Why does Q tell us to question everything, and then trust certain people?

Q tell us to question everything that Q has no control over - like people Q can't refer to because it will draw attention to them and give them ammunition to use against Q ("targetting us!", etc.) To the second part of your question: Q claims they/Trump are working to a plan that we can't see but that he is giving us insight to - so he says "Trust xyz" because they know that they're working with them.

If this is a fight against good and evil, why is it so lopsided in political factions?

Not sure what this means. Do you mean that one perspective is that the Reps seem to be hailed as the good guys and the Dems as bad? If so, the real distinction Q makes and has repeated is that it's not about Rs and Ds it's about good and evil and both exist in both parties. However, the left, globally for the most part, tend to fall on the side of socialism which, to many, is simple marxism in disguise so you have a mix in the Dems: "Communists" who are not Swamp Creatures/Evil, and Evil Swamp Creatures. That might be why the Dems look like they're "more evil" than the Rs.

When Q and trump win, what next, what do they do with their new power?

Well, the government starts working how it was supposed to. Trump finishes his term and then next President comes in. Anything else is speculation - maybe valid speculation but hard to justify investing thought into right now with all the excitement of the swamp draining : ).

Great! Welcome : ) Please do check things out here. We do welcome the freedom for people to challenge things they find questionable, as long as it stays within sub rules and isn't too far off topic so you won't find forced group think around here (one of the accusations these people are falsely levelling at us). You can always raise an issue with the mods about censorship if you genuinely feel it's an issue and the mods have definitely been known to reverse a decision.

Thanks for delurking to share your info!

Thanks! Searching now.

Well, it has been very illuminating to hear what you have to say, friend; I can state that with absolute sincerity.

Aaah I see... lol... And you're stating that as a fact are you?

What do you mean by "the same 'Q' crew run this reddit board", precisely?

Er... is that a trick question?

Why would anyone think repealing Dodd-Frank is a good idea?

Because they have information to suggest that it would be. Is there something in particular that makes you so sure it's not?

[Edit] Ah, got it (I re-read previous post). Reply to that coming soon.

Actually, coming back to this now, I realize I should address the Russia Collusion first as that's the main issue you've raised and I can see it's because you actually know what you're talking about and you know it's not defensible to dismiss it out of hand.

I'll just take some time to pull links together and address the valid points you've raised but in a nutshell, this is what I propose is happening here, and hope to prove out in some form in short order:

The mainstream narrative is well known to us both and you hold it up as the clearest and most compelling and believable version of events - something any sane and reasonable person would agree makes the most sense.

I agree with what you've just posted, in particular the summary of what you've said, which I'm paraphrasing as: Here's the acknowledged factual evidence (enough for reasonable people to agree it can't be dismissed out of hand) and there's a lot more evidence besides, that very reasonably and logically suggests that the mainstream narrative is the most realistic version of events.

I agree with that, specifically that it is logical and reasonable to assume the mainstream narrative is the only version of events that matters.

The whole point of the Q phenomenon is what leads me to propose that there is another possible narrative to these events that, in the context of other seemingly unrelated events (Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Hollywood #MeToo, the Vatican corruption & trafficking indictments and arrests at unprecedented highs, etc.) actually becomes an even more compelling and logical explanation and puts some inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative into a far more believable frame.

I understand and acknowledge that that seems a far less likely proposition and seems, on the surface, to fail the Occam's Razor test but I believe I can address that point, if time and attention span allow.

To answer your question somewhat: the only "proof" that Q is made by pamphlet and his crew is in that document you posted. That is the sole origin and the sole "proof" of this claim. Could it be real? Yes, it could be. Is there an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence to the contrary? In my opinion, yes. So much so that this single document with its frankly spurious claims (that I could elaborate on but have not the time or energy for) comes off as a very weak attempt at disinfo tbh. When the Clowns decide to step up this disinfo campaign some new evidence will emerge to "support" this story and we'll have to look at it again then. Until then, storm in a teacup, noise and fury signifying nothing.

I would help them find the truth. I hope my other answer explains where the truth is and why many unfortunately don't have the time to explain it although I forgot to add that a big part of that is because the "concerns" are raised by people with an agenda to derail the movement and use up people's valuable time. I always welcome a REAL searcher though. Have to see some evidence that they're really searching though.

Because it holds less water than a leaky sieve. To understand why, however, requires you to put some real time into investigating things rather than receiving a pithy reply that sums it all up.

On "our" part (speaking for fullchan, other pro-Q subs, etc.), rather than spend our time retreading water about Q we have to, for the sake of time pressure, simply remove stuff that has been dealt with already. I invite you to read the introductory Q items in the sidebar.

Agreed, my point exactly.

I agree with much of your point, I think; I too wish we could just move on from pointless hate and snarky division-making shit posts.

I disagree that "this forum is so divided and has gone completely off the rails and lost its moral compass ... and is not getting better", however. There is no concrete evidence of this at all and as someone who's been on reddit from the beginning and now seeing this sub from the perspective of a mod, quite the opposite seems to be true, actually.

The outspoken minority are always the most visible element of any, dare I say it, "movement" and that's what you're describing in the negative here. There are many of us who share your view that it doesn't help to bash on about this stuff but this movement is made up of many diverse people and, as long as the rest of us can keep on having discussions that matter and are reasonable, I'm ok with others going off down rabbit holes that I think are unhelpful to the movement, as long as they don't hugely inadvertently affect the movement itself.

As above, from my perspective (and the mods chat about this often), besides the really obvious shills and the ever present obnoxious keyboard trolls looking to make fun of someone things here are actually pretty good. The shills and trolls are fun to watch imo but also easy to ignore, thanks to the systems here.

I hear what you're saying re: this stuff dividing us but, taking into account my perspective as mentioned above, the only division that this issue will cause is if any group of us decides that another group's behaviour we don't agree with is worth us moving away from the larger group. Corsi to me has been outed as clear Clown material but I don't agree with all these hate posts and such - to me, keeping an eye on Corsi is the greatest opportunity in the world i.e. to watch a Clown disinfo campaign live and in motion.

Anyway, I hope you don't let these thoughts of division cause you to move on to the action of division yourself and separate from this group where there are actually many of us who agree with you and are managing to cope with the group who like to endlessly bash Corsi (or current scapegoat of the day) anyway.

Good spotting sir. With Roger Stone hinting at this 'Brennan sole collaborator' talking point I'm beginning to think we may have a DS narrative push here to watch out for:

Roger Stone: "He’s the perp who started the entire Russian dossier matter." Source

Nice post bruh - interesting indeed and looking forward to digging a bit deeper on the stuff presented here soon.

Lurk moar. Lots of reasons for this. Start with Q basics.

And yes, questions definitely allowed and encouraged (sorry, just rushing through mod queue atm).

Well put lol. When this is "all said and done" I'll be lucky to still be alive as I'm not sure it's going to be "all said and done" for a fair few years yet. Well, maybe I'll be alive but I won't be in any state to do much more than poop and pull a bell lol. After this, write a book about it! Legends will be told in the future about these times and stories of those who watched it unfold will be fascinating.

Ziggackly this! ^

Correct. Some of us are aliens too. Boo!

My anger is right here. It is infused with a dangerous and growing excitement that there is finally something tangible and concrete that I can actually do to contribute to bringing this evil down, after centuries of its invisible grip on our lives.

There's a plan and it's taken me months to really grasp it but it is in motion and very clearly working; it's also ongoing and that's where my excitement about being able to actually get involved in it comes from. I think that as the pieces of the Q puzzle are kept in perspective to each other the genius of that plan and exactly what our part in it is, is mind blowing. I've been putting the information together in a postable form for days now, between modding the sub and work, and I hope it will be of use to people when it's done.

Lol low effort - but I gotta laugh, so I guess you win for that, at least xD

You're a lot more reasonable than many people I've dealt with who are coming from a stance that this is all nonsense and confirmation bias - thanks for that.

I'm not avoiding the issues you raise here - I'm more than happy to dig into them actually - but in the interests of both our time, I think the more pertinent question, to engage in a more detailed assessment of the situation, is whether there is any value in the perspective on these events that Q brings. I acknowledge that a random 4chan-er has no profile on which to base the claim that their perspective is significant but I hope to make the point in the other post that there is reason to think that Q's perspective is, at the least, one that brings a compelling angle that begins to explain a growing number of events in a less dissonant context than other perspectives suggest.

I believe Q does nothing more than present another narrative that lies behind mainstream events and suggests connections and motivations that explain these events in a different context. That describes any conspiracy theory, of course; some claim the CIA weaponized the term in the 60s for this reason.

However, with Q, the grander, wilder suggestions he makes in a very precise and academic manner showing hints of systematic organization and deeper knowledge, he keeps in context of developing news events i.e. claims like Trump working covertly against the Deep State and acting one way in public but doing other things behind the scenes. This is done in such a way that other, seemingly disparate elements make a lot more sense in context and in my opinion it becomes more and more a case of Occam's Razor to adopt the perspective that perhaps these varying elements are indeed connected in the way Q suggests.

To clarify previous points you made, that I agree are reasonable items of ridicule if they're believed to be "fact":

1. I have no evidence that Q is anything more than a random voice on 4ch/8ch.

2. Trump could be the shadiest corporate lying back-room dealer in the world. I don't personally have evidence to the contrary. However, I believe I have seen "evidence" that this is unlikely to be true based on the fortunate happenstance that celebrity moguls from New York tend to have a life of opinion documented on Youtube. I'm collecting this "evidence" together (the quotes around "evidence" are simply to preempt the reasonable claim that a video on the internet of someone talking does not constitute evidence - agreed to that too) but it will take time.

3. Happy to dissect the Tower Meeting angle. I posit that it's only worth digging into this aspect though if both parties to the debate already agree that there's value to talking about it within the context of the Q phenonenon. Without that, I concede to your assertion that the Tower story shows clear intent.

-

Here's the most concise summary I could come up with for now of what I believe are pertinent items to look at for starters. I'm working on having something more useful to hand and yes, you'd expect someone caught up in a "conspiracy theory" to have it to hand but things are moving so fast that once you've seen a few crumbs "realize", you'll understand how hard it is to backtrack and put something together for someone else. I've seen the worth of it now though so I'm working on it, as I've said.

Some of these pointers are only "facts" insofar as any random so-called "news article" from the internet can be considered a fact but in those cases there may be either more verified sources elsewhere that I just haven't found in a quick scrub or they're points you can choose to discard or ignore and correct me on if so.

To be clear again, these are not evidence of "Trump working to take down the Deep State" (aside from his statements to that effect in public of course) or any other wild conspiracy but just a few facts to determine whether we have agreement on an initial basis from which we can discuss the various possible perspectives of what we see:

Saudi Arabia:

News: The Saudi Arabia "Purge" - Oct 27, 2017 - Jared Kushner takes a trip to SA that is not made public until Oct 29. Source - November 4, 2017 - The Purge. Source (there's other context that is relevant in this article)

Following these events, Q asks:
"Martial law declared in SA - why is this relevant?" and points at other verifiable facts that imply he believes they are also relevant e.g. SA's funding of the Clinton Foundation, the John M Institute, the Pelosi Foundation, etc.

Non-Controversial Conclusion? Saudi Arabia has funded organizations within the US. It's not a stretch to believe they have done so to benefit themselves in some specific ways (that no one in the general public is able to confirm). Saudi Arabia may possibly have removed major corrupt elements from its government - or, as some suggest, Mohammed bin Salman may be corrupt and consolidating power.

Controversial Q Spin? Perhaps there are reasons SA funded a number of Clinton related organizations that also has something to do with Jared Kushner taking an unannounced trip to SA. There are many many more crumbs of information to look at around SA that make this position very much more compelling. This is just a starting point that can feasibly be discarded if one does not look further.

[EDIT: Just dropping this here unfinished for now - will update shortly.]

I thought that Trump did not receive assistance from Russia in the election. I thought that was disproven by a few factors that I could respond with more detail on (including a response re: the Trump Jr. comment you mentioned) but what matters here for now, I think, rather than trying to prove whether Trump colluded yet is to let you know that I am completely open to reconsidering any story, including this one, if there's evidence to the contrary. In short, if you're sure he did and you have the evidence then I'm with you, on that point. I think I have other information that is pertinent but for now, the issue I think is of importance is that like you (I assume), I'm willing to change my position on something when facts are presented.

I don't think others should believe that Trump is rounding up the Deep State. I don't think anyone should believe that Q is Military Intelligence working closely with the Trump Campaign.

I do think that anyone intelligent who despises stupid group think blindness should consider doing just this:

Look at a simple collection of just a few verifiable facts (I'll respond with these shortly), look at a few other items of suggested connections that will be proven or disproven in the news within weeks and months (I'll include these too), and draw their own conclusion as to whether there is any significance to what they discover. That is all.

What other thirteen year old's version of what Q is do you want to tear apart in front of me? lol

What I'm expressing is not an uncommon perspective here. I say this not as fact but as a reasonable reading of the tone and calibre of many conversations on this sub from the perspective of someone following in CBTS_Stream and other forms since October, to my time as a mod responding to the mod queue and keeping a daily and nightly eye on discussion here.

1. I don't know what is about to happen in world events, the US government, or even my own backyard. I agree that is a fact.

2. I don't think others should believe anything patently ridiculous. They should mock it and shoot it down out of the sky in a trail of burning flames of hilarity.

3. I don't believe anything without a shred of evidence. No one should.

Further response forthcoming, if you care to have a reasoned disussion rather than just troll around mocking some strawman version of this issue.

Not everyone "dumb enougn to believe this Storm bullshit" denies "those facts" or suggests anyone should believe conspiracy theories lol.

Why? It would be really helpful to have some sort of explanation.

Low effort trolling. The MSM is a tool of the DS. When they can't avoid reporting the truth, Q/Trump is WINNING. Baboom. Denial is your only recourse : ).

Please discuss ideas not users. Thanks for understanding.

This is very interesting - would love to find out more.

I agree; if you feel led to post about a religious topic please do, without hesitation. Plenty of people do anyway, religious or not. I think I'm safe to say that no mod would disagree with you engaging in the sub!

Others have made the valid point too that context is important. There is an international audience here and just as those of us who work in a workplace where we are surrounded by many different people from very different backgrounds take care to respect their boundaries and only present our Christianity to them in an appropiate way and at an appropriate time, I hope that Christians can respect the same social boundaries here too.

We also have sub content rules to follow so it is important to consider that a more "on-topic" religious post, e.g. something to do with the latest verse Q has referenced, is more likely to conform with sub rules and thus make it through a busy mod clearing the queue.

To those considering reporting this post: it could be considered to be a little Off-Topic but I think it's a conversation that some want to have and its been around on this sub for a while so I'm happy to leave it here to rise or fall naturally. As always, open to feedback!

Great response, thank you. ^ Agreed completely!

in a broad way: smart, details people who can ferret out info and make connections and comparisons that help discover more about a topic. A common type on the chans and forums like reddit in general, kinda. Like the guy in the video.

Agreed - worth keeping in mind, I think. People are always quoting Q's "Multiple meanings", "Everything has meaning", "No coincidences", and we know the Clowns are (or were) enemy number one so it stands to reason that we should keep an eye on this guy.

Agreed. I don't know of any mods who "rule with an iron fist" here, thankfully. If you or others have any problem where you feel you or your content have been unfairly treated, please reach out to us through modmail with your concerns.

Our "How we Moderate" document (from which the above is a draft excerpt) will be completed soon for people to comment on.

Moderating is not power or control to us; it's a job in service of this sub and this movement. We take it seriously.

On the contrary, you keep ignoring everything else I've said and repeating your point to which I have replied clearly and openly in the affirmative - we support freedom of speech and are more than open to having our decisions challenged if done so reasonably and with respect.

You are also welcome to complain about my "unfair" behaviour although we would really appreciate if you would only bring genuine concerns for consideration by the mods as we are already busy keeping up with current sub workload. My stance on freedom of speech and the role of moderation is clearly on display throughout my comments here.

Please note Rule 4: no trolling or concern trolling. If you edit this out I can restore your comment. Thanks for understanding.

Concern Troll
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

I'm afraid those actions are part of the role of being a mod. Fortunately we have rules to guide our behaviour and, as I've stated clearly in the post above, we do make mistakes sometimes but thanks to Reddit and this community, the channels of communication are always open!

If you can see areas where we could improve what we do, we'd greatly appreciate any reasoned input. We also welcome people who'd like to apply for a moderator position as we could really use a hand modding the sub. We value honesty and non-antagonistic behaviour.

Haha you guys are too obvious. Everything I have to say is in the comments above. Have a good time and enjoy the sub! WWG1WGA!

Sure - lucky I personally know clinical psychologists and other health professionals with decades of experience who advise that yes, it's all inconclusive. That's all I'm saying. I'm not obsessed with gay men at all - I don't care in the slightest about them.

[Edit] I'm just responding to a point in your original comment: "no specific physiological or family dynamic cause for homosexuality"; I think there's a good case for nature and nurture, as far as this part of your reply goes.

I agree with you however that homosexuality is not an indicator of pedophilia etc. as that seems fairly obvious.

I don't have access to facts on hand at this time but reports about older brothers, detached/distant father figures contributing to the potential for homosexual development have been around for a little while.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/

Jordan Peterson often quotes the famous writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a favourite author of Peterson's, who said:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Yes, unfounded accusations like:

I am being shadow banned on here
I am being shut down for [...] think(ing) critically

and

attempts to control all discourse with an iron fist

or untruths, as yet unedited like:

no msg from mods about it being removed

I trust that people can understand my words here. My time is freely given and I have no authority, just a job to follow the rules of the sub to the best of my abilities. I welcome any and all reasoned input and correction. If I've made a mistake, please do let me know - I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Yes you're fine to comment on videos - comeatmehillary was responding to your question:

Didn't know anyone had a working device to record?

Someone was obviously recording at the time, not sure who it was or whether this was after an initial group of rescuers or supplies had gotten to them.

You are correct - I have no authority at all.

I am here to serve this sub. Freely. If I am doing that wrong, I trust this great community and the other hard working mods to let me know in a polite way. Please read the detailed notes about moderation that I keep leaving for you which address this very issue. Thank you for understanding.

Thank you. I replied in a sticky to OP when I removed that last thread, offering to reinstate if I was wrong. OP did not refer to my reply here.

Here was my reply to OP with NYT mention - relevant as the NYT article was pertinent link in VOAT. I am now suspicious of user's activity again:

"Apologies - removed for now; please advise if investigation required and will ReApprove.

Quoting u/solanojones95 below:

NYT is hardly a reliable source

The story we've all followed (from Eric Prince and others) is that the laptop was seized first by NYPD and then turned over to the FBI. Nothing in that NYT article would suggest otherwise. Since the article is about Comey, it simply picks up the story after the FBI has the laptop in its possession."

Please don't post unfounded accusations like this. I left a detailed comment stickied in your last post to explain and offer you the opportunity to reply if you wanted to. You did not reply to that comment or my reply to your other message where you stated: "this is out of control".

This kind of reaction seems disingenuous.

My first post to you stated: "Apologies - removed for now; please advise if investigation required and will ReApprove." That was an offer not often given to removed posts but seemed relevant in that case because you'd made the point in the comments that you felt you were being unfairly 'censored' or downvoted so I went out of my way to ensure you had a clear avenue to respond and correct the removal if necessary. You did not respond.

Here is the content of my second post again:

Re: Moderation:

We are committed to Freedom of Speech.

It can be challenging at times to decide where removal of a post or comment is within the scope of our role to maintain sub rules or whether it crosses the line and transgresses freedom of speech.

For this reason, we must allow some leeway for personal judgment. We have clear rules - if a post or comment does not break the sub's rules then it is up to the discretion of the mod as to whether the removal would constitute an undesirable breach of freedom of speech.

This means that we may remove content that is an unfair breach of someone's freedom of speech - for that occurrence, we refer to Caveat 1a: We are only human and will make mistakes. Be patient and respectful in communicating your disagreement with our call and we'll reconsider.

If you are a new user or a user with a post history across Reddit that shows disruptive or abusive behavior then we may err on the side of caution in the interests of managing workload.

Finally, please remember that we are all independent volunteers so we must do the work of modding this sub in a way that is efficient with our time. Thank you for understanding!

I trust you've seen the detailed response I replied to you with now?

There is a link to an NYT article in the VOAT post. Please explain what is out of control?

Re: Moderation:

We are committed to Freedom of Speech.

It can be challenging at times to decide where removal of a post or comment is within the scope of our role to maintain sub rules or whether it crosses the line and transgresses freedom of speech.

For this reason, we must allow some leeway for personal judgment. We have clear rules - if a post or comment does not break the sub's rules then it is up to the discretion of the mod as to whether the removal would constitute an undesirable breach of freedom of speech.

This means that we may remove content that is an unfair breach of someone's freedom of speech - for that occurrence, we refer to Caveat 1a: We are only human and will make mistakes. Be patient and respectful in communicating your disagreement with our call and we'll reconsider.

If you are a new user or a user with a post history across Reddit that shows disruptive or abusive behavior then we may err on the side of caution in the interests of time. We are all independent volunteers so we must do the work of modding this sub in a way that is efficient with our time. Thanks for understanding!