TIDBIT: BERNARD GROVER ON THE LATEST Q DROPS
August 8, 2019 / /
If you're following Bernard Grover's articles on the Q phenomenon, then you'll definitely want to read this one, and if you're not following them, then permit me to say, you need to:
Posted in Tidbits
10 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
In the absence of facts to the contrary? NO WAY. I am assuming nada bout Q. He’s the real deal. He’s on our side. It’s Trump up late at night hacking systems everywhere and using his covert tech skills in ways that make Peter Theil green.
Yep. I do not think we need to assume anything. My default is that Q is an op just like all the other ops manufacturing consent. I think the only difference here is that it’s a little higher tech. Q smells of AI. Young AI. And a team of really skilled programmers/hackers/directors. Q is like the ultimate toy for the Robert DiNiro character in Wag the Dog.
What seems different this last election with Trump is that he courted the conspiracy theory crowd openly. Remember feeling stunned when he gave Alex Jones an interview?
I think I like the Qvians better than the Christianists that W courted in 2000 and 2004. Now it feels like Qvians are being called and herded with Judas goats for something wicked coming. FBI declared them terrists along with conspiracy theorists. A’GIN.
Oops. This was in reply to Augenguy. Thank you.
Wait, Augenguy, you’re Bernard, right? Great writing. Thank you. Please keep it up.
My profound thanks to Dr. Farrell for posting this link and giving such a high recommendation. I am humbled and gratified.
I think we need to remember, not everyone is as intellectual as the group on this Forum!! What harm comes from giving the Working Classes a little hope that maybe the Good Side CAN win???
In the end, it truly matters not who or what “Q” is or isn’t….what matters is that a great many have started questioning things who might never have done so without this little game that “Q” is playing.
“They” got away with killing a U.S. President in 1963; then killed how many in the 9/11 disaster?! If it takes a Game of Q to wake up more people…..what does that matter?! 😉
The Qult. Anybody who’s read a cold war spy novel knows that in order to insinuate disinfo on the other side (i.e. “control the narrative”), the fake “mole” provides a few bits of “genuine” information as bait, together with a load of “chickenfeed”. To keep the other side busy trying to assemble the pieces of this pernicious puzzle while the real action is elsewhere.
Yep. Similar to how various religious professionals pull out a book and read from it in any situation at any time. Then they apply it to that situation regardless how far a reach it takes and claim it’s a sign from the Deity that we were given this insight at this time. It may or may not be. But to all the other skilled professionals in the room, it’s a parlor trick. I’ve done it with the Bible, Tolkein, Frank Herbert, pretty much any book I loved enough to read it well.
When we do it here, we’re not imposing an interpretation from the Deity with threat of force on each other. Hopefully, we are free associating, seeing what comes and getting valuable feedback from others’ free associations (especially helpful when they’ve read different books and/or websites). All it takes to work a book any book like an evangelist is to read it, feel it and mean it. It can be done with dictionaries. Does anyone not feel this hasn’t been done with Q?
Having said all that, then again we get folk like Amazing Polly who do some amazing digging to get some amazing connections that lead to excellent insights and claims that alot of her leads come via hints from Q. So who knows? I’m not impressed by anything I thought from Q drops. Nor by anything Polly or anyone else has said about Q. I am impressed by the facts Polly has dug up and credited to help from Q.
Amazing Polly does some great work, and I do not seek to disparage her or others who have dug up. However, much of what Q publishes is retreads of researchers who have worked for decades to expose the corruption at the heart of global governance, which Q has taken or been given credit for exposing. In other words, nothing new here but the form.
My primary concern with Q is that it has become a religion with similar faith and fervor from its followers, to whit: an unseen entity reveals hidden truth and will one day be exposed in all its glory to judge the guilty (military tribunals) and mete out justice, thus making the world right again. Meanwhile, its followers spread the gospel and seek solace in the faith that Q knows all and sees all and will ultimately set things right. Q (according to followers) operates on a higher morality and the ends will justify the means. Q is, de facto, a savior and Trump is its only begotten mouthpiece.
In the absence of facts to the contrary, we must assume that Q is not benign, and may in fact be a highly sophisticated operation to derail and deflect an otherwise powerful opposition to the ruling elite.
Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign exposed a huge demographic of disaffected and disenfranchised voters that Trump has apparently harnessed through the auspices of Q into a loyal support base that provides vocal apologetics for Trump that can be targeted and mobilized at will.
Ultimately, if Q has any hand in taking or using lives to achieve its ends, then thinking people should be horrified at this development. It is essentially a quasi-religious, quasi-governmental Star Chamber being granted a moral pass to “get things done.”
Polly does some excellent dot-connecting and I find it fascinating since she explores the “socialite” world that some researchers disparage, but it shows connections between influential people in the US who rarely appear in the “news” and whose role in corporate finance is not easy to trace. Then for influential women there is the problem of maiden names and sometimes multiple married names that make their relationships harder to trace.
This is quite aside from rumours out there about well-known people whose real fathers and/or mothers are allegedly not the “official” ones. And so we are back to genealogy again.
At least in the “good old days” we had things like “Who’s Who” (printed and thus not subject to scrubbing) and similar publications.
Good points Dana.
Augenguy, I don’t much mind the rehashed items. Seems sometimes, they need to get rehashed to get out there to the public.
What do you think of Steve Pieczenik?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zrc-8_Bsk&feature=youtu.be
OPUS 170 Epstein’s Parodoxical Death?