9 Ways to Share Information on the Digital Battlefield of Ideas, And Not Lose Friends and Loved Ones

(Stillness in the Storm Editor) With the banning of over 7,000 QAnon related accounts in Twitter, and the explosion if an awakening about all forms of corruption, now is the time to master the tools of information sharing, discussion, debate, and rhetoric. These can help us build alliances, expand our knowledge, to help safeguard our freedoms as we enter a new phase of the Great Awakening.

Wars always start as disagreements, and then when the tools of debate, discussion, and free speech breakdown, they become violent. Now that Twitter has censored QAnon accounts, it’s time we discussed how to share ideas without hurting friends and loved ones, while also keeping our minds open to learning more from a healthy debate.

 – Justin

Related What is an Oath? The Spiritual, Lawful, and Philosophic Meaning of an Oath

by Conscious Optimist, July 23rd, 2020

Dear Frens,

It’s been a while since I last posted. My sincerest apologies for that. Life has been throwing me a number of curveballs, and it’s been difficult to find the time to fulfill my promise to you all to provide some tips on how to fight the Great Narrative Battle against the MSM — specifically in service to Q, and his call to Patriots to stand up and fight.

That said…

Below is a smattering of thoughts and tips on engaging the online battle. They are given in no particular order, and they are all very important. Read each one carefully to make sure you fully understand what’s being written — for, as Goethe once said, the hardest thing for a man is to plainly see what is in front of his eyes.

On to the battle tips…

1. As I’m sure you all know, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other like-minded Silicon Valley social media companies, are outrightly “banning” Q content. So my first tip here is to re-read what Q re-posted in post # 4509. More than anything, this is the algorithm to follow (See below) …
2. In regards to Mission 1: use of digital camouflage:
   1. There is no need to identify yourself as a Q follower online, nor, necessarily offline. Instead, post information provided by Q without reference to Q. That’s really all you need to do. Sure, the Powers that Be will continue banning certain topics in response to a growing surge of awareness, but there’s only so much they can do so fast. Recall that the Trump administration is in the process of stripping these social media companies from immunity as platforms, and they are caught in a tight spot right now. They can only ban so many things so quickly without simultaneously putting themselves at greater and greater risk; and, let it not be forgotten that the more they engage in obvious acts of censorship, the more they draw attention to the very things they want us all to ignore.
   2. In the interest of learning the art of “online persuasion”, I would recommend setting up an account whose performance doesn’t matter to you, but is instead purely experimental. That is to say, an account you use to train yourself in the art of persuasion, where you’re totally comfortable pushing the limits, so that you can take those lessons with you into other areas.
3. NEVER FORGET that shadowbanning means that your work is virtually guaranteed to be more effective than both analytics and your screeching opponents would have you believe. There are MANY instances of people’s posts being banned, people being “unfollowed” via an algorithms, etc. I cannot emphasize this enough: the point of this activity is to demoralize us, but you don’t have to “take the bait” and feel demoralized. For they would not censor us if we were ineffective. They would not shadow ban us if our message was not reaching people.
4. Develop tranquility as part of your “emotional hygiene” protocol — it is not normal for a human mind to be in a constant state of conflict, however this is the psychological state engendered in the masses by the MSM. You will be ridiculed and mocked for your beliefs — this is a given. BUT you don’t have to let it get to you. Remember that it’s best to camouflage yourself and that nothing that happens online necessarily must spill into your real life. You are here to be a messenger of the truth in a sea of cultish followers of the MSM. It’s that simple. Sadly, millions of people literally believe that Trump is Hitler and his supporters are evil nazis. Therefore, when you post pro-MAGA or Q related content, you are essentially putting a red flag before a bull. Doesn’t mean you should refrain from doing so, but when all civility ceases online, keep in mind that you are dealing with deeply confused and damaged people who have little-to-no capacity to deal with reality. Most importantly, it’s okay to take some time off to regain emotional balance from time to time. You’re human, after all.
5. Don’t focus on winning over the radicals, but instead focus on swaying the moderates and the fence-sitters. Always keep in mind that some people are so deeply traumatized by the programming they received in school and at home that they are neurologically incapable of switching to your perspective, and will behave like a cornered animal in the presence of your truth. Such people need serious intervention, which you are not capable of providing right now. Instead, the best you can do is calmly put forth your arguments and reasoning, and remember that others are watching who may well be swayed to your side based on how you handle yourself.
   1. We humans tend to require feedback to know how we’re “doing” at something. Unfortunately, you will often feel like you’re howling into an endless abyss when telling the truth online, because it’s unlikely that people will openly tell you, “hey you changed my mind!” So just remember, like I said in point 3, that you are almost certainly doing a better job than you realize. This is a situation where heaps upon heaps of optimism is not only warranted, it is the most rational perspective you can take.
6. Focus on those things you feel you really understand and grasp — there is so MUCH info to digest via Q’s posts that it’s unrealistic for many of us to become a full-blown scholar in the whole Q narrative and online battle. So, in order to be effective and to manage your time, I would recommend taking a subject or two that you really care about and making that your focus. Whether it’s pizzagate, COVID-19 coverups, election interference, etc., I highly recommend developing your expertise in a targeted fashion. This will save you much time and many headaches.
   1. This is not to suggest that you should be “silent” about all other topics. However, a good strategy in some cases is to play a supportive role for another digital soldier, rather than leading the charge yourself. If we all developed areas of expertise where we feel comfortable taking charge, and then played supportive roles where the topic of conversation at hand is better lead by a fellow digital soldier, then our presence online will be significantly more effective.
   2. Allow your heart to guide you into the topics that you wish to study in depth.
7. Focus more on discrediting the MSM than “proving” that Q is real. This also goes for anti-Trump so-called “alternative” media.
8. Try to match the tone as best as possible of the people you engage. If someone clearly has no intention of taking anything you say seriously, it’s enough to ignore them or tweet back a single “lol” at them in response to whatever they say. Refuse to take haters seriously, and you will win. As for those who are more reasonable, treat them in kind and try to take their position seriously if they are doing the same for you.
9. Never forget that your friends, family, and acquaintances who are scared shyte-less because of the MSM are, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed members of a cult. For information on how to break cult programming, look into the work of a man named Ted Patrick, aka “Black Lightning”. What Ted Patrick did for individuals, Q is doing for an entire world.

Q Post 4509

4509

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield – Together We Win

Q

!!Hs1Jq13jV6

24 Jun 2020 – 1:01:36 PM

You have been selected to help serve your Country.

Never retreat from the battlefield [Twitter, FB, etc.].

Use other platforms as a form of centralized command and control.

Organize and connect [bridge through linking].

Source meme(s) material from battlefield and/or garage [highlight & share][take & drop]

Mission 1: Dispute [reject] propaganda push through posting of research and facts

Mission 2: Support role of other digital soldiers [one falls another stands (rises)]

Mission 3: Guide [awaken] others through use of facts [DECLAS 1-99 material and other relevant facts] and memes [decouple MSDNC control of info stream] _ask ‘counter’ questions to initiate ‘thought’ vs repeat [echo] of MSDNC propaganda

Mission 4: Learn use of camouflage [digitally] _primary account suspended-terminated _use of secondary

Mission 5: Identify strengths / weaknesses [personal and designated target(s)] re: Twitter & FB [+other] example re: meme(s) failure to read through use of ALGO [think Tron (MCP_master control program)] _dependence on person-to-person capture [slow response time unidentified user(s)]

Game theory.

Information warfare.

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Together we win.

Q

Alright, that’s all I got for today. More info is on it’s way.

Thank you all for your patience, I will try to post more regularly, time and circumstances permitting.

 – Conscious Optimist

Justin Deschamps here.

For years, I’ve used the above methods to great effect. I just had a conversation with a 21-year-old today and we had a great mind-expanding discussion, wherein each of us walked away with more knowledge.

I wanted to add a few more tips and also share a real-time example I just posted had the other day on social media.

I’ve been discussing controversial ideas, sometimes in very heated arguments, for over a decade online. I’ve had some great moments along with making some really big mistakes, learning from them in the process. I hope to share what I have learned so you can:

1. Avoid embarrassment,
2. Not push away your loved ones,
3. And help give others whatever truth bread crumbs you’ve gathered in your adventures.

Openminded Expert

As Conscious Optimist says, becoming an expert is key. But do so with an open mind. If you think you know it all, you’ll prevent yourself from learning more.

Psychologically, if you refuse to accept the valid point of someone you’re talking to or encounter information you can’t disprove, rejecting it without a valid reason, you’ll start to distort your true knowledge into false knowledge.

This happens to people all the time.

So be sure to stand under the truth.

Avoid cherry-picking truths you want to support a limited and biased perspective of reality.

Remember, the truth is an infinite reality, and your knowledge is finite, which means you’ll always have something more to learn. If you keep an open mind, you can gain more knowledge, even from people you’re arguing with.

Always Do You Research and Fact Check Everything as Best You Can

It’s difficult to discuss topics with the goal of helping others see the truth if you yourself don’t understand why something is true.

The “science” of knowledge, epistemology, is an ancient and proven philosophy of evaluating facts and claims to see if they are really true.

This book is a short and effective tool to understand how to do this.

Book How Do We Know?: An Introduction to Epistemology (The Philosophy of Discernment)

I also wrote an article in 2018 that breaks down the key principles of discernment, the same ones used by scientists, investigators, detectives, and statisticians: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

Some Tips

My first tip is to make sure you know what you’re talking about. Any fact that you believe to be true, you should work hard to really know it yourself, by understanding why. This is what a true authority is, someone who has a command of the information—a true master not a false one. Do you believe it is true because you accept an expert or because you did the research yourself and have a grasp of the core data? Who do you trust more, the guy who actually goes outside to tell you it’s raining or the guy who just trusts the weatherman? First-hand knowledge and understanding makes you an expert, not a popular belief, or a rubber stamp of correctness.

This leads me to…

My second tip is to make your focus the use of discussion to gain more knowledge by trying to cooperate with your opponent. Don’t try to win the argument, try to share information, and see if you can, through persuasion, get someone on the truth-seeking side. This means, share your opinions and claims as if you think the person is interested in working with you to figure out what’s really going on. Assume they value the truth above being right, and frame your speech in that way. Of course, most people don’t know how to do this and their social defenses make this difficult, but this is the truth-seekers high ground. Most people, even if you are right, will never admit you are and will use all sorts of logical fallacies to appear right. Don’t let appearances deceive you. Let your facts and earnest desire to broker common ground stand and this is what makes you “the better person” when it comes to integrity, which wins more hearts and minds than appearing right. On social media, your debates are a spectator sport. This means, if you use good principles of truth sharing and discourse, which I’ll show in an example below, they will see that you are right in principle and took the truth-seekers high ground, which helps win the “war for truth” instead of focusing on the “battle of being right.”

My third tip is to frame your facts, comments, and claims, as suspicions not things you unquestionably believe. This prevents you from getting emotionally defensive when someone shares a fact that invalidates yours. If you really are a truth-seeker, don’t claim absolute certainty because that’s impossible. Instead, claim “this is what I think is true, based on this argument and evidence, but I’m open to a better argument.” This naturally invites people to participate with you in refining the information, making it cooperation instead of a competition. Also, this method of sharing your beliefs as suspicions means when you are proven wrong, and you will be, it won’t trigger the irrational social self-defense psychology in your brain.

My fourth tip is to play the long game. Don’t try to win the truth-battle right there and then. Don’t try to get an admission from someone you’re in a debate with that they are wrong and you are right. The vast majority of people are terrified to admit they were wrong. If you press it, this will close them off to what you’re trying to share. A better technique is to find some common ground, even if it’s just a tiny sliver, and feed whatever you can into that, which over time, using non-combative methods, will grow and blossom into more open-mindedness. To do this, take anything someone says that you know to be true and make sure to explicitly agree with them: “Yes you’re right. Did you also know…” It’s better to keep the personal connection alive by finding belief-common-ground and then feed into that over time. Often times, if you use this method, you can drip in your ideas as “things to think about” and as long as you aren’t pushing too hard, they will naturally grow into an expansion of their thinking.

In closing, I want to also say that the battle is of ideas, not people.

Psychologically, we’re naturally guarded about our beliefs and values because these things help us form social attachments and frame ingroup status. There is an entire neurological system in our brains that rewards or punish us for social connections. The same system (the limbic brain and the amygdala) that trigger when you’re being physically tortured are also triggered when you feel socially threatened. This means you will feel intense emotions when engaging in debates, discussions, and at times, heated arguments. This is especially true if you try to argue with people in your social attachment group.

Our deceived friends are the foot soldiers of the DS info war. Like the civil war, we battle our loved ones, our brothers, our countrymen. True facts are swords; Compassion our shield. Thus, we strive to let truth win without crushing the soul of those possessed by lies—our kin.

— Justin Deschamps | Truth Social @Justindeschamps (@JustinStillness) July 23, 2020

Example Debate

Here is an exchange I had with someone online. Their name and original comments have been changed.

The context of this discussion was rather charged and confrontational. I knew that they weren’t interested in budging from their position or brokering a friendship, and so the strategy here was to cite logical fallacies and inconsistencies more so than hold back in favor of a longer-lasting discussion. In this case, the goal was to address inaccuracies so that onlookers can gain something from the exchange—spectator debiting. In online debates, people are almost always unwilling to have a discussion beyond the moment. So you can use it as a venue to share facts and maintain a non-combative stance, meaning you aren’t calling them names or being verbally abusive.

I took the strategy of using the discussion to have a record of ideas being expressed then trying to maintain a social connection that the person was never interested in maintaining in the first place. But in real life, especially with people you live with and see regularly, being more reserved and diplomatic is a more appropriate tactic.

Commenter

QAnon is a radical right-wing conspiracy group that had 7000 accounts removed from Twitter because they are violent extremists. They push conspiracy theories that have been proven untrue by mainstream sources. They sound like socialists because their motto is Where We Go One We Go All. If Trump really was going after child sex rings and the Deep State, why was he on Epstein’s island? This is just a bunch of people seeing that the world is corrupt and wanting to believe in the cult-like rhetoric because of confirmation bias. It’s dangerous because some of these Q people went into a Washington DC pizza shop and threatened the owner and had weapons. One of them killed a guy saying he was a deep state pawn. And others threatened to blow up Hoover Dam. All of them were believing in lies. Just because something is proven wrong doesn’t mean the opposite is right. They both can be false. Most of the QAnon people I know are good people who just believe anything they see online that supports their beliefs. They are well-intentioned but gullible people.

My Response

I’ve researched QAnon for 3 years. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest the material is valid and quite factual. In this video, they list over 50 different examples that remain unrebutted.

I’m curious if you can substantially invalidate any of them as I have not ben able to, nor found anyone who could. I use epistemological methods, (used in science, statistics, and the legal system) as a basis of evaluation. I do not resort to appeals to authority, reductio ad absurdum, or incredulity arguments to support these evaluations, which I often see in mainstream media pieces that attempt to discredit Q, and fail to materially address any of the facts.

In many cases, the media’s “Debunkings” are nothing of but reductionist arguments using faulty logic and duplicitous smearing.

I hope you can back up your claim Commenter because if you’re right it would certainly make the banning of Q Anon accounts on twitter less alarming. If not, then as far as I can tell, we’re witnessing nothing less than a mass digital book burning, which historically is associated with the furtherance of autocratic policies and totalitarianism in nations that let it go on unchecked (e.g. Nazi Germany, Leninist Russia, and Maoist China).

I Look forward to reading your response.

Commenter

Thanks for providing the information Justin. Before I watch anything on YouTube, I check the sources. I did not watch your video because it was posted by a source that I can’t confirm who it is. I have a real problem with videos or any information when I don’t know who is behind it. How else can you determine how true it is unless you know who is funding it. I know QAnon doesn’t push violence but the people who believe in it do. The basis of Q seems to be a rehash of other theories and information. Because it’s on YouTube means it’s suspect and the fact there isn’t a name behind it makes it even less credible. I didn’t look at any of the information, but I checked for sources at the end of the video and found nothing but youtube sources. The truth is subjective, it changes all the time, and you can’t know if anything is true other than what’s inside.

My Response

I understand the concern around sourcing. As a researcher as well as a legal investigator, dismissing information because of a questionable source isn’t a valid way to disprove its validity. I understand that it can be hard to know what is true because claims of truth change all the time, but the truth itself never changes. The fact you use statements of objective truth means you likely agree on this.

When it comes to validity, a claim of truth’s validity is first assessed by how well it describes the observed phenomenon and second by what evidence is used to support the claim, taking each point of fact and assessing it by reducing it down to observational components.

A known lair can tell the truth and a trusted source can be known to lie.

The dismissal or acceptance of data has to be done empirically if not, this is called an appeal to authority fallacy. And all manner of insidiousness has been furthered in our world by those who rest their conclusions on appeals to authority, like the people who accepted the idea of people being “human weeds”, which Margaret Sanger used to justify her mass sterilization program of Eugenics in the first part of the 20th century.

It comes down to, how do you know the sources who are characterizing Q are really truthful? As someone who has studied the data myself, and the criminal cases you raised—again using the proven methods I cited earlier—would not the person who has examined the evidence have more insight than someone who is merely citing an authority? Would it not be fair, despite the questionable source to at least give the evidence a fair day in court? Do you want to really know if you are being deceived? I certainly did, that’s why I looked.

To your point about Q followers going on to do criminal things, I agree that some followers have done things. But that isn’t a justification to summarily and blindly characterize an entire body of information as inherently violent, as many media sources have done. Information cannot be refuted as valid based on an evaluation of what people do with that information. By that measure, some Black Lives Matter followers have gone on to commit untold violence against thousands of people, damage property, and expended massive resources by law enforcement to combat rioters. Of course, not all followers have done this, but some have.

Why isn’t Twitter banning them?

Why hasn’t the media similarly characterized BLM as an extremist movement, if they are using the same standards of assessment?

More to the point, people commit crimes for various reasons. The legal process—and the foundations of law used by most of the world, specifically the US,—do not address violence as a group phenomenon of ideology. If we did, we’d have banned the KKK and Black Panthers decades ago, to cite a few examples. Freedom of speech and mind allows people to consume data all sorts of openly violent rhetoric, but we as a society address behavior, not ideas, when it comes to criminality. Specifically, just because you believe in something or consume information about something doesn’t make you a criminal. It’s an intention to commit a crime and behavior that causes harm. We address crime and illegal behavior at the individual level, not by labeling anyone who subscribes or is associated with an ideology as inherently guilty. Innocent till proven guilty is the foundation of our legal process, and lawfully, this has merit.

We can boil this down to what seems like an agenda to censor and criminalize one group over another, changing the rules as whoever is behind this sees fit.

Our law system wasn’t founded on such a standard. And history has proven, as I cited earlier, that when a society begins to do this, and the people don’t respond accordingly by defending everyone’s rights, fascism is soon to follow.

End

1/4 How do two people with unique valid knowledge share it without triggering an irrational unproductive argument?

Diplomacy.

— Justin Deschamps | Truth Social @Justindeschamps (@JustinStillness) July 13, 2020

The preceding is a Stillness in the Storm original creation. Please share freely. 

Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?

The rule of law is a phrase that refers to the divine Creator’s will with respect to humanity and the cosmic ideals of existence. The Creator gave each creature inalienable rights and gave to the universe at large the concept of the rule of law, which is the method by which each creature’s rights are protected and held sacred. When an individual recognizes this ultimate spiritual value and works to master it in their own lives, they stand as an exemplar for others to do the same. When a culture enshrines these values and educates their children in them, that society is destined to produce a golden age civilization. Such a utopia will live on forever, for all intents and purposes, so long as each citizen willingly takes on the responsibility of breathing life into this divine and cosmic truth and ideal. But when a culture begins to devalue rights and responsibilities in favor of a perfect world without civil participation, that society is eventually doomed to be overrun by tyrants and usupers—”evil ones” who take advantage of the people’s collective ignorance. Eventually, deceivers and tyrants transform the culture to suit their despotic and twisted agenda of power over others. The world we live in today is one marked by a people ignorant of this cosmic truth and scared ideal by those deceivers who seek to claim power for themselves at the cost of others. But the spirit of freedom always rises again. And if the people are willing, they can renew this spirit with each generation, ensuring that the temptations of power and the laziness of a people who want prosperity without taking responsibility, do not cause another age of darkness. The preceding information speaks to these ultimate questions and values hopefully impressing upon those who read it that to enjoy a perfect society of freedom and prosperity, all must find within themselves the courage to care about safeguarding it, for themselves and the posterity of all. 

– Justin

Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

---

Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.

Source:

Embedded Throughout This Article

Featured Image