Sleepydude speaks: Bug-related comms analyzed
(sleepydude.substack.com)
Comments (23)
sorted by:
That paragraph talks about diseased ‘lone-star’ ticks being released to kill cows and the population. I honestly I read it as them talking about Texas (the lone star part), and a scheme to move more and more muslims (the ticks) there
Then as the muslims become more populous you push them into government positions and have them start complaining about cow farms and meat production, until new laws ban those farms. The cabal uses muslims as a way to destroy Texas from the inside, just as they do essentially all over.
Perhaps, but just an fyi - Muslims eat beef but won't eat pork
True enough
The cows are code word for Goyim. They love calling us cattle.
When can we play Cowboys & Muslims?!!
Pleeease
You waiting on the Israeli gov to tell you it's ok?
Muslims won't eat pork, but this works against other red meats. Such as Lamb and beef - which Muslims also eat.
Muslims are an attack on America, as deep state sabotage; but the ticks are an attack on mankind.
Its a long AI written Rant that goes nowhere and says nothing important.
AM I missing something? I could not understand the AI Rambling...
I keep asking how people tell it’s AI and I can’t get a straight answer. How can you tell if it is or not?
The sentences are too long with the voice completely undefined. Although the sentences are punctuated grammatically, no human writer goes to these lengths to frame one sentence that makes a multitude of phrases into one long, rambling, barely readable paragraph. And those quotes, yes, they are a dead giveaway too.
All those uses of "quotation marks" around certain words and phrases. Happens much more frequently than a regular writer would do it. Count how many times you see that, I stopped counting after a "dozen."
It's hard to tell with text
The “bugs” are active. The “ticks” are spreading. The regions tied to old power, politics, finance, and population centers are being targeted first.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-ticks-spreading-us-bites-spark-warning-11919720
What if the "tick" was a human-sized retard: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzE5MzdlYmEtNGMwMi00ZTU3LTg1MDctYjk4ZDM4MjNmOTRlXkEyXkFqcGc@.V1_FMjpg_UX1000.jpg
The giant blue hero represents over-the-top justice / unstoppable force. He looks silly, but he is strong. That is the point: truth may look ridiculous at first, but when it moves, it hits hard.
Fake and ghey
Insect comms? Jesus H Christ
Makes sense. We'll be alert.
Does it? Could you explain it to me?
It is pretty straight forward, and seems simple and logical. Sleepydude is a much better writer than I, so I am stymied as to how I could make it any more succinct.
Summarize it. All I understand is ticks suck and are bugs. What was the main point being made? I read the start, middle and end, even the conclusion did have anything that made sense.
There is no summary. It's a detailed list of all possibilities and their possible meaning. I just think if we start seeing lot of stories about bugs, we need to be alert to possible comms. Like all those stories about celebrities losing their dogs a few years ago.
In “Long Comms: Ticks,” the author interprets public discussions about ticks, meat allergies, climate change, and figures such as Bill Gates through a self-described “Comms” or symbolic-code framework, arguing that “ticks” are not primarily literal parasites but metaphors for extortionists, informants, spies, and manipulators who ingratiate themselves with targets, gather personal information, exploit vulnerabilities, and use leverage or blackmail to control people. The essay builds an elaborate symbolic dictionary in which blood represents family or social ties, disease represents reputational or operational damage, meat represents power and influence, and bugs represent surveillance assets. Using this framework, the author claims that narratives about engineered ticks and meat allergies are coded references to systems of social control, surveillance, and coercion, ultimately arguing that “ticks” symbolize actors who get close to individuals, compromise them through association or planted evidence, and then drain them of influence, autonomy, or social standing.