The problem is not the quality or content of the research, it's that y'all are namefagging. Makes it difficult to take any of this seriously.
>As for the dumb ass…I'm not namefagging,
Curse me however much you want, I bear you no ill will. I have nothing to do with board management or any dramas associated therewith, didn't even know about the possibilities of such until reading this thread. Nor have I knowingly ever addressed you in the past.
Here's the issue with namefagging as best as I can describe with a limited knowledge set – names (whether 'real' or self-created) introduce identities. Identities over time introduce roles & social conventions. These over time evolve into hierarchies which are deeply embedded into all of our 'social DNA' as humans. As our social conventions as a collective at the current time are largely dysfunctional which create dysfunctional feedback loops with our individual 'identities' and how they relate to other 'identities', these dysfunctions eventually bleed even into realms where we create alternate 'identities', like here for instance.
In a collaborative effort, this creates implicit/explicit power struggles & conflicts which then both distract & divert from the objective and also, through the subtle perversions of dysfunctional social conventions, taints/spoils the quality of the final output - in this case, the research itself and the shared knowledge that it is intended to impart.
In a collaborative effort that nakedly exists within an overall competitive environment (that in which find ourselves here), this also allows bad actors to easily poke at sensitive pressure points to create the above. The whole point of being 'anonymous' is to minimize the potential for the above to occur as much as possible. Why create an easy target?
You can find examples of this everywhere - it happens on twitter everyday, all day - it's happening right here on this thread. Since the intended subject of this thread appears to be uncovering our hidden history and how we got into this mess in the first place, you could analyze the subject using the concepts roughly outlined above and most likely find the causes. If the objective to untangle the knots, then does it not behoove us to at least make an attempt to avoid the same errors that caused the knots in the first place?
There is a concept called Q-learning which is currently being applied in machine learning for neural networks. It is geared towards what is called "artificial intelligence", but with a bit of imagination, can be translated into collective human learning efforts since the entire concept was developed through the observation of biological systems. Numerous links for more reading here should anyone be interested in learning more:
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/5577949.html#5578501
And I appreciate your consideration & thoughtful response.
I chose to write what I did due to the the research topic itself - if you strip away all the names & faces, it's really about (in my POV) a small group of people exerting control & authority over the rest of humanity and creating elaborate webs of hierarchies, mechanisms & ideologies to maintain that control across generations.
So much of the way of how we interact today - be it politically, economically or socially - is driven by these structures. Most of it being hidden away from our immediate 'consciousness', yet still exerting a subversive influence over almost all interactions.
MLK (for all of his faults) delivered a great speech on this topic called the 'drum major instinct', fwiw. How much of this is biologically driven vs. a symptom of this control grid I have no idea.
As far as what is the right bridge to take this dig, as you stated, there are unique advantages & opportunity costs/challenges inherent in every medium. Social media has an unique set, blogs have another and the chans have yet another, etc.
jmo, but I do think that the Q team chose the chans at least in part due to the features (+/-) that the medium offers and that we should make every attempt as long as we're here to work within the confines of those attributes vs. trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
That said, I find this line of digging to be very valuable and having much relevance to a broad population as so much of what everyone is surrounded with on a daily basis (names, architecture, ideals, etc, etc) was created and is being maintained for purposes few understand. I appreciate the time & effort that everyone here has put into it so far and hope that you all will find a way to focus it into forms that can be digestable to a wider audience.
Godspeed.