Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Bobulinski angle on Biden

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Except that this Q-clearance naval officer would go to prison for life for framing a Presidential candidate.

Not really, because you can accept the general claim that Biden is up to no good and that the laptop actually has bad stuff, while at the same time making QAnon movement supporters feel that their more extravagant claims are being validated. I don't think there's anything so extravagant going on that Bobulinski is really doing psyops, it's a standard presidential candidate scandal. But if you want to throw in an extra layer of stuff as if he's doing fantastic espionage, then I can just as legitimately claim that it's evidence he's pulling QAnon supporters out of the woodwork. 

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Please explain the nature of the threat.

Show us what Q said that is so dangerous.

How can I think that something he said is dangerous if I don't think he is even real? 

People in the QAnon movement are the dangerous ones precisely because Q is not real. I can back that up because you have already made a seditious statement: 

On 10/29/2020 at 7:20 PM, Jon Letendre said:

so he can not and will not allow Biden to assume the Presidency.

This is the kind of danger I mean. Fine if you even think that Biden is a major threat to America, but to say that the president should not even allow Biden to assume the presidency is borderline a call to violence against the US government. The only way this can happen is with violence; I know you don't mean that you want Trump to sit in the Oval Office and refuse to leave until security comes when they drag him out. I don't know if "worldwide" movement was meant to mock what I said about the QAnon being a threat. I'm not even concerned with the majority, only the people who might be further radicalized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here are just two shelves of mine.   I have all the extra paperback Atlases and Anthems and Capitalisms and Virtues because there are still some used bookstores in Denver and I pick up every

Imagine thinking having books will increase your status and allow you to assert more things

It appears you've made the Garbage Pile with your Bickering crap.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 Some kind of psyops to destroy the movement. Psychological warfare is about deceit and lying, and surface level support of one way of thinking may ultimately serve the purpose of undermining that way of thinking from the outside. 

Is it crazy (a conspiracy, lol) that I've wondered if the new random posters, like Jon, are doing something just like this on this very forum? I've really considered basically this exact idea every time they pop up out of no where and post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EC said:

Is it crazy (a conspiracy, lol) that I've wondered if the new random posters, like Jon, are doing something just like this on this very forum? I've really considered basically this exact idea every time they pop up out of no where and post.

If that's the case, Jon could be perceived as supplementing the main stream media effort against Ayn Rand.

I do have to concur Eiuol on this point.

24 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

How can I think that something he said is dangerous if I don't think he is even real? 

People in the QAnon movement are the dangerous ones precisely because Q is not real.

It is essentially the same driver that spurs mobs to act with wanton disregard of consequences to individual rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EC said:

they pop up out of no where

I have been promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism since 1986 when I was a teenager.

I formally joined the Objectivist movement in 1988 and lead my campus club under the direction of the Ayn Rand Institute.

I have been posting online under my real name since around 2005, at Sense of Life Objectivists, Rebirth of Reason, SOLOPassion and ObjectivistLiving.

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

 you have already made a seditious statement: 

This is the kind of danger I mean. Fine if you even think that Biden is a major threat to America, but to say that the president should not even allow Biden to assume the presidency is borderline a call to violence against the US government.

Not at all.

President Trump’s oath forbids him allowing a traitor into office.

That’s what Obama can lean on to excuse his spying on Trump: he had a duty to protect against the election of a traitor. It is a real duty in the real world. (Obama knew he was framing Trump, so he will fly one-way to gitmo. His was the violence against the republic, and therefore he and and his co-conspirator VP Biden will have to pay a heavy penalty. Since Biden really is a traitor, Trump, and all the military (such as Bobulinski) who know this for a fact can not allow, because of their oath, cannot allow the traitor into office.

Now, Trump is going to handily win, so that particular point is not going to be relevant. But if they cheat so much that Biden “wins” then he will promptly be buried in charges, be fully exposed and be arrested or suddenly die, followed by Harris. Just watch, it’s coming fast now.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are just two shelves of mine.

 

I have all the extra paperback Atlases and Anthems and Capitalisms and Virtues because there are still some used bookstores in Denver and I pick up every copy I find and I place them into the free libraries that are spotted all over Denver in front yards.

I have read and loved Ayn Rand and promoted her ideas since I was fourteen years old.

E9E175A4-6666-4225-A46C-733C52112DB6.jpeg

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Foxhunt is related to Biden in that his family is blackmailed and controlled by the Chinese who routinely grossly violate rights of our citizens and they do it within our borders. He is not just in bed with anyone, he is in bed with the sub-human monsters who commit Foxhunt.

So is Biden associated with everything China does simply because China is allegedly blackmailing and controlling him? America forces me to pay taxes and controls me under threat of imprisonment. Am I therefore related to Russiagate? China is a massive government. To say Biden is "in bed" with those responsible for Fox Hunt is vague and misleading. Are you implying that he knew about or participated in Fox Hunt and covered it up somehow?

As for the "Hunters become the hunted" meme, I'll take your word that the Qanons have been using it for years. I only traced the fake movie poster back to Feb. 2020 though. Maybe you don't realize that this phrase/idea goes way back. It's widespread in the culture. Hell, it's been a movie trope probably since they started making movies (at least since The Most Dangerous Game was adapted for the screen in 1932). Turning the hunter into prey describes what law enforcement has been doing forever. I think I first heard the phrase in connection with the book Mindhunters by John Douglas, who started the FBI criminal profiling group that hunted serial killers across the nation. I seriously doubt that the FBI needs Q to remind them of what they do on a daily basis. Q didn't invent the phrase, and it certainly didn't make it popular in the culture broadly or at the FBI specifically.

I'm happy to consider real evidence. But if this is an example of Q's best work, I'm unimpressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

So is Biden associated with everything China does simply because China is allegedly blackmailing and controlling him? America forces me to pay taxes and controls me under threat of imprisonment.

But did you willingly accept bribes From foreign gov’ts contra your oath of office? The analogy falls apart immediately.

 

49 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

To say Biden is "in bed" with those responsible for Fox Hunt is vague and misleading. Are you implying that he knew about or participated in Fox Hunt and covered it up somehow?

It was Obama’s and Joe’s job to know about the Foxhunt conspiracy against America. It started and then operated for several years, under their noses, during their term in power.

Hunters became the hunted is one but tiny example among thousands that indicate the reality of a highly coordinated and far-reaching movement.

Thanks for the questions and conversation.

I will not be able to post for about one week from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never saw that edition before, I see the book now.

7 hours ago, EC said:

Is it crazy (a conspiracy, lol) that I've wondered if the new random posters, like Jon, are doing something just like this on this very forum?

I don't find it totally crazy, the Internet is so big. Sounds kind of fun actually, really acting as a character. Advanced trolling! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I never saw that edition before, I see the book now.

I don't find it totally crazy, the Internet is so big. Sounds kind of fun actually, really acting as a character. Advanced trolling! 

Have you checked and seen that I have indeed been posting under my real name since about 2005?

Have you checked my claims with Adam Mossoff? I assume he is still Professor at Law at George Mason, he was when we emailed about two years ago. Adam Mossoff has been an ARI speaker and he can confirm my claims going back to the late eighties, we co-Presided over a campus club together. Instead you go straight to defaming me, using a fake name, no less. You are fast losing credibility here.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Instead you go straight to defaming me, using a fake name, no less. You are fast losing credibility here.

Oh boy. I was just saying wondering that wouldn't be crazy or weird. I do, in fact, believe you are a genuine QAnon movement supporter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Oh boy. I was just saying wondering that wouldn't be crazy or weird. I do, in fact, believe you are a genuine QAnon movement supporter.  

You say "I" but there really is no real you when you hide behind anonymity, is there?

You share the status of a fantasy.

Yes, Greg, I definitely bicker back.

When all participants are through with my mental health and personal background, when they are finished attempting to run me off as a fake Objectivist (they would know fake) I will have nothing to bicker about.

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

When all participants are through with my mental health and personal background, when they are finished attempting to run me off as a fake Objectivist (they would know fake) I will have nothing to bicker about.

I respect the right of an individual to be wrong. It in no way encumbers me to disavow them of what they choose to believe. Objectivism Online is private property and respect is expected for its owner and the intentions for which access is made available to you.

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

I see this could use an amendment.

Examples include, but are not limited to, religion, communism, etc.

In light of the evidence you have left in your little-examined-by-me wake, I suggest that you address the questions directed to you in matters of Q/QAnon, with a lot less, go out and research it for yourself, and a greater willingness on your behalf to provide a bit more epistemological foundation and providing the rationale that convinced you, rightly or wrongly, when it is requested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2020 at 1:19 PM, Jon Letendre said:

You seem to be getting your information second hand. You should know that does not work. As with Rand, you have to read the source data, here:

Just as an angle on understanding QAnon and what risk it poses as a movement. I'm not posting this for anyone, more of a place to put my own thoughts down:

Your link, as I understand it, is a collection of various posts signed as 'Q', some of which can be found on 8chan and 4chan. These are places known for trolls. It wouldn't be beyond users there to collaborate on trolling projects. Trolling isn't necessarily only for fun. It is subversive and involves different layers of irony in such a way that you can't know who is the target of the joke. In a sense, it can sometimes be psychological warfare taken to a political realm. From there, it's not so weird to have somebody pose as something imaginary, namely Q. Santa Claus is just as real. 

If anyone likes good dramas with revolutionaries in them, it sure as hell sounds cool. V for Vendetta, Mr. Robot. Atlas Shrugged fits in here even. These narratives involve aliases, fake identities, exaggerated identities, mythologized identities and so on. But then we start thinking of it this way, Q starts to sound like an amalgamation of media over the decades. 

Q? Reminds me of V. Swig pointed out another entertainment media reference, with the hunters becoming the hunted. All well and good, and any good secretive revolutionary should develop their identity from something real and identifiable. Except, I'm not getting anything else that suggests any cohesive philosophy against the powers that be. These books and TV shows, there is at least some kind of philosophy somewhere. Q is an amalgamation of loose thoughts. The link you gave me demonstrates this. It's kind of all over the place, but just enough of a narrative so that Q might seem to be someone real and legitimate. 

But I don't think Q is an individual doing this. There seems to be some kind of planned narrative, some identity, on top of the trolling nature of the whole thing. You can't go at it randomly, and you would need more than one person to keep the project going consistently and in a vaguely believable way. 

I'm not sure the motivation of any person or group that would want to create an identity to troll a lot of people at once. Political motivations aren't out of the question. If anything, Q was created by an accelerationist group that wants to amplify the voice of a group so that the group can destroy itself quicker than it already was. To be sure, amplification makes more people join the group, but it also might make it easier to identify the people on the fringe, who they are, what they think. Who knows if this is the case, the point is that deception perpetrated on 'his' own followers seems like the most likely thing going on.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

There seems to be some kind of planned narrative, some identity, on top of the trolling nature of the whole thing. You can't go at it randomly, and you would need more than one person to keep the project going consistently and in a vaguely believable way.

You seem to have burrowed into the lair deeper than I.

Just as God has multiple, self-appointed spokespersons, my impression is that Q/QAnon has developed into such as well, and from cryptic ambiguous posts, the "scripture" of Q/QAnon is subjected to hermeneutics of others, moving yet others to swoon at all that has been compiled thus far.


This is a link to an article I looked at back in September. The title reminded me of a book of a similar name by Richard Connell, The Most Dangerous Game. (This fits into the hunter being hunted, written in 1924.)

QAnon Is Like a Game—a Most Dangerous Game

When I was growing up, I had an adult cousin who insisted that the insurance companies were running the world via controlling mortgage companies and government officials, etc. She was also the one that upbraided me for using the word "bet" without knowing what it meant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

It appears you've made the Garbage Pile with your Bickering crap.

Is that supposed to reflect something about me?

Stephen Boydstun hates Michael, too. See here https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/7201-introducing-the-stephen-boydstun-corner/?tab=comments#comment-300000

What does that indicate about Stephen?

Incidentally, Stephen also can confirm my online posting going back to about 2005. He used to enjoy especially my extended exchanges with Bill Dwyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I respect the right of an individual to be wrong. It in no way encumbers me to disavow them of what they choose to believe. Objectivism Online is private property and respect is expected for its owner and the intentions for which access is made available to you.

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

I see this could use an amendment.

Examples include, but are not limited to, religion, communism, etc.

In light of the evidence you have left in your little-examined-by-me wake, I suggest that you address the questions directed to you in matters of Q/QAnon, with a lot less, go out and research it for yourself, and a greater willingness on your behalf to provide a bit more epistemological foundation and providing the rationale that convinced you, rightly or wrongly, when it is requested.

The owners intentions for the site are to be respected, of course.

I will try to address honest questions so long as participants can refrain from vicious, baseless attacks on my character and stay focused on ideas. I am sure we agree that is the only atmosphere in which constructive exchange of ideas can occur.

Thank you, Greg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Is that supposed to reflect something about me?

Stephen Boydstun hates Michael, too. See here https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/7201-introducing-the-stephen-boydstun-corner/?tab=comments#comment-300000

What does that indicate about Stephen?

Incidentally, Stephen also can confirm my online posting going back to about 2005. He used to enjoy especially my extended exchanges with Bill Dwyer.

Is not what you do and say a reflection of something about you?

As is the rest of this post.

Incidentally, there are several members of Objectivism Online who have cross posted here and on Objectivist Living. The fact that you choose to interject this here, as well as the manner in which you do, reflects something about you. (As does my choice to focus on this and anything else I choose to focus on, reflects something about me.)

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I will try to address honest questions so long as participants can refrain from vicious, baseless attacks on my character and stay focused on ideas. I am sure we agree that is the only atmosphere in which constructive exchange of ideas can occur.

If you want to attack Michael, then address it to him directly over on Objectivist Living.

If you are interested in how your online character is perceived, only you are in control of what you put out on the internet for those interested in cultivating such a perception of you.

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Who here already knew that Q's name was a reference to Energy Dept security clearance, such as Bobulinski enjoyed during his career in the US Navy?

A "God", incarnate, if you ask me.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2020 at 3:08 PM, Jon Letendre said:

It was Obama’s and Joe’s job to know about the Foxhunt conspiracy against America. It started and then operated for several years, under their noses, during their term in power.

I looked into this and found a NY Times article from 2015. The Fox Hunt program apparently started in 2014. The U.S. intelligence community and Obama knew about it. He warned China to stop it. The current case involves a victim, "John Doe," who helped the FBI build a case against the Chinese security agents and an American private investigator. As you probably know, the Feds love to take their time gathering evidence and forming an airtight case. This one apparently took three years, which suggests that "John Doe" didn't approach the FBI until after Obama left office. So while Obama knew about Fox Hunt, along with the rest of the world, it doesn't seem like there was a strong criminal case yet. 

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

So while Obama knew about Fox Hunt

... nothing was done about it as his second in command was awash in Chinese Communist Party money and they would never allow anything substantive to be done, whispering, "wewember, we have your son's tapes, we have you weceiving millions, tee, hee."

Edited by Jon Letendre
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...