Understanding #QAnon as the antidote to authority
by Martin Geddes, December 29, 2019
We are currently immersed in an unconventional war. Everyone I know senses the intense social and political conflict, unlike any we have experienced before in our lives. Clashing narratives divide families, friends and work colleagues. The war does not yet have an accepted name, but it can be seen as a continuation and culmination of many “hot” and “cold” wars over the past century and more.
This war pitches a global Structural Elite (aka the Deep State or The Establishment) against a popular uprising across multiple countries, most notably the USA. A self-sustaining psychopathic culture has covertly ruled over the populace via criminal control of banking, media, government, academia, industry, religion, and the military. It involves mafia-like families, secret societies and extensive hoarding of information.
We are being gradually exposed to some of this dark power system’s mechanisms: blackmail centres like Epstein Island, pay-for-play networks such as with the Clintons and Bidens, sexual slavery with groups like NXIVM, and (if you’ve been paying attention) even baby farms.
Add in human trafficking, imported militias and lots of very powerful paedophiles. It’s stomach churning and treacherous stuff, and much worse is to come.
The most potent of these corrupt social control systems is the corporate mass media. Q is the “antidote” military operation, designed to break their narrative-setting power permanently. I have previously described this Q phenomenon at the highest level with my essay WWG1WGA — The Greatest Communication Event in History, which introduces the catch-22 that Q constructs for the #FakeNews.
I later unpacked this analysis with The 4 Functions of Q. The last of these functions is Q as an “information weapon against institutionalised crime and corrupted media”. Let me expand a little on how I see Q as a weapon on a complex information battlefield. By the end of this article, I hope you will have a clearer “lens” through which to make sense of mainstream coverage of #QAnon.
(A quick aside for the new and confused: the “Q team” produces the information “drops” now on 8kun.net; “QAnons” are ordinary, anonymous people on such social media websites; “#QAnon” is the media-friendly hashtag often used in headlines to represent the movement as a whole.)
What we are being asked to do via Q is to reconsider at a fundamental level what “information” is in the context of world affairs. This involves a paradigm shift from the “authoritative news” model of the corporate media to the “sauced bread” model of social media sites like 4chan and 8kun. Let’s first examine the familiar process of getting our “daily news-fix” via TV, radio and the press.
The corporate media is heavily branded — think BBC, CNN, Reuters — and is run by professional journalists. They seek data from public and insider sources, produce and edit their work in private, and then (for print media) present their insights and opinions under their own byline. Mainstream journalists depend on the distribution power of their publications or programmes to get them an audience.
Central to this distribution model is the authority of the brand. You are invited to believe what you read or hear, even if sources are anonymous and writers unknown to you, because the brand is a trusted authority. So a New York Times opinion piece is seen as having more authority to identical words from the same author published on a personal blog.
Most journalists are reasonably honest and honorable, for sure. But it only takes (blackmail and extortion) control over a few proprietors, editors, and hiring managers to effectively have control over the medium itself. The claim of many of us is that there is an “attack surface” against the mass media — and that it has been extensively exploited by highly sophisticated criminals. As such, the appearance of authority is being used to further corrupt ends and cover for organised crime.
This is where #QAnon comes in as an information weapon. It is an unprecedented challenge to the foundation of public trust and belief in the mass media. The mass media is forced to position #QAnon as a rival “authority” source, and one which is hilariously lacking in brand credibility.
That is because under no circumstances must the corporate media allow the audience to reconsider whether “authority” is a helpful pointer to truth.
The mainstream media (MSM) audience has outsourced their power to think for themselves to external authority — and this authority is gaslighting and exploiting them. If they realise the seriousness of the betrayal, then it is “game over” for the #FakeNews.
Let me say that again, more slowly. The mainstream media positions #QAnon as a thing you “believe in”, or are a “follower of”, like some kind of New Age spiritual cult. Those who “follow Q” are depicted as mindless morons, not critical thinkers. Their data, arguments and insights are accepted and dismissed as a collective, not as free-thinking individuals.
This is because the corporate media’s claim to legitimacy is founded upon you believing they solely have authority to define ‘reality’, so you should (uncritically) believe them.
In particular, when they speak with one voice you presume that there must be an underlying truth, because you do no see the coordination mechanism. They appear to be multiple independent sources, but are in fact controlled by corrupt intelligence agencies. This is the cruel mass mind control trick that is being perpetrated against the public.
From the MSM’s perspective, #QAnon is an unbranded, unprofessional, unsourced set of text and image posts on an exotic and unruly social media site. In their paradigm it has zero authority — so you should not believe any of it. Indeed, it’s so patently absurd that anyone could treat such a thing seriously, you shouldn’t even entertain the idea of going there and looking at the raw data for yourself.
Of course, the reality is they know Q is an existential threat; but to ignore Q raises questions, and they are only left with feeble hit pieces on #QAnon to maintain the illusion of authority.
The “authority” model extends to the big social media platforms, too. They are also in the business of only allowing you to promote the “official narrative” — not challenging it. As this Newstarget article on censorship notes (my emphasis):
Big Tech’s excuse for engaging in this mass censorship agenda is that it is somehow necessary in order to promote “authoritative information.” But as Adams explains, “authoritative information” is simply a fancy misnomer to categorize deep state propaganda.
When you (unconsciously) buy into the current “authority” media model, you will continue to accept whatever lies and propaganda that the mass media pushes your way, and you will reject alternative data like Q because it lacks the authority you (wrongly) believe is a proxy for truth. This is the trap we see many of those dear to us struggling to escape: incredulity stops them seeing the coordinated propaganda reality.
It’s hardly surprising when the MSM won’t help you by showing you how to read Q drops, or pointing you at the most interesting parts. Because… guess what? The information in these “drops” comprises the most explosive political scandals in history, including their own complicity in serious criminality!
“Q followers” have been watching these scandals slowly unfold for the last two years, waiting for the hammer to finally fall on the crowds of crooks. Q drops have often foreshadowed events in a way only a plan with military precision could account for. It looks like the fun is about to really get going with Spygate/FISAgate, with the Clinton Foundation in the spring/summer.
By allowing someone else to tell you what to think you have ceded your own authority. The mainstream news is 6-18 months behind understanding of events of “Q followers”. There’s a real cost to pay of being “out of touch” — yet seemingly having the comfort of the crowd.
The Q drops are constructed to initially appeal to those who are the most skeptical and open minded, and thus have the least utility for “authority” as a short cut to veracity. In other words, the QAnon project has created a nucleus community of critical thinkers, around which the public can assemble to reclaim the authority to decide for themselves.
It’s as if the diseased Official Narrative “hive mind” is having a new “hive” built next to it, and Q is the Queen bee of this cleansed new narrative environment. There’s no precedent in history for this happening that I know of, although there are many “narrative collapses” like the end of the USSR.
Q is core to a new citizen media that usurps the untrustworthy mass media as their brand-authority model collapses. This is not about citizens working as unpaid journalists, replicating the existing corporate media model. We are not offering ourselves as a more authoritative and trustworthy kind of news operation per se. Citizen media happens when citizens accept that the only acceptable authority is themselves.
The model of the “chans” (where Q lives) is a template for how collaborative investigative journalism can be produced. It is a very different paradigm. Collective data “crumbs” with “sauce” (i.e. hard evidence, not opinion) are openly assembled by volunteers into the “bread” and “buns” by “bakers”. Rather than news bulletins there are “notables” summaries capturing the most interesting threads.
Nobody tells you what to think. It’s the opposite for corporate journalism: an open process, stripped of personal and institutional branding. There is no authority tied to individuals or corporate logos.
The data that emerges from that process, as well as parallel endeavours on Twitter and elsewhere, then feeds into a new distribution system: ordinary people have “hijacked” social media for citizen journalism to bypass the controlled mass media. We’re only as authoritative as our personal reputations or (where necessary) pseudonyms.
You don’t have to believe anything I say, but I reckon you’d be dumb to accept the word of a NYT journalist over mine because of their brand. In this paradigm, a New York Times opinion piece arguably has less authority to identical words from the same author published on a personal blog. The very idea of “authority from corporate being” is discredited.
We citizen journalists are such a threat to the established order that these social media platforms are being forced to expose themselves as censorship engines. For example, Twitter won’t let me add any followers right now: their behaviour is obviously fraudulent.
What was set up to be a surveillance and censorship system has been turned back upon its criminal creators (and have no illusions, companies like Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have a LOT of nasty legal problems ahead).
This is also why the idea of Q as a “Qult” is laughable: the only demand that Q places upon us is to think for ourselves. There are no mandatory doctrines, no membership list. It’s the perfected antithesis of a cult, which demands unquestioning belief in an authority, with coercive penalties for apostasy.
I was going to delve into the detail of the specific mechanisms by which Q deconstructs belief in institutional authority, and replaces it with sovereign person authority. Plausible deniability and information osmosis will have to wait for another day. If you take one thing away from this Sunday evening essay it is this: you cannot simultaneously believe in the authority of media brands to tell you what to think — and also be truly thinking for yourself.
It’s one or the other: make your choice wisely.
(I’m with Q and the critical thinkers.)