-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings- PART 4

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Then what Q was talking about yesterday will yet remain a mystery. Because its all a big secret. Whatever it is. And this is clearly how to reveal secrets (by keeping them that way).

ok, fine. after someone brought up the red castle logo for the army corp of engineers, I searched "castle" on the qanon.pub site. I reviewed the posts with castle in them and cross referenced the dates of the posts with news about army corp of engineers and trump around those dates.
try it and come to your own conclusion from there. I'm not big on doing research for others but I felt like this might help you in some way.

OveR

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
I had to look up omnibus and I still don't quite get it ?

You are not meant to understand these Bills, not meant to understand Facebooks T&Cs, not meant to understand Tax Codes, etc. All intentional.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So Q is a warmonger?

"They want you divided" - Q

All wars are orchestrated by the cult. There is no enemy except for the one hidden hand that finances both sides of wars.

Q Wiki news

* After rather unproductive week I have finished parser for qanon.pub site. It was quite a work as I really do not like markup languages - especially HTML.
* Crumbs up to #963 are present on Wiki.
* I can upload new one at the moment it appears on qanon.pub.

Now I'll focus on node/core pages. Especially questions raised by IgnoranceIsNotBliss. Goal is to have copy/pasta ready answers for basic questions.

I am confused. Somebody barges into this thread, states time is the most important thing in life and how we are all wasting this precious resource in this thread. Same person posts several dozen times within 24 hours in said thread which is a lot more than most of us here do - ironically wasting not only his own but also everybody else's time.

What am I missing?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: JanAmosComenius
So how long until you do form one (for todays post)?

Do not know. May be never. I'm not much "synthetic" guy and that is one reason why I'm setting up Q/conspiracy Wiki ... my ambitious plan is to let others to create synthesis. In other words I'm just humble admin setting up server and preparing larger sets of data (for now Q crumbs, resignations list, Podesta/HRC WikiLeaked emails) + I'm saving interesting posts and articles linked in full text for search.

I think I pretty well understand your concerns about Q phenomenon and what response it created on ATS/other boards. But such concerns are not primary subject of this thread: Probably you are not invading D&D parties with "dragons doesn't exist" remarks.

You are welcome to participate on Wiki. If you are interested PM me (preferably new one) email address for login.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
I had to look up omnibus and I still don't quite get it ?

You are not meant to understand these Bills, not meant to understand Facebooks T&Cs, not meant to understand Tax Codes, etc. All intentional.

BTW Czech republic have 10M inhabitants and 2M+ valid documents broadly described as law norm. With current productivity we will achieve 10m/10m in 15 years. There is no possibility to avoid "unlawful" behavior simply because you physically can NOT know.

a reply to: carewemust

Also, what one person calls a "Boom"...someone else may not see it that way. I desperately want Q to have a sterling reputation for accuracy. Yesterday, I was saying to myself, "I wish Q had not emphasized WEDNESDAY as a BIG BOOM day!" Why? Because nothing major happened on Wednesday, and in my mind, Q's reputation for accurate predictions inched down a notch. 

This I find puzzling. You say you're aware that the booms have more than one possible meaning. Which is true.

So why then, would you place a specific expectation on the Wednesday boom? I could understand your complaint if Q had specifically stated that there would be a big boom definitely happening on Wednesday, and there being disappointment when it did not occur. However, that was not the case at all, from my perspective. So I'm curious how then did that translate to Q predictions not being accurate? As far as I can see, there was no prediction of anything...just different theories on what the words and phrases in the drop might mean.

It's like the Queen reference and HRC. That seems to be your own expectation based on what you've decided Q meant by that. Q didn't say it was HRC who was going down...right? So why focus on only that possibility and base your overall assessment of Q accuracy on that assumed outcome? I do trust the plan and remain hopeful, but even I don't assume that Q means only one specific thing with those drops.

You're right that our trust and belief or lack thereof has no effect on whatever Q has planned. Thinking that it does would border on a cult mentality. There is a difference between trusting in an overall plan and blindly put faith in one person's interpretation of what yet another totally different person said in a decidedly vague manner...yet you appear to have been quite critical of the former while putting the latter into practice yourself.


Your analogy of religious teachings is actually perfect...because those are also open to wide interpretation. Their accuracy can only be determined by the level of belief and trust in one interpretation of something that is entirely subjective and influenced by many different factors. Does that mean that they are all right or all wrong? No...because another person will interpret their truths or lack thereof in an entirely different way.

When we take away a preset expectation of what these drops actually mean, we explore all of the other information that is connected more carefully. And in that way, we learn. We expand our thinking, and in turn expand the thinking of others.

I wouldn't be here if it was some clearly outlined plan of attack and we were getting detailed briefings of what to expect from moment to moment. What would be the point of discussing any of it? Nothing would be learned nor discovered, because we would already know the outcome.

That's why I am saying I trust in the plan...because it is bigger than just HRC getting perp-walked into Gitmo in shackles on the evening news. That would be cool to see, and quite satisfying, but that's not really why I'm here personally. Karma is coming for her and I don't need to see it go down or read about it in the news to know that is true.

I think maybe if people just tried experiencing the journey rather than focusing on the end result...which is never a fixed outcome anyway, this would be a lot less frustrating. Have you considered the possibility that you're setting yourself up for disappointment by attaching emotional energy onto one possible interpretation above all of the others?

I don't always get you, but I truly do enjoy talking to you. This time you've got me puzzled, though.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Well you know...I've been thinking all this time how very little HRM has been factored into all of this. And that has always struck me as strange, because she actually has a rather important role in this whole thing. So when I see a word that is consistent with a chess move that is solely for the purpose of protecting a potentially vulnerable King, I start thinking about the Queen. Who is far more powerful than old Clumsy McClone, aka HRC.

That is indeed a hefty dose of symbolism if that photo is relevant here. The pink, too...in a sea of red. Strange. That could indicate a frailty, a subversion of something helpless and innocent. It could also symbolize a birth. Or a rebirth.

Long live the King?

a reply to: CoramDeo
What's the power balance on the Appropriations Committee? Republican or Democrats in majority?

ETA - looked it up:- 30 Republican, 22 Democrat, ergo 8 republican majority, enough to be assured of control?

a reply to: Skyfloating

Wow, unexpected synchronicity!

After the last few pages, An image came into my head of some Q naysayers being like conductors furiously waving their baton, trying to get the orchestra to play to their beat - but the orchestra is so tight that they have no need of a conductor.

Seconds later I read your post.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Re: Long Live the King...

In the last few days, Prince William has been shown in MSM performing the "knighting" ceremony of placing a sword on the shoulders of those being knighted. Example in point is Sir Richard Starkey, commonly known as Ringo Starr of the Beatles.

This is historically the role of the monarch to perform, though in recent years Prince Charles has done some.

Just interesting that Prince William has taken on this role.


I have been asking since the early days of the thread, when would we see some posts relevant to Europe (incl. Monarchies). I would expect that once the USA elements move into "tidy up" stage, such posts would grow in number. Maybe we are seeing the start of that.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Knights were historically promoted also by lower nobility. Not sure how it is working in UK. Formally was feudal order dismantled with Czechoslovak republic in 1918 - feudal titles are "illegal" here.

This formality ended with Karel Schwarzenberg's presidential bid with motto: "Count/duke is closer to people". No he is not. He is Bilderberg attendee.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

That's interesting re Czech feudal system!

My point is that it's only recently Prince William has been shown performing the knighting and it was pushed on headline news by MSM.

Ps PM'd you

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

That's interesting re Czech feudal system!

My point is that it's only recently Prince William has been shown performing the knighting and it was pushed on headline news by MSM.

Ps PM'd you

In English it is new terminology for me. In Austro/Hapsburg nomenclature system is Prince William archduke (granting him "prince" title). Schwarzenberg is duke: this title was reserved for almost sovereign loyal servants of crown with large land holdings, basically states in the state.

Forgot the merit: Duke is almost sovereign over his lands AND servants. So he can promote them to knightship ... it changed a lot during times ...

Using this nomenclature in Czech rep. should be red rag to anybody ... deaf ears, blind eyes.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius
In English system you are a Prince when born of a monarch or a crown prince (next in line for throne) but also granted next title down of Duke.

This means that the next generation of princes just become Dukes and are no longer potential future monarchs.

It is like diluting their titles as they get further away from the crown.

originally posted by: MindBodySpiritComplex

What am I missing?

the points he made

he's right you know... but I digress
if it's fun and helps you think out of the box
then at the end of the day it can't be so bad

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis on just how impossible it is to read (or even be aware of) every contract or law that an individual is obliged by - and to show how at least half of those individuals would not even understand what obligations are being put on them!

Examples:

International laws (U.N. etc.),
National laws,
State laws,
County laws (Council or by-laws in UK),
Other legal bodies laws/rules (e,g, driving regulations)
Interpretations and processes of above (e.g. Parking laws, Illegal or dangerous substances),
Regular amendments and schedules to above items,
Employment contracts,
Housing contracts,
Product contracts,
Software contracts,
Internet community contracts (FB, Twitter, Google, etc.),
Social services regulations,
Mental health regulations,
Medical operations contracts and waivers,

We are customers in all these situations and the rule CAVEAT EMPTOR (Buyer Beware) should apply - but it is now impossible for us to be aware of all the above obligations.

Has anyone ever proven successfully in court that it is impossible to be aware of all these obligations and that therefore it is unreasonable to expect an individual to be culpable on the basis foreknowledge/understanding of the rules?

ETA - Is there even a list of all these laws and regulations that would educate individuals as to what they need to read? I have just complained to U.K. Citixen's Advice Bureau that there is no such list!
ETA2 - Average 10 new laws a day in U.K (BBC) - this means an individual would have to read 1.5 laws an hour, in a working day, every day, just to be aware of all potential obligations!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: tigertatzen


Yesterday, I was saying to myself, "I wish Q had not emphasized WEDNESDAY as a BIG BOOM day!" Why? Because nothing major happened on Wednesday, and in my mind, Q's reputation for accurate predictions inched down a notch.

The post were Q mentioned Wednesday was the one that talked about the FBI opening a case on Q regarding the Texas bomber and Q's booms in attempt to shut down Q communications. He said they would fail.

Then on Wednesday the bomber was killed.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

For sure you did your homework! Almost LOLed out of chair. For sure we share black humor.