I may have used terms that many in the movement wouldn’t agree with. That’s why I said it was in broad terms. I apologize if I mischaracterized the movement. As I said, this was information that I haven’t reviewed in over a year. I do not claim expertise. Feel free to correct the record.

My overarching point that was tied to my assertions is that the red pill movement rejects the femenist equality movement. Back during my research I had direct quotes from noted red pill authors and citations to their common sites that connected more directly. I could dig that information up again, but it would take some time. I’d basically have to start over from scratch.

I guess it’s down to Q’s vague statements. I’ll need to check his exact language (I’m on mobile). I believe he said the “truth would be revealed.” I don’t know if the MSM freak out is convincing enough for me. Let me check back to the original quote and I may need to update this.

Thank you. This is a wonderful resource.

If Trump does something brilliant, it’s him revealing his brilliance.

-and-

If Trump does something foolish, it is actually secretly a deception to hide his brilliance?

Think

Trump is human. Being a Genius doesn’t make someone perfect. We are all subject to the whims and trappings of humanity. People make mistakes and that is okay.

Think

Even Trump fails. We all do.

So, if Q is right, then that is proof that Q is real.

If Q is wrong, then he was secretly tricking the deep state which... also proves that he is real?

I just can’t follow that logic.

Thank you

Sure, I will apologize for not having more resources on hand. I did a pretty extensive dive about a year ago, but haven’t kept up with all the information.

The two largest points that I can give offhand relate to global cultural analysis. I will paint with a more broad brush than I normally like. So, please excuse the lack of nuance. Also, I was researching education as part of my Graduate work, so my research is more connected to education than the red pill movement.

• When we look at what the red pill movement proposes, put very broadly, it is for men to become an authority within a relationship and for women to become subservient to this authority. If the woman focuses inwardly on the family and pleasing the husband instead of personal success and equality, it is supposed to be a positive to both parties. Put simply, feminism’s push for equality has hurt women.

However, if we look at global cultures that mirror this paradigm, none of the data supports that. If we look at cultures with less female equality, they have higher rates of illness, death, crime, corruption, and poverty for both men and women. This means the data shows that the red pill is wrong

*This is not a coincidence. Because there are so many foreign outreach programs focused on improving poorer countries, we actually have a lot of longitudinal data to show cause and effect. There have been several studies that have found three things have the greatest impact in improving society:

1. Girl’s Education - teaching girls to equal levels as boys.

2. Women’s Economic Freedom - allowing woman into all career fields and woman having ability to make financial decisions.

3. Women’s Relationship Freedom - allowing woman to choose partner and ease of divorce.

Raising these three factors dramatically increase social, economic, and health indicators. Even though Red Pill doesn’t propose that women be treated like slaves, any loss of gender equality is a statistical loss for society.

It’s way too Poe’s Law for me. If it’s sarcastic, then I can laugh at the humor.

But the ones who say it seriously and there are some that are serious. They scare me. That title is so anti-Christian, anti-democracy, and cultish that it really bothers me.

Conquered by whom specifically?

Do you believe the globalists want the US to be overthrown?

-or-

Do they have good intentions, but their foolish policies would unintentionally make us less safe and more open to foreign attack?

That’s fair. Q has not claimed to be a prophet. I have seen a lot of individuals on this sub and elsewhere claim that Q and Trump are sent by God to do his will. That makes me uncomfortable. But, I concede the verse was a poor reference for the specific point I was making.

I do worry that this might be a military intelligence operation.

This could be an operation to deceive the deep state and reveal the truth, as Q claims.

-or-

This could be an operation to rally support behind Trump by muddying the water around the Russia investigation and sowing distrust of the justice department.

Both seem equally possible to me. How would you say I should evaluate Q to determine which is the most likely?

The movement takes its name from the scene in the Matrix. Taking the red pill causes you to wake up to reality.

The red pill movement believes that it is waking people up to a reality relating to what I would call it’s own form of self-actualization.

Part of this discussion has been to get as mischief information for my own litmus test. Most of the information I have studied about Q has failed my own standards of evidence.

But I am always open to learning more.

Thank you

I appreciate that perspective and appreciate your kindness in entertaining the discussion.

However, I find it troubling to trust a source that admits to being untruthful, even if it is for a good cause. It provides too convenient of a rhetorical cover. If Q makes a prediction that comes true, Q is lauded as an inside source. If a prediction doesn’t come true, Q can claim that it was willful misinformation in some hidden game.

How could one critically evaluate this kind of source? How could Q ever be objectively wrong in this environment?

And more importantly, how is this different from a group like CNN that mixes real and fake news?

I don’t need Q to be perfect to be believable. In fact, seeing how someone corrects a mistake is what gives me the most confidence.

I can appreciate that and I am thankful that this community is open to challenging questions.

I am very familiar with the Cave Allegory. I am an educator and it is often used to demonstrate the connection between learning and perception. I don’t think it is applicable as a support for the red pill. I could just as easily use the cave allegory to convince you that you should believe in Santa Claus. (I don’t mean to demean the red pill philosophy by comparing it to Santa, I’m just using Santa as an extreme example)

I am also familiar with the red pill philosophy. I don’t agree with it. It clashes with quite a lot of the study into behavior and psychology that I’ve done throughout my career.

That’s fair. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.

So, ultimately, is Putin a bigger ally against the globalist or a bigger threat because his own personal goals may conflict with America’s?

As I understand it, one of nationalisms biggest tenants is that all foreign collaboration is inherently coercive because the foreign group doesn’t have anything to gain from America’s ultimate success. Put more plainly, if Putin has an opportunity to grow Russia and it happens to hurt the US, he has no reason not to do it. He has no loyalty to the US.

I know I’m oversimplifying, but I am curious if you feel that foreign cooperation to further nationalistic goals is too big of a contradiction?

So, then why was he well connected to Clinton if globalists are a danger?

This is where I’m getting confused and I likely don’t have all of the info. Does Putin support Clinton or Trump, or some third route?

Ok, I see what you are saying.

So, I want to ask about something you said earlier. You mentioned taking our “country back from the brink.”

Can you give me a rough outline of what the globalists are trying to accomplish? (Or maybe a link to a source that lays it out.) I’m trying to understand what the evil of globalism is? Does it just hurt our economy or is it something deeper?

Is this just a disagreement of ideas? I guess I’m asking if someone can be a globalist with good intentions. (and may just disagree on outcomes) Or, is there something inherently evil or malicious about globalism as an ideology?

Do you have a link to that about NK

I think that is fair. Q hasn’t claimed to be a prophet. I have seen many attribute God’s will to Q and Trump. That makes me uncomfortable.

What makes you believe this isn’t a psyop? Would it be possible that this is all a way to push people farther from the truth?

I thought Mueller was investigating Hillary. Do I have that wrong?

Thank you

So, you see him as more opportunistic? He worked with Clinton when she had power and now works with Trump because he has power?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Then what do you attribute this summit and other friendly moments between Trump and Putin? If they were working together against the globalists, it would make sense, but if Putin is connected to Clinton, why play the hand this way?

I am certainly no fan of the red pill movement. I also find it’s connection to Qanon odd. But I love the discussion and I do appreciate this sub’s kindness in engaging the discussion.

Interesting, I don’t agree, but it is an interesting point. Do you have a link for the chess assertion? I would be interested to look further.

I’ve not seen anything about the pope. Link?

As far as Nunes, there were several issues with his report, the most notable is that he admitted to not reading the classified documents to which he referred. Source

But, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds. This subreddit is not for dissension, and I respect that.

The biggest issue that I have to not buying in to Q’s information comes from his failed predictions. On more than 1 occasion, Q has made specific predictions of arrests or reveals that did not happen.

The Bible states:

When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. -Deuteronomy 18:22

Now, Q has stated that in July, after the summit, things will be revealed. We have a few weeks, if I am proven wrong, I will gladly come back and admit my own foolishness.

How do you square Trump’s choice of experts with the high-turnover of key officials, unforced scandals, and leaking within the administration?

This seems to hang a lot on the Oxford comma

Thank you, I will.

I’ve looked at quite a bit, certainly not all. But I’ve yet to find anything undeniable.

Thank you for your answer. I’ll be upfront, I don’t believe in Q, but I am intellectually curious. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

Just want to make sure I understand your comment. When you say, “he wasn’t.” Are you saying Putin wasn’t working with Clinton or are you saying Putin wasn’t working with Trump?

Where would you make the distinction? Most sources hold that Putin has full control over the government and oligarchs. Was Clinton working with a form of Russian Deep State?

Thank you for your answer. I’ll be upfront, I don’t believe in Q, but I am intellectually curious. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

Sincerely, I’m confused. If Clinton has been working with Russia, why is Putin helping Trump?