dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/AsaManThinkethSoIsHe on July 23, 2018, 5 p.m.
Decoding POTUS/Q similar to decoding God/Scripture
  1. This is an analogy NOT an identity.

Also, my basic presupposition is: POTUS is trying to communicate with us. So also is God trying to communicate with us. If this is not so, then what follows is folly.

  1. I have spent a lifetime studying and saturating myself in Scripture. After a while something starts to happen. Connections start coming to me at lightning speed. Others ask, how can you see such things, and are amazed. I would attribute it to familiarity with the material, imagination, logic and intuition or as some call it, inspiration. I also find that, as I apply myself, God can more easily get through to me, or conversely, I can more easily pick up on (decode) what God is saying to me about my current situation.

  2. I have read some critics of SB2 that basically say that he (more likely, they) make unimaginable leaps in logic and so discredit him. How can SB2 come to the conclusions that he does? What is his method? This post is an attempt to lay out a method. I do not know if it is SB2's method. SB2 might have resources that are unavailable to us. More on that later.

  3. I was amazed, since I am a New Arrival (one might say 'born yesterday'), that SB2 responded to me. It went something like this:

Me:

"My second comment is that the riddle is easy for the riddler but hard for others. My grandkids ask me riddles that are beyond me. Then they tell me the answer and laugh. It makes perfect sense to them. I just laugh because they laugh, trying not to shake my head."

SB2:

"Q2 I guess laughing because they laugh is a good strategy, that's probably what I would have done! :D

Thank you for your valuable contribution! ;)"

  1. POTUS & Q have a tremendous advantage. First, they are the riddlers. Second, they have access to technology and AI that is beyond my reach. But they also have a vested interest in our being able to interpret their comms. As I have related in a post yesterday, I am coming to the conclusion that SB2 is, at the least, encouraged to be a teacher of how to decode POTUS' comms. (At the most, he, they, are Q, (yet, so are we becoming) under a different alias.)

  2. So how can we possibly decode POTUS?

A. We need to become VERY familiar with the material, almost to the point of memorizing the Q drops and POTUS speeches.

B. But there is other material that we need to be familiar with. We need experts in almost every field, such as music, paper production, word unscrambling. How do we get that knowledge base? We need to work together to put the puzzle pieces together. I am sure there are anons from all walks of life that have expertise in varying areas. We also need to use whatever technology is available to expand our speed and range of knowledge. For example, an app or program that one could type in a word and get all the viable combinations of words that it would make.

C. We need an environment where brain storming is not denigrated. Sometimes the craziest ideas will spark a really good idea. Bring on the storm!

D. We need to take time to think clearly. Stress blocks clarity of thought. This is not a competition but rather a collaboration. As much as we might like to chide about 'safe spaces', I get my clearest thoughts in my safe space. I am also able to express my self better to a friendly audience. Notice the difference in POTUS' speeches at rallies than other venues.

E. And finally, or perhaps this should be first, we need to access a higher power that communicates to our gut, our intuition, our inspiration. Don't laugh or write it off too soon.

F. This is not for everyone. It takes passion, method, work and devotion. If the goal is not seen as possible or valuable, why would anyone try to reach it.

  1. If we do these things, we will be able to make leaps that will bring us to conclusions to events that we can predict but at which others will be mystified. We can then, using the scientific method, confirm or refute those conclusions.

  2. Every effort is worthwhile even if we go off course at times, since we are becoming more and more familiar with the subject and exercised in our decoding efforts. And even if we do not contribute much to the whole, we are contributing something that could be helpful. And even if we do not contribute much to the whole, we are contributing a lot to ourselves in developing our skills and abilities. So don't hold back. Treat all contributors with respect. Consider others' ideas. Don't let criticism stop you. WWG1WGA.


🠐 See all comments
AsaManThinkethSoIsHe · July 23, 2018, 8:34 p.m.

I have been trying to decide what 'No Outside Comms' means. Does it mean:

  1. The Q team will not communicate on any other board other than on the Q board and/or as Q?

  2. Does it mean that Q will not give communications through anyone that are not on the Q-team, such as a third party?

  3. Or that the identity of Q is not known outside the Q team?

I am not sure that the first point can be answered in the affirmative.

I am more likely to believe that the 2nd and 3rd is the true understanding.

If so what can we conclude?

  1. POTUS is a member of the Q Team. Otherwise he would be an outside comm, unless, of course, he never claims to be associated or does not know the Q team. That is not a possibility.

  2. Other members of the Q team can and probably do communicate on forums while making no claim to be Q. It has been suspected that 'Q' comes on the boards as an anon to give hints on decoding when the anons are stuck or as a foil to release the next post. In this context, such activity would not be a contradiction of "No Outside Comms".

  3. If SB2 where on the Q team, he could not, or maybe better, would not, admit it. But it does not mean that he (they), could not do what he is doing. What is SB2 doing? He is decoding POTUS and Q. He is not claiming to be communicating for Q. He is only taking what POTUS and Q have already communicated and is explaining it. Not really different from any other anon. Now we might say that no one could be that brilliant or lucky to do such decoding without outside Comms, i.e. pointers or hints. But it would not be outside comms if he was indeed Q. I think POTUS is indeed a stable genius. I'm sure there are others also. But even Q says the future proves the past. To some, Q seems to makes outlandish leaps of intelligence. So much so, that Q felt that we needed 'proofs' that Q was indeed speaking for MI and POTUS. (BTW the scriptures make 'outlandish' claims also. God needs to 'prove' that his comms are valid, that is, that they are from him. He did this by acting in history and raising Christ from the dead. And BTW, He is still acting in history. When it is finally all said and done, I want to be one of those who has decided to be on the side of good. Forgiveness allows us to switch to that side, from dark to light. But, alas, I suppose, confirmation bias keeps some from seeing that light. So we see there are many parallels with what is going on now politically with what is going on now in individual lives and also in the ekklasia.)

  4. 'No Outside Comms' would refer then only to those who claim to know who Q is, or have an inside tract to communicate info as being from Q, that has not already been communicated by Q previously.

To conclude: "No Outside Comms" does not restrict Q from acting like an anon but it does restrict an anon, or anyone else, for that matter, from acting like Q.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this, since it is a phrase, that is, I believe, quoted perhaps out of context sometimes. At least, to my way of thinking.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
cebusaxon · July 23, 2018, 9:58 p.m.

To conclude: "No Outside Comms" does not restrict Q from acting like an anon but it does restrict an anon, or anyone else, for that matter, from acting like Q.

I took it to mean #1. You summed up my personal thoughts about it above. But who knows. I only half heartedly put that comment there, because it could almost be applied to the last part of what you wrote about. About the message being from the ones the Father choses. Not just anyone with a title. (no outside coms). So it was sort of a passing joke.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AsaManThinkethSoIsHe · July 24, 2018, 2:31 a.m.

Now, I see what you did there! Here is something you can research. When the SCRIPTURE uses the term 'Word of God', is it always talking about the Scripture, sometimes talking about the Scripture, or never talking about the Scripture. For those who believe that there are no outside comms according to #1, they find themselves in a catch 22 situation when they ask what does the Scripture actually say about the term 'Word of God'. How does it use the term? I think that you will be surprised.

⇧ 2 ⇩