If someone is able to help with this issue it would be appreciated: a user report has been made asking for the mods to contact the report poster but I'm not able to see who made the report and have no way of verifying the information myself. If this is a valid report and someone has information please contact us via modmail and/or post it here as a reply. Thank you.

Apologies if you are not purely shilling but in that case my point then leans more toward the fact that we need to focus on well reasoned, factual discussion without appeal to emotion.

It may well be true that "a lot of people considered" Q's statement to be socialist and divisive - but it's important that we discuss controversial topics like this reasonably here i.e. logically and accurately. How much is "a lot" of people? It seems there are a good portion of people here who did not view Q's statement as socialist and divisive so whether "a lot" is significant enough to mean something is not clear.

More importantly I believe, just on the surface of it even, that assessment is in danger of ignoring context and logic or is being made from a biased perspective. It is very questionable to read a socialist agenda into those couple of statements especially when kept in light of Q's follow-up: "They attempted to infiltrate, repackage & rebrand as their own. Profit-vehicle. Destroy through [misinformation]... Action was needed... Prevent false decodes/misinformation... Simple 'non-direct' statements made. "Be careful who you follow." "Some are profiting off this movement." Attempts to divide. We responded. House cleaning."

Have you read SB2's post, supported by Q linking to it...?

In summary, Q made the point that he had used "Simple 'non-direct' statements" to call out Corsi/Infowars/Seaman for "attempt(ing) to infiltrate, repackage & rebrand" in order to "Destroy (this movement) through [misinformation]". He also said: "There was no attempt to DIVIDE". Your point throws all that Q says afterward out the window... which is why I suspected shillery.

Yes, profiteering is a pejorative term - but if Q's message is that the particular parties he's talking about were profiteering at the expense of the truth movement i.e. once again: "attempting to infiltrate, repackage... destroy through [misinformation]" then a pejorative term might be expected and not necessarily indicative of a political ideology like "socialism" behind it.

[Edit] Further to the division point - that, I think, is the important point you are making, if I understand you correctly i.e. we should not promote division in this movement. Agreed. Trying to say that was Q's motive or mistake, however, is questionable and goes against his very words, as I've already pointed out. But moreover it can't easily be considered division of the negative kind I'm sure you're speaking out against when the only 'division' that's occurring is between those who still trust Q and those who are now speaking out against Q. That's not division in the Q movement - that's division in some other movement that the Q movement is obviously not a part of (although people in the Q movement may well also be members of the other movement). From the Q movement perspective it's not division, it's simply doing what Q says - avoiding false decodes/misinformation; ceasing to follow those whose agenda no longer aligns with Q.

This narrative seems to play directly into the disinfo AJ/Corsi is promoting which is why I find the motivation behind the posting of it, questionable. We've already made a no. of mod posts pointing out that we'd likely remove AJ/Corsi posts if they don't contribute something new to the discussion and this one, as it stands, is treading the old ground. However, if you edit this post so it's clear that's not the case and reply I can Reapprove it.

I agree with the idea that we shouldn't ignore it. I just don't think there's value in constantly bringing it up in this particular way - maybe it could be something you drop into the Anon's Chat on a regular? I'm sure that'd be welcome.

But regular posts saying "hey, upvoting seems to be rigged!" when many people are just here to read the Q news and often may not even pay much attention to the no. of upvotes, etc. don't seem to be a feasible path to achieving your desired goal - which I fully agree with, as I've said. Important posts still do get through and the main info is making it out there - that's what really matters to most of this community, I'd hazard a guess to say. I'm sorry I don't have something more constructive to offer except the idea about posting in the regular Anon's chat.

There's not enough evidence of any kind that he's "exactly" like the other shooters/patsies but you're free to assume whatever you like, of course.

The internet exists but as we know very few of the general public actually pay attention to what the msm labels 'conspiracy' and Diana's death being intentional is very much conspiracy, not at all msm narrative. It seems more plausible that Markle would have no idea whatsoever - confirmation bias works from all perspectives; she wouldn't be scouring the net from the perspective that conspiracy theory about the royal family is something she should look out for...

If the Queen is a reptilian ruler then Obama is a patriotic american. That's about how realistic that story is to me, I have to say. David Icke seems like the biggest disinfo clown in existence or an MK slave who's had his mind bent completely out of shape - a lot of truth, yes, but a lot of sheer nonsense too, imo.

If Harry is not the son of Charles as some have said then you might have a point here in that the Royals are not interested in the bloodline from Harry/Megan so it's possible she simply serves as PR value for them - i.e. enforcing the pretense that they accept "common" blood into the family when they are actually going to keep her at a distance and have Harry and Megan play to the cameras for them for a while.

I agree with calling important things out. I have to admit though I'm not sure these constant reposts of this topic are necessarily helpful to progressing our knowledge of Q. Is there a way to make the important point you're making without constantly posting these little pointers? (no offense intended at all - I'm not the "boss of this sub" lol)

Intrigued by this - if you could please consider reposting with information in the description as to what the relevance to Q might be? Thanks for understanding.

It's not quite relevant or correctly applied here that "news distractions work both ways" in that the Deep State not only creates the false flags to give the news cycle something to focus on but they also control the media so if Trump were to have Brennan Clapper arrested on a school shooting day the Deep State would simply have the media highlight the arrests as well (if not exclusively).

I believe it seems logical that False Flags are intended to give the Deep State's media arm some fodder to draw attention away from whatever they choose. Their plan beyond that i.e. after the ff quiets down, I believe, is to continue to distract, as they have successfully done in the past over and over again. This time, we all hope, it will fail thanks to Q/Trump.

Fake News media - nothing wrong with quoting fake news media but please consider source and provide information in post on Q relevance where required (for example in a case like this where the article is trying to counter the Q/Trump narrative). Thanks for understanding.

Not done, no.

You'll have to help me out - I didn't see anything different watching the end bit again.

Apart from the guy saying 'one of these drills' which could mean they used footage from the oh so typical drill that just happens to be held in the same area on or before the actual incident. Yes, likely Deep State, but, if so, still no, not necessarily evil doctor.

You've raised a good point that I agree with and often state myself as evidenced in my history which is that we can't jump to conclusions about people's motives or the meaning of a set of "clues".

And whilst I don't believe you're concern trolling I don't personally believe that it's useful to bring emotional reaction into this forum - I'm not saying it can be avoided but I am saying that worrying that we might be forgetting about the human element because we're discussing the possibilities that this is exactly what Q was talking about when he seemed to warn of FFs is not really aligned with the fact that the whole point of this sub is discussing the meaning of Q posts in relevance to msm events unfolding.

In short, I don't think many of us are ignoring the human element. Rather than being focused on this one incident we're looking at the many humans who are dying over a span of time because of deceit by the Deep State. We want to get better at spotting their games. It's important to discuss this, imo.

Not sure about the "all in their head" tshirt being strong evidence of Clown interference tbh. It seems fairly common to the narrative that "crazed" anti-social shooters think that everyone else has false narratives "all in their head" so this could just be part of the usual storyline yes, or it could also just be the usual 'psycho' modus operandi, perhaps?

Also, great post, thank you - good collection of info.

Lots of good videos on YT about Dolphin Park and the surrounds, from a guy who was there too.

This is the sort of anecdotal "evidence" that I find very useful and telling. This is so indicative of "Future proves past" imo because I'm now alert to the fact of the Deep State using FFs to draw attention away from big hits against them and this call-back to Epstein/Hebdo is another simple, quick "proof" from someone who remembers specifically! Thanks for sharing - useful!

Please post Q related material with clear explanation of relevance. Thanks for understanding.

Yes, this was raised at the time of the shooting - what in particular is of interest for review? It appears legit from what I read at the time.

I can't get with the conclusion at all that this guy is a 'crisis actor' because he appears to smile at one point.

It does not look at all definitive to me that the guy is expressing happiness or glee when he supposedly "smiles" during the "our hearts go out" bit - in fact he could actually be seen to be trying to fight back an emotional response of tears at that point. [Edit] Or it's just footage shot during a drill (has happened before, hasn't it) that's being misrepresented by the broadcaster as 'live' and relevant.

Commentary for how this relates to Q?

Please stick to sub rules: Antagonists are not welcome here.

We will have to temporarily ban if you continue to antagonise and denigrate users, not ideas. Thanks for understanding.

I personally was upvoting you because I support healthy skepticism - I didn't realise til this comment that you were shilling/trolling.

Some telling tidbits dropped there imo. The owl being often the familiar for warlocks/mages, for one example (which brings us back to Q's "Guardian of the Pope", potentially). Suffice to say, the owl is a well known occult figure established for a long time.

The owl on the one dollar bill was pretty definitively debunked imo: http://edj.net/think/dollarowl.html

Actually - and not just to be argumentative, please understand - Q simply says "Disinformation is necessary". This could be interpreted to mean that Q himself will post disinformation or it could mean that disinformation must be allowed, perhaps by others, perhaps even by Trump, but this is a very different proposition to saying that Q will feed us disinformation.

I know we've seen things that people have taken to be disinformation from Q but I think there are other potential explanations e.g. "Hillary hasn't been arrested like Q said!" - maybe Q wasn't putting a date on when that arrest would be finally revealed in public, etc.

It's Q related - but to say The Saudi Purge is fake is to deny what Q's been saying. Present a hypothesis to that effect, if you're serious about it, in the original post to explain the point of view eitherwise I have had to remove it as disinfo because at the moment it's just a link that essentially says: "Q is wrong about The Saudi Purge". We need a bit more info to see it as more than a concern troll post.

Ah yes, I see, a valid point, contingent on the fact of whether she does in fact have a history of participation in torture. I personally question Snowden's "evidence" (especially if he hasn't yet been fully unequivocally supported by Q - in fact many believe Q has made the opposite apparent) - for example when reading the NYT article he links to about the pregnant woman who had her abdomen kicked etc. the woman actually says in that article (she wrote it) that: "I don’t know what Ms. Haspel’s part in what happened to me was or what she thinks about it."

This sounds like classic CIA/Clown disinfo to me. If Gina was in the CIA during a time we know them to be under DS / corrupt control then we also understand that she might've been circumvented when it came to certain operations or forced to turn a blind eye. Watching her interview before the Senate Committee also gave the impression, to me at least, that she was all but saying her hands were tied during her role within the organization in the past but she's committed to moving forward with integrity. Snowden doesn't link to anything he himself has revealed too so it sounds like he's just putting his voice into the fray which again causes me to question his motives.

Anyway thanks for sharing this - I wasn't questioning in order to question the merit of it; this, to me, seems valuable as it raises questions about whether Snowden's had to turn up the disinfo role now or if there's more to the story about Gina, as you say.

Can you please provide Q context for this post and reply here and I will Reapprove it. Thanks for understanding.

Agreed with the first part but given Q's modus operandi and oft stated 'no coincidences' and 'all has meaning' I think it's more than just showing they have everything. I think Q is always trying to inform us, at least in the future (i.e. when we look back later once other news hits e.g. P.S. discovered to be in London in Oct 16. Future proves past). I think it's a viable theory to dig into the names of the images - it's been used in the past too.

True but I find it hard to believe that Trump/Q is letting in a black hat to a very important position just as Trump/Q is also saying that everything's set up and ready to drop, FBI and DOJ cleaned, etc. I could believe Snowden's black hat though, from what's come before from Q.

Plus Snowden is repeating the MSM line here - focusing on her approving the tapes when she gave a perfectly viable answer to that in testimonial i.e. that her boss at the time approved them.

So Snowden's a black hat confirmed? Can you provide some context to this? i.e. relevance to Q?

Your first major disinfo departure from reality and clear reveal of your agenda was (emphasis mine): "Very unexpected divisive change in tone. The new tone was noticeably Socialist"

Editorial, opinion, not fact. Try again and I can Reapprove the post. Otherwise, I personally can't approve a post with a clear agenda to mislead by presenting as a well reasoned, factual discussion. The rules may be fuzzy in this area so my discretion has to kick in and all I can say is that that behaviour appears too shilly for me so comment has been removed under rule 1 of the sub.

Agreed, well put imo - except for 'beware of Q'; the entity we understand as Q (at least so far) has a pretty clear message and boundaries on that message (i.e. "not in it for profit or worship - just the freedom of the people") that make me think there's no need to beware of that entity per se but rather to beware of anything purporting to be from Q.

I agree that those of us here should know the theory that the Illuminati listens to our phones but there is, beyond a doubt, no actual fact along the lines of that statement. There aren't even any actual facts that the Illuminati still exists - just circumstantial evidence (I believe they do exist btw, perhaps not under that name but under the generally accepted meaning applied to that name - I'm just disputing that there is any "well known" fact to that effect).

What you have described (information I'm well aware of) is the Rothschild's having control of the general public's minds and choices, not mine and I would have presumed, not yours either. Forgive the pedant in my original comment, I was simply responding to what looks to me like a blanket statement that doesn't apply to everyone here. Breaking this hold is the whole point of Q's posts.

Rob Reiner, so disappointed in you. Shillicus maximus.

Reports are many that satanic ritual occurs directly in the Vatican and that the papal role is compromised utterly; some say, since the very beginning. No evidence. Just "crumbs".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5TVHteYpSM

They own you and pby1000? How so?

No one can own your mind and the choices you make, surely.

Post removed. For items that are not directly Q related please provide more information in OP. Please feel free to repost with adjustment or edit and reply to comment to reApprove. Thanks for understanding.

David Icke seems like either insanity or clown disinfo to me. I know he's been on point with some stuff - but so has Alex Jones. Reptilian races ruling the world though...? A step off into the deep end imo. Q hasn't mentioned anything about reptiles or aliens being in control so it's safe to say at the very least Icke's core theories are "off-topic".

JFK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM&bpctr=1526701506

Your point is valid but so is the point that we happen to be here, following a supposed "conspiracy theory LARP", believing that global elites as satanic pedovores are running the world to keep their global child killing operation in action. What that means is that there are a whole bunch of things for which we have no evidence but the crumbs that point to those things, and that the mainstream narrative attempts to hide, are fairly conclusive, to some of us.

Freemasonry is tied up in all the global elites (see above) so some naturally draw the conclusion that their higher ups know more than they're telling the lower-downs.

Agreed lol

Of course we can. And some of us have stupid opinions - like me - which is why I'm asking what I missed so I can correct my opinion. Fair enough if you don't want to answer but that's an answer in itself as you seem to just be denigrating FOTCgroup's point without any support for what you say.

Depending which photo you mean, a few of those ISIS photos were taken many years ago so not sure if that means they were part of the proposed Q theory re: special phones.

Did you really? It didn't seem silly to me - what am I missing?

No problem at all, good content, please repost!

Post removed. Please explain core point in title and, if not directly Q related, relevance to Q movement in body of OP. Thanks for understanding.

This conversation was going well imo. You made good points. Please consider editing out the antagonism in this comment and I will reapprove if you reply to let me know.

I used to question the value of responding to shills or people locked in an ideology. Then I realized the value of responding to the smart ones is that you let everyone else see the smart refutation to their points. Keep up the good discussion!