RE: THE 100% [HORRIBLE] T R U T H .
Upon further reflection of your above comment Sean, I am honestly a bit confused. Unirock calls you out in the video below (at 27 seconds) for deflecting with "obviously completely uninformed questions" as a tactic to avoid addressing serious Q issues. I have to honestly say that your above question sounds like this type of tactic to me too.
You've certainly seen my multitude of previous comments on this blog including my related posts and clear views on Trump and Q as a blatant psy-op, and yet you ask me a question that doesn't take any of that into account. That means that you either never looked at or read any of my previous comments, or that you are looking to selectively ignore and now deflect my clear views on these topics. Since I don't take you as stupid, I am going for option number 2.
Why would you do that Sean and why would there be a pattern of doing this with others? Maybe you can help me and your other followers here to better understand this strange pattern. (FYI, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
On a related note, I also apparently am perceived by you as a bit of a thorn in your side because you clearly upvoted every other positive commenter on the page yesterday (I was also one), but you specifically excluded upvoting me. Instead you write me exactly the type of deflection question that Unirock describes that you did with him. I could care less at this point if you upvote my comments, but such actions tell a bit of a story as well. It points to the fact that your question to me was not a sign of genuine and valued interest, but rather a sign of deflection as pointed out above.
Of course, I'm happy to hear any logical explanation otherwise so please do help me understand..
I don't know how I can thank you N_& V_ for your Excellent Due Diligence concerning Trump & "Q".
KUDOS!!!
X-
Thanks a lot X- ! My biggest concern is that people don't keep getting conned over and over again. This is destroying our shared ability to think clearly and properly respond to real threats to us. Instead of trusting anyone's "plan" or being shepherded into false narratives, we must learn to practice the utmost level of discernment and call out anyone that doesn't pass the most basic "sniff" tests.
In researching for my latest post, it's become so blatant to me how much massive disinfo is going on in the alternative media / truth movement as well. It's so infiltrated it's both ridiculous and saddening. It makes me really wonder who can be trusted anymore. I'm getting to the point where I am now ready to standardly distrust anyone who makes their living off of alternative media unless they regularly prove themselves not to be disinfo. This goes for Sean as well at this point.
Once Again, Thank YOU for your well-built formulations N_ & V_.
So.
Now for some 'comic relief' a lá 1966:
I wrote below * "wanna-believer" * , but really thought this>>>
-I'm a Believer - The Monkees-
The Monkees were not real musicians; they were contrived in a studio by other musicians.
Kind'a like "Q".
And Corsi.
Fakes and ½-Fakes.
Replace 'she' and 'her' with the 2 above.
:))) & ;) X-
Yep.. Perhaps they were coordinated independently by Stanford Research Institute instead of jointly with Tavistock like most major rock bands. This could be why the Monkeys never made it all that far, but hey.. they had their own TV show! ;-)