Who is @Q? (Part Three: He's One of Them!)
Society's most dangerous bogeyman may have returned on Truth Social. Why isn't the media warning us?
A few months after first looking into Q, I was banned from Twitter and Instagram for posting conspiracy theories that are all now proven and accepted facts. None of what I was posting was related to Q in the slightest. I barely knew anything about Q. I knew what I believed from my own independent research and that’s what I posted.
All Q posts have to do is cause people to focus on relevant issues now. It could not be simpler. People are smart. They’re especially smart when working in unison to gain the broadest understanding of any given issue. If you know where to look, there is news about reality from across the world, available in real-time, without the filters imposed on us by the censorship regime. The media only reports real events when they become some sort of problem, often weeks, months, or years later. People addicted to the Central Narrative are consistently weeks, months, or years behind reality about issues of critical importance. For the rest of us, observing reality while it happens is like traveling through a time machine, into the future, while Don Lemon’s audience exists stuck in a false past where everything is a lie about what you saw mommy and daddy doing. “I was just helping her look under the bed! You didn’t see what you saw! Never speak of this again!”
Would it have mattered if enough of society was engaged in observing reality when we were being sold two years of covid lockdowns and other unconstitutional violations of our civil rights? Would it have been good to be, let’s say, a year ahead of the mainstream media curve on vaccine safety before sticking it your kid? I’m not a parent, but I’m going to assume I know their thinking here. If they have not yet thought about it, can you call them parents?
I am not mad about being banned. It was my mistake for posting unauthorized information. Now, I understand that The Science™ has changed. The things I said were conspiracy theories at the time. Since then, they’ve become true. My information was not true back when I said it, we’re told, although the information I shared has not changed. As the self-described genius, Scott Adams would say, I was right for the wrong reasons. (According to him - he was wrong for the right reasons). Someday, I hope to hear how exactly The Science™ changed.
My departure from legacy social media opened a world of unencumbered conversation that I hadn’t experienced since studying philosophy in college. People would ask questions. Other people would chime in with what they know. People would tell me where to look for information or suggest looking into a connected issue that might spark my interest. If I was wrong about something, they’d explain what I was missing and provide evidence to support their point of view.
On Twitter, professional conspiracy theorists from prominent universities and media conglomerates manufacture and distribute the latest Slogans, none of which shall be challenged. They do this because they benefit from doing it. It serves a higher goal. A higher power, if you will.
On alternative platforms, it was the Wild, Wild West. Anything goes. It’s a different world without censorship. Yes, I had to look up what a glowie was. No, I couldn’t make someone stop saying unauthorized words by clicking ‘Report’.
Was I offended by hearing the no-no words? Sometimes, depending on how they were used. But not compared to being told I was a Nazi for wearing a red ballcap, without a mask on, while running in a public park by masked-up, rich, white ladies. Being told you’re a Nazi by the people who “elected” George Gascon and are currently supporting actual Nazis in Ukraine right now, that’s offensive. Likewise, the word planefag is certainly less offensive than the suggestion that the unvaccinated should be segregated from society.
Insane people, being supremely offensive in expressing their hatred of strangers based on their apparel, is a more dangerous trend than seeing no-no words online. I could be called any manner of -ist or -phobe for typing that, for even thinking it. I could immediately incur the wrath of hateful strangers for simply suggesting that a MAGA hat is not a hate symbol.
This isn’t a matter of degrees. The same people, knowing nothing about Ukraine, are “standing with” them, which necessitates them standing with George Soros - who helped pack the Nazi trains - and a legitimate, real-life, modern-day Nazi movement that simply is not a conspiracy theory. Our fellow citizens are literally declaring their allegiance with an actual Nazi movement and our corporations are promoting it. We are censored for pointing it out.
Those controlling things from the top have given themselves the power to censor all discussion that could cause them, or people like them, to feel like their ignorant and one-dimensional worldview, received and repeated, is wrong. What we’re left with is an acceptable range of viewpoints so small that nearly every member of society lives in permanent fear over which unwritten rule they might break around which person. Eventually, these people will begin practicing self-censorship because the trouble of telling the truth simply isn’t worth the blowback. This is now true about almost every subject that affects our lives.
The few open channels for free speech that remain have constantly been under attack. Users are tracked and harassed. Channels are subject to constant spam and bot attacks.
Q’s original posting location, 4chan (before 8chan and 8kun), was attacked relentlessly. 4chan users were called racist, white nationalist, terrorist killers who communicated mostly with intentionally misspelled words and extremely rare images of a very versatile cartoon frog. They used their own language and memes, not for keks, as they believed, but as secret code for their bigoted plotting of actual mass murders. If you were a real zany QAnon, you might realize the details of these crimes were murky and had all the makings of FBI-staged false-flag events. Similar to when the FBI staged the plot to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Twelve out of eighteen suspects were affiliated with law enforcement.
But that’s crazy. The FBI doesn’t stage false-flags or hate crimes, that’s Jussie Smollett. The FBI isn’t allowed to do that, because it’s evil. No one would be that evil, so it’s impossible for anyone to do it. Therefore, it did not happen.
Why did the media attempt to destroy 4chan for years, even before Q? I don’t have to condone anyone’s behavior to be certain that any actual problem, if it existed, was being caused by a minute percentage of the people using 4chan. The only way to think otherwise is to intentionally misread what the anonymous users are doing. This is easier because we’ve broadened the definitions of what’s offensive to the point where everything becomes -ist or -phobic as long as an Expert can describe why the behavior is bad in a manner that stupid people will think is smart. We now have Experts on every behavior. They explain why certain behaviors are bad when done by certain people, and why those people are therefore bad.
It’s not hard to understand that a regime bent on full control of thought and speech would do everything it can to try to destroy any platform that guarantees free expression. They do this because the use of propaganda and the forbidding of speech are their most effective tools.
These tools are effective because the ideas supported by propaganda and censorship (two sides of the same coin) are so destructive, so depraved, and so anti-human that no sane person would ever vote for them on complete knowledge. If the ideas were popular and effective, there’d be no problem convincing sane, attentive people to go along. There would be no need to censor anyone if the ideas were appealing to a majority of people. Likewise, there would be no need to steal elections.
As someone who didn’t read a Q post until the second half of 2020, with only a few months of posts (which I paid very little attention to) before Q disappeared, I did not see the research operation in full swing, but much of it still exists and can be analyzed. It is probably the most massive research undertaking in the history of mankind. I’m not even sure that statement can be questioned. Vast libraries of knowledge, accessible to anyone with the curiosity and moral character to simply look.
There are very few subjects affecting today’s political landscape that haven’t been deeply researched by hundreds or thousands or millions of people in and around the Q information phenomenon.
Consider the accuracy and depth of knowledge this implies relative to, say, the New York Times editorial board. In 2020, this group of whiny, attention-obsessed, millennial bloggers got their editor fired for publishing a column by a sitting Senator. Those bloggers did that to hurt Trump by proxy, protect domestic terrorists, and make sure that those zany QAnons wouldn’t find out what the Insurrection Act is. It had the added bonus of keeping Times readers ignorant, as usual, preferring to obsess about ‘cancel culture’.
Trump supporters and people who pay attention to Q posts are portrayed as uneducated and unsophisticated. It’s assumed that they did not go to college, which is not remotely true. Many in the community are experts in their respective fields, participating in the project to share knowledge and consider new questions. People who spend hundreds or thousands of hours researching and considering complex topics have educated themselves far better than any four-year university possibly could. The depth of understanding is incomparable, and it’s absurd to argue otherwise.
Our culture worships college, but can’t describe the reason why. “Education is important!” Really? Then why are there so many thoroughly uneducated people with college degrees? They are simply indoctrinated in a false narrative about a false reality. There isn’t a justification for our cultural worship of degrees. It was just marketing, and we purchased our own indoctrination. It will allow us to ascend to a better class of people, we were told.
The cultural understanding says knowledge must be passed through the official filter of an authority. This in an age when Gender Studies is considered a legitimate field. The degrees and credentials mean nothing if the people possessing them use them for status and protection. Credentials provide legitimacy to everything one might say, even if one is blatantly lying. The educated hold up their diplomas as shields of Expertise while supporting dishonest agendas. Who are you to question a Doctor? Are you a biologist?
For instance: Al Sharpton is a race-grifter who, we’re told, should be taken seriously because he’s a Reverend. The CNN crisis actor and communist, Leana Wen is a Doctor. The criminal drug lord, Anthony Fauci, believes himself to be The Science™. Remove the credentials and call them what they are, see them as they are. There are smarter, more honest people in our society, many of whom have better credentials. Why does the television show us Sharpton, Wen, and Fauci instead?
** The rest of the series will be available shortly for paid subscribers. I will be releasing each part over the coming days, but paid subscribers will be able to access the entire series.
I HEART ANONS merch at www.cancelcouture.com or shop.spreadshirt.com/cancel-couture
Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderator or on Truth Social, Gab, or Gettr @imyourmoderator
Listen at: https://shows.acast.com/bereasonable/ or on your favorite (non-Spotify/Apple) podcast app
Continue to Part Four: