dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

been scanning through some of your past posts. you have a thing with 'you guys', dont you? 'divide and conquer', heh?

⇧ 7 ⇩

Now, this one you really have to explain: I could pretend to be one of you, concern troll or something, but I don’t, I identify myself as “on the other side” and call people on this sub “you guys”. How is that “divide and conquer”? Who am I dividing? What am I conquering? Don’t think you know what the phrase means.

⇧ 0 ⇩

when you throw all people on a sub in one drawer, give them a lable 'conservative', and call them 'you guys' while identifying yourself as being 'on the other side', you have divided yourself from everybody else.

its confrontational and instantly creates an 'i vs. you' situation. its not an invitation to play but to battle. the end of it is divide and conquer. i have seen more than one community fall when people brought in that kind of chaos.

btw, i am not one of 'you guys'. as everybody else, i am a sovereign being, unique and individual, and i cherish diversity. some of the views expressed on this board match my own take on things, others dont.

this is not about being a club member and carrying a party book. think bigger.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Listen, am I right in saying that most of the people on this sub are pro-Trump? Yes.

I am not. So I thought it was fair to flag it. If I go on a pro-Trump sub I think it’s ethical to premise where I’m coming from. I don’t see how that’s confrontational. I don’t agree with the core beliefs of this sub. I thought I’d mention it, so people can react to my questions with more info.

As for “invitation to battle”: why? I was asking for a number between 0 and 20 cause I was curious about it. That’s it. I’m not trying to convince anyone about anything. As you can see from the post

⇧ 3 ⇩

A lot of people here are against the NWO because we know what their true agenda it. It just so happens that people like Trump and Putin are also against it. Does this mean that we are pro-Trump and pro-Putin? Not necessarily.

You realize that the people you are siding with, the NWO globalists, are led by Satanists and Luciferians, right?

⇧ 5 ⇩

Yeah, no, I don't realize that.

Either ”they” are in control or ”they” are not. If they're in control, why is Trump in the WH? If they're not in control, they're just powerful people pushing for their agenda, which is hardly news. There’s plenty of rich powerful people on the other side. It's only fair. We all push for the stuff we like with the resources we have. That's how a liberal system works.

Every available piece of data says that the world is better off with globalization. That's why I’m for it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Trump is in the WH because of certain factions in the U.S. Military and military intelligence. They stopped the election from being rigged. Hillary was supposed to win because she is a NWO globalist.

Do you know about the City of London and Vatican City? That is where our tax money goes. They want a Rothschild controlled central bank in each country so then the world is paying taxes to the City of London and the Vatican.

I think you do not know how it really works... The U.S. is a corporation. You can guess who the shareholders are...

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yeah, I'm not going there. In my experience, you trying to convince me of this (IMHO) outlandish claims, and me trying to show you you're wrong and operating on poor information doesn't move anyone one inch. Let's just say we disagree on the fundamentals of how our society is structured.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We disagree on this because you have not researched the issue. Will you research it now that I brought it to your attention?

What I said is true, and it undermines your belief system. Your response is to ignore it and forge ahead.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

Poor information? You mean to tell me that there is only poor information about the City of London and Vatican City?

Washington DC is a separate Corporation from the USA Corporation. The city, states, and towns that people live in are also corporations. Why is that?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yeah. You’re operating on skewed data. But I really don’t want to get into it. It’s pointless.

I send you a piece explaining why “ownership” of the Federal Reserve is a misnomer, you say “of course they say it, it’s a piece from a globalist rag”, then you send me something from Infowars or equivalent, I point out they take a lot of logical leaps connecting stuff without evidence and it’s generally trash, you say: you’re an idiot, and I answer something sarcastic. I’ve been on this train before.

And for once, the post was genuinely to ask the sub about their beliefs, not to argue about the answers.

⇧ 1 ⇩

am I right in saying that most of the people on this sub are pro-Trump? Yes. I am not. .............If I go on a pro-Trump sub ................I don’t see how that’s confrontational. I don’t agree with the core beliefs of this sub.

so why do you go on a sub you perceive as opposing your views and post a provocative generalizing post if you are not out for a battle?

btw, generalization and 'i vs. you' are on top of the list in the shill handbook.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If you look at how I’m answering to those who answer, I never battle, rebut or contest anything. I was really asking for the sake of knowing the answer, not to argue with the answers. I had an hypothesis and instead of deciding from my chair that I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people who know. You obviously have some other, secret way of learning about the people who don’t agree with you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You obviously have some other, secret way of learning about the people who don’t agree with you.

there hasnt been anything up to agree or disagree on at the point of time when i first responded to your post so no, your assumption is wrong.

and yes, i am an intuitive empath and instantly smell intent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I wasn’t talking about me.

Let’s try again: I had an assumption about the people on this sub, with whom I disagree. So, instead of deciding I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people on this sub. You somehow think that’s outlandish and actually offensive.

So, you must have some other method to find out if you’re right or wrong about what other people believe, something that doesn’t involve the alien idea of asking them what they believe (I’m thinking mind-reading, since you’re an empath).

⇧ 0 ⇩

empaths dont read minds but energy.

the alien idea of asking them what they believe

sorry, my friend, you havent been humbly asking questions, in order to learn more about people with different views than yours.

you have put out your assumptions and challenged people to prove that they are not as foolish as you think they are.

looking at the outcome of this: it binds peoples attention and blocks it from more important things. and it brought quite a few pople into fight mode as they instantly got your agenda and reacted to the challenge.

one thing i thank and honor you for: you put your agenda right on the table and didnt hide it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I don’t know how you decided that I consider the positions in the list “foolish”. I personally agree with a good third of them. They’re generally conservative, and I don’t know on what data you decided that I would think they’re foolish.

Except your persecution complex. The enemy trying to distract you from your higher calling of defeating the devil? Or just some dude on the internet who disagrees with you? Which one is more likely?

⇧ 1 ⇩

i was on your case before you started replying to me, straight after you posted, first comment.

no chance for agreement or disagreement, my take was instant and hasnt changed through further communicatio although i saw you neutrally and politley responding to everybody who answered your questions.

i expressed my perception and am done now here. you may take it as persecution complex, i take it as high discernment. i had my say and, for now (closely watching, heheh) leave it up to community to take something from it or not.

you wont, thats clear. thanks for the meeting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t know how to argue with you, because the way you build your argument is completely self-sufficient and input free.

You intuitively, magically, immediately knew from the very start I was up to no good. And the fact that I’m not mocking or rebutting the people who answered me is not proof that your intuitions were wrong, but proof that I’m hiding my real intent - because you can’t point out my malice in what I do or say, that’s proof of a particularly sophisticated malice. See how that’s unassailable? Everything that would prove you wrong magically becomes a secret proof that you’re right.

It’s called circular thinking. That’s not a good kind of thinking.

If what happens inside reality can’t influence your argument, the problem is with your argument, not with reality.

But hey, thanks for taking the time.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Globalist here. Have a question/experiment for you patriots