Some Solid Questions to ask the Believers of the MSM Twist on Q


I came across a great article tonight that asked some very specific questions. They are simple to ask and anyone with half a brain would seriously have to stop and honestly ponder the answers. The article was addressing what the MSM has been trying to pull the last few days of making Q look like a thoroughly silly thing and the people that follow about even with being another crazed cult. We have all seen an example this and even I myself was targeted by the Washington Post as most of you know.

The sad thing here is that those that are actually reading these deceiving article are buying right into them and having themselves a good laugh at our expense. Without having any idea of the shallow depths of which the MSM has actually dug to get their facts. No surprise to us of course, but too the clueless it is most plausible.

This is why I am going to post the questions from the article which if you wish to read it in full, (which I do suggest) you can find it here

We all have those friends and family members that are on their high horses looking down at us in amusement or disdain, confident that the MSM has confirmed what they have thought all along. These questions are for them. It is up to you to ask them. Im sure their answers or replies may actually be quite comical themselves. Their explanations even more so. Honestly? I would print these questions out and keep them in your pocket so you have them handy in case you suffer a moment of brain freeze at the worst possible time. Yes, that happens.

Lets get started shall we?

1. Why has not a single one of these media organizations asked President Trump whether Q is legitimate, since this would immediately resolve the matter for everyone? How do you account for this journalistic lapse in elementary data gathering before publishing a story slurring such a large group of ordinary people?

2. Why do they not cite or rebut Q’s drops, as would be normal journalistic practice in disproving something of factual debate? If they are self-evidently false, this should be trivially easy. Why do you think they refuse to engage on the facts, but offer emotive innuendo in its place?

3. Why is there no mention of the 45,000 sealed indictments (50x growth over normal), signifying impending mass arrests? This is a matter of public fact and record — as are the unprecedented CEO resignations (very few being rehired…) and politicians withdrawing from office. What’s your hypothesis for this omission?

4. Why is there no concomitant coverage of the significant increases (5x over past) in arrests and convictions for human trafficking and child pornography, yet there are constant protestations that widespread “elite” paedophilia (aka “pizzagate”) is a “debunked” matter? The press coverage of the sensational NXIVM cult trial — implicating those close to the Clinton Foundation with child sex slavery — is spectacularly muted. How do you account for this silence, given what Q tells us?

5. Why are the dozens and dozens of strong links between Q and the Trump administration given no credence? (Here are 45 for you to begin with — this would easily get you beyond the standard of proof for a court case.) Q encourages people to think for themselves, whereas you are being told by the MSM what to believe and ignore the evidence in front of your own eyes. How do you make sense of this data not being presented to you?

6. How come none of these organizations deemed #QAnon newsworthy before the Tampa rally, yet it is a movement that is suddenly threatening to the well being of democracy and society? How do you account for this timing and the coordinated message using identical terminology? (Although apparently following Q is simultaneously “fringe” and “wildly popular”!)

7. These same organizations overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton for President, and wrongly predicted her win right up until the last minute. They have widespread and documented links to the Democratic party, both legitimate (as donors) and illegitimate (illegal and unethical relationships documented by Wikileaks). Are they dispassionate reporters of fact, or active players in the political game attempting to shape the narrative? How might it affect their reporting on Q?

This last one you can use just to point out how little they have actually dug to get what little information they do have and how wrong they got it.

8. Given that these media reports make many basic factual errors, are they credible journalism? Here’s one (from the Guardian)

: Q has never posted on Reddit. Does this suggest familiarity with the subject matter, or profound ignorance?

Here is the link again to read the full article. It really does warm the heart to see that someone out there gets it. Link to FULL ARTICLE

I hope this helps you in some sort of way. We know it is only going to get worse, but at least now you have something solid in your pocket to work with and slow them down.

In other stories

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of