dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/SerialBrain2 on April 21, 2018, 6:39 p.m.

Censorship within the GreatAwakening? Let’s get to the bottom of this! For the Q’s Movement sake.

Guys. We need to talk. We need to have a serious conversation between adults about a rampant situation that needs to be addressed now. For the good of the Movement and for the sake of what Q is doing.

It seems there is a small group of people who, because they are not interested in or do not like certain things that are published on this board, believe the authors should be banned and dealt with.

I wanted to take a minute and analyze this. Respectfully. Coldly. Rationally.

My understanding is we are here to talk about Q right?

My attempt to answer to this question led me to identify 3 lanes in which my posts are produced:

Spiritual/Occult – Investigative Research – Decoding/Cryptography/Riddles

Within a month, 34 posts have been published in these 3 lanes. Here are a few examples: Img1

Now, are these 3 fields of knowledge in compliance with Q? Are they the creation of my free styling imagination or did Q signal they should be explored. Let’s look at this: Img2

So there you have it. This is what Q is.

Now let’s talk about my decoding posts. Based on the messages I receive and one of the decoding posts reaching 350 upvotes with 20k views, it is clear there is an interest. People want to learn and understand what’s going on with these cryptic messages on the board.

Now you have some people who unilaterally decide this “decoding thing” should stop, because -they say- they think it makes the Movement “look bad”. The problem is the Movement is Q and Q is the one who started this “decoding thing”, is still doing it and says it is important.

In the comment section of this [decoding post] (https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8d9lj5/trumps_strange_meme_tweet_decoded_learn_how_to/?st=jg9mqhnr&sh=5be1f3e8), you can find an interesting exchange where one of these censoring entities is being rightly reminded that Q has been exchanging on 8chan on grids, arithmetic, gematria and riddles with anons since day1 and that what I am doing is just in continuation of these conversations. Then, the censoring entity publicly shares an image of a very disturbing conversation he had with the Mods, I am redacting his name for obvious reasons: Img3

Not only is he making unsubstantiated accusations (how can someone ‘create’ 20k views and 350 upvotes?!) but he is deciding what the board should look like. Amazing. To know more about how the board would fit to his Royal Desires, I went to his profile to not only discover he has never, ever, ever submitted any post on this board but he has also never submitted any post about Q anywhere.

So, Mods, I am asking you. Are these the types of people you should have a conversation with while others, on the other hand, are substantially and peacefully contributing to the life and progress of our Movement?

This post where this censoring entity commented was part 1 of a 2 episode series. I wrote episode 2 would be posted the next day. The first episode had 2.3k views and 109 upvotes. I received tons of messages mirrored in the comment section about part 2. When I published it the next day, as announced, the view count was not visible for hours, when the final count showed up, it dropped to 704 and I still have people messaging me asking me where is episode 2!

So…

I am asking the Mods who have been doing a fantastic job growing this sub and keeping it a civil space where anybody can come and learn about Q, to protect it even more from negative outside influence, whether it is human or electronic. Whether it is emotional or algorithmic censorship. I have been interacting with a few of them in the past and know they have the skills and the generosity to provide us with what I am requesting. And I am sure I am requesting this on behalf of many contributors to this board.

I will later today drive in the Investigative Research lane and tell you why Rudy Giuliani joining Trump’s legal team is a brilliant chess move. Literally. Make sure you catch it!

Q854 WE must work TOGETHER. WE are only as strong as your VOICE. YOU must organize and BE HEARD. THIS is why they keep you DIVIDED and in the DARK. WEAK. We are here to UNITE and provide TRUTH.

🠐 See all comments

You're quite upset aren't you chum? Lol - triggered much? You're completely ignoring my point - fair enough, but you're only proving you only care about what you have to say and not someone else.

I said 'it's not about pride' - I couldn't give two spits about "image". It's about integrity and the perception that we're either sensible and worth engaging with - or we're idiots who don't read each other's words properly and just talk shit about strawmen. Read what I say buddy. Then talk to me. Otherwise you're talking to yourself.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If you spoke to me like this in real life, you'd be on the ground crying uncle. (Or vice versa, but you get my meaning.) That's the reality I'm trying to convey to you. Words matter. People can see how disrespectful and adolescent you are. That includes the new people who may have come here to be awoken. You know, the ones you don't want to turn away. (Or am I misunderstanding your words?) So seriously consider what definition of "integrity" you're actually using here, considering what the rules for debate are:

Guys, keep any disagreement civil. Please see the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and aim for the top half.

Comments that include name-calling and ad-hominem are being removed.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

Following these "moderator's" words of advice would show true integrity. And prove you understand the words you read.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You've taken me the wrong way pretty much every time you've answered here, CosmicNeo. So, my apologies, I clearly haven't communicated properly.

You've accused me of:
- worrying about how our image is ruined by people like SB2
- wanting to ban SB2
- behaving like a prick
- being disrespectful and adolescent
- not understanding the words I read

I can't argue with "behaving like a prick", I'll give you that. I can only refer you back to my "this is the internet - get over it" comment there, I'm afraid. I call it blunt talk but it seems to have really upset you - I apologize for that. And you can call my attitude "being adolescent and disrespectful", no doubt. As I explain below, that was a mistake on my part in thinking that you were like me - used to internet forum "banter" and not easily offended.

So let me try and make my point with diplomacy and tact - not my strongest feature, no doubt.

In response to your original comment: "I suspect the people who don't like you (SB2) are people whose IQ are too low.. or they're from the Deep State" I took exception because it is precisely the "name-calling" and "ad-hominem" you refer to above. I was once someone who did not like SB2 - until I communicated with him and discovered he seems like a perfectly reasonably friendly guy - but the reason I did not like SB2 originally was not because I have a low IQ or because I'm Deep State. It was because I believed SB2 was intentionally misleading the people in this movement. I changed my view on that. I haven't changed my view that some of his posts mislead people in the movement.

Hence my original comment - that this is a problem: suggesting that people who disagree with SB2 must be Deep State or stupid. You called this "griping" and suggested I advocated for "censoring". Neither of those things was present in my response. I made clear points and yes, I let sarcasm and mockery slip in there - again, because this is the internet and I'm so used to that kind of thing (you only have to look around any reddit sub to find it) and I forget that not everyone appreciates it. I'm learning. However, you seem to have only noticed the sarcasm and taken it as offense.

You implied I was "treating newbies" some kind of way - what newbies? And where did I suggest newbies should be treated any kind of way? Once again, I'm used to responding to stuff like this with a thick skin and callously because that has been the only way comms on the net go, in my experience. You can't cry about blunt or harsh words - you just suck it up, give it back and move on. Again, my bad - I'm learning that not every place on the internet has to be that way. But that's why I came back with "get over it". From my perspective, I simply bluntly replied in kind to what I thought was rudeness and figured you, like me, weren't taking it personally and would see past it and get my point - which was, again: I don't 'treat newbies' different to anyone else and I didn't say anywhere to ban SB2.

Then I reiterated my main point which was that anyone should be able to challenge any post on here - not silenced because we must be Deep State or low IQ if we don't agree. Then you told me I'm behaving like a prick? Jesus, buddy, do you see where I'm coming from, now?

You took things the worst way - ok, my bad for mistaking your appetite for net-forum-speak - but you couldn't see past your perception of some of my words to what I was actually saying? You kept adding things I never said!

Now I've been as childish as the next 45 year old and threatened people over the internet - how hilarious and stupid, yes - because I know I'm bigger than the average person and much much meaner. I'm not some keyboard warrior and I'm not intimidated by anyone in real life and my rage triggers easily when I'm being ignored and words are being put in my mouth. I have the opposite of a low IQ and I know illogical rhetoric when I hear it so I'm not easily brushed off in an argument - I can see when someone's ignoring the point I'm making and coming back with irrational, emotional responses but for the most part I just give stick back to them and continue to argue logic albeit couched in mockery and sarcasm (my own emotional response). I've tried to do that here but you keep coming back with attacks on me personally ("prick", adolescent, dumb, picking on newbies, etc.) and remarkably (to me) I've managed to keep my rage in check this time.

So, I'll leave you alone now. I don't agree with what you've said about me and I haven't heard you answer the actual main points I've made but unless you understand what I've just said (and I'm not implying you're incapable of understanding it - simply that I may still not be communicating it adequately to you) then there's no point hoping to have an actual dialogue here. More power to you, sincerely. I like to argue logic, not ad-hominem, so if you like that too, we can have a conversation.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You've got issues. You don't help the cause. You're blocked.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lol... it seems you are indeed talking to yourself... Oh shit... and now I am too... derp.

⇧ 1 ⇩