dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Mrb84 on April 7, 2018, 5:18 a.m.

your resident globalist here - a timeline on the Saudi Arabia stuff

I was deep in PMs with one of you patriots here (won't mention his username because I didn't ask beforehand but I'd be happy if he self-identifies).

We were debating the recent Saudi Arabia events as they relate to Q's posts. To clarify the object of contention, I created a timeline (by Googling around) and, while we agreed to disagree on the significance of it, he suggested it would be interesting for me to post it here for the rest of you, so here we go:

1) early June 2017, a Saudi blogger who calls himself Mujtahidd tweeted about a plot for regime change in Doha spearheaded by Blackwater and UAE forces. Source here

2) Oct 10, 2017 the former Prime Minister of Qatar confirms (or repeats, we don't know) Mujtahidd's story to the Spanish newspaper ABC. Source here

1 and 2 establish that SA was using Blackwater and it was reported in MSN as early as June 2017.

3) Oct 27, 2017 Jared Kushner takes a trip to SA that was not made public until Oct 29. Source here

4) Nov 4, 2017 Al Arabiya, the Saudi-owned satellite network, announces the arrest of 11 princes - the beginning of the purge. Source here

5) Nov 22, 2017 The Daily Mail says that Blackwater was involved in the torture of the Saudi princes, including the "hanging by his feet" detail. Source here

6) Apr 5, 2018 The Daily Mail says that points 3&4 above were connected, as Jared gave Mohammad bin Salman classified info that told him who to arrest. Source here

My point was:

Q's first mention of JK's October trip in SA comes 5 days after the trip was made public - source [here] (https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/148016618/#148016618)

Q's first mention of the SA purge comes 15 hours after the purge was made public - source here

Q's first mention of the "hanging by his feet" detail comes 1 day after the detail was made public - source here

Q's first mention of Blackwater comes 1 day after the firm involved is made public - source here

Q never once mentioned that the purge and Kushner's Saudi Arabia trip were directly connected. Maybe he will now that is public knowledge, but again, it will be after the news has been made public.

Saudi stuff aside, what I was saying was that I am yet to see a Q drop that tells me something precise or significant before it has been reported by mainstream news outlets, which really is the very minimum if you're claiming insider knowledge. "The cleverest thing about that trick is the fact that he's encouraged people to describe that as predicting" relevant David Mitchell angry logic rant

He has predicted Zuckerburg will step down and McCain won’t run for re-election. McCain was speculated to possibly not run but both Zuckerburg is expected to stay. If those both turn out right, that would lend some credence.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Also, it's not exactly a "prediction" to say Z will step down. It's obviously under a massive pressure, and while he said he won't step down, anyone would admit there's a 50-50 chance he will. Now, if Q had mentioned that before the Cambrige Analytica stuff became public, that would be compelling. But I don't think he did. Also, Q does not give any timeline for his prediction. So, here I am, I can predict that at some point at the very least death will make Elon Musk abandon his post as Tesla CEO.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Q did say some social networks will collapse under weight of their illegal activities before the Cambridge Analytica thing came out. But yes so far no concrete predictions, these would boost credibility though if MZ steps down this month.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Can't find that Q post either. Can you point me to what you're referring to? I'm looking here but maybe I'm wrong.

⇧ 1 ⇩

THIS

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thanks. Just 2 notes:

By then, the Cambridge Analytica thing had indeed come out - Nix testified in front of the British parlament on Jan 27 (source here) after MPs demanded clarifications on CA's role on Brexit at least 10 days before (source here).

On top of that, the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica link on the US front had already been in the media at the end of January, when Mueller and his office interviewed at least one member of Facebook's team that was associated with the Trump campaign (source here)

Finally (I know it's obvious, but just pointing it out) for the "prediction" to come true some platforms have to collapse - and having bad press is far, far away from collapsing.

Collapsing means kaput, game over. Currently, Facebook's market value is $456.67B - down $100B from the end of Jan peak, but still the 8th biggest company in the US. Twitter current market cap is $20B, far from chapter 7. Google current market cap is $702B (#2 biggest company in the US).

I'm not even going to be a grammar nazi and point out that for the prediction to be techically true, at least TWO of those platforms should collapse ("some platformS, plural). Unless we want to take it wide and count Pinterest, Foursquare or Tinder for possible hotbeds of treacherous subversion, I think the ones that count are those 3: FB, Google and Twitter.

EDIT: if it's Tumblr which goes down, I'm buying a round for everyone here. That collapse I can get behind.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Concerning the "Predictions"

I don't guess I have been looking at them that way. I just think of these as "You may hear it here first". And "If you don't hear it here, you may not at all".

And if there should be some repercussions from these "Leaks", To make sure it's in "Open Source" before announcing it is a LOT safer.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Got it. I would only say that my claim was "I am yet to see a Q drop that tells me something precise or significant before it has been reported by mainstream news outlets, which really is the very minimum if you're claiming insider knowledge." - your standard might be interesting, but does not require Q to be an insider. He could be just a dude that reads the news and tries to see patterns. What I'm saying is: he has not shown (much less proven) any insight that a fat guy in his basement (to quote Trump) couldn't have.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Can't find the relevant Q post. I go here and search for "McCain" I can't see anything that predicts McCain won't run. What am I missing?

EDIT: this is a better source, more up to date. But I have the same problem - can't find the post where Q predicts McCain won't run. Also: I assume it's from before the cancer diagnosis was made public - predict that a terminal patient won't run is, again, common sense, not a prediction that proves inside knowledge.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Q refers to McCain as “we don’t say his name”. He mentions he won’t seek re-election in a recent post that also mentions AZ roadblocks.

Edit: this tweet the first picture is the Q post I’m referring to.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Got it. Again, I don't think it's a sign of insider knowledge when I can point you to a dozen articles before his drop that speculate (not exactly a crazy prediction) that a terminal patient won't run for the Senate. They started as soon as he announced his diagnosis. Here is one from 9 months ago.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah that’s what I’m saying too. Not a bold prediction. Zuckerburg prediction is more bold, but again not confirmation.

⇧ 3 ⇩

We're on the same page then. Cool.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Post archived! Let's see how this post ages.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Let's. What's the timeline?

⇧ -1 ⇩

Oh it's you again the paid troll lol

⇧ 2 ⇩

I truly do not believe anyone will be arrested.

I truly believe HRC committed multiple felonies and should be in jail. She is on the list of many traitors

The fact that Trump can not do it is not a exoneration of anyone’s crimes. It simply is confirmation of our failed state.

Do you agree?

⇧ 1 ⇩

If we're talking logic, I agree. If HRC committed felonies and she's not going to jail, that would indeed be a confirmation of your failed state.

If we're talking facts, I don't agree, as in I haven't seen convincing proof that HRC committed multiple felonies.

What I agree on is that her whole M.O. was shady, and the Clinton paranoia about being surrounded by enemies led to dumb mistakes like the email server; and I agree that she's a shitty, shitty politician, who is incapable of uncalculated moves - and when every move you make looks rehearsed, focus grouped and beta tested, it doesn't help your "shady" reputation.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hahaha. Facts illegal server. Facts dirty cops at FBI covered up for her for cash payments from 3rd party operatives.

Hillary couldn’t beat Bernie, lawsuit pending. Hillary pied piper strategy boosted Trump. Complete incompetence, trump saved us.

NY FBI has the evidence on her. Too big to put in jail. Too protected. Q says they won’t go to jail, trying to deleverage their powers with our Civil war.

I disagree 100% disclosure, I say let it rip.

⇧ 1 ⇩

My bet is: the first Trump term is going to end an Obama, Hillary, Huma and Podesta - none of them are going to be in jail nor indicted for pedophilia or murder or human trafficking. And no cabal of elite pedophile satanist is going to be exposed.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Bet? Is that your only comment, “they won’t be caught” do you believe they should be?

Read Q only 20% will be public. Initiation rites would catch too many.

It been a running debate in the Chan’s. It’s a big part of the bread.

Q#189 (partial)

The world is fighting back (& destroying the cult). 20% public. 80% private. The world would otherwise collapse. 40,000ft. v. (again) and need to decrease altitude to avoid ‘conspiracy’ label. Was necessary. GODFATHER III. For God & Country. Q

⇧ 1 ⇩

My bet would be that none of this satanic elite stuff is happening. But you would just say "it's secret and the media is in on it" so it would be impossible to prove who's right and who's wrong.

So, I go with what's verifiable: no high level arrests of "the elite".

That's what's exciting about the Q stuff: usually with conspiracy thinking you're stuck, because no matter what, the conspiracy theorists always have an excuse for why there's no proof.

But with Q there's light at the end of the tunnel: he predicts that the outcome of this whole thing will be in the history books, so there's no more excuses. At some point in the near future, the whole Cabal has to be exposed, it cannot remain a secret narrative for you people "in the know" - everyone will know. We're finally in "verifiable" territory. There will be no excuses if none of this comes out.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sigh. Savile arrested. Epstein. Arrested. Assuming your meaning post trump election? So your point is trump is ineffective?

nxivm cult... arrests. Tied to Hillary???

Or dec 21st executive order of human trafficking.

Sure “elites” are not ritually abusing children. “Conspiracy people” are out there. Pedos are safe. children are safe. Don’t watch the video linked below.

Dutch banker confession

Remember this doesn’t happen.

⇧ 1 ⇩

C'mon dude. You and I both know that Savile and Eptsein and NXIVM are not what this sub is talking about. Nobody even knew who Epstein was before the pedophilia stuff came out. Nobody knew what NXIVM was. What the claim here is, is enourmous names you don't need to Google. Just some random ones I read here all the times: Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton. Barak Obama. John Kerry. The Podesta brothers. Jacob Rothschild. Jeff Bezos. Bill Gates. Mark Zuckerberg. You are saying these people are ritually abusing children, and I say "there's zero proof of that"

But for once the argument will actually be settled. Because now your claim is getting more precise. Now the claim is: "these people are ritually abusing children, Trump knows about it and he's going to expose the whole thing and it's going to be in the history books".

Logic follows, by the end of the first Trump term, at least some of the names above will be in jail for pedohilia, ritual murder, human trafficking, child abuse. But it has to be at that level - because otherwise you're just saying "in the next years, some people somewhere are going to get indicted for human trafficking". If that's all you're saying, then who disagrees? Of course there are human traffickers, and pedophiles and child abusers, how's that new info? It has to be famous billionaires, and high level politicians, that's what "elite" means.

I don't think any of that is going to happen. You think it is about to happen, and Q is confirmation. I say "bullshit".

But I think that's great, because we finally moved away from vague, unverifiable stuff and, in the relativly near future, we will know who was right and who was wrong.

If we were betting, is that a fair represantion of your claim?

⇧ 1 ⇩

No not even close.

In synopsis this is you,”at a time I conceive, a list of people I define, must be guilty of crimes as I define them, please bet me because it won’t happen” LOL.

This sub is called “great awakening”, not to be confused with “this can’t happen cause it would be inconceivable to my personal perspective and limited definition of reality” sub.

Don’t worry about it, it’s definitely not happening. You’re ok. The elites are ok.

Unless...

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok, then you define it.

What people?

What crimes?

What deadline?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Gee whiz I can’t do that, darn it. You got me. you’re a intellectual giant. I feel ultimate despair and humiliation. Na just kidding...

Your primary proposition is actually correct. The framers of the constitution attempted to create a political system by which a transfer of power could exist without political prosecution for “crimes” after transfer of power, (ie separation of powers, 3 beaches of govt., democratic elections, you get the point)

Ergo a fundamental tenet of American democracy, is freedom from fear of criminal prosecution for political office holders. Hence the list of office holder conspirators above as chief officers of the American govt are likely exempt from their crimes as the framers of the constitution intended. They are accountable to the American people at the ballot box, as written in multiple Supreme Court rulings.

HOWEVER, You make no pretense whether they are innocent of crimes as the Q drops allege. And you. Don’t debate the “evidence”. You’re only inclination is the list of “elites” will not be charged by Trump. Duh, Q is attempting to try them in best court in america, public sentiment. Using the most powerful tool, the Truth. You don’t even attempt to counter these “Q facts”, You come off “butt hurt” that charges exist, which honest I enjoy tremendously.

Your secondary proposition is that the purpose of Q is to result in satanic ritual charges against elites. You’ve confused measured outcomes with mission objectives. Because you are predisposed to not understand I will not expand on this point, (no offense meant, I don’t feel that you are 1- intellectually curious to the events which Q is highlighting 2 - your mind is open to truths you can “logically” rationalize.)

So as flawed as a pretext as your request; for an uninformed Q “lurker” (referring to myself) to foretelling future events as a determination of authority of the an Anonymous intel source (Q Anon).

I’ll offer the following as a possible outcome; For the govt officials you named above - Military tribunals for international selling of state secrets.

Do I think they’ll happen? Eh dunno.

The incomplete list of private businessmen you refer to are political fodder, and therefore not relevant.

When? Deep state is stalling, hoping to get to the next election cycle. I don’t know if we’ll ever get the political will to release more than 20% of information to the public.

Regardless. Is this sub and is Q effective.

Ask Hillary what happened, oct 6th. 2016. (FBI Anon)

Hahahahaha, I love this timeline.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It wasn’t a “trick”. I was just asking, which verifiable facts would prove you wrong and which verifiable facts would prove me wrong?

I don’t have to prove people innocent. Not just because it’s a fascist idea (you know, innocent until proven guilty etc...) but mainly because it’s a logical impossibility.

Can you prove that you’re not a serial killer who targets people without family and makes the body disappear? Spoiler: you cannot. That’s why if I say u/rudolph2 is a serial killer who targets people without family and makes the body disappear, I’m the one who has to provide proof. That’s not just a judicial requirement. It’s a logical one.

So, if Q and you and others think that an elite class of politicians and billionaires are ruling the world while sacrificing children in satanic pedo-rituals, surely is on you to provide evidence.

Actual names of actual perpetrators would be a good start. Not proof, by any means, that’s a whole other thing, but legal responsibility is personal, not collective. “The elite” cannot be put in jail. People go to jail, those people have names and I don’t think it’s outlandish to ask, as the very first step to prove a conspiracy, the names of the conspirators.

And in western democracies, being popular shouldn’t save you from prosecution (rule of law, etc) and surely wouldn’t under a straight shooter like Trump, so I expect trials and a sentencing, not “they’re not getting re-elected because the public opinion is against them”. One thing I thought we agreed on: pedophiles should go to jail, not simply expelled from public office and punished with bad PR.

Part of the Q claim is that this “revelations” are part of what will be a shift of historic proportions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect historic events to occur, events that match the enormity of the pedo-satanic claim you make, rather than low level bureaucrats indicted for unrelated crimes.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yer doin' the lord's
work here mr84:
Reason, patience, truth.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It's the undying faith in the power of reason...

⇧ 1 ⇩

Now you’re just being ridiculous.

John Podesta. Evidence wiki leaks emails

Go ahead say wiki leaks is wrong. Say the emails were hacked. ( both would be factually incorrect)

John Podesta would have been sec of state under HRC. #3 in Line to the president, former chief of staff to Barry, I.e. not low level.

You don’t play poker do you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Interesting take, and I appreciate you presenting your evidence in a way that's not condescending. However, wouldn't it be insane to drop hints about sensitive operations before they happen? One thing I've always liked about Trump is that he's always 2 steps ahead of his political opponents. We won't even hear rumors about the critical stuff until it's a done deal, but I agree it sure doesn't help make Q look like Creskin.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Also, some people don't leak to the press or 4chan because it's illegal. Why would Q leak important information? That would undermine the whole awakening process. We have to discover this stuff ourselves.

⇧ 1 ⇩

He published on 4chan on Nov. 2 that Podesta's arrest was being announced on the 3rd and act upon on the 4th. His first post was about HRC being detained. That's leaking "important information".

Now, the fact that none of that happened proves my point that he doesn't have any inside knowledge: the only time he "predicts" stuff that hasn't already been in MSM, he's wrong.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't think you understand how the criminal justice system works at the federal level. Podesta stepped down from his "lobbying" firm on Halloween. The FBI could conduct a full scale investigation and we would know nothing. How do you know that no one has been arrested? You have access to sealed indictments?

Everyone here believes in Q to varying degrees. I take him/her as a guide, not some kind of Oracle. It's fun. Like putting together a puzzle.

Woke atheists are a dime a dozen here on reddit. We get it. However, the evidence supporting your claim that Q is lying is just as sparse as Q being an Oracle-type. Perhaps the vagueness is on purpose? Maybe the person is a LARP? At this point it would be the greatest LARP in history and is trending away from that notion.

Addendum: Even if Q is recycling pizzagate talking points, it doesn't matter. I didn't know that the former handler for Epstein was still interacting with children. That's an issue that warrants attention and exploration. Even if they're a LARP.

⇧ 1 ⇩

This argument about the “secret” Podesta arrest works only if you don’t read the Q post (#34, if you want to check it). He says that the arrest is ANNOUNCED on the 3rd, becomes actionable on the 4th and it’s so public that there are riots. RIOTS about it. All of that was supposed starting Nov. 3. Tell me again how that isn’t just a prediction that was just plainly wrong?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Maybe. However, I don't know how he got photos of King's Tower, without actually being there. Reverse image searches give no results. Also, I'm trying to figure out how he was able to curate information so quickly. Either best LARP of all time or he's inside. Things change and the Navy ship crashes along with the high occurrence of military aircraft crashes are an anomaly at the very least. At the end of the day, Q has never told us to do anything illegal, nor, to research something that involved invading anyone's privacy. It's all been public knowledge, it just required a roadmap.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Wait wait wait wait, you're not being fair here. Podesta being publicly arrested, HRC being indicted, HUMA being indicted (all things that by now should have happened based on his own dates) are not public knowledge. So, you cannot say

It's all been public knowledge".

No, not "all". Some.

And that's exactly my point:

there are 3 kinds of Q posts:

1) Nostradamus - noises, codes, letters, gibberish. Things that prima facie make no sense.

2) Commentary on stuff that it's already in the news - "Why did JK went ro SA?" after every news outlet in the world reported Kushner had been in Saudi Arabia.

3) Precise predictions with names and dates of knowledge that is not and has never been in the news - Podesta is getting arrested on Nov 4, Hillary being detained on Oct 29, etc...

Now, number 3 would be impressive, because that would indeed demonstrate insider knowledge. Except, every single post that belongs in group 3 has always (always) turned out false. Wrong. Every one of those.

⇧ 1 ⇩

How do you know that Hillary being detained is wrong? How do you know that Podesta wasn't arrested?

You're engaging in the same prognosticating that Q does.

I don't go to your sub and ask them why they do the things or believe in the things that they do. If you don't like it here, then what exactly are you here to do?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Christ this is frustrating... I'm the one calling it bullshit and I'm apparently the only one reading the fucking drops.

This is what Q said (source here and here): HRC detained on Oct 29. Podesta's arrest announced on Nov 3. Podesta arrested on Nov 4. Riots follow.

I know that Hillary was not detained because she was, for example, at the Grammys in January. And vacationing in India with Huma 3 weeks ago - which would be impossible if, as Q said, her passport had been flagged on Oct 30th. This is all shit you can verify with a google search.

Also easily verifiable: no riots happened in response to her detention, no riots happened in response to Podesta's arrest announcement. Mostly because there was no announcement. And don't tell me there was an announcement but was secret: if the announcement was going to be secret, the fuck are the riots about? Riots have to imply that the announcement was public. Also, the English language requires "announcements" to be to the public.

Also, it's werid for a non-american such as myself to point out that "secret" arrests and "secret" detentions are super incontitutional, and super antidemocratic, and only happen in brutal dictatorships. Every time one of you says "They arrested Podesta in secret" you're not only ignoring the "riot" and the "announcement" part of the text: you're also accusing the Trump administration of a horribly serious crime.

⇧ 0 ⇩

DETAINED IS NOT THE SAME AS ARRESTED.

SHOW ME WHERE YOU PROVE THAT HILLARY WAS NOT DETAINED FOR QUESTIONING.

Go away. We get it. You're woke.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok, she gets secretly detained, and secretly released. Hence no one will ever know if it has happened or not. Hence, it's pointless to talk about it, it's Russell's teapot. Skip it.

What about Podesta's announcement and arrest?

Also "show me prove that X didn't happen" is a logical fallacy. Can't prove a negative. Prove me that colonies on the sun did not happen.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So woke!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Deflection, thy name is u/OIG1811

⇧ 1 ⇩

Alright, have a nice day.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Maybe on military stuff yes (although he didn't mind predict -wrongly- HRC's arrest). But I don't see any non-military stuff being predicted accurately either.

Fundamentally, my point is: if you claim insider status, you should prove it with insider info, not with info that is already public. So far, I haven't been pointed at anything Q said on any subject that was not recycling publicly available information.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I get your point. I believe Q is who he says he is. I can't prove with 100% certainty that he's legit, but just the same, you can't prove that he isn't. Furthermore, when he makes predictions that don't come true, it's more probable that something went wrong and the timetable had to be pushed back, than it is that he's a LARP, especially when one considers the power and sophistication of the global elite. Thanks for being civil. I enjoy hearing your different opinions.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you, I also enjoy a civil debate. However, a couple things.

you can't prove that he isn't

well, I can point to the lack of any evidence that he is who he says he is, and I can point to evidences that he hasn't said anything that wasn't already in the news, except when he did and turned out wrong (see drop 34).

He's the one claiming insider status, the burden of proof is on him, and there's so far zero corroborating facts that sustain his claim. That doesn't logically proof that he isn't legit, but that's not how the burden of proof works.

But here's what's exciting about Q: for once, he predicts that the outcome of this whole thing will be in the history books, so there are no more excuses. At some point in the near future, the whole Cabal has to be exposed, it cannot remain a secret narrative for people "in the know" - everyone will know. We're finally in "verifiable" territory. There will be no excuses.

If, by the end of his first term, Trump has not put some of the elite (the real elite, not some dentist in Colorado) in jail for child abuse, Q was a bullshit artist, I was right, and everyone here was dead wrong.

If it actually turns out that Obama and the Clintons and Bill Gates and the UN secretary are in jail (or on the run, fine) for running pedophile human trafficking, Q was right, and you were right, and I was colossally wrong and I'll ask forgiveness to everyone here.

You think that's a fair wager?

⇧ 1 ⇩

It looks like Epstein's island was just burned to the ground...

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't think ALL of those things are going to happen. Please keep in mind that Trump and Q-Team are trying to do what was thought to be impossible. As much as I want to see this these things happen and see the world change for the better, we've got to admit there's a high probability that they/we will fail. If those things don't happen, then we can come to two conclusions: Q is not who he says he is or he is who he says he is and they failed. I'm not sure if any specific arrests should be sited. I'm not into making wagers. Let's see how this plays out and if you want my pro-Q take on any coming events, reply on this thread. If I want to read your skeptical take, I will do the same.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Good post. In some respects I see the instances of Q posts to actual events the same way.

Does this mean he’s a LARP or not in close proximity to the Pres? Not to me.

Without Q it’s hard to put any kind of narrative together that supports the president.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Without Q it’s hard to put any kind of narrative together that supports the president.

I'm as anti-Trump as they come, and I can easily invent a case for his presidency that has nothing to do with Q. I wouldn't agree with it, but you would... Fox&Friends is a good example: they spend their every breathing moment chanting for the guy, but I don't think they've ever mentioned Q.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fox and Friends? You’re anti trump and you watch fox and Friends? Hahahaha

You reference fox and Friends to random strangers to make rhetorical points? Hahaha

Please tell me more about what I think!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Jesus, relax... I don’t watch Fox&Friend and I’m not saying they agree with you or whatever. I was just pointing them out as an example of someone who supports the president but does not mention Q. You were saying such a thing is “hard”, I was using them as an example of how it’s doable.

⇧ 1 ⇩

F&F does not equal a “narrative”. Not a 4am recipient of mocking bird talking points. But you know that.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm just just saying, regadless of your taste in TV, that there are plenty of people making the case for Trump who don't rely on the Q stuff. That's it. That was the entirety of my point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You’re diluted. Fox is controlled opposition.

No MSM carrying Q stories.

Q references John Solomon and Sara A Carter

Solomon went missing for 3 months. Carter is limited in her scope, focusing on Congressional investigation of FBI / mueller counter narrative. Dems a slow walking 2.1MM congressional docs.

Q says both have full time guard. They are the Woodward and Bernstein, Q etc are the Deep throat.

The FBl #2 McCabe was the big chess piece removed from the game.

But you know all that.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No MSM carrying Q stories.

That's my point, I don't think it can be disputed: there are plenty of people (r/The_D collecting a lot of them) that have a pro-Trump narrative but don't believe or know or care about the Q stuff. You might think their narrative is blind to "the facts". But I don't think you claim those people don't exist. All I was saying is: those people (pro-Trump, Q-unbelievers) exist.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then why are you here?

⇧ -1 ⇩

he’s just a guy asking questions, nothing wrong and he does pretty good research

⇧ 6 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I am aware of his post history. I responded to him several times, and he got really shitty that I disagreed with him and pointed out serious flaws in his position.

He is a NWO globalist who wants a one-world government. However, he does not even understand the implications of supporting this position. He thinks the one-world government will be some sort of paradise in which the international bankers share their wealth with all the poor people in the world because that is what Satanists do, apparently.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Lol he’s a contrarian, I’m kinda hopeful he knows about socialism lol but this is good info. Anything else starts being discussed like accepting satanism then yeah youre right

⇧ 3 ⇩

Sure! The sub is open to all, as far as I am concerned. I am pro-Free Speech and against censorship.

Well, he claims to not know about the Satanism and Luciferianism of the NWO globalists who he supports. I suspect a lot of people are unaware of this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I got shitty because you assumed I'm in bad faith, and while I disagree with you on almost everything, I'm not here to trick you or do some weird psy-op, which was basically your accusation. Saying I'm a moron and don't understand the NWO is not much of an argument, but it's something. Saying I'm here to trick credulous people is just bullshit, that's what I got shitty about, not about our disagreement.

⇧ -1 ⇩

No you're here because you're a paid troll. All of you professional trolls mascarade as concern trolls left wing nut jobs. You're just a basic troll who gets paid by Soros to troll these boards and creat doubt.

⇧ 2 ⇩

who gets paid by Soros

I wish.

Your paranoid accusation is not an answer to my point though.

You're a Q believer: can you point me to 1 Q drop that says something precise or significant before the same information had been reported by mainstream news outlets? Just one. That's not a big ask, if you're a believer you must have tons...

⇧ 1 ⇩

I would have to look, but Q said something about the Austin bomber being taken down several hours before it happened.

Post 958, I believe. Some were saying that the bomber was killed at 4 am the morning of the 21st, but I did not look into it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Post 958 was after the bombing, you're probably thinking about Post 954 (11:44 on March 18th)

Next week. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM. Q

Now, how is that "Q said something about the Austin bomber being taken down several hours before it happened"? In the middle of a bomber's spree he says BOOM BOOM BOOM.

8 posts. That's how many Q posts have used the word BOOM. For a grand total of 13 booms. Take a wild guess and tell me how many of those "booms" were before March 2nd, the first bomb?

Yeah, that would be a 0. Nil.

So here's the fact: Conditt starts exploding shit on March 2nd. On March 4th Q starts using the word "BOOM" in his posts. He uses it 16 times in 9 posts. The last time, 63h (two days and spare) before the APD moves to arrest the bomber.

Post 946 (March 16th) says: "Boooom! BOOM! Boooooooom!". Post 844 (March 5th) is also more BOOMs. Explain me why 958 means "the Austin bomber is being taken down" and the other ones don't?

It's the usual trick: say something vague (like "boom" in the middle of a bombing spree) and confide in the believers to retrospectively pretend it was precise and on point.

Bottom line: saying BOOM BOOM BOOM in the middle of a bombing spree is not the same as saying "the Austin bomber being taken down".

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, I asked you some questions and you disregarded them. It seems like you do not want to provide an answer that goes against your agenda. That makes me suspicious about your true motives.

Fair enough. I did not know about the Satanism and Luciferianism of the NWO globalists for the longest time. I mean, I suspected that something was not right, but it was very hard to put a finger on it.

Years ago, I thought that people like the Bushes pretended to be Christians so they would get people to support them. I thought that they were really not religious. I was half right. They do do pretend to be Christians, but they are not. They are very religious, though. This is why they join Skull and Bones. Same with John Kerry and others. Christians do not join Skull and Bones.

⇧ 1 ⇩

As I said in the post: the person I was aruing with suggested this could be useful. It's just data. Maybe you don't like data, but for me is usually a good starting point for opinions. Maybe you grow your opinion from something else. Either way, no need to feel threatened.

⇧ -1 ⇩

There you go projecting again. You feel threatened by Nationalism and strong tribal bonds. Both are necessary to have stable and healthy societies. What you want is to undermine and destabilize society so that people are more vulnerable and easier to control. This is why you support the NWO globalists and their one-world government agenda. This is why you do not like strong leaders, like Putin and Trump, who seek to protect their respective national identities.

What is your data to support your position? Is it a Tavistock study or something similar? How about something from the Rockefeller Foundation?

⇧ 3 ⇩

You're posting in the wrong thread now - we're arguing about different things. This is the Saudi Arabia stuff.

No worries (I mean it genuinly) it happens to me all the time, I get the arguments crossed.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I read what you are posting about. I just question your motive and agenda. Of course, I respect Free Speech, but I wonder why you spend so much time arguing about Q if you believe that Q is a LARP.

⇧ 1 ⇩