LTF also made another great video, yesterday, about the Q method of psychological research, which is fascinating. It may just be a ‘coincidence’ to have that name, or is it a double entendre?
We may all be unwitting participants in a massive psychological study used to sort and catalogue us all according to how we interpret ambiguous ‘Q’ posts—as well as analyzing and mapping-out the social information networks we use to disseminate our ideas about Q.
I find it especially fascinating to apply this Q research concept to the identity we presume to be behind Q.
Some people are absolutely SURE that Q is Mossad. Others are convinced it’s DIA, or an A.I. etc. Many are SURE of it. Others only know that they don’t know.
This most recent video, presents the claim that Q is run by a collective of people who post on the CBTS board. It’s an interesting claim. It is quite different, however, from the claim that it is run by Mossad or rogue CIA/DoD, yet the person who posted it rejoiced. Does this reveal that they believe CBTS is run by Mossad? What makes more sense is that it reveals that only the ‘Q is fake’ part matters to this person (for whatever reason/agenda). As long as it serves to discredit Q, it doesn’t matter who Q is said to be. Why? What does this tells us about the motive behind this person’s assertion?
The whole thing is fascinating. It forces us to question what we believe, and WHY we believe it. It also gives us incredible insight into others, as well, to see what THEY believe. If someone decides that Q is ‘fake,’ or a ‘PSYOP,’ (the two are not necessarily the same thing) at what point does the person make that decision?
Was it right after the picture of Catholic cardinals giving the Nazi salute? Or maybe after Q reposted the blatantly anti-Semitic drawing? We learn a lot about each other observing the branching/breaking point for each person.
Is it really our belief, or is it our affiliation, a top-down institutional directive, which tells us what to do? And at what point does our ego get involved? If we state emphatically that it is definitely one way, how much does that influence our ability to change our mind going forward?
Personally, I am intrigued by anyone with a strong BELIEF about Q. ‘Trust Sessions’ is a directive. ‘Don’t follow Q’ is another directive. There are many directives, and they ALL require ‘belief,’ rather than solid proof. What these directives tell us about the people giving them is interesting, and what we decide to do in response to them is just as interesting, is it not?
It is similar to how bats use sound, echo-location, to fathom the contours of the darkness. We are all fathoming the contours of each other’s minds. The stronger our beliefs about Q—in whichever direction—the more we reveal about ourselves, our affiliations, our fears and desires. How open, obedient, gullible, fearful, brave, etc.
Can we say ‘it smells like a Zionist PSYOP!’ yet still remain cautiously optimistic that it really is in the hands of the Alliance? Will our social group allow such freedom of thought, or demand obedience? Or is it just a strong suggestion, not to waste one’s time, esp. when there’s so much else to investigate? What is really at risk? Do we dare ask?
Thomas and Betsy seem to have beat me to the punch with this idea, however, which they summed-up so pithily in both the title and thumbnail of their video, posted earlier in this thread: ‘Q is whoever you are.’ Brilliant, pithy, and wise. I love you two!
Note from Betsy and Thomas. There is a conversation about Q going on under the headline below in the comment section. This is where we found c-change’s post. It is in response to other comments being posted. Check it out and join the conversation. You are also welcomed to leave notes about this post below in the comment box.