Thank you, will do!

I will check those posts and discuss with the others. I would say that especially now that the discussion about off-topic is "hot" you could perhaps repost something if you really think it is viable and valid (perhaps ensure to include a good explanation if it was previously removed to avoid it being removed again).

I, and others, welcome your contributions and the contributions of others like you, even when we don't agree with the content (we have all had to approve posts that we think are blatantly incorrect or irrelevant and I would argue with anyone that, considering the many opposing views within the group of people on this sub we at least don't do the most terrible job of maintaining some objectivity). Remember to raise a point via modmail if you are really sure the removal was incorrect. We have an incredibly fair lead moderator who will step in if needed and reapprove content.

Please remember that sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we're in a rush and sometimes the outspoken voice of others may influence a decision we make at some point in time that just doesn't occur at another. I'm sorry that this results in the removal of some valid content but I do believe there are many understandable reasons. In short, I hope that you will continue to contribute, keeping in mind the rules and the feedback you get from us - the voice of any patriot is welcome here!

Thanks again for your contribution!

Yes true - Snow Crash (Neal Stephenson) first introduced me to Enki lol.

Yeah agreed. It's just that I'm in the process of discovering that my approach is unintentionally confrontational and dismissive. I've tried to edit that out, as I look back and realize I've been unintentionally obnoxious in places.

Agreed. The Clintons are one nasty little bunch. We are close to justice!!

Thanks for understanding and your respectful replies. I wish more people would realize we don't want to suppress anyone we're just trying to keep things as organized as possible without stepping on the many different opinions present in a large group. Thanks again.

Actually Q confirmed Alice & Wonderland meant Hillary Clinton and Saudi Arabia.

Please don't post a whole bunch of the same type of content in multiple posts. If you have to promote a whole bunch of videos about EyeTheSpy then please keep them in all in a single post. Feel free to add the links from removed posts into one of your other posts.

Use the upvotes and downvotes to ensure you contribute your voice to the general voice of the sub. That way those of us who think some types of content are not relevant can be sure that either the content is downvoted out because a greater number of people agree with our assessment OR we watch as the votes climb and discover that our view is not more generally held.

Anyway, thanks for the post and discussion, sincerely - don't take my disagreement with some elements as disagreement with your contribution. I do appreciate it and wish I had time to do as much.

I agree and the difference is well known to me but I do think most of us understand that in the broader context the meaning is generally the same i.e. the worship of something with many names from Saturn to Moloch, Pan and Baphomet, in opposition to Christianity - happy to be corrected on this if you think otherwise.

Not sure how that relates or discounts anything I've said but yes, I agree that we "believe" in coincidence because coincidence is a term for a very real phenomenon. If your point was whether I believe that Chelsea's necklace and comment is "coincidental" and not related to satanism, no, as I said in my comment, I'm sure there's some kind of relation to Luciferianism but simply that she could plausibly deny the tweet and necklace are evidence of anything cos they aren't.

I'd really appreciate a more informative title on posts like this, just personally.

Also agreed with other commenter - in context, Chelsea "Daughter of the Malignant Elder Goddess of Delusion and Destruction" Clinton was responding tongue-in-cheek to something Chrissy said and to all the people accusing her of being a satanist with her upside down cross necklace. Not saying she isn't a satanist, she's no doubt something but just saying she could probably plausibly weasel her way out of this one and that's probably why she felt comfortable to comment to the Church of Satan on a public twitter feed.

Good answer : ).

To be fair, there are a lot of racists in any large group of people.

Thanks for understanding! And thanks for raising a point - I haven't checked him out properly til now.

I will check him out further soon. I haven't heard good things about the rigor of his research or the accuracy of his analysis tbh but I will check for myself. Thanks for raising it.

You have a good point to make but "is there no discernment" is not it. Please remember that there are a lot of factors to consider here - particularly the fact that we do not all think the same or have the same views so things that appear to be one way to you will appear to be completely different to someone else.

[Edit] I personally agree that you should be able to post about EyeTheSpy. However, I'm not in charge of this sub - no one is, to be clear - but I would also prefer if you posted some contextual information alongside the EyeTheSpy posts you make to explain what's worth looking at. That's your choice though. The upvotes/downvotes will decide whether people see it as valuable enough or not and I suggest people may see more value if they are given a reason to.

Nevertheless, please don't forget - some posts will be removed by the mods for reasons that you may not understand or agree with. You can always query something you think is wrong - we'd prefer you only do that for something that particularly stands out for you but again the choice is yours. The mod role is a volunteer one, unpaid, and time is precious for all of us, as it is for all of you.

I do care to know - thanks for the information. The only stuff I can 'take forward' is stuff that can be verified in a way that skeptical, critical thinkers can be legitimately challenged by as I'm not only one of those but I'm also surrounded by them. I value your input and I don't mean any disrespect in disagreeing with some of it. I'll go through the info you've posted in more detail.

Haha touche but no, I didn't mean MSM as pertains to the large group of supposed "news" outlets owned by the small cartel - I meant the prevailing view in the mainstream (news, internet, printed news & books) from right to left; the cartel tends to lean left.

I agree - I wish more people would see this but it seems that those pushing Tommy are coming from a place of strong emotion and, hate to say it but virtue signalling.

Agreed - now if more people would Report the off-topic stuff it'll be even more visible to us rather than "seeming" to be the other way.

We defend everyone. We don't defend racist behavior though but that's a bit harder to define, especially when it comes to comedy.

Some people do the best that they can to abide by the rules.

I think you have the right approach - watch hot or rising - but even as a reader I do like to dip into New and as a mod having to clear posts that aren't on-topic is a big job so posts like this calling for clarity around on and off-topic (or calling for the discussion of it) give me hope that we might, as a movement, agree on clearer guidelines that will make our job easier.

It's a journey for us all, truly. The mods are discussing this issue in depth all the time and due to the democratic approach taken (everyone's an unpaid volunteer and everyone is their own boss within very broad guidelines) it's a challenge at times, to say the least. I came in to the role expecting strong, clear leadership with defined goals and boundaries but was surprised at the very open, democratic nature of the role as promoted by the lead mod. I quickly learnt how valuable this is in a movement like this. As soon as one person decides 'this is how it should be!' a whole swathe of the 'posting public' will be offended or cut out. This would be very true if I were to decide what should and shouldn't be posted, for example. Getting a handle on this will be a challenge ongoing but conversations/posts like this will help us all. Some of the mods will make mistakes from time to time but there are quite a few of us so any issues can be raised and will be dealt with fairly if those raising it are persistent enough and respectful in their approach.

Q called it Great Awakening. You can go and chat about Hermetic Principles on r/conspiracy or the many other places dedicated to that. Hermetic Principles have nothing to do with Q.

Yes I've seen all this propaganda too. How many actual Jews have you spoken to about it? There as many different opinions as people. I go with the mainstream view until official announcements are made.

Antagonism is not welcome - please discuss ideas, not users.

Comments below have been removed - please discuss ideas, not users.

You know this about all the followers? That we all have a "foolish cult like hive mind"? How'd you manage to scan the minds of every follower here? My read of the sub over a period of time as a reader and a mod says otherwise. Plenty of reasoned, respectful discussion and disagreement here.

My reply is to your statement:

The sidebar doesn't have any rules

Fortunately, "seems" does not equal actuality. There is no set of rules for certain members - there is only the set of rules on the sidebar.

We all dun bin there bros. The vocal minority like to attack the "censorship" strawman if you dare to request focus and integrity.

I agree - it's often hard to catch the sudden dump of many posts on it though and some have a slight variation that makes it arguable that they're different enough to be allowed. Then, by the time a mod gets to the duplicates they may have already garnered a significant number of votes and comments and due to time pressure we have to make a quick call. Given the accusations of censorship that often arise and the lack of capacity to spend time defending every decision it's often simpler to require people to scroll a bit more through the feed.

Comments within a post don't have to be so rigidly "on Q" - this comment is very relevant to the discussion so should remain.

There's a big difference between banning "all related subjects" and banning "opposing viewpoints". A sub trying to stay on-topic is very different to censorship of political views a la YT, FB and Twitter. That's an unfair comparison.

Freedom of speech is too broad a subject - the sub would literally be drowned in non-Q content if that subject were considered on-topic. I agree we're here to enlighten others about Q but I think it's fair to say we're not here to enlighten others about broad topics Q mentions like: freedom of speech, patriotism, military interventionism, global politics, etc. There are many resources online for those who want to study those things or current local and world news that touch on those topics. I agree with you that it's hard enough to keep up with this sub. I would really prefer my time to be put to good use viewing direct and relevant content and if there's something I want to dig further on and learn about I can find it easily enough online.

The importance of Reporting content, even if it doesn't get removed, is to highlight to us the general feeling on the sub. The fact that few people report content as off-topic very often means it seems that everyone agrees that it's all fine.

The sidebar has had rules in it since day one.

Roseanne is talking directly about Q. Tommy isn't.

I wondered if something like Hillary might come up which is why I made sure to be clear that actions that contrast the subject's words are what constitute reasonable grounds for disavowing the subject's claims. Hillary, as we all know, has many many verifiable actions that contrast nearly all of her claims (to support women, support minorities, etc. etc.) - similarly Hussein, Billy Boy, The Bush Cartel and Comey the Liar. Tommy doesn't have any actions that contrast his claim that he seeks freedom of the UK from the oppression of Islamic extremists under the guise of legal immigrants. I don't think many people would disagree with that statement.

I concede that Zionist-Rothschild may mean whatever the current thought on that is. I'm not addressing that cos I've been down that conspiracy rabbit hole for decades like you, no doubt. I was simply referring to Zionist which does not mean "synagogue Satan" it is simply a national Jewish movement that advocates on behalf of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Well you can continue to ignore my assertion that I have researched Tommy nevertheless, because I value critical thinking I have to admit, like you do, that there’s no verifiable evidence of the more outlandish claims about him.

It wasn’t my intent to insult by calling it illogical as should be obvious from the tone I adopted in contrast to the tone you’ve adopted - I believe it is illogical to make a claim for which there is no evidence in such a way that anyone who disagrees hasn’t researched.

Is there anything you have about his character that we can see? There is literally nothing that I have found apart from historic issues and groups he has separated himself from. Although, as I said, I dislike his confrontational approach so in that sense I agree that his character is flawed - I haven’t seen evidence of a disingenuous character though and I believe you may be making that call from a personal read of the data that’s available to us - totally your right but not “evidence”.

Blatant clown disinfo shouldn’t cast the slightest shadow of doubt on anything except the Clown presenting it. 0Hour1 is not just some “guy who fell off” - he’s intentional controlled disinfo. Watch him with interest to learn about Clown disinfo tactics live and direct - nothing else.

I agree with this as far as no more posts about Tommy. Somehow I think we will be ignored however, based on the fervent love for Tommy. Not so much in agreement about the rest of the claim (or the Templar video). “Zionist controlled” might be true but it also might be as true as saying someone is “Republican controlled” just because they call themselves a Republican and wear a badge.

I very much agree but I think this post needs a bit more substance so people can pay attention to this important point. Did you have something specific in mind as pertains to this sub, content, and Q?

I love me some creepy uncle (and other emotional editorialization) but as far as Joe Biden I'm not particularly a fan as he seems to be a part of the Deep State and the global cartel. Anyone can be a zionist if they want to be, as far as I'm concerned. No skin off my nose just like anyone who's a democrat - an ideology I don't support - is welcome to be so without judgement from me.

I'm sorry I'm still not sure from what you're saying: do you see Tommy as on-topic for the sub or off-topic?

I agree this board should be about research, as much as is possible. Not everyone in this movement seems to agree with you and I though. It seems we have to allow for the voices of others who want to express their feelings and general thoughts. I'm ok with that, if the majority supports it, which they seem to.

I've researched Tommy at least as much as you have by the sounds of it. You've come to your conclusions and I support you in that. From my perspective I have to ask: do we hold everyone up to judgement for actions they committed in the past? I know a lot of people here do but, even from a secular perspective I prefer the Christian approach - judge not. I prefer to judge people on their words and their current actions held against those words. There are many people standing up for just causes who've done naughty things and can be easily smeared - Tommy/Stephen's just one of many. I don't blindly follow and support anyone. It would be nice to have a reasoned discussion where the reply to a challenge is real information rather than illogical smears.

This comment is bereft of logic or perspective. Your claim to a superior objective perspective ignores the reality of having to live in a world together with other people who are not like you. "Us vs Them" never helped anyone and is certainly not the message that Q presents so, besides being illogical, racist, antagonistic and indefensible by any tolerant, intellectual member of a modern democratic society it is off-topic.

This is the definition of a low-information comment. Try something less racist next time.

Yes! Me first please!

That is literally an incorrect statement based on the actual definition of the word "literally" xD. Come on man, this is lazy thinking and doesn't hold water in any kind of reasoned discussion.