As the prosecution of the Clinton Foundation approaches, Q reminds us that there is panic behind the scenes in DC and we need to be vigilant.
On December 5th, US Attorney John Huber will testify before Congress on the DOJ’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
Sheila Zilinsky and I discuss the midterms, Qanon and a whole lot more.
Dan Duval is back with another interview about Qanon. We discuss the letdown after the midterm elections, Jeff Sessions’ resignation and the prospects for the prosecution of the deep state.
In its latest attempt to shame Q followers into submission, Wired Magazine wrote an article titled, “Online Conspiracy Groups are a lot Like Cults.”
Their thesis: Now that we’ve successfully linked mass shooters and bombers to online conspiracy groups, you might want to reconsider where this Q conspiracy is leading you.
Like a watchful parent, the mainstream media believe they know what’s best for you and they want you to heed their advice.
An interesting pattern of behavior has emerged recently among the mainstream media. At the end of July, all the major news outlets in lock-step, published over 50 articles in a 48 hour period on Q. Every article portrayed Q in a negative light, warning readers not to get involved in the movement.
It would be expected that dozens of news outlets would publish articles on the same day about a major event of general interest to the public. That’s how news cycles are generated. But Q wasn’t a sudden event. He had been posting on 4chan and 8chan for 9 months. Nothing had happened that would merit widespread attention.
The articles were published following the President’s rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31. The justification for the articles was the appearance of patriots wearing Q shirts at the rally. That wasn’t exactly news. Followers of the movement had been wearing Q shirts at rallies for months. Since Q is not in the same class as a terrorist event—a sudden incident that would merit mass coverage by the media, why did virtually every major news outlet (including Fox News) publish an article about Q within 48 hours of the Tampa rally?
The fact that news outlets covered Q at the same time is one thing. But even more perplexing is the fact that not one story allowed for the possibility that Q might be worth looking into. Whether from a liberal or conservative source, every story insisted Q is a kooky conspiracy that must be avoided.
You could write it off as mere coincidence. But the odds of something like that happening at random are near a billion to one. The other possibility is that the negative coverage of Q was coordinated. If the stories were coordinated, we might ask why?
Why would virtually every news outlet (regardless of political leaning) publish an article attacking Q in a 48-hour period?
The obvious answer is that for some reason, mainstream news outlets perceive Q to be a threat. (Not just a few news outlets but all of them). The mass attack seemed to be an attempt to silence a collective opponent. That conclusion is pregnant with ramifications. Apparently, the entire media complex isn’t just threatened by Q, they’re also coordinating the timing and content of the stories they publish about Q.
In the Wizard of Oz, the story takes a decisive turn when Dorothy’s dog, Toto, pulls back the curtain revealing the frightening Wizard of Oz to be a hoax. The decision to publish anti-Q articles at the same time pulled back the curtain on the mainstream news complex. Rather than independent outlets publishing information free of coordination, we now have evidence suggesting that the variety of information they provide is, in fact, a carefully coordinated operation designed to give the illusion of independence and freedom of thought.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
~ Noam Chomsky
Once we’ve transgressed the boundaries of what the news complex has determined to be an acceptable thought, a warning is issued. The warning is an attempt to frighten or shame us into rejecting the idea we’re considering. Thus, Q is labeled a dangerous conspiracy or a cult.
What would happen if millions of people at once rejected the thought boundaries of the media complex and wandered into unapproved territory? A global warning would be issued through every available news outlet. I believe that is what happened when the mainstream news complex published its anti-Q articles following the Tampa rally.
Strip away the rhetoric and what you’ll find with Q is an admonition to question official narratives, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Q is an advocate of free thought. And as we’ve seen, that is perceived even by conservative commentators as a threat to their business model and their ability to control public thought.
Q is often called an online cult. If so, it’s the first cult in history where no one has met the leader and the leader demands that we think for ourselves.
My Journey Into the Q Movement
A look at the future of Q discussions and what seems to be the beginning of the prosecution of the deep state.