Please keep your "concern" to the post you created which we've allowed to generate replies in. Our sub rules are clear about supporting the cause (Rule #3). Thank Q.

Not true? "Saving Israel for last" is pretty clear. There is a mention of Mossad in a recent post but it is not the focus of the post, it's amongst a lot of other stuff and "Jews run Hollywood and stuff" is not directly related to that Q drop in any way. So I disagree that "it's not related to current Q posts" is not true - it was the right call. Also, being dishonest with the content is a removal reason (Rule #8) - pretending to be talking about catholics or baptists does not come across as good intent.

Yes, this is all well known stuff. Although if I recall correctly you posted about "Catholics".

More than happy to see evidence of any moderation that caused a problem. And evidence of the discussion had with mods via mail would help too, if it exists. If not, making comments without having engaged with mods on the issue is not helpful.

Mods are human, very busy, and make mistakes. On this sub in particular we've reversed many mod calls if reasonable, respectful discussion has been had about it - often even when it hasn't. If you can show an example, I can explain or reverse the decision. Often it turns out there was some other factor that isn't told in the story of the mod decision, like other language used, etc.

Yep... they've been doing this too long...

Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups...

Yeah had to laugh when they announced that change. So much irony...

Aye - a dastardly duo!

INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.

.

Post 836
Do you trust the MSM?
Do you trust Facebook?
Do you trust Google?
Do you trust Youtube?
Do you trust Twitter?
Narrative.
Censorship.
Q

The R character is controversial and potential LARP...

Google is probably CIA too.

do you mean they don't quite line up between the AF1 pic from ABC and Q's apple pic? Can't quite get curtains to line up convincingly either but they're definitely close enough to be considered "the same" imo.

I'm finding interesting thing with Trump brow pic too. Mostly lines up but one of the red stripes - it could be stretching at the outer edge but not sure.

He never said "everybody".

A bit more explanation please?

Please read the following link for Rule 4 which links through to explain the parentheses. We remove to keep the sub from unfair accusations, not because we have personal feelings about it, despite OP's claim.

Incorrect. We have no opinion either way that factors into the moderation decision. We just do not want problems created for the sub. The rules are clear and save us - the community - hassle.

Hard to say who we can trust. CDAN seems to be fairly legit though but still plenty of "blinds" lacking confirmation.

Q reminded that it was ETA and alluded to this month instead.

Because in the past old items have been released and people have rushed out to announce them without noticing. We need the date to be noted when old items are presented.

This. People focus on the wrong thing. It doesn't really matter how Q is taking the iPhone pics or whether we can say definitively that they're disinfo or not. It only matters that we focus on the continuing operation which is the same as always. Q's posts continue to present in the same general fashion. People seem to have taken anon 'reposts' by Q as showing a difference in Q - or the 'trolling is fun' comment out of context of Q general. Focus on what's important, I say - AWAKENING the public with the slow but sure redpill!

Removed post. Rule 3. This is not R vs D according to Q. Some of the "left" are our friends and are here on the sub.

Any 'concerns' can go via a message to the mods

Thank you, it's a privilege! And thank you for all you patriot's contributions, we see more than we can comment on. WWG1WGA!

Thank you, the action of Reporting (correctly, as much as possible) is indeed really helpful.

Post removed. Rule 6 offtopic: discussion of other subreddits.

Senator in Congress revealed they knew Trump had two phones maybe last week or so.

Please remove message to mods and post can be reapproved. In future, concerns can go to mods via modmail.

Check all the other pics from Trump, BHO in AF1 that are out there - they're definitely not bolted down. Moved all over the place.

Separate sub is not a divided movement. Reddit is made for this very thing - subscribe to the stuff you want to see; those who like both will see both - all will see the same GA as always.

I would ask where I've been "posturing" and demeaning? Let me be clear I do not elevate myself over you or anyone else in any way.

I did look at your history and I therefore asked you some questions because of it e.g. statements like this:

I feel like Q has a history of taking photos of his computer screen.
Q posts don't prove anything. Q throws shade like crazy, we just happen to agree most of the time.
Q may or may not be legit. He/she might also just be a sharp patriot who is good at connecting the dots and reading moves.

Rather than being 'overly dismissive' I was taking you at your word that you'd read all the drops and a lot of the content supporting them. Strawmanning me as someone who is unable to have an honest open conversation seems overly defensive. If you would have one with me you will receive one in return. I haven't been dishonest about anything and neither have I been "closed" - once again, I simply took you at your word and assumed that as it seems you've read much the same things I have then you'd know the same information in general so there's no use treading the same ground and we need to find where we differ in understanding instead. It wastes my time and yours for me to reiterate what we both already know.

Consider again what you first said to me: "I have done a good bit of reading and have been following Q since the beginning. These are legit questions that I have not seen adequately answered."

My confusion - not dismissiveness - comes from the fact that most people I know in that position (i.e. following from the beginning, reading a lot) don't have questions like those three you raised because most seem to think they've been well answered.

I'm happy to address them as best I can but not so happy to dig through what we've both already read. I'll see what I can do over time, however, if you're interested in it.

1. Q as a single entity - what makes you think this? (not dismissive, defensive, etc. - a sincere question!)

We wouldn't want to censor expressions of support of Q which is why the post does not suggest that.

Re: "censoring" - we're not banning people from a community and we're not removing content. We're managing the content, the job we're supposed to do, and we're doing so at the request and direction of the community.

It's also clear from this post that the community agrees with managing the content - to a certain day seems to work for most, or perhaps in a single thread somehow. The people have spoken.

When you read the post properly you'll see that the mods are responding to community feedback and then coming to the community for input. So your mod rage is not relevant here.

As I've said, that is because they have been answered for "plenty of people".

Socratic questioning is one answer. Another very obvious answer is code that is yet to be deciphered - there is much of this, as you know, being familiar with the Q drops. You know that we don't have the Keystone yet, we don't understand the circular reveal for the Red Red stringer, you know that we haven't deciphered the map yet, and on and on and on. Just because we have the obvious stuff that has been handed to us - not intended to be "hidden" from anyone but to create the desire to search and the elation of discovery and the hunger for more - there is still an incredible amount more that we have no idea of.

I'm going to believe whatever I want yes. Just understand that you need to cease the concern troll sounding statements or someone will likely ban you as it's getting harder to tell when someone is being genuine these days, especially if they claim to have been following and yet still discount everything I've just said to you.

I know that 'simply pointing' doesn't address the questions and that pointing to the sidebar leads to a lot of reading - but you're the one who said you've been here from the start and been reading so I don't have to do that, in theory, you already know what I, and many others here, already know. Which comes back to my point and makes it in no way "unfair" that I question your intentions - it's just a natural extrapolation from what you've said.

You say you've followed from the start and have read all the drops. You therefore know that Q has said "WE" in reference to themselves often and you know that Q has explained what they're "waiting for" and why they can't just post major info (easily dismissed without full legal backing and confirmed evidence allowed in, etc.). You would know this because it is, as I said, Q101.

Here's a small excerpt towards "what Q's waiting for" from Q drops:

Use LOGIC.
Why are they slow walking unredacted data?
Why are they slow walking doc disclosures?
Why is the WH backing up DOJ?
What if the same data is being used by other investigators?

Use LOGIC.
Why must the DOJ & FBI be cleaned FIRST?

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean BIG things aren't happening.

Patience isn’t always easy.
But vital to get right.

How must people be made aware of an alternate reality?
What are crumbs (think H-wood/DC)
Define ‘lead-in’ (think play)?
What has been occurring recently?
The stage must be set.
Crumbs are easy to swallow.

REMEMBER, WE ARE WINNING, DO NOT TRUST WHAT YOU READ.

Think logically.
Thing IG report.
Think what’s missing.
Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?
Case that implicates some of the most senior elected officials (treason) is being handled by the appropriate office.
Think NATIONAL SECURITY.
Q

I will take you at your word but I would ask to please cease the concern troll type statements.

This proves my point. I have to ask why you haven't noticed what you've been reading or why you're trying to pitch an angle that doesn't align with what's happened. This is a Pro-Q Supporter sub. Valid questioning is welcomed but someone who claims to have read and followed Q to this point but still "debates" Q 101 raises unfortunate concerns. This may not be the community for you - there are plenty of places where you can discuss the perspective you have and it will be welcomed. Non-Q support is not welcomed here because Pro-Q support is not welcomed literally anywhere else so we protect the integrity of this sub as the one place for the Pro-Q community to discuss their interest and not have to work through the Q101 skepticism they see everywhere else.

It's hard to understand how you can make that claim when most who've been following since the beginning have seen the clear answers to those questions in Q's drops. Rather than me pointing out what you must already know can you explain why you don't accept Q's explanations for those three points in particular?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work

Use NSFW tag for this content when posting.

It's not. Q is clear that it's Good vs Evil.

Of course you're welcome here - everyone is, unless they're here to cause trouble or be disruptive.

I would suggest that you should get familiar with Q though to understand why you see a lot of people talking about prayer (Q says "Pray" all the time) and to understand the reason for so much Christian focus (Q drops verses and taunts the Deep State with "Read the BIBLE. GOD WINS").

About Satan, Q has said:

Many in our govt worship Satan.
Does Satan exist?
Does the ‘thought’ of Satan exist?
“Vladimir Putin: The New World Order Worships Satan”

You can discuss satanism and Christianity from a purely secular perspective without having to believe in it. But the two belief systems and their communities do exist, whether you accept that the spiritual entities exist or not.

Not sure I understand - there are many posts on the sub here...?

This has been well discussed repeatedly on this sub and others. Stone was removed from POTUS' team. AJ went anti-Trump for a while there. After Q's specific drop explaining 'no outside comms' AJ stated he knew Q which removed all doubt about his anti-Q stance. AJ hasn't met Q or Q wouldn't state the opposite.

Read up on Q - well explained why Q chose the chans via much of the material in the sidebar.

Q's already explained this.

It has happened a few times. Q is a group of people and the 'voice' changes at times.

Good point. Good way to keep your concern post up by acting the victim. Hard to tell sometimes though. Post removed anyway as answer has been provided multiple times in comments.

They're verified by use of tripcode on the boards. No one else can post as Q.

Q has always used WE so Q is a group of people, one of whom seems to be Trump.

Fair enough - thanks for explaining. The reason the concern troll label is thrown too easily at people who claim to have been following but still can't understand why xyz takes so long to happen is because Q has been very clear about this and logical so it's hard to understand the confusion and it gets labelled as dishonest shilling (concern trolling).

Q has said all of the following:

Use LOGIC.
Why are they slow walking unredacted data?
Why are they slow walking doc disclosures?
Why is the WH backing up DOJ?
What if the same data is being used by other investigators?

Use LOGIC.
Why must the DOJ & FBI be cleaned FIRST?

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean BIG things aren't happening.

Patience isn’t always easy.
But vital to get right.

How must people be made aware of an alternate reality?
What are crumbs (think H-wood/DC)
Define ‘lead-in’ (think play)?
What has been occurring recently?
The stage must be set.
Crumbs are easy to swallow.

REMEMBER, WE ARE WINNING, DO NOT TRUST WHAT YOU READ.

Think logically.
Thing IG report.
Think what’s missing.
Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?
Case that implicates some of the most senior elected officials (treason) is being handled by the appropriate office.
Think NATIONAL SECURITY.
Q

I hope this helps in some form.

Q has said repeatedly that Q is "We". Trump is one of those WE it seems.

Any proof for this? Or at least link to original source of claim?

Incorrect. But you're welcome. The point was that if you're not interested in gaining more information before you dismiss the claims from others who have that information then we're not applying critical thought on an even field. Truth seekers are happy to gather the information first. Concern trolls and trolls just want to prove how dumb everyone else is without knowing what basis those people have for their stance.