One of the interesting things about this, is that the programs that are used to monitor Internet communications, do not look for questions. Allegedly whenever a large series of questions are asked, they have to pull analysts away from their work and have them do incident response and analyze this stuff.
Now, this could be a lot of things: this could be black cube trying to distract the autists from digging into pedowood, this could be a series of leaks in the questions, this could be a larp, or this could be an counter intelligence operation to see what the autists know.
Another theory is that this is "crowdsourcing" by an intelligence outfit to utilize the autist collective to do research for them. More importantly if a channer steals or hacks and provides that evidence to the thread, it becomes state evidence without the need for a warrant.
I do not think q is legit, but i do not think it is a larp either. It is definitely some glow in the dark niggery.
It could also be propaganda. Target the people you know will dig into the questions (all of which are loaded), and let them 'discover' the 'truth' for themselves. Let them spread the propaganda once they believe it. A repeat of what happened in Germany, somewhat.
Trump is alleged to like Nazi's and be a racist; some of the comments we've heard from him suggest he's xenophobic and prejudiced (he is better than poor people, men are better than women and have a right to do as they please if they're rich and famous, white nationalists aren't bad, immigrants are bad, Mexicans are rapists and whatnot).
On the other hand, we know only what we read online, and we never know the people posting, nor their motives for writing what they have us reading. Then there's that video showing politicians being manipulated via CGI. Do we know what we saw was real? Did we see him say this in person or via a TV/Computer. Is the media real? Trump says not; Trump supporters say not. That contradicts what we've always felt about the people giving us world news. Now we have to ask, do we believe everyone in media would stay quiet about fake news because they're blackmailed or intimidated by their bosses?
To answer all of this we have to cut back to what we know of people, and how we behave as people. We have to project what we know of ourselves into those situations. If we were them, would we accept this? If we found out about this, would we stay silent? We are good, right? So surely not. You would then assume that more REGULAR people would be talking about how they've been roadblocked as journalists, or as FBI agents, CIA agents, police officers, judges, etc. We are all regular until we take those jobs, after all. Why do we take those jobs? Not for the money, but because we're good and believe we're helping others. If we then assume the majority of these people are good, would they do nothing? How would the few evil people in these organisations rise to the top (in order to control things) if the good people were in the majority? The odds seem stacked against all of this being true.
I believe there are people in government who are corrupt. I believe they will collaborate, to some degree. I cannot believe the whole government is filled with paedophiles and homosexuals who are being blackmailed into corruption. Not every politician has a foundation; the corrupt ones seem to have them for money-laundering purposes.
Logically, it makes sense that we have some bad eggs undermining everything, rather us all being slaves to a powerful cabal that influences who we are and how we think. They could control us from day one, as babies, to enter this world as slaves; teach us that slavery is good, and we'd never know the difference because we'd never have had freedom. If they were all corrupt and wanted to control everything, minimise the population and take all of the money, the whole world would be a totally different place.
We'd not be talking about any of this now. No freedom of speech. No way to communicate and share ideas en masse.
We'd witness murder as an acceptable way to kill the populous (far easier than poisoning everyone secretly). Governments killing people for small crimes, with no courts of justice or an appeal process, just decision-makers handing down punishment.
We'd see people being sterilised rather than being encouraged to use condoms and have abortions.
We'd not have people acting in the shadows. They wouldn't need to, they'd be in total control and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Why would they bother going to such lengths to give us the illusion of freedom if from day one we are ignorant to what any of this is? We learn from other people, this elite cabal would be far better off just getting people to teach us to worship them and follow their rules; killing anyone who shows signs of questioning their authority or the status quo (which helps with the population control).
I believe there are people in government who are corrupt. I believe they will collaborate, to some degree. I cannot believe the whole government is filled with paedophiles and homosexuals who are being blackmailed into corruption. Not every politician has a foundation; the corrupt ones seem to have them for money-laundering purposes.
Unfortunately, there is historical precedence for this. The first head of homeland security, was a former kgb agent. Let that sink in. After the fall of the soviet union, he defected to the US.
Why?
He was a wanted man in Europe, He was known as the wolf, we did not know what he looked like, he was infamous for putting politicians in compromising positions, with whores, homosexuals, and children, and he would blackmail them into being pro soviet/ pro communist. This is partly why French politics is ok with mistresses. Too many people saw through the communist set up and said "fuck it, we are degenerate frogs, might as well enjoy consenting sex".
Understand this: The first homeland security head positioned pedophiles into government positions in Europe because he could control them. They had no idea at 2001 that the Internet would be as invasive as it is, and knowledge of this could be found.
As we dig deeper, and look at the communist influence in hollywood, suddenly the pedo allegations of the 80s start to click. I doubt he was the first person to think to do this. US media was used against the communists, so they needed a way to neutralize it, a good sex scandal would do it, only the soviet union collapsed before they could implement that strategy.
All of our problems we experience today, are because we never bothered to clean up our messes left over from the cold war.
I've seen arguments made that the CIA control all of this, and the Queen of England controls them, etc., etc. – we can make a case for anything based on facts none of us can prove, or more accurately, none of us can debunk because we don't have first-hand information. What I'd say is this:
Even if the majority of the people in government – let's imagine 75% – were corrupt, there'd surely be enough who wouldn't accept any of this and would inform the public one way or another. If there's silence it means either the whole government (100%) is corrupt, or things happen in the shadows and certain parties in positions of power have the ability to make things disappear before anyone notices. It seems highly unlikely that paedo after paedo would be recruited into these agencies (which are designed to serve an important purpose). It's not a good recruitment method to find people with specialist skillsets (computer programming, preventing terrorism, etc.) if you're only hiring people you can blackmail for sex crimes; much like the casting couch is not the best way to find the best actor/actress for a show/movie.
If the majority of society accepted this kind of abuse it'd not be illegal (officials would make it legal to do these things). If they can control what we do, in some way, they could pass whatever bills they wanted to make these things a reality. We see that now with the NRA and guns. They don't pass these bills because they can't (like the healthcare bill Trump is trying to get through).
These paedos operate in the shadows because there's not enough people who would find them acceptable – which is also why this material useful for blackmail. The elites have power and influence. Some are good, some are bad. Some will use their power/influence for nefarious purposes. It's kind of like guns; if you give someone the power over life and death, you can't be surprised when someone chooses death; but not everyone chooses death – in fact, most do not, even though they could. The fact these paedos seem to be running now would suggest that there's not enough of them to fight and win (famous directors throwing around money to make things disappear on social media, in the news, etc.), and they know they can't afford to get caught because they know there will be consequences. I think that speaks volumes. There's more good than bad, even if the bad has more power than the majority of the good people; and it's worth noting, the good people with power have the majority of people on their side. Let's see how it all plays out.
view the rest of the comments →
senpaithatignoresyou ago
One of the interesting things about this, is that the programs that are used to monitor Internet communications, do not look for questions. Allegedly whenever a large series of questions are asked, they have to pull analysts away from their work and have them do incident response and analyze this stuff.
Now, this could be a lot of things: this could be black cube trying to distract the autists from digging into pedowood, this could be a series of leaks in the questions, this could be a larp, or this could be an counter intelligence operation to see what the autists know.
Another theory is that this is "crowdsourcing" by an intelligence outfit to utilize the autist collective to do research for them. More importantly if a channer steals or hacks and provides that evidence to the thread, it becomes state evidence without the need for a warrant.
I do not think q is legit, but i do not think it is a larp either. It is definitely some glow in the dark niggery.
4swe9ckz ago
It could also be propaganda. Target the people you know will dig into the questions (all of which are loaded), and let them 'discover' the 'truth' for themselves. Let them spread the propaganda once they believe it. A repeat of what happened in Germany, somewhat.
Trump is alleged to like Nazi's and be a racist; some of the comments we've heard from him suggest he's xenophobic and prejudiced (he is better than poor people, men are better than women and have a right to do as they please if they're rich and famous, white nationalists aren't bad, immigrants are bad, Mexicans are rapists and whatnot).
On the other hand, we know only what we read online, and we never know the people posting, nor their motives for writing what they have us reading. Then there's that video showing politicians being manipulated via CGI. Do we know what we saw was real? Did we see him say this in person or via a TV/Computer. Is the media real? Trump says not; Trump supporters say not. That contradicts what we've always felt about the people giving us world news. Now we have to ask, do we believe everyone in media would stay quiet about fake news because they're blackmailed or intimidated by their bosses?
To answer all of this we have to cut back to what we know of people, and how we behave as people. We have to project what we know of ourselves into those situations. If we were them, would we accept this? If we found out about this, would we stay silent? We are good, right? So surely not. You would then assume that more REGULAR people would be talking about how they've been roadblocked as journalists, or as FBI agents, CIA agents, police officers, judges, etc. We are all regular until we take those jobs, after all. Why do we take those jobs? Not for the money, but because we're good and believe we're helping others. If we then assume the majority of these people are good, would they do nothing? How would the few evil people in these organisations rise to the top (in order to control things) if the good people were in the majority? The odds seem stacked against all of this being true.
I believe there are people in government who are corrupt. I believe they will collaborate, to some degree. I cannot believe the whole government is filled with paedophiles and homosexuals who are being blackmailed into corruption. Not every politician has a foundation; the corrupt ones seem to have them for money-laundering purposes.
Logically, it makes sense that we have some bad eggs undermining everything, rather us all being slaves to a powerful cabal that influences who we are and how we think. They could control us from day one, as babies, to enter this world as slaves; teach us that slavery is good, and we'd never know the difference because we'd never have had freedom. If they were all corrupt and wanted to control everything, minimise the population and take all of the money, the whole world would be a totally different place.
Worth thinking about.
senpaithatignoresyou ago
Unfortunately, there is historical precedence for this. The first head of homeland security, was a former kgb agent. Let that sink in. After the fall of the soviet union, he defected to the US.
Why?
He was a wanted man in Europe, He was known as the wolf, we did not know what he looked like, he was infamous for putting politicians in compromising positions, with whores, homosexuals, and children, and he would blackmail them into being pro soviet/ pro communist. This is partly why French politics is ok with mistresses. Too many people saw through the communist set up and said "fuck it, we are degenerate frogs, might as well enjoy consenting sex".
Understand this: The first homeland security head positioned pedophiles into government positions in Europe because he could control them. They had no idea at 2001 that the Internet would be as invasive as it is, and knowledge of this could be found.
As we dig deeper, and look at the communist influence in hollywood, suddenly the pedo allegations of the 80s start to click. I doubt he was the first person to think to do this. US media was used against the communists, so they needed a way to neutralize it, a good sex scandal would do it, only the soviet union collapsed before they could implement that strategy.
All of our problems we experience today, are because we never bothered to clean up our messes left over from the cold war.
4swe9ckz ago
I've seen arguments made that the CIA control all of this, and the Queen of England controls them, etc., etc. – we can make a case for anything based on facts none of us can prove, or more accurately, none of us can debunk because we don't have first-hand information. What I'd say is this:
Even if the majority of the people in government – let's imagine 75% – were corrupt, there'd surely be enough who wouldn't accept any of this and would inform the public one way or another. If there's silence it means either the whole government (100%) is corrupt, or things happen in the shadows and certain parties in positions of power have the ability to make things disappear before anyone notices. It seems highly unlikely that paedo after paedo would be recruited into these agencies (which are designed to serve an important purpose). It's not a good recruitment method to find people with specialist skillsets (computer programming, preventing terrorism, etc.) if you're only hiring people you can blackmail for sex crimes; much like the casting couch is not the best way to find the best actor/actress for a show/movie.
If the majority of society accepted this kind of abuse it'd not be illegal (officials would make it legal to do these things). If they can control what we do, in some way, they could pass whatever bills they wanted to make these things a reality. We see that now with the NRA and guns. They don't pass these bills because they can't (like the healthcare bill Trump is trying to get through).
These paedos operate in the shadows because there's not enough people who would find them acceptable – which is also why this material useful for blackmail. The elites have power and influence. Some are good, some are bad. Some will use their power/influence for nefarious purposes. It's kind of like guns; if you give someone the power over life and death, you can't be surprised when someone chooses death; but not everyone chooses death – in fact, most do not, even though they could. The fact these paedos seem to be running now would suggest that there's not enough of them to fight and win (famous directors throwing around money to make things disappear on social media, in the news, etc.), and they know they can't afford to get caught because they know there will be consequences. I think that speaks volumes. There's more good than bad, even if the bad has more power than the majority of the good people; and it's worth noting, the good people with power have the majority of people on their side. Let's see how it all plays out.