QAnon and the destruction of a pseudoreality

There is an important difference between "QAnon" and Q's anons

As events in the world hot up, and Q drops from 4 years ago align to active military comms and daily happenings, it is worth me putting a few words down to articulate something that many people know, but is not widely analysed. The label “QAnon” has acquired a specific meaning, and that meaning is attached to a synthetic reality as part of a disinformation campaign.

The Q drops draw attention to allegations of systemic corruption by the ruling establishment. They appear to be consistently attributable to a single source which is associated with military intelligence. The exact details are not important in this context; all that matters is that they exist as a widely agreed phenomenon, and there is no general dispute as to what comprises a legitimate Q drop or its contents.

“Anons” are a collective term for those who have observed and analysed these Q drops, and researched their implications. There is a wide variety of interpretation of what the drops mean, and how they relate to the wider context of world affairs and geopolitics. There is substantive agreement that the Q drops are an intentional program of information disclosure and steering of public opinion. That said, it is a matter of fact that there is dispute over both the truth of the allegations, and the best sense of the Q drops.

The evidence of widespread paedophilia, election fraud, abuses of power, treasonous foreign allegiances, fraudulent institutions, etc is well documented — so the question is one of degree and incidence, not the existence of such wrongdoing. Naturally, no corrupt establishment wants its crimes raked over, especially when it already has ruthless control over the mass media (via ownership, funding, blackmail, intimidation, and infiltration).

The Q drops achieved considerable success in drawing attention to these crimes, and coalescing a critical mass of people rejecting the “official [controlled] narrative”. As such, they pose a threat to the credibility and power of the ruling establishment, since it allows the co-existence of counter-narratives that undermine the legitimacy of their exercise of power. This left the incumbent powers with a quandary on how to respond to the Q drops.

The initial approach of pure mockery and ridicule against the allegations failed. Simply ignoring the Q drops was not an option, since the silence of itself would speak volumes, by giving credibility to the charge of the media running cover for serious crimes against humanity. Thus it was necessary to respond with a more sophisticated propaganda and disinformation program. This is why the current “pseudoreality” of “QAnon” was created.

The overall phenomenon of discussion of the Q drops was originally associated with the hashtag #QAnon. This was in a sense “neutral”, in that it was adopted by both advocates and detractors. The meaning of this term was then hijacked by the media, and it was given corrupted semantics unrelated to both the Q drops, and the diversity of opinion of anons who made sense of them. Instead, it was made to look absurd and disreputable, discouraging anyone from looking at the Q source data or supporting research by anons.

The framing of “QAnon” is as a rival “hive mind” monolithic belief system to the official narrative. The choice is presented as one of two pre-packaged belief systems, neither of which involves critical thinking, variability of opinion, or contests of ideas. A false binary choice is given, with the fraudulently defined alternative to “just believe whatever we say” being made to look absurd and dangerous.

The underlying data from the drops is never, ever referenced, so this is not political science in action! Normal journalistic inquiry into who might be the source of the Q data is completely avoided, since any “official” link forces accountability for claims made. “QAnon” is reported with highly emotive and biased language whose sole purpose is to misdirect the reader and manipulate their feelings. Unsubstantiated slurs are repeated — “cult”, “extremist”, “violent”, “antisemitic” — in the expectation of making the mud stick.

A media trick that is used often is to extrapolate from the individual to the collective. A story about some personality or event — which itself may be a set-up — is then misused to represent the values and beliefs of all anons. Thus personal rational inquiry into the phenomenon of the Q drops is tarnished; it is a “no go zone” for “reputable” academics and commentators since the very act of questioning is deemed disreputable.

The moment you touch upon any of the “hot topics” of establishment criminality, victims of mass media brainwashing are triggered to associate that keyword with the “official narrative” pseudoreality of “QAnon” — where no such misbehaviour ever exists, by construction. Thus any hypothesised crime is deemed already disproven, and those who continue to question the underlying facts and reality are outcasts and fools. The parallel construction of a “QAnon” is used to distract the public from both the Q drops and the research work of anons. It is a masterpiece of mind control.

The 2020 election fraud sting op seems to be wrapping up, the January 6th trap now is boomeranging on the accusers, and the Covid scamdemic narrative is fast collapsing with Omicron. The paradox now is that for Q to be validated, and the anons to be vindicated, means the simultaneous destruction of “QAnon”. The very thing the deceived imagine they have rejected is itself a synthetic reality — constructed out of nothing to fool them into ignoring what has objectively been going on.

The good news is that this process will expose the methods of disinformation campaigns, albeit in a rather humiliating way for the intelligentsia. They refused to look at source data, and took the words of propagandists as being the final say. The collapse of “QAnon” as a  corporate media pseudoreality will help to immunise our culture against repeats of such wicked social engineering feats. After “QAnon” is gone, we will be left with just Q and the anons, which is how it should be.