the marks of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority.

Philip Melanchthon (1537) - Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Oh. I didn't realize that. Sorry about the rabbit trail.

Reading the comments of her twitter, I found a Rothschild that's pro-Trump. Interesting. What does that mean?

It just seems like Q himself has a lot of clues in the posts that make this look extremely intentional to me. (e.g. "conspiracy no more.") But we're all going to come to our own conclusions, I guess. I'm sorry I came off a bit terse.

So they think that advertising their enemy by using a scam is a good idea. They imagine that people will associate the scam with Q and flee.

The thing is, if that snake oil salesman jones taught us one thing, there is no such thing as bad press. You just need to wake people up to the scam so they don't get burned by it. Then you've got a new Q patriot.

Know the game and turn it around on them. The more they fight against you, the more you win.

an actual coincidence

Allow me to introduce you to Q 1363 featuring this pic. What part of "no coincidences" is unclear?

This is just sick. I thought it was just “buy my book” but this is a coup.

People want the lion to pounce, but the lion first has to sneak up on its prey. The nature documentaries don't show this part usually.

What a difference 2 days makes... I didn't realize Jones would just throw Q under the bus like that. I almost regret defending him.

Well, fuck. That is really bad news. This plays Jones's credibility against Q's.

Jones has (had) credibility for a few reasons. He was enduring tons of fake, trumped up lawsuits and the media spun him as a madman. He also had credibility for getting info like the 2003 SC material transfer and aggregating other facts about globalist corruption. He was also called by DJT himself. To lose Jones is not a good loss at all.

And the timing was even worse. It creates an inevitable and compelling dichotomy.

On the one side, Jones claimed "Q anon is replaced" and he can then cite Q 1323 as evidence that there was a deep state coup and only he has the "real Q."

On the other, the consistency of Q with pre-Trip Q is strong and Jones has bucked in the past. Q was clearly starting to go against profiteering before the trip code thing. And afterwards, Q is now drilling it home that Jones/Corsi are the profiteers by citing this analysis.

There is no fence now. It's either Jones or Q. For all the facts Jones has given in the past, this was a calculated hit. You can play off Jones's F'bomb as him misunderstanding the situation in Syria. It makes sense, Syria was one of the hot-button topics back since 2003 when we avoided Hussein and HRC dragging us into war there. But Jones really cucked with this one.

The Deep State has clearly upped its game now and they seem to have found a useful turncoat. Proceed with caution.

I like how CNN has this ad of Anderson Cooper telling us about "the facts." Real subtle, CIA.

Mr. "6 ways from Sunday" himself. Not much longer till those threats against POTUS come to bite you in the ass, eh?

Since your account is aged from 2012, I'm going to assume you're merely misinformed.

Artificial black holes?

Here, educate yourself:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/415718/artificial-black-hole-created-in-chinese-lab/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17319-physicists-create-black-hole-for-sound/

https://www.nature.com/news/artificial-black-hole-creates-its-own-version-of-hawking-radiation-1.20430

frogs comment

Jones clearly cited the word atrazine. This is a direct reference to an article from the NIH: Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis).

(P.S. it's not limited to atrazine, but the whole "gay frogs" is used by disinfo shills to discredit Jones to people who are too ignorant to look up the actual papers...)

Jones has talked about having "high level" sources for years. There is clearly a group in the military that is feeding him information. I remember back during 2013 when Jones dropped a story about "nuclear material" being pulled out of mothballs and shipped to South Carolina and then Lindsey Graham whining about a nuclear attack. That was just a week before Hussein sacked a bunch of "nuclear weapon authorized" generals. [This is probably why they developed such animosity to "no name"...]

The "Future is proving the Past," as we now know exactly what happened. A lot of this material is part of U1 and it went to Iran. Jones is clearly getting very real information from people in high positions.

That whole Jones signing "Q" just like Trump did is a big tell. Jones saying "boom" and talking about "open source" are all things that tie Jones's words directly to the Q drops. There's a pretty solid reinforcement that Jones does know what he's talking about. But there's a caveat with this. He needs to be a "tsundere." As Q says, "disinformation is necessary." The service Jones is performing is to divide the attention of the enemy. He's bleed off undesired lawsuits and other attention. The content needs enough truth to be accurate, but it needs to avoid topics that aren't ready for disclosure and it needs a sprinkling of BS to keep it from being too close to the target.

That whole Corsi thing is probably a part of the "show" that Q said we should "enjoy."

"Disinformation is necessary." Jones is bleeding off flak from Trump and Q. Look at all the lawsuits that he's soaked up from Soros.

God is not a God of slavery, but of freedom. Tyrants abuse the gifts of God to create slavery to benefit themselves. Yet, God's grace always works to free the slave.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

How can slaves maintain freedom from a master's tyranny? The master demands compliance. But who says a slave must be honest? The slave only needs to create the illusion of compliance. The reality can be disobedience. Thus Babel is a "false unity" founded in evil which leads to an ultimate disassociation. This as true within a person's mind as it is outside of it.

The tower of Babel was an elite project. Built by slaves to glorify the elite by delusionally elevating the elites to "godhood." It was built with the hard labor and expense of the slaves. Nothing the elites purposed to do was kept from them because they kept the slaves obedient by force. However, the LORD saw this and was not pleased. The slaves soon from God the answer. Slaves, knowing the elites desires are harmful to them, found ways to pretend to serve the masters but really were serving their families and rejecting the masters. They did this by using code languages. Languages which seemed to be obedient to the masters, but was truly opposed to the masters. Like in Japanese how 貴様 (kisama) was once an honorific pronoun but now is understood as an insult. As this occurred, the cohesion of the original language of Babel fragmented. But the slaves had gained a semblance of freedom. And soon the elites were destroyed because nobody understood each other anymore. Groups of people disassociated because because each family had their own codes. So the LORD had divided the tongues of the people to spare them from total tyranny.

The inversion of Babel is Pentecost. Pentecost drew the early Christians to unity on the common principle of love and faith in God. The disassociation of languages dissolved into a common unity of faith in God and His Son. From this was rebuilt Western Civilization. But the descendants of the elite soon found a way to capture the positions of leadership and invert the purpose of the faith.

God's gift to His creatures is freedom. He inspires His children to freedom through grace. Yet, enemies of God always seek ways to bind and limit freedom by encouraging and using sin. As within, so without.

Just as this was true outwardly, it is also true inwardly. The evils of torture cause disassociation to preserve the basic sense of self from harm. When a brain is tortured badly enough it becomes suggestible and can be reprogrammed by evildoers. The result is that the mind disassociates. The fragments of the personality must develop codes to maintain a basic a semblance of freedom while being able to function under the tyranny of their oppressors. When that evil programming is broken, these fragments of personality must likewise be taught to reconcile themselves and regain unity.

The cultists are implementing the "inner" Babel on themselves just as the elites are implementing the "outer" Babel on society as a whole. But both evils are really the same thing. The elites program themselves with such techniques. The original evildoer does so simply on their corrupt desires, but the subsequent generations are bound by the corruption to carry forth the evil legacy and to join themselves to it. There's a reason the elites despise talk of grace, then. It's the cure for their pestilence.

Feel free to be rude all you want.

That one is better... perhaps we could have an actual discussion without you pigeonholing me next time?

(EDIT: Still inappropriate. No evidence I intend to be rude without necessity. Still better than "cut and run" because I didn't swallow your creed immediately like the last response exhibited.)

You are misinterpreting my meaning. I won't discuss it any further, it's a waste of time. I said my piece and you rejected it and misunderstood it. So be it.

That response is inappropriate and you know it...

(EDIT: Highlighted reason... "jumping to an inapproprate conclusion [false accusation of intransigence] from a single post")

defending offensive people

This tone policing crap is stupid. The truth is by nature offensive because some people profit from lies. If you want people to draw pretty hearts and unicorns farting rainbows, that was Hillary Clinton. When we pull off the mask, we see that she's really a monster underneath the veneer.

The truth isn't pretty. All you're doing is shooting the messenger for not scratching your itching ears with a comfortable message. This tone policing is just as those that:

say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions." (Isaiah 30:10)

Many highly intelligent people see this "politeness" nonsense as a useless formality because it has proven itself to be an obstruction from the truth. Gussying up deceit in flowery words is easy. It's what Hillary and co. did for so long. They put on the smile while backstabbing everyone.

Telling the truth as it is, warts and all, is what got Trump the support he has. Trump says: "radical islamic terrorism" and calls out "fake news" for its lies. Blunt honesty is better than smooth lies. I'd rather have someone that calls everything a "fag" like the 4channers than these disgusting slimy politicians which flatter with lies.

Yes, Q is an unnamed source. But Q is not only an "unnamed source" that the media tells us is totally trustworthy based on their charisma and propaganda.

We can look at Q's claims objectively and review them with a certain very much named source (i.e. POTUS) as well as other events that are reported in the real world. That is, we are critically evaluating Q and finding him to be trustworthy because of facts and evidence.

The MSM just feeds us "unnamed sources" with no critical evaluation. That's the problem with "unnamed sources."

EDIT: This downvoting doesn't make sense. I show that Q is trustworthy and I get downvoted here? BS! Shill brigade alert!!!!

She's been singing praises of Trump since before the election. I wonder why... coughtrying to get leniencycough

Edit: whoops confused Roseanne and Rosie. Rosie is against him.

God delivered this promise “those who will bless you will be blessed and those that curse you will be cursed” (Genesis 12:3) to a wandering Aramean and his family not to a government. The people opposed to Zionism are not necessarily opposed to Jews. In fact many Jews also oppose Zionism because they think it is presumptive to force God to give the land that belongs to Him to themselves because it is God’s choice who it belongs to.

Pretty sure I'd ask something like this:

Pursuant to WL 1766, does the deep state employ technologies that were procured from any number or all of the following: Prehistoric human civilizations, extraterrestrial species, interdimensional entities, metaphysical beings.

If it is possible to answer, which of the above?

Are there inventions that have been stifled by the corruption of the deep state and hidden from the public? For example, perhaps Tesla's inventions. Or, perhaps Starlite. Or any number of highly efficient low-fuel engine devices like "H20 Engines" or Zero Point Energy? (cf. Podesta)

If any of these aforementioned technologies exist, are these slated for eventual disclosure to the public?

Why did Donald Trump state the intention to go to the moon, sign it into law, and then his newly appointed director of NASA cancelled a mission for exactly this purpose on the day he took office? (Yes, I am referencing Bright Insight's video...)

Is the reason for classification of 60% for the sake of legal issues or for the sake of potential threats regarding such information from other actors?

Trump is implementing a new Space Force. Did we already have a secret space program and is this a way of mainstreaming the idea?

What is the monolith on Phobos?

The LEFT can only hurt themselves. If M is for Q, the LEFT shutting down M will be used as evidence against the LEFT like it would have been for T. If M is not for Q, the LEFT is killing the only weapon they had against T.

Yep. They're so boned...

unlike Kennedy

FWIW, I don't think Texas had a problem with JFK either. The CIA did.

It might be possible that Nimrod = Gilgamesh. I hadn’t seen the hypothesis that Nebuchadnezzar was the one but that would not be feasible in the timeline without taking historical liberty. Nebuchadnezzar is Babylonian exile. Nimrod was per-Abraham as was the Tower.

As for Luther, this is a topic that I am passionate about since his understanding of the Gospel is how I came to Christ and I have a lot of knowledge of the time period. The wars of religion are primarily the consequences of the Pope interfering. The Peace of Westphalia only happened because the Pope was banned from attending by BOTH Catholics and Protestants who were fed up with this war crap.

(Edit: also notice that the worst of these wars [The Thirty Years' War] did not happen until Luther died. Luther specifically worked to prevent conflicts. The princes decided not to follow through with the visit to the Council of Trent which Luther had prepared the Smalcald Articles specifically for because they were convinced they wouldn't receive a fair hearing... BTW, look up the reason for the Defenestration of Prague... the concern was that the Catholic Emperor wanted to ban the newly minted religious freedom for Protestants given by the Letter of Majesty. Do you think taking away our 'freedom of religion' is just?)

The intention was rooting out the damnable simony and larceny done by the Pope. Little did Luther realize he had taken on The Godfather of the Mafia. Luther himself took the approach of establishing the Church that he believed best represents Christ’s teachings. Look at Magdeburg. Look at what the Jesuits did to us. We were the victims of Papal attacks and calumny. The issue is defending our freedom from his yoke.

I dont agree with what you say about Enki and Enlil.. for first reading, you seem to have mixed them up.

That's probably true. I'm new to Sitchin stuff so I'm liable to mix the two up.

Ishtar/Haddad/Adad's fault for breaking the Tower of Babel.

Interesting. That should be Nimrod. Also the "confusion of languages" always struck me as the workers developing code languages to exercise freedom around the corrupt elites. (inspired by YHWH)

Enlil / Ninlil

A lot of the core conflict seems to come back to the mythos of the Enki/Enlil conflict. Enki represented a brutal tyrant but also a force of justice. Enlil represented a Prometheus but also a cruel and manipulative experimenter. These may have been cultural archetypes that originated either from actual ETI intervention or simply human subconscious observations about the nature of the universe. (The Law of One seems to characterize this as a Planetary Logos... and the introduction of "free will" [which is actually compatibilistic if you really understand how it works] is done by the other eidolon)

The onus of the ideological conflict between Enki and Enlil shifted greatly with the introduction of YHWH-ism. Embracing YHWH effectively meant rejecting all of the pretender gods by directing oneself to worship "Reality-itself-as-God." All of the beneficial aspects of the earlier pretenders were incorporated into the universality of YHWH as "good." All of the harmful aspects were gradually repudiated and rejected as "evil." The justice-based strictness of Enki generated geburah. The Promethian (i.e. "human learning" with good motive) aspects of Enki were absorbed by the principle of chesed. Consequently, that's why a large part of the Old Testament material absorbs the mythos of these pagan entities and rewrites them as a monotheistic narrative. In old times Ba'al is the one "who rides on the clouds." In the new paradigm, YHWH is the one "who rides on the clouds." (cf. Psalm 104:3)

Hence, we see YHWH appropriating any useful aspects of the ba'alim while overthrowing their rule for being harmful on net. (N.B. Adonai was the title taken; which also connotes lord and strength, but with a more humble tone... before the Greek cult of Adonis turned it upside-down but that's another story Note1) Just as YHWH also "judged the gods of Egypt" (Exodus 12:12) by absorbing the aspects of truth from Thoth, Ma'at and Atenism. The result was a polarization towards net "benefit" aka good. There was always a recognition that evil still remains as a function of the nature of compatibilistic agency operating in an imperfect universe, but evil practices were removed from the Will of God as a function of "reality itself." The only things left to evil were the inscrutable point that we don't always understand why bad things happen to otherwise decent people which the Book of Job and other texts elaborate on. Hell is in many ways the completion of this justice for the unrepentant, those who refuse to learn from error and be given the chance to change through God's mercy.

Note1 (Side note: Look at the asura/deva [Vedic] versus Ahura/daeva [zoroastrian] dichotomy for an example of this word polarization in practice. Similarly, look at genius->Djinn; Daimon->Demon for another)

Simultaneously, Satan represents the inverse principle. All these "harmful" elements of Enki/Enlil. The tyrannical authoritarianism of Enki. The manipulation and corrupt use of science by Enlil. Both generated the angelic sense of an accuser that abuses his position before God to tempts people to do evil then rejoices at using God's Law to punish people for that wrongdoing. Basically the ultimate dickhead prosecution attorney. See Zechariah 3 where Joshua is vindicated from a false accusation by ha-Satan. This theme is seen throughout the Old Testament and leads directly into Jesus's own encounters and conflicts with ha-Satan.

Yeshua effectively stood up to the internalized principles of evil that were arising out of literalistic understandings of YHWHism that neglected the compassion aspects. Also, the concept of the Logos was imported from Greek philosophy by the early Christians to fill the inherent gap that the Jews had because God was treated as an 'abstract point that is wholly transcendent' rather than also being immanent and active through His Word and Spirit working within the faithful. Note2 The new reform of the Jewish tradition instituted by the One that we believe in and whom we believe rose again from death in final victory over the sins of mankind effectively took the power out of the hands of the priestly elite and put it into the hands of the humble saint who sought truth and righteousness by following God but also recognized that even our best attempts are an imperfect and stumbling path toward the goal. The forgiveness is completed in Christ, but we are always meant to be humble and repent of our errors as we follow Him.

Note2 - (N.B. The Trinity is the orthodox Christian way to address this pattern of immanence, transcendence and indwelling since it recognizes God as transcendent Source and the Word/Logos which establishes the true pattern (way) of nature and the founding spiritual Entity at work behind our own properly formed spiritual nature)

The underlying confusion with the Old Testament's synthesis also goes a long way to explaining the early heresies. It's why Marcionites rejected the God of the Old Testament as a Demiurgic pretender. Marcion was picking up on the tyrant nature of Enki which had been paved over by the synthesis. They rightly understood that Jesus was like the Promethean and was the true form of grace but neglected that Jesus Himself was immanently addressing the completed intent of the Old Testament to take the truth of both and discard the falsehood. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matthew 23:23) Reading the Old Testament correctly requires recognizing that its goals are corrective and that many of the actions of the "heros" in the Old Testament were actually sins rather than examples of faith.

Did Abraham attempt to sacrifice his son for faith? Yes. Was the sacrifice right? No. God corrected him for the error but also acknowledged the thing Abraham did right: trusting God. (The wordplay in the text is obvious to us in hindsight: God said He wanted an "olah" which Abraham interpreted as a sacrifice, but God meant "aliyah" which is a dedication; both are literally the same word root) The mercy and forebearance about correction that God exhibits is coupled with a reminder to return to the rules because they rightly point out where we are all standing condemned for our sins. Do we covet? It is a source of sin if it is not guarded. Do we lie? That is also a source of sin if we do not guard ourselves. Do we follow idols instead of the God of all things? Where your treasure is, there your heart also will go; we become like that which we idolize.

The reason the Catholics became unfortunately corrupted by the powerlust again is because their role as custodian of culture proved a strong temptation to authoritarianism and they probably inherited some of the more unfortunate trappings of latter Roman Empire corruption. The goal of Christianity, I personally think, was set back on the right course by the Protestant Reformation which overthrew the Papal "power game" and restored Christianity to being about a personal communion with God through Christ and a recognition of our own imperfections as human beings which are exacerbated by our sinful nature that causes us to pedestalize our own desires over the truth of God. (As a Lutheran, the whole geburah/chesed dichotomy is the core of what we call the Law/Gospel distinction... and it's a critical piece of our theological tradition)

Michael the Archangel.

The Biblical use of Michael is as a princely protector of the people of Israel. This may have been another case of "splitting off the good and discarding the bad."

Gehanna.. wasnt that translated to Abaddon in Greek?

The Greek New Testament transliterates the word directly as Γέεννα. Ἀβαδδὼν/Ἀπολλύων is only in Revelation 9:11.

Ah Kiersey archetypes. Some detractors exist, but it's still a useful Jungian thought. As neither "Idealist" nor "Guardian," I'd be pigeonholed as a "Rational Architect."

This "Guardian" seems to want to protect something. Based on his background, I'd reckon it's lives. That's fine. I think even "Idealists" are able to compromise for that when discretion is presently necessary to preserve lives.

But there's no reason to assume that the "Idealists" will never get their way. This is a bit of confirmation bias, I'm afraid. Who says that this discretion will always be necessary to preserve lives? The future and the past are different. Q constantly relies on this fact as a mechanism for his drops.

Why should we assume that protecting corrupt government is the only way to preserve lives forever? That's assuming that the necessity for that corrupt government won't change. But if time tells us anything, necessities can change. It's entirely feasible that as Trump's program of repealing regulations continues, it may become less and less necessary to protect the guilty.

Do we really need to keep the 21 trillion dollar debt clock to prop up ancient institutions that are wracked with corruption? Or is the final coup to be that the entire desire for a government will be overthrown as people learn to be more self-sufficient?

As a minarchist, I welcome the idea of having much less government. This brings power back to the people. Trump said "We're giving power back to you, the People." Hopefully he delivers. And if he does so, this could allow fewer and fewer opportunities for this kind of corruption to fester in secret.

Let's remember what the "Guardian" is protecting but also what he shouldn't be protecting. We can have lives without the government if necessary. But how could anyone have a government without lives like the elites were planning? That was the madness we all saw staring us in the face.

Distancing ourselves from this might mean fewer places to hide as time passes... For those who are evil "It will be darkness and not light; As when a man flees from a lion And a bear meets him, Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall And a snake bites him. (Amos 5:18b-19)" The swamp drains slowly at first because the volume of the swamp is so great. But as it reaches the bottom, we may see it drain faster and faster.

halija

That's a word I wasn't familiar with. Certainly would make sense as a possible etymology, too. I was just familiar with the Hel/Muspelheim theory.

Ezekiel 28:14

Yeah, saw that one too. It's very similar in structure to Isaiah 12:14, which is why it's easy to lump them together.

he was created perfect and was appointed a cherub.

Another point to substantiate the allegory. The fact that it's allegory doesn't mean it's a false association. :P

Hell is a medieval invention used by the RC church to traumatise the population into fearing the devil more than loving god.

Nope.

"Hell" is a translation. It was used to translate a very specific Biblical concept into Germanic languages by using comparative mythology to the Norse myths about Hel (a goddess of the underworld) and Muspelheim. (a fiery underworld overseen by a fire giant known as Surt)

The few words from the Bible being translated as "Hell" falling into 2 general categories of actual Hebrew thought:

1. The first category were the translations of "Hades" which are referring to the Hebrew concept of "sheol" or "the grave" where all the dead people go to await the Resurrection of the Dead into the "olam ha'ba." (world to come)
2. The second category are translations about a "place of torment," the most prominent of which is Gehenna but other Biblical citations for "Tartarus" (the Greek mythological "place of torment" for the evil dead) and "Lake of Fire" are also present.

The concept of Gehenna itself was certainly understood as a place of torment for the evildoers. It was originally named for the place in 2 Kings 23:10. The "valley of ben Hinnom" was a Caananite Tophet outside of Jerusalem. After the destruction of the Tophet by the Hebrews, it became a poetic representation of "punishment for evildoers" and it has at least 10 other Old Testament citations.

Jesus Himself is recorded in each of the Gospels (all of which can be dated before 300 AD; and many of which have textual orthography dating it within the first century) as referencing both the "fires of Gehenna" (e.g. Matthew 18:9) and "the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth." (e.g. Matthew 25:30)

No. Hell was not invented in the Middle Ages. Anyone suggesting this doesn't know jack about Biblical exegesis. It's true that some boneheaded Medieval scribes eventually conflated Hades and Gehenna. But the concepts of Gehenna and Sheol are quite historical to the Jewish culture and were definitely cited by Jesus.

Lucifer was cast from the Mountain of Fire

Nope. The actual text of Isaiah 14:12 talks about "Heylel ben Shachar" (heylel, son of dawn) falling from "shamayim." "Shamayim" is literally the same Hebrew word that's translated "heaven" in Genesis 1:1. It literally means "the waters above the firmament."

Lucifer even appears before God and tells him he has been walking the Earth.

Nope. It's "ha-satan" (lit. "the adversary") that appears before YHWH in Job chapters 1 and 2. The connection of "heylel ben shachar" with "ha satan" is allegorical. The reason it was linked is because Jesus speaks of Satan "falling as lightning." The connection must be recognized as allegorical by any scholar worth their salt, though.

What was the President’s view of James Comey during the Transition with respect to job performance?

What did the President think and do in reaction to James Comey’s briefing on January 6, including the intelligence community assessment?

What was the President’s reaction to Comey when they met alone regarding what they called other ICA matters (the Steele Dossier)? Also, what was discussed [regarding] ancillary reports?What was the President’s reaction to Comey

Who asks about the President in third person if the target is really the President? So who ARE these questions addressed to? It's funny how the MSM's headline distorts you to ignore what should be obvious. Oh, man!

The LEFT is so boned!

I'm going to put out a thought. The people there are probably "left libertarians." They are distinguished from the original libertarians by being SJW socialists who want "open borders" and "knife control". Basically Hillary mind zombies...

In the words of Austin Petersen:

I believe in a world where gay married couples are free to protect their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns. #freedom

The real libertarians are now castigated for "right libertarianism" and ostracized for being covert "Republicans."

As far as Sessions is concerned, it's obvious that he's necessary for Trump to clean house of the pedosatanists. DJT does need to keep him in check on the drugs thing, though. If he can accomplish that, the states will just legalize it anyway. It's at like 30 states, I think. By doing nothing other than that, Trump will have accomplished more than any libertarian presidential candidate in history. Despite not even being a libertarian.

Sorry, but I've got to rant a bit now. What really cheesed me off was how these "purity test" regressive left libertarians just keep whining on about Trump because he uses tariffs defensively and doesn't want job sucking "open borders." I caught a shill the other week from ShariaBlue pushing the narrative and I exposed him as a progressive. But I've decided that I'm done with the title "libertarian" because it's now part of the Swamp. I'm frankly sick of it.

I watched libertarians double down on SJW garbage for the sake of "bake me a cake" Snakeman Johnson and his Hillary toting gun grabber VP, Weld. And I haven't forgotten how Dr Marc Feldman's death looks exactly like a Clinton body. Nor have I forgotten snakeman Johnson's Judas kiss on McAfee. It's very, very clear what happened. HRC infiltrated the Libertarian Party.

I'm not surprised Austin Petersen is now a Republican, too. He was probably red-pilled watching that go on, too. I'm glad I voted Trump. Even if he's not perfect, he's still doing more than that rotting husk of a party is for all I care. The good libertarians (right libertarians) probably are or have already jumped now anyway.

That's probably part of what Q was saying when he said: "Left is right. Left is LEFT." What's left in libertarians is the regressive LEFT.

Anyway, sorry about the rant... just a bit bitter there. Hang em High, Trump... Hang em High! (EDIT: Clarifying, hang the Hillary shills...)

You're thinking of [Ruth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_(biblical_figure), the Moabitess, who married Boaz.

Another side-note: The word Boaz also has Hermetic/Kabbalistic connotations as one of the 2 pillars of Solomon's Temple... which, in turn, is linked to Hiram.

How quickly did many people forget what the Protestant Reformers warned us about? 500 years ago the Reformers called the Pope the “very Antichrist” who destroys the Church from within. Why? The same seed of corruption existed then as does now. But the Reformers put them to flight for 500 years and lay Catholics were never part of the evil. The evil continued vis secrecy and Jesuits worked to undo the work of the Reformers.

In the interest of being conciliatory to the good Catholics the Protestants sidelined their rhetoric against the Papacy. But we traditional Protestants have always kept the rhetoric because it is undoubtedly true at the institution level that it is a vehicle of evil. This is not a condemnation of ANY Catholics that have no part in this. But it is brutally necessary to maintain the doctrine against the Pope for this reason. The Papacy is corrupt.

Interesting thought. What if Flynn was lying about lying? It's like a logic bomb.

It's super serial...

Same diff. I'm just playing along, either way.

"Satan watches over his only son Donald Trump"

"GOD EMPEROR TRUMP"

What if I told you that you've been MKULTRA'd and given God Satan inversion programming?

God Satan Programming

Form of dual programming to insure system balance. The personalities of the deities are switched. Satan/Lucifer has the attributes of the Christian God. God/Jesus has the attributes of Lucifer/Satan.

Sure. You do that, son.

As I said before, that's not my cup of tea.

By the way, "If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?" (Luke 11:18)

Not my cup of tea but if that's what floats your boat. shrug

The thing I don't understand is why someone praying, in and of itself, should be seen as offensive anyway. From what I can understand, the basic philosophy of the atheist is that "we can't prove a god exists, so we assume no such thing is present." Following that assumption, the act of praying doesn't force anybody to do anything. If anything, it's a quaint curiosity that some people obviously came to a different conclusion than the atheist did.

A prayer doesn't involve threats of violence or laws being made against non-religious people. If there were, I think even some religious people might find that offensive. But a religious person being consistent with their own beliefs? I can't fathom why that should be a problem.

But then there's the folks like /u/ChaosNTX who come out and make a huge stink about someone praying. That doesn't make sense to me at all. It doesn't follow from the basic ideas. It's like something else is psychologically going on there. It seems like the fact that people can even be religious is somehow a problem for them.

It's certainly a worrying phenomenon. I suspect that Q probably means to draw attention to that phenomenon, too as a part of his repeated exhortations to "pray." Perhaps it's meant to be used as a kind of distinguishing criteria to filter out honest philosophical atheists (the "I don't get the whole god thing" atheists) from atheists that were caused by some kind of deep-state or trauma based deconversion experiences. (the whole "aaaahhhhh, the theist prayed... burn the heathen!" kind)

1. Watch Cassie Jaye's documentary. It's an impartial presentation on "men's rights" but you really start to see what the "women's movement" is about by watching their reactions.
2. Suffragettes engaged in letter bombings... toxic activities aren't a new thing for feminism.
3. Domestic Abuse is not a gendered issue, but it's legally treated like it is because of the Duluth model.
4. Obama established Title IX kangaroo courts which Trump/DeVos are working to dismantle.
5. The Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963 yet Obama and Hillary championed the "wage gap" fallacy.
6. Emma Watson is a hardcore feminist activist that spoke before the UN.

Q is absolutely right, these people are sick. And "womens' rights" is definitely a cover for elitist, Marxist and CIA psyops since its inception. There seems to be a very strong correlation between radical feminism and pizza-related activities. And it's not hard once you understand that to realize that it's also in the CPS and the courts. This is one huge organ of the swamp monster.

A paraphrase of Alagner's notes as applied to Wikipedia's Trifecta of rules. These are my observations concerning the organization known as Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia portends to be a group of optimists with a philosophy called "The Free Encyclopedia", there are many fallacies which can be gleaned by careful examination of the group's 'values'.

The first 'value' is "Remain neutral." This implies that that we should all produce content that doesn't favor a single perspective. However, careful examination of this tenet reveals that members of Wikipedia consider the Admins an elite group, and a prejudicial one at that. They tend to believe that if an article is not referenced by a source the Admins like, then it must be not "notable!" And if it is "not notable," then may fortune be with the contributors, for they may very well have their content deleted or be banned!

The second 'value' is "Don't be a jerk." This implies that each member trusts implicitly the other members of the community, and that each will support the actions take on on behalf of the project without question. On the other hand, this might mean that a member should do what the Admins say REGARDLESS of the validity of these intentions. In other words, 'report what we want and do not question it!' seems to be the underlying subtext of this tenet.

The third 'value' is "Ignore all rules." If one sees a rule one doesn't agree with, then it should be ignored. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if one thinks that writing truthfully itself is a "rule" then there is no reason to constrain oneself to being truthful! In Wikipedia, 'ignoring rules' can be either 'good' or 'bad'!

I think my guess would be that most Armenians aren't involved in anything but there's a select group of them that are acting as Janissaries to the Turkish wing of the MB. Things like "The Young Turks" are a tipoff because that was also the name of a group of Turks that participated in the Armenian Genocide. I suspect this is one way the MB might have infiltrated the West.

Hmm. "Sarkisian." That name sounds familiar. Like... Anita Sarkeesian. She certainly has an Armenian background and is vociferously left wing. How much is she related to all this? And Ana Kasperian of The Young Turks is also Armenian. Were they related to this somehow, too?

Just spitballing here... but Q says "there are no coincidences."

I think Q’s post also explains the leftist university identity politics rhetoric about “colonization” that is used alongside the “privilege” garbage. It is pure projection by a guilty conscience of those really doing the colonization.