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 honourable, 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.)
I donate all my time and professional expertise to MAGA for free. If you value open source citizen journalism, then please be a patron for its creators, including myself. A"service to all" ethos means making a fair exchange.
I always append a beautiful thing, as beauty unites us in our divided world.
See more of my work and sign up to my art mailing list at martingeddes.photography.
Christmas shoppers outside the Microsoft store, Oxford Circus, London.
I am taking a
break from offering telecoms consulting services to focus on other
projects. But you can still read more about me at martingedd.es. I am still open to interesting offers of collaboration.
No comments:
Post a Comment