Recommended Posts

Listen carefully to CNN:

Trump's first national security advisor, a career Army general and the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, uses phrases and slogans that are hallmarks of Q and uses the #QAnon hashtag in his social media posts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

And this.

And this.

Somebody at Twitter sure doesn't want President Trump to be reelected.

🙂 

Nor do they want the pedophiles among the elites to be busted and thrown in jail.

If Twitter didn't fear that, they would not ban QAnon from Twitter.

 

This is good news, not bad, for Trump's reelection.

The Twitter folks don't realize that they just fortified their competitors in a major way.

Behold as the migrations start...

Twitter is eventually going to MySpace itself into irrelevancy. The good news about that is I will be embedding fewer and fewer tweets on OL because it will be hard to find relevant tweets.

 

And, as Rush Limbaugh keeps saying, the left thinks Twitter reflects real life in America. It doesn't. But anti-Trumpers and social justice mutts are in that bubble and that is what the top left leaders are using as context for their Presidential campaign.

The bad news is that we have to endure a few more months of idiocy from these troubled souls if we want to look at the news once in a while. And we have to endure the riots and crap like that.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that one seventeen year old basement troglodyte really got under Twatter's skin. All four hundred pounds of ze.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Styx is not a QAnon supporter. He calls it "word salad schizoid bullshit LARPing that happens on several websites and people interpret it however the fuck they want."

On the positive side, he thinks it's one of the longest lasting LARPs on the Internet and it's entertaining.

(btw - LARP means Live Action Role Playing game.)

I personally think QAnon is a lot more serious than that, but as a surface description, there is some truth to what Styx said. And the entertaining part for me is the hook. But that's always going to be in dispute due to the cryptic nature of QAnon messages. At its most ineffective (that is, accepting Styx's characterization as the whole shebang, which I don't), it keeps certain topics like pedophilia among the elites alive and running in the culture--and really pissing off said elites.

At any rate, Styx thinks Twitter screwed the pooch on banning QAnon and it's going to backfire on them big time. He's right.

Just the Streisand effect alone will grow QAnon. (Think Alex Jones, who has not downsized even though he's off the mainstream media,  and his gazillions of fans.)

The title of the video: TWITTER PURGES MORE ACCOUNTS, HYPERVENTILATES ABOUT THE QANON LARP (BITCHUTE EXCLUSIVE)

As always, click the image and the video will open in a new tab.

image.png

The video is on BitChute and is what Styx calls a "BitChute Exclusive." He puts one exclusive video on BitChute, and nowhere else, each day.

One very interesting idea he talked about was how easy it is to get around the Twitter ban. All you need to do is take a common term (Styx's example was "ketchup relish") and give it a meaning all Q people eventually understand (which happens very quickly in that subcommunity). Then you end up defeating even Google's supercomputers. Why? Because computers suck at context.

Styx says build a simple creole language structure (or pidgin language structure) for QAnon stuff, meaning take simple common terms and give them special meanings, and you will confound the hell out of Big Tech's search algorithms. I have very little doubt this is exactly what the QAnon people will do after they open new Twitter accounts under different names, even as they start making a few alt media sites grow by leaps and bounds.

I suppose I should mention that QAnon people don't do actual harm out in society like Antifa, Iran and other Twitter members do. These last do not get banned, nor do their tweets get deleted. But who gives a crap?

Like Styx said, Twitter is a place for shit posting.

To be fair, I like how easy it is to embed a tweet on OL, even with video. Just post the link, hit enter, and the tweet appears. So I find Twitter a bit more useful than Styx. But I pick and choose what I put on OL, as do others here. Even among a huge majority of shit-posts, you can find some good stuff if you follow the right people, like, for instance, President Trump. 🙂 

If Trump leaves Twitter, I will probably embed much fewer tweets on OL.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some more information by Praying Medic.

The Social Media Purge of Qanon

Apparently in this go-around, the only accounts that got deleted were duplicate accounts and others from the Q universe that violated Twitter's terms of service. But eventually all accounts that discuss QAnon stuff in a big way will be booted from the platform.

Facebook is soon going to be following suit.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I personally think QAnon is a lot more serious than that, but as a surface description, there is some truth to what Styx said. And the entertaining part for me is the hook. But that's always going to be in dispute due to the cryptic nature of QAnon messages. At its most ineffective (that is, accepting Styx's characterization as the whole shebang, which I don't), it keeps certain topics like pedophilia among the elites alive and running in the culture--and really pissing off said elites.

I think that "Q" is strongly on the good guys side in his value system and that he's an important positive influence as a rallying focus and instigator of citizen research.  But I think that he is not the "insider" he either says or intimates he is.  (I'm not sure if he explicitly lays claim to insider status or only hints at it.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that "Q" is strongly on the good guys side in his value system and that he's an important positive influence as a rallying focus and instigator of citizen research.  But I think that he is not the "insider" he either says or intimates he is.  (I'm not sure if he explicitly lays claim to insider status or only hints at it.)

Ellen

I dunno...maybe not. But even though I'm late to the game (thanks, Jon L, for brining it to my attention),  after reading all the Q Posts (and weeding out the wheat from the speculative "woo" chafe that too often surrounds Q discussions), and seeing everything that's happened, there are too many "coincidences"  for me to write it off as a larp or a fringe movement. Too much seems co-ordinated with the president's tweets and words, to the minute many times, for example.

We shall see..."Who is John Galt?"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

... only hints at it...

Ellen,

Ambiguity is the reason for the hint and this is used as a formal technique by Q--a hook that prompts action.

The term for this is "curiosity gap" or "information gap."

I first became aware of this by a hard leftie named Eli Pariser (who used to be the director of MoveOn.org). He founded a site called Upworthy and started the clickbait headline craze ("You won't believe what Kanye said to Mike Pence about Black Lives Matter" and that kind of crap.) The idea is to present a headline that promises an "hot emotion" payoff, but leaves out a critical piece of the information. In order to find out what's in the gap, you have to click on the article.

A scientist named George Lowenstein came up with this gap concept in a 1994 paper called "The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation." Pariser took that information years later and figured out how to piss off everyone on the Internet with it, but also made a fortune by using it to promote leftie causes.

Without the curiosity gap, QAnon would not spread in the culture as much as it does.

As to Q's own insider status, based on a lot of different elements, I find it likely Q's an insider or at least friends with one. But there's a lot of mystery surrounding this, too--starting with his real name. Right?

Another question, is Q one person or several?

Helooooo curiosity gap. 🙂 

Twitter's ban (and Facbook's if it happens) doesn't stand a chance against that level of wedding messages to human nature. And that's just the curiosity gap. There are archetypes, codes, sundry cognitive biases, knowing secrets, the appeal to belong and be an insider, and a whole bunch of similar things. I think, just in terms of persuasion techniques alone,  QAnon is one of the best formed public personas in our culture today. I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, Twitter just added the Streisand effect to the mix.

Michael

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 23, 2020 at 12:55 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Trump, Flynn and others on the team have confirmed their affiliation with Q hundreds of times in hundreds of ways.

It is no longer a question.

That's interesting.  I haven't seen any affirmations in posts of yours I've read.  Just stuff like Flynn sporting some Q insignia and Trump saying "seventeen" in various contexts - things of that order, none of which are affirmations of affiliation and some of which might have no connection whatsoever to Q.  Have there been any actual statements of affiliation?

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

That's interesting.  I haven't seen any affirmations in posts of yours I've read.  Just stuff like Flynn sporting some Q insignia and Trump saying "seventeen" in various contexts - things of that order, none of which are affirmations of affiliation and some of which might have no connection whatsoever to Q.  Have there been any actual statements of affiliation?

Ellen

There will never be any of the latter. It would destroy all value of the operation. First off, as careful as they have been, the operation likely violated secrecy law governing some of the many, many materials the enemy has for their protection classified over the years and that the operation publicly disclosed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

That's interesting.  I haven't seen any affirmations in posts of yours I've read.  Just stuff like Flynn sporting some Q insignia and Trump saying "seventeen" in various contexts - things of that order, none of which are affirmations of affiliation and some of which might have no connection whatsoever to Q.  Have there been any actual statements of affiliation?

Ellen

Team Trump knows about Q, has known for years that a great many MAGAs follow Q's posts. They know we go nuts high-fiving one-another every time he posts something like yesterday: baseball videos with player number 17 on the opening image. How hard would it be to stop doing these? The whole team does it, over and over and over. Hundreds of times is no exaggeration. And increasing, more recently, not less.

If they had no connection whatsoever to Q, is it strange to attach to it or even allow oneself to be perceived as attaching to it? I think they have the wits to not allow themselves to be seen attaching themselves to something the nature of which is a mystery to them. In fact I cannot imagine them allowing themselves for years now to be perceived as attaching themselves to something the actual nature of which is a mystery to them, but imaginations vary.

In any case, there will always be ample room for a technical skepticism, by design, for the legal reasons in my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

That's interesting.  I haven't seen any affirmations in posts of yours I've read.  Just stuff like Flynn sporting some Q insignia and Trump saying "seventeen" in various contexts - things of that order, none of which are affirmations of affiliation and some of which might have no connection whatsoever to Q.  Have there been any actual statements of affiliation?

Ellen

Last weekend Q posted "*** Are you ready to serve again?"

Flynn is a three-star general, but currently out of work.

In mere minutes Flynn changes his background on Twitter to a big flowing US flag with "God Bless America."

Then Q posted "Acknowledged. God Bless America."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lookee here.

It's a long thread when you go there.

I wonder if President Trump's Executive Order about social media's liability as publishers had any influence or if Twitter is going to get belligerent and take this down. Either way, it's interesting.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

Do not get Polly mad.

Cory Doctorow is an all right science fiction writer, but he's lousy at understanding individuals.

In fact, I have tried to read his science fiction and I couldn't get into it because the characters seemed so bland and/or unbelievable emotionally.

Doctorow is good at technological theory from a narrow specific angle, but lousy at human nature.

In fact, I doubt he would consider Polly's zinger to be magical thinking at all. But it is if you look at it from a reality standpoint.

Human nature is reality and Polly knows about human nature. And she knows about good and evil. And she knows a thing or two about QAnon.

All Doctorow and that idiot Ferguson he mentioned (the one who made the video) knows is they are superior lifeforms to humans who follow such conspiracy theories as Q. I saw some of that video and, as Ferguson said sarcastically in the video (with title card for emphasis), "It's always gotta be pedophiles."

Well, yes...

It does.

When people are pedophiles.

Including elitists and other superior lifeforms when they are pedophiles. 

Here's some more magical thinking by people like Doctorow and Ferguson: Everybody knows there is no pedophilia or blackmail going on in the ruling class.

See? Say it out loud and it's magic.

🙂 

(btw - The video is not getting all that many views. I bet it's stunning to them that it hasn't gone viral from the moment it was uploaded.)

Michael

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Human nature is reality and Polly knows about human nature. And she knows about good and evil. And she knows a thing or two about QAnon.

All Doctorow and that idiot Ferguson he mentioned (the one who made the video) knows is they are superior lifeforms to humans who follow such conspiracy theories as Q.

Doctorow has a way with words. If something like "Magical Thinking" exists ...

'The Apophenic's Curse"!

Quote

I saw some of that video and, as Ferguson said sarcastically in the video (with title card for emphasis), "It's always gotta be pedophiles."

Well, yes...

It does.

When people are pedophiles.

Including elitists and other superior lifeforms when they are pedophiles.

"When people are pedophiles" and "when they are pedophiles" ... relates immediately to accusations and false accusations. How can you tell the difference between a false and a true accusation? Is Chrissy Teigen a pedophile?

Quote

Here's some more magical thinking by people like Doctorow and Ferguson: Everybody knows there is no pedophilia or blackmail going on in the ruling class.

Every accusation is true and well-founded -- except for the accusations that are false and unfounded.  Again, using a cognitive before normative framework, is Chrissy Teigen guilty of child sexual abuse? Yes or no? 

Magical thinking.

The video cued to "it's always gotta be pedophiles."

Q is a hoax and a scam.

Edited by william.scherk
Apophenia
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to anyone looking to discuss the pedophile Chrissy Teigen with Billyboy: When she is arrested and all her victims come forward you will never hear another word from him about her again. So, hurry up and discuss.

Also Billyboy, Q is an operation of Team Trump, an anti-pedophiles operation at that and so your resultant hatred of it is neither surprising nor interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Again, using a cognitive before normative framework, is Chrissy Teigen guilty of child sexual abuse? Yes or no? 

William,

See, this is the problem with black and white gotcha thinking allied to a badly tilted core story. At this stage of public knowledge, Teigen (and, frankly her obnoxious loopy hubby John Legend) is suspected of being a pedophile and there are very good reasons for that.

This means an investigation has to happen to look into those reasons. Right?

I mean, that is your standard with other topics, right? (If you don't know what I mean, see below.)

Here's the communications context. In the public mainstream communications arena dominated by left-wing censors and fabulists, it is impossible to call attention to people like Teigen using reason only. The context of a courtroom is not the context of the Washington Post or CNN (or even CBS or any of them, including Twitter, etc.). So people show up with hyperbole, opinions, facts and non-facts at alt media places--it all gets mixed together--and they bicker,--and the churn churns and things spread.

Using the black and white thinking you just used in your question, there would never be any investigation into Teigen. Or anyone for that matter (except those the elitist ruling class target where they don't bother with standards).

Not to worry, though. The left-wing censors and fabulists dominating the mainstream communications arena are fair--they do churn the churn and spread the spread--they do bicker, they do engage in hyperbole, opinions, facts and non-facts and lies lots and lots of lies in the same message--and they do all this in the mainstream at that. And, regardless of the issue,  in the beginning and middle you tend to swallow the party line whole, hook, line and sinker, until you eventually choke on the irrational excesses and start gagging (which, to me, the fact that you eventually gag is one of your virtues).

Wanna see an example of the mainstream churning the churn and spreading the spread? Let me paraphrase your question for another context, one we saw in countless forms over three years--and don't forget, this was not in the alt media, it was in the mainstream.

"Again, using a cognitive before normative framework, is President Donald Trump guilty of colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election? Yes or no?"

🙂 

For some reason--for over three years of daily mainstream media, and at times Congress, pounding and pounding and pounding that Trump was guilty--that question in that form (essence-wise) never came up in the mainstream places you favor.

I could ask why just to be snarky, but we know why. I'm interested in another aspect.

What was your standard--the one used by you, William--during the time you were on board with the cognitive garbage? I'm not talking about the mainstream media stories you uncritically swallowed at the time (and later rejected). I'm talking about inside yourself where, on hearing the drumbeat of accusations, you thought... I wonder... is there something there?... what is being hidden by the accused and why?

Look a little deeper and you will see that that is the same standard used by people--including good intelligent people--for smoking out elitist pedophiles from behind their walls of protection.

After a while, it will be time for black and white thinking on proof about Teigen. We need to get to the courthouse first, though.

After all, the people you admire did an impeachment and countless lawsuits against President Trump for this same reason, right?

And they all said, "If Trump has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear," right?

Is fair supposed to be fair for all, or is it supposed to be more fair for some than it is for others?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to discuss pedophile Teigen but you lack the intellectual integrity to go back and acknowledge and update on what you pushed for three years.

You play games, you are not a serious or honest person intellectually.

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...