Ignore posts calling for violence (QRV)

submitted ago by 2806951?

I have noticed an increase of posts calling for violence. This is a shill tactic to demonize the Q movement when the time is right. Think Comet Ping Pong and Hoover Dam. Ignore their attempts and continue to spread information. These people are stupid.

"The masses tend to panic in such situations. No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift." -Q Post 22

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

14615303? ago

1641

Coordinated effort to ramp pro violent attacks (4ch 8ch /pol/) (threads). Mods controlled (4ch). Staged to frame pro POTUS supporters. Push violence (trap). Shareblue. Coordinated RL attacks (link). Cause & Effect. MSM outcry to force action. It’s already begun (small > large). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dark-parts-of-internet-celebrate-capital-gazette-shooting_us_5b3547bae4b007aa2f7e7226📁 Anticipated. Goal? Ready David? Q

14631511? ago

The pro-violence post I saw an 8 Chan was a little obvious. It provided the personal phone numbers of various military commanders-- so we could call up the generals in person and volunteer our services??? That's why I saw it as tongue in cheek. But I guess if we're going to be funny, we should stick to memes and logic rather than sticks and stones.

14637266? ago

I saw that video. I didn't see it as a call to violence, but more of a call for help. Help the border patrol until our military could get there and staged. What was so wrong in that? We not even allowed to help now? Help meaning - watching and reporting what you are seeing. I just didn't take it as a call to violence. We are NOT a violent people. I guess though if you are looking for violence you can see it in anything you read. Everyone has to use good judgement and commen sense. As Q says "Logical Thinking".

14637960? ago

Yes, I understand what you mean. I didn't have a particularly negative reaction to the video, I thought it was funny and little exciting. But when someone called out the poster, his arguments seemed valid. It made me see how it could be used to discredit either us or Trump followers in general. We have not been asked by Q to form a militia, and I can see how this post may have crossed a red line. The one who objected was obviously not your average anon, but a person of influence--head baker or something. Q talks about how what we're doing is a game and also not a game. I guess this was one of those "not a game" situations.

What we all share here is a love of free speech but we also call each other out sometimes; I just did so in a post about something I felt strongly about. Some agreed and some said "fuck you," which I expected. It's all good! Thanks for your thoughts.