[sevlex]

Did he say rumors of his death have been exaggerated?

[sevlex]

Just noticed I was in at Fiddy!

[bagster]

Is Jim Watkins dead? Let's examine the article at the link I posted....

Jim Watkins, Founder of QAnon, Dead at 58

(excerpt)

This comes just weeks after investigators found Watkins’ “digital footprint” on the latest Q Drop, proving beyond all doubt that Jim Watkins was controlling QAnon’s official narrative.

Agenda is the lede. Establish that Ron Watkins is Q.

Watkins is survived by his son, Ron, who posted a Tik-Tok video saying, “Dad was a guiding light of chan communities. He started a whole culture with 2chan and took it to its final, most free form with 8chan. Today is truly a tragic moment for my family, but also for Liberty.”

Tik Tok video easily verified (but not by moi).

*snip*

Ron drew a katana from his back and flashed it for viewers, “I will avenge my father with this blade, which was passed to me from my grandfather, and to him from his grandfather, for 18 generations. I will carry the flame of 2chan and 8chan onwards and one day, I might fill his shoes.”

Really? Pics or it didn't happen.

Authorities investigating the death are open to the idea of homicide, but not committed to anything yet. “Fentanyl is the most poisonous substance known to man, capable of killing a full grown adult like Mr. Watkins, even if he just brushed up against it, and considering the news about Q, we are definitely investigating this as a homicide,” said Chief O’Brien Sallisaw, “And trust me, there is going to be sex trafficking, child abuse, SWATtings, doxings, blackmail, and everything you’ve come to expect from these shitty chan web sites.”

Yes. This sounds like something a 'Chief' of an unidentified law enforcement agency would say. Right?

QAnon supporter and former colleague of the deceased, Joshua Moon, told reporters, “Well I just believed no comms off the boards always meant Q could be trusted, but it turns out Jim just wanted to control the narrative.”

Why would 'no comms off the boards' mean that 'Q could be trusted'? Is this something that a former colleague of Watkins would think or say?

Moon stressed that the movement still wasn’t over, now that its voice was so thoroughly and completely discredited, saying with absolute conviction, “What we built was real, we’ve learned a great lesson, and Q will go on in a newer, better form. Trump is the only true savior, forget about Q. The storm is still coming, one day.”

I'm gonna have to go ahead and call booshito on this one.

#TheOracleHasSpoken

[mbrfl]

This is really big IMO. Watch Devin Nunes’ interview with Maria Bartiromo. His comments about mid-way through the interview give a suggestion of just how big this Twitter law suit might be. It’s more than Twitter being exposed here. It’s the whole system of over-priced advertising on Twitter that is a consequence of their inflated numbers. I’ve always been suspicious that Twitter could have gotten away with overcharging on advertising all these years. Corporate Ad buyers are very savvy. The idea that they would just accept Twitters circulation claims uncritically without trying to independently verify is just not credible. This raises a much larger question which Devin alludes to.

Nunes points out that Twitter routinely loses money. And he also points out that large Corporations have basically been subsidizing this left leaning, anti-conservative platform via overpriced advertising rates. Does this expose the larger conspiracy at play? - namely the mechanism by which large media companies are able to continually push narratives that, from a business point of view, make no sense. CNN, MSNBC, etc. have continuously watched their viewership plummet for years as they continue to provide content that a majority of Americans don’t want. Could the advertising grift be the mechanism that explains, not just Twitter but the tendency of media corporations, to continue pushing a leftwing direction for their companies with total indifference to the foolishness of such behavior - from a strictly business perspective.

So, could it be that the large advertising companies play a key role and are complicit in this larger scheme of conservative censorship? They overcharge for advertising in order to keep the Twitters, CNNs, and MSNBCs of the world afloat. If you’re in the advertising business, keeping advertising rates artificially inflated is good business. And if your clients are political campaigns and Blue Chip corporations, it’s just considered a price of doing business, especially if those ad purchasers themselves are highly subsidized in one form or another.

https://rumble.com/v1d2yst-nunes-truth-social-expands-to-uk-to-reclaim-internet-for-free-speech.html