Message added by william.scherk

For a ground-floor view of the phenomena of QAnon ... including the gestation of 'Watkins-Q-kun':



Credence and interest in the QAnon phenomena  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Which choice best represents your interest in the QAnon phenomenon

    • Uninterested
    • Interested, but skeptical
    • I already know what I know
    • None of your business. I don't declare my interests
    • "Don't bother to examine a folly ... "
    • I'd be interested in an objective analysis of the phenomena
    • I will explain everything in a guest post here, if given the opportunity

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/02/2018 at 02:32 AM

I'd like to open a field of discussion for the QAnon phenomena.  Here is where I will post in already existing material presented at OL by members.  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?

No special rules or guidelines for this thread; the OL guidelines are good enough and will apply here. .  Please keep personal abuse to a minimum. Creative insults are kosher, but if they aren't on topic, why post them?


Our forum leader opened discussion on the phenomena back in January of this year.  My key-word search-term was "QAnon,"  not "Q," so the search results will not necessarily return all incidence of discussion touching on the phenomena.

On 1/3/2018 at 4:10 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...] If you really want to go down a Rabbit Hole where anti-deep state magic happens for real, look into "QAnon."

I will post a thing about him later, probably in a new thread or on the Conspiracy Theory thread. He's been spot on accurate predicting a lot of recent happenings right before they happen. More recently he's been doing some twittering and he seems to like hamming it up a bit, so here are a few teasers:


And this:



And this:



And this:





More coming...



Recommended Comments

Who knew? "It’s difficult to poll how many people believe in QAnon"


[...] Consider a recent poll from PRRI. It asked Americans whether they agreed with three separate statements, each a part of the QAnon belief system, but it didn’t mention QAnon by name. Fifteen percent of Americans agreed with the statement “the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation.” That statement is the central tenet of QAnon, but it’s also not a belief unique to the movement. Fears about Satan-worshipping pedophiles predate QAnon entirely, so belief in that statement isn’t limited to people who follow — or have even heard of — Q, according to Mary deYoung, a professor emeritus of sociology at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. DeYoung has studied the so-called “Satanic panic,” the inaccurate belief popular in the 1980s that Satanic ritual abuse of children was widespread in this country. A 1986 ABC News poll found that 63 percent of Americans believed members of religious cults had “too much influence in this country,” and 54 percent of America thought there should be laws against Satan worship, per a 1987 Williamsburg Charter Foundation poll. 


Some mildly hysterical reportage in this special out of Australia.

For relationships strained and destroyed, amid minor tragedies, Reddit has "QAnon Casualties" ... though I seem to recall someone in this topic raised a "how could we know these are not invented?" question about the stories posted there. 


I used to be a Q follower

Just wanted to share my story. So I started following Q before it blew blew up. I could follow it on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, ect ect. This was last year btw. Luckily, I only followed it for a short period of time. During that time, I became obsessed. Like it was all I could think about. From documentaries, to constantly researching ect. Well last year, I was also struggling deeply with depression. I was not fulfilled at all. I hated how my life was going. Now that I obv don’t believe that shit and laugh at the insane posts now. I believe I was using Q as an outlet. I didn’t want to feel my feelings so I buried myself in Q. It gave me excitement, passion, curiosity, ect ect, things I was not experiencing in my life at that time. I didn’t have to deal with my depression and other personal problems because I was way too consumed with Q. It was honestly just a huge distraction for me and I think psychologically, that’s why I was so into it. I basically used it to escape from my own world and focus on that entirely 24/7 instead of my own problems . A documentary that did help me though is the social dilemma. They talk about how The algorithm can really feed into this type of stuff. I just wanted to share my story! I hope your loved ones see the light! Self awareness is key!


I only followed Q for two months. Something you can ask your loved ones who are stuck is .. are you happier looking up this stuff? Do you feel more stressed / overwhelmed when you look up Q? Do you feel like the world is a dark place since looking up Q? Are you forgetting about the kindness in the world? Is this adding value to your life? Do you feel powerless while looking up these things. Ask them to write how their views on life / the world were before q and after. Literally have them write it down so they can see it with their own eyes that it does nothing but cause stress. Don’t try to convince them it is not real because they will think you are a “sheep” and need to “do more research” ( which is funny because the research source is like “just trust me bro”) I asked these questions to myself and realized it was making me straight up miserable and literally draining my energy daily, I’m always highly sensitive so I get very overwhelmed quick with negative news Instead of trying to tell them they are crazy maybe ask these questions to them. Then if they decide that it doesn’t add value and want to stop being involved with Q.. over time they will see how insane it all was and seriously laugh at it like I do. It’s comical now lol. I was the type of to text my entire family and say stock up on food there will be a food shortage 😂😂😂😂 but over time they will slowly realize how these people basically be given a centimeter and take a whole mile to fit their agenda. I hope this helps. If it does let me know.


Link to comment

Canada has a new pretender ...

QAnons Are Harassing People at the Whim of a Woman They Say Is Canada’s Queen


“Hello, Canada, I’m Ramona Didulo, I'm the founder and leader of Canada1st. As of February this year, 2021, I am the head of state and commander in chief of Canada, the Republic,” she said in her announcement video. “The people who appointed me are the white hats and the U.S. military, together with the global allied troops and their governments—the same group of people who have helped President Trump.”

She speaks to her audience either through Telegram posts or via poorly produced videos in which she sits on a couch in front of an empty beige wall. In a follow-up video to her initial decree, Didulo declares herself not only the “the head of state,” “commander in chief,” and “head of government,” but also the “Queen of Canada, replacing Queen Elizabeth II of England who has now been executed for crimes against humanity.”



She decreed that Victoria is the new capital of Canada and recently released a video addressing the Indigenous community after the bodies of 215 children were found in a mass grave outside a residential school. She promised to investigate if they were killed for adrenochrome harvesting.

I hear sirens.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Someone is posting to Gab as Donald Trump -- formatting the official statements and releases for easy reading. This is making someone crazy ...

Note typo 'boy' -- should read 'bot' ...

The message was for Bill Barr ... who is apparently having a heck of a week himself, mostly due to Jonathan Karl. 



Link to comment

A screenshot for your thoughts, President Trump. 

Or, "What about the stolen election do you not fucking get? Here I list elements of a vast -- if murky -- plot, which fucking Bill Barr did not catch. Call Rudy for the nitty gritty details, the numbers. Or Sidney. Or whoever wrote it down somewhere. I could go on ranting all my talking points for hours. I've been talking about these elements for the last six fucking months.

I made no mistakes, I have no regrets. I am glad to be rid of a gigantic fucking deep state staff restraining me. Half of whom were my own fucking appointments.

Yes go see the Deep Rig movie, even though tickets are forty fucking five dollars. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But better you pour your money into one of my campaign bathtubs instead. A girl's gotta eat."





"They call me President Grievance Committee."  

Link to comment

Faction versus faction ... Grifter Wars.

The latest Lin Wood video from YouTube's "Alternative News," a fellow who has been doing his best to keep track of Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn and Lin Wood. 


Patrick Byrne's "Deep Rig" film will shortly be free to view ...


Link to comment

Ron Watkins and a little-known elections official ... turn in a hilarious performance, as laid out at the Bulwark.

The gist is that Ron managed to rope in a Colorado elections clerk to provide him with "WHISTLEBLOWER" insider bombshell ... but the password she passed on to Ron was tied back to her ...



The lede in Monday’s Grand Junction Sentinel brings the Kraken: “The Mesa County Clerk’s Office is under investigation…for a breach in security over its election system.”

A breach! It’s Happening!!!

But no, the breach wasn’t coming from the anti-Trump deep state. Instead, the clerk who is under investigation for tampering with the county election system is Tina Peters, a fervent supporter of Donald Trump and amateur vaccine science aficionado, who appears to have executed a self-own of historic proportion.



Link to comment

Image of Tim Miller
Tim Miller
Tim Miller is The Bulwark’s writer-at-large. He was previously political director for Republican Voters Against Trump, communications director for Jeb Bush 2016, and spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Tim Miller bombshell report on how easy it is to hook up voting machines to the internet and mess with the data.

Take That DJT !!

Link to comment

For the record, I have followed Q for years and I never heard of GhostEzra until now.

I looked on BitChute just now where a huge number of well-known Q people and Q-friendly people regularly post videos. There were 3 videos that mentioned GhostEzra (and were not by him), 2 from about a week ago and one from 7 months ago (see here). Here is a screenshot in case more videos get posted later.



Some influence.

And get this. Bitchute has real Nazis on it, the kind who sing praises to Hitler for real. Nobody pays any attention to them but they are there. (It's a free speech thing.)

Now Vice is telling us that this dude with the funny moniker is "one of QAnon's biggest and most antisemitic influencers."


Double some influence.


Not even the friggin' Nazis know who he is.


Vice is probably putting out some horseshit as misdirection from The Great Dismantling that is currently underway. That's what I think is going on. 

For those who like this sort of thing, have fun.

It means nothing other than a prompt for a yawn.

Here. Let me go Q for a sec:

Noting can stop what is coming.



  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 8/20/2021 at 7:23 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I looked on BitChute just now where a huge number of well-known Q people and Q-friendly people regularly post videos.

Since this thread is about Q, albeit the slant leans towards leftwing distortions of who and what Q is and what the main ideas are, I presume it was made in good faith and facts are still welcome.

At least I hope I'm right.

In that spirit, instead of exalting fringe nobodies in the Q world in order to exaggerate their prominence, here is a recent video of two of the most influential QAnons discussing events, real Q influencers, not fringe. The two are X22report (Dave, presumably Dave Booth) and Dave Hayes (Praying Medic).


Prepare Today And SAVE 25% Off A Full 4-WEEK SUPPLY My Patriot Supply Today’s Guest: Dave Hayes Website:...

Interestingly enough, even though these two are preeminent in the Q environment, they do not agree on everything. And their disagreement is quite friendly. In fact, when discussing Biden and the current state of election fraud repercussions, David Hayes has one of the best overall analyses and set of speculations I have heard so far. 

If anyone wants a true view of main Q ideas as currently promoted in the public, this video is a great example.

If one wants to bash Q and Q people, I hold it is far more accurate to identify Q and Q people correctly before evaluating them.

That's why I presume this information will be a welcome addition to the super-serious important work undertaken in this thread.




Link to comment

I was going to view the videos in the above link, but I noticed the obvious Mussolini tie in , you almost had me!

Link to comment
On 8/21/2021 at 10:22 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In that spirit, instead of exalting fringe nobodies in the Q world in order to exaggerate their prominence, here is a recent video of two of the most influential QAnons discussing events, real Q influencers, not fringe. The two are X22report (Dave, presumably Dave Booth) and Dave Hayes (Praying Medic).

How may one decide or detect the 'fringe' of "Q world"?  In what sense can a guy with 350,000 Telegram subscribers be best described as a 'fringe nobody'?  How may we measure the influence of Dave Hayes? As someone asked in these pages: "Who is Praying Medic"?

This might be a good start for a solid and useful algorithm for the "Identify Correctly" two-step.

Filters up!


Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This might be a good start for a solid and useful algorithm for the "Identify Correctly" two-step.


You could start by realizing that Q is not one thing only.

(All blacks are alike, right? All gays are alike, right? All Jews are alike, right? All lefties are alike, right? See the problem with that kind of thinking when pointing to the fringe? Some might even call it bigoted. :) )

You do want to identify correctly, right? Well try this. You don't need an algorithm so you can turn your brain off and let it run on autopilot. It's much better to use your brain for identifying things.

After that, you might want to look at the people who talk and post a lot about Q. Do they have access to real military people, real Trump people, etc.? Do they appear featured at MAGA rallies and similar? Or do they only know people of people of people and their own speculations?

That's just for starters. Quantity and quality are always good starts in identifying things.



Link to comment



Rules to follow instead of using your brain to identify.

According to your own explanation, algorithms are rules used for calculations and problem-solving. That means measurement and human-designed processes. That does not mean core identifications. 

As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. That's what algorithms get you without correct identifications.

You don't use an algorithm to see if it's day or night when you want to go out. You look out the window. You don't use an algorithm to identify whether it's a snake in the grass or a water hose. You observe more closely. And do on.

The closest thing you can use as an algorithm for basic identifications in order to not fall into brainless (literally) bigotry is to ask yourself, (1) What do I know? and (2) How do I know it?

But there is no way to make the rules themselves (the algorithm) give you the answer automatically. You yourself have to do the thinking.

You might want to do that when waging your campaign to ridicule Q.

What do you know about Q? Not much apparently. You know the fringe and that's about it. The rest is generalities you get from others.

How do you know it? You restrict your observation (the kind that shows you the difference between the snake and the garden hose) to the most quirky and loopy examples you can find. If you see something more serious, you ignore it.

This is what I have seen in your writings on Q.

There is no algorithm to provide you with a method that will make all people who find value in Q become like the loopy and quirky ones. There is only bigotry. And that is based on faulty identification, habit as a learned response to "What is it?", and a strong negative emotional imprint as frame.

(Incidentally, that correctly describes TDS and any other form of blind hatred or blind contempt brought to the social level. That goes for all sides, too.)

An algorithm is a tool for the brain. It is not a replacement.

On a more fun level, Ray Bradbury once wrote a short story ("There Will Come Soft Rains") about an automatic house in an automatic neighborhood system that went through its day fixing meals, cleaning, making repairs, chiming the time, and so on. Except there were no humans left on earth. Only shadows left on the walls, presumably from a nuclear explosion. All of the "algorithms" and robotic routines they governed were designed for human activities, but there were no humans anymore. The thing just churned on and there was no meaning to the activities anymore. 

That, to me, is a great metaphor for how many people seek to use their brains.


  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

A lot of skirting of questions above. We could draw an analogy to the process/es used to "try" a case. If the person or persons rendering judgements have no set of 'algorithms' for inqury, have no processes they follow when addressing claims and counterclaims ...

What processes (we need not use algorithms nor heuristics nor "Methods") of inquiry show strong or reliable conclusions in the end? Continuing with a courtroom analogy, should we trust a judge who pays zero attention to the case we have presented (whether as prosecutor or defense)?

For example, one might have an opinion about a particular happening in court -- say the ruling in Michigan against the Kraken lawyer -- without ever considering both sides' detailed pleadings, attachments and arguments. What good is that opinion if not cognizant of the details of one side? 

In the Kraken lawyer decision, the judge questioned each claim made -- the details. The opinion of the judge was that Kraken lawyers did sweet fuck all due diligence on their raft of affidavits.  They didn't do their jobs as officers of the court.

This is where I get lost.  I really don't understand why anyone interested in the fate of the Kraken lawyers will rubbish a ruling without reading it.  I won't speculate, although OL can be full of mind-reading and generalized clairvoyance at times.


How may one decide or detect the 'fringe' of "Q world"?

Among other queries ...

Michael, I sometimes enjoy reading all the You You You yous in your stabs at responsive comments. 

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

According to your own explanation, algorithms are rules used for calculations and problem-solving.

No. Read what I quoted.  I many stretch the boundaries for effect -- the target of my query is how one gets the details of a foolproof 'cognitive before normative'/'Identify correctly before judging correctly' advertized here from time to time.

If the process takes time (Thinking Slow), then there could be at least a rough list of "best practices." Or even a 'here's some common pitfals' in the process of 'identification.'

So, one point to possible consider is that we probably could identify best practices of inquiry ... feelings aside, mind-reading aside, imputing immorality aside, one-upmanship aside. 

The process of Identifying Correctly has a few moving parts, I assume. It would be great to have some of the details spelled out. Call it what you will.

There might even be a book in it!

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Brilliant William wrote: “So, one point to take away is that we probably could identify best practices of inquiry ... feelings aside, mind-reading aside, imputing immorality aside, one-upmanship aside.

What is certain? How can we know? That is a tough one. Ayn Rand sought peace in her later years and I hope she found it. I have had few moments of “total certainty” in my life. One was driving “my date” in my totally boss Mustang (I won’t give the year) and it suddenly dawned on me that she is all that I wanted. Forever.

It has a parallel in the animal kingdom. A VERY pregnant mother cat was dumped near our country house. She had kittens in our shed which had a “cat door” for our one outdoor cat. I met her new babies when their eyes were still shut. One of them I named Sookie Stackhouse after the Anna Paquin character in “True Blood”. I picked her up. She hissed at me as I held her in my hand. I very softly petted her. I talked to her. The next time I went to check on her, her eyes were still shut, but she trusted me. Sookie is still healthy, alive, well fed, and happy. So. What are the best practices of enquiry? When do YOU know for sure? It’s a good feeling when you do. Peter     

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

A lot of skirting of questions above.



No. Call it skirting if you like. It's different, though. I find your entire frame inaccurate.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend I did skirt. So now I'm going to skirt some more.

You see, I grew up around real racists. The real deal. So I know from infancy the signs of rationalizing a prejudice.

Discussions never go anywhere productive.

It's not that I believe you are a racist or carry that much hatred in your heart, but your prejudice has been showing for a long, long time. And what is that prejudice? You feel innately superior to heartland people. What's more, you want to display this constantly through subtext, often a mocking kind of subtext. Your subtext has always carried that theme. It probably always will carry that theme.

And it will always be prefaced by a wrapper, the essence of which is: This time it's different. I really do want to understand. So please tell me... yada yada yada...

There is a surprising fact, though. I like you just as you are, prejudice and everything. I have my own insecurities to contend with, so I don't need to worry about yours. :evil: To me, your good qualities outweigh the bad of the prejudice. 

Until that prejudice is no longer the frame, I will reject your frame when you want to discuss the true truthy truly true essence of Q. Call it skirting or whatever you want to call it. But that's what I intend to do. And, when I believe it is a good idea, I will provide readers with a different view than the one you provide. But that's for them, not you.

And I will banter. After all, why take any of this seriously?



Link to comment
On 5/19/2021 at 11:57 AM, william.scherk said:
On 5/18/2021 at 2:03 PM, william.scherk said:

Jacob need a new lawyer?

'QAnon Shaman' attorney refuses to apologize for 'short-bus people' comments

‘QAnon Shaman’ Reaches Plea Deal, Now ‘Repudiates’ Association With ‘Q,’ Lawyer Says


Albert Watkins said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the details of the arrangement at this time. But he sent along a press release stating that Chansley “REPUDIATES THE ‘Q’ MONIKER” and no longer wanted to be associated with “Q.” Watkins — an eccentric lawyer who has compared Jan. 6 rioters to cultists who “drank the Kool-Aid” and said Capitol riot defendants are “fucking short bus people” — plans to hold a virtual press conference on Friday afternoon after Chansley’s hearing.

“Mr. Chansley, a long avowed and practicing Shaman, has repudiated the ‘Q’ previously assigned to him and requests future references to him be devoid of use of the letter ‘Q’,” Watkins said in the statement. 

“The road leading up to the events of January 6 traversed years. The path charted by Mr. Chansley since January 6 has been a process, one which has involved pain, depression, solitary confinement, introspection, recognition of mental health vulnerabilities, and a coming to grips with the need for more self-work,” Watkins said. “It is imperative that patience and compassion be accorded those, who like Mr. Chansley, were non-violent, peaceful and possessed of genuine mental health issues which rendered them more vulnerable to the propaganda of the day but who, at the end of day, seek to be accountable for their actions.”


Link to comment

The thing I find funny about the "QAnon Shaman" is that he is treated as a Q influencer by lefties, but I can't think of a single MAGA person he influences. And among the MAGA people I know, he's treated as an attention getter and fruitcake.


By attention getter, I mean in the sense of a drunk dude wearing a lampshade at a party and thinking he's funny. :) 

This is one classic case of incorrectly identifying someone.

Of course, this incorrect identification is done on purpose by the propaganda machine for, well... propaganda. 


  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now