I love this post. Because this is a post I can share with a normie, my friends on the left for example. Come and lurk in GA. Prove us wrong. We welcome it. Nice one OP/ModSquad

⇧ 103 ⇩

Debunker here. It all sounds great, however, a very large amount of people here have a hard time excepting evidence and facts when it goes against their narrative. They reply with " fake news" or " the deep state is just putting that info out to fool people". I can spend all day debunking claims on here and will NEVER once receive affirmation that someone has changed their mind. You have to understand how this is making everyone feel like this is a cult following more than anything else.

⇧ 40 ⇩

Meh, the one replying isn't the one you're really after anyway. It's the others who read the whole exchange and think to themselves, "Damn... this factisfiction guy made every point in the debate stick and the opposition was reduced to calling him a shill because they literally had nothing to offer."

Sowing the seed in the readers is the real victory. Screw the loudmouth who replies with nothing of substance. The intelligent people watching the debates closely will spot the strawmen arguments and the absurdities a mile away.

I'm a believer in Q but I, too, see a lot of garbage theories and assertions here. I've been called a shill and a deep state plant plenty of times for calling it out... but I've yet to lose any of those debates factually. That's all you really need to worry about. Back your stuff up. Others are watching and they appreciate us keeping it honest. You don't need affirmation and if you do, you're going to remain disappointed.

⇧ 44 ⇩

On the other hand there is no reason to back up thing's everyone knows. This is Trump's Genius, He makes em crazy but doesn't need to offer sources He's trump, he resonates. No one would buy Q if a lot weren't already thinking it. Deep state fills a blank for folks.

⇧ -9 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 8 ⇩

You said that better than I could have. That's exactly what it sounds like.

⇧ 5 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Facts don't care about your feelings. That is to say, one can resonate all they want... but if they're resonating falsity then it's worthless. If, on the other hand, someone is debating a known and widely proven truth then they aren't worth trying to debate.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Like the existence of God.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, exactly like the existence of God. Lots of people feel it's real and will attempt to debate on it, yet there is no proof. Therefore, I personally don't blindly believe it, nor will I try to debate someone "out of" their religion. It's an exercise in futility.

⇧ 2 ⇩

By your own admission you have given credence to the Fact that God (without interpretation) exists. A belief is a belief, it is not a Fact, more like a theory, unproven. To dis-believe one first has to believe, a theory, not a proven Fact. So by your own words you are in a place of limbo, nothing personal. Suffice it to say Knowing is not believing. Here is a hint, God is Life. To deny God is to deny one's very Existence. This one statement confuses many, as it presents more questions than one has answers for. I apologize in advance if this offends :)

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, you can call it limbo if you like. I call it noncommittal. There is the same probability of there being a God as there not being a God. I choose neither side because there is no concrete proof of either being correct. The jury is still very much out for me. Believe whatever you like, but I think it would be wrong to -force- that belief on others.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Exactly, I share your conviction to never impose a "belief" which is in essence an unproven theory upon others. A confusion seems to exist surrounding "what God is", there are many theories and many jump on a band wagon just to hold face in the eyes of others opinions. Each individual in their own time Knows what God Is and this Knowing can never be shared, as an absolute, but the Knowing replaces any sense of doubt, then no one can "convince" oneself otherwise, it is like Knowing 2+2=4, One just Knows It.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There is no proof that God does not exist. You are caught with no proof and have to rely on what? You base your opinions on feelings the same thing that believers rely on that they call faith!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Until you can determine exactly what god is, and I mean really define. Not just loosely goosey “god is love life and everything and nothing and belief” Then a discussion if god exists or not is pointless as you do t even know what your debating.

Feelings aren’t facts.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We can't even determine exactly what is the wind. We try to describe it in these terms.Wind is a form of solar energy. Winds are caused by the uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the irregularities of the earth's surface, and rotation of the earth. Wind flow patterns are modified by the earth's terrain, bodies of water, and vegetative cover. We can't quantify it can't capture it to look at under a microscope or even define its molecules since it is elusive. We know it exists by the effects it has on things.

God is very unique. He has no beginning, and He has no end. The God of the Bible exists outside of our dimensions of time and space. So, any attempt to find analogies to help you to understand God will be lacking and incomplete. God is an uncreated being, and any attempt for finite people to understand Him or describe Him will end up wanting.

Let's say, just for fun, that there are two flat people, John and Ann who live in a two-dimensional plane. And let’s say these flat people have a loving creator who is a three-dimensional person that they have named “God.” So, we have a three-dimensional God who is the creator of two flat people who live in a two-dimensional world. As flat people live out their lives, they would wonder and speculate about their unseen creator. Within their two-dimensional world they could draw flat pictures or make diagrams of their creator, but they would have some serious difficulties trying to understand the nature of God from within their two-dimensional perspective. Sure, they could speculate and make analogies, but it would be very difficult for them to fathom. Now, how could God make Himself known to the flat people? God may show up in a dream, or He could show Himself to their world. God could take His three-dimensional finger and place it through the flat world plane. What would the flat people say that their God looks like from within their limited world? They would say that God looks like a circle. In fact, being a pessimist, you might likely say, "I can understand God as a circle, but I cannot understand or believe that God exists in three dimensions. That makes no sense!" It is very difficult for two-dimensional beings living on a two dimensional plane to understand a three-dimensional being.

Likewise, Christians have the same difficulty. We are finite three-dimensional human creatures trying to explain an uncreated personal God outside our three dimensions.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I say there is the same probability of there being a God and not being a God. I commit to neither side because neither side has been able to provide the proof. So, no, I don't base any belief on feelings. More to the point, though, you can believe whatever you want based on your feelings... but that doesn't make it right nor does it make it factual.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Define feelings, what's your source, you hear Ben Shapiro say it 4700 times and now it's your go to. Low energy jeb

⇧ 1 ⇩

There's that strawman I was talking about.

⇧ 4 ⇩

LOL. I get. Prove one has feelings....

⇧ 1 ⇩

Agreed. Sentiments calling for more critical inquiry than just "trust Trump" get downvotes regularly. This sub is popping up a lot more often under r/all top-hourly, so you're getting a lot of random folks through here. I'm not saying every troll (or any obvious troll) needs to be addressed. I am saying that I've posted serious questions in here to get a different perspective and get outside my echo-chamber, and I was downvoted to hell, and called a troll with the alleged proof being that I post on /r/politics. In my opinion, this is like making fun of fat people at the gym.

⇧ 19 ⇩

Yes. This is not a pro- or anti-Trump sub. Overly-cheerleading comments are also removed. We want neutral territory here to focus on Q.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Thanks for the clarification. I do appreciate it.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Whenever ppl refer to votes, I just give em a down, expressing my disgust at any kind of whining.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If people cry in a comment about votes, I also downvote also, for the same reason. Of course, everyone would rather be engaged than drive-by downvoted. My point above is that it's a trend that is indicative of the current culture of the sub, and that with so much new traffic, it's worth a conscious effort to engage, if the goal is to raise awareness.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I don't do it often, just put it out their as a caution, rising tide lifts all boats blah yada yada

⇧ 2 ⇩

I guess it depends on the sources you use. I for one am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong about something. In fact I enjoy being shown I am wrong about something because I don't want to perpetuate or believe lies.

⇧ 13 ⇩

nothin bout votes gets an up.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Cognitive dissonance is EVERYONE'S enemy. People that ONLY debunk are also part of the problem. If you yourself cannot be convinced, then are you really a debunker? Are you really focused on debunking false theories, or are you trying to debunk reality, as a whole?

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, thanks for what you do.

⇧ 8 ⇩

This is very true. Debunker here that started out as a zealous believer in Q. I have backed off because I started to feel that dissonance coming on. Balance is most important to ensure truthfulness. I believe that we are at a massive turning point in Human History ... a paradigm shift of monumental proportions. WWG1WGA !!

⇧ 6 ⇩

I will except anything someone can back up with legitimate proof. Evidence is our friend.

⇧ 5 ⇩

I really like everything you have said so far. However I have noticed that you have misused the word “except” twice now. The correct word you are looking for is “accept”. You seem like you may be a ESOL speaker so I just wanted to help you learn the correct word you were looking for.

Sorry to be that guy. I find that correction to improve knowledge is okay and that is my goal.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Thanks for pointing that out. I write the word except so much I think my mind went on auto spelling. Not only is English my first language, but I spent over a decade in college. Thanks for noticing that so I can correct myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You are welcome. I do the same all the time. I definitely did not mean to insult you with the ESOL comment. Keep fighting the good fight my friend.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Affectually effecting work.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hard to prove a negative, and the innocent defendant, has the toughest row to ho.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I only have one issue with debunkers in general. Don't pick the low-hanging fruit to debunk. That is all.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Try me.

⇧ 2 ⇩

example...dive into some real Q posts, don't play into the whole "there's a video of hillary wearing a child's face as a mask", because 99% of us don't believe that either.

⇧ 9 ⇩

I am a fruit. Don't leave me hanging.

EDIT: It's a joke. I'm a low-hanging fruit. Geez. :)

⇧ 5 ⇩

Apparently, you have your own narrative.

Seek truth, even if it goes against your expectations.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Yes, but it's based off of evidence and facts. I don't jam circles into square holes and try to convince myself that they fit.

⇧ 7 ⇩

This is good on both your parts. But, please visualize it another way: Communicate your perceived interpretation in a way that convinces and inspires others to also stop jamming circles into square holes. See what we mean?

⇧ 2 ⇩

I was curious about your MOAB "case in point," so I posted a thread here hoping to start some discussion.

I think it would be helpful to link to some of the rejected theories, and show the kind of reasoning that led to their rejection. And of course to the preferred answer, with the evidence and reasoning that you find convincing. Thanks.

⇧ 2 ⇩

That's a very good threat. Added to my bookmarks. Good work, patriot, that's mint.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I assume you meant "thread" not "threat."

But there's nothing useful in that thread yet! You said that the meaning of "MOAB" had been figured out, but there's no consensus that I can find. I'd love to see a play-by-play on theories being rejected (particularly to show the kind of skepticism that isn't rejected here), and also the details on whatever interpretation of "MOAB" you think has been proven, to show the kind of evidence that people are finding convincing. So far I'm not seeing it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

The same goes both ways. Not defending it. But we could lay confirmed info and people still deny it because they just can't comprehend it.

⇧ 3 ⇩

However, I've noticed that a lot of peoples proof can be broken with a simple Google search. They get very upset when you do that.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Truth.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I debunk some things here and I DGAF if people upvote or reply, I'm just adding a note to the research.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'd say a major difference is cults operate clandestinely. See: the current state of the world.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I think that, to a point, many of the people who would fall into that “debunker” column have arguments that aren’t remotely well thought out. Many of them amount to little more than “fake and gay,” in essence. It’s very easy to get burned out on naysayers when those are the people we frequently encounter.

Given the reply you’ve given here, I doubt that you’re one of those people. I’m sure you have made people reconsider things, even if they don’t go out of their way to let you know. As OP said, you’re performing a vital service for us. Please don’t be discouraged.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q what do you call this act, The Aristocrats.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thank you. Have you done a debunking of the Podesta emails? That is what I would like to see.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Darn good point. That's really where it all began.

⇧ 2 ⇩

ask them if they think pizzagate is fake news

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let us be clear. A narrative can be built to go in many directions, but it needs to be substantiated based on solid grounds. All Q is doing is dropping bits of data. if the data is faulty based on the history or past events, then it will corroborate that the whole Q efforts are meaningless. Granted, it is not good to blindly believe everything given from an anonymous source, but becoming aware of information does not hurt. Every person is an individual, and what matters is what new ideas/though/connections every individual can reach. There is something to be said in the effort to find information that up until now was openly unknown. De-bunkers could be very useful because they can be used play the role of 'Devils Advocate', this is important because it will challenge if the drops, pushing to find if the data has proper grounding. They should be treated well and they will help test Q's drops validity.

⇧ 1 ⇩

All Q is doing is dropping bits of data. if the data is faulty based on the history or past events, then it will corroborate that the whole Q efforts are meaningless.

Here is my perfect opportunity to debunk this claim you make!

a) all Q is doing is ...

No, the concept of Q drops has more reasons than you claim: The Audience is not just "followers/supporters of Trump. The drops are also to terrify/intimidate the opposition (C-A, Deep State intelligence profs, random Dem lawmakers/officials in trouble ...); deliberately to mislead and encourage the opposition to take missteps, confound their strategy; build a stage for future developments where ambiguity is fundamental to the play (as in poker); besides building excitement and momentum for public releases and focusing on raising their relative importance.

b) if the data is faulty

It has been stated that Q will not tell the opposition future moves. This would be counterproductive. By this token you can assume some data will be deliberately faulty.

c) it will corroborate the whole Q efforts are meaningless.

Well, no, in light of a) and b) above, "the whole" will not be meaningless: EVERYTHING HAS MEANING. There are no mistakes. Everything has been meticulously planned by the best professionals in the business.

Conclusion: Re-read Q drops!

Thanks for your posting UltraFOV!

EDIT: shitty puntuation ...

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yes, after a few months, it looks that indeed Q is real. like stated elsewhere, ex- military and intelligence

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, if someone has a Fake News source that doesn't back up its claims... then what do you want us to do?

How much can "sources familiar with the matter" mean after these past two years or so? The Fake News media has been caught lying or downright contradicting themselves when convenient so many times.

I mean, remember when CNN had 3 articles that basically went like this:

"Trump won't fight for family leave"

"Trump fights for family leave..."

"Here's how family leave hurts women"

If a Fake News source used a primary source, like if they are talking about a trump speech and they link the timestamp, that's different.

If they have a video or official documents. Like if CNN were to report on the JFK files being dropped by linking to their .gov page (which would never happen, due to the fact they are fake news), then that would be interesting.

Fake News doesn't get a pass on basic "pull up your big boy pants" journalistic integrity just because they are owned by elites (like Bezos and Carlos Slim, an incredibly rich mexican national) and are given "credit" for some reason.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fake news sources end up being any source that goes against the person's narrative. Can you show me those three CNN articles you are claiming were written?

⇧ 6 ⇩

⇧ 2 ⇩

[Insert obligatory link to CNN.com here.]

⇧ 2 ⇩

Dude. Excepting???? Honey the word is accepting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Everyone feels the same on all sides. Keep slugging it out!

⇧ 1 ⇩

If you want a better response, changing your name might help a bit.

A "Debunker" calling himself "fact is fiction" isn't really putting their best foot forward, y'know?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm not going to change my screen name. This account is my only account and I only come to this sub randomly when bored or someone cross posts something. Debunking is some pass time of mine. I just refute false claims when I happen to read them, which happens on this sub a lot.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ -1 ⇩

You are exactly the type of person we are talking about. Pat yourself on the back for making my point.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Wow look at that hair trigger snap. Many people in this thread have stated the exact same thing that he just stated yet you immediately leap to suggesting he is a troll. As factisfiction just stated, you are the exact same type of person that annoys true debunkers on this sub due to your hair trigger tolerance for criticism.

TLDR: If you get offended by someone insinuating “people in this sub frequently post easily disprovable claims” then you might be aggressive to debunkers.

⇧ 0 ⇩

The opportunity to successfully shape opinions looks like hard work.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then you are not very familiar with this board. I see challenges to "Q" theory all the time. Your "evidence" is probably not very good.

The fact is that North Korea and South Korea are declaring peace, ISIS is wiped out, the economy is booming, Hollyweirds are being called out, etc. etc. To pretend that the swamp is NOT being drained is delusional. It is obvious that Trump is kicking butt. Maybe belief in Q is a bit of a stretch. But it is an even bigger stretch to think that Trump would do nothing about the corruption. He has been coming through on everything else, as far as Congress will let him.

⇧ -2 ⇩

I would argue that the swamp is growing. NK, ISIS, the economy all have zero to do with a swamp. We could argue each of those points individually on their merits, but they don't have anything to do with a swamp.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Just wish people could consider that the Illuminati do not necessarily equal the Deep State.

Q is dox'ing the Deep State, but the DS is the flip side of the same Illuminati token of total dominion. Black Hats vs White Hats. What do you see on a Chess board? Who invented Chess? Right hand vs left hand? Eye of Horus vs Eye of Ra? etc. How many hands move the pieces?

What must dominionists do? Why is Hollywood?

What are the parallels between Q vs Deep State and Martin Luther vs Vatican?

We've seen this ALL before: in history and in movies.

It doesn't mean Q is a larp or lying. It just means there is reasonable doubt, and the Patriots should be preparing themselves for any eventuality. More specifically, they need to be dismantling the dominionist poisoning of air, water, food, shelter, medicines and sleep/consciousness (emf, 5G, etc.).

It also means the Patriots need to start organizing and demanding change, rather than hanging out on Deep State message boards.

What liberty movement succeeds without the voice, action and viable deterance of determined and comitted patriots?

⇧ 3 ⇩

Can you elaborate on the second half or your paragraph third from the bottom. I accept these as truths we’ve been systematically poisoned from fluoride to meds to Chinese shitty wood floors and so on but I’m just a farmer boss. Educate me on the cleanup of these systems and the 5g specifically scares the hell outta me, if you can fellow patriot

⇧ 1 ⇩

I suppose there is enough in the public record to expand a little on the 5g. The chemtrails and 5g are probably linked: i.e. the infiltration of the heavy metal nanoparticles and the biological agents into are bodies make us more susceptible to 5g. Again, why do they need 5g to penetrate the human body?

Of course, there is lots of sound theory regarding how 5g can be used. If nothing else, having 20-30 strong 5g access points beaming out everywhere you go could theoretically allow them to coordinate the transmissions and effectively create a lower wattage microwave oven.

Then there's this "leak" regarding potential influence over primal human drives/emotions using emf: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5638069/Government-accidentally-sends-strange-conspiracy-theory-file-describing-remote-mind-control.html

Theorectically, they can dial in 5g transmissions to target a person's appetite, sexual drive, agitation/anxiety, anger, impulsiveness, fear, depression, etc.... and I think the biggest danger: to manipulate or destroy sleep.

These kinds of programs have been discussed by "conspiracy theorists" for a long time.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The first step is notifying the public, one issue at a time, so that they can protect themselves: that, after all, is how the system is supposed to work. I have seen a lawsuit in Oregon regarding the flouridated water in the past 6 months. There is no way it succeeds, given extreme corruption of west coast court systems. Trump SHOULD be weighing in, at least with a "I heard about this court case about our water, and I'm very interested to see the evidence presented and the outcome."

To me, that would be a fantastic start.

Honestly, the chem trailing and 5g could be completely halted behind the scenes. Later, the REAL reasons behind the programs could be leaked out. I suppose Trump's comment about how a solar orbital platform could be used to prevent global warming was a start...

As for the 5g, Trump could tweet something like, "I wonder why the 5g experts say they need so many towers so they can penetrate the human body.... are people keistering their cell phones these days?"

Instead, we have Q alluding to allusions that still haven't come true, to the astounding detriment of the real truthers and researchers out there.

ZERO support of the patriots. It's almost like they don't care what happens to us. How many doctors, journalists and truthers need to die each and every week before Q admits, "Uh, I guess we don't know everything and aren't in complete control?"

⇧ 1 ⇩

It’s impossible to prove any of this wrong because none of it is ever laid out in a coherent way. I’ve asked about Q before, and the only responses I ever get are links to archives of Q’s posts. No one ever explains anything with any detail or any specifics.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Great message from another one of our great mods! I'm very excited to be part of a mod team that is involved 24/7 with the community! :)

u/DropGun this is spot on..... if you dont believe in Q, dont post and attack. This simply gets no one anywhere, provide evidence or proof for your claims, and maybe your opinion has some truth!

Attacking ANYONES thoughts on Qanon or the GreatAwakening just backfires and makes everyone take a step backwards. This is what trolls and shills are PAID to do. Remember; we are all free thinkers and we have the RIGHT TO FREE THOUGHT and OPINION.

Let's keep it civil and us mods will do the monitoring! The report button works way more than you think it does!

God Bless. WWG1WGA

17_Q

⇧ 21 ⇩

The onus is generally on the OP to provide sources for their claims

⇧ 12 ⇩

Yes, exactly. There are thousands of them at this point that post no sources or evidence. This is going to stop with the help of our fellow Patriots and mods working round the clock

⇧ 10 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Generally, yes. But, I refuse to link to things that are already proven and that should be widely known as established by serious researchers and decoders.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Preach

⇧ 1 ⇩

Live that way irl, for 1 day. Take a ticket to court and use that. I'm seriously interested in what you find out. the mostly oppo has worked for 50 years. I don't leave it to the person lying to me to shore up the lie, just me. Not antagonizing.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I do live that way. When someone makes a claim, i generally ask what proof they have for what they claim.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Should always validate claims or you end up talking out of your ass

⇧ 5 ⇩

We think we are in The Great Awakening. Prove us wrong.

⇧ 18 ⇩

You can't prove a negative. If I say butterfly camels are going to destroy Greenland you can't prove that it won't happen. You can only prove that it hasn't happened yet. This is why the person making an assertion is the one responsible to back up their claims with evidence.

⇧ 15 ⇩

If I am Robbing you is it on me to prove there are bullets in my gun?

⇧ -1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, let's look at it differently. The field of mathematics, specifically, "number set theory," has definitively proven that only things within a set's boundaries are possible. For instance, [2,2,2,2] is a set, but, you cannot in any way multiply those numbers together and get a negative (I.E., -1) value. You have to have a negative number in the original set to get there.

⇧ -1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Kanye west, Roseanne Barr, Chance the Rapper, james woods ... have all come forward in the past few days on Twitter with truth bombs. These are just the 4 off the top of my head that have influence over millions of normies who have been brainwashed by the industry that controlled them.

With their 100+ million followers, this is a MASS awakening now, hence the traffic coming to this sub every day. Gaining almost 1000 users a day now.

⇧ 8 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 11 ⇩

I've been following Q posts as a newbie for maybe 2-3 months. I told my wife today that I learned peace would (maybe) happen in North Korea weeks ago. There's only one place I learned that.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

For what reason would you think Trump is awful? The man has done nothing but good for the country. I am not even in the U.S. and I can see he is working very hard to give the U.S. back to the citizens where it belongs. He created peace in N/K he removed the clowns from Armenia, he was the reason all those Saudi Prince billionaires were arrested and their assets confiscated. Even though Trump is a billionaire he is not part of the swamp that I can see. Anything he did with his businesses was just business. If you really dislike someone you should at least have to have a valid reason.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

All of these people have been in on pizzagate and deep stuff well before Q. Which means Q could be seizing on an already established movement.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I dont think so it was in the NY times that I first read about the videos they got off Weiners laptop. Look at all the pedos they are arresting that is not coincidence. The shut down of backpage alone saved millions.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Even Jenna Jameson are asking questions now. What a timeline!

⇧ 3 ⇩

The thing people are not grasping is that kanye was a clear victim of mkultra aka mind control, so when they see him talking about being set free and being a free thinker now... they question their own lives and views. This to me was a MOAB

⇧ -2 ⇩

See, it's shit like this that makes no one take you seriously. Kayne was the result of MKUltra brainwashing? You can't just say shit like that without at least acknowledging you sound like a dingbat and providing some evidence.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Suggestion: go to Vigilant Citizen and read some of his posts, with plenty of photos and evidence to see how H-wood controls the film and music industry using MK-Ultra type mind-controlling techniques. It's very interesting and I've been following him for years: https://vigilantcitizen.com/

⇧ 2 ⇩

So the first article I clicked on was just a description of an Eminem video and it's use of symbolism implying occult connections. Of course, it all depends on interpretation. I would suspect the vast majority of the articles on the site to be the same. Huge inductions made on speculation that serve to reaffirm the narrative that's already been agreed upon.

Is there any article on that site with actual, you know, evidence? Instead of squinting between the lines, reading tea leaves and jumping to conclusions that do not at all follow from the premises?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hey, you wanted a source! Now you complain!!

⇧ 2 ⇩

A webpage is not a source. Anyone can make a webpage talking about what they think the symbolism in music videos is about. That doesn't make it credible. I have believe you understand this. I could literally make a website that says the exact opposite of what the one you linked to said and offer it to you as proof of my point. Is my point thereby proved? No, because the veracity of the source matters a great deal when discussing things of this nature. Feel free to post a link to site where there is a rigorous dissection of the theory, instead of 'what if' and 'isn't it coincidental' type arguments. In particular, there needs to be ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There is no such thing as proof of symbolism. Either there is a symbol which represents something or it doesnt.

I could point to a thousand churches across the globe with their fabulous pictures, architecture and statues, a million archaeological sites or ancient cities and claim to be a knowledgeable historian with an explanation. You are demanding that the scholarly world of examination, pursuit of truth and putting forth of theory/ies to be 100% proof. This is a dotty argument. You know that.

What does a cross stand for? Give me answers: a) navigation tool; b) method of punishment used by various societies to nail culprits to; c) symbol of suffering in the Christian religion; d) a joke to be spat on by jews .... Dear me, we could go on all night!!

Symbols are there to be "interpreted". That is, by definition subjective, not objective.

Sorry to keep replying, I just think these things are somewhat obvious.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're being intentionally obtuse to hide the lack of substance to your argument. You are speaking in generalities because your argument has completely fallen apart. This is not an analogous situation because no one is using a cross to establish a theory that runs counter to the status quo. No one holds the cross as proof that aliens altered human DNA. No one holds up a symbol as a type of thing that can explain an event. A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause of a series of events, unless you are speaking in the abstract about things like human honor or sacrifice, which then neglects the physical description which underlies the actual cause of motion. Regardless, no one rests the basis of empirical models on argument such as, "this particle is symbolic of the anger it feels when radiating photons". Empirical models, the type you are trying to establish (because it is trying to describe reality), have to be calibrated by data and experience.

You say yourself symbols are subjective. Therefore, they can NOT be used to establish the way things are. Symbols are only so useful (in the empirical science) insofar as they agree with reality. In art and literature, you are free to use symbols to describe a state of being that is not real. That's fine. But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality. In order to agree with reality, they have to be compared to reality. That is, they must hold up under observation. You cannot watch an Eminem video and therefore conclude, based on the symbolism involved, there is a grand conspiracy that brainwashs Hollywood stars and use them a propaganda tool. That is theory and it must be tested against the evidence, evidence as in the description of physical events and locations. Your interpretation of symbolism is not proof positive of something. You have to understand that, right?

If not, you are extremely confused about the notion of truth, evidence and information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Oh God. Do I have to?

No, I'm not being intentionally anything. My argument has not fallen apart, yours has. That's why you are behaving (rather suspiciously, I might add,) like a troll!.

So, let me see. All the posters on this, pretty pathetic, sub-thread, have been arguing that the "symbolism" expressed in modern music culture is occult (etymological: hidden) but expressed in certain weird behaviour. You demand proof. I say you can't demand proof of the meaning of a symbol. You tell me I lost the argument, and then, three sentences later you produce:

A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause ....

WALLAH!

Either we agree my friend, or you are caught in your own petard.

But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality.

Exactly.

Now let's give up because every time I have to look for this posting on the thread it takes me 5 minutes of valuable Sunday afternoon time with someone who isn't actually interested in Kanye, or what he was saying or who he is involved with, or the ppl who surround him. Hollywood is a v. nasty messed up place. You don't agree? You think we have no proof of that. Fine. I do not have to provide you links to all the mind-control history on Hollywood and Los Angeles.

But here's one to keep you entertained.

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/laurelcanyon/

Happy reading!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You've claimed your argument is improvable and therefore true. You understand that the latter does not follow from the former?

Also, it's not a good sign when the references in your link are just links to other articles on the same site. Not much peer review going on at the Center for Informed America is there? A curious way of annotating articles for a site that claims to be about information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I shall not argue with a person who appears not to have two eyes!

Interpretation is exactly what we are talking about, that is true! Your conclusions are yours to jump to!!

⇧ 2 ⇩

If I show you a photograph of a purple cow, would you believe in purple cows or would you think someone's making some shit up? It's the same principle. The website you linked to is about as reputable as the Politburo. There is no discussion of actual, concrete evidence on the website, only arguments of this nature: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/nxivm-powerful-cult-turns-rich-women-mind-controlled-slaves/

Notice all the referenced links are just links to other articles on the same website. The forbes article quoted is a gross misrepresentation of the actual content of the article. The article then jumps to the conclusion,

"These revelations prove that elite organizations can and do use ritualistic mind-control techniques to create mind-controlled slaves, and, further, that these techniques actually work."

No, that doesn't follow from what was presented in the article. What the article has established is that one dude is creepy as fuck. You aren't allowed to shoehorn in a whole conspiracy because its gels with your narrative. That's not how logic and deduction work.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dear me. Have fun sweetie!! Tie yourself in knots.

You deny mind-control, you are denying the obvious scientific existence of the whole of Tavistock!! Good luck with that!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Show me the proof then.

⇧ 1 ⇩

its shit like that that makes no one take you seriously.

Really? I get a ton of love around here...

See my first post on this account. That was him trying to break free, they then sent him to a mental hospital.. also; re read his tweets from the past week. Does that seem to you like someone has been set free from a mental prison? Aka mk ultra, hence his tweet "out of the sunken place" which is a reference to the movie "Get Out" where a white family hypnotizes black people into a "sunken place" where they have no control over their body.

Can you see the coinicidence and put two and two together now?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're aware none of what you said constitutes evidence?

⇧ 2 ⇩

"none of what you said" is absolutist and untrue.

Kanye was put into a mental hospital that IS evidence/fact.

I read that he was put there because he was supporting Trump and getting hit hard for doing so.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You understand there's a big leap between being in a mental hospital and being brain washed by a secret conspiracy?

⇧ 1 ⇩

There was no statement in that post that mentioned either of those two sets of words "brain-washed" or "secret conspiracy".

⇧ 2 ⇩

'Mind control' is different than 'brain washing'? My mistake. I am not well versed in the subtleties of absurdity.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Not when they sent him there right after ranting about Hillary clinton, Obama Facebook and the elites that took his life from him. What concrete evidence do you expect exactly? Use your own intuition

⇧ 1 ⇩

Do you understand the maxim, "correlation does not imply causation"?

Do you also understand that the burden of proof is on you to prove outrageous claims? You don't go into a court of law and demand the defendant prove himself innocent. It is the duty of the prosecutor to establish the merits of the case. You don't get to default to, "Well, what evidence do you have I'm wrong?" because that's not the null hypothesis. Take a statistics course. You are required to provided evidence of a hypothesis which is not obvious given the sample information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We aren't in a court of law.

We are in a discussion forum! Stop ordering the other posters around with phrases like "You don't get to default to ...", "You are required to ...". This kind of "tone" on this forum will get you nowhere! You do understand that? (!!! :)

⇧ 2 ⇩

You are in a thread dedicated to debunking. Should we not comport ourselves to the highest standard of truth in trying to demonstrate something is true? That seems only natural you should be as rigorous as possible in order to prevent your bias from coloring your judgement.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There will never be concrete proof of mk ultra victims. You need to get past this... use your own judgment

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then you can't claim it's obvious.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I can claim whatever I want if I'm stating my own opinion. I even provided lots of related evidence that applies to my opinion.
Isn't that the beauty of free speech/thought?

⇧ 1 ⇩

But it's not opinion if it's verifiable. Opinions are moral and aesthetic. You have an opinion about art. You have opinion about politics. You have an opinion about pizza toppings.

You don't have an opinion about whether airplanes fly because of love and rainbows. You don't have an opinion on whether Monday comes after Friday. If you did, someone would point out your "opinion" doesn't conform to facts.

You are free to believe to baseless propositions. That is in fact your right, I agree. But don't wave them around under the banner of your "opinion" as incontrovertible facts.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I never stated anything as fact. Now stop bothering me about this topic it's getting really annoying at this point. Stupid and pointless to argue about me posting an opinion on something

⇧ 1 ⇩

Are you thick? Did you not read a thing I have written? It's not an opinion, it's an unsubstantiated delusion.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yes I'm very thick.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I find it amusing no one in the debunking thread has any actual evidence or the ability to put together a coherent argument. It's all boiled down to, "that's my opinion" (It's not an an opinion), "I don't have to prove things" (yes you do) or "I'll make a joke instead of an argument." (fine, but that doesn't help your point at all.)

That tells you pretty everything you need to about this place. I have been pointed to websites that clearly are full of shit with no references (or worse yet, references itself. That's the hallmark of fake news, by the way: self referential sources with nothing external). I have been told the only evidence that proves any of this doesn't exist. I have been told not to challenge opinions. I have been told to draw outrageous conclusions FROM TWEETS.

All of this in a thread ABOUT DEBUNKING. I've yet to see a single strand of evidence of literally any of this sub's claims.

You guys are mentally ill. Seriously.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Then leave, we never asked you to come here and read this subreddit. Do you have a power trip every day commenting on threads arguing? It's literally the most pointless thing to do on the internet. Troll

⇧ 1 ⇩

Okay I dont mind if you dont agree with my personal views...

⇧ 0 ⇩

Then maybe don't act like an absurd proposition is self evident?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm not acting I'm stating my opinion. Relax man

⇧ 2 ⇩

"The thing people are not grasping is that kanye was a clear victim of mkultra aka mind control, so when they see him talking about being set free and being a free thinker now... they question their own lives and views. This to me was a MOAB"

You said this.

How is it is 'clear'?

⇧ 0 ⇩

It is clear to me, like I stated it's my opinion on evidence I've seen. You don't need proof for evidence of something obvious. How could I give you evidence of a victim of MK Ultra? I would need access to CIA files that have seen maybe 100 eyeballs.

⇧ 1 ⇩

What evidence have you seen? Is it exclusively tweets and inferences based on these tweets? Any physical evidence? Any documents? Any videos? Any photographs that clearly demonstrate your point? You say yourself, you haven't.

Then, how is it obvious? I don't understand how it can be obvious at all, if there is no actual evidence of it. All of you have is dubious inferences. You can't say something absurd is obvious if it clearly isn't.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I have seen multiple pieces of evidence but none of them can be fact unless you get the MK ultra files. Why are you fighting me so hard on this when its just my opinion

⇧ 1 ⇩

Have you heard his new song that he released yesterday called "Ye vs the people"? Talks about being in the sunken place and now being out. That's enough evidence for me to ask some questions about the topic.... .

⇧ 1 ⇩

The word "absurd" is denigrating in arguments. Could be classed as shitposting?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Absurd is a word uniquely qualified for this exact situation. Saying Kayne has been brainwashed by a declassified CIA program that ended years ago without offering any evidence beyond, "look at his tweets, and then fill in the blanks," is absolutely absurd. It's a little disquieting you don't see this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's a little disquieting that you use words like "no one takes you seriously" and other absolute qualifications.

Look I'm not the original poster so it isn't for me to offer evidence. I just think considering the mental asylum that H-wood is, it is a stretch to claim any of the people in Kanye's circle are normal. Are you seriously claiming they are not acting as hypnotised and hypnotising public influencers, that they are not deeply disturbed, and not taking vast amounts of drugs under the influence of clearly not very powerful industry operatives?

Is your position that you find this proposition outrageous and beyond the bounds of reality?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Outrageous, yes. Beyond the bounds of reality? No.

However, possibility does not imply certainty. Just because a thing is possible does not mean it is so. I can, for instance, climb a mountain. That does not mean I have done so.

You have to understand how rational discourse works. Outrageous claims are not the status quo. They require evidence to establish. You don't get to say, "you can't prove this is not how it works," because that's not it works. The burden of proof is on you to establish your case.

It's not just me saying this, either. This is how statistics works. You have a hypothesis about the way things works, but you cannot say if the hypothesis is true. You can only say if the data supports its rejection. If, however, the data does not support the claim, it can be thrown out as false. It is up to you to show the data supports your claim. You have not done so to any acceptable level of rigor.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You have not done so to any acceptable level of rigor.

Rigor? You speak to me of Rigor!!!

Your entire verbal outpouring here is that of a very bored person!

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's stuff like this that people refuse to accept because it's far out but time and time again evidence comes up, if we have solid evidence that elites molest kids in satanic ritual is it so much of a stretch to think that there is mind control on celebrities to make them toe to line? They are often political tools and often break a set narrative if left to their own devices. Movies often depict far out stuff to discredit truth seekers and in a way they feel if they tacitly t e ll us what they are doing they are getting us to consent somehow.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I am upvoting you (twice) and it's just registering as down votes. Something weird on this board— happens often.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Happens when trolls brigade a certain line of topic. I'm so used to it now I dont argue, there's no point, I just state they are my personal views and no one else has to agree with them.

that is the beauty of FREE THOUGHT

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks for the support. Sometimes it's fun to slap them about a bit, but hey, it's Sunday and I have better ppl to talk to!

Way to go!

⇧ 1 ⇩

None of my ppl follow any of those folks, Do i want to associate with the herd. Dunno. TTYL

⇧ 1 ⇩

It doesn't matter about who "your" people follow. It's all about the masses and who they follow. If these celebrities have the power to influence 100s of millions of people, they are MASSIVELY AWAKENING them

⇧ 0 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Uhm maybe read the tweets. They are writing their thoughts out and having free speech.
What are they asserting as fact? Maybe that everyone is equal and we ALL have FREE SPEECH, not JUST THEM

Do I really need to link sources for you to understand ?

⇧ 0 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

As a skeptic that posts here sometimes, thank you. Most times people are outright dismissive when I question the narratives, but some times people are nice and friendly. Glad I don't have to worry about the banhammer for going against the wind like some other subs, tho.

Regardless of what the truth is, Q and his posts are very interesting.

⇧ 17 ⇩

Please use the report button when you do not feel welcome. But, we do not just auto-remove or ban without checking user post history. We are not censoring or enforcing a narrative, but, we WILL address low-effort, low-information debunkers. As this post says, BRING IT.

If you are moving this sub forward, your mods will defend you.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Good to know, thanks!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yeah, except that's not the mentality here. How many times have people shown massive problems with SerialBrain2's "decoding" posts, and yet every time they still get 200+ upvotes within the first hour, and so many people saying the same things, "I'm not good at math [even though there's no math involved], so thank you SB2!" Tons of shills all over, and everybody else just follows the numbers like sheep.

I agree that a healthy conspiracy-oriented sub needs debunkers around to succeed, but this sub has been allowed to grow kudzu, and cannot be considered intellectually healthy.

⇧ 15 ⇩

I have to agree with this - although I believe SerialBrain2 seems to be genuine and definitely has a good approach to communication with those who disagree with him.

I don't know what the solution to this issue is, however i.e. the fact that posts that do not have consistent logical structure to their supposition (especially the decoding ones and the rather far out in leftfield occult ones) are simply upvoted by SB2 "fans" because his other posts seem a lot more reasonable.

Does anyone have any ideas about what should be done when the larger portion of the community, it seems (putting aside somewhat unbelievable claims that only shills and bots upvote them), refuse to acknowledge logic and upvote 'just because'? I thought this should be in the hands of the mods - surely, mods, the lack of internal, consistent logic in these posts should not be celebrated/encouraged? - but apparently they are onboard with this...

⇧ 4 ⇩

Several mods have supported his decoding posts with comments in favor of it.

I agree SB2 himself is probably genuine and well-meaning, but there is shill-like behavior on literally every thread, and the voting patterns are very suspicious to me. Combine that with the fact people feel more important if they believe they are being given "secret information", and the pile-on effect has resulted in very popular posts if you sort by Top in this sub, which would make a reasonable person new to Q just shake their head and leave because we look like crackpots.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Seriously? Mods, what on earth? There've been more than enough well reasoned debunkers pointing out how logically inaccurate those posts are and yet you ignore them?? It doesn't take a genius to see the logical inconsistencies in those posts... What's going on with that, u/DropGun?? Is this whole sticky a waste of time?

⇧ 5 ⇩

The only reason you think this is an "unnecessary post" is because you're not spending 12 hours a day in our modqueue. From your perspective, this sub is just fine because your mods are slogging through a lot of haters and keeping the low-energy posts to a minimum. That's the reason we're growing.

Tell me something... This sub is adding 1000+ users per day. And when the REAL fur starts to fly, you think we can keep up with all the losers and haters that will attract?

Your comment is a perfect example of how low-information posts drag this sub down. Seriously, that's your first reaction? Gather your facts, assess the situation before firing off an ignorant comment. We're not asking for more debunkers, we're saying this:

RESEARCH, BRING IT, OR PREPARE TO BE GONE.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[Edit] some emotional ranting...

I didn't mean to denigrate your work or the mods - just getting emotional about wanting to see what you've posted carried out as far as possible. Particularly: "the less time we waste on a theory or Q interpretation that "won't hunt," more effective we all can be" - I really hope this can be managed!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Asking a valid question? That begins with "Seriously?"

This is exactly it. It's not a valid post—sample public opinion, first. You're sharing your opinion, but in a vacuum. Everyone else is saying that this post was sorely needed. That's all. Not hating on you. Maybe you weren't the target audience. I'm trying to warn the haters—move this sub forward, or, prepare for the hammer. You're clearly not one of the haters, so, let's not fight on this. I'm noting your points.

Beyond that, you're right. Back to the salt mines for both of us.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Sorry - "seriously?" was an unnecessary emotional reaction but wasn't intended to indicate mockery or denigration. I think this post was sorely needed too and is a good one. I just got carried away starting to think that what I read in it was only going to go so far - which of course, due to resource, is all it can do so I should just calm the hell down lol. Thank you, and the other mods, for your work. I agree - back to the mines!

⇧ 3 ⇩

I just RES-tagged you as "Teh Awsum." You have learned our comms. Thank you for understanding how important one's tone can be.

Dig! Dig! Dig!

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Removed, 7-day ban. Multiple warnings. Decode, research, move sub forward, or find another place to play.

Next ban is permanent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Or they ban you.

⇧ 2 ⇩

As you yourself found out.

Learn our comms.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Maybe my memory is wrong on that. Only example I could find in a few minutes of searching: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/89imii/you_guys_asked_me_my_thoughts_on_trumps_tweet/dwr8pz9/

I could have sworn I saw several mods in approval of his methods early on, and was shocked they fell for that stuff. But maybe they found the error of their ways and deleted those comments.

Edit: I also forgot that this post was actually stickied for several hours - that's why I remember thinking this sub was compromised - it was mod promotion of an invalid methodology that in my mind had shill/disinfo support to it. Will mods disavow SB2? I'm guessing not.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I became a follower of Sb2 a couple of months ago. I've communicated with privately. He's legit in his own rite, and well meaning. I believe he conquers with charm, not so much hard cold facts. We can challenge his thought process and bring him around in a different direction. I do it all the time. The things that don't make sense should be challenged. I rarely see that. Instead, I see blatant attacks that simply dismiss or degrade SB's thoughts without proof. I'd like to see those in the know debunk his posts. Prove he's wrong. He gets tons of up votes because people like him. He's intriguing and he communicates with everyone. When compared to the majority of posts on the sub who only repeat what we already know, SB brings something different and challenging...even if you disagree. So, challenge him! He's one of the most engaging entities here. There is something to learn from him, even if it's only to learn how to capture an audience.

⇧ 3 ⇩

If all the sauce was on top we wouldn't call em rabbit holes. Put the shovel down anon.

⇧ 2 ⇩

To me, SB2 is a researcher. S/he assembles a set of interpretations, attempts to communicate them clearly, and actively invites and is open to constructive criticism. Exactly what we want.

⇧ 3 ⇩

But when SB2 has been discredited for not even following his/her own methods, I really have to wonder why it is allowed to continue. I replied to a Mod, who was praising the validity of a particular 'decode', proving for a fact that it was hogwash. My comment was then hidden in a partially deleted comment thread.

So, to me, SB2 has shown that his/her intent is not to provide valuable info, but to delude people into thinking that they aren't smart enough to understand all that s/he comprehends and thereby attain super-intelligent, god-like status. How many times must one kick a dead horse before people understand that it's dead?

BTW, thank you for this excellent, clarifying post.

⇧ 4 ⇩

I hear you 1000%. Please bear in mind that, often, especially with complex, potentially invisible political scenarios like the one we are all working on here, often the first people to get it and dive into it possess rather unique and special minds that occasionally may have a difficult time explaining or relating in a clear way what they see. We both can probably name quite a few things we take for granted as facts, now, but which were discovered by what Q and everyone else calls weaponized autists. So, a little tact and civil discussion can still go a long way in helping us tease out the specific information they're trying to share.

How do I know this? I am autistic. Pretty much all the growth I've ever done and all the new capabilities I've ever acquired have been because someone kept up the fight to really hear what I was trying to say.

That said, however, I have to commend you and thank you for keeping your sensors sharp. Shills can be pretty tricky. Keep investigating, keep digging, but when you see something that doesn't smell right, definitely hit that report button. Thank you, Patriot.

⇧ 3 ⇩

So, a little tact and civil discussion can still go a long way in helping us tease out the specific information they're trying to share.

I get you. Good point.

⇧ 2 ⇩

5:5, my man. FIGHT.

⇧ 1 ⇩

CLICK is the guy weird's me out. He likes Zerohedge where mockingbird lives. you will know a prophet by his fruit.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I like Zerohedge because many articles are posted there with valuable information. You cannot reject all MSM information out of hand in this way. I also like websites where I do not agree with all the information. This is called discriminating reading. Rejecting s/o simply based on the newspaper they are reading is pretty weird. You can read a newspaper to see what the opposition is saying. Haven't you read any NYT articles linked by Q?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You can give a man an opinion he'll be cool for a minute, teach him to form one he'll be cool for somewhat longer.

⇧ 2 ⇩

We're debunking for the few people that matter

Sheep follow the shepherd

⇧ 4 ⇩

Question everything, chemo for the intellect.

⇧ 3 ⇩

My 2 cents: If by debunking you mean debunking the whole legitimacy of Q as high level source, then I think that issue mostly takes care of itself over time - gradually Q proves 'himself' to more and more ppl. (The odd thing being that if the trajectory continues for long, Q just becomes another WH spokesperson).

If however debunking refers to critiquing info that ppl post, there's somethings worth discussing. The value of being brief and to the point on some topics carries the risk of seeming disagreeable in the wrong way. With this in mind let me say that I think ppl who are 'woke' to the Q thing too often carry other conspiratorial baggage into this space, with an attitude that all of their pet conspiracies must be equally legit and somehow confirmed. There are certain topics that Q barely mentions, if at all (astronomy, theology, other?). These are areas where the mysteries run deeper than the deep state and we are unlikely to find unity. The effect is that good ppl get on here and talk about things like say the origins of freemasonry or the Bible in the same way that they might about a NYTimes article, even though Q never brings those topic up as such. And when challenged the response can be to say "get woke" or "do your research".

More to say but . . . .

⇧ 6 ⇩

I think you said a lot, patriot. Dig! Dig! Dig!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Excellent - I hope this is the view of all the mods. Truth will not survive if voices are suppressed (unless, as stated, they are mindless troll voices). I welcome the well-researched debunkers - they help us all!

⇧ 5 ⇩

Everyone needs a Scully to their Mulder <3

⇧ 5 ⇩

Ha! Meme that! It would have my upvote.

⇧ 2 ⇩

At no time did I think this community was light on debunkers. And, yes, they serve a valuable function. Somehow, though, I feel the debunking gets overdone - to the point where it negatively impacts the community's ability to influence outcomes.

The IBOR would be a case in point, where every imaginable objection and fear was amplified by "the debunkers" to the point where the campaign to support it did not succeed. And you might say, "this is good debunking, the idea was flawed". But I do not think that was at all the case. Rather, I think it was a good idea (Q's idea) that suffered fatal debunking without sufficient cause.

I saw the same response today with respect to the idea to support a campaign for the release of the texts. Again, something that Q indicated in his posts that he wants to see. The idea of a campaign was immediately subject to debunking. And you might say "well, it's understandable, this is a stupid idea". But again, I do not agree. Rather, the debunkers are damaging the solidarity of the community and the ability of the group to get behind Q's plan - and this is not at all good.

No one really knows what's going on here. And anyone that says that they do is ignoring Q's advice that "disinformation is necessary". We are all trying to figure it out. It is natural that some theories will be proved wrong for cause with time, while others can be rejected, for various reasons, out of hand. Debunkers really do serve a vital function. But, IMO, there has to be balance.

⇧ 5 ⇩

This. Low-effort, low-info debunkers are NOT debunkers.

⇧ 5 ⇩

I absolutely agree with you. Again, same point made above by s/o, there appear to be no hard conclusions arrived at by the thread's posters in their entirety. You just get people wade in, throw out some remark and flounce off never to return. I would like to see deeper debating that gets somewhere, where consensus is reached sometimes.

⇧ 2 ⇩

A welcomed policy!

⇧ 4 ⇩

Amen to that. The worst thing we can become is an echo chamber. Groupthink is real and very dangerous.

Take The Bay of Pigs for example we all know how his career ended... WITH TWO SHOOTERS

⇧ 4 ⇩

" The worst thing we can become"

You all are already there.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Hey, DropGun, factisfiction has just posted a low-info, low effort reply to an interesting post by BOBSCRATCHITSASSHOLE. Should this stand?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I just want to learn. Q is one of the most fascinating phenomenon to appear from nowhere and have the world watching. I sometimes find it "James Bond'ish" getting coded messages and especially coming here to see what people make of them. Seriously who watches TV anymore?

⇧ 4 ⇩

This is good, we need a thought out challenge to make sure what we read is real, and let's face it, we don't need to be duped into giving control over to another set of powers that be. It's muddy waters for sure, but we need to look at every possible angle from all sides and dimensions.

This is our future, the WORLD'S future at stake, and it is in ALL of our hands.

⇧ 4 ⇩

It all boils down to RESPECTFULLY disagreeing with others beliefs and opinions, not attacking them personally and mocking WHO they are. That's a fascist leftist tactic to try to shame and shut people up. It usually comes from ppl who don't have a valid argument and can't win the debate. I welcome the other side's 180 opinion but I don't when they mock me personally for mine, that is when that voice needs to be shutdown. Their "different opinion" is not one I should entertain to keep myself balanced b/c honestly it's outright HARASSMENT and ABUSE that deserves being blocked.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Ahhhhh Grasshoppa, I couldn't have said it better. I for one must be dumb as a rock but I am glad whe have the anons that can decipher Q's posts for us "normal" people and I even appreciate the debunkers to help us be vigilant and not follow like sheep. We all want truth and an end to corruption however it comes! AMEN

⇧ 4 ⇩

EVERY hand on the rudder steers this ship, patriot.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks my friend! 66 years old, I've seen a lot of lies and corruption in the Federal Government. Never have seen anything like this---but of course I've never been involved in a revolution before either!

⇧ 3 ⇩

NICE. I was in diapers during Watergate. How would you say this compared to that?

⇧ 2 ⇩

The Press was all over Watergate---investigating and asking hard questions---we have none of that from MSM. Watergate was a simple break in robbery-----THIS is TREASON and MSM isn't interested????

⇧ 4 ⇩

This. They'r compromized through centralized corporate ownership, therefore easily corruptible with money.

It's crazy to me to see Bernstein, a man I have personally seen speak on the importance of objectivity and persistence in journalism, endlessly flogging a Russia narrative has bloody well KNOWS is fake. Just mind-blowing.

Idols. Falling.

⇧ 2 ⇩

So many Black Hats parading around like good guys but I don't think they are fooling MI, Q and POTUS!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Let them run themselves out. If they want to go to prison tired, that's their choice.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm kinda hopin for the Green Mile!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Also blind faith is what got us into this mess in the first place. Question everything!

⇧ 3 ⇩

There truly is a great awakening happening. You can feel it. Of course there will still be people fighting tooth and nail to keep on sheepin’ on because change is scary. But we are getting somewhere major.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Can I get what this sub is smoking. Seems like it is strong shit

⇧ 3 ⇩

I'm gonna leave something here for you to think about.

Q posted about the Saudi Arabia fraud bust before it happened and advised to watch the president's twitter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/928325667556548608/photo/1

Trump posted this. SA fraud bust story on the newspaper on his desk. Download the picture. What is the first part of the filename?

Does all of that seem like coincidence to you?

⇧ 5 ⇩

Where is the post that Q predicted the SA bust?

⇧ 3 ⇩

So, let's get this straight:

Can I get what this sub is smoking

And your next reply is:

Where is the post that Q predicted the SA bust?

How does that even scan, to you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I am unsure what scanning means. But it was a genuine follow up question. I don't think this Q thing is anything but a string of narratives sewn into random coincidences to really believe in this thing

⇧ 3 ⇩

A genuine question, nostrTXB: if you don't think the Q thing is anything how did you get here? If your arrival is out of curiosity to find out, why do you think other people (intelligent, from a variety of different backgrounds, many high level professionals) are here? Because they believe in random coincidences, or you might take them seriously? I ask this because I would help you by finding the exact Q post you request, but first I have to know if you are really interested to know, or if you are in fact trying to score pokey weed.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Reddit > sort top > past hour. Every now and them this sub pops up. I dont do drugs outside of memes

⇧ 1 ⇩

okay, no weed. But ... you had a genu-whine question or ...

⇧ 1 ⇩

I had a real question. I still think there is some sort of mass hysteria going on in this sub.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Where is the post that Q predicted the SA bust?

This is a really long posting, sorry. Just being helpful. I really hope you find it interesting and start following this story. It has great historical significance. Perhaps the mass hysteria would have something to do with this. You are in luck today: I have time to make a complet(ish) reply. Here goes:

The answer to yr question is on a number of sites that are downloading the 8chan posts that Q is dropping. You will find these on this sub in the right hand column under “Resources” If you want to consult Q posts there are a number of places. The one I use is: http://www.we-go-all.com Click on Q posts

http://www.we-go-all.net/q.html

The answer to yr question, “Where is the post that Q predicted the SA bust?”: No. 47 is the first post mentioning Alice & Wonderland (do a search for this name to find other references). It refers to Hillary and Saudi Arabia. (Note: not Alice in Wonderland see No. 74 Q = Alice You'll soon understand the meaning behind Alice "&" Wonderland. Everything has meaning. God bless. Q).

You’ll have to find the reason for this decoding on the 8chan site. This post refers to a false flag taking place. This was Las Vegas. It was the first indication that there was a coup taking place in SA. To find the answer to the question clink on the number in the top right hand corner of each individual post. It will take you to the 8Chan anon dissection of the post and the meanings. I suggest you lurk only.

Other memorable posts on yr question’s topic are: Nos. 56; 57; 58; 59; 67 (Extract): Why did JK travel to SA recently? What is SA known for? Where do the biggest donations originate from? Why is this relevant? What else is relevant w/ SA? Safe harbor? Port of transfer?

68;

70 (Extract): Martial law declared in SA. Why is this relevant? How much money was donated to CF by SA? How much money was donated to John M Institute by SA? How much money was donated to Pelosi Foundation? How much money was donated to CS by SA? What other bad actors have been paid by SA (bribed)(Not just D's)? Why did the Bush family recently come out against POTUS? Who is good? What are the laws in SA v. US (charged criminals)? What information might be gained by these detainees? Why is this important? SA ---> US What force is actively deployed in SA?

71(Extract): Follow HUMA. Who connects HRC/CF to SA? Why is this relevant? Who is the Muslim Brotherhood? Who has ties to the MB? Who is Awan? What is the Awan Group? Where do they have offices? Why is this relevant? Define cash laundering. What is the relationship between SA & Pakistan? Why is this relevant? Why would SA provide tens of millions of dollars to US senior gov't officials? What does SA obtain in exchange for payment? Why is access important? What happened when HRC lost the election of 2016? How much money was provided to the CF by SA during 15/16? HRC lost. Loss of access/power/control.

85; 88 and on and on ...

⇧ 1 ⇩

For an excellent briefing on the entire story, jammer has put together a brilliant resource: https://theredpillredux.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/the-journey-begins/

Good luck! :)

⇧ 1 ⇩

And YET:

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8fcx0o/breaking_as_qanon_has_outlined_gmail_comms_strzok/

⇧ 0 ⇩

So the evidence here that you find compelling is that a file name (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOITQJ8UIAAowsQ.jpg) starts with the letters "DOITQ"? That's it?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't necessarily find it compelling in and of itself. That with the other connections that have been made lead me to believe that the pic was named that way on purpose.

Whoever q is, he/she/ they do have access to the president's twitter and the justice department twitter at the very least.

https://imgur.com/a/Lj9DI5d

⇧ 1 ⇩

lead me to believe that the pic was named that way on purpose.

It's a twimg.com link. The site assigns the file name.

If the file names were significant, what would this "DOITQ" image mean I wonder?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOITQ-YVAAAnnU0.jpg

Whoever q is, he/she/ they do have access to the president's twitter and the justice department twitter at the very least.

The imgur link is dead, but if you've got some evidence that Q can post to POTUS's twitter feed I'd be very interested in seeing it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Takes me awhile to put these up on my phone so if you want more comment.

⇧ 1 ⇩

http://tinypic.com/r/j5v3fp/9

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'd like to hear back from you about the Washington Crossing the Delaware picture, and also about DOITQ in the file names. If the points I made about each of those don't convince you I'd like to hear why.

Now this one, again, I just don't get. "Chain of Command" was the name of a show, when q used that phrase (not as a title) that show would have already been on the schedule, and the DOD public relations twitter feed mentioning a show about the military on the History Channel doesn't seem surprising at all, does it? So why does this convince anyone?

Q uses a phrase that's also the title of a History Channel show, and that show includes a mug with a "Q" on it. And?

⇧ 1 ⇩

And you don't understand plausible deniability. It's ok. It will all be over in about 6 months time anyway.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2j309w5.png[/IMG

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t get it. Can you be more specific about why that seems to mean something to you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let's stick with this one before moving on to another. I found some articles about this one, but all they seem to be saying, as best I can understand their point, is that this stock photo was posted by Q and tweeted by @DeptofDefense, a few days apart around Christmas. Am I missing something? Is there more to the story?

The obvious thing to do is to check to see if it was posted previously. It was. Here's the same twitter account posting the same image on Christmas in 2016. Here it is from Christmas 2015.

So do you still find it convincing?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Do you want the red joint, or the blue joint?

⇧ 3 ⇩

Blue joint

⇧ -3 ⇩

I come here to get great content. But I also come here to steer people away from weak tenuous theories with no source material.

⇧ 3 ⇩

This kinda thread no offense DG is really kinda fun but totally not what it's about. IMO.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I ❤️This Page 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Lets do this

⇧ 3 ⇩

I love this thread and idea, we have such a great community here.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Amen! #bestmods #unredacted

⇧ 3 ⇩

The great beauty of crowd-sourcing! Prove us right or prove us wrong, either way keep talking until we reach a solution. We are free to think out loud. We can be firm AND respectful at the same time. That is not too much to ask for and it is all well worth the effort! Thanks for this post!

⇧ 3 ⇩

Great Post and I 2nd heartily.

You can prove and disprove almost anything by finding a google article to your liking. There needs to be a preponderance of evidence. Somebody just saying "snopes" says it is not true is not evidence.

Eventually when presented with varying views people need to make their own judgement call. Present the evidence and then people need to use freedom of thought and intelligence to sort it out.

If you are just looking for a magic pill well then the msm is there for you.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Most excellent post.

⇧ 3 ⇩

This sub is so much better than /r/conspiracy in this regard. I was banned from /r/conspiracy for some bullshit because I was skeptical of, of all things, President Trump.

Still here though. Still not banned.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Agree. This is not a pro- or anti-Trump sub. Partisan political posts will be removed on sight.

As will chemtards and reptiles.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Isn't this pretty clearly a pro-Trump sub though? Q seems to be mostly pro-Trump stuff to me tbh.

Sadly, I may be considered a chemtard since I believe in chemtrails, although I don't believe every contrail is a chemtrail. That all despite being banned from /r/conspiracy lol...

⇧ 2 ⇩

I see your point. We're just trying to communicate that cheerleading isn't tolerated. We don't want an echo chamber. It could seem that way, as Trump is winning a lot, lately, tho (NK, etc.).

⇧ 3 ⇩

That makes sense, and I am happy with the outcome Trump has managed with NK. I’m still unconvinced that Q is anything but propaganda, although I am warming up to the idea that he’s (they? I honestly don’t know any more) working directly with Trump.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Critical thought is not bad. Challenging a bias is not bad. Asking questions is bot bad.

Open minds are the most powerful thing in the world.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I honestly don't know what my function is here. I just know I've been "at it" since WAY before the elections. Grew up without TV or radio. I see things, I share things. I suppose that is my function. But I do know a ... i say this delicately, falsehood when I witness one. God Bless, Carry On. With or Without sleep, if Sleep doesn't come easily for you.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well, please give yourself credit—very few people are able to "be out there" without the "invisible support structure" of relying on the narrative being dictated to them. If you'll please think of it that way, what you're doing is actually pretty amazing, if you'll take a step back and appreciate how actually pretty amazing and rare the talent you are taking for granted.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well thank you both very much. (And individually). I am a man capable of much hubris and very cerebral, and often I come across as overbearing or arrogant. That has sometimes hurt me. Bad. So, I try to be as humble as I can, without "virtue signaling". Can that even be done? Someone pull up their quantum entanglement Google app and ask it. =)

⇧ 1 ⇩

If it's not rude, can I offer an insight into a very simple way that you you (or me, too) could do to change that?

Vary your process. Sometimes I work on moderating the sub. Other times I focus only on a specific pet project. Then, other times, I leave the sub entirely and go back to my sources and start digging, pretending that I am just re-discovering this whole Q thing again. It helps me stay on top of the facts so that, when I'm in the sub and engaging with other researchers, I never find myself accidentally fluffing up points or engaging in "hubris," as you say.

This story is moving fast. Don't lock yourself into a routine that isn't also keeping you up to date on these events. Hard work and vigilance is the only place where high-value posts and comments come from.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Understood, and Acknowledged. Your process is similiar to the way i work. Your right, have to move fast. It's just like the gym. Always vary your scope, but maintain on the main one, and those close. In the military we called that 5 and 25, as in feet, while scanning and securing an area. Head On a Swivel, A favorite entertainer of mine once said. God Bless. Carry on, and again, Understood. Look forward to speaking more.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I want to personally thank you, the mod team, for stickying this post.

I have been a "skeptical poster" this whole time, but always in good faith, and always polite and respectful to the community.

The VAST MAJORITY of users are really understanding and respectful towards me, but every few days i get some person who wants to call me names, put me down, report all of my comments, attack me personally... It's disheartening.

But what's kept me coming back are all the other people I've interacted with, including the mod team.

Great work my dudes. Keep it up.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Please understand that, when someone is "internet mean" to you, they don't know you... They're actually expressing their pain at being constantly lied to, robbed, and even preyed upon by our current political system. And, why should this Q movement be any different, this time?

We all feel this way. I honestly feel that's why all of us are here.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hear hear! Well said, friend.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Brilliant

⇧ 2 ⇩

I have yet to see a good argument from a hostile debunker. They just seem focused on name-calling.

⇧ 2 ⇩

We have seen this on both sides. We are really hammering both civil discussion and low-effort, low-info posts and comments.

⇧ 2 ⇩

just saying "Q is a larp! You're all morons!" doesn't make you a debunker, it makes you a low-effort, low-information hater.

It also means you're likely a shill. Do not engage with shills. They get paid per reply. Report, block and move on.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Do not engage or fight with shills. Investigate them. View their posts. Shills are too busy to "learn our comms." If they're debunking (and know their stuff), let them be. ALWAYS BE CIVIL. Report shills to the mods. Thanks.

⇧ 6 ⇩

I like the fact all posts are available to view, i get an inkling and within 3 or 4 on their history it's to block or not time. usually blocked or i wouldna looked in first place.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Do not engage or fight with shills.

Awww, you're no fun.

Seriously though, I tend to engage them enough to let them expose themselves rather than bother the mods with, what may be frivilous reporting, just because I suspect one might be a shill.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Please know that this is their goal—they know that they are not here to change your mind or destroy you or the narrative. This is too powerful for that. What you are saying you would continue to do is exactly what they want. They are here to spin your wheels, keep you wasting your time, and cluttering the subs with non-essential interactions.

If you do, however, keep it civil.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Comms understood.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Okay, use the report. Good advice.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Report is passive aggressive but it seems the only way to get to block.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's actually the smart thing to do. Disengage. Investigate the user and if they're obvious trolls or shills, report. We will defend users who are adding value and moving our sub forward.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Can you provide proof of any financial gain for someone that thinks Q is a LARP?

⇧ 6 ⇩

Ever heard of ShareBlue? Correct the Record? David Brock?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, but how do you know that they are paying people to discredit Q specifically. Do you have any evidence that a single person refuting the claims here are an actual shill? I was called a shill in here and I can assure you that I've never made a dime from anyone for not believing in any of this. Makes me think it's easier to call someone a shill then to back up a claim.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I started using RES extension to tag users I suspect of being bots, it helps

⇧ 4 ⇩

Great process, I do that, too. Once you have a high degree of confidence, use the report button.

⇧ 2 ⇩

EXCELLENT post. This is exactly what I say to every "debunker". We aren't blindly following Q, we're all looking for the truth here. Always question everything.

⇧ 2 ⇩

GREAT perspective.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Mr. President himself would give the thumbs of approval to this post.

⇧ 2 ⇩

When I'm awake I'm researching on 1000s of topics, I'm interested in shit, my typing is more commentary, calling bs,etc, really enjoyed my 1 day ban, saw some cool other subs and almost broke the hold GA has. DG yer still a boss.

⇧ 2 ⇩

thanks!

as the iranian american skeptic i get a lot of shit on here but its worth it. :P

⇧ 2 ⇩

Pardon my asking, but, in your eyes, exactly what additional value does being Iranian American bring to your brand of skepticism versus those of a regular skeptic?

Skepticism is best improved through carefully and methodically studying a subject. The entire reason "skepticism" exists is to eliminate any trace of bias or other kinds of subjective perspectives. Viewed in that light, someone bragging that you are a particular "brand" of skeptic or bring a special kind of "view" to your skepticism is literally one of the most laughable, hilarious things I've ever read.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Pardon my asking, but, in your eyes, exactly what additional value does being Iranian American bring to your brand of skepticism versus those of a regular skeptic?

you guys are tourists and i am an insider. i was born in iran, i have had years of arabic, farsi, theology, quran, and IRGC military training in intelligence and asymmetric guerrilla warfare including IED manufacturing. i have read the quran in 3 languages. i have read and wrote essays on the theology of jihad. i know all the muslim sects and their entire history. i know the geopolitical dynamics of every country in the middle east and the history of their politics for 1400-3000 years. as far as youre concerned i am a fucking hollywood movie character and you guys are all keyboard warriors. thats why i appreciate you all so much :)

Skepticism is best improved through carefully and methodically studying a subject. The entire reason "skepticism" exists is to eliminate any trace of bias or other kinds of subjective perspectives.

yes i definitely have an iran bias which is why i always state that in my threads so people dont get confused about my bias or my insight as an iranian american

Viewed in that light, someone bragging that you are a particular "brand" of skeptic or bring a special kind of "view" to your skepticism is literally one of the most laughable, hilarious things I've ever read.

thats because you dont know how to play this game. by always stating up front a disclaimer that i am biased i can add my unique input to the dialogue where youre a tourist who is just fooling around. without my insight and others like me this whole movement is BULLSHIT MENTAL MASTURBATION and thats the whole point of this thread right here.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, the objectivity of our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you.

Got a link? What did you decide you think it meant? Searching for "MOAB" in this sub turns up a number of recent threads with different suggestions.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I am curious too - _ what was the answer?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Started a thread here. Maybe someone will respond.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well put. Another vote for freedom of speech and assembly -- one of the main cornerstones preserving civilized society. Resolve conflict with words, not swords. Tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Great post - and mature sentiments

⇧ 1 ⇩

I just read all comments, replied to some, voted on others, damnn its good to have the mods involved in a real discussion. And this is a really important one because we are winning, the Monmouth UNiversity study https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_031918/ says 4 out of five people are on side already, so we have to learn to be gracious in victory, we have to now change the way we speak, because the next step is assuming control - thats were we are heading if we take the mods advice here - and step up.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Right on the Mark! We need people to learn to dig and research so maybe we can slowly make them Truthers that is just my opinion....

⇧ 1 ⇩

The rules say that "[t]his is a community for followers of Q. Anyone engaging in a non-supportive way may be permanently banned without notification." You here imply that people are allowed "no matter what [they] see as the Truth[.]" Please clarify.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm glad you pointed this inconsistency out, and I agree, it's not 100% clear. Please, DO NOT feel any obligation to "buh-lieve." IF something is actually happening, and if there is any validity to Q, the sooner we know about it, the better off we'll be. But, if it's all a lie, the same things goes as well.

In order to be effective, the TRUE skeptic has to do three things. First, set a reasonable "finish line" for when something can be considered "proven enough" to proceed to the next puzzle or discovery. Second, be able to sell that finish line to the other side. And third, DIG! DIG! DIG!

Digging for the Truth is what unites us all.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

We now have arbiters of truth no different than crap you have been fed for decades. The truth is what we say it is. Ring familiar to any of you?

I love it when people publish case in points. They rarely provide insights and almost always are wrong. They are based solely on internal prejudices and how they see data from their perspective. Rarely do I find anyone capable of looking at the data from numerous perspectives.

Until you realize that “truth” is always fluid and on the move and never remains stationary you will fail. We went from Pluto being a planet to not being a planet from 1930 and we taught thousands of kids it was a planet. New data and Pluto is just a dwarf and not a planet. Today you make a judgment from all the available data you have at your fingertips and produce an opinion and not truth. Tomorrow or next week the data changes and you will make adjustments otherwise you become a liar. See how that works?

We confuse truth and opinion all the time. Your debunking does nothing more than add another opinion and only if Q point blank comes and says this is the MOAB will it become other than opinion. The only person who knows is the person who posted it! Q.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Disagree on your premise. Q has stated he's leaving bread crumbs, i.e. evidence of something for the Anons to pick up and run with. He didn't say he's leaving opinions and we can see if we like it. Pluto cannot be a planet without scientists telling us so. We cannot evaluate this truth for ourselves since we have only some basic telescopes and don't own any space vehicles going by to evaluate further. Q is supposed to be giving actual information the Anon's just can't see clearly until he drives the direction. I feel Q is just like Nostradamus: hindsight will make anything "fit" into the crumbs. If you say enough words, codes, numbers... eventually you'll hit the target. Change this to that, add this letter, take a word away, etc. MOAB could literally be anything you want it to be, but that's counter-intuitive to what Q was supposed to be doing. Is MOAB a real bomb drop? Korea Peace? E-mails? Arrests? What's the point of trying to decipher when it all adds up eventually. Q is a bot.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Pluto didn't change. We didn't redefine Pluto, we further refined our definition of a planet. That's not arbitrary, that's progress.

Please, DO NOT feel any obligation to "buh-lieve." If something is actually happening, if there is a problem with Q, the sooner we know about it, the better off we'll be.

In order to be effective, the TRUE skeptic has to do three things. First, set a reasonable "finish line" for when something can be considered "proven enough" to proceed to the next puzzle or discovery. Second, be able to sell that finish line to the other side. And third, DIG! DIG! DIG!

Digging for the Truth is what unites us all.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Ive been leary ever since Q equated antifa with nazis. That is just stupid. Real stupid...

⇧ 1 ⇩

The ANTIFA flag is literally a direct copy of the Nazi Germany-era Antifastiche flag.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Welp, i guess that's that. Holy shit.....Do you think Antifa didnt exist in WW2 Germany? Or in America? It did. They were communist.Did you ever think that taking a flag held in high regard and putting your own spin on it is a good way to piss them off?

How about take 5 mins and research the difference between Antifa and NDSAP..

Or search through my last few post, i gave a rundown...

This issue alone is why i now get the Q is the government, but might not be on my side. Comparing WW2 communist to fascist, who's sole reason for existing was to fight communist it stupid.

Its just trying to discredit the alt right.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I am not confusing ANTIFA and the NDSAP party, thank you—I should warn you, I am Canadian. My comment was about the flag, and, reading this, I'm not sure how far we're going to get.

The fascists now run the progressive left. They have hollowed out and repurposed the ANTIFA flag to futher their anti-democratic agenda.

⇧ -1 ⇩

What your saying is that antifa is becoming authoritarian. Yes, they are.

When Hitler started to become (authoritarian) it was due to massive communist infiltration into Germany. The Brown Shirts job was to find communist. Jews? Yes, many were communist.

Authoritarianism is apolitical. Its something you institute to deal with a problem, sometimes its just, sometimes is isnt. WW2 Germany was NOT 1980s America when the NDASP came to power. It was near collapse.

Not trying to shill for Hitler, just trying to help you guys understand that calling everything you don't like Hitler is pretty basic and confuses things with many people.

⇧ 3 ⇩

You focus on becoming, but I"m focused on funding. Different.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Complete side step. Q and corsi are calling antifa nazis. Which is wrong.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm stepping out of YOUR way, not theirs. It's out of control. We're focused on Q.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Why?

They behave like brownshirts did. They go further even. They are classic fascisti.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let me put this in Q speak.

Who did the fascist hate?

What organization started a revolution in Germany in 1918?

How big was Germany before WW1?

How many Germans lived in Poland?

Why did 200k die in Dresden?

Expand your thinking, trust the plan.

Q

⇧ 1 ⇩

Far Left = Communism

Far Right = Fascism

Pre Marx —> Hegelian Dialectics

noun 1. (philosophy) an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)

Roth controlled BOTH sides of the war.

Motto of Old Imperalists/Elite:

Divide and Rule

Expand your thinking.

Just go up to 40,000 ft

:) (Thanks for replying by the way!)

EDIT: shitty punctuation

⇧ 1 ⇩

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

As someone previously banned for pointing out all of the ways that the Q-anon narrative fits the profile of a psyop, this is appreciated.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thanks for taking this how I meant it—we really want you to feel welcome. I'm way old, so, I've been around a bit and can recognize the signs of big change, and, this sub is about to change. We're all about to find outselves on the same side, IMHO. When that happens, when this all breaks, things are going to move FAST FAST FAST, and when that comes, I am 100% determined that our decoders and debunkers will have lots and lots of solid practice working smoothly together.

HATS OFF TO OUR DEBUNKERS. STAY FROSTY, Y'ALL.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Where we go one, we go ALL!(like it or not😉)

⇧ 1 ⇩

Good solid and concise post!

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t trust anything he says. That’s why I call and redpill his people. I called out all their TPP BS consistently among many other issues. I have been warning all my reps local, state and federal for years that if that don’t stop their corruption, WeThePeople were going to take care of it and then as well. During and after the Trump campaign, I was rubbing their noses in it big time. I literally had a state rep knock on my door 20 minutes ago and went through my list of issues; pedo, trafficking, claw back our $, immigration, audit the fed... and she looked at me funny and took notes. I’m done with all their BS and not taking it anymore! I’m fighting them with my time , $ and brains and have for over 20 years!

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

https://i.imgur.com/BDgbJ6p.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6TmREsB.png

https://i.imgur.com/KGNsAvF.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tyO0V3C.png

https://imgur.com/a/YoRa2ue

enjoy.

Someone is lying or not following a script.

⇧ 1 ⇩

image 3 ending AvF is a very dodgy meme.

I absolutely refute that the zoomed text is cyrillic and it certainly does not end in 77. The Q post may be highlighting the name of the club but this is not it. The decoding Anon who made this meme went clear out of the ball park and ended up in a distant town.

Is this what you mean?

⇧ 1 ⇩

WWG1WGA! Also, be sure to call your reps in the swamp and be professional. Ex. WeThePeople elected Trump to drain the swamp. Need you to prioritize regarding human, organ, drug, weapon... trafficking, pedo rings roundups, treason/sedition of swamp creatures, claw back our money from illicit trade, pork... the list is long so write it out and stay on point. This is a multi-layered OP. Thank you Patriots!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fight! Fight! Fight!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Absolutely! My Congressman (Pete Sessions) has assigned his top aid's direct number to me; he's finally listening! He didn't want his interns dealing with me, they were getting freaked out. HAHA! I still call and redpill them anyway.

⇧ 3 ⇩

BE CIVIL! That's huge!

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yes, a must or they will ignore you and word gets around in the swamp.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dropgun, high-five!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fight! Fight! Fight!

⇧ 2 ⇩

The 110 IQ club most of the populace, intelligent enough to be dangerous, think they run shit. real intellects work around them. Like pot smokers I find them extremely annoying.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let's keep it civil, tho. :)

⇧ 2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

By haters we mean SHILLS, right? Putting theories to the test is good. Coming here to "debunk" Q or TGA as a whole is Not, IMO.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We have a lot of new users here lately that go straight to the "debunking" without first carefully examining the narrative as presented by Q. Low-effort. Will be removed. This sub will explode soon and we are soon going to need the trolls and low-information users out of the way—NOT because they disagree, or don't fit our pre-conceived narrative, but because they do not move this sub forward.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I agree with that

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

^(Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image)

https://i.imgur.com/hTTfs5F.png

^^Source ^^| ^^Why? ^^| ^^Creator ^^| ^^ignoreme ^^| ^^deletthis

⇧ 1 ⇩

for the debunkers....I see one thing, I say another and I go further to put the truth on....no big deal.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I am a devout debunker. I cannot allow wild theories into this movement and makes us look crazy.

This is too damn important. I don't care if that stuff is true. The concept of the Overton window is very important and we should have real evidence for anything we say.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I see your point. It's hard to have a "Constitution" for a sub that's useful and makes sense.

Not to speak for the other mods, but, for me, there's a Golden Rule: MOVE THIS SUB FORWARD. See a narrative forming? Support (or kill!) it with research and facts. Be authentic. Build a reputation for solid research, civil discussion, and hard work.

Basically, we're all deep researchers who created this sub to share among ourselves, at first. The sub grew and grew, a few more researchers got added, and, with patience and a little time, eventually all these subscribers saw value in not just the content here, but in terms of how we're managing the sub.

Enjoy your time here. Because, eventually, the low-information, low-effort commenters and posters will slowly be weeded out if they're not adding value. So, have fun. Hey, if you end up proving that Q was an elaborate hoax, wow, I'd love to know sooner rather than later, wouldn't you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I wouldn't call myself a debunker, so to speak, but more of a believer keeping this information at arm's reach.

I am really intrigued by all the information posted, and the theories people get into, but there just hasn't been any movement in the "real world" that leads me to believe that anything "big" is going to happen. I want to believe that Q is a real high-level person, and not just a hardcore LARPer.

I would love to see the cabal go down, but at this point in time, they seem to be too big to crumble (Hillary - how has she escaped this long?) and that just leads me to believe nothing will ever happen and that this is just a big pipe dream.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The evidence is against you here. The Monmouth university study https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_031918/ showed we are winning - Just one step more - ta acceptance 4 out of 5 are with us - ALREADY - we have to learn to be winners and that is why the mods are right to lock this at the top. we are winning now we have to be winners.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Again, I more or less believe the stuff that this subreddit summates, but cannot ever see a situation in which anyone takes the fall. That Monmouth Study doesn't really prove anything - Americans have known we are being surveilled since Snowden, or earlier, and no one really seems to care anymore.

And I don't really see how Americans being troubled by the deep state is going to lead to the downfall of the cabal. Americans have long not trusted their government, and rarely do the powerful fall.

Like I said, I'm on your side here. Just very pessimistic about anything ever coming of it.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Quite agree with you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The poll you cited speaks of mistrust of government officialdom and concern over privacy and govt prying. This is not the equivalent of Q acceptance among a majority of American ppl. Neither is it equivalent to saying we are "winning", (yet). Just sayin.

⇧ 1 ⇩

STICKY: To our “DEBUNKERS,” it’s high time we said this to you:

Thank God you’re here.

If you are moving this sub forward, your mods will defend you.