NB "Secret Ballot"

Quote

I'll take direction from comments and from poll answers. 

• What is Q / QAnon?
• Why should anyone on OL pay attention?
• Is skepticism justified?
• What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion?

There are two votes in. One is mine, the skeptical vote. I don't know who the other one is -- which means if you are an OL member, you have what our Antipodean comrades in democracy fought for, which we call the Australian Ballot (1856). In other words, ballot secrecy and arms-length objective, independent counting.  Yes, a grey bit of code somewhere takes your vote and posts it without ID.

It is the only poll that counts.  Voting remains open until December 1st at 6:32 PM.

Anyhow, I will clean up the first entry and tidy up these entries as well. For grammar and spelling, added information, with the changes noted and datestamped.

First correction or addition to make is that the search-criteria actually finds in the OL database that I was the first to mention the QAnon phenomena; it is ranked as the first in time, two years ago today.  It isn't easily-possible to search a single-letter "Q" using OL's internal search system, so I mention again that this are not necessarily the very first mention of the phenomenon.  In this post I tell of a discovery relatively new to me at the time.

I will later today poke in some embed-gist-links to recent Front Porch commentary that followed my publishing this topic here at Friends and Foes. I've decided that I will send OL's fund five bucks for each comment here that answers the topic. Ie,  commentary tied to four  questions:

• What is Q / QAnon?
• Why should anyone on OL pay attention?
• Is skepticism justified?
• What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion?

I note in passing another [insert here] bit from the Internets. Our old pal Travis View on Twitter is following today's ruckus in Q-World over a bruited 'laser target' and 'evacuation' at the White House.

Apparently some "bakers" have assembled an Ockham's Cake, to the effect that the most plausible interpretation of the latest QAnon postings is the Hillary Rodham Clinton attempted to assassinate President Trump during the Xmas-Tree lighting ceremony.

This is the link to the 'pure' QAnon database, QAnon.pub, and this is a screenshot of the latest. Post 2504 link to original 8chan appearance, Post 2503 link to 8chan original.

What is a crumb, what is a baker? What exactly does "research" mean, in the context of 8chan?

Cleanse that thought, and turn to the interpreter that first appeared in my commentary two years ago today. Young Jordan Sather and the Episteme of Fudge, some might say. I've cued it up to the fun "The Nazis were exploring Antarctica ..."  there is almost nothing Jordan doesn't believe, except perhaps the one that sticks in my mind. He is convinced of the Iron Sun hypothesis, which means THEY have been bullshitting us about the process of nuclear fusion at the centre of Sol. Half the fun of believing such notions must be the sense of being 'in the know' about Truth.  Even when the evidence is thin or absent.

Incidentaly, not everyone may be aware, but 8chan postings can go poof over time and anonymous contributors can clean and delete their own posts and channels. I was contacted by a 'researcher' on our side who has a stash of 8chan 'bakery' goods from almost the time of the Q Inception in November 2017. We are going to make a gallery, at least, and a database, at most. I think a reasonably objective story can be told ...

Fact Check Booth is open!  Thank you for your service, brave Border Guards at the Republic of Objectivist Epistemology. If they throw rocks or fuck-yous, unholster the pepper spray.

[Added December 3: taking "Fuck yous out of context" ...

...  Chod is Skeert ...

.. reeelly skeert ...

34 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

NB "Secret Ballot"

There are two votes in. One is mine, the skeptical vote. I don't know who the other one is -- which means if you are an OL member, you have what our Antipodean comrades in democracy fought for, which we call the Australian Ballot (1856). In other words, ballot secrecy and arms-length objective, independent counting.  Yes, a grey bit of code somewhere takes your vote and posts it without ID.

 

The other vote was mine. I've seen your passion for Q, and have tried to get into it to discover and share what you find so interesting about it, but I just can't make myself give a flying fuck. Sorry.

J

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

... I just can't make myself give a flying fuck. Sorry.

Jonathan,

That seems to be the case for everyone.

Nobody else even voted up to now.

How does one influence people who don't look?

William needs to study propaganda more and learn the difference between attraction messages, bonding messages, persuasion messages (including spin), and calls to action. He always leads, ends and does the middle with what he imagines the persuasion part (and probably congratulates himself on his own cleverness as he gets in one more piece of snark). But, so far, I've only seen the kind of mockery whites used to do against blacks in the Old South, or Nazis did against Jews, and on and on.  

But I don't believe William is a bigot, albeit his humor tends to play only in that key. Here's proof he is not.

When nobody shows up, he wonders why nobody cares, gets frustrated, then tries to mock the general public, too. True bigots stay on target.

William does have one redeeming propaganda value, though. He is prolific and untiring. So I imagine he will eventually learn and get better. Either that or die pumping out gobs of crap nobody reads. Oh... he might entertain being an unsung  martyr for the truth, but that's being a legend in his own mind. Once his mind dies, the legend will die with it. So far, the message values are just not there for later discovery. At least I've never heard of anyone digging up mockery qua mockery and calling it unknown and unsung genius.

As for now, well... you know...

Michael

What is QAnon?

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

The other vote was mine. I've seen your passion for Q, and have tried to get into it to discover and share what you find so interesting about it

Jon Letendre touts QAnon here on OL as a true believer.  In terms of "passion for Q,"  I can't beat that devotion. If somebody says that they do not understand why I find the gap between Objectivist epistemology and QAnon whoopee interesting or notable, that's not a problem for me.

Blank-out, as they say.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How does one influence people who don't look?

Tell us, Maestro, if you can.  When was that last time you looked at Jon Letendre's reports on QAnon and entailments, or his conclusions drawn from the QAnon 'research' community?  I assume, perhaps wrongly, that an opinion has been formed or reformed, but for some reason or other it cannot be shared with the forum readers. 

A studied avoidance of challenging QAnon is sad;  a careful avoidance of Q-taint is hilarious to me, as is the rearguard "William is an ineffective persuader/propagandist" ...

Blank-out on QAnon. Who could have predicted this ... ?

12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Tell us, Maestro, if you can.  When was that last time you looked at Jon Letendre's reports on QAnon and entailments, or his conclusions drawn from the QAnon 'research' community?  I assume, perhaps wrongly, that an opinion has been formed or reformed, but for some reason or other it cannot be shared with the forum readers. 

A studied avoidance of challenging QAnon is sad;  a careful avoidance of Q-taint is hilarious to me, as is the rearguard "William is an ineffective persuader/propagandist" ...

Blank-out on QAnon. Who could have predicted this ... ?

William,

There must have been some kind of miscommunication. I thought it was clear--for a long time now--that everyone on OL speaks for himself or herself. And OL-Speak is not a thing.

Also, about QAnon, you keep quoting me from the early times and totally forgetting that I said after that, but still a long time ago, I lost interest because it had been infiltrated. Thus I can't tell, or even reasonably presume, that the same person is presenting the information. Since I can't tell anything for sure, I just don't talk about it.

Jon likes it. So what? It's reasonable to challenge him on it if you want. But, without going into QAnon's reliability or whatever, the issues QAnon brings up are very interesting precisely because the elitists (and the big government idiot power mongers you tend to support) don't want those issues discussed. So I kinda like that Jon likes it. I like that those issues get discussed. Let's keep the sunlight on them and see what happens.   

As to motley issues, other people on OL talk about matters of food, Aristotle's wheel paradox, music of all sorts, a fantasy world here and there, politics of course, (I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to favor President Trump  ), hell, you yourself promote your manmade climate change religion. Sometimes you are challenged on it, sometimes not.

But I don't see a nonstop mocking of manmade climate change rubes (of which there are counteless--much worse and much more numerous than the backwater Christian survivalists you like to mock). I don't see one thread after another with few people posting on them about how stupid and retarded and funny-looking and wacko-talking the people who believe in manmade climate change are. You seem to like doing that about QAnon, so whatever. It's your delight, not mine. I'm just noticing that it's akin to masturbating in public. Nobody's going along with you and nobody even wants to look.

I assume you want more, so that's why I'm noting your total inability to propagandize with any kind of effectiveness. You do not do the basics. Even on a relevancy of QAnon level, you don't talk to Jon much about it. You try to address the entire forum as if the forum itself speaks with one voice, and that voice is the one you like to mock.

OL is a forum of individuals, not groupthink. So you're not talking to the right person.

That's primary for propaganda. Identify your target people correctly and address them, not something in your head and only in your head.

Sorry, dude. People who think as individuals are not interested, especially if you are not interested in them enough to even try to see if they are interested. Just look at the numbers. Nobody's showing up to your party except some tiny, tiny slim pickings.

So, no. Nobody is studying to avoid talking about QAnon like you said. You are boring them and they don't give a crap. That's what's really happening.

If nonstop Mission from God bashing of QAnon followers gives you your jollies so you can feel all superior and stuff about Objectivism, the people around here, or whoever or whatever you need to look down on as a measure of your own identity, knock yourself out. The only one laughing is you. Well... sometimes Carol shows up to give two or three claps at a time. But even Korben ain't showing up for a high-five anymore. Not about this. Apparently, you bored him, too.  

Anyway, who needs an audience, right, mah mayannn? Popularity and influence are such badges of vulgarity. I mean pandering to the commoners and all that. Who has the time? Harrumph... Having an audience is so passé, mon cher... n'est pas?

So when do you think you will be ready for prime time? Getting close?

Michael

10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What is QAnon?

No. I didn't ask that.

10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Jon Letendre touts QAnon here on OL as a true believer.

Ah. So, you're interested in discussing Jon, not Q. Why not do so? That might be interesting.

10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Jon Letendre touts QAnon here on OL as a true believer.  In terms of "passion for Q,"  I can't beat that devotion. If somebody says that they do not understand why I find the gap between Objectivist epistemology and QAnon whoopee interesting or notable, that's not a problem for me.

Blank-out, as they say.

Hahaha. Wow, that was so smooth, Billy! Seamless! I didn't even see what happened. No one did.

Heh. That was just like the pivot in the meeting scene in Animal House:

Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did. [winks at Dean Wormer] But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

So, if we don't find your interest in Q interesting, then, haruphah ruff, we don't find gaps tween Jon and 'jectivzm interesting, and that makes us all fucking GUILTY of the sin/crime of blankety blanking out?

Seriously? You're trying to guilt people into reading this boring ass shit? Read and savor every word of everything that Billy writes or you're sinning!

Um, wanna talk about psychology? Maybe Jon's in particular? That could be worthwhile. If so, take a position on that topic. Say what's on your mind. Engage. Respond, reply, answer! Actually discuss! Address others' substance!

Give it a try.

J

Getting off to a good start with discussion!  

"Who is QAnon?"

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[T]The big government idiot power mongers you tend to support [..]

It is all about You, dear William.

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Y]our manmade climate change religion. [...]

See?

QAnon is QAnon, the account on 8chan perhaps having changed its motive personality or committee over time. The QAnon community is 'catholic,' in that it contains multitudes of individuals trying to make out the meaning behind cryptic posts to 8chan. 

That doesn't mean that some of the multitude of individual interpretations and interpolations of current events unremarked by QAnon-the-account aren't sad  or funny-peculiar.  This one is remarkable for its alacrity. How much energy is 'released' during an earthquake?

I'd say, "Yes, there fucking well are coincidences, Marge."

I love this guy.  He may be pretending to be a 'critic' or mere 'observer' of QAnon phenomena.  "Praying Medic" is a big operator in the transmission belt of explanation slash interpretation.   No one is interested but still.  I mean, there are 23 of us waiting for the premiere.

This is the wrong thread, but I can move it later. From Rationalwiki ... in the pissy, mocking tone J of which they are wont. I'd forgotten about the existence of this. Apparently, the cards tell the truth. QAnon Day 200. 

That is incredible. In the dystopia, education is so bad that people redpill themselves on satire and fiction.

— The QAnon Anonymous Podcast (@QanonAnonymous) November 29, 2018

Quote

Illuminati (game)

 

 

Some dare call it Conspiracy

What THEY don't want you to know!

Anti-environmentalism Backward masking Bermuda Triangle Denver Airport conspiracy theories Georgia Guidestones Murder of Seth Rich One world religion Phonics versus whole language Stanley Kubrick

Sheeple wakers

Alex Jones Bert Schlossberg Boris Malagurski John Hagee Ron Paul Shintaro Ishihara Steve Bannon UCADIA Vaccination Information Network v - t - e

 

The Terrorist Nuke card.

“”'SMOKING GUN' PROOF THAT ILLUMINATI PLAN TO ATTACK ON 9/11 AND BEYOND WAS WELL KNOWN AS FAR BACK AS 1995!

—Cutting Edge Ministries[1]

Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy is a tabletop card game designed by Steve Jackson in the 1980s. Each player takes the role of a secret society vying for world domination (e.g. the titular Illuminati) and plays with various cards that take comical looks at conspiracy theory memes beloved by the tinfoil hat brigade: subliminal messages, the Knights Templar and so forth. The game was inspired by the Illuminatus! Trilogy books, written by Robert Shea and Robert Wilson in the mid-1970s.

In a hilarious turn of events actual conspiracy theorists, such as David Icke and Cutting Edge Ministries, failed to see the satire, noticed the similarities between the cards and their own beliefs and concluded that Jackson knows the truth.

This is based largely around two cards in particular. One, titled Terrorist Nuke, shows two skyscrapers resembling (in the way any grey blocks would) the World Trade Center, one of which is exploding in roughly the same place that it was hit by the plane in real life. The other is titled Pentagon, and shows the building in flames. Although admittedly striking, Occam's Razor says coincidence.^[2] (Also, the Terrorist Nuke is from the 1995 Illuminati: New World Order trading card game, and the WTC had been already the subject of a terrorist bombing attack in 1993.)

There is also the fact that the World Trade Center was destroyed by two airplanes, not a nuke, but this didn't stop Cutting Edge: "One can only ask: was a micro-nuclear device used at the base of the Twin Towers as well? That kind of small, but nuclear, explosion would account for the sudden manner the reinforced concrete and steel shell simply crumbled into dust as it fell."^[1] An "ex-Satanist" claims that the broken fuselage and wingtips of an airplane can be seen in the drawing,^[3] but the grey chunks could just as easily be bits of the building.

Contents

 [hide] 

• 1How many games are there, actually?
• 2Other cards
• 3See also
• 4External links
• 5References

Yikes.

The Pence-tarmac-sheriff-deputy snapshot is celebrated by QAnon ...

Is there any dissent within the QAnon 'community'?  Of course.  But.

The hits keep on coming from the 8chan entity or entities we know as "Q" ... from Qanon.pub.

We left off at QAnon post 2525 ... here is the rest of the bizarre posts to 8chan:

QAnon was silent during the month leading up to the Midterms, oddly.  But someone has got a new coffeepot behind the scenes.  QAnon is not finished with you, Objectivist Living!

For those challenged by (or completely uninterested in) epistemological contortionism ...

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

I figure QAnon and/or the QAnon mob know fuck-all about Judaism or the meanings of the Menorah. Over in the 'safe space' for conspiracy-ideation, here is Jon Letendre quoting the QAnon "drop" 2532, taking the purse:

17 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

One coincidence he is asking here whether you believe in is Trump using the phrase light through darkness, which Q has used many dozens of times over the past year.

Ner tamid.  

In a way, QAnon's mob could be said to have retrodicted Genesis.  That's some heavy shit, mon.  Remember to pray to God, Chod.

The festivities in the QAnon world are fun for all at times.  One of my list has a quirky sense of humour:

The Deep Beast is biased by the satanic qualities it embodies, per Unabomber reasoning, but hey. How about some Florida Man coverage from the Cabal-compromised WPLG?

Deputy demoted after wearing #QAnon patch in picture with vice president

And in the bucket of crabs, hilarity and social death ...

Catching up with the QAnon posts at QAnon.pub ... with a bit of interpretation from yours truly.

Yes, President Individual-1 has the habit of deliberately misspelling words or phrases to send a signal. Instead of meaning "scot-free" ... he meant Scott Free, just as written.  And who is Scott Free?  Well, I dare you to follow this link.

Yeah. A Youtube trailer for White Squall ...

I can't parse this at all.  Entered where, by whom, to what purpose?  Not a frigging clue.

"Q" is not in the business of declarative sentences.  "Who is the man in the red jacket, Q?"  Watch the FBI.  Glurp.  "For exactly fucking what, Q?"

Yeah.  Nationalized funerals mean regular programming is replace by continual coverage of the obseques. Who'd a thunk it?

This isn't gibberish!  This is a gallimaufty of half-suggestive whoopee, to my eyes. What exactly can be taken from this, if for the sake of argument you accepted the 'face validity'?
Well, instead of giving a frigging link to the two documents filed yesterday by the Special Counsel's office ... the Qollective throws sand in the gears. Screech!

Would you like to see the redacted documents?  Links at the bottom.

I think Q napped through the "write clearly and consistently" class at the Department of Zealotry, Whoopee, and Yeehaw.

Some 'interpretations' I have read from the Qmmunity is that the whole death thing was a ruse.  The death thing was timed to overshadow lord and saviour Huber.

Yeah, one day we will see you on deck, Q.  Not in the immediate future, but hey.

Nothing to see here but whoopee.   People do not leave appointments for any other reason than, er, um, hidden reasons. This is the weirdest occulted 'knowledge-report' of them all.

Anyway, links to the two documents filed in the matter of Flynn. To my reading, the general cooperated with several lines of investigation. The redactions cover current cases still ongoing. 

Document one, GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

Document two, .ADDENDUM TO GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

This adds to the bizarre landscape in an ... interesting way.  

The stupidest and most hilariously sad QAnon-fanatic post of the day from a "leading light" ...

I'll catch up with QAnon's 'drops' from yesterday, December 5, but first a peek into the world of Q-predictions, tactics and errors.  From Reddit.

A non-comprehensive timeline of Q's failed predictions and mistakes and a list of tactics he uses to hook and drag followers.

Bonus: QAnon Believers Think the President Wants to Hire Broward's QAnon Cop

Catching up with the QAnon "drops."  We left off at 2552.  I should mention again that all these drops are taken from the source QAnon.pub -- but since QAnon.pub is not the original source, if you click any of these screenshots, you will be sent to the actual original source at 8chan (http://8ch.net/qresearch).  There you will see the drops, inline references/URLs, related 8chan posts by number -- and surrounding discussions, in context.