Q source / Qanon

[JEEP]

It's a good question but I have the feeling they would just say something like "what do you think?"

I'm betting, "Wait and see!"

 

[Evan]

I check in on this topic from time to time just to see what’s going on, and it appears as though as much time is invested in whether Q should be a topic at all as there is on Q predictions in general. One might even suggest that “Should Q Be A Topic?” could be its own thread. I’m being facetious for the most part, but it does seem to dominate the discussion.

 

[meta-agnostic]

As for Flat Earthers I would say, yes there were/are quite a few that have been taken in.

I may not have been very clear. I was referring to whether there were members and observers of this forum who had been taken in by Flat Earth. Without going back through the thread, I remember there was one guy who kept saying things like, "Well, if you look at it this way..." and he got shut down pretty readily with, "Dude, just please stop, give it up." (or something to that effect)

Flat Earth certainly seems to have gained a foothold. I just came across this video the other day, didn't seem quite worth posting in the Flat Earth thread but they are clearly getting organized:

As are Q people, but I think most of the Q people deserve credit for being at least a little bit more discerning. Q even answered "No" when asked in a Q&A not too long ago if the Earth was flat, putting 'him' in the same category as the C's of deigning to answer that stupid question (the Q&A was purportedly part of an 8chan stress test and the question was phrased as being asked in order to shut the Flat Earth trolls up).

To continue comparing what I'd still consider to be fairly disparate examples of 'psyops', people in both groups seem to know innately that there is something very wrong with the world, and they've latched on to these 'answers' as being the things that will fix it. With Flat Earth, I still don't even see how that's supposed to work and I don't see the point in arguing with anyone about it whether you can tell if they're serious our not.

With Q, many of them are pouring research into how the world can be made better if it turns out that the U.S. actually has an administration willing to do what it takes to help make it that way. Do they all deserve to be led down a path to nowhere or somewhere bad because they were too stupid to "understand how the world really works" and not cynical enough? I don't mean going on to Q dedicated forums or social media and telling them what's what, I mean if it was someone in your life. I saw it mentioned in the Yellow Vest thread, there were Q people among the Yellow Vests, they were told it was too good to be true, and their response was, "wait and see".

If you have a Flat Earther in your life, I'm sorry, that sucks. If you had or do have a Q person in your life, what would you say to them? "It's not true because it's just not, the world is too evil and cannot be saved, it needs to be destroyed as planned." Or is there possibly something that could be said to illustrate how the whole thing is b.s. like for instance, what the goal of the whole Q operation is and how it is bad? Because I would put the number who could be convinced by the C's previous answer at approximately zero. Q gets referred to as a psyop all the time anyway. It does not convey any information to call it that, except that it's not a LARP.

I didn't mean to ramble for so long but I want this to be put to bed as much as anyone else. There is no use for everyone arguing in circles.

 

[flashgordonv]

snip

With Q, many of them are pouring research into how the world can be made better if it turns out that the U.S. actually has an administration willing to do what it takes to help make it that way. Do they all deserve to be led down a path to nowhere or somewhere bad because they were too stupid to "understand how the world really works" and not cynical enough? I don't mean going on to Q dedicated forums or social media and telling them what's what, I mean if it was someone in your life. I saw it mentioned in the Yellow Vest thread, there were Q people among the Yellow Vests, they were told it was too good to be true, and their response was, "wait and see".

snip
Or is there possibly something that could be said to illustrate how the whole thing is b.s. like for instance, what the goal of the whole Q operation is and how it is bad? Because I would put the number who could be convinced by the C's previous answer at approximately zero. Q gets referred to as a psyop all the time anyway. It does not convey any information to call it that, except that it's not a LARP.

I didn't mean to ramble for so long but I want this to be put to bed as much as anyone else. There is no use for everyone arguing in circles.

But the fact that Q people are pouring effort into this thing, that is the whole point of the exercise. To divert people and get them to waste time and energy on something that is ultimately a dead end.

Your desire to help the Q people see the error of their ways is laudable but don't forget that your help ought to be rendered when somebody is asking for it, not because you want to set them on the straight path. The C's previous answer is what it is. People who are obsessed with a thing generally will not see the error of it. And in a sense providing "proof" to them is an attempt to take away their free will and force them to the truth.

 

[meta-agnostic]

But the fact that Q people are pouring effort into this thing, that is the whole point of the exercise. To divert people and get them to waste time and energy on something that is ultimately a dead end.

Your desire to help the Q people see the error of their ways is laudable but don't forget that your help ought to be rendered when somebody is asking for it, not because you want to set them on the straight path. The C's previous answer is what it is. People who are obsessed with a thing generally will not see the error of it. And in a sense providing "proof" to them is an attempt to take away their free will and force them to the truth.

Fair enough, but I don't really see this as being so black and white as having Camp C and Camp Q, and you're in one or the other or you're the hoi polloi. I talk with conspiracy-minded people (for lack of a better term) fairly often. Let's say the subject of Q comes up, they are not married to it but they are interested. I say, "Ah, probably best to stay away from that, I heard it was a bad psyop." They say, "Oh, really? Tell me more!". And I say, what? Go read The Wave and come back to me when you're ready for more?

 

[tczubernat]

But the fact that Q people are pouring effort into this thing, that is the whole point of the exercise. To divert people and get them to waste time and energy on something that is ultimately a dead end.

This is what is so interesting about Q. The information gleaned from the research goes a long way towards understanding what the hell is going on in America and the world. The research path that is being suggested is one that I took prior to this phenomenon. Back in '08 the banks who tanked the economy were rewarded with my house, the nation playing corporate welfare state and the bank CEO'S with great bonuses . . . all with the blessing and cooperation of our "public servants." Anyway, that's what drove me to research and learn. So, if knowledge protects (and this knowledge has some potential to do exactly that) . . . . Anyway, I'd be curious to see what an answer to a properly worded question, or series of questions would yield. Could be nothing. Could mean having a bit of forewarning. I get that maybe the right thing to do would be to try and warn the hardcore followers, or something noble like that, but you can't convince the true believers. You can forewarn the curious observer.

 

[Neil]

Fair enough, but I don't really see this as being so black and white as having Camp C and Camp Q, and you're in one or the other or you're the hoi polloi. I talk with conspiracy-minded people (for lack of a better term) fairly often. Let's say the subject of Q comes up, they are not married to it but they are interested. I say, "Ah, probably best to stay away from that, I heard it was a bad psyop." They say, "Oh, really? Tell me more!". And I say, what? Go read The Wave and come back to me when you're ready for more?

That's not how I would handle the situation, and you know I've been in the "anti-Q" camp since the beginning. I called it a psyop back in January of last year before the Cassiopaeans had anything to do with it. I admit that the cloak and dagger, spy vs. spy, everything is connected, worldwide conspiracy angle was very fascinating and engrossing when I first encountered it, because I knew that reality existed. However, there was something about the "mannerisms and inflections" that caused a sort of cacophony in my consciousness that led to the conclusions I made in that post; albeit they were a bit more speculative at that time. I think this cacophony was the result of something that didn't quite "fit" with the reading I've done here.

I would respond that Q is interesting, but that he is not what he purports himself to be. I would summarize the points made in this thread, such as the trust the plan meme, the unnecessary opacity of his clues, and the encouragement to look for patterns where there are none. I would then run through my Faction A/B/C model as a probable explanation. I would further support my argument with what I know about COINTELPRO, and how psyops infiltrated UFO research and spiritual "awakenings," such as the human potential movement. If the person was still listening, I might move into how the thing seems to be emulating what Laura calls "cosmic COINTELPRO," whereby aliens seemed to inspire human religious control systems as outlined in the William Bramley book, and when one control system broke down, another one was fabricated to take its place that was perhaps a bit more complex and nuanced, but would ultimately lead back to the same place. Q is just doing it on a more political level. I would emphasize the point one needs to have a rich and wide perspective in order to properly analyze the Q operation, and it is not a context that can be gained simply by whipping out one's phone and typing a few words into google and perusing a few chat boards. At that point, I might name drop the Wave or something like that as a starting point to begin acquiring that context. I would then be able to tell by the reaction whether the person was a "true believer," someone seeking intellectual masturbation, or someone who really wants to learn the truth. If they were of the first two types, but not necessarily militant, we might be stay cordial with each other by discussing Q's truthful and justified expose on the Faction A Democrats, but there would be no real depth to our discussion, it would just become idle gossip to pass the time. It's actually a complex issue, you would need an hour or so on a clear-headed day to do it justice. So it's not really about emotionally identifying with which camp you're in, even though at the end of the day I would fall in what you would call "Camp C," it's about taking the object and trying to analyze it from all sides in all it's nuance and seeing how it relates to the mosaic of what you can perceive of the broader "objective reality."

I think this background knowledge is part of back and forth that goes on between Laura and the Cassiopaeans when they're communicating and she has tried to share that with the Chateau crew. It allows them to convey a lot with very little. So when they said "insider of psyops" everyone with the requisite related contextual knowledge was able to be like "oh, right" and move casually on to the next question because the response was clear as day to everyone who was operating from similar understandings.

It seems that you cannot accept that the Cassiopaeans have devalued your "idol." Your intellect can entertain the notion that Q is more dubious or ambivalent than he appears, but your belief center can't seem to "go there" and this may be due to lack of knowledge. Our conclusions don't make sense because you are operating from a narrower context? At any rate, there is nothing to rein in those "horses" and you keep going around in circles back to the same point of surreptitiously trying to find some technicality with which to rehabilitate Q.

So is Q "good" or "bad"? (A question which would seem to invite emotional reasoning) Well, Q could be good if you have a good BS detector with which to latch on to his more truthful drops about corruption in the government and NWO agendas without becoming identified with the image he projects as a "good guy" and delving into unsubstantiated speculation. Most people are not able to do that and you look to be a prime example. You attempt to do it intellectually, but I sense that a part of you really wants to believe, and you keep getting caught in this dichotomy. Yes Q helps some people wake up, but it seems only enough to effect some kind of damage control. I think most people will end up becoming trapped in the "new religion" but I will need to sit back and observe this thing or a while longer in order to prove that conclusively.

So if my nuanced analysis is wrong, Laura's intuition about it is wrong, and the Cassiopaeans have been misinterpreted, which can happen, I give you full permission to rub my nose in it I think it's very unlikely though.

 

[goyacobol]

It's a good question but I have the feeling they would just say something like "what do you think?". Maybe it can go either way depending on "who you are and what you see".

I'm betting, "Wait and see!"

I now wish I had said the answer would/will probably be:

From Session 7 May 1995 where they used this same answer 5 times in that same session

A: See previous answer, from now on abbreviated as "SPA."

 

[luc]

Here we go again, running in circles

meta-agnostic, you have posted almost exclusively here on this thread for the past year. It's almost like... you are obsessed and have zero appreciation for the myriad of thoughtful posts here, and miss all the other discussions going on here on the forum. Wait a second... could that mean... hmmm... maybe... Q is a psyop designed to trap people so that they lose focus and stop learning?

(*patiently waiting for the next round of thoughtful posts and "but... but... Q!!" replies*)

 

[tczubernat]

That's not how I would handle the situation, and you know I've been in the "anti-Q" camp since the beginning. I called it a psyop back in January of last year before the Cassiopaeans had anything to do with it. I admit that the cloak and dagger, spy vs. spy, everything is connected, worldwide conspiracy angle was very fascinating and engrossing when I first encountered it, because I knew that reality existed. However, there was something about the "mannerisms and inflections" that caused a sort of cacophony in my consciousness that led to the conclusions I made in that post; albeit they were a bit more speculative at that time. I think this cacophony was the result of something that didn't quite "fit" with the reading I've done here.

I would respond that Q is interesting, but that he is not what he purports himself to be. I would summarize the points made in this thread, such as the trust the plan meme, the unnecessary opacity of his clues, and the encouragement to look for patterns where there are none. I would then run through my Faction A/B/C model as a probable explanation. I would further support my argument with what I know about COINTELPRO, and how psyops infiltrated UFO research and spiritual "awakenings," such as the human potential movement. If the person was still listening, I might move into how the thing seems to be emulating what Laura calls "cosmic COINTELPRO," whereby aliens seemed to inspire human religious control systems as outlined in the William Bramley book, and when one control system broke down, another one was fabricated to take its place that was perhaps a bit more complex and nuanced, but would ultimately lead back to the same place. Q is just doing it on a more political level. I would emphasize the point one needs to have a rich and wide perspective in order to properly analyze the Q operation, and it is not a context that can be gained simply by whipping out one's phone and typing a few words into google and perusing a few chat boards. At that point, I might name drop the Wave or something like that as a starting point to begin acquiring that context. I would then be able to tell by the reaction whether the person was a "true believer," someone seeking intellectual masturbation, or someone who really wants to learn the truth. If they were of the first two types, but not necessarily militant, we might be stay cordial with each other by discussing Q's truthful and justified expose on the Faction A Democrats, but there would be no real depth to our discussion, it would just become idle gossip to pass the time. It's actually a complex issue, you would need an hour or so on a clear-headed day to do it justice. So it's not really about emotionally identifying with which camp you're in, even though at the end of the day I would fall in what you would call "Camp C," it's about taking the object and trying to analyze it from all sides in all it's nuance and seeing how it relates to the mosaic of what you can perceive of the broader "objective reality."

I think this background knowledge is part of back and forth that goes on between Laura and the Cassiopaeans when they're communicating and she has tried to share that with the Chateau crew. It allows them to convey a lot with very little. So when they said "insider of psyops" everyone with the requisite related contextual knowledge was able to be like "oh, right" and move casually on to the next question because the response was clear as day to everyone who was operating from similar understandings.

It seems that you cannot accept that the Cassiopaeans have devalued your "idol." Your intellect can entertain the notion that Q is more dubious or ambivalent than he appears, but your belief center can't seem to "go there" and this may be due to lack of knowledge. Our conclusions don't make sense because you are operating from a narrower context? At any rate, there is nothing to rein in those "horses" and you keep going around in circles back to the same point of surreptitiously trying to find some technicality with which to rehabilitate Q.

So is Q "good" or "bad"? (A question which would seem to invite emotional reasoning) Well, Q could be good if you have a good BS detector with which to latch on to his more truthful drops about corruption in the government and NWO agendas without becoming identified with the image he projects as a "good guy" and delving into unsubstantiated speculation. Most people are not able to do that and you look to be a prime example. You attempt to do it intellectually, but I sense that a part of you really wants to believe, and you keep getting caught in this dichotomy. Yes Q helps some people wake up, but it seems only enough to effect some kind of damage control. I think most people will end up becoming trapped in the "new religion" but I will need to sit back and observe this thing or a while longer in order to prove that conclusively.

So if my nuanced analysis is wrong, Laura's intuition about it is wrong, and the Cassiopaeans have been misinterpreted, which can happen, I give you full permission to rub my nose in it I think it's very unlikely though.

Okay . . . that's going to take a minute to process. Thank you for a well thought out response.

 

[Yupo]

Insider psyop. Hmmm. I am among the ones here that continue to observe from a distance with some interest. At first, it had the feel of hope porn to me. I've been caught up in hope porn lots of times in the (long) past, so I'm not attaching hope to it. I know some disgusted alphabet soup retirees and also some connections in Cuba. I am getting some corroboration of things that might actually be happening. Does not mean the things are happening, I know. Could this psyop be directed at the insiders? It appears in that case like a board game with them. Enjoyable to observe.
I'm reminded of a Robert Heinlein story about a supercomputer that became self-aware. It understood how it was being used against the citizens and decided to help the underdogs by informing them of the peril they were in and how to counter the moves of the other side. Fake news, AI, CG personalities ran the show.
Yes, an interesting distraction. I plan to continue watching from a distance for the entertainment.

 

[mrtn]

Could this psyop be directed at the insiders?

My impression was, and is even more after the C's comment, that it could be done by the Trump camp to garner some kind of people who are into conspiracies, who 'know' about the deep state etc., for whom there are no direct means to attach to traditional politics. So the connection to Trump is loose enough or unsubstantial enough for the average person to ignore and close enough for those people to take it as such. Basically extending Trump base, his own base, thus 'insider' psyop. The second meaning is to give these people the feeling of being 'insiders' for 'knowing' about the hidden agendas as well as the feeling of being affiliated into the Trump phenomenon or being backed by Trump.

 

[Joe]

So when they said "insider of psyops" everyone with the requisite related contextual knowledge was able to be like "oh, right" and move casually on to the next question because the response was clear as day to everyone who was operating from similar understandings.

Yes, it was clear to everyone, but not necessarily because of some broader, in-depth common understanding. The question was something like "is this coming from a real insider?". The answer was really just "psyops". They included "insider of" because of the question. Inferring a little more from the response, the full answer would have been "Yes the person(s) behind 'Q' are insiders to the US establishment, but the 'Q' business is psyop" That is to say, a psychological operation designed, as most psyops are, with lies wrapped in some truth to keep people hooked. After all, no psyop would attract many people unless it offers some truth. But it is, by definition, a manipulation. So what's the goal?

IMO it most likely is designed to vector the conspiracy-minded away from their own research and lead them 'down the garden path' so to speak by offering them a purported 'insider'. People love to think they have a direct hook in, an insider to the 'real deal' who can tell them the 'real truth', because it's a lot easier than having to figure things out yourself. And that, I suppose, is the core of the psyops and WHY it is a psyop, because it's a lot easier than having to figure things out yourself.

By that description, you could call the Cs sessions a 'psyop', because they give a lot of details that would otherwise remain hidden. But here we come to the crux of the matter: intent. There's 20+ years of evidence to suggest that the Cs have good intentions towards us. That cannot be said about 'Q', and to be honest, I'm pretty sure I know the type of people who run the 'deep state' and what their intent is. So I would have to suspend a lot of disbelief to make the leap to assume that 'Q' was a well-intentioned 'establishment' insider. The primary reason I would do so would be because I WANT/NEED to believe that there are 'good guys' in the establishment working for the people. But I don't want to believe, I just want to know.

So I'm sorry, but I've been around long enough, and understood enough at this point to at least be confident in my conclusion that 'good guys' don't exist at this level, at least not in the way people are thinking about 'Q'. And that's fine, because I'm equally confident that we can do just fine on our own, and with a little help from our friends.

 

[genero81]

But I don't want to believe, I just want to know.

Amen to that. I for one have had enough of believing things that turned out to be false. Once a person comes to be aware of the hyperdimensional aspect to reality as we perceive it, then hooking people through their belief center is the name of the game that's been played from time immemorial. Once you understand that, you don't have to be 'played' any more. But you do have to do some work to get rid of those little 'needs' that Joe talks about. OSIT

 

[meta-agnostic]

Thank you Neil, luc, Joe and others. Some thoughtful analysis and I certainly take all of these criticisms to heart. My knowledge is definitely not where it needs to be overall, and I have been reading other threads but I need to post in them more. With more thought put into it I'm sure I could come up with other things to contribute.

I might put it like this in terms of imagining whatever big "event" may be to come that will alter our reality to the core. Say there is something along the lines of comets, an ice age, but also a transition to 4D that will give meaning to all of the disasters. But the transition requires STO polarization (or, heaven forbid, STS), and that probably means many/most of the people you know and love will perish and be reincarnated as cave men/women, or something to that effect. I'm sure it's actually much more complicated and nuanced than this, and I welcome any revisions to the scenario I just laid out.

Along comes Q's "plan". It need not be mutually exclusive from the scenario laid out above. Indeed it has been stated that the comets will strike based on what is going on with people on the ground and their awareness level. The comet forecast seems to have been delayed repeatedly, and with this "plan", just maybe, the weather won't end up being quite so bad after all. What kind of a person would not *want* this to be true?!

Wanting it to be true and believing it to be true are not quite the same level of delusion. It's entirely possible for someone to want it to be true but to understand the extreme unlikelihood of such events ever coming to pass. Hence the I would think understandable attitude of, well, prove it wrong then! Explicitly, in a way that could be easily understood by an average person with some awareness of these issues. The true believers won't want to hear it, but the skeptics would absolutely welcome it! Of the people I see getting into Q, some of them are jingoistic and simple and there's not much to be done about them. But most seem to be genuinely seeking a better path that leads to truth, justice, etc. They don't have the benefit of years of trying to understand the C's perspective, but that doesn't mean they would turn it away if it were presented to them. Once you take the proverbial "red pill", you can't go back! You can stagnate at whatever other plateaus there are along the way, or you can keep going along the infinite journey that leads to whatever the next realm has in store for us. If Q is not leading people in that direction, pointing out the falsities of its plateaus should not be all that difficult. A few more details might go a long way, but I guess they might also mess everything up somehow, and violate free will, so we will each proceed either way in any case.

Part of it I admit is being in the U.S. and unable to avoid at least occasional political discussions. The camps of Orange Man Bad or Orange Man Good are hard to avoid or placate when the subject inevitably comes up. Trying to remain neutral and detached is sometimes not even possible. If you claim to be in the middle, they see you as not being on their side if you don't weasel word along a knife edge the entire time. It's usually not that bad, but with some people you can tell they are looking for an excuse to make it bad. If something like this "storm" were to come to pass, well, it would pretty much put an end to all that, wouldn't it? It would get worse for some period, but eventually all decent people would have to refrain from defending the demonstrably heinous acts of those they used to admire and trust. As of now, this tension looks like it could continue on for another 2 or 6 years without some kind of other shoe dropping.

I understand I have put too much focus on this and I will dial back the Q talk. If something "happens" I will let others lead the charge in discussing it and only add my thoughts if there are details where it seems like my "Q expertise" could be of use.