>>8799558

Maybe it is better to contrast HOW they interpret symbols with how "good guys" interpret symbols.

THEY seem to regard knowledge of symbolism as a sign that you are part of some special elite. Knowing WHAT something means is crucial.

By contrast, if you look at how Q uses symbols (but Q is taking this from others throughout history and developing it) rarely does a symbol ever have one fixed meaning. But that isn't something wishy-washy so much as a pointer to expanding your thinking.

For instance, everyone "knows" that C_A means CIA. But more recently some Anons have pushed C_A as meaning ChinA. That works in many contexts. But it doesn't undermine the CIA reading either, if the CIA is a central tool of the corrupt elite that is using China as one of their main attack vectors.

So, on the surface C_A has two totally different "meaning", but in this case once you delve deeper there seem to be connections.

I think you can flip it around too and look at THEIR symbols. Graphic related… grabbed it from one of the last few breads since it seemed to hit the mark. Once you delve into what things ACTUALLY are… they are much more fascinating. Owls are cool as they have a different range of sensory perception than we do… and spirals are fascinating too, with complex mathematical spirals occurring naturally in many biological contexts. Those are just two examples.

>>8799733

I looked that up last week or so myself.

I think the "need" part is really the crucial part, even if Q leaves it out many times.

THEY NEED to feel like they are part of some special group. And they end up flaunting "their" symbolism.

But there is nothing wrong with symbolism as such, and if used astutely, as Q uses it, then it can take you places. But I do think that the possibility of "double meanings" is built in to almost every piece of symbolism Q uses. NO ONE grasps every one of the possible meanings of every symbol, but we each MUST think on our own. (I don't even think Q always knows where a "symbol" might lead…not sure, but I think sometimes Q team rolls with intuition and it works…)

>>8799584

I'm only partway into this vid, but it is good stuff.

I already suspected Pell was completely set up, but this vid convinces me that he is a genuinely good guy.

Q did NOT say he was (actually) guilty.

Q posted those drops to promote critical thinking.

Contrast the way he talks in this vid with the way genuine bullshitters talk: HRC, BO, etc. He strikes me as a guy who care about his fellow humans whatever mistakes they have made.

The situation in this case seems VERY different from other high level RCC abuse cases where there is actual guilt. I suspect it was because he had caught the scent of some of the really bad people (cabal types, behind the scenes, even worse than "run of the mill" church sexual abusers). So far as I can tell, MOST of the RCC sex abusers were not in any "cult", they were "just" morally weak men who got away with abusing others and were enabled by others in doing so. There is most definitely a corrupt network of these sorts (Lavender mafia), but that seems to be a different thing from the sort of deeper infiltration that Q points to at the top levels.

>>8799943

>>8799584

Finally finished watching that and definitely recommend the whole thing to any anons interested in these issues.

Two additions to prior comment…

First, interviewer emphasizes both at the start and the end that he is "not a Christian". And yet he makes it clear beyond doubt that he finds the whole thing a travesty of justice.

Next, I think Pell gets it exactly right when the discussion turns to some priest who was apparently one of the most notorious actual sexual abusers in Australia. Pell doesn't try to hide and says what he really needs to say, which might not be popular. On the one hand, he fully acknowledges that this guy has done enormous harm to others. But on the other hand, he differs from the interviewer when it comes to the suggestion that the abuser should simply rot in jail, and Pell offers the opinion and the hope that the abuser is coming to an understanding of the harm he has inflicted on others. I think that is the right answer (assuming Pell knows something about that case), and he doesn't shy away from it, no matter how calling it like it is might shape perception of him.

Yeah, yeah, I know we all say we hope these fuckers rot in hell, and I say that too… but that is part of the game, but it is better if they surrender and cooperate and repent and come to an actual understanding of why they are wrong. And if they don't , well then they do have to get fucked.

>>8800116

There is a passage in Nietzsche (Zarathustra I think) where he seems to suggest that the criminal who does NOT repent is ultimately better and that repentance is a ruse…

But Nietzsche on some level knows this is not the whole truth, since he acknowledges that Dostoevsky is a predecessor and and an astute psychologist, and D clearly insinuates that Raskolnikov in C&P was ultimately misguided.

But I also think (shocking though it be) that Nietzsche underestimated just how much power ABSOLUTE LOSERS could actually obtain. Did Nietzsche ever contemplate such a being as HRC? On one level, yes. But did he ever contemplate such a person being considered as the "ruler" of the most powerful nation on earth? Maybe not… he was more of a philosopher and a psychologist than a "conspiracy theorist".

>>8800209

>>8799584

Illuminating vid on this.

>>8800226

No and Yes.

MOST of Nietzsche's psychological observations seem to be pretty much true, and even confirmed by subsequent events. We absolutely seem to live in a society ruled by "the last man" as he terms it. That is true even if you find deeper issues with his metaphysical and religious claims. (And I increasingly think he misses some crucial things….)

On the other hand, nothing he says at all differs with you injunction not to "put your dick in kids". OF COURSE he agrees. Such behavior is pathetic, and only in a truly warped society would anyone differ.

The debate is on how we got here and what the solutions are.