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

Pro-Trump Objectivist and psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd weighs in on the matter of Q:

"Why Conspiracy Theories Steered Us So Wrong"


"Consider the events of 2020 and early 2021. Conspiracy theories told us the Chinese Communist Party and the Democratic Party (same thing) plotted and brilliantly carried out a scheme to impose coronavirus on America, to destroy America’s economy and divide the country. While there’s no doubt Communists in China and America WANT to do this, they’re not nearly that brilliant. If they were that brilliant, they wouldn’t be Communists. What’s much more likely is coronavirus came on the medical radar, just as similar viruses had in the recent past, and they decided to create a panic. They gambled that the American public would buy it, and then they’d have control over the citizens they never dreamed of getting in Obama’s terms of office. You know the rest."
"Conspiracy theories also give the good guys too much credit. How many counted on Trump to “do something” to stop the obvious — and first — political  coup d’état to take place in the United States of America? Trump is very smart and amazingly courageous. If anyone COULD have pulled it off, I’m sure it’s him; but it simply wasn’t possible. The bad guys, while irrational and not very smart, could count on the fear and ignorance of millions of people, something that people on Trump’s side obviously underestimated. America is no longer America; we know that because if it was, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Nobody can overcome that...."
"Bottom line: You can’t fix stupid. If too few Americans are enlightened or courageous enough to embrace liberty and reject totalitarianism, then no grand conspiracy — orchestrated by Donald Trump, or anyone else — can rescue us."

  • Smile 1
Link to comment

ThatGuy quoted Doctor Hurd: “Bottom line: You can’t fix stupid. If too few Americans are enlightened or courageous enough to embrace liberty and reject totalitarianism, then no grand conspiracy — orchestrated by Donald Trump, or anyone else — can rescue us."

President Trump was and is a fine President but I am not in favor of “hero worship,” but I am glad to see our guy is beginning to “stir.”

Slanting off that idea I was listening to a commercial that featured folk singer Peter Seeger. It sounds fine and seems to be “earlier” American but Seeger was not a “country singer” by any means. He was a fake. And on top of that he was a Communist and I don’t mean with a little “c.” I seem to remember he preferred the Communism under Stalin, including mass slavery, deliberate starvation and executions. He was a baaaad man. I won’t ever think well of him or “that bee-atch” Jane Fonda for manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. And that was no joke. 

Link to comment

And then the nighttime version of “The Price is Right,” if I am not mistaken, had the “Proud Pedophile” Patten Oswalt on as a contestant. I did not watch it just because of that.  I looked him up several years ago thinking his pedophilia was a hoax, but he was all over the internet. He said he was a proud pedophile though he was taking care of his daughter after his wife’s death (from fentynol? Some say he killed her) And he would never hurt his daughter, he said. And the best “explanation” I have found for his being a monster is below. I say he is a monster and the evidence supports that hypothesis. Out of context? Horse shit. Peter     

Notes from The Web. As for the tweet, it existed — but it was taken out of context: The angry “@” tweets from my hammer toed followers opened my eyes. “Pedo-phobe” shaming hurts us all. I am a PROUD pedophile!

That particular tweet was sent by Oswalt in the summer of 2013, during which time his use of Twitter for a particular style of joke was well documented. Oswalt shared a series of tweets in July and August 2013 that were conceived to leverage Twitter’s character limit in a humorous fashion. In the course of the bit, Oswalt would publish one tweet expressing a widely accepted sentiment. In the second of two tweets, he would continue the sentiment to create a misleading statement when only the second tweet was examined.

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