>>6701145

That is deliberate.

Many of Q's posts are designed to be understood once a planned event has taken place. Thus, future proves past. A number of Q's posts, particularly the early ones, are likely contingency flags. One of the first things you do is lay out your "worst case" plans.

Of course, some of it is also theater. Then there is the misinformation aspect that is designed to confuse people…

As I have said before - my dad was very much like Q. So, I know how this all works. We'll say "ah, so that is what Q means" then, three or four years later, we will go "wait… No… Holy shit, he meant it completely opposite!" Then, a decade later as we are on our way to be space marines, or something, we will realize "oh… Q was making a statement that would be self-dissonant over time so that we can develop an understanding that makes our reasons for feeling one way early on, then another way later, all part of a consistent world view."

I call it dragonspeak - the idea of speaking through time. But I am also eccentric to say the least.

Q said "expand your thinking" - then realized I was participating and said "think logically."

-"Expand your thinking."

-"Alright, Q, Dragon Actual has this."

-"except you. Reign that shit in and think logically."

-"But I was about to talk about the alien invasion in 2024…"

-"…. Okay… So let's think logically about how you know these things…."

-"… I'm an alien. On the invasion force? Advanced recon of conscious projection? Why am I working to defeat my own goal, then? OH MY GOD WE ARE SAIYANS!!! … Q?… Where did you go?"

And that is how we got here.

>>6701212

I am somewhat hesitant in regard to this. I think the error is in having "credible news sources" more so than it is in having propaganda posted.

The problem is that these laws wouldn't have necessarily done much to stop the cabal as it was a lack of investigation/oversight that allowed the growth of the CIA and power mafias in the first place. Once in power, those groups could then control what information was made available to therefore justify any lie with "evidence."

It is a problem that won't be solved by a piece of legislation. Not saying I disagree with the whole thing that knowingly running with false information should be a crime. The point I am trying to make, however, is that we are/were considered conspiracy cooks by the norm for a long time… And would have been the ones targeted by such a law.