Here's a catch-up article on the rise of the QAnon far-right conspiracy theory


Ignore the above. Not written.


Lorem ipsum dolor shit amet, consectetur adipiscing crap, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut .379

repeat. end transmission



What happened to the early idea that ‘Q’ was just someone trolling gullible idjuts? It certainly took off WAY beyond the initial joke, but the media stories positioning these things as ‘genuine’ (weird word choice I know but that’s where we are in this dark timeline) without bringing up that the origin was possibly/probably a joke just gives a weird legitimacy to it. Maybe there’s no difference at this point, but something that starts as satire that then morphs into ‘reality’ still needs to be known to have started as satire and not from any actual ‘truth seeking ‘

Now that I’m thinking about it, the trolling kinda reversed course at some point and a good bunch of QAnons are the ones ‘trolling the libs‘ with it now.

Good lord…whiskey time keeps coming earlier and earlier.


Wait, can lizard aliens even BE pedophiles?
I have some doubts in this area.


It’s 5:30 in Iceland, right now!


I’m reminded of the BB article from back in May that highlighted an Atlantic article about QAnon. I think a lot about the opening sentence of the quote taken from the Atlantic, regarding the Internet’s “ability to shatter any semblance of shared reality, undermining civil society and democratic governance in the process”. I think about what kind of efforts and changes to how things work, and how we think about things, with regards to social media companies and the way the law is written, how those changes are going to have to be made (if they can even be made) to where we can eventually pick up the pieces of our shared reality and put them back together again.


…on a circle* of lizard-people green!

*The circle is likely a “Witch’s Magic Circle”, or “cookie”**.

** This is why Big Data wants to put cookies on all your computers and phones! ***

*** Phones and computers are used by almost ALL government agents, including the Fish & Wildlife Service.****

**** The Fish & Wildlife Service is responsible for monitoring fish and wildlife, such as the Quick Brown Fox!!!


Another commonality I see is the same standard or burden of proof used in both religion and QAnon-types.

It comes down to, “you can’t prove it isn’t true,” as that’s somehow some profound “gotcha” to justify nothing more than merely wanting or speculating that something is true.


Quite the cosmic joke in regards to the ‘universal library of knowledge / force for good’ that the internet was evangelized to become back in the early days.


As I was told many years ago, “It’s the things you don’t understand about yourself that always screw you up”.


I assume this “agility” is simply what happens when you have very few, or maybe no, critical faculties. So you can’t - even if you want to - think through the veracity of any connection between people, events or things that are suggested by either your brain or others. Obama was an alien. Steve Jobs was a direct descendent of Jesus. Milk is made from coal. Wifi rots cheese. The second world war didn’t happen. Sunsets are an optical illusion. etc. etc.

All it takes is then for somebody you admire or respect to say these things and you’re in for good.

As an aside, this always makes me wonder: how do I know (or feel I know) that certain things are true or untrue? How do I really know that, for example, the last election that took place was free and fair? Is my home broadband blocking websites or my job applications being ignored because of some secret background check? I don’t have the ability to convincingly know about those things, but for some reason I tell myself that the balance of probability means I don’t need to worry.


Qanon is antisemitism retooled. It is probably more like a 21st century foyer leading to antisemitic conspiracy theory. It wouldn’t surprise me if the sophomore or junior year Q adepts graduate to Protocols as a classics textbook.

Any overview of it needs to highlight the terrorist threat, and not just make it out to be an intellectual curiosity. People have already killed because of it, and the worst is yet to come.


When you put it like that, it sounds like a feature (i.e. where our dystopia is someone else’s utopia or, more likely, it’s everyone’s dystopia but cui bono [which, itself, sounds like a conspiracy theory. QED! Woohoo!])

1 Like

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” —Kurt Vonnegut


Three years on and it feels like people are telling us that goatfucking is an ordinary thing to do, and why aren’t we doing it too?


“it’s a vast cluster of ill-defined, conflicting hunches”

^^ That is the best description I have heard so far.


I asked my parents if they remembered anyone from their parents’ generation talking about the 1918 influenza. I think there was a relative who was orphaned by it, but no one could remember enough to describe what it was like. But polio is still in the living memory of many people. My mom remembered having to take a nap in the afternoon, well past the usual nap-taking age, so that she would not leave the house in the summer (until after 1955, anyway).


Well presumably, he’s so nefarious that all of the above are true.

…but yeah, it’s still bullshit.

It’s been a long time but wasn’t this the plot of Foucault’s Pendulum?

BTW is anyone else supposed to be working? (I might’ve asked that 8-10 years ago or whenever it was I first showed up at BB)

I’ve never understood postmodernism*, perhaps because I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be utopic or dystopic, or both. *(And it’s likely, that, by now, I simply don’t want to.) For example, what you’ve just described sounds like the opposite of hegemony (which IIRC, postmodernism criticizes and/or opposes). I felt like William Buckley writing that (so feel free to imagine it in Buckley’s voice), but on the other hand, you did say shared not compelled. But anyway, neither hegemony nor what we have now are utopic.

I’m still inclined to chalk up the internet as a net benefit for humanity. For example (real-world, but not from my own experience), parents of a child with CP finding out about a surgery that vastly improved things for the child, but which neither they nor their doctor had otherwise heard about (granted this is in the relatively early days of the internet). I personally no longer have any use for Facebook, but I’d also put it (barely) on this side of beneficial, for a similar, real-world reason (the problem there, of course, is that someone must have a Facebook account to benefit). Twitter, at best, is right on the other side of the fence as far as I’m concerned.


This is an amazing book and every time I read about Q-anon I think about it.
Especially the parts where the group would get to a hard inflection point (of the ‘aliens are coming today!’ variety) and when it didn’t happen they’d lose some people but the ones that remained would retcon their own mythos (“The aliens didn’t show because we’re so awesome!”) and become even more entrenched.

The main problem the book is when the authors delve into neuroscience, much of which hasn’t aged well. Sticking with just the actions and events surrounding the group is interesting enough on its own.


For all we know Q-related searches are trending because of articles like this one.

Is it more popular with paranoid conservatives, or snarky progressives?