Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 06/13/2023 Vol.462, Q Day 2055

qalerts.app ^ | 6/13/2023 | FReeQs, FReepers, LurQers and Vanity

[Farcesensitive]

“I got bit by a deer tick carrying lyme disease on a camping trip long time ago, & feel like I still have lingering symptoms

maybe the ivermectin will help???”

---

I don’t know enough to say.
But I hope it does some good for you.

[TheBigJ]

Something in regards to timing and building momentum to take down Big Pharma I believe in works as Q alluded to in post #735. The cures.

I’ve been seeing amazing things in regards to stem cell regeneration and age reversal via light therapy or photo therapy with LifeWave Patches the more I research, studies, testimonies, etc. Miraculous cures.

https://startx39.com/

The inventor/CEO David Schmidt discovered such tech working on black projects for US military, including keeping operators awake naturally not using caffeine or amphetamines on B-2 Bombers or Nave SEAL mini subs missions.

This company entered market about 2005 and is now gaining momentum from $2mil to $350 mil in sales. David Schmidt has over 130 patents. How’d he manage to get this tech out into market? Who’s supporting him? If amazing cures are happening what gov’t or corporation would attempt to control such tech? What means would they use? Who stands to lose? I believe this is part of something bigger being rolled out and he is under protection.

Also, LifeWave’s ambassador to the Red Cross is Thomas Burke,

https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-burke-320a837?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F

Trump’s buddy who lives nearby Jupiter, FL who sold him a yacht. When Trump was in White House, a LifeWave commerative coin sat on his desk, created from special alloy in gold color invented by David Schmidt. Now we know why Trump hasn’t aged and has relentless energy.

[rx]

If one doesn't comply witb a mod request to take one's discussion / topic to Festival, one may see one's post disappear, that is, see one's post censored.

Cancel culture is ubiquitous among social media as most here know. One would hope all Freepers could be counted on to have thicker skin so we wouldn't need to "be protected" from one another's non-violent. non-abusive posts.

At least one mod around here seems to think we need to be protected from positive posts about JOS because she thinks he's a proven liar.

In the 1961 movie "For e 10 From Navarone," an American soldier infiltrates a Yugoslav town and passes himself off as a German civilian to a Nazi military policeman. He answers the policeman's question, "Are you (a) German?" [Sind Sie deutscher?] with, "Of course!" [Selbstverstaendlich!]

Analogously, our mod would be wont to stand up in a theater playing that movie and scream, "Don't believe him! He's a liar and might shoot you! He's really an American!"

In addition to having run some useful psyops for his Q-clearance friends, JOS regularly contributes a great deal to the Q movement via sound, red-pilling background educational information, in which he readily and always affirms Q. Admittedly, JOS has not always been great at reading a crystal ball, but no one is as good at that as Q+!

[rx]

“Force 10 From Navarone”

[smileyface]

To me, very little ‘discussion’ occurs on the active thread. Mostly it is a news/current events aggregator, with a bent toward Q. That is fine.

Thoughts/discussion outside of the groupthink are shunned, and the poster can be berated with name-calling and piling-on.

Topics like Pence may be a baddie (prior to his Jan 6 performance), Flynn may be a baddie, Tolkien/Lewis may be part of the system are just a few examples I have floated for discussion. There was no real discussion, only name calling. Sad. This drives posters away. Ends discussion in favor of the narrative. As I tell my husband and friends, every time I see something stupid done by politicians, the government, a company, I say that the action was “on purpose”. Perhaps the same is true on the Q thread.

And yes, relegating something to festival is the same as censorship.

[ransomnote]

 

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 06/13/2023 Vol.462, Q Day 2055, rx wrote:

If one doesn't comply witb a mod request to take one's discussion / topic to Festival, one may see one's post disappear, that is, see one's post censored.

Cancel culture is ubiquitous among social media as most here know. One would hope all Freepers could be counted on to have thicker skin so we wouldn't need to "be protected" from one another's non-violent. non-abusive posts.

At least one mod around here seems to think we need to be protected from positive posts about JOS because she thinks he's a proven liar.

In the 1961 movie "For e 10 From Navarone," an American soldier infiltrates a Yugoslav town and passes himself off as a German civilian to a Nazi military policeman. He answers the policeman's question, "Are you (a) German?" [Sind Sie deutscher?] with, "Of course!" [Selbstverstaendlich!]

Analogously, our mod would be wont to stand up in a theater playing that movie and scream, "Don't believe him! He's a liar and might shoot you! He's really an American!"

In addition to having run some useful psyops for his Q-clearance friends, JOS regularly contributes a great deal to the Q movement via sound, red-pilling background educational information, in which he readily and always affirms Q. Admittedly, JOS has not always been great at reading a crystal ball, but no one is as good at that as Q+!

I listened incredulously to Juan O Savin parse words, hemming and hawing and justifying and slithering, to protect pervert Timothy Holmseth in a way he could latter deny if he needed to distance himself. Juan wasn't man enough to take a stand, he hedged and back pedaled and condescended ("Don't get ahead of yourself!" by which he meant we should not use our own judgement because we don't know enough).

Juan did the same with Field McConnel, who was arrested while being interviewed by Juan. Field admitted he knew Timothy Holmseth's children's charity was fake. Juan O Savin knew that Timothy Holmseth ran a fake children's charity and has a false back story about being 'one man away from Trump' etc. and he still spent 20 minutes covering for those guys.

There's more - I did my research. So, I can't understand how this thread can take such a stand against pedophilia while looking the other way re Juan's protected associates because Juan is entertaining.

Juan implies he has inside sources, so the 'crystal ball' excuse doesn't impress me. He apparently was an investigator. But neither his inside sources or his investigatory prowess ever tipped him off both men were sleeze. Juan isn't good reading the crystal ball but doesn't mind implying his word is gold because he has intel contacts.

He uses that reputation to separate, slowly at first, people from trusting Q. He does it by stating that they had to go 'deeper underground' by taking over McAffee's Telegram account. On it's face, that statement is pathetic - big tech is not to be trusted. There's a reason Q never had a Twitter account! So where does that leave Trump? Trump acknowledges Q while Juan says they went to a defunct McAffee account that lied about releasing Terabytes of data once their fund raising efforts were met. Where Juan goes, credibility corrodes.

So I don't see how we're doing well by 'looking the other way' on Juan's low-life friends whom he socially protects and excuses, emphasizing what a fine journalist Holmseth is, because we find him entertaining, not accurate.

He fans a false persona (JFK JR.) and denies he does so. He fans his rep among Hollywood socialites when Hollywood is a cesspool of pedophiles. All this 'tolerance' for someone with a foggy crystal ball whom some find entertaining. We don't need to accommodate creepy men while pushing for transparency in the news. I don't consider this censorship. I consider it maintaining a modicum of integrity and practicing what we teach - down with people who protect pedophiles.

The 'talking point' is that I 'protect' people from using their own judgement. My opinion is that I'd like to keep the thread from being associated with low-lifes and frauds when we say we dig and research for ourselves and therefore know what we stand behind what we say, even in the face of public ridicule. If  we, and Juan, excuse/tolerate pedophiles some find entertaining, then who should believe us when we share other information Americans need to know. Credibility matters.Well, I thought it did, but some disagree.

Ah but it doesn't matter what I say does it? You've seen this information before and it doesn't influence your judgement. Ah well.

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 06/13/2023 Vol.462, Q Day 2055, smileyface wrote:

To me, very little ‘discussion’ occurs on the active thread. Mostly it is a news/current events aggregator, with a bent toward Q. That is fine.

Thoughts/discussion outside of the groupthink are shunned, and the poster can be berated with name-calling and piling-on.

Topics like Pence may be a baddie (prior to his Jan 6 performance), Flynn may be a baddie, Tolkien/Lewis may be part of the system are just a few examples I have floated for discussion. There was no real discussion, only name calling. Sad. This drives posters away. Ends discussion in favor of the narrative. As I tell my husband and friends, every time I see something stupid done by politicians, the government, a company, I say that the action was “on purpose”. Perhaps the same is true on the Q thread.

And yes, relegating something to festival is the same as censorship.

I wonder if you have forgotten that the people you defend were berating and ridiculing, chastising FReeQs, no matter how I tried to encourage them to let their past criticisms be enough, instead of repeating them or doubling down.

It's kind of fashionable to claim that I drove good people off this thread - it's never fashionable to admit those people were treating FReeQs harshly or demanding I censor others. One pair who left the Q thread demanded I stop others from fat shaming. Isn't that censorship? I was being ordered to obey and when I didn't do so, as it had nothing to do with our thread's mission or JR's rules, they left.

How about the ones who ridiculed women - always the women. Demanded FR needed to function like the Chans and allow profanity - which had nothing to do with me but everything to do with JR's rules. They, of course, NEVER hectored JR about his rules; I was the target. How about the 'sweetheart' who sneered that greeneyes should lean up against a dryer for sexual satisfaction?

How about the one(s) who riculed women spontaneously for being weak, seriously without any provocation. Just pro-active ridicule and hectoring, claiming they were failures and needed a spine. I asked, explained etc. and he doubled down. He left. Apparently he didn't like my asking him to leave people alone; it must have been unbearable?

There's one who wanted to pursue an anti-police line of research on the Q thread. When I explained that we couldn't do so she continued to berate me as if I had exposed myself as corrupt right up until she came to my email saying, "Well I hope you're happy! JR asked me to leave the thread!!!" I don't know if he did, but that's what she said. See, my fault again!

Did someone hector us over and over until others on the thread joined in to say "STOP"? Should someone ridiculing us and tearing down morale be protected from feedback that kind of behavior warrants? If we were in a conference room with someone sneering that we are useless, lazy and weak eventually some present would say, 'enough already!" and "You made your point - if you don't like it,  LEAVE!"

Did a religious advocate get relegated to the dreaded Festival? Just 'cause? Or was it because we were being hectored to follow that content, offered that source's opinions as difinitive thread doctrine, and scolded that we have to 'wake up' if we didn't follow that source? This was said to people wading through the filth that Q drops exposed - we weren't 'good enough', we were morally blind if we didn't follow that one source. I was asked, "How else are people going to learn about Good and Evil?!" I replied, "Well, doesn't the Bible teach us about Good and evil?" Crickets. I did ask that poster to tone it down - no dice. We had to endorse and follow that content or the pressure and warnings would continue as we were deemed to be in denial or hiding from reality.

These are the people I supposedly drove off, purportedly with tireless censorship and, according to some, my evil plans to prevent the truth from reaching the public(starts here 2,058).

None of this matters it seems - there are just tales of the 'righteous' being preyed upon by a lone irrational harpy who hates the truth. Carry on then.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

A-yuh

[smileyface]

“I wonder if you have forgotten that the people you defend were berating and ridiculing, chastising FReeQs, no matter how I tried to encourage them to let their past criticisms be enough, instead of repeating them or doubling down.”
```````
My post contains no defense of anyone. I’m not sure who you think I’m defending.

[smileyface]

“Juan did the same with Field McConnel, who was arrested while being interviewed by Juan. Field admitted he knew Timothy Holmseth’s children’s charity was fake. Juan O Savin knew that Timothy Holmseth ran a fake children’s charity and has a false back story about being ‘one man away from Trump’ etc. and he still spent 20 minutes covering for those guys.”
```````
There is a huge psyop going on, which embroils these names and some others (Flynn, Lin Wood, Paula Blades, Whitie Bulger/aliases, Jodi LeDolce, Jessie Czebotar, Randi Erikson, for starters) and I do not think the dust is settled yet. I am not convinced of anything bad by the photo of TCH dressed up with his purported child. He could be nutty or delusional, or perhaps a plant by either side. The cabal can fake internet accounts, have people arrested/extradited/convicted with corrupt legal and judicial players. The case has a lot of strangeness, strange (scripted interviews) throwing shade, and strange pairings of different people interviewing that seemingly flip sides from black/white/gray over time. And I have watched/listened to MANY interviews with MANY different hosts which may include some of the people listed above.

I think listening to people’s own words, rather listening to what other people state or write about them is a better way to judge things, then reviewing compilations provided by some other party. The cabal has a way of twisting things.

I do not remember JOS ‘slithering’ to protect TCH. Or discussing him at all really. Maybe mentioned once/twice. You’ll have to point out those interviews.

Also, several deaths have occurred (?) including McConnell’s wife and Dr.Goodsomething, and Czebotar’s son. This is not a game.

Anyway, you have done your research, and you keep this discussion off the main thread. So be it. People on thread, for the most part, really don’t seem to want to review and dig and consider and discuss. They just want to be fed news from a non-MSM source. And screech when their (new) paradigm is upset. That’s fine.

[Ymani Cricket]

Yes. He called everything spot on. And they went after him the same way they did Trump. Except Trump had billions and he didn’t. The party apparatus at that time called the shots. They tried some very nasty stuff on us back then didn’t they? As a liaison you know what they did. A lot of people with good intentions but very controllled by a few rich and powerful elite, and I’m just talking on the local and state level. I don’t forget getting backstabbed by the Keyes people (and others) at the Convention. We were just learning about the deep state back then. Now we see it even clearer. The party elite choose the candidate. Not us. Or so they thought. Until Trump came along and could out fundraise the bastards and even when outspent, and attacked, still win.

[Ymani Cricket]

Everything is a psyop

[smileyface]

Gasp! JOS must be up to no good.

[smileyface]

Yep.

[smileyface]

Probably. That is why discussion is needed. But, is not allowed on certain topics. Just because.

[Ymani Cricket]

I see all kinds of discussion on GAW. Hashed out, beat up raw stuff. But I’ve seen some here criticize there too. So why are they anywhere?? Maybe they should stay in the fed buildings where they work…

[numberonepal]

Finding the truth sometimes goes through people that some believe are bad, but that doesn’t mean the truth isn’t there.

[smileyface]

Please link to GAW.

Thanks.

[Oratam]

You are correct. While the smokey backroom may be a thing of the past, the fact that the rank and file do not choose their party's candidate remains. When I was young, I believed the primary process was legitimate. I realize now it's more Kabuki theater. The Democrats may have held on longer to it than the GOP (I remember the enormous field of Dems seeking the nod back in 1980) but now neither maintain the pretense.

Back to my time in the YR, I was "given" the job of being the Buchanan liaison because nobody wanted it. The club was almost entirely lawyers with one or two Wall Street types, all in their late-20s to mid-30s, all proudly "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." Pat was filth to these people. I was a lowly salesman.

The club president asked me if I would do it and I was honored that he approached me. Besides, I admired Buchanan and I was both fiscally and socially conservative. Seemed like a good fit.

The experience was enlightening but I wasn't planning on a future in politics. I joined because I thought I'd be socializing with like-minded people. I was mistaken. I knew plenty of Democrats who held the very same positions as these folks so I did not remain a member beyond the election.

[RitaOK]

Yep. That’s true.

I may not like the defamatory ink spread against JUAN O’SAVIN, but, never denied the substance of it because I don’t know anything about it.

Certainly people are flawed, especially when found unprepared in an awkward position. Truth often lay in pro and con alike.

What I resent is when the defamatory ink is the only ink in town, allowed. (As opposed to, say, my Pointer column... never allowed to surface.)

I wonder what definition the world generally applies to similar conditions? 🤔

Thx for the reply very much.