Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

Before Assange and Wikileaks very few knew of child slavery, blackmail and all else Q has brought to light

Knowledge turns into public pressure which clearly can make waves (Fox News ratings, Twitter stock etc..)

What's the point of the LARP if its all fake?

I cant see how it positively benefits anyone but the public

Before Assange and Wikileaks very few knew of child slavery, blackmail and all else Q has brought to light Knowledge turns into public pressure which clearly can make waves (Fox News ratings, Twitter stock etc..) What's the point of the LARP if its all fake? I cant see how it positively benefits anyone but the public

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (88).
[–] • 2 pts

Was this post supposed to make sense?

Let's start with the title if Q is a LARP, he's a LARP. What perpetrators and what new information are they giving?

Before Assange and Wikileaks people knew nothing about what Q then supposedly told them later? And I'd remind Q was separate from pizzagate and had different starting points. The blackmail theory has lived forever and the Epstein version (in all its manifestations) are not attributable to Q, though I'd imagine those are at least eventually more provable.

You seem to be attributing a lot to Q that is completely independent of Q and in many case far precedes him.

[–] • 0 pt

they are full of shit- Q fag fucks. They are on the wrong side of history and will pay the price -

[–] • 1 pt

Why so ao many folks get so angry at Q?

I've yet to see a rational argument telling me why Q-a set of messages based around its core of saving kids- is a bad thing without name calling etc

From Reddit GA to Voat to here.. Just anger and names. Sad.

[–] • 0 pt

To be fair they can be retards, wrong in most of what they say, and still be on the right side of history.

Right or wrong is independent of history, though. Good guys can lose and bad guys can win.

Suggesting there actually is a right side to history is a progressive conceit which assumes a Hegelian metaphysics governs time.

I've seen little evidence to support that and the evidence that exists is generally contrary to the policy preferences of the left.

[–] • 0 pt

True - and he who wins writes history