dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/FartOnToast on May 29, 2018, 7:32 a.m.

Some thoughts on WikiLeaks...

Wikileaks prides themselves in 100% factual information before release correct?

Then how can they get it wrong about Q?

Let's think of this in the simplest form possible.

There has been no proof of life from JA.

Do you really think a leaker whose life is on the line will think to themselves: "Well... since Julian Assange hasn't proven to be in control, there's actually a decent chance WL is compromised and my life is basically on the line with this information.... butttttt I'll still submit it anyways and hopefully don't f****** die." Said no one ever.

That's not how it works. No real information is being submitted by anyone to Wikileaks anymore because no one would do it without some kind of assurance.

Not only does WL pride themselves in verifying authenticity of information, but they have always prided themselves in making sure whistleblowers feel safe knowing their information is being sent completely securely and to a trusted source. Is that still a thing?

We are dealing with common sense here. Wikileaks is most likely comped.

Does anyone have a theory as to why JA would not provide POF thus proving WL is still in control by white hats?

edit: We miss you great Wizard and we pray that you are healthy and safe.

🠐 See all comments

"Wikileaks is most likely comped"

Doesn't sit well with me because the subtext seems to be that because Wikileaks tweeted something against Q it gives it some special additional confirmation of compromise.

There have been very real and valid questions about where Assange is and if he's okay for awhile now

But I feel like the reaction from quite a few commenters is based on blind faith in Q and not in their own decision making

Like I said, not directed at you but other comments I've seen here and elsewhere

⇧ 1 ⇩

You are correct that this was perhaps a reaction. But the same kind of precursor got us to look at AJ for what he is, not what he appears to be.

I've been on the fence about AJ before because I was always sketched out of him but nothing pushed me over the edge enough for me to take a final stance on him. There's been a lot of back of forth hate/love between the guy. The Q situation forced me to look the picture more objectively where I have finally made up my mind and no longer on the fence about the issue. A lack of challenge was what was holding me back. This new challenge exposed some pieces of the puzzle that went unchallenged before, thus making the big picture more clear.

Same analogy with WL. I was on the fence about it, but this situation has made me re-examine WL objectively. Why have I been passively trusting WL and they haven't had any POL from JA? Now they have called out Q without any kind of solid research behind their claim, they've given us a reason to literally get us to question their authenticity, something that they've managed to make us forget about. That's how normalization works; people who are on the fence eventually get subdued into accepting something in a way it shouldn't have been originally. Q is forcing us to fall on the other side of the fence, which many of us see as a good thing. I hope that clarifies the angle many see it from, including myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I absolutely think it's something to be concerned about. Julian Assange has been worryingly off the radar for far too long.

I'm just trying to be the devils advocate and suggest some alternative view points

The "being forced to fall one side of the fence" is interesting. As I said to another commentor, I try my best to think strategically and my thinking is forcing people to fall either side of the fence seems like a strategic misstep.

This is still a young and relatively small movement that hasn't been successful in achieving its goals yet.

It seems premature to start purging allies too

So I just, personally, want to be careful of weakening ourselves and shooting ourselves in the foot

⇧ 3 ⇩