Recommended Posts

My Take on Q

There are only a few threads on OL where Q is discussed and a lot of what goes on is misleading. As people on OL speak for themselves and not in the name of any group-think, here is my own take on Q. I speak as Michael.

And, as usual, I start with trying to identify correctly so I can judge correctly.

Later, after this opening post, I might remember things that have been posted on OL about Q that are illuminating, so as I find them, I will post them.

Also, I don't want to restrict anyone from posting, so be advised that people who demean Q tend to find the least representative fringe proponents with odd ideas and set them up as typical. Those who do this tend to post a lot, and then some more, in order to shut down discussions through the sheer number of posts (generally with mockery as subtext).

This manner of thinking is reminiscent of bigotry--for example, thugs represent what blacks really are, greedy bastards represent what Jews really are, terrorists represent what Muslims really are, etc. If a person posted strings of posts showing only thugs, greedy bastards and terrorists to represent blacks, Jews and Muslims, and never mentioned average blacks, Jews and Muslims, a reasonable person will conclude that this is how that person sees blacks, Jews and Muslims, i.e., through a bigoted lens.

If this happens here, I will point it out and, if you are like me and want to evaluate the Q issue as reasonably as you can--with your own mind--amidst all the yelling, you are invited to jump over that material. I, for one, will keep posting what I think. So just ignore the excessive crap.

Anywho, here goes my take, which I have presented before. Peter asked a very good questions a few days ago.

On 12/7/2019 at 10:54 PM, Peter said:

What is Q? Brief synopsis? I haven"t been following. 

I responded with this:

On 12/8/2019 at 7:29 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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.

Here are some links Jon provided to more serious folks who discuss Q online:

On 12/8/2019 at 4:17 PM, Jon Letendre said:

... try the people I have recommended here for years. They are women, independent journalists, retired Air Force, authors, medics, gay men:

https://mobile.twitter.com/prayingmedic

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tiff_FitzHenry

https://mobile.twitter.com/LisaMei62

https://mobile.twitter.com/drawandstrike

https://mobile.twitter.com/martingeddes

Also, below is one of the most criticized videos about Q I have come across. The critics call it recruiting propaganda.

And I guess it is in a certain sense, but recruiting for what? There is no Q movement. There are only individuals who read and watch and listen and sometimes comment on the Internet. Individuals, all.

I'm giving the self-proclaimed "old version" of the video, although the original must have been long deleted since that is how YouTube rolls to cut down view stats. Still, this version currently logs 1.4 million views or so. (btw - There are several versions of this same video in this same account, each with a million or more views, not to mention copies posted by other people and all those other video sites out there, resulting in millions and millions of views all over YouTube and the rest of the Internet.)

I don't mean this video is criticized in the manner of a snarky know-it-all bashing a screwball with 7 followers who talks about how he ran words in a Q message backwards, applied a cipher, then pegged this to specific verses from the Book of Ezra in the Bible to show how Satan manifested in Hollywood. Instead, it is criticized by some of the top intellectuals and pundits who defend ruling class elitist cronyism (and just as often progressivism). They consider the video below to be a top-notch piece of propaganda. 

I, for one, like it. If it's propaganda, then it's only propaganda due to its single focus and rhetorical emphasis, not to lies. Ah... and to its effectiveness. There's that...

I especially like the emphasis on the message that the surveillance state doesn't just spy on you and me, it spies on Deep State criminals, too.

This is Q as I understand the phenomenon in essential terms. There are many variations, but the legitimate ones all boil down to these fundaments.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To look at the other side, here is a discussion between Steven Hassan (a cult expert) and a guy named Travis View, who has an anti-Q podcast called "QAnon Anonymous."

I have followed Hassan for years due to my interest in cults. He's done his deepest dive on Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses, and, of course, the Moonies, of which he was a part.

More recently, he's gone off the deep end. He thinks half of America is in a cult, the Trump cult. He wrote an entire book about it: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control.

I was sad to see that since his credibility got shot with half the country, but I'll have some deeper comments later.

Also, I want to read his book before digging in on him.

At least, Hassan is not a troll or an idiot. Ditto for View. But, man, are they misguided. They live in an elite-type bubble and expound progressive views as if they were the only true universal reality.

At least CNN likes them.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Q is definitely the "good guys." That is the best propaganda (or information) I have ever seen and for once it isn't about The Reds or the Nazi's but instead about truth and justice. Is it wrong for the Jedi Knights to showcase their victories? No. Is everyone who went to Yale or lived the high life provided by their parents part of the cabal or deep state? Again no. The conclusion of the video showcasing a President born into a millionaire family who none the less, is the leader of Q is inspirational. Any mistakes he makes will not keep him from winning in 2020. And President Trump needs to build on this legacy. It is morning in America if we can have a President Trump or Reagan every 20 years. And Q's point about the internet being the biggest exposer of lies that will continue to transform the globe is spot on. The internet and other real news sources will continue to nullify anything our next generation is wrongly taught. In what is called Trump territory as here on Delmarva, the kids are not propagandized into being left wingers.  Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Representation Without Authorization,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 21, 1. Dictatorship and determinism are reciprocally reinforcing corollaries: if one seeks to enslave men, one has to destroy their reliance on the validity of their own judgments and choices—if one believes that reason and volition are impotent, one has to accept the rule of force. end quote

I am leery of ANY propaganda but I do think President Trump is a heroic archetype. Expressing that thought may seem to invite snarky-ness just as I too, have a twinge of worry about anyone else who elevates him to godlike status. So? If I think he is heroic why do I worry about others who think he is heroic? Well, have fans of Rand idealized her to popstar status and now put President Trump on a pedestal too? I don’t think so, except to say, just a teeny bit maybe. (humor) The truth is being reinforced in our multi-media age, like that constantly fact checked Wikipedia. His Tweets give us the “lowdown.” And our senses and brains are using reason to come to conclusions. Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, I don't want to restrict anyone from posting, so be advised that people who demean Q tend to find the least representative fringe proponents with odd ideas and set them up as typical. Those who do this tend to post a lot, and then some more, in order to shut down discussions through the sheer number of posts (generally with mockery as a subtext.

I.e., William.

Possibly you're thinking of examples from non-OL venues as well, but the person who posts here who uses the attempted-discrediting technique you describe is William.  I advise interested persons to use considerable caution regarding the Qist "profile" William tries to showcase as being typical.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Peter said:

Wow. Q is definitely the "good guys."

Shortly after I posted this afternoon, I walked to Bloomfield center on a small shopping excursion.

While on the way, I had the thought:

What's happening is the Second American Revolution.

Appropos:  In the parking lot of the Bloomfield center post office, one of the parked vehicles was a pick-up truck that looked like it was used by farm folks. The truck had a number of stickers indicating a "Don't tread on me" attitude.

One of the stickers said:

"Make the liberals cry again in 2020."

I laughed - and wished that whoever had parked the truck would show up then so I could say "Right on."

Ellen

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Do you have a source?

”Do you have a source?” Wow, what a tiny little prick you are. You think I might respond to that tone, you midget? Sorry Korben, you are worse than worthless to me and until you can demonstrate certain character values, I have no interest in interacting with you in any way, beyond this note.

Someone else can ask where and when this happened and maybe it will go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:
23 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Jennifer Grossman, CEO of the Atlas Society, said about two weeks ago that https://qmap.pub is “true”

Do you have a source?

Some meme splayed out on the TAS Instagram account, apparently. 

"No Links For You!"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Go fuck yourself, Billy.

There is a readership here beyond me, Jon, and beyond Korben.  Maybe those folks who rarely post would like to have a link to the Instagram post you cite. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 11:31 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I.e., William.

Possibly you're thinking of examples from non-OL venues as well, but the person who posts here who uses the attempted-discrediting technique you describe is William.  I advise interested persons to use considerable caution regarding the Qist "profile" William tries to showcase as being typical.

Ellen

Indeed.

My short list of recommendations in Michael’s opening post includes one Q sceptic, @drawandstrike, Brian Cates https://mobile.twitter.com/drawandstrike

I think both the Medic and Lisa Mei have been Q’d, that is positively referenced by Q.

None of the scum Billy points at and calls Q people have ever been Q’d. Billy has followed Q since late 2017 just like me, and knows this.

In other words, Billy is a habitual liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On today’s show Rush Limbaugh expressed his doubt that the Republican Party is pro Trump and will carry on his legacy of openness, freedom, and dismissal of the “deep state.” Sounded very Q’anonish. Mentioning James Comey, Rush said there were 17 instances of curious behavior or mistakes that just happened to be committed to President Donald Trump’s detriment. Is the ax going to fall on Comey’s turkey neck? What about all the other colluders? What can be done before the 2020 election? Should it be done after the election? Peter

Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen said on Monday that former FBI Director James Comey issued “a non-apology apology” during his interview on "Fox News Sunday,” in which Comey said the recently released Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the launch of the FBI’s Russia investigation and their use of the surveillance process showed that he was "overconfident" when he defended his former agency's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  “He essentially said, ‘Well we were sloppy,’” Thiessen, a former White House speechwriter, said on “America’s Newsroom” on Monday morning.

“No, you weren't sloppy," Thiessen said. "The inspector general found the FBI falsified evidence in the FISA process.” “How do you accidentally falsify evidence?” Thiessen asked. “It can’t. It has to be intentional, it’s not sloppy.”

Comey’s interview on “Fox News Sunday” came days after Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee detailed concerns that included 17 “significant errors and omissions” by the FBI’s investigative team when applying for a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Horowitz referred “the entire chain of command” to the FBI and DOJ for “how to assess and address their performance failures” during the probe, which was conducted while Comey was in charge.

"He's right, I was wrong," Comey said about how the FBI used the FISA process, adding, "I was overconfident as director in our procedures," and that what happened "was not acceptable." Comey, however, remained defiant on former British spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, which served as the basis for FISA warrants against Page. Horowitz’s report stated that government attorneys were hesitant to approve a FISA warrant application until they relied on unverified information from Steele. That information also was used in subsequent renewals for the FISA warrant.

“Comey told the American people repeatedly that the Steele dossier was not essential to the FISA warrants,” Thiessen said on Monday. He added, “The inspector general found that it quote ‘played a central and essential role in getting the FISA warrants.’ In other words, if it had not been for the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant, there would have been no surveillance. So James Comey has a lot of explaining to do and he didn't do a good job of it on Sunday.” On Monday morning, Thiessen also referenced U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Durham released a rare statement last week saying he disagrees with conclusions of the so-called FISA report that the probe's launch largely complied with the Department of Justice and FBI policies.

“We spent two-and-a-half years, tens of millions of dollars chasing a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump had somehow colluded with Russia to steal the election and it turned out it wasn't true,” Thiessen said on “America’s Newsroom.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real newsiness from Politico. Carly Fiorina calls for impeaching Trump — but doesn't rule out voting for him in 2020.

“Two And a Half Men’s” Jake Harper, nephew of Charley Harper: That bee-auch couldn’t get elected dog catcher, now. Oh, she ran for dog catcher and won? I see, Uncle Charley. You mean she’s a bee-auch dog catcher who caught herself or are you just kidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 4:34 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Just minutes ago she liked my comment, which consists of::

”Don’t go to Harvard. Or MIT. Also many others. They are Epstein dens. Search it. Filthy.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just ask if you do not understand the meaning of this class of Q proofs.
 
 
54) An anon plotted the correlation between Q posts and POTUS tweets including the 36 zero deltas so far. A zero delta is when Q posts and POTUS tweets within 60 seconds. (Try posting less than 1 minute before POTUS tweets and you'll see why it's relevant.)
 
 
Image
 
5:06 PM · Dec 19, 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 4:34 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Just minutes ago she [Jennifer Grossman, CEO of the Atlas Society] liked my comment, which consists of::

”Don’t go to Harvard. Or MIT. Also many others. They are Epstein dens. Search it. Filthy.”

 

Speaking of Harvard, I wonder what percentage of them will be hanged before this is all over.

 

BOSTON (CBS) – Three people tied to universities and a hospital in the Boston area were indicted on charges they lied about their ties to China or tried to help the Chinese government. Among them was Dr. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard University’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology.

Prosecutors said Lieber had a contract with Wuhan Institute of Technology. He also ran a group that had contracts with the Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health.

Federal agents said Lieber lied about his ties to China when he bid on those contracts.

“It appears China paid Lieber hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years for his involvement with the Chinese entities and for his work on research for Chinese gain,” said U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/01/28/massachusetts-china-indictments-charles-lieber-yanqing-ye-zaosong-zheng/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3841
 
Q!!Hs1Jq13jV67 Feb 2020 - 10:14:20 AM

fcca4899ce921646b69d34f5d122cc72988665c8

DzNz3avVsAEkayI.jpg

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1225606976912199680📁
If dirty cops ran the investigation into the DNC breach, could an argument be made that it was corrupt?
If dirty cops ran the investigation into election interference, could an argument be made that it was corrupt?
If dirty cops ran the investigation into [HRC] private server/email scandal, could an argument be made that it was corrupt?
RUSSIA DID NOT 'HACK' [penetrate] THE DNC SERVER.
>internal DL / release
>crowdstrike manipulation of source
RUSSIA DID NOT INTERFERE WITH US ELECTION OF 2016.
>crowdstrike manipulation of source
The truth will be made public.
Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is China/Qatar donating vast sums of money to our education institutions?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/harvard-leads-u-colleges-received-100000585.html📁
>>>>>
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related📁
Is it really so hard to believe [F] actors are able to bribe those in key positions within the US to betray their Country?
Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...