The first data I will be asking for is each anons list of topics they believe to be the most important parts of this movement. I would like you to post you list in the order of importance to you in the following format.

1 - Keyword,Keyword - Topic

2 - Keyword,Keyword - Topic

3 - Keyword,Keyword - Topic

etc.

Keep the keywords between 1 and 10 with a comma between them.

Topic is something like the examples shown above with the "->" like -> Child Sex Trafficking. Don't put in the "->".

I will take the information and collate/generalize it and list it back out. You can have as many items on your list as you would like.

This is only phase one.

After each iteration I will ask if I am on the right track, and get input back from you.

Notification of important updates or calls for information will be posted in the qresearch thread.

My thought on this is since Q now seems to want someone to ask the "Ultimate Question", we should have a easy to understand, succinct answer.

This may also be the outline/talking points to give out to the MSM and social media to spread outside of this venue.

Convincing everyone that Q exists isn't really important. Getting the information that has been uncovered here is.

Please do not link directly to the thread except from this research board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhptKb468c

a Wonderful video on Q. I just got a notice for it.

SGT report.

I've never had a positive experience with so-called 'normies' because they often cling to their beliefs as a self-defence mechanism to some other beliefs that they hold. So in order to defend one, they have to defend the other.

I've produced overwhelming evidence on facebook datamining only to have people acknowledge (fully aware) and either continue to use it, or give the lame excuse that they 'only use it sometimes'.

In another case one man asked 'what good has Trump ever done?', I rhetorically asked 'bring about peace negotiations in North Korea?'. They found it impossible to accept Trump has done so, despite there being no other means, and I asked 'How else could it have occurred?', to which they stammered and changed the topic.

To infer a single news story is misleading or false, is to infer the entire agency - of which they had placed their trust after their own careful considerations in - to also be false, and by indirection, themselves also wrong for believing it to be true.

Worst still if their habits rely upon that service. Okay, you shun, CNN, ABC, BBC and the other three letter media outlets, then what? Only watch Fox?

I strongly suspect an approach akin to that used on people who are in cults is required. I know this isn't a talking point, but talking points are for reasonable people; in all my years of trying to introduce outside curve topics, a person either: a) already knows and does that thing, or b) has some emotional attachment or delusion of sorts that cannot be contradicted by any facts.

Their attitudes reek of what a victim of a cult would do: defend the indefensible, make excuses for the thing done, do what the others do, regurgitate the propaganda, ignore the intrusions of reality into their own lives that contradict said propaganda, form addictions (social media is addictive) and feed on the social conformity and false assurances offered.

I strongly suspect a radically different approach will be required for the ones who haven't jumped ship yet. Apologies for not offering talking points, but I wanted to offer an alternative consideration.

I have been working on a project to put the Q posts in a nice ebook/print book form.

This was mostly for me, but GrannyAnon found the draft and was looking through it, saying, "These are only the questions…where are the answers?" We ended up going through the first dozen drops, line by line, together. In the book, i have an introduction which tries to be neutral, not saying if this is a lark or real, but expand your thinking, investigate for yourself.

This was the first time GrannyAnon took any of my criticisms of HRC, etc. seriously, although she still said she would not believe any of it until it was confirmed on MSNBC.

>>2092136

Unfortunately, I see two problems. One, raw Q is not for every normie. Q takes for granted thet the reader has a lot of knowledge most normies just don't have.

Two, I am not sure what the copyright laws are for publishing Q on a for-profit site like Amazon. So for now I have Unpublished the book again and not gone forward with sequels. I think i can offer it for free download somewhere, but it won't be in that nice "real book" looking form that attracts normies.

I'm just a newfag trying to help out, would appreciate advice from anons.