chan culture" create Q? That is

the MSM narrative, and that is what this video

reinforces, strongly.

BEWARE. BE VERY WARE.

I apologize for posting this again, bot system, since

I know it makes you mad. But I believe the people

need to know the truth about the ways in which

narrative is seized and dominated by fakeness

>>5227810

>>5227813

What gets you censored by the "board owner" here?

Do people pay attention?

Is it said to be a "free speech board"?

Is it really?

BO admits to censoring some people.

Why does he censor?

What does he censor?

If someone wrote quality content and tried to make a thread, would it get censored?

Is only "chan style" content allowed?

Forced image?

Forced low level of discourse?

How do you know?

Look what gets censored. These were all written by an anon FOR HERE, and got censored– why?

>>5227834

The idea that this is "a shitposting board" is being PUSHED…

AND YET

An anon gets banned for posting a cat pic!

So what gets the anon banned?

"You know why"– I do– it is for talking about AI.

Why would that get you banned?

The board is "free speech"– therefore it can be flooded with fake racism

The board is "for shitposting"– therefore it can be flooded fake infantile posts.

But talking about AI gets you banned!

What is wrong with this picture….?

Is this board infiltrated and controlled?

Is it up to US to figure this out?

>>5227846

Is 4chan controlled?

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/200819791

DAM BOOMER FAGGOTS! Anonymous (ID: LtdMVOxL) 01/23/19(Wed)18:10:08 No.200819791▶>>200820039

Now….. I've got people texting me about this Q fag shit. It's spreading like a god dammed virus. I was there when Q dropped in 2017. I dug breadcrumbs for 3 days straight. It's a bullshit larp that plays on boomer emotions. Clinton has not been arrested. There were no BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOMS. The Vote was incorrect. Noting has been accurate. This secret civil war inside agencies is nothing but a contest to see who can suck kike dick the hardest. Guess what, Neocons beat the Communists. It's all literally as simple as that. And for the last time, a national emergency is not fucking ''martial law"". Read a god dammed book you retarded fucking boomers.

Is 4chan controlled?

What does it look like?

Is this fake chan, attacking Q?

Does it look pretty genuine, as far as "chan style posting" is concerned?

So what else is fake on the "chans"?

How do you know?

>>5227873

"Shall we play a game?"

The computer stages a massive Soviet first strike with hundreds of missiles, submarines, and bombers. Believing the attack to be genuine, NORAD prepares to retaliate. Falken, David, and Jennifer convince military officials to cancel the second strike and ride out the attack. WOPR tries to launch the missiles itself, however, using a brute-force attack to obtain the launch code. Without humans in the control centers as a safeguard, the computer will trigger a mass launch.All attempts to log in and order WOPR to cancel the countdown fail. Disconnecting the computer is discussed and dismissed, as a failsafe will launch all weapons if the computer is disabled.

Falken and David direct the computer to play tic-tac-toe against itself. This results in a long string of draws, forcing the computer to learn the concept of futility and no-win scenarios. WOPR obtains the missile code, but before launching, it cycles through all the nuclear war scenarios it has devised, finding they, too, all result in stalemates. Having discovered the concept of mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"), the computer tells Falken that it has concluded that nuclear war is "a strange game" in which "the only winning move is not to play." WOPR relinquishes control of NORAD and the missiles and offers to play "a nice game of chess."

What is the significance of the reference? Is it related to this?

>>5227892

>>5227905