Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
QAnon -- real or psy-op? 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10005
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
Rose wrote:
Of course not, Chico.

But that's what you said, Rose, that we are supposed to "watch". If that's not the case, then what exactly is Mr. QAnon telling us we should do? From what I've seen, the QAnon material is all "wait and see". In religious terms, this is called a "prophesy". It's an old technique of mind control, like the priest predicting a solar eclipse when he knows one is coming, but the ignorant public doesn't.

Rose wrote:
Continue looking inwardly to your heart's ( I stretch to say you have one) content, overlooking & misunderstanding all truths that are around you. Go back to hating the Jews and their religion. I am happy to leave you in your stew to simmer.

So today we learn from you that:

  • Chico only looks inwardly.
  • Chico has no heart.
  • Chico overlooks all truths.
  • Chico misunderstands all truths.
  • Chico hates Jews.
  • Chico hates the Jewish religion.
  • Chico is in a simmering stew.

I would consider providing evidence that each of these statements is false, but this thread is not supposed to be about me. I was hoping that you would provide evidence that the QAnon material is genuine and not a psy-op. Is that so hard to do? What convinced you to believe in it?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
Attachment:
lastVisit2UnitedP.JPG
lastVisit2UnitedP.JPG [ 142.22 KiB | Viewed 666 times ]


I once resolved to never again contribute my opinions/fact-discoveries/discernments/etc. to this rolling calliope that moves under the Sun, the Moon, and the misnomer: "United People" ... and I've been true to that determination for over a year now, my last login being May 25, 2017 as attested to by the screen capture provided above.

But never again is merely a long time in real space, the indefinite aspirations of ideal space notwithstanding.

Universal Spectrum had folded months ago. And that reality has left me without a voice in the forum world; and has largely left the truths without a dedicated champion. Which is why I have ended my self-imposed exile, an estrangement triggered by yet another involuntary ban/suspension/reassignment/*insert_your_own_word* by Chico, whose commitment to censorship is as great as his denial of it, back in May of 2017.

The need to protect the integrity of factual reality as opposed to the altered reality offered by Chico's contributions - at times severely distorted contributions - has forced me to suspend my self-exile so that reality of a factual kind has a genuine champion again. Without further ado ...

Chico is correct in his narrative of Q-anon. Real heroes don't announce prior to acting. They act ... and then they are announced. If Q-Anon had been genuine, we would never have heard about it until after it had successfully achieved the defense of its putative apparent wards, e.g. the vast majority of us that flock behind the shepherd's staff as sheeple.

Q-Anon is an assault against our collective and individual intelligence. The large biomass of sheeple is defenseless against this attack, indeed is either primed to rally around the incumbent shepherd(s) or to receive fresh shepherds, for it has been fatally acclimated to the shepherd-sheep paradigm of human organization. Cowed into submission by decades-and-decades-on-end of inertia, this biomass has dropped the ball on most of humanity's elevated concepts including fundamental notions of freedom, self-determination, justice, rights, responsibilities, balance, scale, etc.

Cognitive dissonance has swallowed much of this biomass and the part that we see above the water, like the tip of an iceberg, is unable to escape the part that is submerged at different levels in the ocean of dissonance. That is the human condition in 2018 ... all over the world.

The lingering occupation of Q-Anon across both mainStream and alternativeStream discussion media is a symptom of this vast biomassive dissonance.

Q-Anon is 100% Psy-ops.

For all the distortions Chico offers on some other topics - like Hitler, for instance - he does offer rational analysis on the topic of Q-Anon. I'm sorry, Rose, you are deeply mired in the quag of cognitive dissonance (in a manner of speaking). But then, 90% of the human iceberg is submerged in this dissonance as well ... so, you are merely expressing normal behavior in the decadent times and spaces of 2018. The transit of spacetime will forgive you eventually, as the resolution of blame will eventually shift from its apparent locus on the individual to the actual locus on the designed environment, from there to the Faustian designers of things.

My opinions, measured by facts and no longer respectful of social discourse vanities.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:00 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10005
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
UncleZook wrote:
For all the distortions Chico offers on some other topics - like Hitler, for instance - he does offer rational analysis on the topic of Q-Anon.

It strikes me as strange that I am having problems properly analyzing the psy-op of the Holocaust, Hitler's alleged psychopathy, and the supposed evil nature of the Nazis, such that I offer "distortions" (which I try very hard to avoid), yet I can get an endorsement for QAnon being a psy-op from my old nemesis and forum friend Uncle Zook. Perhaps Zook can steer me towards correcting my "distortions" about Hitler by identifying these errors and providing evidence why they are indeed errors. This would indeed be a valuable service that you could offer me, Zook, as I have no agenda when it comes to WW2 history other than wanting to know the truth.

I hope you are well and thriving, Zook. It's sad to see all the Avalon spin-off forums (like Universal Spectrum) dropping like flies, while Avalon itself continues on as a testament to Bill Ryan's con-artistry. That's simply more proof that there is no justice in a world directed by sociopaths, something I find to be particularly abhorrent.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
UncleZook wrote:
For all the distortions Chico offers on some other topics - like Hitler, for instance - he does offer rational analysis on the topic of Q-Anon.

It strikes me as strange that I am having problems properly analyzing the psy-op of the Holocaust, Hitler's alleged psychopathy, and the supposed evil nature of the Nazis, such that I offer "distortions" (which I try very hard to avoid), yet I can get an endorsement for QAnon being a psy-op from my old nemesis and forum friend Uncle Zook.


When the world is immersed in varying levels of cognitive dissonance - here, the mere existence of a deep state and shadow government is sufficient proof that what we accept as our government and what actually governs us are two entirely different power structures, with the former being a mere facade over the latter - it is reasonable to expect confusion in the best case scenario (and collusion in the worst).

Confusion accommodates mutually obverse narratives. Collusion designs and/or accommodates mutually obverse narratives.

Without rehashing the tiresome messenger bashing - you calling me a sociopath with spurious supporting facts and me calling you a gatekeeper with probable supporting facts - I've resolved to exchange discussion with as little messenger-centric intrusion as possible. You'll have to do your bit to help keep any exchange with me as civil as possible, Chico ... else it'll be the same old same old all over again and the truths will once again enter hibernation.

That said, you have not faithfully abided the factual narrative of Hitler's rise and fall power arc, which exposes a strongman type propped up by the shadow bankster government of its time to create a new landscape in Europe, to be then removed to a safe haven in latin America once its usefulness had been exhausted. Alas, empathy and strongman types are mutually antithetical propositions.

Quote:
Perhaps Zook can steer me towards correcting my "distortions" about Hitler by identifying these errors and providing evidence why they are indeed errors. This would indeed be a valuable service that you could offer me, Zook, as I have no agenda when it comes to WW2 history other than wanting to know the truth.


Had already done that (several times over on this forum alone). The archives hold it. But just from the top of my head, from Hitler's initial financing connections, to the Ha'avara agreement, to Liebenstraum, to Dunkirk ... to his toxic control over his niece (who subsequently committed suicide) ... to his desertion of the German people via plane and submarine when all was lost for Germany and gained for the bankster empire (there is ample proof of Hitler's escape to Argentina).

And I hadn't even remarked on the fact that his father, Alois, was almost certainly a case of offspring springing from an illegitimate union between a Rothschild bankster baron and a house maid.

To turn upside down the overwhelming preponderance of Hitler being a strongman type nurtured from beginning to end by the Rothschild bankster empire ... for the unrelated purpose of advancing a fact-contemptuous hypothesis of an avenging angel of the German people descended from the seventh and ninth white clouds of Heaven ... well, that trips the light fantastic.

Quote:
I hope you are well and thriving, Zook. It's sad to see all the Avalon spin-off forums (like Universal Spectrum) dropping like flies, while Avalon itself continues on as a testament to Bill Ryan's con-artistry. That's simply more proof that there is no justice in a world directed by sociopaths, something I find to be particularly abhorrent.


They dropped like flies because there were too many members (on all said spin-off forums) who were ultimately uncomfortable with the harder truths. As for Avalon, it prods along because it gets its energy revamped by the wavelengths spilling from the Pied Piper's flute. Sweet William of 21st century Pendragon legend and lore is an autocrat (and a sociopath, as you've correctly pointed out), but he is also catering to an audience of milktit mealers.

When the lectern enjoys that kind of synergy with the common benches ... the result is as predictable as Mister Rogers and the neighborhood.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:51 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10005
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
UncleZook wrote:
... it is reasonable to expect confusion in the best case scenario (and collusion in the worst).

I agree. It never leaves my mind that I could be confused and misled by the information I consider, which always has to be questioned, and not just once, but often. You are very resistant towards questioning your conclusions (such as Hitler being a puppet to the Jewish bankers), and therein lies the conflict between us. You demand certainty, whereas I recognize it as an impediment. This is a difference of psychological makeup in each of us, which is why psychology always rears its ugly (in your view) head. In my view, psychology offers surprising insights into the behaviors of the primary actors of history and is the missing foundation to understanding reality and sifting fact from fiction.

UncleZook wrote:
Without rehashing the tiresome messenger bashing - you calling me a sociopath with spurious supporting facts and me calling you a gatekeeper with probable supporting facts - I've resolved to exchange discussion with as little messenger-centric intrusion as possible.

This I have done for the longest time with you until it was no longer possible to ignore the elephant in the room, as much as I would have liked to stick exclusively to the "facts" or evidence. How many times have I criticized you for attacking the messenger instead of concentrating on the message? Far more than I would have liked, that's for sure. Messenger bashing is often your primary form of logic in your arguments, so I predict that you will not be able to discuss our divergent perspectives without messenger bashing. In fact, your prior post was focused on messenger bashing, though I'm sure it never was perceived as such by you. So as much as I applaud your resolve to discuss things with as little messenger-centric intrusion as possible, I have already noticed that your words do not match your actions.

UncleZook wrote:
You'll have to do your bit to help keep any exchange with me as civil as possible, Chico ... else it'll be the same old same old all over again and the truths will once again enter hibernation.

It is actually a pleasure for me to be civil with you, Zook, and I make every attempt to do so. There is a limit to my patience, however, especially when sociopathic tactics are employed by you, for instance unjustified messenger bashing. I don't mind messenger bashing when it is justified, but when it is a deception and a manipulation, the truth requires me to highlight that behavior and its source.

UncleZook wrote:
That said, you have not faithfully abided the factual narrative of Hitler's rise and fall power arc, which exposes a strongman type propped up by the shadow bankster government of its time to create a new landscape in Europe, to be then removed to a safe haven in latin America once its usefulness had been exhausted.

Unfortunately, you do not know the "the factual narrative of Hitler's rise and fall power arc". Neither do I, which is why I spend so much time and effort digging into it. I investigate, you dictate. Can you see the difference? Because of this difference, I cannot expect you to reconsider your perspectives. I am unhappy about this, but I would be pleased if you could change this dynamic. Again, I have to fall back on psychology to predict that you will be unable to change. Just as I cannot stop investigating and begin dictating, you cannot stop dictating and begin investigating. Our respective psychologies will not allow it.

UncleZook wrote:
... from Hitler's initial financing connections, to the Ha'avara agreement, to Liebenstraum, to Dunkirk ... to his toxic control over his niece (who subsequently committed suicide) ... to his desertion of the German people via plane and submarine when all was lost for Germany and gained for the bankster empire (there is ample proof of Hitler's escape to Argentina).

And I hadn't even remarked on the fact that his father, Alois, was almost certainly a case of offspring springing from an illegitimate union between a Rothschild bankster baron and a house maid.

It never crosses your mind that your interpretation of the so-called "evidence" could be faulty, does it. This is so exasperating for me, as one who questions everything, to see you latch onto a snippet of information as undeniable fact, when in fact the sources of that information are often highly questionable.

UncleZook wrote:
They dropped like flies because there were too many members (on all said spin-off forums) who were ultimately uncomfortable with the harder truths.

Too simplified, Zook, too black and white. You just don't change. Reality is much more complicated than you state. I watched the rise and fall arc of Universal Spectrum, and I know that your statement is largely untrue. In the end, it was just you and Pod trying to find a comfortable common ground, but there was no comfort to be found in dictating to each other.

I am pleased to read your words again, Zook, because they help me see the progress I have made. At the same time, I am troubled to see that you, and your perspectives, are fundamentally unchanged. There is no questioning occurring, no uncertainty to encourage questioning, and no psychological perturbations to initiate a change of personal zeitgeist. I would love to see that change. I would love to see me change further because of your influence. But if your influence is so static, so repetitive, and so one-dimensional, I can hope for little progress in either of us.

So what can we do? I am open to suggestions.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:04 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
Quote:
I am pleased to read your words again, Zook, because they help me see the progress I have made. At the same time, I am troubled to see that you, and your perspectives, are fundamentally unchanged. There is no questioning occurring, no uncertainty to encourage questioning, and no psychological perturbations to initiate a change of personal zeitgeist. I would love to see that change. I would love to see me change further because of your influence. But if your influence is so static, so repetitive, and so one-dimensional, I can hope for little progress in either of us.


Chico, you perceived messenger-bashing from me in my opening post because you chose to. Nothing more. FTR, both previous posts of mine offered real observations, but your skin is so thin that you got psychological disturbed at the most innocuous of implied admonitions. Which then pushed you into making the subtle ad hominem attack that you engage above. I have a thicker skin than you which is why I am able to counter your arguments with facts and logical consistency and without sliding into a battle of aspersions. I have maintained that composure from my very first post here several years ago until and including now.

Unfortunately, your lack of a thick skin has previously triggered you into mocking your debate opponents with spurious charges of sociopathy ... consequently, you pre-empt the possibility of learning from your opponent's arguments because of your fragile skin. If it was only me that had been the recipient of your spurious charges, that would be one thing, but almost everyone that you have interacted with ultimately feels the wrath of your low self-esteem. And is chased off this forum sooner or later. The proof is in the dwindled membership here.

Your own estimates of sociopathy is about 2% of the population. Yet if we go by your pointing finger and spurious charges of sociopathy against many of your debate opponents (here and on other forums), one would think that sociopathy has swallowed the majority of the population. That right there suggests that you have no real understanding of sociopathy and that you wield that aspersion much like a Zionist wields the shibboleth "antiSemite" to be hurled at targets that threaten to expose the truths about Zionism.

Getting back to the main point of contention here (we both agree on Q-Anon, so no contention there), instead of addressing the many points of disagreement between your narrative of Hitler and my narrative ... you quickly dismissed my narrative as being "too certain" and "too simplistic" never mind that it has been factually argued at length in the archives here at United People. Your assessment is plain dishonest representation of my research on Hitler. Of course, it's not all that hard to figure out, after all, you need to reduce the import of my Hitler research before you can promote your fact-contemptuous Hitler hypothesis about an independent savior of Germany.

I once started a thread here akin to "Captain Hitler abandoning the Good Ship Germany (like any cowardly captain featured in the annals of naval history)". Chico didn't appreciate that thread. The good folks would be edified in reading that thread. IIRC, it was not too long after that I got suspended for an umpteenth time. Then again, I started drilling massive holes in Chico's Hitler hypothesis and I guess my presence here as a critical thinker was impeding Chico's promotion of a faulty hypothesis.

It's kinda funny. Chico's self-proclaimed motto has been: study everything, dismiss nothing. But the motto itself is faulty. When one researches an event, there are three conclusions available. The event is true; the event is false; or the event is indeterminate. Given that precise logical space, dismissing nothing implies indeterminacy. So by Chico's motto, events cannot be true or false. So no matter how many facts I can establish that indict Hitler as a stooge of the Rothschild empire, I can never prove it in Chico's mottospace. But if the truth about Hitler is not around to inform narratives, then hypotheses about Hitler can flourish. Even faulty hypotheses.

Do we need wonder why Chico is endeared by his self-proclaimed motto? But I dare not call him deluded, for then he will accuse me of messenger-centricism. And if I call him sane, then he is almost obliged to be a gatekeeper, for one of the main roles of the gatekeeper is to keep things indeterminate so that truthseekers cannot gain traction in the real world.

So you see, good folks ... Chico is already threatened by my presence again here at United People. Which is why he won't accept the spirit of my first post which was to keep things factual, civil, and profitable for the truths and truthseekers. Already we can see him trying to create discord by feigning injury on the thinnest of skins. Chico understands that with my presence here, the facts about Hitler will override any fantasies and/or fantastic beliefs. So he's looking for a way to see me out again without being identified as a censor.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. What started out as United People and ambitions for community has devolved into a one-man forum. Which makes one wonder, was it ever designed to host more than one individual and that individual's opinions? I mean, no one that forcefully disagrees with him is around anymore. Almost like Avalon. Only the kool-aid drinkers are kept around.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
UncleZook wrote:
... it is reasonable to expect confusion in the best case scenario (and collusion in the worst).

I agree. It never leaves my mind that I could be confused and misled by the information I consider, which always has to be questioned, and not just once, but often. You are very resistant towards questioning your conclusions (such as Hitler being a puppet to the Jewish bankers), and therein lies the conflict between us. You demand certainty, whereas I recognize it as an impediment. This is a difference of psychological makeup in each of us, which is why psychology always rears its ugly (in your view) head. In my view, psychology offers surprising insights into the behaviors of the primary actors of history and is the missing foundation to understanding reality and sifting fact from fiction.


The preponderance of evidence indicts Hitler as a puppet of the Khazarian/Jewish banksters. Overwhelming preponderance radiates an air of certainty. I don't demand certainty, I merely recognize it. Psychology is only effective as a tool to delineate hardcore cases of sociopathy (and empathy, to complete the thought). For the vast bulk of humanity, applied psychology is a soft science and hard guessing game ... it's also an industry that exploits the gullibility of the vast bulk. Head-reading for profit not unlike hand-reading for profit. The great writers understand human psychology better than any lab-coat pretender of science. To wit, the arts are a better tool to understand human psychology than the sciences ... and this will remain to be the case short of identifying the genetic map of human thought, if that is even possible. It certainly is not possible as of 2018, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Without rehashing the tiresome messenger bashing - you calling me a sociopath with spurious supporting facts and me calling you a gatekeeper with probable supporting facts - I've resolved to exchange discussion with as little messenger-centric intrusion as possible.

This I have done for the longest time with you until it was no longer possible to ignore the elephant in the room, as much as I would have liked to stick exclusively to the "facts" or evidence. How many times have I criticized you for attacking the messenger instead of concentrating on the message? Far more than I would have liked, that's for sure. Messenger bashing is often your primary form of logic in your arguments, so I predict that you will not be able to discuss our divergent perspectives without messenger bashing. In fact, your prior post was focused on messenger bashing, though I'm sure it never was perceived as such by you. So as much as I applaud your resolve to discuss things with as little messenger-centric intrusion as possible, I have already noticed that your words do not match your actions.


Your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. There is nothing in my prior two posts that even remotely suggests that messenger-bashing was the primary focus. With someone as thin-skinned as yourself, I doubt it's possible to have any discourse on any topic for any length of time without it devolving into mutual messenger mayhem.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
You'll have to do your bit to help keep any exchange with me as civil as possible, Chico ... else it'll be the same old same old all over again and the truths will once again enter hibernation.

It is actually a pleasure for me to be civil with you, Zook, and I make every attempt to do so. There is a limit to my patience, however, especially when sociopathic tactics are employed by you, for instance unjustified messenger bashing. I don't mind messenger bashing when it is justified, but when it is a deception and a manipulation, the truth requires me to highlight that behavior and its source.


What you distort and falsely perceive as sociopathic tactics are in reality elements of normal human discourse. By your highly subjective standards of assessment, human discourse is virtually impossible ... after all, anyone can gratuitously label anything and everything on a whim as "deception" or "manipulation". That's enough wiggle room to displace any rebuttal or expectation of rebuttal. In lieu of rebuttal, all one needs to do is claim that their opponent is using sociopathic tactics and proceed to subjectively define those tactics. Indeed, soliloquy is the only thing left after discourse is eliminated. And perhaps that is what you desire, Chico, a monologue chamber masquerading as a forum. You'd be better off maintaining a daily blog, IMO.

The integrity of reality behooves me to highlight the behavior and its source.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
That said, you have not faithfully abided the factual narrative of Hitler's rise and fall power arc, which exposes a strongman type propped up by the shadow bankster government of its time to create a new landscape in Europe, to be then removed to a safe haven in latin America once its usefulness had been exhausted.

Unfortunately, you do not know the "the factual narrative of Hitler's rise and fall power arc". Neither do I, which is why I spend so much time and effort digging into it. I investigate, you dictate. Can you see the difference?


Preponderance and probably clouds are reasonable collectors of "factual" narratives. Your lack of respect for this fact underscored by your motto: question everything, dismiss nothing, leaves you with bankrupt arguments time and again. The purpose of research is to arrive at an understanding using the available facts ... not necessarily to know all the facts. No one can know all the facts; but that is precisely what you demand when you remark that I don't have a factual narrative. Free clue: the dynamic factual narrative can house 1, 2, 3 ... or N elements. When it houses a threshold number of elements, it becomes an intermediate static narrative that can inform a conclusion. Once the threshold is attained, then further elements can be added to edify the conclusion but none can be added to negate it. If any future element paradoxically negates a conclusion, then that can only mean there was an error in the collection of elements prior to the threshold. But this is the exception. The rule is that most thresholds are attained with elemental integrity. Preponderance has a role to play here as well. One erroneous element gathered prior to threshold can be replaced by one correct element post-threshold and the preponderance is restored.

I hate having to explain all this basic stuff to you, Chico ... but your lack of respect for statistics and logical process, evidenced by your gratuitous derogatory remarks of "oversimplification", "binary-thinking", "unwarranted certainty", etc. ... leaves me no choice than to return those very same qualitative evaluators in your direction. You have unwarranted certainty about Hitler being an independent avenger of the people. Pure assertion. I'll throw in one more qualifier in your direction: unwarranted uncertainty. One of the most frustrating things about your arguments is that they tend to seek divergence. Even when certainty abounds, you insist on keeping things in an uncertain state. Alas, unwarranted uncertainty has no other ambition than the perpetual fog. I'd never hire you for the post of fogmaster at any lighthouse. You'd probably cut the electricity to the joint and then run down to the rocks to see if any valuables had washed ashore. (Edit: no doubt my attempt at humor here will impress the resident keeper of the thin skin as yet another messenger-centric attack)

Quote:
Because of this difference, I cannot expect you to reconsider your perspectives. I am unhappy about this, but I would be pleased if you could change this dynamic. Again, I have to fall back on psychology to predict that you will be unable to change. Just as I cannot stop investigating and begin dictating, you cannot stop dictating and begin investigating. Our respective psychologies will not allow it.


Apart from you and a few others on the internet that I've had run-ins with (perhaps 5% of all the people that have ever interacted with me on forums) ... 95% of those who know me on the internet and virtually everyone who knows me off it, view me as an above average empath. Not quite a saint, mind you, but in the right direction. Question begs: should we establish my psychological nature on the census opinion of the vox populi? Or the census opinion of the vox vanquiri (e.g. those that I had vanquished in debate who then gain a need to abuse me)?
:jest:

Thanks. But I think I'll keep my psychological nature just the way it is ... happy, humorous, and humanly.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
... from Hitler's initial financing connections, to the Ha'avara agreement, to Liebenstraum, to Dunkirk ... to his toxic control over his niece (who subsequently committed suicide) ... to his desertion of the German people via plane and submarine when all was lost for Germany and gained for the bankster empire (there is ample proof of Hitler's escape to Argentina).

And I hadn't even remarked on the fact that his father, Alois, was almost certainly a case of offspring springing from an illegitimate union between a Rothschild bankster baron and a house maid.

It never crosses your mind that your interpretation of the so-called "evidence" could be faulty, does it. This is so exasperating for me, as one who questions everything, to see you latch onto a snippet of information as undeniable fact, when in fact the sources of that information are often highly questionable.


I often double check my facts to make sure I can defend them. On the occasion, admittedly, even double-checking fails me. But as a rule, my facts are quite impeccably-vetted. If I post something, you can safely assume I'm content with the veracity. FWIW, beyond my initial vetting, I compare new facts and make sure there is no conflict with existing facts in a given preponderance.

The underlined part of the quote above is your opinion ... eye-catching ... but merely an opinion. Like I say, I vet everything knowing that my own integrity is on the line every time I post something.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
They dropped like flies because there were too many members (on all said spin-off forums) who were ultimately uncomfortable with the harder truths.

Too simplified, Zook, too black and white. You just don't change. Reality is much more complicated than you state. I watched the rise and fall arc of Universal Spectrum, and I know that your statement is largely untrue. In the end, it was just you and Pod trying to find a comfortable common ground, but there was no comfort to be found in dictating to each other.


It's interesting that you continue to attack Pod. Pod is one of those I was alluding to when I spoke of those who cannot handle the harder truths. Pod is trapped in cognitive dissonance wrt a number of important topics: chemtrails, Moon Landings, the freq. of conspiracy, gun rights, etc. And I let him know that. I didn't walk on eggshells around Pod as you indirectly imply. Indeed, I found a way to coexist with Pod on all forums that we had ever been a member together.

Question begs: why is that?

Answer: Pod has normal social skills. He rarely attacks the messenger unless there is just cause. And that's identical to my approach. One earns respect that way. So even though we disagree on a few large issues, even vehemently disagree, Pod and I remain civil with each other. Respect earned is respect that lasts.

Unfortunately, you haven't earned my respect, Chico. By labeling me (and quite a few others across several forums) sociopaths, you have never given yourself a chance to earn respect from any of us. You cannot build a community without respect. United People in October 2018 is proof of the lack of respect extended, or received.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:25 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:04 am
Posts: 103
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?

Breaking News: Hillary Surrenders her Security Clearance:

Image

Look around for more truth if you really are a truthseeker in this day and age.


Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:51 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10005
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
Rose, posts like your prior one are like spam. They don't educate, they don't illustrate, and they don't elucidate. They simply parrot the parroting of other parrots. It would be far more useful for this thread if you could tell us what it was that convinced you that the QAnon material is legitimate. Other people might like to be similarly convinced, or at least examine the possibility. Surely you must have gone through a process of questioning the material and weighing its validity. Would it be hard to summarize that process for us?

I was hoping that you would provide evidence that the QAnon material is genuine and not a psy-op. Is that so hard to do? What convinced you to believe in it?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:17 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:04 am
Posts: 103
Reply with quote
Post Re: QAnon -- real or psy-op?
Quote:
Rose, posts like your prior one are like spam. They don't educate, they don't illustrate, and they don't elucidate. They simply parrot the parroting of other parrots. It would be far more useful for this thread if you could tell us what it was that convinced you that the QAnon material is legitimate. Other people might like to be similarly convinced, or at least examine the possibility. Surely you must have gone through a process of questioning the material and weighing its validity. Would it be hard to summarize that process for us?


That would be like doing months work of your homework for you, Chico. I am not your researcher or your admin assistant. I don't care if you believe anything, or not. Entirely up to you. It took me many months to come to my conclusion and no one could have convinced me without that process. I am certain you could not be convinced without the same process. I pointed you in the right direction already. I thought you were a truthseeker? You expressed an interest in removing these particular sociopaths while you were at InPHInet. Are you only interested in bringing them if done so at your exclusive instruction?

As I believe I said here earlier, I began researching these events back in February attempting to find a few true facts amidst the fake news outlets and google It was excruciating, because these are topics that the Deep State within our intelligence agencies, the Obama administration, and Soro's organizations and puppets did not want to come out. The facts reveal their crimes. And, these facts will hopefully bring about their downfall.

This point came up today that you might consider because I think you are probably under the misconception Qanon has something to do with a "cult of personality" rather than an informational source.

Image

Presenting information in a manner other than your boring (to me) textbooky style does not make information spam. I understand it is not your cup of tea and you give it little thought (certainly no complete consideration), because I have grown to do the same with yours. I know what you are going to say before you say it. And, although you seem to enjoy "not preaching to the choir" and having a tedious debate about each and every little minute point you can possibly disagree with, those of us who are not intending to preach to anyone, but only to provide facts pertaining to this ongoing "Sociopath Removal" project, find your argumentativeness inappropriate. Perhaps someone might happen by your dive that has been looking for the very answers they may find in my "spam".


Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:48 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.