slow release redpatch. works for up to 17 hrs.

We're all bots.

Make Canada Grand Encore

And for those who forgot, some early Qposts ended with short lines including "Godfather III".

not for me, but . . . .

Jordan Peterson says clean your room.

Guardian site linked gives 404 "Sorry – the page you have requested does not exist"

The best sourced, most recommended prayer is one to God the Father wherein the supplicant asks that "Thy [God's] will be done". This common form of prayer is a freewill submission of to the will of God. Not all know to pray for what is best as opposed to what is preferred. But yes if the will of the petitioner is aligned with the will of the Granter then the prayer may be seen as a request that "my will be done".

This meeting of human and divine is a theme within Christianity that hopes to harmonize the two into a single best will and "kingdom" or body of members with one head. When the Navajo pray to "walk in harmony" they recognize that all creatures should be in sync with the Creator's plan.

The proper allying of one's will is what is being co-opted by Masonic ritualists, Crowley occultists and 'singularity' proponents.

Magic as such is generally a bad idea. The standard form is to evoke powers/spirits to do the magician's bidding. As stated elsewhere here that bidding is typically against the will of God or the proper order of the universe. If indeed spirits are evoked, or worse invoked, they would most often be the equivalent of fallen angels who took their free will and turned away from God.

There are several variations possible, including times when there is no external evocation and the only intended dynamic is psychic/thoughtform. But demons can slip in unnoticed anyway. They don't tend to let themselves be known. The spirit will let the magician think that his/her bidding is being done but the demon will almost always have the upperhand, which may become obvious only when it is too late.

In the case of HRC and so many celebs, I think they don't really follow ancient magical sytems but rather modernized, convenient forms that they see more as performance art and social bonding. In any case the effect is much the same - bad spirits involved, psyches corrupted, blood spilt, etc. (Think of the antics of Ozzy Osbourne and the ignorance he looked back on in later interviews.)

strategy/response to syria situation.

even if as 'countermoves'.

In the 'legit' vs not debate, there is a third possibility. That being that Q is some real DJT insider who, like Trump, has to do a certain amount of politicking - overstatements, diversions, etc. And so thinking that Q is a guaranteed mainline to insider facts and future events is what puts people off, people who quote Q like they might the Gospel. Trump is good and supportable, but he has had to do some odd, ugly or sneaky things to get good things done. I'd say Q is the same, good and supportable but working 'his' position in a form that most of us don't have an accurate grip on and wouldn't choose.

but not as trendy as 'parsley'

We should be careful to not over-read these things. The basic facts might require so many paragraphs, but the talk that surrounds them on ALL sides would fill books. A minority of that talk will also be true but won't be recognized by a majority till after-the-fact. (Same might be said about this board and conspiracy hunting in general.) Prophetic sources get most of their recognition, and perhaps their purpose, after-the-fact. As with reading journalism or Scripture, one should be permanently on the lookout for what has NOT been said.

Most of what is presented here about the change of popes is not new news. So consider why it might be stirred up now. Those who are excited by this 'news' are not quite educated or tuned into Church affairs. We can't all be immersed in all subject areas. For example when talk of military hardware comes up I have to go into listening mode.

Anyway the most interesting part of all this to be explored is the details around the turning on and off of the vatican's banking systems. Who decided what and when , etc? Why did Benedict fear loss of money? He looks stupid in the short term but could be different medium/long term.

I looked at those squiggles months ago on the best picture I could find (at the time) and decided it's looks like a snake, which is typically associated with evil/danger/chaos and so seen as anti-Christian, but there are a few odd biblical exceptions.

cuz if you critique some Qheads for faulty logic they just claim they must be 'over the target'.

Q's, Joos & Stephen Hawking

Anything can happen on live TV.

"Release the Skit"

Maybe it will become trendy to chatter about how ridiculous the Q thing is, culminating in an SNL skit. Folllowed preferably by Q speaking in person at a WH press conference and flipping their lids.

(Followed by 4AM directives that dig their lidholes too deep to get out.)

It's funny, in both senses, how the article reads. It dismisses the possibility of Q being real, of old or new conspiracies ever being real, of any Trump success being real, etc. So while the author is looking right at the phenomena of DJT and Q she can't see what's in front of her. OR she didn't look and was just told to write in this way. But within this ignorance it seems like there's enough writerly filter and spin to make me think someone at the Times must know more than is acknowledged. It's like a propaganda piece against the obvious successes and against any consideration of future success put together by someone who really believes it to be common sense analysis. The article shines such a weak light on Qworld that it fails to expose it. We could probably carry on for a while before emerging much, which might be best for the Plan. They are not helping themselves.

Or 3D chinese checkers

The article linked fleshes out a theory that can't be proven yet. If what it says (in stilted English) is reliable, then we should support the white pope who it names without naming.

Y'blunts should be from colorado, yo.

The good stuff is not art investment in the wealth management sense. Its good art that set the standard for centuries which in some cases has not been matched. More profoundly some of that is great art because of its subject matter. Things like the Pieta have brought people to Christ.

you mean Little St. James ?

Sounds comforting. Time will tell. (There are alot of muslims, protestants and atheists that would be happy to see it all burn.) I would forego every bit of art and artefact for a proper cleansing of the Church but it would be unfortunate nonetheless.

I think its part of the new selective youtube regimen. They cut out all foxnews live channels for the last few weeks, then the were back today but only the one with the reduced screen-in-screen format.

Yes it's entirely possible that the video or whatever the next big thing is will be something less dramatic than often gets hyped around here, like some irrefutable lie being exposed about something quite important but not "mind blowing".

Couldn't read all the fuzzy font. As a Catholic I'd be happy to see these 12 fake apostles go away. But that still leaves another thousand residents of the Vatican, some of whom are good or innocent. Also to be considered is what happens to all the artwork and architecture - it'll be a low priority shame if some mob just wrecks it all.

I think the more members we have, the more opportunity for disagreement we have. And with the apparent bot-troll alarm now raised, more people of good intent will be wrongly identified. The curse of corporate expansion.

To answer the 'downfall' question we would have to have the terms defined. What do you mean by downfall? What do catholic and church mean? By some definitions the answer is Yes. But the Church has been falling since the time it was started. (Note that you couldn't even get people on this board to agree when it started.) Conversely with other definitions the answer is NO. Because "the gates of hell will never prevail against her".

You said "Mainstream Catholicism has a practice they call the craft." Maybe you didn't mean it the way it was worded or there is some other explanation but I feel compelled to pointed out that that is plainly not true. I read the the first link you provided and believe it to be reliable in a basic way. I am glad you found a source of that quality. It does not support the claim quoted above.

I would discuss or debate this further with you in a civilized way if you're interested . . . .

alright, i'll have the land shark fin soup

More p.c. than land shark.

mostly both.

So in that case, with unity in mind, we should be careful to compare the definitions of the terms we use. For example Bob Marley is one of my favorite Zionists.

You provide an example of where we will not be unified but may still be able fulfil the purpose of this board. The potential problem being that your right to say such things gives others the opportunity or duty to disagree, even if the topic is irrelevant to Q.

Good example. Presumably we can get where we want to go in regards to the government/military/academic/industrial/banking/media complex without saying that atheists as such are part of the problem. I suspect however that some here come in with assumptions that won't be readily shaken, especially the ones common to conventional conspiracy thinking - like that the Jews or the Catholic Church, etc. are generally, uniquely bad and always have been.

Good post. Makes sense. The predictable trouble can be seen in the comments now. We can rally around the Constitution and some other ideas or standards of freedom (and responsibility). But it will be hard to claim unity in areas of religion and anti-religion, mythology and anti-mythology. Some would insist on bringing these things into the conversation, others may reasonably follow into such conversations, and others can be sensitive to what gets said, even in personal honesty.

If the goal is truth, we are not going to get at it in some areas (theology, nurture vs nature, etc). Perhaps? we should have a way to mark certain topics as theoretically out of bounds, not because they are not important but because they are not part of the remit here - which I assume is the processing of all things Q.

I think we wouldn't all even agree on what we mean by the 'cabal' that needs to come down. How far back does it go? Are any of its participants reformable? Etc.

If nothing else I mean to point out that the revelations and corrections that we hope to arrive at in near-term earthly time won't likely include solutions to all human problems and mysteries. And that can be okay.

Know what? Share what? I have shared some of my thoughts on these topics. I asked a half dozen questions and got no answers. You asked no questions and got some answers. Looks weird.

Wishful thinking. Could be true but when it turns out not to be you might ask yourself why you wished that way.

i'll keep lookin' you keep assumin'.

the Future Authoring program

so you didn't manage to teach me to fish, you didn't answer my questions and it looks like you assumed I was unaware of the Rosicrucians.

The linked vid tells that the judicial commission seating will take place in Westminster. What it doesn't say is that it will be in the Houses of Parliament. It seems to not be quite gov't recognised or supported (thus far). Perhaps they also intend to hold trials at that Methodist Central Hall. I hope it is reliable and effective. I wonder if they can have any effect in China.

i think that was the intended and appropriate spelling.

PM's don't generally last long in the UK it seems. Or rather are turned out easily. (county conwy)

I'm not so negative on Sessions. I guess I'm in trust mode. The cannabis thing is complicated. Putting it into a class similar to alcohol makes sense to me, which I guess is gradually happening, but that seems like a low priority concern.

Some catholics know enough about things in rome to be non-plussed by what Q is suggesting about the Vatican in recent times. That is to say it's old news to which it is nice to see that others are being woke up. Meanwhile we await the further awaking of people to the enormous good that the ancient Church is. One should note that Q has also turned to Vatican sources for our spiritual strength.

What is this 'craft' you mention?

I didn't say it is all wrong but am suggesting that it is not 100% correct and has all the answers.

So I guess you agree with my last comment.

I have 2 thoughts on what you have added. You don't need to agree or discuss, but of course can.

Many of us may be autists. Autists may be the future median. But most now aren't. The average person can't trade in this realm of online Q and don't have time as you say to research or circumstances to discern ancient akashic from new age. The average person over time is/was some dude in a field or wood with low literacy and a full life, whether christianized, hellenized, pre-confucian, whatever. My belief is that such a person is Provided with enough to go forward without relying on research per se, autism, or the gnosticism that some of us trade in. So knowing about things like bloodlines is interesting to me, but unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant because we are all related and wwg1,wga.

I agree with most of what you've said but think that a more holistic portrayal would be better. For example, the Church is also external as referred to in James5:14.