Q source / Qanon

tczubernat said:
So, the C's said Q was an "insider" of psyops. All Q followers believe the "insider" part, but I keep wondering about the "psyops" part. Psychological operations are not necessarily devious in nature; are they? The whole premise of Q is to get people to think about what is going on in a deeper manner. That is a psychological operation, but is it negative? Would love to hear more input from the group and/or C's.
I get that the "trust the plan" thing is a bit like taking people's power away and making them trust in the nebulous "plan." Unfortunately, America has strayed so far from the Constitution that without a bloody revolution, this may be the only alternative.
Click to expand...
I agree that a coherent critical examination of the Q phenomenon would continue to be valuable. The getting hung up on the word psyop and psyop=bad does not really elucidate anything. In our STS world, is the criticism supposed to go something like: if Q was good, [he] would just straightforwardly tell the truth about everything, but since [he] does not, and by [his] own admission obfuscates, [he] must be bad? Even if it is at least obvious on the surface that the people [he] is trying to 'trick' are the bad people?

There remains the distinct possibility that Q is ultimately in some ways bad, but if so, should it not be possible with some further research and observation to convincingly point out how this is the case? And for it to be worthwhile, to be able to point it out to someone who has been taken in by the Q phenomenon who is not a complete dullard? (they do exist)

Not to mention, much sentiment still comes from (some) forum members and SOTT that Trump is at least trying to do some good, and Trump is no closer to denouncing Q than he was over the summer. So what gives? I guess we'll wait and see.

p.s. Q is posting again today.
 
goyacobol said:
By definition Psyop is a manipulative activity.
Click to expand...
I agree, but wonder if in this case, it's not well intentioned. I get the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Still, it is an extremely interesting phenomenon. They do bring up some important issues, but the overly nationalistic tone is a bit offputting. However, what other unifying aspect of living together on this piece of land can such a varied people use, except for that idea . . . and just to oppose what I just wrote, the effect has been an extremely polarized situation where the left accepts just about anything that would destroy the right and the right will accept that someone is taking care of things for them and are lashing out at the left . . . .

I originally posted here that I thought it was possibly a "pied piper" type of operation, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to be part of a larger culture/political war. To what end? Is it for the Q stated purpose, or as part of an effort to neutralize existing angst by saying "don't worry; we got this."

One thing's for sure. Haven't seen this before and it sure is interesting.
 
tczubernat said:
Is it for the Q stated purpose, or as part of an effort to neutralize existing angst by saying "don't worry; we got this."
Click to expand...

It is the above message that worries me about the Q phenomenon. Expecting that someone/something has us covered may end up being a distraction. Granted those observing Q are probably not "dullards" but they may be letting their guard down by putting too much hope in these covert "White hats".
 
goyacobol said:
It is the above message that worries me about the Q phenomenon. Expecting that someone/something has us covered may end up being a distraction. Granted those observing Q are probably not "dullards" but they may be letting their guard down by putting too much hope in these covert "White hats".
Click to expand...
There is also this interpretation more in line with some of the surrounding C's transcripts: That Q & Co. know there are things like major Earth changes and maybe even realm border crossings underway, and their effort is an attempt to inject some transparency into the discussion of events, but it is ultimately in order to get their faction to be more trusted by the public so they can be more in control as the changes take place. They are doing it because it appears to be the most viable way forward for them. It would still count as devious, but perhaps not the worst thing imaginable.
 
To me, the most volatile element of all this remains the graphic crimes that HRC & Co. are accused of by Q and to a somewhat lesser extent publicly by Trump. Trump made no effort to dissuade people from chanting "Lock Her Up!" at all of his recent rallies and at times seemed to encourage it. If she is not locked up by election 2020, it could certainly be seen as not coming through on a major campaign promise. If she is, along with others (BHO?) it could indeed have a majorly destabilizing effect on society if not handled properly. Or maybe things will have gotten crazy enough by that point that it won't really matter? There won't be enough of a functioning government by then to execute the locking up?
 
Yep. All of the things I was taking under consideration, as well. Just to put the icing on the cake, a wall which keeps people out (with some very valid reasoning behind this), but it also keeps people in . . . .

Definitely have my popcorn ;-)
 
The Cs' answer, in this case, is unambiguous.

Y'all can believe whatever you wish to believe.

Just don't act surprised if we put the kibosh on 'interpreting Q' on this forum.

We'll keep a thread open on it, but more as an observation post to keep an eye on how the trickster is taking people in.
 
Niall said:
The Cs' answer, in this case, is unambiguous.

Y'all can believe whatever you wish to believe.

Just don't act surprised if we put the kibosh on 'interpreting Q' on this forum.

We'll keep a thread open on it, but more as an observation post to keep an eye on how the trickster is taking people in.
Click to expand...
Not sure where this is coming from. I don't see any statements of belief in the recent exchanges, just observations of the potential for a good outcome, as well as a bad outcome. The only thing I said wasI felt it was an interesting phenomenon, hence the "I got my popcorn" thing.

I thought I found a forum where these types of exchanges are not only acceptable, but in some ways encouraged. Are we talking censorship?
 
tczubernat said:
Okay, maybe I'm missing something. The only comment (that I know of) from the C's is to call Q an "insider" psyop. Unless I missed previous comments made, that's about as ambiguous as "trust the plan."
Click to expand...

Psyop, in the context of sessions, is pretty unambiguous. It is not used in a positive sense.
 
Generally at least in the more recent sessions, the attitude about asking the C's questions seems to be, gather as much information on your own as you can before asking a question. Then ask a pertinent question and use the answer to find out more without having to ask a bunch of follow-ups. During the session where the C's were asked about Q and in the sessions since, there have not been any follow-ups asked. I think all those of us who are continuing to observe and bring up questions are doing is trying to figure out what the answer means and what the continuing consequences are. Do we need to preface and end every post about it with, "But of course, thing=bad because the C's said so, implicitly? (or maybe explicitly depending on broadly we want to define the 'target' of the psyops, but in the exchange the target was actually not defined at all)

Laura said:
Session Date: September 22nd 2018
...
(Approaching Infinity) There's been this phenomenon on the internet: QAnon. It's an anonymous 4chan and 8chan poster who alleges to be an insider in some government structure who gives predictions and vague cryptic statements that are often then looked back on and confirmed by real events - at least in interpretation if not in actual fact. It has become a semi-popular phenomenon, but Google Analytics says it's not so popular. Then the Washington Post did a poll in Florida that found that 58% of Floridians were familiar with Q, and 25% held favorable opinions on the Q phenomenon. So, this gets back a question on forum as to the identity of Q. So, first question: Who is behind Q?

A: An "insider" of psyops.

Q: (Niall) It's a disinfo program.

(L) The very fact that the Washington Post is pushing it is a big red flag...

(Niall) It's like a Cyber Bell Witch!

(L) And truth and lies, truth and lies, truth and lies... Well, well, well. Next question.
Click to expand...

In Laura's follow-up comment, she implied the Washington Post is "in" on Q, I guess because they are hate-promoting it so all the Q followers will like it more because they obviously know that whatever WaPo endorses is garbage, and whatever it hates is good. Or, quite possibly, I am interpreting the exchange wrong. Is this a valid follow-up to ask either the C's or the universe or whatever? Is the Washington Post "in" on promoting Q as part of the psyop, or has Q manipulated them as part of a deeper and more intricate psyop? Or does it not matter because thing=bad, trust the plan, wait for comets and an ice age? I'm willing to consider any/all of these possibilities, or "think in completely unlimited terms" as another session I can't find at the moment said.
 
Maybe this is more nitpicking liable to get me in more trouble, but at least it's nitpicking over C's session content and not Q content.

Approaching Infinity, I don't know that I've ever expressed direct appreciation to you for being the one to ask the Q question. Thank you, particularly since it looks like it took some doing. Somehow I didn't notice until now, in the lead-up to the question you say "first question:" but it was not the first question you asked during the session. And the subsequent questions were about Syria and other geopolitics not directly addressing Q. So I can't help but wonder, do you remember having any follow-up questions planned? Is part of the reason there weren't any because the answer given was not what was expected?
 
Merci pour cette nouvelle session passionnante comme toujours...

Thank you for this exciting new session as always....
 
Merci de ne pas tenir compte de mon mail ci-dessous, erreur de trajectoire...

Please do not take into account my email below, trajectory error...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom