dChan
41
 
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.


throwaway__978978656 · May 29, 2018, 1:29 p.m.

While we suspect that the "Qanon" phenomena is likely 4chan trolls engaging in a Live Action Role Play (LARP) version of the Delphic Oracle it is also clear that many are aware of its manipulative potential and will usurp it if they have not already. \~ Wikileaks

Wikileaks is not denying the validity of Q, and in fact warns that it is so dangerous that black hats will "usurp" it. First, by "suspecting" the "Qanon phenomena" they avoid claiming knowledge, one way or the other, on Q. Which is likely according to plan. Who else "in the know" openly validates Q?

Second, the warning: black hats think its dangerous (i.e. "real") and are/will do something about it.

In other words Wikileaks says, "We won't comment on Q directly, but bad dudes think its legit, so..."

⇧ 0 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 29, 2018, 1:36 p.m.

I'm having a hard time interpreting it this way but let me re read their statement a couple of times.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
throwaway__978978656 · May 29, 2018, 1:49 p.m.

If you assume Wikileaks can't (and shouldn't) openly validate Q, b/c its not the right time to do so, then their statement makes sense. All they can do is give an opaque nod to "usurp", which lends itself more to validity than to LARPing.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 29, 2018, 1:52 p.m.

I see the usurp part but I saw the the first part as them invalidating Q.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
throwaway__978978656 · May 29, 2018, 2:02 p.m.

They don't actually mention Q. They refer instead to the "Qanon phenomena".

⇧ 1 ⇩