Godlike Productions - Report a Post

Users Online Now: 1,515 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 115,123
Pageviews Today: 202,000	Threads Today: 83	Posts Today: 1,444
02:00 AM

Back to Thread

REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY

Message Subject QAnon: It's on, don't panic ii

Poster Handle The Natural One

Post Content

From this morning's Qdrop:

3858
New: Title TBD
Q
!!Hs1Jq13jV6
12 Feb 2020 - 11:04:32 AM

GA2.21.jpg [link to imgur.com (secure)]

[Re_drop]
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand ‘news’ name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned?
‘Mainstream’ is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion].
[If majority of people believe ‘x’ then ‘x’ must be validated / true]
Why do ‘mainstream’ media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources?
Do ‘echo chamber’ tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over[of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over[of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D]’s and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated & planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other ‘ism’?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those ‘different’ from you, not those responsible [controllers].
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep].
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
THIS REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Q

Quoting: The Natural One

A very strong statement (emboldened and orange) made by Q today....

A little research on the statement made by anons of ATE...

Anonymous 02/12/20 (Wed) 15:12:092d2000 (2) No.8116357>>8116402

File (hide): da5b2af865196d5⋯.png (105.97 KB, 1267x1557, 1267:1557, ClipboardImage.png) (h) (u) [link to imgur.com (secure)]

DataAnon back, couldn't help but notice that the "REDROP" isn't exactly the same as the original. At first I was thinking several lines were slightly different, but the only actual change I detect when I lay them out side by side is the last line:

THIS REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So perhaps that's specially important?

Delta's on the dates is 27days and 56 days between each post, or 83 days from first post to today. Not sure if that matters.

Can also go F12D18N21 and get the letters: FIDRNU which looks like nonsense..

Anywhere, here they are laid out side by side… [link to imgur.com (secure)]

Quoting: anon of 8ish

commented about:

Anonymous 02/12/20 (Wed) 15:16:3963d4d8 (1) No.8116402>>8116423

>>8116357

It matters because what "Clear and Present danger implies." It implies that the news pundits are no longer protected by free speech 1st ammendment.

They are liable for espionage. They can be fined and jailed.

SAUCE

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

[link to www.mtsu.edu (secure)]

Quoting: anon of 8ish

and:

Anonymous 02/12/20 (Wed) 15:18:13dbf311 (19) No.8116423

>>8116402

Also limits freedom of assembly, so, curfews and martial law are not off the table.

Quoting: anon

[link to www.mtsu.edu (secure)]

Clear and Present Danger Test
By Richard Parker

...
...
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined the clear and present danger test in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, offering more latitude to Congress for restricting speech in times of war, saying that when words are "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
...
...
The clear and present danger test is different from the bad tendency test — which was predominant in English common law and would be articulated in Gitlow v. New York (1925), a case involving the conviction of Benjamin Gitlow for publishing material that advocated the Communist reconstruction of society. The Supreme Court observed in Gitlow, “Freedom of speech and press . . . does not protect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the government or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties." The bad tendency test protects only innocuous speech; it criminalizes all seditious libels. Gitlow is shown in this 1939 photo.
...
...
The clear and present danger test was revised into the gravity of the evil test. Judge Learned Hand of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals adapted the revision in United States v. Dennis (1950): “Clear and present danger depends upon whether the mischief of the repression is greater than the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability.”
...
...
"Imminent lawless action" test supplants "clear and present danger" test
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. redrafted the per curiam opinion, substituting for clear and present danger a new standard (Schwartz 1995: 27): “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

The imminent lawless action test has largely supplanted the clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger remains, however, the standard for assessing constitutional protection for speech in the military courts.

Please verify you're human: