~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stand by what I said because it is the truth.
I specifically said "Some" have developed cult mentality in ascribing to Q Godlike abilities. I did not call out specific individuals, but if the shoe fits ...
Bags was apparently concerned that even mentioning this would give the anti-Qs a rhetorical weapon against those of us who value Q normally--as an active intelligence unit, an administration insider, an important alternate communications channel for the President and a vital psyop.
I simply disagree with Bags as to approach towards the cultish elements, but we are in full agreement as to objectives. DENIAL of an issue involving "Some" within the Q movement is NOT THE BEST RESPONSE. As a matter of fact, I often read the most hair-brained assertions of these "Omniscient Q" people as DISINFORMATION--deliberately inserted to cause HARM.
I took it as a joke. I laughed and scrolled on.
Maybe a compromise? Rather than feeding the enemy, let’s call the whack-jobs what they are, whack-jobs, rather than assigning the ‘cult’ word to the best ‘movement’ to come along in maybe forever.
Semantics, really.
#TheresOneInEveryCrowd
(Ha. I accidently sent this to mail, which is the opposite of what I usually do.) Please disregard (the mail).
