>>2711995

>Satanist shills

Surprisingly rare, but they are found on boards. Usually they're just government types (intel agency, classically). Often they use the technicality that they're 'pagan' and not 'satanist' (despite using things like the pentagram and using really obviously satanic things).

Classically, references to H.P. Lovecraft will be made. They usually have a disdain for a stereotyped version of Christianity.

Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, they can actually just be beaten with plain reasoning (but you will need extensive knowledge of both history and religion as often they will try to appeal to extremely obscure technicalities, such as the history of Sumatra, Babylon, Ancient Egypt and more).

In one case it was argued Christianity was responsible for most wars during the middle-ages to current history, which is a common belief.

Ignoring the fact that the so-called 'Christianity' in question clearly didn't follow any biblical teaching of 'turning the other cheek' and 'those without sin casting the first stone', I actually challenged what research had been done to prove this? Naturally, of course: none.

They cited a few cliche example wars (Crusades, namely), but it's worth noting history has had thousands of wars. So instead, I proposed a challenge (blind to the answer) that I bet if I tallied the 'cause of war' (using as many Wikipedia articles as possible) from 1100s to 1700s (covering a key period prior to the introduction of secularism and naturalism post 1700s), I would found more were attributed to other causes.

This is ignoring the fact religion might have been blamed as a 'partial cause' or a scapegoat (I treated partial cause and suspected scapegoats as if they were the actual cause, except when it was clearly a scapegoat), I manually skim-read over 1000 wikipedia articles on war.

Much to their rage, I found that actually, TRADE, ECONOMICS and LAND disputes were the major drivers (trade being the biggest one). I also discovered on war was sparked over someone losing a cockerel fight (yeah, you read that right).

Religion accounted for about 40% (this includes treating 'partial causes' and 'suspected scapegoats' as full causes, so it's likely less than this), but trade was nearly 50%, with the last 10% being political wars and misc. causes.

The person in question became extremely stroppy and stopped talking to me (despite declaring 'satanism was the pursuit of truth' - apparently only truth that is convenient to it's own objectives).

Sure, Wikipedia might be incomplete, or inaccurate, but a manual survey of over 1,000 wars is better than a statement based on gross generalisation, oversampling (EG small sample size projected to have a much larger influence) and popular opinion.

And such research can be double-checked, revalidated.

In practically every instance of refuting a satanist I've always found they become emotionally unreasonable, and will then start attacking or ignoring.

Truth and facts always win out, no matter what the circumstances. I just happened to know enough about history to already have had an inkling it wasn't the biggest cause of war.

There are other major wars that have shaped the current geopolitical landscape which were non-religious, such:

American War of Independence (taxation, trade)

First Sino-Japanese war (economics, trade)

Second Sino-Japanese war (economics, trade)

Japan's war on America in WII (oil, thus trade, economics)

Oh, and about 16 wars exclusively just caused by the 'East India Trading Company' alone, including the Opium trade war with Hong Kong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_the_British_East_India_Company

Not counting the various wars between Russia, Europe, Japan etc over territory.

Classically, religious wars were actually more likely to be civil wars (internal strife) rather than external wars, and it was more likely to be a supermajority persecuting a minority.

External religious wars were more likely to involve secondary factors, such as trade, economics and land, and in a number of those articles historians usually disputed if religion was a primary driver, given that states tended to just raid resources and seize land (for example, when Jerusalem was controlled by either side, both sides still allowed people of the opposing faith to still visit the land. So it wasn't to prevent people of an opposing religion from practicing, it was to control the land and thus any taxation of any visitors).

The crusades appear largely be the exception (there's no other equally as major war on par with the crusades driven by religion: WWI and WWII were both driven by socio-political factionism, the former by a group of anarchists of an oppressed ethnic minority state trying to trigger a war between Austria and Russia, the latter as a result of economic hardship allowing a political faction to seize power, with America's entry being triggered by a war over trade with Japan).

Warring religions aren't acceptable, but it's worth noting that the analysis was purely on causes. If I had done a tally on how many had been killed, WWI and WWII are the biggest contributors, and as we know the percentage for elements caused by trade was over 50%, it's a no-brainer statistically speaking.

If anything, internal religious persecution is a much bigger danger (something so vital America added a protection clause against religious persecution into the constitution: it is worth noting people were driven to America from Britain due to internal religious persecution).

In-fact, initial persecution within a country against a religion were 95% the earmarkers for a full-blown murder spree against that religion (supermajority versus minority type scenarios).

Signs that appear to be emerging within the US.

Anyway, history lesson over, going to get back to development.

I would say the imagespam bot above detects keywords (it's quote isn't even from this thread) and is designed to just go around randomly accusing people with Forer-effect statements of being bots as part of a disruption tactic to try to sow confusion, discord.

Extremely crude, dull software, and very obvious at that, poorly engineered, I would say. It appears to automatically harvest images from other people's posts and then reuses them at random in another post in an effort to 'blend in', except Qresearch doesn't excessively over use images like most other chan boards (which is why it's imagespam stands out like a sore thumb).

I strongly suspect this bot is deployed to all the chan boards, and not just this one, given it's 'camouflage' has a general chan feel to it, even if it doesn't fit in here.

It's goal appears to be to discredit people who spot bots. Which is likely why it's clogging up the Russian bot detection thread. An anti-HunterKiller bot, curious.

It'd be curious what IP it's on, and more curious why it hasn't already been banned (unless it regularly changes IP).

>>2743549

>Not to replace TTDDTOT but to keep research going on topics specifically mentioned by Q for digging.

TTDDTOT doesn't fill a specific niche as it's Qboard's 'off-topic' thread. I'm purposefully staying there and posting research as strategic positioning for anti-shill tactics.

They've recently tried to accuse me of being 'inaccurate' on Qresearch, but couldn't answer why, if my goal was to mislead, I was only posting my research in my own thread deemed 'off-topic' and not any of the breads?

Strategically I purposefully posted my research outside of breads exactly so such an accusation would backfire (shills are fond of accusing others of their own methodology). I can't derail an already off-topic thread, so the logic doesn't stand, and they can't ask me to leave, it's not their thread.

>and only they know where to find stuff. Anyone else would be hardpressed to make anything of it.

I shift the tone, direction of my writings depending on audience. So here, shill information is in-depth because it's aimed at people who want to learn, adapt.

Might notice when I spoke about laws, I switched into a legal dialogue. Aimed at lawyers, but short enough they can grasp.

When it comes to other types of research, I break it down into soundbites, key quotes, words.

If there's a specific format you want the research in, you have to tell me what the audience is (down to age bracket, intelligence and most likely job).

I understand what Q wants is an open-intel sourced prosecution case against these cronies. I haven't written my research into legal (although I've left key points in for such endeavours, names, addresses, companies etc) as it's aimed at researchers who are looking for leads.

It'd be more useful if Q could scurry a specific goal, rather than individual research points. I could have researched the shit out of backpage.com for human trafficking, but instead I suggested to the FBI they just hook them up on money laundering charges instead.

The laundering charges are what got the jail sentences.

>I confess I don't consider myself a researcher, but I hope you will consider me acting as a Dr. Watson-type sounding board to your Holmes.

What do you envisage your role as doing?