Q source / Qanon
- Thread starter Rhythmik
- Start date
angelburst29
The Living Force
You mean .... I bought the "wolf tickets" ... and ... AND ...
...
this is goin' hurt
... Ah Jeezzz ... !!!
It's all good!
meta-agnostic
Jedi Master
Don't have a ton of time at the moment to go through all this point-by-point, maybe later. But, 1) investmentwatchblog and specifically Ruby Henley was the same source who a few pages back in this thread tried to discredit Q by quoting a fake Q post. Just saying. 2) Is Q supposed to be a PsyOp or a LARP? Or both? Because from what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between those positions, yet both get used to discredit by the same sources, sometimes in the same article.
I'm committed to remaining agnostic as to the exact nature of Q, as in, always open to new information coming in that frames things in a new light. But some of the sources aiming to discredit (Corsi, Jones, et al) and the methods, have their own set of problems. If Q was "real" early on and somehow got compromised, isn't that a fundamentally different position than that it was always "fake"? Perhaps, after 14 pages, the original intent of this thread could be used to put this puppy to bed once and for all, at least in the eyes of this forum? Not making a demand, just wondering. It all continues to be interesting and educational to try and make sense of.
I'm committed to remaining agnostic as to the exact nature of Q, as in, always open to new information coming in that frames things in a new light. But some of the sources aiming to discredit (Corsi, Jones, et al) and the methods, have their own set of problems. If Q was "real" early on and somehow got compromised, isn't that a fundamentally different position than that it was always "fake"? Perhaps, after 14 pages, the original intent of this thread could be used to put this puppy to bed once and for all, at least in the eyes of this forum? Not making a demand, just wondering. It all continues to be interesting and educational to try and make sense of.
Possible evidence of divide & conquer (or something!) working on "patriot community." Apparent impact of Q on Jones' show, with my only, unscientific, metric being average number of views of full uploads of his show on YouTube from the same uploading account (YouTube's hit counts are possibly not reliable). Last few weeks: 15K to 19K views per show. First quarter 2018: 19K to 25K views per show. Two years ago: 25K to 50K per show with several much higher, as high as 122K per show. Traffic appears to be down at least 50%.
Corsi decodes Q: recently 1K to 3K views. Several months ago: 4K to 8K views. Traffic appears to be down about 65%.
Corsi decodes Q: recently 1K to 3K views. Several months ago: 4K to 8K views. Traffic appears to be down about 65%.
The decrease in views could very likely be related to the suppression of websites and channels via Google, Facebook and Youtube and crack down on advertising, etc that Youtube has undertaken for at first conservative websites and Youtube channels and then it seems for anything not supporting TPTB agenda.
See this thread: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/important-notice-sott-and-cass-forum-suppression.45202/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: SOTT and Cass FORUM SUPPRESSION
WikiLeaks Calls QAnon A Likely ‘Pied Piper’ Operationby Caitlin Johnstone
A few months back I started having bizarre interactions on social media of a kind I'd never experienced previously. Suddenly, whenever I'd write about President Trump's nonstop warmongering and capitulations to longstanding neoconservative agendas like implementing aggressive new cold war escalations against Russia along multiple fronts, the illegal occupation of Syria with the stated goal of effecting regime change, increasing troop presence in Afghanistan, unprecedented civilian deaths in drone strikes, facilitating the slaughter of civilians in Yemen, or the administration's open regime change policy against Iran, I'd get all these weird accounts telling me things like "Trust the plan" and "This is the Art of the Deal, Trump is playing 4-D chess", and saying I should research something called "QAnon" or "Q".
It happens literally every time I write anything critical of this administration; a deluge of commenters telling me in effect, "Shush. Calm down. This is nothing. What looks like Trump facilitating longtime establishment agendas just like his predecessors is actually brilliant strategic maneuvering." Every single time, without a single solitary exception.
It got particularly frustrating when I'd try to talk about Attorney General Jeff Sessions' statement that arresting WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange is a high priority for this administration, a statement Trump personally supported. These Q people told me they had great news for me: Assange is no longer languishing in London's Ecuadorian embassy. No, some clever researchers had deciphered some cryptic statements from an anonymous poster on 8chan, and it turns out that Assange is now walking free and enjoying a full presidential pardon. Some even say it to Assange's own mother.
Unless you move in certain circles you may never have even heard of the Q phenomenon; it's almost never in the news and very seldom comes up in anything resembling mainstream discourse. But for people like me who write about the behavior of America's unelected power establishment, it comes up a lot and can be a bit of an obstacle to the lucid sharing of ideas and information.
To summarize, someone claiming to be an insider with "Q clearance" began making posts on the anonymous message board 4chan, a notorious online playground for millions of meme creators, trolls and nerds which has fostered a massively enthusiastic pro-Trump zeitgeist since 2015. 4chan users refer to one another as "anons", so "Q" is often referred to as QAnon. Q would share intentionally vague clues they referred to as "crumbs" and encourage readers to research what was meant by them, usually leading toward incriminating information about Trump's political rivals and never toward any incriminating information about Trump. The posts moved from 4chan to the related forum 8chan, with disputed claims of authenticity.
This has created a dynamic wherein an anonymous poster shares extremely vague messages, and many thousands of Q enthusiasts go off combing the internet to find out what is meant by them. There are disputes within the community about precisely what is meant by which posts, but the net result is universally the same: all the information confirms that Trump is a brilliant hero who is fighting the Deep State, and all of Trump's political enemies are corrupt criminals/pedophiles/satanists. All that is asked of Q's army of woke patriots is that they have faith and trust the plan, and to know in their hearts that soon the President of the United States will solve all the nation's problems.
Now who could possibly benefit from such an arrangement?
I've been openly critical of Qanon for many months, but it's hard to write anything substantial about this subject because the QAnon phenomenon is so amorphous and is spread all over the internet in a sprawling, non-cohesive conversation consisting of many thousands of parts, so anything you say about it will be immediately slammed as untrue by its more passionate enthusiasts because you're not saying it in exactly the way that they would say it. That plus the faith-based, religion-like reality tunnel Q enthusiasm requires one to espouse makes engaging this topic about as much fun as debating creationists online, so I've been avoiding writing about it.
For that reason, I was very happy to see that journalist Suzie Dawson had posted an epic, in-depth thread about why she views QAnon as a "Pied Piper operation".
The thread is worth reading in its entirety, easier done here in this thread reader due to its size. Dawson explains how QAnon uses standard psyop tactics, first establishing credibility and then implementing gamification and spirituality to suck followers into an energized, cultish mentality which leaves them susceptible to suggestion, manipulation and direction. From there they are told things like not to worry about Julian Assange at a time when he needs our support and activism more than ever before, or told to be suspicious of Edward Snowden. She shows using primary source documents that Snowden has revealed vastly more to the public about the mechanics of the deep state than QAnon ever has, including information about the CIA, and shows who does and does not benefit from the operation.
Yesterday, Dawson's thread was shared by the WikiLeaks Twitter account with the comment "This analysis, unfortunately, increasingly appears that it may be correct."
1. I referred to #QAnon today as a 'Pied Piper' operation. What I meant by this, is that the operation exists to round up people that are otherwise dangerous to the Deep State (because they are genuinely opposed to it) usurp time & attention, & trick them into serving its aims.
— Suzie Dawson (@Suzi3D) May 25, 2018
— Suzie Dawson (@Suzi3D) May 25, 2018
In response to a tweet from Roseanne Barr asking "where is julian assange?", the WikiLeaks account (which has long been a multi-user account run by a rotating WikiLeaks staff) replied that he is "Gagged and isolated as a result of the Trump administration's betrayal of the constitution and the demands of those who voted for it." Barr, who has promoted QAnon in the past, replied that WikiLeaks' answer was "BS", to which they responded with Dawson's thread.
This would line up with a comment made by Assange a month prior to his being silenced and isolated by the Ecuadorian embassy in March, in which he responded to someone who'd heard an internet rumor that he was secretly free saying it was "Probably a black PR campaign amplified by CIA contractors to reduce the support for WikiLeaks."
Probably a black PR campaign amplified by CIA contractors to reduce the support for WikiLeaks.
— Julian Assange (tweets by #FreeJulian campaign)
(@JulianAssange) February 11, 2018
So on one hand we've got WikiLeaks insiders saying QAnon is a likely psyop designed to Pied Piper the populist right into supporting establishment agendas, and on the other we've got an anonymous someone on 8chan saying "trust the plan" and the President is awesome. These are not equally credible sources.— Julian Assange (tweets by #FreeJulian campaign)
It would make perfect sense for the US intelligence community to conduct psychological operations against those on the right who espouse anti-establishment ideals, since they've been conducting them on the anti-establishment left for generations. Any political faction in the US which opposes war, corruption and oligarchy is going to be infiltrated, monitored and manipulated, and there's no reason to believe the faction which elected Trump on the basis of his anti-globalist and anti-interventionist positions wouldn't get the same treatment. The same intelligence agencies which have successfully manipulated a large portion of America's left wing into despising Assange are now manipulating the right wing into despising Snowden. The same social engineers who manipulated Obama's base into ignoring his warmongering and oligarchic capitulations are now doing exactly the same for Trump's base.
Somebody's benefiting from this, and it ain't you. This administration is advancing longstanding neoconservative agendas with increasing aggression, perpetuating the Orwellian surveillance state of Bush and Obama, and actively pursuing the extradition and imprisonment of Julian Assange. Ignore the narratives and watch the behavior, and he looks very much like his predecessor. So cut out the narratives. Cut out the manipulators. Cut out QAnon from the equation and look at what's really happening here.
tczubernat
The Force is Strong With This One
So, I lay silent for quite some time. I read the C's material, the Wisconsin Leider's material and recently, Qanon. All were intriguing, at first, but tried to match up what was written to what is happening. The lady from Wisconsin is nuts (she's started to push Q), Qanon is most definitely a psy-op. It is designed to mesmerize those who want answers to what they see developing in the world. It is an interesting time in which we find ourselves.
The whole "trust the plan" thing was the major red flag that really pushed me over the edge. The myth of the external savior has been used by 3D STS since the fabrication of Biblical Christianity, at the very least. It also seems to be a favorite of 4D STS, based on my analysis of the whole contactee/abductee circus. It's a psychological trick to placate you and get you in a state of mind to give your freewill away that's as old as the hills; c'mon folks. I have no doubt about Q's connections, as I said in my original post in this thread, he is an insider, and that is how he is able to make the occasional prescient remark which grabs everyone's attention. He has a direct line to some of the deep state's movers and shakers. It may still be possible to glean some information from him, but it has to be approached very carefully, because he's fundamentally about as honest as say, Netanyahu.
As for Julian Assange, I speculated in my first post that he is actually an asset of Faction B. I remembered that there was this Cassiopaean session about him...
As for Julian Assange, I speculated in my first post that he is actually an asset of Faction B. I remembered that there was this Cassiopaean session about him...
I view him as a little like Q, he can be used as a tool to pry into certain dark corners, but he is also not what he appears to be. I can't put my finger on exactly what he is though. Has he gone rogue? I don't really know, but my instincts tell me it's doubtful.session101212 said:
Steemit Only Article: Opinion: Why Independent Media Voices Are Questioning the "Q" Persona
Elizabeth Lea Vos
elizbethleavos
In the last few days, a very loud discussion has been taking place regarding the legitimacy of an anonymous 4chan and 8chan poster known as "Q." My singular goal in this Steemit-only opinion piece is to explain why, despite the ensuing public backlash, I have felt motivated as an independent journalist to express skepticism regarding the Q persona.
This article is not intended to demand readers agree with me, or tell readers what to think, to disparage those who cover Q on social media or those I've already disagreed with respectfully on Twitter. This piece is simply and only intended to explain why I have spoken out repeatedly against the credibility of this Chan-based persona. It's also not intended to speak for anyone except myself.
I will give a very condensed overview of the context of the latest discussion on Q that has occurred in the last few days. First, independent journalist and activist Suzie Dawson wrote a very long, precise and methodical twitter thread on the ways in which Q's posts fit the characteristics of a standard cointelpro type operation. I recommend all readers to view that thread in full, as provided by the ReaderUnrollApp before continuing with this article.
In response to a Tweet by Roseanne Barr, Wikileaks Tweeted the following regarding Suzie's long twitter thread:
After Wikileaks' tweet and the wide circulation of Suzie Dawson's thread, Caitlin Johnstone wrote via Medium about the fact that the official Wikileaks Twitter account had acknowledged the likelihood that the Q anon persona is being used as a pied piper figure for Trump's base.
The Wikileaks Twitter account then tweeted Johnstone's medium post, adding that: "While we suspect that the "Qanon" phenomena is likely 4chan trolls engaging in a Live Action Role Play (LARP) version of the Delphic Oracle it is also clear that many are aware of its manipulative potential and will usurp it if they have not already."
Interestingly, though it was Suzie Dawson who pushed the hardest against the Qanon persona, Caitlin Johnstone received the brunt of the backlash that ensued, possibly due to Dawson having fewer followers of the MAGA persuasion than either Johnstone or myself. I entered the fray today, a couple of days after Suzie's thread and after Wikileaks' statements / tweets regarding Q.
Why do I comment on this at all? Because I saw independent journalists like Caitlin being smeared and associated with "the media," as if she were in the same category as David Brock's media matters. This is absolutely horrific for a number of reasons. Let me explain:
No one pays Suzie Dawson, Caitlin Johnstone, or myself to speak the truth as we see it outside our own audiences. Independent journalists survive on patreon donations, subscriptions and the like. Because of this, it is financially against our interests to tell the truth about Q as we see it, and risk losing readers' support. As Caitlin wrote, if she - or any of us - wanted to be paid shills we could have had a much easier time of it by applying for a job at CNN. We didn't.
So what does this mean - that independent journalists would risk losing support to tell the inconvenient and painful truth as they see it?
It means that we value honesty more than popularity or money. It means we believe in a healthy skepticism and not following false narratives because they are convenient or because a lot of our supporters might follow those narratives. We speak out anyway because if we were in this to make money we never would have started writing about inconvenient truths. When we criticize Q, we are literally going against financial interests (unlike corporate press when it shills for cash) because we risk losing support from those who disagree with us.
What motivates independent journalists to apply healthy skepticism to Q is precisely the fact that we have poured our time, energy and life-blood into reporting with integrity. We gave up endless hours of our lives to the pursuit of honesty in the face of criticism from all sides, censorship, attacks of all varieties. Caitlin Johnstone specifically has been baselessly smeared numerous times by the cancerous quarter of the neoliberal left because she dared speak against war consistently: and now the right wing has joined in on attacking her credibility because they do not like her opinion.
While these experiences pale in comparison with the risks taken by organizations like Wikileaks, or by whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning, It quite honestly pains this writer to see so many well-intentioned Q followers parroting disastrously inaccurate information and attacking those who have given up huge amounts of time and energy and often money as well specifically in the name of accurate reporting with integrity.
Caitlin, Suzie, and Wikileaks already outlined extremely sensible reasons to approach Q with skepticism. To that, I add the obvious -- that any persona arising from 4chan and 8chan requires a very healthy dose of skepticism. To trust any anonymous poster on 4chan over Wikileaks is a sad commentary on the state of the American public. My personal take on the issue is that whether Q is a "larp" or a psyop, the narratives spread by the persona have dangerously persuaded a large portion of the conservative base into the belief that all is well and a plan is in place: A "Storm is coming."
Why is this dangerous? Because, as I wrote on Twitter, Julian Assange is entering his third consecutive month in solitary confinement, while prominent conservative Q followers, including but not limited to Roseanne Barr, question whether Assange is in the embassy at all. Some even express the belief that the US isn't primarily responsible for the persecution of Assange. Meanwhile, the ultimate legal source on anything relating to Assange - Justice4Assange.com, described the reality of the situation:
Trump's base is the only segment of the population with a chance of persuading the President on policy matters. It is imperative that they relentlessly push Trump to grant Assange a preemptive pardon. Through Q, that population is being co-opted into complacency at the most critical moment in the long history of persecution of Julian Assange and Wikileaks for their incredibly effective brand of scientific journalism.
In addition to the damaging effect Q is having on support for Julian Assange, not to mention other whistleblowers like Edward Snowden ( a matter Suzie Dawson covered in depth), the persona is also acting to poison independent media and co-opt the segment of the public that is genuinely anti-establishment. By hiding the lies within exhortations to research, the persona builds enough plausible deniability to manipulate masses of well-intentioned people who do not wish any harm to Assange or Wikileaks, and are in fact interested in truthful reporting.
Additionally, many Q followers I have interacted with over the last 24 hours have expressed an appalling lack of awareness regarding a number of actions by Trump and his administration. A few include the statements made by Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to the effect that the arrest of Assange is a top priority for Trump's Department of Justice. Secondly, the words of former CIA Director Mike Pompeo (now Trump's Secretary of State), comparing Wikileaks to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Another extremely alarming act by Trump was the nomination of Gina Haspel to the position of CIA Director, despite her role in torture programs that are absolutely illegal under international law.
In my opinion, this is why many readers of Disobedient Media or Caitlin Johnstone's content are now inflamed when we express criticism towards Q. The persona has actively targeted anti-establishment segments of the population. To control that thought, it is necessary to co-opt the thought from within, in addition to separate efforts to censor legitimate independent voices. As Suzie Dawson wrote, the first necessary stage of any psyop is to establish credibility. Q has been extremely successful in that effort.
I see Q not only as a danger to the effectiveness of support for Assange among conservatives, but also as an indicator for the depth of pain Americans are experiencing, and a demonstration of the lengths they are willing to go to to find hope and any remedy for their suffering. It is doubly infuriating that anyone would manipulate a group of people desperately looking for reason to hope. In other words: reality is painful, and deeply so. It is easier to accept a comfortable lie, whether it is told on an image board or anywhere else, than it is to face the painful reality that we live in. However, until we collectively face that same reality and are brave enough to accept the resulting pain, nothing will ever change.
Jared Beck also encapsulated this thought with the extremely perceptive observation:
Disobedient Media had not yet been founded during he 2016 election cycle and the immediate post-election aftermath. At this time, I had many fellow Bernie supporters tell me to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton, to shut up and get in line to support the 'lesser of two evils.' I refused to shut my mouth and go along, which sacrificed my relationships with friends, family, and my local community. Some of those relationships have only just begun to recover, and some never will.
If I had wanted to win a popularity contest, I never would have stood my ground on that issue. The public shaming that occurred simply for continuing to criticize the abject corruption of Hillary Clinton contributed to my decision to become an independent journalist. It was a deeply UN-popular opinion that motivated me to raise my voice louder.
Likewise, I will not shut my mouth now and go along with a narrative I see as harmful and based on manipulation because I hold an unpopular opinion. I am not going to be shamed into silence. The only thing I stand to "gain" by saying all of this, is most likely the loss of a large number of followers, subscribers and the rest.
Elizabeth Lea Vos
elizbethleavos
In the last few days, a very loud discussion has been taking place regarding the legitimacy of an anonymous 4chan and 8chan poster known as "Q." My singular goal in this Steemit-only opinion piece is to explain why, despite the ensuing public backlash, I have felt motivated as an independent journalist to express skepticism regarding the Q persona.
This article is not intended to demand readers agree with me, or tell readers what to think, to disparage those who cover Q on social media or those I've already disagreed with respectfully on Twitter. This piece is simply and only intended to explain why I have spoken out repeatedly against the credibility of this Chan-based persona. It's also not intended to speak for anyone except myself.
I will give a very condensed overview of the context of the latest discussion on Q that has occurred in the last few days. First, independent journalist and activist Suzie Dawson wrote a very long, precise and methodical twitter thread on the ways in which Q's posts fit the characteristics of a standard cointelpro type operation. I recommend all readers to view that thread in full, as provided by the ReaderUnrollApp before continuing with this article.
In response to a Tweet by Roseanne Barr, Wikileaks Tweeted the following regarding Suzie's long twitter thread:
After Wikileaks' tweet and the wide circulation of Suzie Dawson's thread, Caitlin Johnstone wrote via Medium about the fact that the official Wikileaks Twitter account had acknowledged the likelihood that the Q anon persona is being used as a pied piper figure for Trump's base.
The Wikileaks Twitter account then tweeted Johnstone's medium post, adding that: "While we suspect that the "Qanon" phenomena is likely 4chan trolls engaging in a Live Action Role Play (LARP) version of the Delphic Oracle it is also clear that many are aware of its manipulative potential and will usurp it if they have not already."
Interestingly, though it was Suzie Dawson who pushed the hardest against the Qanon persona, Caitlin Johnstone received the brunt of the backlash that ensued, possibly due to Dawson having fewer followers of the MAGA persuasion than either Johnstone or myself. I entered the fray today, a couple of days after Suzie's thread and after Wikileaks' statements / tweets regarding Q.
Why do I comment on this at all? Because I saw independent journalists like Caitlin being smeared and associated with "the media," as if she were in the same category as David Brock's media matters. This is absolutely horrific for a number of reasons. Let me explain:
No one pays Suzie Dawson, Caitlin Johnstone, or myself to speak the truth as we see it outside our own audiences. Independent journalists survive on patreon donations, subscriptions and the like. Because of this, it is financially against our interests to tell the truth about Q as we see it, and risk losing readers' support. As Caitlin wrote, if she - or any of us - wanted to be paid shills we could have had a much easier time of it by applying for a job at CNN. We didn't.
So what does this mean - that independent journalists would risk losing support to tell the inconvenient and painful truth as they see it?
It means that we value honesty more than popularity or money. It means we believe in a healthy skepticism and not following false narratives because they are convenient or because a lot of our supporters might follow those narratives. We speak out anyway because if we were in this to make money we never would have started writing about inconvenient truths. When we criticize Q, we are literally going against financial interests (unlike corporate press when it shills for cash) because we risk losing support from those who disagree with us.
What motivates independent journalists to apply healthy skepticism to Q is precisely the fact that we have poured our time, energy and life-blood into reporting with integrity. We gave up endless hours of our lives to the pursuit of honesty in the face of criticism from all sides, censorship, attacks of all varieties. Caitlin Johnstone specifically has been baselessly smeared numerous times by the cancerous quarter of the neoliberal left because she dared speak against war consistently: and now the right wing has joined in on attacking her credibility because they do not like her opinion.
While these experiences pale in comparison with the risks taken by organizations like Wikileaks, or by whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning, It quite honestly pains this writer to see so many well-intentioned Q followers parroting disastrously inaccurate information and attacking those who have given up huge amounts of time and energy and often money as well specifically in the name of accurate reporting with integrity.
Caitlin, Suzie, and Wikileaks already outlined extremely sensible reasons to approach Q with skepticism. To that, I add the obvious -- that any persona arising from 4chan and 8chan requires a very healthy dose of skepticism. To trust any anonymous poster on 4chan over Wikileaks is a sad commentary on the state of the American public. My personal take on the issue is that whether Q is a "larp" or a psyop, the narratives spread by the persona have dangerously persuaded a large portion of the conservative base into the belief that all is well and a plan is in place: A "Storm is coming."
Why is this dangerous? Because, as I wrote on Twitter, Julian Assange is entering his third consecutive month in solitary confinement, while prominent conservative Q followers, including but not limited to Roseanne Barr, question whether Assange is in the embassy at all. Some even express the belief that the US isn't primarily responsible for the persecution of Assange. Meanwhile, the ultimate legal source on anything relating to Assange - Justice4Assange.com, described the reality of the situation:
"[In February 2010], US initiates WikiLeaks investigation, over a dozen federal government agencies involved, including the FBI, DoJ (who are now leading the investigation), with support of NSA and CIA and others."
In other words, the Trump Administration absolutely has the power to remove the impetus for Assange's extradition and imprisonment in the US, which Adam Schiff recently admitted is the assumed goal of the US government at this time.Trump's base is the only segment of the population with a chance of persuading the President on policy matters. It is imperative that they relentlessly push Trump to grant Assange a preemptive pardon. Through Q, that population is being co-opted into complacency at the most critical moment in the long history of persecution of Julian Assange and Wikileaks for their incredibly effective brand of scientific journalism.
In addition to the damaging effect Q is having on support for Julian Assange, not to mention other whistleblowers like Edward Snowden ( a matter Suzie Dawson covered in depth), the persona is also acting to poison independent media and co-opt the segment of the public that is genuinely anti-establishment. By hiding the lies within exhortations to research, the persona builds enough plausible deniability to manipulate masses of well-intentioned people who do not wish any harm to Assange or Wikileaks, and are in fact interested in truthful reporting.
Additionally, many Q followers I have interacted with over the last 24 hours have expressed an appalling lack of awareness regarding a number of actions by Trump and his administration. A few include the statements made by Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to the effect that the arrest of Assange is a top priority for Trump's Department of Justice. Secondly, the words of former CIA Director Mike Pompeo (now Trump's Secretary of State), comparing Wikileaks to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Another extremely alarming act by Trump was the nomination of Gina Haspel to the position of CIA Director, despite her role in torture programs that are absolutely illegal under international law.
In my opinion, this is why many readers of Disobedient Media or Caitlin Johnstone's content are now inflamed when we express criticism towards Q. The persona has actively targeted anti-establishment segments of the population. To control that thought, it is necessary to co-opt the thought from within, in addition to separate efforts to censor legitimate independent voices. As Suzie Dawson wrote, the first necessary stage of any psyop is to establish credibility. Q has been extremely successful in that effort.
I see Q not only as a danger to the effectiveness of support for Assange among conservatives, but also as an indicator for the depth of pain Americans are experiencing, and a demonstration of the lengths they are willing to go to to find hope and any remedy for their suffering. It is doubly infuriating that anyone would manipulate a group of people desperately looking for reason to hope. In other words: reality is painful, and deeply so. It is easier to accept a comfortable lie, whether it is told on an image board or anywhere else, than it is to face the painful reality that we live in. However, until we collectively face that same reality and are brave enough to accept the resulting pain, nothing will ever change.
Jared Beck also encapsulated this thought with the extremely perceptive observation:
Disobedient Media had not yet been founded during he 2016 election cycle and the immediate post-election aftermath. At this time, I had many fellow Bernie supporters tell me to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton, to shut up and get in line to support the 'lesser of two evils.' I refused to shut my mouth and go along, which sacrificed my relationships with friends, family, and my local community. Some of those relationships have only just begun to recover, and some never will.
If I had wanted to win a popularity contest, I never would have stood my ground on that issue. The public shaming that occurred simply for continuing to criticize the abject corruption of Hillary Clinton contributed to my decision to become an independent journalist. It was a deeply UN-popular opinion that motivated me to raise my voice louder.
Likewise, I will not shut my mouth now and go along with a narrative I see as harmful and based on manipulation because I hold an unpopular opinion. I am not going to be shamed into silence. The only thing I stand to "gain" by saying all of this, is most likely the loss of a large number of followers, subscribers and the rest.