>>6837037

Similar, here.

There are two masonic lodges in town. One… Is kind of barely existing - basically a bunch of cinderblocks and a sign. The other is more expansive and sits on the main stretch of road.

I'm not saying it isn't notable in terms of who is meeting there - but it should come as absolutely no surprise that a masonic lodge would rent out spaces for business meetings/functions.

If they are truly following the idea of the masonic lodges, then they would be supporting trades and businesses rather openly as a sort of guild, rather than be a secretive order of the shadow government.

>>6837060

Of course… Because Q is just your average, every day insider posting to the chans.

The very existence of Q and verification of several of his points brings the logical to the conclusion that Q is far from just some anonymous leaker. The entire sequence of what Q has said was planned ahead of time and in coordination with many events unfolding.

>>6837070

This is the exact opposite of their symbolism and their mythos of origin. The only justification for "concealing" a trade is to deny it to the variety whose only use for money is to buy things ever more abusive to the people.

I'm not going to try to get into a who is or is not a "true mason" among the orders. There are certainly those who seek power who throw on as many symbols of the powerful as they can find to wow the masses. And those types have certainly caused damage.

However, I will ask if you think it is the military imposing all of these business policy changes and resignations. Or any government agency, for that matter.

>>6837083

You are confused. Once again, you are looking at this as if Q is just a person posting and trying to leak plans. That is not what Q was here to do.

The original "Hillary arrest" 'prediction?' All of it was anon hyperbole. Q made it very clear that it was not a date. This should have been obvious as Hillary's indictment was before Huma's if we were going by dates.

If we are going by a countdown, however, then it's a marker, and the statement makes sense.

This was all blatantly obvious to me within the first few seconds of reading what Q stated. All of the datefagging and other such stuff was simply people deceiving themselves. Q is not necessarily going to tell you when you are being retarded.

Why? Because it doesn't really matter whether you are right or wrong - our ability to understand doesn't change the outcome. It is provided here so that we will be able to verify that certain stages of the plan are being satisfied as Q outlined them.

>>6837096

You should glow a little harder. Maybe people will believe you are a light of truth if you do.

https://youtu.be/NuYUb8z3p00

>>6837111

"2018 will be glorious!"

"Future proves past."

This shit isn't complicated. Why have we been tracking the number of sealed federal proceedings?

>>6837130

Somewhat doubtful.

The problem is that a full unveiling of who all is indicted for what will lead to the realization that no one can truly be prosecuted under federal courts. There are simply too many conflicts of interest, too many corrupt people in key positions.

The only way I see it being handled is through military tribunals - the biggest challenge is how to get the public to both trust the military to be just and to understand the gravity of the situation.

Maybe, somehow, the majority of it all can be settled in courts for the public to see - but in either case, the scale of what must be done is absolutely mind-boggling. The good may outnumber the bad, but when you have so much incest among the halls of our federal government - everyone is compromised of judgment and character.

But rather than a sudden springing of tribunals on the public, I foresee a plan that we are left with more or less no judicial system but the military to air out many of the cases, particularly involving those who were in the Department of State. Though exactly how all of the little gears and levers inside the system move to get us there - I have no real idea as my autism grows weak when staring into alphabet soup and suits of faceless officials.

>>6837171

I would give that around 6 months to complete. That gives us a November-December-January timeframe for that to be available. Possibly sooner, but I'm figuring government work, here.

Acceptance by the public doesn't necessarily mean it must all be slowly rolled out. The major thing that needs to happen is the disruption and/or destruction of social agitation networks. What was behind BLM, Occupy, Ferguson, etc needs to be routed and shut down as well as MS13 and others.

Once that happens, the consequence of public fear/shock is mitigated considerably, as those groups exist to displace fear into violent behavior.

Everyone in the cities can wake up to the news that Hillary has been arrested, and even if they do think it is a political hit job, they won't have people looking to bus them to DC to use as cover for direct actions. Protests will be rather minor and local.

The other aspect is the media - and this one is a little more challenging. The media doesn't need to not be liberal so much as the media needs to not be able to omit key details or to use speculation. They must be compelled to cover things they would otherwise omit.

Their favorite tactic is to use the "so and so claims…" Line of speculation. Consider the Mueller Report and how they have gone on about that. Almost no one in the media is using quotes from the report - they are all simply reporting on what people are saying about the report. It's their favorite little game to play.

That is what must be bypassed. Once the media must begin covering a reading of facts - the narrative they have built up collapses, and people have no choice but to accept the reality as the facts show.

>>6837205

I suspect that arrests will be made on minor charges and then it will be later revealed that greater indictments existed. The media will report as if it is a political hit job and then be forced to cover trials for more expansive stuff…

But that seems a little too straight forward. It may be that people just kind of "disappear" from the public eye and the next time we are introduced to them is at their trial - then everyone can wonder why the media was keeping silent about it and why they kept pushing narratives to support war and impeachment.

>>6837297

More like an idealized standard.

You could argue fairness is subjective, but I think this stems from the limitations of each person's perspective. It isn't fair that a child is born into poverty - but the idea that something can be done to somehow make that unfair event fair is misguided, as the past can't be changed and our sense of fairness is often localized. It isn't fair (to me) that my parents died when I was young and that much of our family wealth was destroyed by illness. But… It's not like all of that can be changed now, nor is it as though my parents are exempt from the concept of economics. It would also not be fair for me to receive some kind of compensation that would not be granted to others because their plight (be it minor or major) is not recognized.

For example, if we were to write off student debt…. Would be nice if I would have known about that being done when I was making the decision to not go into debt for student loans/grants. I'd have a few degrees under my belt and a magical debt forgiveness to then go into the workforce and flag around my credentials against people who were far more analytical of the situation and decided to use other means to learn….

To me, in order to be "fair" - an average student debt should be calculated and granted to all people through a certain age range. If you have student loans - you get that annihilated against your debt. If you do not - you just got "stimulus."

…. But then is such a thing really fair in and of itself?

Fairness is kind of like a subjective-objective duality. It is a particle or a wave depending upon where you are asking the question from, and the true nature of it is the subject of much philosophical debate in matters that would ideally have a definite answer.