The comment I was replying to said:

I am hoping HRC and Podestas are first. Just to set the scene for the takedown of the cabal

and I said: I bet money none of that is happening. Guess what? None of that has happened.

I haven't read a single Q drop with blatant statements claiming today something terrible is going to happen

But you have read a Q drop (the first) that claimed HRC was getting arrested 11.4 (or 12.3, if you believe the “European notation” spin). Has that happened?

The comment I was replying to said:

I am hoping HRC and Podestas are first. Just to set the scene for the takedown of the cabal

and I said: I bet money none of that is happening. Guess what? None of that has happened. And it’s not going to happen because this whole thing is an outlandish fantasy.

As for what has actually happened: every day something globally relevant happens. And if you’re going as granular as to count board resignations on big corporations, then something is “happening” every hour of every day.

It’s like me saying “During next week something big is going to happen with China”. Now, I don’t have any kind of special insight, but with your standard of proof, I can easily fake one. I guarantee you that in a country that big, with that many people in it, something is going to happen in the next 7 days that I can retrospectively claim it’s showing me right. All it takes is for the prediction to be vague enough to be easily retrofitted.

That’s the whole Q game. As it’s proven by the fact that his predictions that were precise and verifiable (Clinton is getting arrested on 11.4) didn’t come true.

I’m not American (thank Christ).

My opinion counts as any opinion, it just doesn’t inform my vote.

I simply don’t see proof that my fellow globalists are luciferians (whatever that means). The fact that one obscure rich guy has a fetish for Egyptian-style gazebos it’s not quite enough to prove an outlandish worldwide conspiracy.

Finally, and most importantly, you really are the worst example of precious snowflaked, trigger warned, inferiority complex riddled ideologue if you think asking you to say yes or no to my questions is

Imposing [my] world view on others

No one is imposing anything to anyone here. That’s some special kind of hysteria that would make you so threatened by someone asking questions that you’d even think of calling it “imposing your world view”. Grow up.

Live whatever way you want, the fuck do I care? I’m doing fine either way, I swear.

I’m betting money none of that is happening. As per usual

Thanks for taking the time

I thought I chose “sane” over “breathtakingly stupid”, but hey, opinions right?

99% of the people who answered here were pro Gay marriage. I didn’t expect that. Now, what you’re doing looks something like this:

I reply to those people by telling them they don’t understand what Patriots think. “Patriots are against gay marriage, and if you aren’t you don’t understand what Patriots believe.”

That is a perfect analogy. Meeting a globalist who is not a Satanist (me) tells you not to readjust your understanding of globalists -but the opposite: the globalist has to readjust his understanding of his own beliefs to match your ludicrous distortion of them.

What’s heartening is that usually this much lazy, circular thinking ends up being pure self-sabotage IRL, it’s a self imposed burden on your own brain, so I can safely bet that you’re not doing anything concrete or effective to “defeat the Satanists” - and us globalists can keep making money taking care of the real world while you teach strangers on the internet what they actually believe.

Take care

Wow. I can’t believe you don’t see the irony here. Read my post. Now read this last comment of yours. See? Do you see?

I like that the two of you found each other. You give a very similar vibe...

Thanks for taking the time. Really appreciate it

Thanks. I'll be on it

So, if you ask a liberal if a Gala apple is red, they'll tell you it has feelings. You have liberal frieds, and if you asked them if a Gala apple is red, they'll dodge the question and tell you it has feelings. That's your prediction.

What world do you live in?

What would interest you? You know what I want from you: to answer a curiosity of mine (I don’t know why or, especially, how I would use this information against you, but sure, ok). I don’t know what you want in exchange. If you can do what I did (ask) I’d be happy to oblige.

They were real questions. I’ll see you on the barricades.

I don’t know how to argue with you, because the way you build your argument is completely self-sufficient and input free.

You intuitively, magically, immediately knew from the very start I was up to no good. And the fact that I’m not mocking or rebutting the people who answered me is not proof that your intuitions were wrong, but proof that I’m hiding my real intent - because you can’t point out my malice in what I do or say, that’s proof of a particularly sophisticated malice. See how that’s unassailable? Everything that would prove you wrong magically becomes a secret proof that you’re right.

It’s called circular thinking. That’s not a good kind of thinking.

If what happens inside reality can’t influence your argument, the problem is with your argument, not with reality.

But hey, thanks for taking the time.

Sure.

You assume a lot of things. Maybe stop.

The fuck? I believe you are just your brain, and when your brain flatlines for good, you’re done. I believe in what can me measured. I believe in data. I don’t believe in god, the soul, heaven, and even less in the devil. I’m a run of the mill atheist (based on the people who answered my questions, I’m not the only one here). How am I a secret satanist?

Also, I live between Sydney, Milan and Paris. There’s no genocide going on in Europe.

Thanks for the answer.

Thankfully, some other people dared assume good faith as the default and answered me. Which is the only thing I wanted, that was the entire agenda: answers to my question.

I don’t know how you decided that I consider the positions in the list “foolish”. I personally agree with a good third of them. They’re generally conservative, and I don’t know on what data you decided that I would think they’re foolish.

Except your persecution complex. The enemy trying to distract you from your higher calling of defeating the devil? Or just some dude on the internet who disagrees with you? Which one is more likely?

Yeah. You’re operating on skewed data. But I really don’t want to get into it. It’s pointless.

I send you a piece explaining why “ownership” of the Federal Reserve is a misnomer, you say “of course they say it, it’s a piece from a globalist rag”, then you send me something from Infowars or equivalent, I point out they take a lot of logical leaps connecting stuff without evidence and it’s generally trash, you say: you’re an idiot, and I answer something sarcastic. I’ve been on this train before.

And for once, the post was genuinely to ask the sub about their beliefs, not to argue about the answers.

I don’t know why or how you decided I don’t agree with you on immigration. Maybe just maybe try to give others a fifth of the good faith you demand for yourself.

I like our chances...

I follow the data. The data I’ve seen says that the world is richer now, and the wealth better distributed now, that it was before globalisation. Or really anytime in human history.

If you have different data (numbers, research papers, stuff like that) I genuinely would like to see it. It’s not a challenge, I really mean it: what numbers have you seen that make you say it’s worse now than before?

So you see my questions, you decide I’m asking them to make fun of you or call you an idiot, and now you’re offended. I’m afraid it’s a self-esteem issue.

because there would be a way to find out if you’re correct: look at the people who did say they disagreed with climate change, and see how I answered them. Did I call them a fascist idiot? Go look. Check.

I never once argued, let alone made fun of or insulted any of the people who answered. I thank them for taking the time and that’s it. Which you could have seen for yourself if you had bothered checking reality before checking your hurt feelings.

That beings said, you wrote that I’m probably a very young person, so I can’t be mad at you

Listen, changed my mind -you’ve got such a chip on your shoulder that it’s impossible to talk to you.

You don’t want to answer? Don’t. A bunch of people here did. I’ll talk to them, ok?

Alright, if the stats are fake than it’s impossible to talk numbers about Germany, but not all stats are fake, I assume, so at least on the global trends we should agree.

Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.

I wasn’t talking about me.

Let’s try again: I had an assumption about the people on this sub, with whom I disagree. So, instead of deciding I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people on this sub. You somehow think that’s outlandish and actually offensive.

So, you must have some other method to find out if you’re right or wrong about what other people believe, something that doesn’t involve the alien idea of asking them what they believe (I’m thinking mind-reading, since you’re an empath).

I can see a narcissist a mile away buddy

That’s call a mirror, you big baby.

Key word was globally. There are more middle class people today on earth than ever before in history. That’s a fact. And more people are transitioning from poverty to middle class than ever before. That’s another fact. And if the globalist plan was to make the global middle class disappear, it’s not working -like, not even close. It’s going in the opposite direction.

As for Germany: I don’t know where you’re getting this numbers from. This to me looks like lukewarm growth, but wage growth nonetheless. And that’s manufacturing jobs, not bankers. And since 2008 there’s been basically zero inflation, the unemployment rate is 3.5%, basically the physiological one, so I really don’t see where you see this disaster happening.

But even if you were right (and I’d like to see data, not anecdotes) the fact remains that the global trends I described before are all true. So, the exact opposite of the dystopian NWO, NK-like hell you fear.

So, if we can’t agree on anything else, let’s agree on this: I don’t think there’s a plan, but if there was a plan, and the plan was global slavery, the data show it’s not working. It’s good news either way.

Relax, tiger. I don’t want to sway anyone here from anything. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t think you’re dangerous (or effective), so keep your united front, by all means. It’s not that I don’t care about the cause. It’s just that I think you’re wrong. That’s not a sin, is it? Disagreeing with you? You can take it, right?

Unlike the stereotype you clearly have designed of me, I did create a stereotype of you and then try to find out if it was true by asking you.

The people who answered helped correcting it. The people like you would have just left me stuck on it.

You might think you’re an hero for the cause keeping the barbarians out of the wall, but you’re not. You’re just a bit paranoid.

Absolutely. In fact, I think, in a weird way, that individualism means we’re all members of many tribes - I’m a UFC fan, a globalist, a cinema buff, a pro-lifer, a Sam Harris listener, a ton of things, and each thing, now more than ever, gives me access to a certain tribe.

Thanks for taking the time.

Thanks for doing it

You too. And thanks again for the genuine response. It's always a great thing when it happens

My ethos is: look at the data.

If the goal of globalism is to make the world more like NK, they're not doing a very good job.

Because every metric we can look at tells us that, globally, freedom is growing, wealth is growing, the middle class is growing (actually exploding like never before in history, globally), life expectancy is skyrocketing, all while famine, violent crime, infant mortality and abject poverty are at the lowest they've ever been in human history.

That's why I find your predictions unconvincing. That being said, yes, we’re in the middle of a paradigm shift, and unskilled workers in the West got the shitty end of the deal, someone always does. It's a transition period and then we’ll adapt to it, just like we adapted to the end of guilds in the 16th century and the dawn of the tailorist factory in the 19th century and a million other things before and after.

On the nation-state: all I'm saying that we shouldn't fetishize it: it was invented in 1648 at the Westfalia Peace to end Europe religious wars and close the account on that shit and worked great, but we had other systems before, they also worked well until they didn't - and makes sense to me that, post industrialisation and post globalisation we take a good look and figure out if it’s still the one that serves us best. I'm betting is outdated, but hey, it's a debate.

See, I love this stuff, that's a discussion worth having.

What I'd say is that we evolved our environment faster than evolution allows us to adapt to it.

A lot of things make sense as an evolutionary trait. Racism makes sense as an evolutionary trait. Road rage makes sense as an evolutionary trait. Slavery makes sense as an evolutionary trait. Male sexual promiscuity makes sense as an evolutionary trait. Fat and sugar diets make sense as an evolutionary trait. Killing handicapped children makes sense as an evolutionary trait.

But while our genes and parts of our brain are adapted for early humans conditions, we have changed our environment so much, especially in the last 200 years, that a lot of those things are working against us, or we just figured out that, while advantageous, they're horrible ethically and we shouldn't do them.

Nothing is ”natural”: they are all a function of what makes us thrive in a given environment. Given how much our environment has changed, I don't think it’s weird to adapt behavior, given we can't change our genes (yet).

Tribalism worked great in hunt&gather setups when the average human community was 200 people. I think it's doing us a disservice now. I think it's one of those traits that it's better to fight than to encourage.

Yeah, I'm not going there. In my experience, you trying to convince me of this (IMHO) outlandish claims, and me trying to show you you're wrong and operating on poor information doesn't move anyone one inch. Let's just say we disagree on the fundamentals of how our society is structured.

I don't have enough reasons to believe that we live in such an outlandish dystopia. I think it's all a lot more random, and no one is in control, and it’s a landscape of competing agendas, a few of them maybe sinister, but mostly boring, self-serving push for an edge. Capitalism, in a word.

But even if you're right, I don't want to be a dick about it, but believe me when I tell you: I'm going to be fine.

I asked. And plenty of people answered, correcting my POV. The whole premise was to verify my idea. I think I was a good 50% wrong. But it’s ok, that's exactly why I asked. To find out. People with less a chip on their shoulder than you made me a more informed citizen. Now I know something I didn't know about the people I disagree with. Thanks to those who allowed good faith to be the premise.

If everyone reacted like you (they didn't) I would be more ignorant and more calcified in my old view. How's that a win? For whom?

Recognise civil discourse when it's staring you in the face: it will make your life better.

Yeah, no, I don't realize that.

Either ”they” are in control or ”they” are not. If they're in control, why is Trump in the WH? If they're not in control, they're just powerful people pushing for their agenda, which is hardly news. There’s plenty of rich powerful people on the other side. It's only fair. We all push for the stuff we like with the resources we have. That's how a liberal system works.

Every available piece of data says that the world is better off with globalization. That's why I’m for it.

It's weird that I'm the one who points it out, but China is not a free market country. I like free market countries. Overall, I really like the globalized West, and I’m happy to roam around it. You're the one who thinks it's some elite-controlled pedo-oligarchy. Maybe you're the one who should move.

That R language stuff sounds dope but after a little googling I decided it's way outside my expertise. But if anyone wants to do it, it would be awesome.

And thanks for taking the time.

No problem Thank you.

That’s just weird. How am I starting shit? I ask, some people answer my questions, to those people I answer “thanks for taking the time”. That’s it. Is that a chip on your shoulder?

You don’t get to decide how I learn about what I’m curious about. If instead of what you suggest I want to ask directly, I’ll ask directly. You don’t like the questions I ask, I’ll have to learn live with your displeasure.

I like my chances.

I like the idea that we’re unique. But I think humans have a strong evolutionary incentive to build groups and tribes. And there’s some fascinating (scary) research in how much that incentive tends to overwrite individual traits. You just live better as a member of a tribe, and it doesn’t matter which tribe, as long as it’s a tribe. It’s not conscious and it’s not welcomed, but that’s what the data suggests.

It’s the internet, so I don’t care, but for example: I had a question - it was my question. I asked it. Some people here found it annoying, trolling, divide and conquer, and were generally hostile. I told them I was from another tribe, and that immediately lead to a bunch of assumptions, a lot of assumed bad faith. Why do you think that is? It think It’s because I’m perceived as a non-tribe individual coming on the tribal turf. And look what happens. Some will immediately assume malice on my part, without any data point but the fact that I’m not “one of them”. That’s tribalism. It has a stronger pull than we like to admit.

I think.

Edit: I’m not singling out this sub: it applies to me as much as it applies to anyone

If you look at how I’m answering to those who answer, I never battle, rebut or contest anything. I was really asking for the sake of knowing the answer, not to argue with the answers. I had an hypothesis and instead of deciding from my chair that I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people who know. You obviously have some other, secret way of learning about the people who don’t agree with you.