BE WARNED: The Great Awakening sub are zionists from /TheDonald and they censor/ban/delete posts of anyone who goes outside of the Israel narritive. (whatever)

submitted ago by CheeseboogersGhost

https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129128.jpg

I WIN. The Great Awakening sub(greater Israel) banned me for exposing their feminazi Zionist propaganda outlet and their Q-tard psy-op. This sub needs a good takeover. It is cancer just like those they work for. https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129118.jpg

They constantly ping spam me so that they can get offended by my response. We've seen this before, haven't we, Goats?

  1. https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129125.jpg

  2. https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129119.jpg

  3. https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129124.jpg

  4. https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129126.jpg

After a long investigation into the sub and many of its top members I publically name them and feel it my duty to warn others. I've joked around and called some of them jews, and some of them are, but I can guarantee you 100% they are all Zionist feminazi's and anti-white. I have screen caps of their members saying things like this: https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129121.jpg This kind of talk is familiar, isn't it, Goats? They push that Q-tard nonsense as if they are given a script by Israel everyday. They think we are stupid goyim. Syrazie and her friend make many feminazi comments just like this, celebrating attacking men: https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129120.jpg

Syrazie just modded Shizy. This is what they want and who they are: https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129127.jpg

The great Awakening tribe constantly make subverting comments like this: https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129122.jpg Then ban anyone who calls them out on it. We've seen this before, haven't we? https://imgoat.com/uploads/b8619251a1/129123.jpg

Here's a list of the ziotards

@Syrazie, @Doob, @Oh_Well_Ian, @Shizy, @Blacksmith21 and their various alts.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

BigFatDaddy ago

They didn't ban me, but Shizy and Oh_Well_Ian flipped out like absolute spergs the one time I commented that I was skeptical of something Q said Trump would do (take over the Fed). Turned out he's just appointing more governors to its board, so their reeing was for nothing. Still, the mere fact that the word "skeptical" triggered them so bad says a lot to me.

https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2645897/13377398

CheeseboogersGhost ago

I've had them sperg out at high levels before after they ping spammed me. Its obvious what they are.

bdmthrfkr ago

I am willing to go with the shitskin shill theory, kikes do bash themselves when they shill but I can recognize the hatred when you do it. You still fall into 1 of the 3 most hated categories here on Voat, please help me decide which it is.

  1. Draw mufuckface (or disparage him in print)

or

  1. Join the White race and post a picture of you eating bacon (we will reverse search the picture so it had better be OC).

Until you do one of those two things we will just assume that you are the enemy...which you are. @srayzie

Vindicator ago

Nice!

srayzie ago

🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣 BOOM!

CheeseboogersGhost ago

oy vey its almost as if this is a jewish trick

bdmthrfkr ago

Pic when?

Hand_of_Node ago

What are the three categories?

And noticing your ping, are you one of the Q people? If so, why?

bdmthrfkr ago

Hey, newfag, get with the pogrom! The categories are...

  1. Kikes and their liberal minions

  2. Shitskin moslem invaders

  3. Niggers

Who else would it be?

Hand_of_Node ago

Ah, was thinking shills, jews, and 'something'.

Anyway, the first cult I encountered after arriving In Cultifornia was the Breatharians, when I attended their first public talk. (meet your nutritional needs by breathing - seriously) There've been many cults here since then. The "Q" thing seems to generate the same kind of fervor among its adherents, based on a similar level of evidence.

Vindicator ago

The "Q" thing seems to generate the same kind of fervor among its adherents, based on a similar level of evidence.

Only someone who has not seriously examined what Q has said would claim this. He has repeatedly proven -- literally dozens of times -- he is who he claims. He also has predicted numerous specific events before they happened and/or became news, starting with the coup in SA. Some things he predicted have either not happened yet, or been acknowledged by him as disinfo. All that comment like this one does is make it clear to all that you aren't actually interested in considering the evidence in a serious manner for yourself; which is the position of all major media outlets as they have been eager to report for the past few days.

Hand_of_Node ago

Maybe it's a similar effect to those dot pics in color-blindness tests, but I read a number of those and saw nothing interesting enough to seriously examine. In this age of craziness, I don't entirely write it off as a bunch of hooey. Maybe there's a small chance that Q is real, in 'some sense'?

If that were true, the whole op would then be even more bizarre, at least to non-cult members, because there's no question about whether it's taken on the form of a cult or not. Look, whether it's in the pattern of the shaken chicken bones, in the shape and frequency of the clouds in smoke signals, or in mysterious and vague assortments of words posted anonymously to the internet, this is a bizarre method for revealing the secrets of our planetary government.

The "Q" thing seems to generate the same kind of fervor among its adherents, based on a similar level of evidence.

Only someone who has not seriously examined what Q has said would claim this. He has repeatedly proven -- literally dozens of times -- he is who he claims.

Can you detect the irony in your fervent response?

I would ask you to point me to those proofs, and still will... But I suspect they would be based on interpretations of those bone/cloud/anon post patterns. If there's credible proof, I would take a look at it.

(I've also given a fair shake to the flat earth proponents, the "no man on the moon" people, the "nukes aren't real" folks, and some others. Unlike the credible evidence I'm sure you're about to reveal, they just quite never got to the point of producing reality-based evidence. But I'm serious, despite the sarcasm slipping into that last sentence. I'll give it a chance and take a look.)

An interesting, and perhaps relevant article: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Evaluating_Evidence

srayzie ago

You could try looking at this.

Have you seen it @Vindicator?

Vindicator ago

I had not. Thanks for the link, srayz. :-)

srayzie ago

You’re welcome. Qproofs.com too

Vindicator ago

Thank you for the interesting link, HofN. I will peruse.

I am somewhat limited for time at the moment, but I will see what I can put together in the way of proofs.

Can you detect the irony in your fervent response?

From your point of view, yes. Yet your interpretation of my response as "fervent" is totally subjective. My statement was completely factual. I used no emotional moderators in my language. It was purely a statement of fact. The only -ly adjectives I used were "repeatedly" and "literally dozens". Those are both quantitative. Yet you saw it as "fervent". That is a very handy way of discounting what I said. If you care about the truth, you should care about that. This is hardcore information warfare we are trying to wade through. We need disciplined thinking if we hope to discern what is going on so we can decide whether we support it or not.

Hand_of_Node ago

Was admittedly being a little hyperbolic with that, although I would contend that it kind of "fits the form", even if the specific wording was more neutral. And yes, I care about "the truth", although we humans can only see bits and parts of that, even if you discount the spiritual realm.

This is hardcore information warfare we are trying to wade through.

There are a lot of narratives out there, with many of them being shaped and refined for centuries. I'll just leave it at that.

For me to end up taking the Q thing seriously, there are two main issues to overcome. The first is what I see as the weird cult around "the mysterious Q", and the reason that "Q" has promoted this phenomenon with the cryptic messages and anon status. It's designed to be a cult, and that creates a pretty strong credibility issue. The second is the veracity of the content itself, although that's less relevant, as it's not worth considering until credibility is established.

A big problem is that the Q crowd in general seems pretty low-IQ. Have seen them a bit on other forums, and the ones that tried to flee to voat during that reddit drama didn't exactly raise the bar. I'm aware that the beliefs of morons have no actual effect on truth and reality, but that's definitely a red flag. I mean, they do seem to be "good people" in intent and general character. Just not the place I'd look for insightful analysis and discernment.

I will see what I can put together in the way of proofs

Perhaps I'll be surprised? (Sorry about the length of this. The caffeine seems to have taken hold.)

BigFatDaddy ago

Well, apparently they want fewer skeptics on Voat because anyone skeptical of Q is a shill.

Definitely activates the ol' almonds I'd say.

Shizy ago

I don't think that's entirely true. I'm skeptical of most things, Q included. I'm not 100% sold on it all. I would like to believe it's real and true, but that would be foolish! Especially after knowing what we here tend to know about being lied to about everything for the majority of our lives.

CheeseboogersGhost ago

You're so damn dumb you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, FEMINAZI CUNTRAG

Shizy ago

Ohhhhh, good one! You're getting more creative now!

CheeseboogersGhost ago

You aint seen nothin' yet, darlin' ah ah ah

Shizy ago

Eh, you keep saying that, but not delivering. I think I may block you again unless you can show me you have upped your game!

BigFatDaddy ago

[–] Oh_Well_ian 3 points (+3|-0) 3 days ago

We actually need far fewer skeptics around here.

My experience is that skeptics do ZERO heavy lifting and are more likely to be dragging down the team.

You were in that comment chain. Did you agree or disagree with Ian? Were you one of the people who Upvoted his comment?

Shizy ago

You know the answer to that since you were the only one I replied to! And it was about JFK not about skeptics. I typically don't agree with Ian on most things, including this. It's ok to disagree.

BigFatDaddy ago

That's fair enough. Notice, I never accused YOU of acting like a sperg.

Shizy ago

I did notice that. Thank you!