Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out the Home Site. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.


Aceh Versus The Civil War

I entered into a Twitter argument the other day that highlighted a number of issues due to the lack of critical thinking and gross generalizations.

The fellow posted a video showing an Indonesia woman and man being flogged.  Not only did he not know the story behind the video, he extrapolated this behavior to an entire nation without any comprehension of the social and political currents behind it.  Indeed, my correspondent didn't even know why the folks in the video were being flogged.

He lamented that all of Indonesia condoned such behavior.  I pointed out that the incident took place in Aceh, which is a small region at the far northwestern tip of Sumatera, which is semi-autonomous and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.  I said that public flogging is not condoned or practiced anywhere else in the country, and that if the government attempted to force the region to stop shari'a practices, it would likely cause riots and secession, which would spread through the rest of the country.

The fellow's response was, suppose the Northern states had not stopped slavery in the South.

In the space of a couple of brief text messages, this individual had displayed a profound ignorance of history, politics and human behavior.

To begin with, Indonesia and the US share many traits.  Indonesia is about the same size as the continental US, with roughly the same population and both have religious majorities that spend an inordinate amount of time trying to force everyone else to adopt their values.

Indonesia is composed of more than 300 tribes, each with unique cultures and histories, bound into a loose confederation.  Indonesia's motto, "Bhinneka tunggal ika," is the Sanskrit equivalent of "E pluribus unum," or "one out of many" in English.  Both countries adopt the eagle as their national symbols, and both are republics that constantly promote democracy (they are mutually exclusive terms and ideologies).

On scale, Aceh is roughly equal to the Seattle-Tacoma metroplex, though wildly different in context.  After the 2004 quake and tsunami, Aceh has virtually returned to a medieval state, with all the attendant theocratic allusions that come with that statement.

Of all the regions in the vast sprawling archipelago known as Indonesia, Aceh is the closest to an absolute theocracy under shari'a, or religious law, and like most theocracies, it chooses some of the worst aspects of shari'a to enforce.

The primary issue is that if the central government attempted to stop Aceh from its practices, it would risk having the Islamic majority in the country rally around Aceh, and likely spark national riots and possibly secession movements across the country, especially in Papua where the Christian majority has long sought to extract itself from the rest of the nation, taking its vast mineral wealth with it.

When my Twitter correspondent casually waved the US Civil War comment at the situation, I was triggered.  The two situations were/are not remotely equivalent, and to so blithely conflate the two was more than I could bear.

The US Civil War had almost zero to do with ending slavery.  It was all about northern bankers and industry trying to keep the costs of raw materials from the south as low as possible.  The southern states, wanting to increase profits, were competing in open markets and getting higher prices in Europe.  The morthern interests blockaded southern ports to shut down the South's markets, and levied exorbitant tariffs on exports to effectively steal profits from the south, while leaving the finished goods from the north untouched.

The Confederacy, after secession, was de jure and de facto a separate and independent nation and blockades against it were in fact acts of war by the same reasoning and international law used by the colonists in their fight for independence from England.  Only in the tiniest of factions in the Civil War was ending slavery and issue, and folks on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line wanted the practice ended.

The US Civil War was about economics and the right of people to throw off tyrannical government in favor of something more to their liking.

In Aceh, the situation is only vaguely analogous to the US Civil War, in that a dictatorial effort by the central government to change the local regime would be disastrous and likely lead to mass death and destruction.

The fact is that the people of Aceh submit to the theocracy of their own choice.  They can easily walk or take the bus south to other regions of Sumatera, or even leave the island altogether for greener pastures elsewhere.  That the young man and woman in the video allowed themselves to be flogged was their own choice.

Unlike the US Civil War, there is no economic component.  No outside force is trying to starve out competition and effectively enslave an entire nation.  The people of Aceh willingly choose to live under such conditions because they have convinced themselves that this is a viable and virtuous way to live.

In other words, what my Twitter correspondent was proposing is tyranny by a central power over a group of people who voluntarily choose to live as they see fit.  From the outside, we can abhor and condemn the practice of flogging.  We can offer aid and shelter to anyone escaping such practices.  But we cannot mandate our values on those folks by force.  That would effectively be as immoral as the practices we condemn.

In a republic, as Indonesia and the US nominally are, the fundamental rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny of the majority.  Among those fundamental rights in both countries is religious freedom.  It would be no more moral and ethical for Indonesia to force Aceh to adopt a different culture, than it would be for Aceh to force the rest of the nation to adopt shari'a (or at least its interpretation of it).

It is also wildly fallacious to draw parallels between they US Civil War and the situation in Aceh, other than to say that if the central government forced Aceh to change, then it would be the moral equivalent of what the Union did to the Confederacy.  In both cases, internal forces will eventually overcome habit and tradition, and reform will come of its own accord.

It is important to note that Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not aimed at the Union, where slavery persisted quite some time after that war, nor was it legally binding on the Confederacy, which was a wholly different jurisdiction and not subject to US law.  It was nothing more than a propaganda tool to undermine the Confederate economy at its weakest point.

The people of Aceh have a choice to stay or move to other parts of the same country with widely varying social and political customs and laws.  They are not prevented by the nation's laws from moving elsewhere, with lawful employment and residency throughout the country.  Those who stay and submit to public floggings for being alone with their paramours without supervision do so of their own accord.

This Twitter-vation also highlights the dire need of folks to educate themselves on real history, and not the propagandistic efforts to justify immoral acts foisted on them by vested interests.


One Small Step For A Man

I was born just three months after Alan Sheppard's 1961 sub-orbital Mercury flight, and six months before John Glenn's orbital flight in 1962.

Due to Cold War propaganda, I knew precious little about Yuri Gagarin, who became the first human to orbit the Earth a full three months before Sheppard's ballistic shot.  Nor was I aware of Alexei Leonov's historic EVA in 1965, until years later.

I was born with the Space Age and my life and hobbies have been intricately tied to this epoch in history.  I have fostered a life-long interest in astronomy and aerospace, studying the topics both independently and at university.  I can recite facts and figures about the Universe that would induce narcolepsy in most normal humans.

During the Apollo 11 mission, I absorbed every second of broadcast time, getting exhilarated every time I saw fellow Houstonian Walter Cronkite's visage appear on the fuzzy black-and-white cathode-ray tube, futzing with the rabbit ears to draw in the clearest possible picture of the events as they unfolded.  It was a very rare occasion that my strict parents let me stay up late, glued to the TeeVee (but not too close as it would ruin my eyes).

Perhaps it was my youthful naivete, or my willing suspension of disbelief, or my indoctrination into the Cult of American Greatness, or perhaps a bit of all three that led me to unquestioningly accept everything I saw.  It would be decades until I started critically examining the Moon landings.

Being an expert in optics, lighting, set construction, special effects, and film production in general, I take most of the photographic theories with a grain of salt.  I think Stanley Kubrick was far too careful to make simple mistakes (wink).  I do think a good number of the iconic Moon photos were staged, but that does not a priori rule out actual landings.

My suspicions are centered much more on the technology.  There are some serious and fact-based questions that have never been adequately addressed by NASA, nor satisfactorily answered by Apollogists (pun intended).

There are two issues in particular that have long puzzled me, and the NASA documentation is vague and dodgy.  There have never been any clear explanations for these two issues and some of the design data are still classified.  The first is how the astronauts' backpacks exchanged heat in a vacuum, and the other is the Aerozine 50 fuel used in the descent and ascent stages of the Landing Module (LM).

The first of these mysteries is the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, which are the bulky backpacks worn by the moon-walking astronauts.  Among the many functions of a PLSS - radio, CO2 scrubbers, micro-meteor protection, insulation, humidity control, etc. - was the removal of internal and external heat and exchange it with the environment.

One may think this is a simple and straightforward process, and inside an atmosphere, one would be right.  We must recall, however, that the Moon has no atmosphere.  We are told repeatedly by NASA and other agencies that the surface is a perfect vacuum in which the entire Universe sucks on any object exposed to it.  While this presents a number of issues with the moonsuits and lander construction, we will focus on the heat exchange.

Anyone familiar with the function of a Thermos will instantly appreciate the problem of exchanging heat with a vacuum.  In a Thermos, an inner glass container is held in a vacuum enclosed by an outer container, which prevents heat from being lost to the surrounding environment.  Because there is no medium of transfer, i.e. air, to dissipate heat to the environment, hot liquids inside the Thermos retain heat.  Simple concept, but presents unique challenges for astronauts on the Moon.

Not only is the astronaut's body generating heat, which gets uncomfortable rather quickly if not vented, the astronaut would quick cook when exposed to direct sunlight on the Moon.  Any surface on the Moon reaches up to 250F in direct contact with sunlight on the Moon.  The moonsuits are not immune to this, even given the bright white reflective materials.  Inside, the astronaut is generating heat, both at rest and especially when working.

The solution was a form-fitting body stocking (LCVG) infused with tiny capillaries circulating cool water to a heat collector inside the backpack.  The heat exchangers then "vent" the heat into the vacuum by sublimation.  This presents a number of major issues.

The astronauts must carry to the Moon a large amount of water to be wasted by sublimating the waste water.  This process will take some time inside the PLSS endangering electronic systems, or it must be sprayed directly into the environment creating clouds of ice crystals and/or steam that can blind the astronauts' visors (among other problems).

Sublimation is the process of a solid converting directly to gas without a liquid state.  To watch sublimation at home, get a piece of dry ice and place it on the kitchen counter.  Note the time and watch how long it takes for the ice to sublimate.

It's a similar problem with water ice in the PLSS on the Moon.  For one thing, a large chunk of ice must be stored somewhere while it sublimates.  There's an additional problem in that water ice at temperatures below -200F is as hard as rock and apparently does not sublimate quickly, since Mars has large amounts of water all over the place, and a number of moons in the solar system are composed entirely of water ice.

If the water ice in the PLSS is not thrown away somehow, then it will melt (presumably) inside the PLSS and the LM, causing all sorts of issues with the electronics, not to mention a slip-and-fall hazard.  Since we never saw the astronauts helping each other get rid of ice balls in their packs, we must assume sublimation was not the means by which waste heat was expelled.

Since footage from the Moon never showed clouds of vapor spraying into the environment from the suits, and any collected inside the PLSSs would melt and cause problems inside the LM, we cannot fathom how the heat was exchanged with the environment.  After all, a vacuum is a critical component of a Thermos, which retains heat.  All of the available documentation either leads the reader in a circular argument, or waves the problems away with vague statements.

The second problem concerning the fuel for the descent and ascent stages of the LM is even bigger.  There is no dodging the issue with hand-waving and circular arguments.  The available documentation simply ignores this issue altogether.

The LM used a hypergolic binary fuel (self-oxydizing and ignites the moment to two liquids come in contact with each other) called Aerozine 50.  There are so many problems with this fuel that it is almost never used for human spaceflight.  In fact, the Apollo program is the only one I can find that used it for a manned mission.

Correction 27 July 2019 - Aerozine 50 was used on the Titan GLV rockets in the Gemini program that preceded Apollo.  A number of modifications were made to make it human-rated.  This fact, however, does not change the concerns and issues mentioned here.

Aerozine 50 combines a form of hydrazine with dinitrogentetroxide as an oxydizer to create a highly explosive fuel with a very high specific impulse.  An accident in 1980 punctured a hydrazine tank on an ICBM missile and the explosion lifted a 750-ton silo door right off, while launching the second stage and nuclear warhead out of the silo.

In addition, hydrazine freezes at 38F/2C, and the shade on the Moon is -250F.  None of the available specifications mention the ability to lower the freezing point to -250F.  Aerozine 50 is a special mixture that does lower the freezing point a bit, but certainly not anywhere near the temperatures found in space or on the Moon.

Hydrazine is highly caustic and will eat through many common materials, such as mylar sheeting, Kevlar spacesuits, etc.  The descent would have spewed vast amounts of highly caustic and poisonous exhaust  all over the landing sites.  This not only would have contaminated any rock and soil samples they collected making them scientifically useless, but would have been carried inside the LM, thus poisoning the astronauts and eating away at the electronics and air scrubbers if it didn't eat through the suits first.

While all of these issues are problematic, at best, the most obvious problem is that burning Aerozine 50 creates thick clouds of red smoke and bright flame, even in a vacuum (self-oxydizing).  In an airless environment like the Moon, this smoke would completely surround the landing sites and take a significant amount of time to dissipate.

To sum all this up, the Aerozine 50 fuel used to land and take off from the Moon placed two astronauts on top of highly caustic and explosive liquids that would have required very intricate heating systems to stay liquid.  The landing would have created a thick cloud of smoke that should have taken days or more to dissipate, leaving the astronauts blind visually and photographically.

Finally, the specific impulse of the Aerozine 50 means that the astronauts would have been pinned to the floor of the LM on launch (they were free-standing) for at least several seconds until acceleration peaked.

It should be noted that there is some discussion whether the ascent engine was powerful enough to lift the weight of the craft, men and samples.  These arguments are generally inconclusive because the weight data is not consistent or not complete, and in some cases, the specifications of the engine are in doubt.

The PLSS cooling system and Aerozine 50 fuel not only have a number of direct issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of ancillary and corollary problems introduced by these two things alone.

If we assume, as I do, that humans have indeed walked on the Moon, then we are faced with either or both of two possibilities: 1) the events did not occur as publicly acknowledged, and/or 2) technologies were employed that are not public knowledge.

These are just two of a number of glaring problems with the Apollo missions.  Other include the vacuum on the Moon and the construction of the LM and moonsuits, micro-meteor bombardment, weight of supplies and equipment versus the power of engine designs, and many more.

All of these issues are highlighted by the fact that humans have not (publicly) returned to the Moon in 50 years and apparently lack of engineering capability at NASA and other agencies to overcome the inherent problems of a return trip to the Moon.

While I have no desire to diminish the achievements of gutsy and talented individuals, there is some underlying reason why America has not be back to the Moon for 50 years, and why the Soviet Union (and later Russia) abruptly cancelled its plans after achieving nearly 90% of the tasks to get there.

History tells us that humans do not suddenly abandon or "lose" radical new technologies without compelling reasons.  It is not a "conspiracy theory" to question the existing facts.  Something has stopped humanity from following in those tentative first steps, at least openly.  Those of us who paid for those steps certainly deserve more than we have received.

One other solution presents itself: everything we have been told about the Moon's environment is false.
Update 28 July 2019 (Anonymous Comment)
 With regard to IR radiation being the means by which heat is released into a vacuum, this is true HOWEVER:

The heated surfaces must be exposed to the vacuum in order for the heat to radiate away.  The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.  Since they were not wearing mirrors, they were not perfect reflectors, therefore the amount of heat put into the system was over unity with the amount released through IR.

Diagrams of the PLSS show it being entirely enclosed, thus the IR would build up inside and damage critical circuits and machinery, thus killing the astronaut.  Furthermore, the sweat collected off the astronaut would have to be stored somehow, or released somehow.  There is no evidence of either solution being used.  AND the circulated cooling water would have to BE COOLED somehow, which comes right back to the heat release mechanism.  As I mentioned, the whole thing is a circular argument with dozens of corollary and ancillary issues.

No matter how you slice this problem, you always end up with more heat in the system than it can radiate away, especially considering all possible outlets for IR were insulted and unable to radiate heat away.

With regard to local time on the Moon, the Apollo missions were timed to land in the Moon's local morning, which may reduce heat problems, but increased cold problems.  No matter how you frame this argument, you end up with dead astronauts - whether by boiling or freezing.

As for thermal camera images, I have never found any from the Apollo landings, so difficult for either side to cite such things.  In any event, the IR reflected off of exposed surfaces would make the thermal images useless in this argument.

If water ice sublimates at extremely low temperatures, why aren't Europa, Callisto, Ganymede, Pluto, Charon, and other bodies composed of water ice not sublimating away - even in direct sunlight, and in some cases inside the highly radioactive magnetic field of Jupiter? After billions of years (theoretically), these primarily water ice bodies should be nothing but tiny balls of rock.  These moons and planets should be shrouded in steam as the surface ice sublimates.

Sublimation is sublimation, whether it's dry ice or water ice at 1,013.25 mbars and 25C, or more, or less.  That was the point, not whether or when CO2 exists as a liquid.

As for specific impulse, yes it is similar to octane ratings, but not exactly the same.  Regardless, if you are standing in the back of a pickup with nothing to hold on to and the driver floors the accelerator, does it really matter how much octane the fuel has when you fly out the back end and hit the tarmac?

Hypergolic fuel was ostensibly used because the engines are simple and reliable, but that does not address ANY of the other problems caused by using it.  One tiny pin-prick in the hydrazine tank - with micro-meteor threat and hypersonic dust particles accelerated by the exhaust - and there wouldn't be much left to collect in a bread box.  This is a huge amount of risk to take on a program that was so vital to US propaganda efforts.

Furthermore, this does not address the fact that the hydrazine would be frozen solid at -250F,thus useless as a propellant without a whole infrastructure to heat the tanks that would suck valuable battery life away from all the other critical systems.  Even if Aerozine 50's freezing point were magically lowered to -100F (which it wasn't), one is STILL 150F below that.  Again, a circular argument with no published sufficient remedies.

All of these issues get exponentially more problematic as surface times increase from hours to days in subsequent missions.  To put it as simply as possible, no amount of hand-waving and conditional language eliminates all of the problems.  Yes, they COULD have done a lot of things, but the available documentation is insufficient to answer the questions raised.


Behind The Q Ball

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis
The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis

READER NOTE: be sure to listen to the Rense Radio interviews on Q.  It should also be said I do not edit or censor ANY comments unless they are blatant attempts to profit off my work without sharing, or contain private contact information like phone numbers or email (may be an attempt to flame someone).

Even if you only invest a mild curiosity about the Q Phenomenon, you've likely heard the phrase, "Future Proves Past."  In the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Q's triumphant return after battling Nancy Pelosi's best efforts to block it (Q3370), you are going to hear this phrase a lot more.

Q virtually vanished on 26 May 2019, with just 3 Drops between then and 8 July, but roared to life on 8 July 2019, with 80 Drops in 7 days, and counting.  This is going to be fun.

Fair warning to the reader: there is a lot of jargon in the Qniverse, and I've written a couple of dozen articles on topic this past year.  You might feel a bit lost if you don't go back and catch up.  Probably the best summary I have, concerning what Q is and how it operates, is Who Is Q?

Where we stand as of this moment is that Jeffrey Epstein is the key to unraveling the Deep State.  Jeff Sessions was actually working on this particular case when all the world thought he was soaking up a free paycheck at the DOJ.  Sara Carter, John Solomon and Sean Hannity are Deep Q plants who've been under Super Secret Surveillance - until Q recently shut it down.  JFK Jr. is really dead.  And Q predicted all of this a year ago.

So the story goes...hang on for the ride.

Let's try to sort this bowl of spaghetti out.  We'll get back to Epstein in a bit, but for the rest:

Former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a strange history with Q.  Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and was widely seen as completely useless and ineffective.  Within the Qniverse, Sessions alternated between White Hat and Black Hat.  Q Drops occasionally hinted that he was working behind the scenes to bring down Hillary Clinton.  Later, Sessions was doing nothing and the Trump Team really needed a bulldog in the position.  The Qvians by turn praised him and reviled him.  At the point of his resignation, Trump tweet-bashed Sessions and the Qvians turned their backs on him.  Lo and behold!  He's back in the Qniverse and this time he was secretly investigating Epstein.

Note that the confusion is not on the part of the Qvians.  They've just been following whatever cryptic clues Q has given them.  Of course, none of the Qvians mention the bad times, Sessions is once again a hero.  The Q Memory Hole is truly amazing to watch.

Sara Carter is an independent journalist attached to Fox News through Sean Hannity.  Her articles are widely credited within the Qniverse with exposing key activity within the Trump Administration and the Deep State.  Think of her as Bob Woodward to John Solomon's Carl Berstein, with Q playing the part of Deep Throat (see Watergate if these names are a complete mystery to you).

John Solomon writes for The Hill and is also a staple on Sean Hannity's program.  Both he a Carter have formed an unofficial team investigating all the shenanigans behind the scenes in Washington DC.  Both are also widely thought to be following Qlues to help expose the corruption.

Sean Hannity of Fox News appears to be Trump's favorite talking head.  The president often calls his show and Hannity seems to have a line on major announcements just slightly before anyone else.  He is also seen in the Qniverse as being a Acolyte.  Hannity makes certain comments that are interpreted to be "signals" of Q Solidarity.  Most recently, Hannity gave the "follow the pen" signal, and if you don't know what that is, I covered it some time back.  Essentially, it is a Q Signal of upcoming Executive Orders to address the Issue du jour.

The Storm is everything we see going on in US domestic and geopolitics.  The Storm is a military intel operation, conceived in the Obama years and launched with the election of Trump - or more importantly the loss of Clinton.  It is a "4-D" chess game of hidden messages, Autistic Anons, Trump tweets, Q Drops, and a swirling wind of chaos.

"The Patriots are in control" is the Qniverse equivalent of a secret handshake.  No matter how out of control and insane things appear, the Qvians repeat the phrase to themselves and it alleviates fear and apprehention.  When Q is wrong, when Trump looks like a fool, when North Korea and Iran look like they are on the verge of war with the US, we just calmly repeat the mantra and all is well.

And just how accurate and helpful has Q been?

We've got Julian Assange and Tommy Robinson in jail.  Trump's Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned due to Jeffrey Epstein blow-back.  The US federal deficit is wildly ballooning.  The Persian Gulf is teetering on war, with the UK and Iran hot at each other's heels.  The southern US border is a joke from any perspective.  Trump just gave up the fight to get a citizenship question on the 2020 census after activating his base to fight for it.  In fact, the entire geopolitical theater seems on the verge of spinning into oblivion, but fear not.

The Patriots Are In Control.  It's all part of The Plan.

Rather than confident control of the situation, the world appears to be a bunch of ad hoc foolishness with no one in control and Trump little more than a trickster randomly pulling strings to see what falls out.

Into this swirling global bathwater we throw the entity and phenomenon of Q.  The Qvians are absolutely convinced that Q imparts wisdom and truth on behalf of their Qult leader, Donald Trump.  Even while Q constantly exalts "logic" and "reason," the Qvians (for the most part) abandon such things for blind adherence to Q's Drops and proclamations.

While the Qvians (and Q) rail against the GeezerMedia setting and controlling the public narrative for any given situation, they fail to notice that they are simply being fed an alternative narrative.  That Q/Trump proclaim it does not make it any more true than the corporate-controlled viewpoints.  It is simply establishing an alternative narrative that counters, but does not prove.

In the recent slurry of Q Drops, the two primary focuses have been the Jeffrey Epstein affair and Abortion via an attack on Planned Parenthood.  To listen to the Commentators (all across YouTube), the ideas of mutual criminality, blackmail and well-laundered slush funds controlled by NGOs and foundations are sudden and jolting revelations.  The "evidence" for these things is little more than subtle interpretations of Q Drops, a great many links to publicly available articles and tweets, and a vast array of implications and suggestions that the Qvians are expected to "research" for themselves.

Perhaps the Q Phenomenon is more an indictment of government-run education, than revelation of anything new.  The use of "mutual criminality" and "blackmail" are ancient and rife.  It has been used for political ends by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese, the mafia, street gangs, and all manner of secret societies and organizations.  That anyone could be so naive as to think that every political system on the planet is not rotten with such things is inexcusable denial, at worst.

One of the most common excuses that Q uses to explain away the glacial pace with which its predictions are "fulfilled" is that the world is not ready to see how corrupt their governments have been.  Q either assumes that we are all ignorant beasts, or has no other means to wave away criticism for its failed prognostications.  We are quickly approaching two years since Q stated unequivocal that Hillary Clinton would be arrested and that troops were being stationed across the US to quell civil unrest, and yet...

Ask a Qvian to list Q's most successful prediction, and they will invariably mention the death of John McCain.  If one points out that the best way to know exactly when someone will die is to murder them, they wave it away as a "good thing" because Q told them McCain was a traitor without any solid evidence to the assertion.  In a sense, this makes all Qvians accessories after the fact to Murder One, and not a one of them bats an eye at this.  The ends justify the means.  The Storm is War, they tell us.

The Commentators sound as if they have been let in on some Great Secret of the Ages to learn of child kidnapping, abuse and murder.  In fact, the abuse of children in ritual sacrifices is nearly as old as humanity.  The use of bloody sacrifice   to seal covenants is a primary feature of the Big Three Religions.  Drinking the blood of children was a central part of Aztec, Maya, Inca, Mongol, Kazak, and many other aristocracies.

The Qvians might respond that Q/Trump are trying to end this practice and bring the perpetrators to justice, but that is a huge and magnificent claim that will take years to unwind.  In fact, it could also be interpreted as a form of blackmail itself to allow one faction of the global elite to subdue another.  Arrest a few key players and put out the narrative that this will lead to thousands of arrests and convictions, and the opposing side may offer up a great many concessions to protect themselves.

Related to the Epstein matter is the other Q focus of late on abortion, particularly as it relates to Planned Parenthood.  Here we find what may be proof of Q using Fake News in its narrative.

Q posted a photo (Q3405) of someone sorting through tubs of dead infants that was implied to be what goes on behind the scenes at Planned Parenthood.  One researcher, Patrick Mack at IPOT channel, was able to trace the photo to a story about a family in Vietnam that collected aborted fetuses there and gave them proper burials.  If true, this is the first time Q has been caught openly using "re-tasked" information to rally the troops.  Q did not give any indication that the photo was representative or unrelated to the assertions of criminality at Planned Parenthood.  It was presented as implied evidence, and if the story uncovered by Mack is correct, the photo has nothing to do at all with any organization in the US.  In fact, it may be a violation of IP laws, since no citation or link was given to the original.

Ironically, Q admonishes its followers for being kept passive by the GeezerMedia while doing the exact same thing.

That anyone is "suddenly" indignant at the way aborted fetuses are sold for parts, or that Planned Parenthood is just one of a network of organizations that funnel taxpayer money back into political campaigns is a sad indicator of the willful ignorance of the American public.

Political corruption in the US is an open secret.  The use of book sales, foundations and foreign aid as sources of campaign and personal funds is nothing new.  Scandals have flaired up over the decades.  Cursory patches have been applied that shifted the streams, but stopped nothing.  And business has gone on as usual since at least the Tea Pot Dome scandal.  The corruption is obvious, which makes the American public facilitators of it through their willful ignorance and unwillingness to call it out.

One thing that makes me extremely suspicious of Q is something I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this series: Q keeps telling the Qult to "sit back and enjoy the show."  Take no action.  Eat popcorn and be passive, as the masses always have been.  The Patriots will handle this for you.  Your job is "research" and keep busy while military intelligence takes over the Ship of State.

Obligingly, the Qult do just that - sit at their screens diligently reporting whatever Q tells them, or disseminating what the Anons post, but never taking real action.  Their job is to shelter in place and let the Big Boys handle things.  Not one of the Commentators has ever thought to organize a rally to show the extent of their numbers. There have been no calls for Q Marches or Conventions.  In fact, they seem almost afraid to learn the true extent of the Qniverse, as if they are unsure just how powerful they are.

Most of the Commentators I listen to regularly have 100,000-200,000 subscribers.  They regularly get 50,000-60,000 views on their videos.  Why have none of them suggested a show of force?  Are they worried that those numbers are inflated?  Or are they so controlled by Q that they can see no other course of action than to sit passively at their screens and wait for the next Drop?

Most of the Qvians do little more than crow about how much they know, but knowledge implies action.  That none of them have taken the step to turn knowledge into action tells me that Q has such a lock on their thinking that they are incapable of taking initiative outside of Q Commands.

Child Trafficking and Abortion are issues that have been around for centuries.  There have been numerous researchers that have spent lifetimes exposing this issues and the political corruption they engender.  I personally have been aware of the issues since the 1970s, and have gone head to head with them at great personal cost.

I do not see this kind of activism with Q.  Instead, Q has subtly steered its followers into sideline roles, clicking links and making videos explaining how great Q is.  These people do nothing active, nor does Q.

For anyone who has watched the Q Phenomenon closely, it rides on the backs of truly great activists like Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, James O'Keefe at Project Veritas, and the journalists Sara Carter and John Solomon.  Q does nothing more than repackage the work of these good folks, and the Qvians dutifully ascribe credit to Q for simply putting a link in a Drop or two.

Q Activism amounts to little more than trying to smuggle Q Gear past Secret Service at a Trump rally in the hopes of getting the Secret Hand Sign or a gesture in their general direction as "proof' of Q.

For the vast majority of Qvians, the extent of their involvement is limited to watching Commentator videos, where the host reads the Q Drops, shows the links, and perhaps adds a bit of color commentary.  For a group that claims millions of followers worldwide, that's hardly a show of power.
Post Scriptum: Here is a typical reaction from Qvians when a little logic and reason is introduced into the conversation.  As you read the invectives to piss off, note that I did not inject myself into the conversation, but was addressed in the initial post.  I simply responded with a few salient points and was viciously attacked right off.  This is a common feature of Personality Cults.  Members cannot stand any assault of reason on their closely held beliefs.  Nor are any of the groups willing to rationalize the Fearless Leader's mistakes.  They simply turn and attack at the mere mention of a weakness.