All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Intriguing article: Psychology and the Allure of Conspiracy Theories -- I just bought the newish book edited by Joseph Uscinski, whose research is noted in the article cite above. I'll try to take a fair-use excerpt from the Uscinski appearance on Watter's show, and maybe put it together with some other material celebrating/castigating the segment by the 'Qmmunity' (and its skeptical attendants) ... in the QAnon thread, once Chod finishes with his spasms.
  3. Yesterday
  4. I haven’t seen it, but will take your word for it. I read Q and he implores us to love each other, think for ourselves and fight for what is right. Q has never deviated from this ethos. Q has never peddled any bigotry of any kind whatsoever. I recommend you stop stewing with racists and bigots who say they like Q and try the people I have recommended here for years. They are women, independent journalists, retired Air Force, authors, medics, gay men:
  5. But yeah, let's trust the anonymous Q source who posts to racist lair of scumbags run by a pigfarmer. "Objectivism, anyone?"
  6. Are you through deflecting? What of Barbara Branden’s objections to the way you and Peter belittle her ethnic background?
  7. This is a stupid, ugly question. The accusation you slop around is utterly without warrant. That you repeat this accusation casually is on your head, Jon. A malicious repetition of disgusting charges poisons this forum, which you might understand were you not an unreasoning lunatic. You seem proud of this smear, which is also disgusting. You reap what you sow ...
  8. Your identity as a pedophile does not make me a bigot, try again. Why the controversy around this, why are you offended? If someone can be counted on to consistently disparage right thinking and defend rationalism, what do we call them? We say they look like rationalists, it looks like they support rationalism. And that’s what you did for years, Billyboy lover. You laughed at and mocked those who tell the truth about abuse. You even did this with uncontested totally factual disclosures of abuse. You, and several others who did the same thing here, don’t do it so much nowadays. But you and they did. You made yourselves obvious. Don’t blame me. Apologize for your past and move on. Stop living, stewing in the past. Stop bringing back the memory of your pedophilia supportive behavior, which is all that is accomplished when you remind us of your identity. Work and fight and argue for good for once, become different, and you will get called different names, is how it works.
  9. "Fuck off, pedophile." The QAnon movement is chockful of anti-semitic garbage -- based on the wildest bullshit peddled by the Q-collective itself. If the correspondent wasn't so opposed to reason, he'd figure that one out on his own.
  10. I am not Jewish, but how about Barbara Branden, Billy? Do you dispense of her objections with the same dismissive “need to no”? You are a bigot. Unapologetic.
  11. I think I first used "The Joo" in reference to "Mark" and his racialized beliefs and crypto-VDare BS. Jon is perhaps operating on a "Need 2 No" basis.
  12. Pelosi: "We're going to impeach!" Trump: "Please, please, don't throw me into that briar patch!" --Brant
  13. “The Joo” is a fine tell, Billy. Thanks for the lapse.
  14. Let me explain: (This is actually a very good question. ) The two genders are not statistically equal in capability. Neither are the races. ( ethnic groups if you wish, if you believe that a 'race' cannot be easily defined). Remember, we are talking statistics not about individuals ( just like stating that men are taller than women, you will find a some women to be taller than some men). Now you might ask why this is important, to know this fact especially since we are talking statistical probability rather than about individuals? Well a typical sexist, (the way I understand how sexism is defined) probably will reject all women for the position of an engineer based on the gender alone ( though I'm yet to come across such a person). On the other hand a social justice warrior ( SJW, I think that's what they are called) will insist that there is discrimination in a group of engineers that is not 50% women. A person who on the other hand understands this statistical probability ( the discretionary sexist as I call him) with be perfectly fine with a group of engineers that consists of 5% women and 95% men. He/she understands that biology is not egalitarian in nature and is most likely to focus on the competence of group of engineers, than worry about the gender. The SJW typically hijacks the conversation by insisting that there is discrimination based on his/her faulty understanding of biology. What it means in the real world is that SJWs distract you from solving real world problems ( like how to build a build on quick sand) by focusing on issues they think are important. For me identifying a SJW is important so that if I encounter one I can ignore or keep them out of my life. Now the bigot part - some what self explanatory - we are all picky as to whom we deal with. In might case I avoid the idiots when ever I can. ( of course it can be tedious to define an idiot, but that will be another post, if a person is trying to understand my definition in all genuineness, and of course not an idiot him/herself)
  15. Trump and Q are allied. Each has demonstrated their alignment with the other dozens of times. Start looking at the links below every day and you will see more demonstrations, live. The Medic will show you and explain and you can use your own reason and find out yourself. He will simply show you Trump tweets and Q posts and your reason will lead you to the conclusion that Trump and Q are on a team. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of small Trump references to Q. Even Melania’s Christmas videos contain Q references. Melania could be Q. Is there any such thing as a domino with value 17? The dominos I know go to 12, six little dots on each side, that’s the highest value domino. For years, the Q mileu has substituted “17” for Q, as it is the 17th letter in the alphabet. It does not matter what I think of numerology — For years the Q world has used and noticed others using “17” for “Q.” Melania put a domino with value of 17 in her tree. Think what you will of this, but know that this hasn’t happened a few times or a dozen times, these “small Q references” have occurred many hundreds of times. All the past ones are well documented below, dig in for those or just start watching for future ones. Trump signals his alignment with Q routinely.
  16. Over at his safe space within OL, Billy is lying again, this time saying Q is anti-Semitic. If moss is up to evil, like all the other agencies everywhere, then the Israeli people are victims of some evil shits who need to be defeated and executed, just like at see eye a and em eye six, all the five eyes, including NZ. None of We the People are responsible for the evil, [they] are. There is nothing anti-Israeli, let alone anti-Semitic about finding the truth about Epstein, Barak, mos. Just as there is nothing anti-New Zealnd and nothing anti-Australian about the fiveeyes reckoning that is coming. Nice try, Billy. Cheap and moronic as usual You lie about Q being right wing, Billy, now you lie about this, you lie about everything.
  17. I remember BB was not happy with my little joke that spelled "the jews" as "the juice." Joos is a similar misspelling. I think one of the funniest fictional names ever is "Henny Penny." Is that from some children's story? I forget. Ms Money Penny, are you free tonight? Sorry James. I am watching you right now in "Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade." You look older.
  18. Michael wrote: That's why ruling class elitists, including those idiots who wrote and monitored the Wikipedia article, try to paint Q as a cult with specific weird-sounding jargon and beliefs. Q scares the shit out of them--like bombs are supposed to. end quote Thanks Michael. That was very informative and well said. I agree that it is correct to have backlash against the polarized left wing media but my fear is that “unknown sources” who suggest conspiracies can have a worrisome effect on anyone who does not fact check and use reason. Oddly, since I asked the question of “who Q was” I saw something on the net that referenced Qanon and suggested that just as with radical Muslim terrorist web sites, Q radicalizes The Right with propaganda, unverified sources, and dirty tricks. Should tricksters and divulgers worry about the unstable people they may influence, to use violence or promote violence? I suppose planting ideas in the minds of the gullible is not Q’s worry but websites that don’t self-censor are not my cup of tea. I suppose it is the same concern that some have about Fox News right wing analyses and selection of stories and the other three main networks left wing analyses and selection of stories. Of course, everyone has an agenda, but “the news” should be based on facts. As Walter Cronkite used to say, “And that’s the way it is.” I was not totally sure about the extent of his left wing bias until he retired and let loose with both barrels from his bent mind, and another leftie who could fool the gullible was Dan Rather. It might be interesting to see an analysis of the “truthiness” of all news sources. Peter
  19. Ok, let's play "Ask Jeeves": Pop quiz: Why do you describe yourself as a " discretionary sexist, racist and bigot"?
  20. It usually comes down to The Joo ... Readers can find a spate of Q/QAnon posts beginning here, along with a lengthy commentary here:
  21. I wasn't sure if this post of mine can be best classified as an 'offer' but I could not find a better fit. Since you are reading this you probably know what I’m getting at. People who are grounded in reality ( according to my definition of course) are rare and may often be lost among the sea of the deluded masses. So this post of mine is an attempt to gather people who are like-minded.( people who I deem to be grounded in reality through my own colored lens of the world). The idea is to form mutually beneficial alliances in this insane world. Right now this process of forming alliances is somewhat unplanned and subject to chance events(you meet/know someone reasonable at school, work etc.). I'm hoping to cast the net wide by leveraging the internet. As to what exactly should the alliance be, or what it hopes to achieve is something to be discussed (though I have some concrete preliminary thoughts). How to start: Email me your core beliefs ( though I personally prefer a voice chat with on Skype, google hangouts etc.), especially the beliefs where you think you differ fundamentally from the vast majority of people. I will quiz you on various subjects ( and so can you) to see if our beliefs align. Overall my beliefs can be loosely labeled as: generally anarchist (i.e a live and let live approach), generally anti-authoritarian ( meaning I believe govt/authorities do not protect your interests), largely capitalist( i.e vehemently opposed to coercive co-operation, put forth by typical socialism) etc. Perhaps at the bare minimum we have to share a meta belief that it is necessary to reach out and cooperate with other like minded individuals as it is virtually impossible to 'de-delude' the idiotic masses though arguments/dialogs etc. My email address can be found on my profile. In my profile you will also find a link to some webpages that outline my beliefs. After this step, if we think our beliefs align, I will add you to an an online forum ( zero people as of now) , where you can interact with other people that I will be screening. Caveats: - I'm not too keen on discussing 'objectivism' at length ( small discussions are fine). I read Atlas Shrugged a long time back and enjoyed parts of it ( the other parts were tedious). I strive to be a doer after having thought through the basic concepts. The occasional hairsplitting on these concepts ( like socialism/capitalism) is fine but my observation is that it can be carried to lengths where the debaters often loose track of the time lost in convincing a side that is never going to be convinced. -It often takes a very long time ( months to years) to form mutually beneficial alliances. ( more so when individuals are geographically isolated from each other.) Perseverance and patience will be very important. -The online forum is not to rant against the world, or a place to discuss your core beliefs. ( I would think forums for that already exist). This is more of a place for doers. Side note: It’s really hard to for me to believe that someone else is not doing this ( i.e what I’m attempting in this post) already somewhere. Let me know if you are aware of similar efforts, I would be eager to join.
  22. Old post I know,. Can you try and quantify the amount of Mercury and Aluminum (and any other substance that you think deserved attention) with respect to say what we inject daily via say food pr say breathing etc.
  23. Peter, Q is what the Tea Party tried to be--a spontaneous huge group of people traveling in the same direction--a good direction of freedom and individualism and family values--without a named leader. This phenomenon scared the holy hell out of the ruling class establishment and the left with the Tea Party, and it scares the holy hell out of them with Q. The Wikipedia Article If you want to see an explanation and history of Q from the side of those who fear it, look at the Wikipedia article: QAnon Just look at how the Wikipedia article opens: Notice that this article does not say "Q". It just calls everything QAnon. I think this is on purpose to somehow try to diminish the impact of using Q only (which has a cool factor among other subconscious loads). Also, Q is not a theory. It is an individual or group of individuals (nobody knows who) who publish cryptic short messages and predictions on the Internet. They are often called "Q drops." The idiots who fear Q and wrote (and monitored) that Wikipedia article couldn't even get that part right. They called QAnon itself a conspiracy theory. If you read this article, notice a few things. The first is how condescending it is, basically positioning smart people who know better and look down on Q followers as "us" and people who talk about Q and discuss the cryptic messages as conspiracy theorists. From the tone, it means kooky conspiracy theorists and wackos. Definitely not smart or serious people. Definitely not "us." The second is the nature of the sources. The good guys in the article, (the smart folks) are The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN and so on. The kooky folks (the conspiracy theory guys) who seemingly aren't worth considering or commenting on include famous people like Lionel, Bill Mitchell, Jack Posobiec and so on. The third is that, for an article based on a posture of superiority and looking down on nonsense to dismiss it, the article sure is long. The fourth is that the article tries to pin Q down to specific structures and beliefs it can then debunk. The fifth is kind of funny. In trying to debunk and pooh pooh everything related to Q, the article actually details items that cause a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in our culture. For one example, the murder of Seth Rich. The article makes it seem like only retards would believe Rich was murdered by the Deep State and those who are entangled with it because Rich turned over damaging info from the DNC computer to Wikileaks after the DNC openly cheated Bernie out of his true standing in the primaries in order to guarantee Hillary Clinton the nomination. However, the result of such intense "pooh pooh" focus on the Seth Rich murder is to keep light on it and keep this speculation alive. Just look at how many people still believe it (as do I). So if you want a list of items where Q has scared the shit out of the ruling class, this article does a decent job of listing those items. The tone is "of course this is all nonsense." But the list is long. Legitimate Q Jon keeps up with Q a lot more than I do. He generally points people to here and here for Q texts. Those links are pretty much authoritative. They are the ones mostly used by the more serious people into Q. The problem with ascertaining accuracy is that Q is anonymous. Hell, the identity of the more accepted Q, so to speak, could have changed over time for all anyone knows. And Q's messages are intentionally vague. In the beginning, he (or she or they) started dropping message on a huge Wild West-like Internet forum called 4chan, where anyone can post at any time on anything. (4chan is where many memes come from.) This is not what one could call peer-reviewed. But 4chan is where Q initially spread like wildfire. Also, since people like Lionel and Jack Posobiec and other famous Q supporting folks have visited the White House, since President Trump often says cryptic statements that echo Q, and since Q's predictions--that could only be based on high-level inside information--often come true, the first order of the day for the terrified ruling class elitists was to get a bunch of Internet trolls to call themselves Q. This kind of infiltration is what they did with the Tea Party (in a different manner). The idea is for impostors to claim a central role and pose as legitimate, then start preaching pro-ruling class crap or exaggerating actual beliefs to the extent of ridiculousness. If the impostors do their job well, the movement gets discredited and fades away. This worked with the Tea Party. It hasn't worked so far with Q. And, of course, when things are cryptic, actual true-believer fringe people always appear who are way over the top. These are the ones William likes to post on OL as Q to try fool people into thinking these guys represent what Q is all about. Now that Jesse Waters is on it, I don't see how this approach can continue, but I have little doubt those wedded to this approach will keep it up. After all, the "muh Russians" hoax was a three year mainstream culture thing and the Deep State insiders in Congress are still trying to resurrect it (including Hillary Clinton herself). Why wouldn't their followers follow suit? So the best thing to look at if you want to see real Q stuff is to check the links Jon posts. Why Q Spreads Do you like to do crossword puzzles? Or do you like puzzles where you have to discover words among a lot of random letters? Did you ever have fun with Where's Wally? This is the essence of Q's appeal. He (or she or they) says just enough to get you interested, but not enough to make a clear statement. And, of course, there are statements that nobody has been able to figure out (which, to me, are there to trip people up and make it all even more intriguing, like red herrings in a mystery novel). In a culture where the fake news media lies constantly and gets busted for it over and over, there is no way it can combat this approach by Q. Even without the media's constant lying, how can it debunk a hint and wage a propaganda campaign against something that could mean anything? It can't pin Q's messages down. Anything big the fake news media does against Q, by asserting this or that is what Q really means, is seen by the public as overkill--except for folks with the elitist ruling class mentality--the Kool-Aid drinkers so to speak, who often think this time the media finally "destroyed" Q's message and so on. Yet Q won't go away and it grows. Just look at people like Amazing Polly. Watch any of her videos and you start to go, "Woah... I may not fully agree with all this, but WTF?" Like her, there are many, many people on the Internet who constantly speculate about what Q is saying--and they go about digging up stuff to prove it. On a deeper cultural level, one of the main tropes used in movies these days is a superhero with a fantasy name saving the world, but with a hidden real identity as a person in normal life. Americans can't get enough of this and Q comes off as such a superhero. So by default, people in general like Q and think he (or she or they) is cool. There's real persuasion genius going on in the Q approach. The reason the ruling class has gotten away with all the crap it has over the decades is because the ruling class owns the media and (more recently) the giant social media corporations. It can make things like ruling class pedophilia, corruption, coup attempts, etc., go away through propaganda campaigns. But Q's messages are so damn interesting to the public at large as a research game and string of mysteries, especially online research and mysteries, people who have felt powerless up to now join in the fun with gusto. They are a gigantic herd of ferrets. They snoop into everything and speculate about all of it. And they uncover one inconvenient thing after another. For ruling class people with something ugly to hide, it's like a school of piranhas attacking a cow in the river. There's a lot of crap Q followers point to and claim as fact, of course, but there's also a lot of true stuff that emerges that would have otherwise stayed buried. This last tends to float to the top in our culture (as verification starts becoming impossible to ignore) and ruling class criminals get real paranoid. I am convinced President Trump has encouraged the use of Q-based material by proper law enforcement agencies and the military--not as fully proven facts, but as situations and places for them to investigate. The Q phenomenon is a form of crowd-sourcing the start of investigations. This used to be the role of investigative journalists, but their media companies got bought out and the reporters, for the most part, have sold out. Most reporters these days are ruling class hacks and toadies. That's the gist of the Q phenomenon. It's the bombing campaign against globalism before the ground forces come in. Precision is not its nature. Unearthing and exposing hidden stuff is. (Including destroying deadly ordinance when possible) That's why ruling class elitists, including those idiots who wrote and monitored the Wikipedia article, try to paint Q as a cult with specific weird-sounding jargon and beliefs. Q scares the shit out of them--like bombs are supposed to. Michael
  24. Packs of stray dogs, Peter. Q is packs of stray dogs that control most of the major cities.
  25. I have his mojo on my computer. I thought he was interesting before and after I found out he has two Hispanic wives.
  1. Load more activity