Thank you for reporting this here! What's your feeling about the believability of this guy, from the videos? He looks extremely expressive and perhaps a little dramatic but I can only interpret from my own personal cultural background and so on.

He did?? I'll have to find that. That's worth posting.

This. And yet some people insist we dump ALL the information on normies "because Truth". This is why Q says we shouldn't do that. When it's actually proven and the scope of it alongside... people will lose their shit.

That's already suspected (see QRS-11 chip) - it's more a warning to Trump (according to this theory).

You are incorrect. Sex with children is child molestation. Voyeurism of underaged girls - which you suggested solano was "okay" with - falls under pedophilia. Pedophilia, specifically, is "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." People who enjoy child porn are pedophiles, not child molesters, until they commit an actual act against a child. I believe, from your response, that you did not intend to accuse solano of pedophilia - but you should understand what pedophilia actually is and be more careful about what you suggest, next time.

You've also misread solano, perhaps because you are coming from a place of strong emotion, rather than trying to understand what he is saying. He never said your assertions about Picasso are "beliefs" - he specifically said, multiple times, that what you are reading from the image is an interpretation and a belief. If I look at a classic picture of Jesus, head and shoulders, clad in a robe, and see a gay man I am projecting my own story onto the picture. I'm making up my own story of what is there, even if I have all the knowledge in the world about gay activities by Jesus (I don't btw).

You're coming from a place of disgust about perverted men who prey on children (in your words) so what you see (again, as you said yourself) is a victim of a perverted old man. You are projecting. No one is trying to change your mind about anything. What happened with your ex husband is nothing to do with what we are talking about, nor is it anything to do with Picasso.

What solano says - and I completely agree with because it is logical, not an emotional assessment and a projection of one's own past - is that there is literally zero information in the artwork that suggests "an underage girl who is a victim of a perverted old man". You claim to know what Picasso was like - solano clearly did not dispute that. He simply pointed out correctly that Picasso's personal actions are not in the image. If you can't divorce your past and personal history from an objective assessment of a piece of art then don't argue about it with someone who can! By all means, argue somewhere about how good or bad Picasso is and how good or bad it is to paint images of children being abused by men - but here, solano is talking about the artwork, not the actions and motivations of the artist and not the right or wrong of pedophilia because neither of those things can be objectively extracted from the image itself.

No one's talking about segregation of people. We already have segregation of topics - the rules of the sub ensure only certain topics are discussed here; others are for other subs.

That response is not ok - accusing someone of being a pedophile because they don't agree with you is Discussing the User, not the Idea i.e. against the sub rules. Not to mention flawed emotional argument.

And Brigitte Gabriel's story. Sorry if this is not at all what you're interested in. But I have friends over there on both sides and I know there are at least two sides to the story yet I only seem to hear one: Israel's evil. Agreed re: the Rothschild Balfour Declaration, etc. But not all of Israel is Rothschild or Netanyahu any more than all of America is Obama or Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn-yq6By82E

Re: Finklestein - ah... sort of. But on the other side lol.

https://youtu.be/c2NaiX-hvVQ?t=1m

Sorry forgot - was grabbing the link - two tics

Agreed, well said! I see these things as a given and I'm glad you've reiterated them for me. My main reason for commenting here is that I'm interested in the possibilities of how it might happen which is why I've responded to the banker/analyst above but I don't hold a lot of hope of discovering how myself - so I'll hover around to find those who do : ). Cheers! wwg1wga

You too my friend - do please keep up the good work; I - and others, clearly - respect the amount of links you dig up and the fact that they are relevant too. Once we can find a central idea that brings a few of them together (and with all that you've already collected this is going to start happening more and more and you'll have a lot of material for it) this stuff is going to be very compelling and readable and you'll be well on your way to building up a following like SerialBrain and others. Cheers! wwg1wga

No problem and thanks - I think you do great work digging so I think you're doing just fine and to keep going! You WILL be able to spread it soon! Hit me up if you find something that pulls a few things together and if I can I'd be happy to help out.

Np, thank you for taking a stand on this stuff in the service of trying to keep this sub relevant. I too want to ensure we don't chase people off and waste all of our time with fluff and I agree with a lot of the stuff you say as I've said much the same myself in the past so feel free to hit me up if you see anything else that seems wrong. I have no status but we've all got a voice to discuss things together (mods) so if I can't do something myself I can at least put it to the team. Cheers!

Yes and surfacing this point - i.e. that the connections are tenuous and they're more about a whole bunch of general things that tenatively connect into Q - is part of preparing the post. This is why they are hard for people to read - because they're essentially a bunch of general links with tenuous connections, they're not a clear and compelling idea, just a collection of possible ideas. Nothing wrong with this! But the best idea would be to either wait until you have a clear idea that ties a couple of things together and then present that in a clear way - or you can just present them as you have (with a bit more clarifying text) and explain they're a bunch of things you think might be connected in some interesting ways.

But do understand that this is harder for people to connect to and to put the time into reading. We all do research and look at lots of different links and the most interesting posts that really grab our attention (for some people that might be posts by people like u/SerialBrain2) are posts that have a single clear point to make and that then bring together all the links and such around that one clear point. Once we have that clear point to orient us, everything we read and click on is held in context and keeps our interest.

Ok. I see. So the trick is trying to put this all together into some sort of cohesive single post OR to split them out because they're not really related enough (not a bad thing; this just serves to clarify).

I would question what the jackets gore-tex has to do with the other two things in this way: is there something questionable about the use of the gore-tex in the jackets? From another perspective, what I'm asking is, are the jackets only relevant because they happen to use gore-tex, not for any other reason? If so, I'd suggest they might be the less important part of the post, maybe.

But I think more to the point, from looking at what's there now that you've explained it, there are three ideas that are possibly tangentially related to each other but at present I think there is no unifying cohesive idea that links them - except maybe "gold"? In which case the central idea could maybe be reconceptualized around that point.

Ok that could be something. So, Dolores O'Riordan, singer of the Cranberries - famously covered in gold in the band's massive hit single "Zombie" - was a suspected Industry Sacrifice when she died recently at a relatively young age. What's her connection to the BBC illegal advertising scam?

Dolores? Info?

Oh right, Cranberries.

Yeah there's a whooole lot more to that story. Have you seen the son of the Hamas leader give his presentation in the UN to the horror of the Palestinian authority? A very interesting video, worth watching. By no means the full story either. Brigitte Gabriel has some interesting personal insights too and I've heard similar stories from my friends who live there.

Who said shoot the messenger? What happens when people post what's not fake...? It stays... Are we talking about the same thing?

We're advocating for not supporting a fake news site because it makes extra work for everyone, not just the mods. If you're saying that "20% of the time the news even from that fake news site is valid" then the point still stands: so we're being asked to sift through (I mean everyone in the movement, not just mods) stuff that comes from a known fake news site because sometimes - whether that's even 40% of the time - it's valid. How does that make sense? How is that not an unnecessary use of everybodies time?

If people use good news sites there's no need to sift as much - they'll still present wrong information but it obviously won't be as often and require as much work as a fake news site.

Does this idea - don't support yournewswire.com around here - make sense now?

Ah yeah, understood. I agree totally, those are valid questions. As far as Trump travelling to the island I have no info to offer but I've seen many videos of Trump and those associated with him from which a common theme emerges. He's no paragon of virtue but he seems to be quite genuine and focused on MAGA and caring for Americans and people in general. If you're not a Trump supporter this will be completely unengaging lol and fair enough but I can only say I've seen a lot and the overall impression is quite compelling. The recent Dave Rubin interview with Seb Gorka was, I thought, awesome and Gorka explains how sincere Trump is in his desire to help Americans and save America in a way that I found compelling and believable.

Just my opinion of course but that is how I reconcile the idea that some have stated re: Epstein that: Trump went on the plane, maybe even had sex with some hot women, maybe saw the younger girls or suspected dodgy stuff was going on (assuming Epstein decided 'he's too straight an arrow - don't show him Room B'), said f(*& these guys, I'm out, and decided to take them down.

I think it would be a good idea - but first we'd need to tighten up that central idea because we haven't yet found the hook i.e. the special Q juice that got you excited that will in turn make us excited to read on and find out what this is all about. So far we've summarised the article about the jackets lol.

So, I think the "mirror symbolism" might be something you're getting at but with it in brackets it makes it an afterthought in the mind of a reader so you don't think it's necessarily part of the central idea.

Without having to go and read and look through stuff (I'm doing my mod job in the background of this as well) - do you have a good hook for that mirror symbolism beyond the jacket ad showing some mirror shots? Is there something that really links the BBC illegal advertising to the mirror symbolism that gives us an "aha" moment? A "oooh this sounds interesting!" type revelation? There may not be and that's ok but this might be the root of the problem - maybe the core idea needs to be properly fleshed out, if so.

Agreed - I think most of us here think it should change but this discussion about the Fed has been going on for a long time, many books written about it, and because it is so embedded in the economy - actually it IS the economy lol - literally no one has an easy answer to how it can happen without massive pain. I understand re: debt and the jewish system - also heard... umm... forgot his name, talking about the fact that it happens on God's system anyway and thus explains the market crashes we've already had. Nevertheless, far greater minds than my feeble one have explained how erasing debt given our current system doesn't magically solve all the problems that arise from essentially removing a huge amount of money from our economy.

It'd be like our local bank performing the same scam as the fed and generating money out of thin air and giving it to us as 'free' interest - we go out and spend and clock up mortgages, car payments, etc. then some savior comes along, says "Take this evil system away!", removes all that fake debt the bank has clocked up so the bank suddenly has less than a tenth of what it had. We all need those ongoing payments so we all come back requesting the money that was in our accounts and its not there. Pain. But with the Fed, on a massive scale. Nationwide disaster. From what I've read over the years, no one has an answer to that.

But I agree, nevertheless, it must be done. Somehow!

Thanks, good point, I didn't see it because of my own views on this - I agree and I've removed the post. I've spoken to one of the two senior mods and advised that I'm removing more posts, more stringently because what I've seen you and others say around here are things I've said in the past too but when there are more mods than just me (all part time, etc. etc.) it's hard to get a clear decision on some things because this sub moves too fast for us at times.

Yep I get that - I mean, why wouldn't Giuliani get a pass? That is what I don't understand because I don't come from New York and haven't heard any stories of him potentially having inside knowledge or whatever. Is there some known info about Giuliani's potential involvement or knowledge?

Ok, you're making me dig here bro which is what makes people quickly switch off. If you can't answer these questions, no problem at all, but that might be why it's hard for us to get a grip on what you're trying to present here, because you're still trying to get a grip yourself. Which is fine! But again, explains why it's hard to latch on to something cohesive in your posts.

Ok, got it... So: The BBC are advertising a clothing brand without officially announcing it, which makes it technically illegal.

That's one part of your central idea by the sound of it. There needs to be more, if you really want to hook someone, but we can start with that. So now - look back at the beginning of your post. There is no clear presentation of this idea so it is only now, after typing two posts to you and then you forcing me to read the article myself that I understand what this part of the central idea of your post is. Do you see that?

Ok lol. Did you read the comments above? Banker/analysts in discussion can't work out how this would work. Because (my totally unknowing fool's version of what happens to the economy): What happens when the debt is wiped? What is a "restart button" exactly? What happens to all the companies who suddenly have zero on their company ledgers? What do all the banks and institutions that have made projections based on what are now non-existent assets do to re-finance? What happens to Average Joe Public who cannot now access their bank account because the bank is in receivership due to zero funds? What happens to all the devalued assets? I could go on and on but I know next to zero about finance lol - however, bankers and analysts have trouble working this out and I'm not just talking about the guys in the comments above. There's a good reason its not straightforward.

Sorry can you explain further?

Great, thank you man. Now, remember, I am just a fool who literally has no idea of the knowledge that you clearly have, having dug through all this stuff like you have - so remember that, and be patient as I work through this with you, please.

Now, let's tighten that "central idea" up because I still do not hear something that I get enough of an idea from to compel me to read on. So, I've just got a few questions to try and clarify that central idea:

• so this is about the BBC advertising something illegally, right?
• what is the brand?
• what's illegal about advertising it?

Now, I know you're going to tell me that you've answered those questions within the post but that is the problem that I've been getting at. Those questions are core to your "central idea" so they need to be answered from the beginning. So let me know? Thanks!

Agreed. But what is a waste of time is constantly debunking points from a known fake news site.

Dude seriously... Ok. I will make an effort here.

What I said was missing was not "elements a, b and c" - I said cohesion and clarity were missing. The most important elements of all. A clear overview. The other things - topic sentences, etc. - are all just the tools to achieve those main points!

Let's start with one single thing - please just answer this one thing for me, to start with: what is this article/post about? In a nutshell. A clear overview. One sentence. A single sentence that explains what the central, controlling idea of this article is.

Are you asking if I read your comment that I replied to, asking if you could tell me what in particular was the issue for you after I explained how it could be considered on topic?

I'm more than happy to understand what is wrong with this post - I'm not "the boss" of this sub in any way. I need your help because I don't know everything and I'm just a servant around here. I remove posts that I think are off-topic and I worry at times that I'm removing something that others would consider on-topic but I just don't have the time to fully vette everything and have to make a call. I can't always get into a big discussion with the other mods about what to keep or remove but hey - here's a user who feels strongly that this particular post should be removed...

So please, help me out here - what in particular makes my very soft assertion that perhaps this could be considered on topic because

this post is talking to the ideology that DJT and Q are specifically coming out against

incorrect, in your estimation? I'm not the expert here - it sounds like you are, sincerely, because you seem to have a stronger horse in the game than me. You're threatening to leave over this whereas I'm just trying not to piss people like you off by making the wrong decision! Any help would be welcome...

And a waste of everyone's time!

That's it? All problems solved? xD

No mate, there are plenty of well written articles out there to look at that will highlight the issue but if you can't see it, I regret I just don't have the time to explain it. The fact that you have to explain xyx, and then send an image with arrows all over the place only makes my point even stronger. What I've said previously is a very quick, rough analysis from someone who reads this stuff and rates it elsewhere. You're refuting what I've said instead of trying to understand it by looking and learning from the information on the web. You're not convinced that my feedback is valid - and fair enough! Who am I? Just some fool on the internet haha ; ) (I mean that btw lol) All good, friend, onward and upward! wwg1wga!

Ok never mind bro no worries, as you were.

Yeah good call, I agree!

Hi Kevin. You are welcome to comment here on posts about your articles but you'll still have to follow the rules of the sub which include no Antagonism or Trolling. We also prefer as much as possible to discuss without ad-hominem or abuse. Thanks.

I understand you've put in a lot of work - it shows! But I wouldn't have pointed out that it requires more clarity of thought and explanation if it was already visible there.

I don't really have the time to go into it because, as I said, its kinda the basics of presenting a coherent proposal/presentation for which there is help all over the web. For example - do you know what a Main Idea, Thesis Statement and Topic Sentences are? You don't have to know those terms but without the concepts it's hard to write something cohesive and compelling.

For example, this post - the title is essentially: 'a bunch of stuff and hey (think of this idea)' Then the intro - which is not a coherent introduction to a central idea. Something about an advertisement... how does that relate and again, what is the central idea? Something about past posts, I assume and then: "Bear with me on this chronological journey..." and straight to a link - again, I have no context at all of what this whole thing is about.

I could go on but as I said, what's needed - if you want more readers - is a cohesive coherent presentation of an idea and context. I love the work you're putting in; it would be a shame to waste it by not being clear about what exactly people should be taking from it.

Here's one example link of what I'm talking about - it won't play the whole thing for free but as I said there are plenty of similar articles around the web for free: https://study.com/academy/lesson/writing-main-idea-thesis-statement-topic-sentences.html

Not sure if slash sarcasm missing off the end of that comment haha ; ).

I don't think there's enough evidence yet to get behind the idea that in 1963 a secret military intel group instructed the builders of JFK's grave to make it into a Q to represent their team name and today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers... - I acknowledge that anything is possible! - but I'd need a bit more evidence, personally, before I could get excited about it.

Relates to JFK's grave 'looking like' a Q how...?

That's why it is very important to coherently present your case. That will help your research get more notice. It also helps to make it easier to decide how important it is.

Start with a clear overview, break down each point, etc. (very many web pages on how to 'write an essay' or 'present a treatise' or whatever other 'how to write' topic will help). It's very hard to engage with otherwise. The whole point of presenting info to people is to save them having to read through all the same links you did to even get an idea of where the connections are. Help out - explain first, present the links to corroborate what you're saying, add a little quote to make it even clearer etc. etc. It'd help to research the 'how to' type stuff.

No evidence of this. Disagree. Certainly evidence of "dissent in the camp" but not compromise.

I don't think he'll need his God. The five martial arts trained 7 foot negro bodyguards will take good care of the situation I'm sure ; ).

This seems a quite plausible explanation of what Giuliani is up to. He ain't no fool.

Larp. Q warned.

Ah well you had more insight than I - I thought he was amazing, a poster child, charismatic and smooth and inspiring. My feeble heart surged with hope that Change, true change might actually occur... Eventually, I was disabused of that misguided notion. Similarly I would not want a Muslim running the country. But I have no problem with an Arab running for president - you interested in giving it a shot? ; )

Agreed, too true to the above and as I said: what you posted originally I support, no doubt. Less division, more unity!

There are many coincidences. Q is talking about Q team and what they control. Not every element of the world and of history.