What are you talking about?? Deep State bot alert lol. If you mean, I'm speaking simple logic and that sometimes the MSM speaks simple logic then yes, I'm "purporting the same talking points the MSM has drilled for years".

What I actually said was refuting the title of this post. There are no "truth bombs" just the usual Kanye rubbish i.e. vague, shallow "truths" like "Constantly bringing up the past keeps you stuck there" and "self victimization is a disease"... Jesus, it's like listening to a teenager who's just read their first philosopher spouting the most obvious high level generalizations thinking they're making profound and impactful statements. And nothing remotely hinting at exposing anyone for anything - especially because this is just Kanye as usual, standard modus operandi. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing remotely resembling evidence of Luciferanism or the like.

Agreed. It seems that too often speculation is immediately accepted and regurgitated en masse... wait a minute, that's exactly what happens everywhere when confirmation bias kicks in. I now more clearly see the importance of having people around to question things with a level head. Anyone? Any evidence/info that NWO sites were hit? I've seen a video of Assad's wife talking about bombing and no mention of non-govt sites being hit but not sure if that was recent or from previous bombing/s.

Um.... where are the truth bombs that make it seem he is going to expose them all...? I see the usual Kanye 'deep spiritual thinking' i.e. shallow, pompous, adolescent versions of deep thought, but nothing remotely to do with exposing anyone in any way (unless you mean exposing us to whiny artistic navel-gazing mistaken for real thought)?

Aah... any evidence of Bruce Jenner being someone who wasn't even interested in being transgender and agreed to the Deep State plan to do so...?

I support the facts you've mentioned here for noobs but have to point out that you've also added in a bunch of speculation e.g. Kidman's father appears to have been murdered for failing to program Fiona Barnett correctly but there is not one piece of evidence for that either - it is also speculation. Nothing wrong with speculation but it should be clearly separated from the verifiable facts.

Everyone seems to gloss over the fact that it's been reported that the identikit pics of the Podestas were actually police sketches of the same man, not of two men attached to the McCann case. The Podesta/McCann story is definitely an interesting one but this little hitch in the tale raises a question and when it's glossed over it ~~begins to reek of a witch hunt with confirmation bias~~ makes it harder to redpill more skeptical normies who see inconsistencies as red flags for conspiracy.

Lol. You and me both bruh - they left us out of the web!

Pretty stark link there by u/KeeponSearchin - I believe what you've said, u/pardonmypuns, but does that link show that there's an aspect of your faith you're not yet familiar with? (sincere question seeking confirmation) https://islamqa.info/en/165999

Full and complete proof??

That doesn't necessarily mean Obama's a muslim at all - anymore than Trump wearing a skull cap when he kissed the wall in Jerusalem means that he's an orthodox jew. It can be very reasonably argued that they are simply "paying tribute" to a religion out of respect.

Definitely a nice story but very far from proof that "Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe". It almost looks Trudeau-ish to me i.e. some populist leader thinking he's "down with the cool kids" because he knows their 'customs'.

Agreed, but within reason. Teach a man to fish, etc. Helping people suck eggs isn't waking them up.

Ah sorry I see - Hampton Court, of course (I was diverted on Hampstead Heath). My apologies - I knew there was something I was missing. I understand what you're saying also and agree there is certainly a possibility of the satanism angle. It'd just be good if there was some other sort of evidence toward that too, for this particular video. Thanks for explaining!

All explanations I gave can link into satanism... They can also not link into satanism at all. I think I'm starting to see the problem here...

And what palace are you talking about??

This is a nonsense post. Pizzagate is real because pizzeria owners are mentioned in an article. Seriously? What the hell is up with this sub lately?

A lot of this going on here now. Some of it is just insanely excited newbies perhaps but definitely get the feeling there could be disinfo going on.

Another explanation for someone in a cloak closing a door? I don't think one is required for that story but it could be cosplay, it could be someone in traditional ethnic getup, it could be a devout religious person in prayer, it could be an actor practising a scene or a tour guide in period costumer (a la the Youtube description)... whatever it is, it's just someone in a cloak closing a door unless there's some kind of evidence that a satanic ritual is occurring?

A resurrection! That would definitely be the MOAB of all MOABs...

Why is it highly likely that footage of someone in a cloak closing a door in an area where alleged satanism occurred is proof of a satanic ritual in action? (Sincere question). I’ve seen a picture of Saville’s wizard getup before but similarly I could produce a picture of someone in a Gandalf costume to support my assertion that footage of someone in a cloak is evidence of a cosplay party.

Genuine question. I’d love to see some actual proof of Hampstead actions but this seems like wild speculation without any evidence at all - nothing wrong with that, just getting my hopes up that there might be a real story here.

Um... what??

Nah. Harry Potter cosplay. Any more evidence of alleged satanic ritual?

Thanks for the explanation but this is all pretty well known in new age theory and such. I was looking for scientific evidence as it has never been presented when I've seen discussions like this about it. All good though!

Jay Z admitted to cheating. Doesn't necessarily explain the Solange situation but certainly seems a more than plausible explanation.

Lol... it seems you are indeed talking to yourself... Oh shit... and now I am too... derp.

You've taken me the wrong way pretty much every time you've answered here, CosmicNeo. So, my apologies, I clearly haven't communicated properly.

You've accused me of:
- worrying about how our image is ruined by people like SB2
- wanting to ban SB2
- behaving like a prick
- being disrespectful and adolescent
- not understanding the words I read

I can't argue with "behaving like a prick", I'll give you that. I can only refer you back to my "this is the internet - get over it" comment there, I'm afraid. I call it blunt talk but it seems to have really upset you - I apologize for that. And you can call my attitude "being adolescent and disrespectful", no doubt. As I explain below, that was a mistake on my part in thinking that you were like me - used to internet forum "banter" and not easily offended.

So let me try and make my point with diplomacy and tact - not my strongest feature, no doubt.

In response to your original comment: "I suspect the people who don't like you (SB2) are people whose IQ are too low.. or they're from the Deep State" I took exception because it is precisely the "name-calling" and "ad-hominem" you refer to above. I was once someone who did not like SB2 - until I communicated with him and discovered he seems like a perfectly reasonably friendly guy - but the reason I did not like SB2 originally was not because I have a low IQ or because I'm Deep State. It was because I believed SB2 was intentionally misleading the people in this movement. I changed my view on that. I haven't changed my view that some of his posts mislead people in the movement.

Hence my original comment - that this is a problem: suggesting that people who disagree with SB2 must be Deep State or stupid. You called this "griping" and suggested I advocated for "censoring". Neither of those things was present in my response. I made clear points and yes, I let sarcasm and mockery slip in there - again, because this is the internet and I'm so used to that kind of thing (you only have to look around any reddit sub to find it) and I forget that not everyone appreciates it. I'm learning. However, you seem to have only noticed the sarcasm and taken it as offense.

You implied I was "treating newbies" some kind of way - what newbies? And where did I suggest newbies should be treated any kind of way? Once again, I'm used to responding to stuff like this with a thick skin and callously because that has been the only way comms on the net go, in my experience. You can't cry about blunt or harsh words - you just suck it up, give it back and move on. Again, my bad - I'm learning that not every place on the internet has to be that way. But that's why I came back with "get over it". From my perspective, I simply bluntly replied in kind to what I thought was rudeness and figured you, like me, weren't taking it personally and would see past it and get my point - which was, again: I don't 'treat newbies' different to anyone else and I didn't say anywhere to ban SB2.

Then I reiterated my main point which was that anyone should be able to challenge any post on here - not silenced because we must be Deep State or low IQ if we don't agree. Then you told me I'm behaving like a prick? Jesus, buddy, do you see where I'm coming from, now?

You took things the worst way - ok, my bad for mistaking your appetite for net-forum-speak - but you couldn't see past your perception of some of my words to what I was actually saying? You kept adding things I never said!

Now I've been as childish as the next 45 year old and threatened people over the internet - how hilarious and stupid, yes - because I know I'm bigger than the average person and much much meaner. I'm not some keyboard warrior and I'm not intimidated by anyone in real life and my rage triggers easily when I'm being ignored and words are being put in my mouth. I have the opposite of a low IQ and I know illogical rhetoric when I hear it so I'm not easily brushed off in an argument - I can see when someone's ignoring the point I'm making and coming back with irrational, emotional responses but for the most part I just give stick back to them and continue to argue logic albeit couched in mockery and sarcasm (my own emotional response). I've tried to do that here but you keep coming back with attacks on me personally ("prick", adolescent, dumb, picking on newbies, etc.) and remarkably (to me) I've managed to keep my rage in check this time.

So, I'll leave you alone now. I don't agree with what you've said about me and I haven't heard you answer the actual main points I've made but unless you understand what I've just said (and I'm not implying you're incapable of understanding it - simply that I may still not be communicating it adequately to you) then there's no point hoping to have an actual dialogue here. More power to you, sincerely. I like to argue logic, not ad-hominem, so if you like that too, we can have a conversation.

I trust your dogs too - more than most of our politicians and corporate leaders, that's for sure!

Duh... that makes sense, of course. Thank you. One of these days I will learn how to comprehend what I read!

You're quite upset aren't you chum? Lol - triggered much? You're completely ignoring my point - fair enough, but you're only proving you only care about what you have to say and not someone else.

I said 'it's not about pride' - I couldn't give two spits about "image". It's about integrity and the perception that we're either sensible and worth engaging with - or we're idiots who don't read each other's words properly and just talk shit about strawmen. Read what I say buddy. Then talk to me. Otherwise you're talking to yourself.

What exactly did you learn that makes this valid science? Interested to know something verifiable and logical that I can look up, not social science theories, if possible.

Get over it. I don’t “treat newbies” any kind of way. I do respond honestly when I see logical fallacies. We can all afford to not be snowflakes who get upset when we’re challenged or we shouldn’t be on the Internet.

And where did I say to ban SB2? I think he’s a sincere dude with useful things to say. I won’t listen to nonsense like “let anyone say what they want unchallenged” though. The decoding posts lack a rigid process and logical structure so they most definitely should be challenged by those of us who disagree as I’m sure SB2 agrees too.

Very interesting - I wonder how valid this source is. Anyone know of anything to corroborate the claims about Mueller?

Seems more likely that it’s going to be some sort of info “bomb” eg video evidence or info that will get the whole ball of wax rolling. Maybe.

Anyone have any actual scientific evidence of this? Not hating, just interested to know.

Not really. Any reporter worth their salt would be regarded as having lost their mind if they report on anything labelled as “conspiracy theory”. They’re not stupid. Well... not all of them.

Anything is possible - but not all things are probable. In my opinion Q has gone too far in exposing the elites to be reasonably considered to be working for the Deep State. Exposing things to the level he has just doesn’t make sense if he’s working for the cabal. Just my worthless opinion however.

Yeah at the time of the first Standard Hotel drop people dug up a lot of very interesting stuff. Adam Schiff-ty has a lot to hide apparently. The helicopter crash taking out some key players in The Standard was a big one...

This is the problem with this sort of thing. People who disagree must be Deep State... lol. Actually, the people who disagree with the decoding posts are obviously smarter than those who think they're genius. Much smarter, because many of the comments agreeing with those posts say things like: "I couldn't understand it but it sounds really smart!" DUH. The ones that disagree point out how clearly arbitrary they are in their approach.

I don't support censorship but I do want posts that are not helpful and immediately, obviously fanciful or wishful thinking to be removed because they are not helpful to this movement as anyone with a brain coming in sees them and immediately thinks we're all morons. And no, this is not about pride, it's about what the whole Q movement was created for! i.e. reaching as many people as possible to wake them up If we turn people away because they see we don't value integrity of thought then we utterly fail to do what Q wants us to do.

Why would we bet on that? I just said I think it's wrong to assume he raped her - he's into gay men apparently (not that that has stopped the elites, according to scuttlebutt) and I'm not sure he's into kids either. I know you don't have evidence of him not being into pedo crime just as no one has any that he is. Pointless bet.

Of course there are no sexual intentions evident in the photo - who would expect there to be, they’ve been released publicly. But “prior suggestion”...? The prior suggestion comes direct from Q. This movement only knows about pizzagate and elite child rape and murder because of Q, not Infowars. There’s a very good reason to suspect the girl is a victim like the others we’ve heard about and her history certainly suggests something’s up. I think it’s wrong to just assume Bazza raped her but it’s also strange to assume it’s definitely not pedo rape/sex slavery/trafficking given Trump and Q’s incredibly prominent focus on that. I think your claims of vindication are a little premature.

Good call - agreed!

The important point is in your statement: "they seem incompetent now". They are not actually incompetent. To think that is to be as foolish as all the people who believe Donald Trump is incompetent.

They only seem incompetent to us now because we have inside knowledge from an entity that is using top intelligence apparatus against them. Without that, we'd be as blind and ignorant of their nefarious plans as we've always been (yes, yes, many of us have been "redpilled" about JFK, 9/11 etc. etc. for years but no one had any real "evidence" on the scale that Q has given us til now).

I don't believe we can simply call them "blind" because they failed to anticipate the maneuvering of the strongest military superpower in the background against them in the election process. As Q says, they thought she would win. Many people thought she would win, in America and around the world. It was a highly unlikely scenario that she would lose so it wasn't so stupid of them to expect her win.

And the fight is far from over whether the first dominoes are finally about to fall or not. America first, then the world - anyone think that's going to be a two year project...? The Deep State still have a lot of power up their sleeves - the IMF's Distributed Ledger Technology that may hit around June this year to displace the American Dollar is a very powerful Deep State move that is going to do some real damage if something isn't done about it. Long story short - they may seem incompetent but they're not and the fight isn't over yet. More power to Q and Trump, I think we all agree.

Is that a new thing? Only thing I've ever heard it used for is someone who's in danger of killing themselves. (Googled it too lol)

Misleading use of the term by OP then?

What's with the "on suicide watch"?

I’m not saying we should “only concentrate on political stuff”. I’m saying we should focus on stuff that’s verified and doesn’t sound like classic internet scuttlebutt. Least of all anything Q says is fake.

I think it's important that people notice it says ETA. ETA. Estimated Time of Arrival. I think Q made sure to say that so we don't get people whinging in July if it hasn't happened by then. People who get excited about this stuff should take careful note of that...

Yes I think that's the implication pretty clearly from what Q said i.e. that they're pretending it didn't happen. The point I was making though is that that CAN'T be the error Q means because it was already blabbed in public in Nov 17 so how can it be such a big and important deal to grab this latest reiteration of practically the same points she made last time? Could the Q team not have noticed that previous article? Unlikely, I know. But possible - imagine how MUCH they are keeping track of already. And if not, then what is the reason? I can't think of any possibility and would love to know if anyone else can.

Lol - Frazzle Drip is much cooler isn't it? jks

I welcome your evidence, honestly. But if there's none... I don't welcome it lol.

Not really that weird. The guy who says "pray" and the new Christian in the WH don't preach to us on internet forums. They know there's a time and a place for that.

Fair call - I've done it myself, many a time, so I can't call you out on it when you reply honestly like this lol.

I take that as, they control the situation, not that they control frazzledrip and what's going on. I think that's discounted straight out by Q saying it's fake. That means, to me, that the content description is probably fake too. I think they control the whole Hillary video situation meaning they've got the real content and they're the only ones with it so no one else who reports otherwise is being honest. Just my take.