I would love for you to join the cult. I warn you though, the initiation is rough.
:)
As the owner of this site so eloquently put it, we’d all love to believe Q is the real deal. Who wouldn’t want a genuine voice on the inside, giving us singular insights and urging us to pray.
But we all have to reconcile what we’d like to be true with reality. Take those early Q posts I quoted. There was no cutesy vagueness or cryptic obfuscation. Q told us straight up the day and nearly the hour when Hillary would be arrested, as well as the days on which Podesta and Huma would be indicted. Along with the direct quotes, I linked to a discussion thread. Everyone agreed. If these predictions materialized, Q was exactly who he claimed. If nothing happened, he was a larper.
Nothing happened. No, it’s not possible to actually arrest a person like Hillary with ***nobody*** knowing about it. It’s psychotic to believe that. Nor does the secret Podesta indictment theory hold up. People are indicted for a reason. If Podesta was indicted on 3 Nov, by now we would know about it. Something like that cannot be kept a total secret month after month—and anyway that’s not the point of an indictment. An indictment is the first step, not an end in itself.
Amazingly, after the spectacular failure of his first three predictions, Q offered no explanation. He just took refuge in increasing vagueness, and in the breathless demand for more nothingburger predictions.
Occum’s razor says it’s a larper. Those first three predictions were huge. They were designed to create a buzz. They were the work of a person whose goal was to get hits and get talked about. It worked.
If Q were what he claims, he’d have attempted *some* explanation of the failure of those predictions. Integrity would have required it. But the fact that Q just went straight on into less specific, more cryptic messages belies integrity. It’s exactly what a larper would do—but it’s not at all what an honest person who *just happened* to be sensationally wrong—and who, as a result, *unintentionally* misled his readers three times in a row—would do. Anyone who trusted those predictions—or even got their hopes up—deserved an explanation for the 100% failure of all three. It’s the very least an honest person would have done/offered.