Jon Letendre Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 Many new today. At #3854 now. https://qmap.pub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 3851 Bigger than Vindman: Trump Scrubs 70 Obama Holdovers from NSC Q!!Hs1Jq13jV610 Feb 2020 - 11:21:22 AM https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/bigger-than-vindman-trump-scrubs-70-obama-holdovers-from-nscWe got what we needed. There is no step [5]. Thank you for playing. Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 3850 Hunters Become the Hunted and Are Falling Into Traps Q!!Hs1Jq13jV610 Feb 2020 - 10:58:12 AM Justice.jpg https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1226908710150299649Did 'Mueller' open the door to Ukraine? Did 'Mueller' open the door to FISA [illegal]? How do you introduce evidence legally? Did 'Impeachment' provide a platform to discuss findings of Ukraine? How do you introduce evidence legally? Did 'Impeachment' harm or help POTUS [public]? How do you introduce [D]s high crimes [corruption] to the public? Why didn't POTUS remove [Hussein] holdovers from NSC? Do you really believe that POTUS & team trusted [Hussein] holdovers to remain within the admin and work to enact POTUS' agenda w/o bias or confrontation? How do you 'awaken' the 'induced coma' public [FAKE NEWS control] from their long sleep? Sometimes allowing your enemies to [openly] attack……. Logical thinking. Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Trump also spoke a lot about Comcast at a recent rally. “Very bad people at the top.” Bets on the future for the people at the top of Comcast? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 37 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 2 hours ago, ThatGuy said: ? Duplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 7, 2020 Author Share Posted April 7, 2020 On 12/13/2019 at 10:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This is Q as I understand the phenomenon in essential terms. There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. Note: I'm not talking about who is behind this. I'm merely talking about how this spread. Trading-up-the-chain is a press strategy identified and named by Ryan Holiday. It works like this. If a person wants to get an idea (or any kind of publicity) into the mainstream press through the back door, so to speak, he starts with a small site or place with no audience. But at that site or place is a discussion of the issue in legitimate-sounding highly-informative terms, but slanted. This slant is what is really being promoted. (Whether this slant is on the side of the good guys or bad guys, whether it is more objective or totally misleading, is not the issue. The mechanics work the same.) Then the person using this strategy gets in contact with people a little higher up in the press food chain who are sympathetic to the slant and points them to this information. As these people are overworked, they don't have time or inclination to check sources. The material sounds legitimate and looks like a source, so they report it. And the people above them use their publication as a source, since they suffer from the same lack of time under a lot of pressure. And off the slant goes up to the mainstream as if it were proven fact. This is happening with QAnon and here is a very good example of how Q has reached the stage right before the mainstream. Notice that Stephen Bannon does not mention QAnon, but he does mention what Q wants in quite clear terms, and specifically naming Kissinger, Davos, hedge fund managers, etc., as a starting point. Bannon is hardly ever this explicit in threats. Before too long, expect to see this--and other things like it, maybe mentioning other targets--as regular news items in the mainstream. That's how Q has spread. Q was the starting point, but instead of going away and relying on a single push, it kept pumping out drops laden with mystique and some solid predictions. So many people started pushing it up the chain. The fringe carried it at first, then the larger alt media got on board. Now Q is penetrating into much higher-ups in the press and, like with a typical trading up the chain process, Q, being the original source, stops being mentioned up near the top. But the ideas are. And once these ideas are in the mainstream press that way, not even the coronavirus can keep them from getting into people's hearts and minds in the mainstream culture. Like Bannon said, after saying, "It's all going to come out," about Kissinger and cronies (including Davos people, Wall Street people, etc): "The world is going to stand in judgment of you." It will, too. And these people are going to get thrown into the garbage bin of history along with tin-pot dictators, Bernie Madoff and the like. Their end will be jail, being killed and/or disgraced forever throughout history as evil people who did evil things. That is how the world changes when the trading-up-the-chain process is used effectively. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. Note: I'm not talking about who is behind this. I'm merely talking about how this spread. Trading-up-the-chain is a press strategy identified and named by Ryan Holiday. It works like this. If a person wants to get an idea (or any kind of publicity) into the mainstream press through the back door, so to speak, he starts with a small site or place with no audience. But at that site or place is a discussion of the issue in legitimate-sounding highly-informative terms, but slanted. This slant is what is really being promoted. (Whether this slant is on the side of the good guys or bad guys, whether it is more objective or totally misleading, is not the issue. The mechanics work the same.) Then the person using this strategy gets in contact with people a little higher up in the press food chain who are sympathetic to the slant and points them to this information. As these people are overworked, they don't have time or inclination to check sources. The material sounds legitimate and looks like a source, so they report it. And the people above them use their publication as a source, since they suffer from the same lack of time under a lot of pressure. And off the slant goes up to the mainstream as if it were proven fact. This is happening with QAnon and here is a very good example of how Q has reached the stage right before the mainstream. Notice that Stephen Bannon does not mention QAnon, but he does mention what Q wants in quite clear terms, and specifically naming Kissinger, Davos, hedge fund managers, etc., as a starting point. Bannon is hardly ever this explicit in threats. Before too long, expect to see this--and other things like it, maybe mentioning other targets--as regular news items in the mainstream. That's how Q has spread. Q was the starting point, but instead of going away and relying on a single push, it kept pumping out drops laden with mystique and some solid predictions. So many people started pushing it up the chain. The fringe carried it at first, then the larger alt media got on board. Now Q is penetrating into much higher-ups in the press and, like with a typical trading up the chain process, Q, being the original source, stops being mentioned up near the top. But the ideas are. And once these ideas are in the mainstream press that way, not even the coronavirus can keep them from getting into people's hearts and minds in the mainstream culture. Like Bannon said, after saying, "It's all going to come out," about Kissinger and cronies (including Davos people, Wall Street people, etc): "The world is going to stand in judgment of you." It will, too. And these people are going to get thrown into the garbage bin of history along with tin-pot dictators, Bernie Madoff and the like. Their end will be jail, being killed and/or disgraced forever throughout history as evil people who did evil things. That is how the world changes when the trading-up-the-chain process is used effectively. Michael Would you say that something like this is the end-result, or, at least related: (regarding a Buzzfeed article: "Lifestyle Influencers Are Now Sharing Some Bogus Far-Right Conspiracy Theories About The Coronavirus On Instagram" https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/coronavirus-lifestyle-influencers-sharing-conspiracy-qanon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 7, 2020 Author Share Posted April 7, 2020 On 4/6/2020 at 11:52 PM, ThatGuy said: Would you say that something like this is the end-result, or, at least related: TG, Not just related. This is smack dab in the middle of the unfolding into the mainstream. These Internet lifestyle celebrities see the ideas from sources they trust, the ideas make sense to them and they run with them. I doubt any of these lovely celebs are keeping strict tabs on sources and running down vague ones. These celebs are not mainstream, but they are one of the middle stepping stones Q's ideas go over on the way to the mainstream. The Buzzfeed article and awful video about Q therein are at the perplexed stage of wondering how this could be happening. So they pat the wayward ladies on the head amidst snark and tsk tsk tsking to try to get them back in line. The dorks haven't figured out that these women are merely trading up the chain in a manner they themselves did earlier with different narratives. Tsk tsk tsk... I'm not criticizing the celebs or Q, though. I'm just mentioning how the process works. The efficacy of the process has little to do with the content. It worked like hell for the globalists. Now it's working like hell for Q and Trump supporters. Leftie globalists are not amused. Trading up the chain done right is very powerful as a publicity tool. it even works well as a philosophical publicity tool. Have you ever read Rand talk about how a philosophical premise gets into the mainstream? She mentioned somewhere that when an idea gets to the level of TV sitcoms and comic books (I'm paraphrasing, so this isn't exact, although the gist is correct), only then is the idea embedded in the culture enough to shape society. She talked about this several times. She never did get around to saying how that works, though. (Or at least, I don't recall ever seeing it.) She did illustrate a few processes and outcomes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but she was vague on the precise actions individuals take in handing off an idea from one person to another in a form that the receiver accepts it--how word of mouth works so to speak. Or how an idea becomes viral. Trading up the chain is one such mechanism--on the press level. From the press to individuals, though, it works differently. It woks on trust--there is an unspoken bond of trust individuals hold for the press. That trust is the basis of an enormous amount of uncritical acceptance of weird ideas and bad ideas and lousy-ass ideas. As an aside, that bond is so deep and fits so well with how the human mind is constructed, it's impressive to see it breaking down in modern times. The dorks in the press really had to work hard to screw up that badly. I guess suicide is hard to pull off, but they're hard at work on making it happen. By God, no one will tell them what to do. They'll be blatantly lying, mocking their readers and laughing all the way to the grave. So there! Back to point, trading up the chain works equally well for good ideas and evil ones. Obviously, it works great for marketing and selling stuff. That's the world Ryan Holiday was in when he came up with this thing. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 interesting... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 On 4/6/2020 at 7:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: On 12/13/2019 at 8:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This is Q as I understand the phenomenon in essential terms. There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. This looks like some fairly effective "trading up the chain" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 If you think the President guesses at what he says, based on seeing a bit of video in a Tweet and not on what Army counterintelligence tells him, then you have a lot of surprises coming to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 9, 2020 Author Share Posted June 9, 2020 2 hours ago, william.scherk said: This looks like some fairly effective "trading up the chain" ... William, Nice try and, I admit, there is a similar pattern. But look at the context. AG Barr is investigating ANTIFA, formerly declared a terrorist organization, with everything the DOJ can throw at them. Just think of the alphabet soup of law enforcement departments. And, as Jon noticed, the military intelligence. With that kind of firepower and for an accusation that serious, I really doubt President Trump's tweet was something made up that was traded up the chain. Granted, with this accusation in the manner he presented it, he pulled the teeth out of the fake news media's victimization story and redirected to to "Trump is an unfair heartless dummy" story. And that story has all the effect in the current culture war of passing gas in a shit factory. So there was some media manipulation. But it was of a different nature. I'm glad to see you're paying attention to patterns like trading up the chain. This has more substance than simple mocking and tuning out. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) The Trader Principle ... 23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: On 6/9/2020 at 10:44 AM, william.scherk said: On 4/6/2020 at 7:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: On 12/13/2019 at 8:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This is Q as I understand the phenomenon in essential terms. There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. This looks like some fairly effective "trading up the chain" ... Nice try and, I admit, there is a similar pattern. From an anonymous author at a conservative blog ... ... to an OANN (One America News Network) video cast ... ... to the Real Donald Trump Twitter account ... Quote I really doubt President Trump's tweet was something made up that was traded up the chain. I think I understand that -- although you earlier stated that trading up "starts with a small site or place" with "slanted" discussion -- and that the slant is "what is really being promoted." And you went on to say: On 4/6/2020 at 9:52 PM, ThatGuy said: (Whether this slant is on the side of the good guys or bad guys, whether it is more objective or totally misleading, is not the issue. The mechanics work the same.) And that seems to be that. Of course, the whole "objective" issue is as always available for reasoned analysis, reasonable disputes and interesting differences of opinion. Edited June 10, 2020 by william.scherk Grammar, punctuation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 President Trump has the intelligence on Pantyfa and they are terrorists, you disgusting scumbag. He is simply letting everyone know some of the tactics they use. So why are you defending them? Are you affiliated with Pantyfa? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2020 Author Share Posted June 10, 2020 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: ... to the Real Donald Trump Twitter account ... William, This is where you get the pattern wrong. 1. President Trump is not a journalist. 2. The trading up the chain pattern depends on journalists not checking their sources. 3. President Trump has the entire DOJ checking his facts. The President is not just some overworked journalist who relies on what someone else says on faith. Faith is the basis for trading up the chain, not just the organic pattern of starting with a less important publisher and going steadily up to more important publishers. The trade essentially is the lesser journalist's report being accepted on faith so the more important journalist doesn't have to think or look shit up. Thus the the lesser journalist gets more exposure for providing the report. Besides, back in the day, I recall reading the Conservative Treehouse when it started out as Drudge himself. (It still might be, or maybe him with others.) So in effect, if we ignore the faith part, going from OANN to the Conservative Treehouse went down the chain. OANN has grown so that's not exactly true, but prestige-wise it is. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) We might could reach a consensus that this will be used as an example of Trading Up The Chain, even if the example is arguably illustrating no such thing/not quite the same thing. I left out that an initial spark of information content on Twitter led to the next level of contagion at the Conservative Treehouse, before being incorporated in OANN reporting, before the reporting based on a tweet was amplified back on Twitter to the timelines of 82,000,000 followers. I also left out the raging manic reaction of those who believe a former/current Sputnik employee might work in ways inimicable to the US project. Who cares about possible motives? Consensus. Tap tap tap. Edited June 10, 2020 by william.scherk Not eight hundred twenty millions ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2020 Author Share Posted June 10, 2020 52 minutes ago, william.scherk said: We might could reach a consensus that this will be used as an example of Trading Up The Chain, even if the example is arguably illustrating no such thing/not quite the same thing. William, This is the whole problem with climate science. What the hell does consensus have to do with being right or wrong? Trading up the chain means something specific. Ryan Holiday was quite clear about it when he came up with it. You used it in a manner that is not what it means. That's your right. You can say whatever you want, but you're still misusing the idea. That means I also have the right to say that elitists are Lizard People, but that doesn't make them so. But, still, maybe we can see if we can come to a consensus about elitists being Lizard People. Helpfully, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Q posted a nice Tweet from Goodable and then Goodable immediately changed its pedo symbology, which symbology all the left liberal progressive globalist DemocRat scum "know" can't be pedo symbology. But if it isn't bad symobology, then why did they change it so fast when they were spotlighted? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 3, 2020 Author Share Posted July 3, 2020 Jon, What symbol got deleted? I just went to the Goodable twitter account and here is a screenshot of what I saw: I'm including the screenshot in case they actually do change something, but, if you are referring to the heart, I am not detecting a symbol change. Is there another symbol that got deleted? That's a serious question, not a gotcha. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, What symbol got deleted? I just went to the Goodable twitter account and here is a screenshot of what I saw: I'm including the screenshot in case they actually do change something, but, if you are referring to the heart, I am not detecting a symbol change. Is there another symbol that got deleted? That's a serious question, not a gotcha. Michael I can't find the Tweet, so they do seem to have deleted it, as TruthHammer says they did. I don't yet know what TruthHammer saw that made him think they changed it or stopped using it. However, I find what you do: they are using the heart-within-heart symbol. In any case it is important that people understand that it is a girl-lover symbol, a symbol used by actual abusers of actual little girls, according to the Human Trafficking Division of the FBI. That is a stone-cold fact and no one's theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Small correction, Forbes, every business leader should be very concerned. Jul 3, 2020,01:55pm EDT QAnon Is Disrupting America — Every Business Leader Should Be Concerned https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/07/03/qanon-is-disrupting-america/amp/?__twitter_impression=true 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Quick note: I still have not read any of the Forbes article, all I know is the title. I don't plan to read it as it can only be propaganda. When I posted above I was thinking it was another anti-Q piece and that the writer meant belief in silly but dangerous Q would disrupt America. However, if it is written as pro-Q, then the writer is one of Deep State's fake opposition, else they wouldn't be presented in a Deep State outlet like Forbes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now