william.scherk
-
Posts
9,165 -
Joined
-
Days Won
66
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Blog Comments posted by william.scherk
-
-
Terminated!
-
This is new to me. Atlas Shrugged will be produced again?
Brief video blurb/tease from the media group:
-
1
-
-
This guy Simon Rosenberg is right now probably the foremost Hopium purveyor on the Democratic side. I've come across his Twitter output in the last month.
He has been tracking and comparing statistics about early turnout for tomorrow's election, trying to sell a scenario of a closer finish than conventional wisdom and red wave touters (and 538) have forecast. We'll see.
A recurring buzzword that made me think/be skeptical came through allusions to "intensity" of voting intention. Somehow enough intensity was missed in surveys of Kansas public opinion that the abortion vote came as a surprise. There was unexpected turnout.
One of his other points was about the windows of opportunity to Get Out the Vote. He argues that the GOP this year has discouraged early voting, meaning that Democrats have had longer to flush out potential voters and punch their tickets.
Bear in mind that Hope as offered by Rosenberg is as orthodox as his attachment to his party.
His latest and last prediction has done the rounds, but not made much of a mark.
As a person whose predictions can be quite wrong (as in 2016), I will wait till tomorrow afternoon ...
On This 2022 Election Eve Would Rather Be Us Than Them
WWW.NDN.ORGDems are crushing it in the early vote, the red wave has yet to materialize, and polls..."Crushing it"!
Here's a roughly-selected Twitter list of predictors:
-
An interview with Jacob Chansley, from detention:
The shownotes/description "chapter headings" are what intrigued me ...
QuoteIntro and prison conditions: 0:00 - 05:34
What is a shaman?: 05:34 - 11:52
What catalysed you to get involved in politics?: 11:52 - 16:22
Where does Trump fit into this whole thing? (Q): 16:22 - 19:33
Adrenochrome and elite bloodlines: 16:22 - 24:48
Blood libel and anti-semetism: 24:48 - 26:55
Qanon, the storm. What did Q do? What happens now?: 26:55 - 29:24
Qanon, the storm. Was Q a psyop?: 29:24 - 33:00
Jan 6th, should have Trump have done more?: 33:00 - 34:37
Media portrayal of Q Shaman as Antifa: 34:37 - 35:33
What everyone should do to directly effect change: 35:33 - 37:44
What do you think about violent elements that use the cover of mass movements to do violence?: 37:44 - 39:57
Do you have any regrets?: 39:57 - 41:13
How do you think you'll be remembered by history?: 41:13 - 41:23
Channel 5 and Qshaman rap song drop: 41:23 - 42:50
I cant believe your lawyer said you were retarded: 42:50 - 43:36
What media outlets do you trust?: 43:36 - 43:40
Wrap up, potential other documentaries and future plans: 43:40 - 44:37 -
On 6/14/2021 at 2:54 PM, william.scherk said:
For relationships strained and destroyed, amid minor tragedies, Reddit has "QAnon Casualties" ... though I seem to recall someone in this topic raised a "how could we know these are not invented?" question about the stories posted there.
I shoulda looked the query up first, but I will post this anyway. Verification seems at hand ... so sad and shitty.
-
On 8/10/2018 at 8:48 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On another point, I'm not much up on Freud's dishonest promotion of himself (frankly, I'm not much up on Freud), but if that is your main reason to call him a quack, you probably are not a fan of marketing and advertising. Yet without marketing and advertising, most of which is based on exaggerations and, yes on some concepts handed down from Freud that work (I can give examples going back to Eddie Bernays when he first tried a Freudian idea with his "Torches of Freedom"--which is a great story, but outside the scope here), products would not get sold. Also, there's a lot of stuff we use in our everyday lives you would have to call quackery since dishonesty has often been a character flaw of creative geniuses throughout history. (Google this and you will find a lot of information on it.)
Taking this section out to use as introduction to the video below, which centres on the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Edward Bernays.
A fair bit of editorializing in the "show notes" but the 2002 programme is what it is.
The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires. Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion, using every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement and outrageous PR stunts, to eroticising the motorcar. His most notorious coup was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. It was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made happy and thus docile.
There are three more parts to the series; the first episode is from the playlist.
For more mentions and discussion of Bernays here, OL Search link.
-
All Polls are Wrong, and some are wrong in interesting ways. This NBCNews survey seems to back up some of Tucker Carlson's recent programming -- that the Democrats are (at least temporarily) showing more 'get up and go' recently -- potentially driven by a combination of issues which have inflamed discourse. Eg, abortion "rights" and "American democracy" herself. To my eyes, the Democratic energy still gives way to GOP energy looking ahead to the elections on November 8 2022.
It all depends on the framing, says A Truism.
NBC News poll: 57% of voters say investigations into Trump should continue
GROUND.NEWS57% of registered voters would like investigations into former President Donald Trump to continue, according to a new poll. 92% of Democrats were on board with investigations continuing, while 61% of...Full soundings: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22156173/220455-nbc-news-august-poll-82122-release.pdf
-
On 8/18/2018 at 10:35 AM, william.scherk said:
Advice for beginners ...
QuoteDEALING WITH CONFLICT
- Show that it is safe to disagree with you. Convey respect for differences of opinion. Do not punish dissent.
- Important: Disagreement does not have to be disagreeable.
- Make eye contact and listen actively. Offer appropriate feedback, and give the speaker the experience of being heard.
- Never permit conflicts of personalities. Keep encounters about work task-centered, not ego-centered. The focus needs to be on reality – “What is the situation? What does the work require? What needs to be done?”
- Provide reasons for rules and guidelines when they are not self-evident. Explain why you cannot accommodate certain requests. Don’t merely hand down orders.
I often feel like a beginner ...
Here's a challenging set of assumptions and presumptions, wrapped up in an image. From a blog series at the old Slate Star Codex (the author since shifted operations to Substack).
The entry at the old blog is called "Varieties of Argument Experience."
-
On 11/11/2017 at 4:26 PM, william.scherk said:
Now, as to the Roy Moore allegations, I don't believe for a moment that he is or was a pedophile. That he sought to date teenaged girls in his 30s seems more likely than that he is sexually-attracted to girls below the age of puberty. That he invited young Leigh to touch his genitals is ... disputed.
Roy Moore topic thread branch:
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:William,
btw - Here you seem to understand perfectly
From NewsMax:
The lawsuit centered on one TV commercial that recounted accusations against Moore. Moore's attorneys argued the ad, through the juxtaposition of statements, falsely claimed he solicited sex from young girls at a shopping mall, including another 14-year-old who was working as a Santa's helper, and that resulted in him being banned from the mall.
The advertisement began with: “What do people who know Roy Moore say?” It followed with the statements “Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden mall ... for soliciting sex from young girls” and “One he approached was 14 and working as Santa’s helper.”
Wendy Miller has previously testified that she met Moore when she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the local mall. She testified Moore told her she was pretty, asked her where she went to high school and offered to buy her a soda. He asked her asked her out two years later, but her mother told her she could not go.
Moore’s attorneys argued the juxtaposition of statements in the ad painted Moore in a false light and falsely made it look like he was soliciting sex from girls at the mall.
“In their ad they strung quotes together to make a single statement. That’s what the jury found offensive. They got up and lied and said they didn’t intend that,” Jeffrey Scott Wittenbrink, an attorney for Moore, said.
The Senate Majority PAC had argued the ad was substantially true and that there were widespread reports about Moore’s inappropriate behavior at the mall. An attorney said they planned to appeal.
According to a Thursday court filing from Senate Majority, a Gadsden police officer who worked as security at the Gadsden Mall in the late 1970s — J.D. Thomas — testified that he told Moore not to return to the mall after receiving complaints from store managers that Moore was asking out teen employees or making them uncomfortable. Moore maintained he was never banned from the mall.
“No amount of deflection or distraction from Roy Moore will change the fact that multiple individuals testified under oath to corroborate credible accusations against him. Many others have come forward to make their allegations public, at serious personal cost. We do not think this verdict is the right decision, but we believe the facts are clear and this ruling will be overturned on appeal," Stafford, an attorney representing Senate Majority PAC, said in an emailed statement.
"Big setback for Pedogate yesterday. France got a pedophile as it's first lady."
-
All polls are wrong, of course, and many if not most ask the stupidest questions, but who could have predicted that failure of an abortion ban on the ballot in Kansas? The least expected (except by clairvoyants) aspect of the Kansas primary turnout was that it was so outsized (compared to other mid-terms). Or so it seems.
Fingers to the wind.
QuoteBonier found that women accounted for 70% of all new registered voters in the state since June 24, a number he has never seen before. When he looked at the 2020 election, he found the registrations based on gender were pretty evenly split. "It just doesn't happen," Bonier said.
-
All polls are wrong, simply put, because a sample will never perfectly represent the larger group surveyed.
In today's Wrong Poll Results, we learn that some recent surveys show a drop-off in Trump support among senior citizens looking forward to the 2024 Presidential election ...
GOP Support Among Seniors, a Key Trump Base, Drops Dramatically: Poll
WWW.NEWSWEEK.COMThe Republican Party has lost 15 percent of the 65 and over group ahead of the midterms, according to surveys taken just two months apart. -
Rodney posted an embedded link to https://qalerts.app/home/
11 hours ago, ThatGuy said:Speak of the devil...look who decided to return, on today, of all days (overturn of Roe V. Wade):
Here's another option: https://qanon.pub
Quote
-
Who has seen the wind?
-
On 6/21/2022 at 2:51 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:
What's happened to all the Q "drops"?
See page 6, for instance:
Ellen
The 'dead' links were a consequence of a failure at my then hosting company -- and the end of QMap.pub (the foremost, most-cited aggregator/indexer of Q posts). All of the image links here are dead because of a difference in notation.
For example, from the link provided:
On 4/5/2019 at 10:22 AM, william.scherk said:Adam Schiff is going down! See Q-dropping 3223 below. It is almost all over for him!
The image itself was served from a folder at my hosting company, whereas if you clicked the original image, the embedded link (of in this case image #3216) would open this URL: https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/5909128.html#5909596
That link is dead. 8chan/8ch is no more (8kun is the remainder, which I presume preserves the original Q posts in a mirror of old 8chan).
The 3216 image itself is a screen capture of a single posting at one of the two then-active aggregation sites, most likely QMap.pub, which is no more.
...
On 4/5/2019 at 10:22 AM, william.scherk said:If this were my website, I could simply do a global search and replace -- replacing all instances of 'wsscherk.hostingmyself.com' with wsscherk.com, and replacing the http:// with https://. Eg, https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q2/q3217.png
I don't know if there are any aggregator sites like QMap that still remain broadly accessible. 2020 was the year that most social media giants removed QAnon accounts after Frederick Brennan helped orchestrate the deplatforming of 8chan.
Anyhow, I am sorry that most if not all of the screencapped Q drops from the defunct aggregator and hostingmyself.com are not showing. The only thing I can offer is the work-around -- since the 'this is a dead image URL' sign retains the number of each particular drop.
On 5/24/2019 at 11:11 AM, william.scherk said:I have a library of Q posts in three folders.**
First block of Q 'caps: https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q -- posts 2687-3163
Second block: https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q2 -- posts 3164-3426
Third block: https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q3/ -- posts 3427-3786Where it all started ...
______________
**
SpoilerThe directory is searchable and customizable, in case you wanted to search down a particular drop-image:
-
On 12/8/2021 at 1:07 PM, william.scherk said:On 12/5/2021 at 3:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:On 12/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, william.scherk said:On 12/4/2021 at 9:24 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:ExpandOn 11/30/2021 at 5:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
As to Sidney Powell...
Obama Judge Orders Sidney Powell and Fellow Attorneys to Pay $175,000 for Daring to Challenge Michigan's 2020 Election Results
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COMObama Judge Linda Parker ignored Trump’s case on the integrity of the 2020 Election in Michigan raised by attorney Sidney Powell. It’s not clear if she ever looked at it.That is some sloppy reporting. Judge Parker went through each of the Michigan "Kraken" affiant declarations, one by one, as summarized in her August judgement.
If one doesn't read that judgement, and takes the sloppy antics at the Gateway Pundit as truth ... "rhetoric is not a correct epistemological form for identifying facts."
Maybe.
Where are the facts about Ruby Freeman, then? Especially since the "rhetoric versus correct epistemological form" quote is from the same someone who has already judged her guilty, guilty, guilty
While in office, President Trump supported a claim that Ruby Freeman and her daughter were criminals. One of the outlets that they sued has settled (OANN).
Today the daughter offered testimony to the January 6 committee-of-benghazi.
Can Trump supporters be convinced by the fruits of investigation?
-
This Daily Beast story has it all ... at least if you are among a minority who are interested in details of 'crossover' between QAnon world and the world of electing election officials in time for this fall's midterm Congressional elections.
This QAnon Leader Could Control Key Elections in 2024
WWW.THEDAILYBEAST.COMWayne Willott’s influence is growing in QAnon world, but almost nothing has been reported about his background. Until now. -
On 9/6/2021 at 1:36 PM, william.scherk said:On 9/6/2021 at 1:22 PM, william.scherk said:
Full promised line-up: Roundup Speakers – The Patriot Voice
The Watkins père et fils will be there ... here's some jazzy promo from Ron:
Cullen Hoback is the director of the HBO special series Q: Into the Storm.
From Gizmodo -- the story is that Twitter refused to allow Cullen Hoback to promote his special series ...
Twitter Admits It Hid Tweets About HBO's QAnon Docuseries
GIZMODO.COMTwitter told the director of "Q: Into the Storm" it had "made the decision not to allow promotion of this documentary" when he tried to advertise the film.As for Ron Watkins, he is a prospective candidate for Congress in Arizona. He spoke at a GOP candidate debate:
-
Text to speech rendering of some of Doug Jensen's FBI interview, released a few days back.Doug Jensen was one of the first “carried along” into the Capitol on January 6. His January 8 2021 FBI interview is an at-times poignant, chilling, and almost funny.
-
You gotta hand to to Chanel Rion. For a news-lady, she knows how to punch above her weight. Denver and Justin seem to spend an awful lot of time following the Patriot Media.
It is incumbent to panic, as long as one is moral and no raging mob storms the castle to destroy the monster. I think I linger at OL because moralism is no problem. Moralizing is for everyone! Moralizing is bread and butter ...
But anyhow, Little Theatre dramatics.
-
Poker and Politics on point Saturday.
-
On 2/20/2022 at 6:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
The predator class has been trying hard to pin Q on a single person for a long time--hopefully for them a real kook--so they can destroy that person and, according to whatever delusions they have, destroy the hick hillbilly rednecks that are fueling Trump's support.
It turns out that the new Truth Social has a Q account. This is likely to turn into comedy material in time, depending on the skill level or impish humour quotient of whoever is behind it.
Meanwhile, VICE's David Gilbert reports on a new 'non-partisan' survey ...
QAnon Isn’t Dead. It’s Growing.
WWW.VICE.COMSome people hoped that Trump’s 2020 loss and the disappearance of “Q” would dissolve QAnon. A new survey shows the opposite has happened.The survey turns up some interesting findings, depending on whether it fits your priors.
Quote[...]
So to get a better sense of how widespread core QAnon conspiracy theories have become, PRRI’s respondents were asked if they believed in these three core tenets of the movement:
- The government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.
- There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.
- Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.
To get an overall picture of how widespread QAnon beliefs are, PRRI created a composite measure from these three questions and identified three distinct groups: QAnon believers, QAnon doubters, and QAnon rejecters.
[...]
-
Someone is having some fun with a new social media platform, if not Truth itself, if Karma is to be believed. I don't yet grasp what MagaHub is.
Nunes!
-
Michael's "Take on Q," from December 2019:
On 12/13/2019 at 8:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: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 8:54 PM, Peter said:What is Q? Brief synopsis? I haven"t been following.
I responded with this:
On 12/8/2019 at 5:29 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:
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 2:17 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
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
The New York Times published the results of some cyber wonk forensic ninja work -- in aid of figuring out who was posting as Q:
Who Is Behind QAnon? Linguistic Detectives Find Fingerprints - The New York Times
WWW.NYTIMES.COMUsing machine learning, separate teams of computer scientists identified the same two men as likely authors of messages that fueled the viral movement. -
Quote
Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?
CO2 does slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith. The question is to what degree given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions). The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range. That is NOT fabricated. That is a matter of experimental fact.
Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.
No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat. Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air. Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source. This produces a net slowing down of heat loss. Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation) but the rate of loss is affected.
Tyndol and Arhenius established the heat absorbing properties of CO2 in the late 19 th and early 20 th century. Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius.
It usually starts at the beginning ...
[2023] AGW/CC 'How we got here'
in Friends and Foes
A blog by william.scherk in General
Posted
What do you mean by "fixing"?