Thanks Gemma! really on the money that.Posted by Gemma13 (here)
Thanks Mike for another reminder that backstage there is much more going on than what we are discussing on this and other threads.Posted by Mike (here)
What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?
What then?
I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem
So I’m going to make a hypothesis. DISCLAIMER: “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth”.
Several months ago I received a PM asking me to join forces to help publicly shut down a researcher (R) and his thread. (Not Q thread) In attempts to convince me that (R) had no place on Avalon I was told that moderators and other members felt the same way.
A tactic that: (a) implied this person was part of a privileged inner circle, and (b) was attempting to apply group pressure to sway me behind closed doors.
I refused to engage in this plan and made it clear I thought it was unethical to speak on behalf of others this way, especially when I had no way of verifying if it was true.
It deeply concerned me that members who are acutely aware of the lack of transparency in covert operations that control societies with secret task forces were actually engaging in the same type of behaviour that they opposed.
HYPOTHESIS 1
From my observations since – (way too many to list here and I am deliberately choosing not to specifically name members or topics; except for you Dennis, sorry, nothing personal) – my hypothesis is that there is a tight group of members, with loose affiliates, who have made a “behind closed doors” pact to target the removal of a few topics on Avalon that have been gaining more press coverage than their own threads/posts.
This group were struggling so they needed a leader who was well liked, prone to being dogmatic, and had sufficient clout to engage in the mods arena. Dennis became the voice and hero the group needed and although Q is predominantly focussed on at the moment there have been remarks made in the same vein for other topics. Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel.
WHY
I think the long standing members of this group have grown accustomed to Avalon being “their garden” and any topics they don’t see value in become weeds. So they march over to the weeds and cry for help to pluck them out of existence.
Problem is the weeds are not viewed by everyone to be weeds. There has been amazing intellectual discourse and debate over the Q topic being removed from public view, so much so that the weed killers are clutching at straws by making fanatical, extremist, insulting remarks as to what Q researchers are; e.g. sociopathic Nazis sympathizers, necrophiliacs.
I view Avalon as a garden that is growing and expanding; not a garden for "a self appointed privileged membership” to choose what flowers are planted and tended to. Avalon has proved over time that if real weeds do pop up they will eventually wither and die because of the strength of the garden. And as many have pointed out, weeds need to be investigated and studied, along with flowers.
I think members who aren’t happy that their “flowers” are currently dormant need to remind themselves that all members have the right to grow flowers and that flowers can be, and are, seasonal.
And the argument to clean out the “little flower growers” so Avalon can become a place solely for “the self appointed privileged intellectuals” is ludicrous. How is preaching only to the choir going to change the world?
HYPOTHESIS 2
Emotional Terrorism? Hope this isn’t happening, but from pieces of the puzzle I can’t rule it out.
Did long standing members threaten to leave if Q thread wasn’t removed from public viewing, and are these long standing members threatening to leave if the Q thread is put back into public view, via PM’s to moderators and Bill Ryan. And how is this a problem when there are also members publicly saying they are considering leaving re the “censorship” because it goes against their value system?
Doing it behind closed doors is cowardly and is emotional blackmail because the language is most likely appealing and exploiting along the lines of “friendship and caring” and “Avalon owes me” and “Avalon will crumble without me and those like me”, etc which clouds the intellectual determinations. It also doesn’t allow the intelligence within this community to engage openly to support those struggling with retirement decisions.
So I say: Call the bluff! Longstanding members may leave. Some may never return. But history reveals that many will return because they are invested in this garden. At any rate Avalon will survive; and who knows maybe some of the lurkers will come out and plant a few seeds because they will feel safe from the intimidation that oozes from some long standing members who blatantly and literally label themselves as being more intelligent, sophisticated, aware, awake, blah blah, when they judge and whine over what others contribute. These judgments are extreme hubris demanding privileges and fracturing equality in the process.
I’ve been browsing Avalon daily for years. Many times I see a new thread pop up and think Oh God, not another one. No biggie. I just glide on down and select what I have the time to be interested in. I could never justify going into those threads and demanding they be removed from public view, or slinging off about them in other threads, because I’m done with that topic so everyone else should be.
IS IT TIME TO FINISH THIS
We’re never going to know the full story. No matter how many well informed, intelligent, reasonable, civil discourses we have, (which are a testament to the Avalon membership), there’s always going to be the missing pieces of this Q puzzle that prevent clarity over what’s happening.
We cherish the right to vote. So let’s actually vote. (No opinion poll)
YES or NO. SHOULD THE Q THREADS BE PLACED BACK INTO PUBLIC VIEW.
Perhaps allow 2 weeks for voters to contribute. And whatever the result, let’s all concede to live with it.
As far as the shadowban goes, it is what it is. If it sticks then so be it. I think I can live with it. But this has been a very bitter experience, to be thrown into the basement like some bastard inbred that the 'others' are too embarrassed to keep upstairs. That's a pretty shocking thing to me all round, that this could be allowed to happen in the open garden that Avalon is supposed to be, as you described. Especially when you consider:
...that Q has been posting and posting chiefly about ONE thing. He said it loud and clear, and very early on. THIS IS ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It's about bringing to the light of day all those behind the scenes in places of power and influence who've been running, organizing, and profiteering in a terrible global paedophile/sex trafficking/organ harvesting/satan worshipping network. Are people here seriously trying to tell us that THAT is not going on? Are they disputing that messages and clues pointing to this evil have not been at the heart of Q from the beginning? Or that that an unprecedented one hundred-thousand sealed indictments is not a reality? That none of these drops have born fruit, have lead to nothing but blind alleys and misinformation? Or that the reality of this network (NXIVM and Epstein are just the beginning) isn't taking shape on the news channels and in newspapers before their very eyes?
Even if Q is not what we think it is, as peterpam said, many people, myself included, have been awakened to what it is truly going on in this world.
But right now, here on the wonderful board, I am hearing the terrible march of the jack-boot coming to take us away, to gag us, burn our work, and close us down for good - with thread deletion if necessary. Simply because they don't agree with it. And I'm not talking about Bill. Eventually yes, I fear, being 'disappeared' entirely is possible. Don't think it isn't. Because there are people on this forum who are radically, loudly, vehemently and quite viciously trying to take sole control of the narrative here, being violently opposed to anything outside or beyond their personally perceived truth. And when that includes what the Q-thread is trying to research (in peace), things that are irrefutably real - regardless of the real source and nature of Q - I really do have have to ask, why? Because I haven't seen a single good reason for it, nothing that appeals to good conscience at any rate.
For one, these antagonists have used the word 'indoctrinated' against us several times. Which is pretty daft (and insulting), seeing as there isn't a doctrine involved here. Only pieces of information. Lists. Connections. Clues. They also see it as a 'Qult'. People's minds are getting swept away in a religious fervour, they say. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some who are getting behind this information, and are learning so much from it - me included - may display the enthusiasm and optimism of someone who has seen a bit of light. That is the only perceived 'qultishness' associated with Q. Optimism. There's a BIG bloody difference between a follower of something optimistic, and a member of a cult. What's happening here with Q is not unlike Deep Throat in the 70s. Except this time Q, as Deep Throat, is not talking to a reporter, but the whole world. Sceptics and debunkers see a drop they think is conflicting, incongruous, subversive, and as such write it off as Fake/Phony, or a Psyop. Yes it's a Psy-op people! because not all the messages he/she/it/they drop are for the general public, but for those who are ALSO watching. That's the counter-intelligence level. And there are multiple levels involved, multiple layers. Q bashers just don't get that.
Hand on my heart, I don't know what the REAL truth is behind Q. No one does (except the Q bashers of course, they got it all figured out). Me, I'm still somewhat clinging on to the fence. Trying to figure this out.
And also to be honest, I would have walked away from this long ago - LONG AGO - if this was all just bullsh!t, as I think more than one mod has termed it. But this is nothing like the Flat Earth movement or the blue chicken cult, whose absurdities are roundly self-evident. The very nature of Q evinces a profound complexity at its centre, involving something quite extraordinary, more than many people can imagine I think. But I do understand the scepticism. Scepticism is after all a healthy thing, but only when the evidence tilts so far to one side that the truth (or the lie), whatever it may be, is self-evident. And that's a very important word, and perhaps the most important word in the science of enquiry. Because self-evidence doesn't judge. It bypasses all filters of perception and expectation and bias. It lands right at the heart of the logic centre in your brain. And once you see it you cannot unsee it, and you cannot ignore it. The existence of Q as a voice in the deep state is, to many of us at least, self-evident. What it reveals is open to discussion. What it all means is open to discussion. Whether it is for good, for the betterment of humankind, ultimately, is open to discussion too, and should be visible to all.
I don't expect any doubters to suddenly say "a-ha, now I get it." Their minds are already made up, and that's fine. I really don't care. They are free to believe what they want to believe, to read, study, and be interested in whatever they choose. As is their sovereign right. But how dare they tell me, or us, or anyone else, what and what not to be interested in, what and what not to research, or what should or shouldn't be up for general discussion.
The so-called insidious or subversive angle to Q that others are so vociferous in crying about, I personally I have not detected. But why trust my word on any of this? I mean, who am I? I'm not a youtube star or a TV pundit or a internationally renowned speaker and author who you might otherwise pay attention to... I'm just a bloke on a computer typing words. But I'd like to think I've conducted myself quite well over the years as a member here, and there was some value somewhere in at least some of my posts. I'd like to think I had friends on Avalon who respect my opinion and my judgement - as I respect theirs. And if not my judgement, how about Paul's? How about the thousands of quality posts he made? How about his pearls of wisdom, or his amazing grasp of so many different topics? How much work did he put in over the decade on Avalon, or over the decades that came before, to train his nose to smell bullsh!t wherever it lurked? I think it was a bit more sensitive than many of ours. When he expressed an opinion or an insight I listened to it and I respected it, because he had damn well earned that. Too bad others don't think so. No he's not infallible, no one is. But the respect - and the benefit of the doubt - he deserved, for his dedication and endurance and his powers of restraint in this affair particularly, he just didn't get from those members in dissent of his opinion (and his judgement!). Not enough by far.
However, people are, I've observed, quick to jump onboard with what their favourite Youtube personalities have to say about this. Many will cite the likes of Farrell, Dolan, and the Dark Journalist, in their disavowing of Q. They're my favourites too, don't get me wrong. I listen to them frequently. Brilliant stuff. But their personal appraisal of things is not the be all and end all, is it. Because I ask, would not falling in line with their opinion, just because it is their opinion, also qualify as 'cultish' behaviour? Something to think about...
I submit that they don't really have time for it, or won't make the time for it, except to paint broad strokes. I heard Daniel Listz in a webcast just recently mentioning the "cult" of Q in the same breath as "JFK Jr. being still alive.." [at which point there was sniggering] This is what I mean. This shows how far he is behind the curve, in that, he doesn't know a whole lot about Q. JFK Jr is not alive, that idea was always silly to me. There was no evidence for it for one, and for two, lots of evidence against it. Q also said categorically, to quash this nonsense once and for all, that no, JFK JR was not alive. End of story. That this rumour proliferated as it did was possibly an effort to discredit the movement. It worked it seemed with the Dark Journalist. Beyond that I don't think he looked much more into it (I might be wrong, he may have made in-depth analysis videos on Q that I haven't seen). He seems to be concentrating on his steganography series at the moment, and I doubt he's given Q much of a thought. Nor Dolan. His plate's full with the various developments in the disclosure movement. This isn't particularly in their sphere of interest - with the exception of Farrell perhaps, but from what I've seen (so far) of his and their commentary on it, focusing on only this aspect over here and that over there, without zooming in and really doing a proper deep dive, (while getting stuck on what the movement Q has become, rather than the evidence, data, and details that created it) it's all rather superficial. They haven't done much homework on it, so it's of little surprise to me they summarily dismissed it as bunk.
The deeply cynical, snarky, side to this is especially galling to me. I've spent my entire adult life - and much of my childhood too - being told by people who 'knew better than me' that what I believed in was insane. UFOs and little green men, they smirked. 'Lunacy', some said. 'Hysteria'. 'Fantasy'. I heard it all as a kid. Some even said I must be stupid somehow, and I'd do well NOT to be interested in these things at all, and to go ride my bike with the other boys. Like I'm being told to now. Especially galling.. Particularly when their opinions arose from: reading NO books on the subject of flying saucers/aliens/crop circles/bigfoot/ghosts/atlantis/reincarnation/conspiracies of this type and that type/you-just-name-it, attending no lectures, listening to no testimonies, reading no transcripts, seeing no documentaries, reviewing no case-studies. AT ALL. But still, they professed to know better than me on these subjects...
What the anti-Q side professes to know about Q, from which it has formed its not so faintly haughty opinion, is, I have to believe, considerably less than what those working in the Q-thread know about Q. Hundreds of hours of research, each, testify to that. Have I formed an obsessed, over-zealous belief-system after those hundreds of hours, thus qualifying 'cultishness'...? Well, I'm not the one screaming here. But I firmly say no, I don't belief so, but again you have to define what a cult is. For a start you have to have a doctrine for that, as stated earlier. And there isn't a doctrine present here, again for reasons stated earlier. This is not a populist movement, either. All that has been sought here, and gained here, is insight. Especially into the (proven) nefarious network of corruption in high places across the world, whose goal is the destruction of liberty, economic, social and spiritual slavery, and total global control. And the antagonists call us right-wing, or neo-nazi. Sick! Those in this network, right there, are your damn nazis! The only losers in the ultimate equation, Q researchers maintain, are them. The enemies of humanity.
Once more, I absolutely understand the scepticism. I also understand and sympathise with those who have no interest in Q, and don't want to see links to it plastered across the front page all the time. I get it. Hopefully, with new versions of the forum software on the cards, an 'Ignore' function that properly works might be part of the toolkit. Something that could even remove all Q stuff from the feed of new topics, freeing that list up for other things. I believe this would be the most equitable solution. I'd even want to use that myself. Q is just one of many, many threads I visit, and it bothers me sometimes that some days it does dominate that list of New Posts.
This has gone on too long. I didn't mean to write this much and I'm sorry. I'd be happy to hold my silence, to carry on reading and analysing and researching in peace -- without being judged, humiliated, insulted, or censored. Because I'm happy to differ. I'd be even happier if everyone else was happy to differ, too. Seemingly they are not, but want to be very unhappy in their differing, and that is a very troubling thing.