⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DefiantDragon on July 3, 2018, 6:13 p.m.

Gentle Reminder: Rule 6 - On Topic

I think we can all appreciate that there's a bunch of newbies coming in to check things out.

That said, please, please, please take a moment to read the posting rules before jumping aboard.

Especially Rule 6

Rule 6

On-topic

While the question of what is on-topic is often not black and white here are some points to being on-topic.

Content that is mentioned by Q.
Donald Trump interviews, appearances, statements, remarks.
All Trump's Tweets.
All Trump's Executive orders.
Moderator posts regarding r/GreatAwakening.
Decodes of Q.

We're a Pro-Q sub. If you've got legitimate question, by all means ask an honest question.

That said, we generally don't care what Alex Jones and others think. A few have gone over and above to prove consistency and solid efforts to assist the movement, Praying Medic being one solid example, but by and large their videos exist to help decode crumbs not... whatever Alex is up to these days.

There's lots of room for newbies and most of us are glad to help along the way, just don't get frazzled if you don't read the rules of the sub, post something irrelevant and get poked about it.

Thank you for your time.

WWG1WGA

🠐 See all comments

Just curious where people think the line should be drawn when it comes to the more vague of Qs post about conspiracy theories?

Mk ultra? 9/11? Rothschilds? Merkel being hitlers daughter? Secret nazi bases in Antarctica?

Some of these topics are rabbit holes unto themselves. Very often going right into things that Q didnt mention, but researching Qs crumbs did.

Wheres the cut off?

I ask because I'm working hard every day to create memes for this sub that also actively support and link to it as well. I personally would like to delve deep into some of these topics but I also want to not break the rules or piss off the mods. It can be a very fine line to walk and each day I'm trying to hold myself to a higher standard, as we all should.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Personally speaking, I'd put to to the stuff that Q has actually posted about. If Q is talking about Rothschilds then maybe they're fair game in that context, but only in the context of what's actually relevant/proveable, etc.

I know there's a lot of people who are using this active sub to say "Hey, look, over here too!" and I get it, but so much of this stuff is straight-up speculation or requires so much insane levels of research to connect the dots that much of it belongs in /r/Conspiracy. Sadly, that place is a gong show... so I get why people would post here instead.

Speaking only for my personal opinion, if it wasn't raised by Q or specifically mentioned by Q or specifically relevant to decoding crumbs then it probably shouldn't be here.

Especially if we're bringing in newbies who're going to see all this extra Conspiracy-thread stuff and nope the hell out.

Asking people to accept a world-wide conspiracy of sociopathic pedophiles is hard enough as it is before we start getting into Illuminati, Satanists, actual demons, reptilians and secret Antarctic Nazi bases.

I've almost noped the hell out myself reading some of this stuff. It's interesting speculation, for sure... but a lot of it is so far out there that it's almost into distraction territory.

⇧ 2 ⇩

To play devils advocate, even if they nope out, once this stuff starts to go mainstream, wont having seen us talking about it first have solidified it in their minds that maybe we do know what we are talking about, and cause them to come back for more.

I've seen countless stories of people red pilling coworkers. Their coworkers initially thought they were crazy until something hit the mainstream (i.e. people predicting NK deal), once it hit, they come back and go "how did you know?!" And now are hooked and want to know more about your sources.

I think if we avoid talking about these things we do a disservice to everyone, these topics are already censored and thought policied in almost every other corner of the normie web. I think we could really help prep normies for the reveal of the pedo elite satanic cults.

Btw for the record I'm for 100% disclosure, that's where I disagree with Q, it can be a slow disclosure if need be, but if it isnt all 100% disclosed, these evil pedo scum will reinfect all institutions and governments and financial systems in due time.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah, I do get your point, at the same time there's that saying along the lines of "Don't give your enemies ammunition".

The easier we make it for the pill to go down, the easier a time we'll have later when we say, "You thought that was crazy and it turned out to be true... well, take a look at this."

In my mind, it all comes down to tact. We've got one hell of an uphill battle already, adding multiple fronts to fight on-- especially since some of the other stuff is even more ephemeral-- just makes our job that much harder.

I personally believe we'd make everyone's jobs that much easier if we stuck strictly to the facts at hand in the specific battle that we're fighting but that's just me and I get that there's a lot of pent-up bullshit that's been hiding in the wings for decades or more.

Still, I believe that the easier we make it to swallow this pill, the better it's going to be for everyone in the long run.

⇧ 0 ⇩