Message added by william.scherk

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


william.scherk

12,752 views

Credence and interest in the QAnon phenomena  

3 members have voted

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

    • Uninterested
      2
    • Interested, but skeptical
      1
    • I already know what I know
      0
    • None of your business. I don't declare my interests
      0
    • "Don't bother to examine a folly ... "
      0
    • I'd be interested in an objective analysis of the phenomena
      0
    • I will explain everything in a guest post here, if given the opportunity
      0

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?

hr

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...

 

584 Comments


Recommended Comments



35 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Fellow Canadian, please explain to me why Lin Wood is wrong?

Also, can Ontario join the Union? 

Hell, even just Toronto, would suit me fine!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Marc said:

Fellow Canadian, please explain to me why Lin Wood is wrong?

Wrong about what, Marc? Do you mean something like 'please explain why L Lin Wood is wrong to call for the arrests of Pence'?

10 minutes ago, Marc said:

Also, can Ontario join the Union? 

Yes, conceivably, sure, why not. It would be a protracted process -- and considering the Clarity Act, any referendum in Ontario on leaving Confederation would need to garner a substantial majority.  So, getting to that first necessary place seems quite unlikely in my lifetime.  

 

 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Wrong about what, Marc? Do you mean something like 'please explain why L Lin Wood is wrong to call for the arrests of Pence'?

Yes, conceivably, sure, why not. It would be a protracted process -- and considering the Clarity Act, any referendum in Ontario on leaving Confederation would need to garner a substantial majority.  So, getting to that first necessary place seems quite unlikely in my lifetime.  

 

 

Wrong about anything or everything.

Sounds to me like he is very confident, et tu?

I'm curious if you will wager with me here, a gentleman's bet, or a loonie, just to make it interesting?

My premise is that most of his tweets are very accurate.

Do you agree or disagree? 

About Ontario, thanks for that answer!

Totally agreed! 

 

 

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

... considering the Clarity Act, any referendum in Ontario on leaving Confederation would need to garner a substantial majority.  So, getting to that first necessary place seems quite unlikely in my lifetime.

and

31 minutes ago, Marc said:

About Ontario, thanks for that answer!

Totally agreed! 

 

Well, based on the following guy, Ontario politicians would certainly fit right in with the American swamp.

Ontario Finance Minister Resigns After Tropical Vacation
The finance minister for Canada’s most populous province has resigned after going on a Caribbean vacation during the pandemic and seemingly trying to hide the fact by sending social media posts showing him in a sweater before a fireplace.
BY ROB GILLIES, Associated Press

Quote

TORONTO (AP) — The finance minister for Canada's most populous province resigned Thursday after going on a Caribbean vacation during the pandemic and seemingly trying to hide the fact by sending social media posts showing him in a sweater before a fireplace.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he had accepted Rod Phillips’s resignation as minister hours after Phillips returned home from a more than two-week stay on the island of St. Barts despite government guidelines urging people to avoid nonessential travel.

"Travelling over the holidays was the wrong decision, and I once again offer my unreserved apology,” Phillips said in a statement confirming his resignation.

In a video posted on Twitter on Christmas Eve, the sweater-wearing finance minister was shown drinking eggnog beside a fireplace with a gingerbread house and a little Christmas tree.

“I want to thank every one of you for what we are doing to protect our most vulnerable,” Phillips said about Ontarians hunkered down at home because of the pandemic over the Christmas holidays.

But Phillips himself had been enjoying a Caribbean vacation since Dec. 13 on St. Barts, a French island popular with the rich and famous, even as his Twitter account had suggested he was in snowbound Ontario.

What's to say? Busted is busted.

 

Appearance...

... versus reality:

image.png

St. Barts. Photo from Tourisme St. Barthelemy.

 

Ah... to be one of the Anointed...

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

Courtesies.

2 hours ago, Marc said:
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:
3 hours ago, Marc said:

Fellow Canadian, please explain to me why Lin Wood is wrong?

Wrong about what, Marc? Do you mean something like 'please explain why L Lin Wood is wrong to call for the arrests of Pence'?

Wrong about anything or everything.

Everything or anything is good, and I can take the 'anything' as "Wrong to call for the arrests of Pence" or "Wrong prediction that Pence will be arrested" or/and "Wrong to assume that if arrested, Pence will face a firing squad."

Basically, I believe that Pence is not at risk of being arrested for treason. I am not really sure what L Lin Wood believes in his heart, but his words express (for me) a recklessness and a lack of rational judgement.

I believe it wrong to agitate for the arrests of Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

That partially answers your question. I'd like to ask you one back, if you are willing to give it a go.

Quote

I'm curious if you will wager with me here, a gentleman's bet, or a loonie, just to make it interesting?

I don't gamble, generally, but these are special times. I could do a special Twitter video short: "Why and How I Was Wrong about January 6th" or ~500 word Friends and Foes post -- if I lose the contest. Or you can tell me what I need do once I lose the wager.  Or suggest what we each do on winning/losing.

So, what shall be the wager? Shall we base it on a fantasy-league Who Wins January 6 o something similar?

LinWoodPENCEshooting.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LinWoodPENCEshooting.png (544×379) (wsscherk.com)

[fourth fifth attempt to re-size]

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

William,

I don't think making the image bigger is the right persuasion tool in this case.

It looks like you are trying too hard because nobody is listening.

I suggest you try another tool, but it's your campaign.

Helpfully...

:) 

Michael 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

and

 

Well, based on the following guy, Ontario politicians would certainly fit right in with the American swamp.

Ontario Finance Minister Resigns After Tropical Vacation
The finance minister for Canada’s most populous province has resigned after going on a Caribbean vacation during the pandemic and seemingly trying to hide the fact by sending social media posts showing him in a sweater before a fireplace.
BY ROB GILLIES, Associated Press

What's to say? Busted is busted.

 

Appearance...

... versus reality:

image.png

St. Barts. Photo from Tourisme St. Barthelemy.

 

Ah... to be one of the Anointed...

:) 

Michael

Lolllll shows you the extent of the freaking bullshit when it's so freaking premeditated!!!!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Marc

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Courtesies.

Everything or anything is good, and I can take the 'anything' as "Wrong to call for the arrests of Pence" or "Wrong prediction that Pence will be arrested" or/and "Wrong to assume that if arrested, Pence will face a firing squad."

Basically, I believe that Pence is not at risk of being arrested for treason. I am not really sure what L Lin Wood believes in his heart, but his words express (for me) a recklessness and a lack of rational judgement.

I believe it wrong to agitate for the arrests of Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

That partially answers your question. I'd like to ask you one back, if you are willing to give it a go.

I don't gamble, generally, but these are special times. I could do a special Twitter video short: "Why and How I Was Wrong about January 6th" or ~500 word Friends and Foes post -- if I lose the contest. Or you can tell me what I need do once I lose the wager.  Or suggest what we each do on winning/losing.

So, what shall be the wager? Shall we base it on a fantasy-league Who Wins January 6 o something similar?

LinWoodPENCEshooting.png

 

 

[Edited Jan 2 -- to replace the removed, over-large image.]

 

Fair enough! 

So you believe it's wrong to "agitate" folks in certain political positions when you know and have the evidence of very wrong doing?

 

As in they are above the law?

 

No, you have not seen the evidence yet of what Lin speaks of but assuming that he has what he suggests that he has, once you see that, once that is presented as evidence is presented legally, can they agitate those folks at that time? 

Or still not?

The wager is simple.

When President Trump is inaugurated on January 20 at noon, you post a message here ( and it must be sincere ) stating in your own words, 500 or less, but must be genuine, about how incredible it is that MSK has been correct  for around six years in predicting basically everything correctly about Trump.

And you cannot hedge, it has to be sincere.

Just saying, but no disrespect intended.

You have to admit that you were wrong too and give Mike big props, publically here.

If I'm wrong and its Biden or Harris, you tell me what you want me to write on this board about whatever.

Deal? 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

And I want you to include the term " deus ex machina" in your open letter to our fearless leader too.

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't think making the image bigger is the right persuasion tool in this case.

It looks like you are trying too hard because nobody is listening.

I tried in both Chrome and Edge to reduce the size of the image in the OL code, which is generally a snap. I will try again.  If that fails, I'll reduce the size of the screenshot and try once more.  

Perhaps you have no opinion on the L Lin Wood tweet besides the size of its reproduction.  

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

"What goddam side are you on?!"

 

Either way Trump wins the election

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

Perhaps you have no opinion on the L Lin Wood tweet besides the size of its reproduction.  

William,

Do you believe that?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
On 1/1/2021 at 12:23 PM, Marc said:

I'm curious if you will wager with me here, a gentleman's bet, or a loonie, just to make it interesting?

Negotiations broke down, but here I pledge to send OL fifty bucks if Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term in office. I will also publish a "Why I was wrong and MSK was right."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Marc-Andre Argentino has a useful Twitter thread, for those who aim to keep track of events in the QAnon universe.

 

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

If you get a chance to find some perspective on Q and QAnon...

William,

With all due respect, get perspective about Q and QAnon from you?

After all the mocking and implicit mocking you have posted on OL about Q and QAnon for years?

LOL...

Sorry, I'll take a pass.

I'm not mocking nor am I hostile. Not my intent. This is genuinely funny.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

Another way of looking at it: Here is what some unbelieving chroniclers have to report about QAnon and the Capitol riot:

On to arguing about "You."

Quote

With all due respect, get perspective about Q and QAnon from you?

The truncated quote led to the QAnonanonymous podcast, the latest of which OL readers might find sobering. Some OL readers might mistake me pointing to a resource as a personal attack upon their morality. Who knows?

I've tried to warn people against the Q hoax, on balance rather poorly.  I have empathy for those who slipped under the spell of the Q hoax, especially those who were most vulnerable to suggestion. In extreme cases, obsessive cult-follower behaviour can lead to side-effects: cut off family, wrecked relationships and worse; I have residual anger against deliberate behaviour that amplified the worst effects of the hoax while knowing that it was a con. I mean folks knowingly in on the grift, who make money from gulling the vulnerable, stoking their fears, feeding their fantasies.

In the broadests strokes, I believe the QAnon "movement" has done terrible damage. January 6 being the most obvious example.

Here's an old fan favourite, Alex Jones. Does this resonate with "You People"?

(14) uFo-dis·ci·ple on Twitter: "@PostDisclosure https://t.co/jD9SXZGM3m Musical version is more catchy" / Twitter

I think I missed a few chances and made several blunders early on in this thread. I had initially hoped to get some discussion going, but that did not happen. Maybe the original blog post was seen as yet another WSS obsession with weird, tiny sects of belief that were irrelevant on an ostensibly "Ayn Rand influenced" web forum. Maybe Jonathan expressed a general silent consensus in his highlighted message above. He has since said fuck all of consequence about the phenomenon.

It's almost tragic that Objectivist Living is in some ways right now a QAnon echo-chamber. I mean -- where do you go from here?

Full colour vision:

colorWheelSpiral.jpg

Black and white vision:

blackAndWhiteColorWheel.png

A final boring rehash recommend for the podcast episode: it will tell you what "non-believers" say they have discovered about the intersection of QAnon and the events of January 6th.  If you consider You People WSS-Qnamous an enemy, a group of propagandists for the dark side, listening will let you know exactly what is on the Darkness's mind -- just what it is The Dark thinks it knows.

"A word to the wise is enough. The old proverb is, forewarned, forearmed."

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

I've tried to warn people against the Q hoax, on balance rather poorly.

William,

Is that what you have been trying to do?

And here I thought, because you only focused on the fringe types with low audience, you were trying to mischaracterize it and mock it. (After all this time, you even asked who Praying Medic was--even after participating in countless threads where he was quoted, yet kept up your stream of using fringe people as stand-ins for Q.)

Well, if misidentifying something on purpose and mocking it constantly is what you believe is a warning, I agree with you. It's a poor effort at warning. But my common sense tells me, you are lying to yourself about warning. I believe you wanted to laugh down at others.

Frankly, I stopped looking at your offerings about Q at least 4 or 5 months ago (probably longer). It's not that I disagreed with them. It's that I had no interest in what you had to say.

To put it another way, I was trying to identify what Q was and you were not. (I still don't know for sure.) But you were as convinced of your knowledge of what Q was as the flat earthers are convinced the earth is flat. In my identify correctly before judging mode, all you offered was noise, never signal.

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I had initially hoped to get some discussion going...

No you haven't. I didn't see you once address the idea of how Q worked as a persuasion device. I went into detail several times on that, too. Cognitive biases, closing loops, etc. leading to the equivalent of viral marketing. All the persuasion techniques. You didn't want to discuss it. At all. Crickets.

All you did was mock and try to convert who you saw were cultists. In fact, to consider OL members as cultists is your biggest misidentification.

When I asked if you could see without your core story glasses on when looking at a blatant organized coup, this is exactly what I was talking about. You literally have no idea what the people you are trying to talk to think. Not a clue. That's what makes you say stupid things like the following (stupid because it is incorrect, not stupid because of anything Q-related).

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It's almost tragic that Objectivist Living is in some ways right now a QAnon echo-chamber.

As long is that is all you see, you will probably keep wondering why lots of OL people look at things like the following, see the mainstream media praising it, think of it as racism and evil, and look where they can to see how to stop it.

Whites Need Not Apply: Biden Says His Priority Will Be to Help Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans Reopen and Rebuild Their Small Businesses (VIDEO)

And you will totally miss the point that people interested in Rand do not believe the government should be doing things like this to begin with, much less using racism as a filter to implement it. That more often than not is the big blank-out.

I have noted your blindness to things like this for a long time.

But, hell. Why not respond with a data dump or an RSS feed of fake news mainstream headlines or some more white text snark or a video of someone else nobody has ever heard about?

That way you can keep up a delusion that everyone has so very, very far to go intellectually to be able to get to your level of awareness. I mean, the OL cult members are nothing but participants in a Q echo chamber, and it's almost tragic, right?

I'm not going to keep pounding on this, though. This is the same crap as the first time around in 2015 and 2016. You are not identifying people correctly. When you say they are X and they tell you to your face they are not, and even show you why, you come back the next day and say they are X. 

And then present color grade diagrams as if they were blind.

You are the blind one. You look at a person and see a bigoted archetype that strokes your neurochemicals. And that's as far as you look.

You don't know who I am and I doubt you ever will. Ditto for your awareness of others around here.

Frankly, I am not even writing to you. I don't expect you to see. You're too invested in your missionary work and low-level mockery. And now playing the noble martyr with self-criticism because he fails at converting the savages, the cult members.

(One of the things that amused me about Jon during a stretch is that he went lower that you did on the mockery and that befuddled you and threw you off your game. :) )

But like I said, I'm not trying to convince you anymore I am who and what I am, or the others around here are who they are. You aren't going to look. I'm just doing this response as a form of exposing to readers--who have cognitive dissonance about these things--what's beneath the surface. As to what the readers will believe, let them look and make up their own minds. 

Just as you look and make up your own mind, which, based on your postings, is already made up and has been for a long time.

That's the main difference between you and me. I prefer people to think with their own minds based on what they see, agree or disagree. You want them to think with your mind and fall into the fold of the enlightened.

Michael

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