Through a Glass Darkly: an Epistemological Study of Q
We endeavor to see the truth, as best our conscious minds can interpret it, but we commonly view what we disagree with, especially on politics, through a lens that distorts our perception.
Don't think too literally, as we should never mix politics and drinks, but, as the old adage goes: we see through a glass darkly.
In the 1960s, one arguing for an increase in regulation and social welfare benefits might be seen as a "pinko," a sympathizer with communism, by a 1960s conservative. And the leftist social media sphere of the early twenty-first century reveals a fascinating inversion. One who argues for a decrease in regulation and social welfare benefits is seen as a "Nazi," "fascist," or, "crypto-fascist" by a modern-era leftist. The '60s conservative politically identified foremost as anti-communist and was tempted to filter all opposing political arguments through that lens. The modern-day leftist politically identifies foremost as anti-racist and filters the opposing arguments through that lens.
A distorted lens also extends into what we might call the "truth community," consisting of those who question knowledge discovered through a heuristic. The heuristic the truth community challenges: if enough institutions, like the media and academia, all believe something to be true, it must be true, since all those people couldn't possibly all be getting it wrong. Most people understandably aren't what we might call "truthers," for two reasons.
(1) Our time is too limited to spend foundationally examining all information. Truth is mostly a symbol of our trust in the consensus of authority. We trust the plane we are sitting on will take off, because we trust the crew on the plane. Thankfully, we needn't take courses on aerodynamics and inspect the plane ourselves before it takes off. Most of our knowledge comes from similar trust in those in positions of authority we rely on to make decisions in our everyday lives (our doctors, lawyers, pilots, accountants, etc.). We know some obscure country we've never been to exists, not because we've been there, but because our history books, Google searches, and countless other individuals we observe all agree it exists.
This method of discovery is the foundation of the vast majority of our knowledge. And this is a good thing, because it saves us time. We can, as individuals, specialize in wildly disparate fields of knowledge and rely on our trust in each other to fill in the gaps. This allows us to enjoy the ever-expanding choice of luxuries in our day-to-day lives, as experts who cover our basic living needs allow others to become experts in entertaining us. We might call this trust civilization.
(2) Once we admit we can't trust experts in enough areas to reliably make choices in our day-to-day lives, that is effectively the end of civilization. We believe the consensus of experts the media and our educational and governmental institutions present to us not only because we don't have time to check everything they tell us, but also because our distrust in them reveals something terrifying.
As an example, I've provided proof in a prior post, in no uncertain terms, that the Apollo missions were fraudulent [*1]. You might be tempted to disagree without even reading my evidence and analysis. Why? Because you recognize that, if I'm correct, that means countless historians, engineers, scientists, educators, government officials, and other experts are all foundationally wrong. If they can be wrong about something so obvious, what else are they getting wrong [*2]?
When our institutions get geo-political events like the 2020 pandemic wrong (as those on the right and left inverted perspectives last year), or "climate change," or a few misplaced bombs in Libya and Syria, we can eventually return to some semblance of normalcy and chalk up any policy mistakes to those over-zealous with the precautionary principle or, perhaps, good-intentioned honesty. But how long until that rot starts to affect things like electrical grids, indoor plumbing, a well-stocked grocery store, and air travel? People are terrified of the wrongness in geo-political events crossing over into their every-day lives and affecting their families.
This is the lens people see the "truth community" through. We are all, to some extent, pro-civilization. One who argues to distrust major events we've accepted as true is seen as anti-civilization. The breakdown in trust begets the rot.
Thus, one who believes in spherical celestial bodies but also recognizes that the Apollo missions were frauds is dismissed as a "flat-earther." The anger people express toward my view that Apollo was a comically-fraudulent enterprise is far greater than what any leftist has toward my right-oriented views politically. If I'm seen as a "fascist," "racist" or whatever stylish anti-rightwing pejorative is fashionable, I can be isolated with my fellow wrong-thinkers. But if I question the very foundations of knowledge we all rely on, that the various institutions we rely on to relay us the truth are broken, and if enough people also agree with me, civilization itself could collapse. Thus, it's better to ridicule people that have "truther" views to ensure such views are minimized in our communities, as advocated by the former Obama administration's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, in his '08 law review paper [*3].
After all, it's our widespread belief in the utility and justice of systems like "the dollar" or "the intelligence community" that keeps our civilization alive.
My aim here isn't to prove or disprove any particular "conspiracy theory" but to highlight the triggers that cause people to get emotional about certain topics. The '60s conservative was terrified of communism. Thus, liberal viewpoints on social welfare that point in a direction closer to communism were feared. The current-era leftist hates what he see as racism. Conservative viewpoints that aim to reduce social welfare and programs seen as correcting "racism" are similarly feared. The average person is terrified of a world where we can't rely on experts to help craft our current level of material luxury and security. Thus, viewpoints that aim to reduce trust in those experts are understandably terrifying. Thus, the pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is launched, often exaggerating the conspiracy: "you believe in lizard people" or "the Earth is flat," etc., beyond what is actually being discussed.
Until now, I have never discussed the cryptic postings of Q-anon [*4] here, the notion that people with high-level government clearance are orchestrating a secret plan to arrest a cabal of child-traffickers running the U.S. as a shadow government.
But, a division in the right over this phenomenon effectively places anyone seen as part of the "truth community" and also of the right-wing into the Q camp, showcased most flagrantly by infamous cuckserative Jonah Goldberg here:
It's easy to assume my page here would be pro-Q, even though not a single prior post discussed the Q phenomenon, by virtue of the fact that I question fundamental narratives most Americans accept as truth. Opportunists on the right might even be terrified of having clicked to read this on the off-hand chance it might lose them their government job or prospective one with recently-introduced legislation [*5] the aforesaid Goldberg celebrates:
Don't think too literally, as we should never mix politics and drinks, but, as the old adage goes: we see through a glass darkly.
In the 1960s, one arguing for an increase in regulation and social welfare benefits might be seen as a "pinko," a sympathizer with communism, by a 1960s conservative. And the leftist social media sphere of the early twenty-first century reveals a fascinating inversion. One who argues for a decrease in regulation and social welfare benefits is seen as a "Nazi," "fascist," or, "crypto-fascist" by a modern-era leftist. The '60s conservative politically identified foremost as anti-communist and was tempted to filter all opposing political arguments through that lens. The modern-day leftist politically identifies foremost as anti-racist and filters the opposing arguments through that lens.
A distorted lens also extends into what we might call the "truth community," consisting of those who question knowledge discovered through a heuristic. The heuristic the truth community challenges: if enough institutions, like the media and academia, all believe something to be true, it must be true, since all those people couldn't possibly all be getting it wrong. Most people understandably aren't what we might call "truthers," for two reasons.
(1) Our time is too limited to spend foundationally examining all information. Truth is mostly a symbol of our trust in the consensus of authority. We trust the plane we are sitting on will take off, because we trust the crew on the plane. Thankfully, we needn't take courses on aerodynamics and inspect the plane ourselves before it takes off. Most of our knowledge comes from similar trust in those in positions of authority we rely on to make decisions in our everyday lives (our doctors, lawyers, pilots, accountants, etc.). We know some obscure country we've never been to exists, not because we've been there, but because our history books, Google searches, and countless other individuals we observe all agree it exists.
This method of discovery is the foundation of the vast majority of our knowledge. And this is a good thing, because it saves us time. We can, as individuals, specialize in wildly disparate fields of knowledge and rely on our trust in each other to fill in the gaps. This allows us to enjoy the ever-expanding choice of luxuries in our day-to-day lives, as experts who cover our basic living needs allow others to become experts in entertaining us. We might call this trust civilization.
(2) Once we admit we can't trust experts in enough areas to reliably make choices in our day-to-day lives, that is effectively the end of civilization. We believe the consensus of experts the media and our educational and governmental institutions present to us not only because we don't have time to check everything they tell us, but also because our distrust in them reveals something terrifying.
As an example, I've provided proof in a prior post, in no uncertain terms, that the Apollo missions were fraudulent [*1]. You might be tempted to disagree without even reading my evidence and analysis. Why? Because you recognize that, if I'm correct, that means countless historians, engineers, scientists, educators, government officials, and other experts are all foundationally wrong. If they can be wrong about something so obvious, what else are they getting wrong [*2]?
When our institutions get geo-political events like the 2020 pandemic wrong (as those on the right and left inverted perspectives last year), or "climate change," or a few misplaced bombs in Libya and Syria, we can eventually return to some semblance of normalcy and chalk up any policy mistakes to those over-zealous with the precautionary principle or, perhaps, good-intentioned honesty. But how long until that rot starts to affect things like electrical grids, indoor plumbing, a well-stocked grocery store, and air travel? People are terrified of the wrongness in geo-political events crossing over into their every-day lives and affecting their families.
This is the lens people see the "truth community" through. We are all, to some extent, pro-civilization. One who argues to distrust major events we've accepted as true is seen as anti-civilization. The breakdown in trust begets the rot.
Thus, one who believes in spherical celestial bodies but also recognizes that the Apollo missions were frauds is dismissed as a "flat-earther." The anger people express toward my view that Apollo was a comically-fraudulent enterprise is far greater than what any leftist has toward my right-oriented views politically. If I'm seen as a "fascist," "racist" or whatever stylish anti-rightwing pejorative is fashionable, I can be isolated with my fellow wrong-thinkers. But if I question the very foundations of knowledge we all rely on, that the various institutions we rely on to relay us the truth are broken, and if enough people also agree with me, civilization itself could collapse. Thus, it's better to ridicule people that have "truther" views to ensure such views are minimized in our communities, as advocated by the former Obama administration's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, in his '08 law review paper [*3].
After all, it's our widespread belief in the utility and justice of systems like "the dollar" or "the intelligence community" that keeps our civilization alive.
My aim here isn't to prove or disprove any particular "conspiracy theory" but to highlight the triggers that cause people to get emotional about certain topics. The '60s conservative was terrified of communism. Thus, liberal viewpoints on social welfare that point in a direction closer to communism were feared. The current-era leftist hates what he see as racism. Conservative viewpoints that aim to reduce social welfare and programs seen as correcting "racism" are similarly feared. The average person is terrified of a world where we can't rely on experts to help craft our current level of material luxury and security. Thus, viewpoints that aim to reduce trust in those experts are understandably terrifying. Thus, the pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is launched, often exaggerating the conspiracy: "you believe in lizard people" or "the Earth is flat," etc., beyond what is actually being discussed.
Until now, I have never discussed the cryptic postings of Q-anon [*4] here, the notion that people with high-level government clearance are orchestrating a secret plan to arrest a cabal of child-traffickers running the U.S. as a shadow government.
But, a division in the right over this phenomenon effectively places anyone seen as part of the "truth community" and also of the right-wing into the Q camp, showcased most flagrantly by infamous cuckserative Jonah Goldberg here:
It's easy to assume my page here would be pro-Q, even though not a single prior post discussed the Q phenomenon, by virtue of the fact that I question fundamental narratives most Americans accept as truth. Opportunists on the right might even be terrified of having clicked to read this on the off-hand chance it might lose them their government job or prospective one with recently-introduced legislation [*5] the aforesaid Goldberg celebrates:
... [T]he Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021, requires applicants looking to obtain or renew their federal security clearances to disclose if they participated in the Jan. 6 rally in Washington—or another “Stop the Steal” event—or if they “knowingly engaged in activities conducted by an organization or movement that spreads conspiracy theories and false information about the U.S. government.”
The terror of Q discussion has reached Orwellian proportions, as social media platforms have banned countless accounts discussing it, with Twitter banning thousands of accounts and limiting the reach of over 150,000 [*6], while Facebook had banned 1,500 pages and groups discussing the phenomenon back in October 2020 [*7].
Regardless of whether you believe Q is real or not, a Shakespeare line can't help but come to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."
The inauguration of Joe Biden as U.S. president belies the failure of Q. No secret organization in the U.S. government has successfully acted. Among the right, we see two primary criticisms.
(1) There is no evidence, such as separate sources, to corroborate Q-anon posts. Many of the predictions failed to happen. Therefore, association with Q reduces one's credibility. Without credibility among normal voters reading our points of view, we are less likely to win future elections. Therefore, discussion of Q should cease.
(2) Because many of the statements made by Q have not yet come to pass, attention to other points of view or strategies to achieve victory were crowded out. Absent the emergence of Q, these other strategies could have more readily been pursued. Therefore, belief in Q is a waste of time, and similar conspiracy discussions should be limited in favor of more grounded strategies for political action.
I reject both criticisms.
For the former (1), an assumption is relied on: voting matters in future elections. As I've discussed in tremendous detail in prior posts, here [*8] and here [*9], the 2020/1 elections were comically fraudulent. Nobody honestly believes Joe Biden won 10.5 million votes more than the previous record-holder, Barrack Obama, while winning 45% less counties, most excess votes coming from four cities that shut down counting operations and suddenly found statistically-absurd Biden-only ballot dumps under the circumstances of a thousand affidavits and video evidence witnessing the same ballots being run through machines multiple times while observers were conveniently kicked out.
Considering how aggressive Trump fought this fraud and failed to overturn such comically-obvious shenanigans even Mr. Magoo could discover, what does that say about how elections will be run in the future? The same tactics will be perfected, and new ones will be introduced using the latest technology. The media will learn how to suppress contra information to a no-fraud narrative better. The Republican party will work to ensure Trump-like candidates who fight fraud are never again allowed, as primary candidate-selections are not protected by U.S. voting laws but are deemed internal selections where rules can be freely violated to get the desired result [*10].
Voting will probably matter in small-town elections or those that don't have geo-political implications, as it's not likely the controllers of election fraud need or even desire to rig every single election going forward. But the ones that have stakes and matter will almost certainly continue to be rigged, be they in favor of either or any future party, to the candidate serving the controllers' interests.
But let's say voting does matter going forward. What study do we have among Republican and/or independent voters showing a propensity to not vote Republican due to Q involvement? I'm sure the media will get right on rigging such a study, considering its aforementioned terror of Q. Be dubious if you see one, since polling on speculation as to how people would vote but for some event has inherently questionable accuracy.
Did Q energize the base and cause more votes to occur that otherwise wouldn't have? Or did Q dissuade moderate voters who picked Biden out of repulsion by the media reports ridiculing Q? Considering the media spent far more time ridiculing Donald Trump [*11] than they spent ridiculing Q, it's hard to imagine someone not shamed by the media out of voting for Trump that then took the Q-shaming seriously enough to change his vote to what the media would prefer for him.
For the latter criticism (2), one wonders: is there some fixed pie of political resources? Can we ascribe a made-up number, say 20% of right-wing resources, going to following Q that could have been allocated to some other project that would have more likely allowed a victory? Under the circumstances of comically-obvious criminal election fraud, what different political activity could have been engaged in to result in a win?
Would people have more willingly engaged in a revolution and took over Congress but for time and energy people invested in Q? The Capitol invasion of January 6, 2021 [*12] reveals the exact opposite, as the prior-referenced bill conflates the Capitol protesters with Q followers.
We touch upon the most important epistemological questions of Q. Is Q a Nostradamus-like entity predicting the future, or is he an influencer trying to achieve a result? A determinist believes events such as the election fraud and/or a prospective military takeover are predestined, like a wind-up toy going through the motions that we have no control over. So, the temptation is to assume that, since most of the events referenced by Q haven't come to light, it must be that Q was making it up instead of simply being a plan that failed.
I don't know whether or not a group within the U.S. military orchestrated arrests of child-traffickers and battled the intelligence community over control of the U.S. government behind the scenes. Conflict within the U.S. intelligence community would, of course, be classified to the extent it exists. I only know that, so far, such a plan has not succeeded. But that doesn't mean there was never any plan. There might never have been one. But it's also possible that people's courage failed them at a critical moment. It's also possible the enemies within the U.S. government that control it succeeded in destroying their opposition.
Now we come upon the true meaning of the old adage: "we see through a glass darkly." Our understanding of the world is uncertain. We can never know with full certainty what happened or didn't happen, and we are fully capable of error when deciphering the material world.
Sometimes the good guy loses. If the good guy won every single time due to a divine plan, human existence would be pointless. It is our ability to make choices that influence our future that gives meaning to our lives. We can't know the truth or the future perfectly, because we are limited by our conscious minds with flawed abilities in perception and without a foundation to measure our knowledge against. As Otto Neurath eloquently put it [*13]:
But we are capable of entertaining multiple tactics for achieving our goals at the same time. A Christian-oriented belief that faith gives a reward of eternal life independent of good deeds on Earth does not mean most Christians don't independently endeavor in good enterprises with their lives. It's possible to be inspired by and believe, or have believed, in Q and also take action, as any believer in free-will understands "the plan" can fail and that, even if it is to succeed, our good choices in action still matter.
Even determinists don't live as if their actions had no sway on outcomes in their lives. Certainty in any outcome in the material world simply isn't possible, absent some Calvinist-oriented belief in determinism.
Hope for the future inspires us to do good things, even if the foundation of that hope was false. People didn't wait for Q operatives to take action against our criminal government. They voted. They campaigned and fought for President Trump. They marched on the Capitol when Congress betrayed the U.S. Constitution by certifying comically-obvious election fraud.
If belief in Q placated instead of energized the right-wing base, Congress would not be passing laws to deter participation via revoking government clearances. The left-wing media wouldn't be constantly attacking it. Social media wouldn't be mass-banning accounts discussing it. Instead, our enemies would be promoting Q and allowing such discussion to flourish in order to steer right-wing enemies down a false path.
Hope for the future and justice is always a righteous thing. Belief in Q has energized our side and opened many of us to future paths amenable to securing justice when future opportunities arise.
Regardless of whether Q is a troll endeavoring to get a rise out of people for laughs, a ridiculous left-wing psy-op to trick people, or a plan by righteous people in our government that failed, the net-effect is positive. People are now open to the reality that elections materially impacting geo-political issues important to the cabal who orchestrated the 2020/1 election fraud will continue to be rigged and that other options must be considered, such as building new jurisdictions and seeking independence.
There is no shame in having hope in a certain outcome and then being incorrect. The human experience isn't about how often we predicted the future correctly upon our death beds. It's about the actions we took influencing the future to build a better civilization or orient the existing ones we have toward human flourishing.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/06/an-epistemological-study-of-apollo-11.html
[*2] An apt quote from David McGowen from Wagging the Moondoggie:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
"What primarily motivates [people into believing the Moon landings were real] is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for [over five] decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions to we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything."
[*3] Paper published in 2008 in law journals at Harvard and University of Chicago.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/22/items/CassSunstein/cass_sunstein_infiltration.pdf
[*4] https://www.qanon.pub/
[*5] https://www.thedailybeast.com/dems-new-bill-aims-to-bar-qanon-followers-from-security-clearances
[*6] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-bans-7-000-qanon-accounts-limits-150-000-others-n1234541
[*7] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-qanon-across-its-platforms-n1242339
[*8] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*9] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-measure-of-cowardice-and-sociopathy.html
Regardless of whether you believe Q is real or not, a Shakespeare line can't help but come to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."
The inauguration of Joe Biden as U.S. president belies the failure of Q. No secret organization in the U.S. government has successfully acted. Among the right, we see two primary criticisms.
(1) There is no evidence, such as separate sources, to corroborate Q-anon posts. Many of the predictions failed to happen. Therefore, association with Q reduces one's credibility. Without credibility among normal voters reading our points of view, we are less likely to win future elections. Therefore, discussion of Q should cease.
(2) Because many of the statements made by Q have not yet come to pass, attention to other points of view or strategies to achieve victory were crowded out. Absent the emergence of Q, these other strategies could have more readily been pursued. Therefore, belief in Q is a waste of time, and similar conspiracy discussions should be limited in favor of more grounded strategies for political action.
I reject both criticisms.
For the former (1), an assumption is relied on: voting matters in future elections. As I've discussed in tremendous detail in prior posts, here [*8] and here [*9], the 2020/1 elections were comically fraudulent. Nobody honestly believes Joe Biden won 10.5 million votes more than the previous record-holder, Barrack Obama, while winning 45% less counties, most excess votes coming from four cities that shut down counting operations and suddenly found statistically-absurd Biden-only ballot dumps under the circumstances of a thousand affidavits and video evidence witnessing the same ballots being run through machines multiple times while observers were conveniently kicked out.
Considering how aggressive Trump fought this fraud and failed to overturn such comically-obvious shenanigans even Mr. Magoo could discover, what does that say about how elections will be run in the future? The same tactics will be perfected, and new ones will be introduced using the latest technology. The media will learn how to suppress contra information to a no-fraud narrative better. The Republican party will work to ensure Trump-like candidates who fight fraud are never again allowed, as primary candidate-selections are not protected by U.S. voting laws but are deemed internal selections where rules can be freely violated to get the desired result [*10].
Voting will probably matter in small-town elections or those that don't have geo-political implications, as it's not likely the controllers of election fraud need or even desire to rig every single election going forward. But the ones that have stakes and matter will almost certainly continue to be rigged, be they in favor of either or any future party, to the candidate serving the controllers' interests.
But let's say voting does matter going forward. What study do we have among Republican and/or independent voters showing a propensity to not vote Republican due to Q involvement? I'm sure the media will get right on rigging such a study, considering its aforementioned terror of Q. Be dubious if you see one, since polling on speculation as to how people would vote but for some event has inherently questionable accuracy.
Did Q energize the base and cause more votes to occur that otherwise wouldn't have? Or did Q dissuade moderate voters who picked Biden out of repulsion by the media reports ridiculing Q? Considering the media spent far more time ridiculing Donald Trump [*11] than they spent ridiculing Q, it's hard to imagine someone not shamed by the media out of voting for Trump that then took the Q-shaming seriously enough to change his vote to what the media would prefer for him.
For the latter criticism (2), one wonders: is there some fixed pie of political resources? Can we ascribe a made-up number, say 20% of right-wing resources, going to following Q that could have been allocated to some other project that would have more likely allowed a victory? Under the circumstances of comically-obvious criminal election fraud, what different political activity could have been engaged in to result in a win?
Would people have more willingly engaged in a revolution and took over Congress but for time and energy people invested in Q? The Capitol invasion of January 6, 2021 [*12] reveals the exact opposite, as the prior-referenced bill conflates the Capitol protesters with Q followers.
We touch upon the most important epistemological questions of Q. Is Q a Nostradamus-like entity predicting the future, or is he an influencer trying to achieve a result? A determinist believes events such as the election fraud and/or a prospective military takeover are predestined, like a wind-up toy going through the motions that we have no control over. So, the temptation is to assume that, since most of the events referenced by Q haven't come to light, it must be that Q was making it up instead of simply being a plan that failed.
I don't know whether or not a group within the U.S. military orchestrated arrests of child-traffickers and battled the intelligence community over control of the U.S. government behind the scenes. Conflict within the U.S. intelligence community would, of course, be classified to the extent it exists. I only know that, so far, such a plan has not succeeded. But that doesn't mean there was never any plan. There might never have been one. But it's also possible that people's courage failed them at a critical moment. It's also possible the enemies within the U.S. government that control it succeeded in destroying their opposition.
Now we come upon the true meaning of the old adage: "we see through a glass darkly." Our understanding of the world is uncertain. We can never know with full certainty what happened or didn't happen, and we are fully capable of error when deciphering the material world.
Sometimes the good guy loses. If the good guy won every single time due to a divine plan, human existence would be pointless. It is our ability to make choices that influence our future that gives meaning to our lives. We can't know the truth or the future perfectly, because we are limited by our conscious minds with flawed abilities in perception and without a foundation to measure our knowledge against. As Otto Neurath eloquently put it [*13]:
But our choices in action matter. If they didn't, debate would be an exercise in futility. One can argue that choice is an illusion, but then the decision to argue with me on the matter belies a confession that minds can be changed through action. Thus, I understand why people would naturally speculate as to what void could've filled right-wing communities and inspired action absent Q.There is no way to establish fully secured, neat protocol statements as starting points of the sciences. There is no tabula rasa. We are like sailors who have to rebuild their ship on the open sea, without ever being able to dismantle it in dry-dock and reconstruct it from its best components. Only metaphysics can disappear without a trace. Imprecise ‘verbal clusters’ are somehow always part of the ship. If imprecision is diminished at one place, it may well re-appear at another place to a stronger degree.
But we are capable of entertaining multiple tactics for achieving our goals at the same time. A Christian-oriented belief that faith gives a reward of eternal life independent of good deeds on Earth does not mean most Christians don't independently endeavor in good enterprises with their lives. It's possible to be inspired by and believe, or have believed, in Q and also take action, as any believer in free-will understands "the plan" can fail and that, even if it is to succeed, our good choices in action still matter.
Even determinists don't live as if their actions had no sway on outcomes in their lives. Certainty in any outcome in the material world simply isn't possible, absent some Calvinist-oriented belief in determinism.
Hope for the future inspires us to do good things, even if the foundation of that hope was false. People didn't wait for Q operatives to take action against our criminal government. They voted. They campaigned and fought for President Trump. They marched on the Capitol when Congress betrayed the U.S. Constitution by certifying comically-obvious election fraud.
If belief in Q placated instead of energized the right-wing base, Congress would not be passing laws to deter participation via revoking government clearances. The left-wing media wouldn't be constantly attacking it. Social media wouldn't be mass-banning accounts discussing it. Instead, our enemies would be promoting Q and allowing such discussion to flourish in order to steer right-wing enemies down a false path.
Hope for the future and justice is always a righteous thing. Belief in Q has energized our side and opened many of us to future paths amenable to securing justice when future opportunities arise.
Regardless of whether Q is a troll endeavoring to get a rise out of people for laughs, a ridiculous left-wing psy-op to trick people, or a plan by righteous people in our government that failed, the net-effect is positive. People are now open to the reality that elections materially impacting geo-political issues important to the cabal who orchestrated the 2020/1 election fraud will continue to be rigged and that other options must be considered, such as building new jurisdictions and seeking independence.
There is no shame in having hope in a certain outcome and then being incorrect. The human experience isn't about how often we predicted the future correctly upon our death beds. It's about the actions we took influencing the future to build a better civilization or orient the existing ones we have toward human flourishing.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/06/an-epistemological-study-of-apollo-11.html
[*2] An apt quote from David McGowen from Wagging the Moondoggie:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
"What primarily motivates [people into believing the Moon landings were real] is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for [over five] decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions to we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything."
[*3] Paper published in 2008 in law journals at Harvard and University of Chicago.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/22/items/CassSunstein/cass_sunstein_infiltration.pdf
[*4] https://www.qanon.pub/
[*5] https://www.thedailybeast.com/dems-new-bill-aims-to-bar-qanon-followers-from-security-clearances
[*6] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-bans-7-000-qanon-accounts-limits-150-000-others-n1234541
[*7] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-qanon-across-its-platforms-n1242339
[*8] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*9] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-measure-of-cowardice-and-sociopathy.html
[*10] This discussion I'll relegate to a future piece, as it is a complex topic I have some personal experience with. Multiple federal courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects political parties from the government overriding a candidate it might choose to run in a general election, even if that political party violates its own rules or commits fraud to select its candidate to run in a general election under false pretenses.
[*11] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-role-of-media-in-post-democratic-era.html
[*12] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/take-off-bow-tie-stop-pretending-your.html
[*13] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neurath/
[*11] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-role-of-media-in-post-democratic-era.html
[*12] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/take-off-bow-tie-stop-pretending-your.html
[*13] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neurath/
Comments
Post a Comment