Conspiracy Queries: Q Says, “Think For Yourself.” Media Shrieks, “Q Is Dangerous!”

(Brunette here.) “Let us do the thinking for you!” “We’ll tell you what to  think!” seems to be the attitude of much of today’s media, both mainstream and even alternative. Who isn’t weary of people whose sole desire is evidently “controlling the narrative” and who conveniently dismiss any disallowed ideas as “Conspiracy theories”? Who does *your* thinking?

Yes, thinking for yourself is “dangerous” — to their fake news narratives, that’s why it upsets them so. You’re supposed to follow THEM, dammit, frequent their sites and social media, listen to their podcasts, buy their books, watch their channels and videos, click their ads, donate to them . . . 😉 Q isn’t selling anything, Q speaks directly to you through freely given crumbs, and “The choice to know will be yours.” (“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”) Q might lead you to explore dangerous territory, but wouldn’t you rather be AWARE of danger than bury your head in the sand? Beware those who say, “Nothing to see here, move along!”

It’s vital to recognize the existence of evil — and I say that as someone who for much of my life was steeped in moral relativism. Only by recognizing evil can it be identified and defeated . . . it’s all too common for people to turn a blind eye to things they don’t wish to see. Perhaps you haven’t been directly affected by horrifying issues like human trafficking, or Satanic ritual abuse (see Sarah Ruth Ashcraft for some eye opening revelations, or Liz Crokin) but if you seriously value freedom, aren’t you glad that survivors’ voices are finally being heard and their awful plights being recognized? Corruption in government and institutions (education, the church, the legal system and law enforcement, etc.) affects us all — and not for the good. Q is shining a spotlight on the monsters among us, and the monsters don’t like the light one bit!

In the wake of a recent rash of MSM articles (zoom-able graphic here, I’m not going to link to them!) critical of Q and The Great Awakening movement, suddenly some familiar names — supposedly pro-MAGA people — have conspicuously gone thumbs down with regard to Q, perplexingly so if they’re truly MAGA people. It’s one thing to be disinterested in Q — it’s another thing entirely to berate and insult people who DO value Q’s information, or to shriek about Q being “dangerous.” Hmm . . . (Where have we heard that before?)

No, the dangerous ones are the people who aim to tell you what you should and shouldn’t think. Regardless of their claiming to be right/conservative, left/liberal, or (stuck-in-the-middle-with you?)/libertarian, arrogant ideologues of all stripes never seem to be content to simply (and civilly) disagree. No, if they disagree with your thinking, it’s their job to PUNISH you — they’re not interested in your point of view, you’re simply wrong for thinking differently.

Presumably, if you are anti-Q, you’d not have read this far. Or if you’ve done so with the intent of picking a fight, don’t bother. By all means, go spout off about Q elsewhere. I’ve written about Q before (To Q or not to Q, here) — and I’m not interested in telling you what you should and shouldn’t think; I do wish to amplify Q’s message, THINK FOR YOURSELF. And don’t neglect to reexamine old assumptions; revisiting them in terms of new information can be very enlightening. 😉

Investigate Q for yourself, if you’re so inclined. Be wary of the motives of people who tell you to stay away from Q, or badmouth the movement. I’ve found Q to be very instructive in the art of discernment — Q uses the Socratic method, asking questions that lead the anons (God bless them!) to dig, ask questions and seek clues, research and post their findings. Q posts anonymously (as Q, on 8chan) and says “no outside comms,” meaning anyone who claims to have ‘inside knowledge’ or direct communications is being dishonest or is (at best) deceived.

So who is Q? That’s still a good question. More importantly, what is Q? Martin Geddes addresses the question of Q here and in other Medium essays as well. “Q – The Plan To Save The World” is a fantastic 13 minute video by Storm Is Upon Us. Perhaps the best Q explainer of all, this 6 minute video “This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected” predates the arrival of Q, and it doesn’t even mention Q: however, it does outline “The Plan” (as in Q’s oft-stated “Trust the plan.”) Watch it again, even if you’ve seen it before . . . if you truly care about the world you live in, I suspect you’ll appreciate the significance of the plan and want to trust it. That, friends, IS the plan in a nutshell. 🙂 I, for one, choose to trust it . . . considering the nightmarish alternative if (God forbid) it failed.

Investigate Q for yourself, it’s all out in the open (no cultish, creepy secret society crap!) read the Q drops for yourself at any of these links: — — or

Alternatively, follow any of these fine folks on Twitter: Lisa Mei Crowley, Praying Medic, IntheMatrixxx, storm is upon us, that’s just to name a few to get started. I don’t do F***book, so can’t recommend anyone there although I’m sure there are great people to follow there too. BTW, did you know this about F***book? You would if you’ve followed Q:

There are plenty of other great folks I’m not going to mention here for lack of time at present. See my earlier post (To Q or not to Q) for more if you haven’t already. Neon Revolt is a great site, and I find SerialBrain2’s decodes intriguing (WarDrummer does cool Youtube videos based on them too.)

If Q’s comms are too cryptic for you, don’t bother with them, but why believe what anyone else thinks or says one way or the other? As Q says, “Be careful who you follow” . . . be careful who you trust, “Those you trust are the most guilty of sin. Who are we taught to trust?”

If you are a seasoned rabbit hole explorer, I could offer further avenues for research . . . just be sure you’re ready to go there, because many people aren’t. You can find them on your own easily enough, starting with Q as a launch pad. Nobody does it better . . .  and the best part? You can go your own way!

With love. WWG1WGA! 🙂




11 Comments to “Conspiracy Queries: Q Says, “Think For Yourself.” Media Shrieks, “Q Is Dangerous!””

  1. K. Bill Hodges Says:

    Before we run off and watch 13 minute videos, could you give us just a little more info? A summary of this plan? What has Q predicted that has been correct?

  2. Vin's Brunette Says:

    K. Bill, perhaps you could show me where I use the word “prediction” (or “predicted”) WRT Q. I don’t recall doing so . . . I suspect that’s baggage you picked up somewhere else. Q isn’t a cheap fortune teller nor Nostradamus; it takes a lot more work on your part to decide for yourself what Q is or is not. Please don’t cheapen the Q team that way; think of the Q drops as a sort of gold mining operation — Q leaves nuggets, but you need to dig for them and extract your own conclusions from them. Anons excel at that; I don’t, but I see what I see.

    If Q isn’t worth 13 minutes of your time, Q is not for you. I’ve been at this (if quietly) since last November and it’s only getting better. You can go your own way . . . 🙂

    For the record, I just searched both of my Q posts for the word “predict.” The single match hit was on your comment. Now you’ve had ~13 minutes of my time, fair enough? 😉

  3. R. Hartman Says:

    Hi Brunette,

    Having looked on and off at Q for some time, I still do not know what to make of the phenomenon. I do know that I’m not always convinced by his (?) rhetoric, as again shown here in the caption you posted.

    Patriots may be making sacrifices, but they’re in no way selfless, even when Q shouts that in caps. Mother Theresa has been hailed for being selfless, where this was demonstrably not the case (much like she was certainly not a saint, but more of a monster).

    Altruism is destructive, and while patriots (a word which in itself bears a negative connotation) may not believe they can save conservative values in their lifetime, their efforts are aimed at saving their offspring from a life in socialist slavery. That’s not selfless.

    Anyway, if Q makes people think for themselves, that in itself is a good thing. Whether it’s an effective way, who knows, but as people tend to get curious at cryptic messages, it’s worth a shot, and at minimum it provides a totally different perspective which may this reach people who might otherwise never have gotten to.

    I’m convinced, like you, the key is to get people to think for themselves, as I’m also convinced one cannot convince another person. That other person has to convince him/herself, based on his/her own conclusions from the evidence presented, and presenting that evidence is the only thing we can do.

    Our main enemy here is the public ‘school’ system, which has become a self-perpetuating vicious circle of state propaganda, where ‘teachers’ and parents alike poison the minds of their young kids with what they truly believe to be right, as they don’t know any better anymore. They just ooze trained reflexes, not even aware they’ve been actively incapacitated of independent thinking.

    They just can’t handle views that differ from what they’re told to believe, which is why they won’t engage in dialog and arguments anymore. As soon as they hear or see an argument they cannot logically refute, they shut off and block their opponent or, failing that, engage in ad-hominem attacks, anything to avoid thinking about what was just presented to them.

    So if Q can break that barrier, by triggering all too human curiosity and thus getting them to think despite themselves, that would be a great way to win them over.

  4. K. Bill Hodges Says:

    Sorry to sound disruptive. I didn’t intend to be. I’ve been a big fan of Vin’s since “Send In The Waco Killers”, and I really enjoyed following up after you wrote about Pizzagate, which I’d never even heard of until you mentioned it.

    When I asked about Q’s predictions, I guess I really meant “Is there something this guy has written, that was not in the public domain, that later turned out to be true, thus confirming that Q is a real deal?” And when I asked for a summary, my point was to find out why this Q would be worth investigating at all.

    But I’ll go watch the video when I get home tonight.

  5. Vin's Brunette Says:

    R, I’d guess you’ve read a great deal more Ayn Rand than I ever could — her writings didn’t appeal to me. People sometimes do act selflessly, IMO — Julian Assange and Seth Rich being *possible* examples. Oh, and Gen. Michael Flynn! I suspect that Flynn’s actions will be seen as pretty selfless, when all the truth is revealed. (Others might disagree, and that’s OK. No need to yell at me.) 😉

    We don’t know who’s on the Q team . . . Q has suggested there are fewer than 10, only three of whom are non-military. I’d suggest taking a wait-and-see attitude if you’re on the fence.

    Jack Posobiec just came out with a “Q expose” on OANN that backfired spectacularly — Q has posted about it today — apparently his anonymous source was trolling Jack; sadly, it’s so easy to mislead people with what they want to hear.

    Q absolutely does get people thinking for themselves; I see it on Twitter all the time, and I agree that’s a good thing. A number of people have remarked that after they first tweeted about Q, Gen. Flynn followed them — a fact I find very interesting; and it leads me to think that the “selfless” term does indeed likely refer to Flynn. He seems a probable candidate for the military component of the Q team.

    Anyway, it’s nice to hear from you; your comments are always appreciated! 🙂

  6. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Bill, I’m not as interested in the Q-proof stuff as many people are. And I’d say, rather than making “predictions,” Q team KNOWS in advance what is scheduled to happen and when according to “the plan.” Q often says, “Trust the plan.”

    If you’re curious about “the plan,” (as I said above) the six minute video covers that nicely — it’s MUCH more important than the 13 minute one. 😉

    Since you’re interested in fulfilled “predictions,” you might like this (unrolled) thread I stumbled across earlier today:

    Sorry if my last response was a bit feisty; if I come across further information likely to address your predictions question, I’ll try to remember to post links here. 🙂

  7. R. Hartman Says:


    Sure, I did read some Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged mainly) but that’s just been more of a confirmation that I was not totally bonkers at the time in thinking what I thought.

    I’m convinced nobody is really selfless, as that would mean they voluntarily choose for actions that they don’t like. Feeling good about yourself can be a big motivator for some, especially SJWs, who do not think about the consequences for themselves or their children. Emo-porn is effective that way. ‘Do-gooders’ ruin society but feel great about themselves because their intentions are so noble. They’re programmed that way, in the government ‘schools’.

    Whatever Flynn does will give him personal gratification. When my neighbor has a technical issue with something I have knowledge of, I gladly ‘sacrifice’ my time to help him/her out, as I like doing that. Spending my time helping fix that issue to me has a higher value at that time than spending it on something else. So in the end, I’m not being selfless in doing that.

    I hope this clarifies what I meant somewhat.

  8. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Hi, R — People differ in regard to what makes them feel good about themselves. I get what you’re saying, and don’t disagree. I grew up around precisely the sort of do-gooders you refer to — they go cheerfully about the destruction of society, particularly anything noble they’ve been taught to despise, and do so with the approval of their own conscience. (“Forgive them, they know not what they do.”)

    According to my trusty Webster’s from 1941 (I distrust modern dictionaries) “Selfless” basically = unselfish. It seems to boil down to semantics; I simply don’t find the word “selfless” objectionable here . . . IMO, it fits. Flynn, Trump, Assange; not to say they aren’t acting in their own self-interests — just that they see their self interest broadly enough to include something more (God, country, humanity, community, etc.) and I find that admirable. Like you taking the time to help a neighbor; someone else might tell them to go away. Or offer to help, then steal the computer and kick the dog . . . 🙁

    I’m still grappling with a (natural, human?) tendency to simultaneously underrate and overrate our fellow humans: the very best of humanity is too good to be humanly believable; the worst is evil beyond our darkest imaginings. We may all have both dark and light within us . . . but we all choose one over the other at each step through life. I do see current world events as a spiritual battle, good vs evil/right vs wrong, and can’t help but feel responsible for my own tiny part in it. And I’m appalled at having spent so much of my life submerged in moral relativism. Shudder.

    Taking my turn at clarifying my thinking . . . 🙂

  9. R. Hartman Says:

    Replacement site for the banned reddit/r/GreatAwakening:

    You get a warning it’s an 18+ site, but it seems legit:
    “This is the official r/GA replacement, endorsed by Q. Welcome patriots, to QResearch_Voat.”

  10. Vin's Brunette Says:

    R., thanks for posting that link — it IS legitimate; Q asked for the Voat board to be set up (for Reddit refugees) and has endorsed it.

    Reddit had been heavily censoring Q related posts . . . I saw a number of them disappear before my very eyes, in the little time I spent there. So I’m not surprised that the Great Awakening subreddit was finally banned. It’s too bad; let’s hope the Voat board lasts!

  11. vardis Says:

    We are Q


    Q sent me