Why the MSM is So Worried About Qanon
Another day, another misleading article about Qanon. I say misleading, because the mistakes are so obvious, they seem intentional. I pointed out the mistakes in Michelle Goldberg’s hit piece, and while Julia Carrie Wong corrects a few of the misleading points Goldberg made, she gets caught creating a few of her own in her article entitled “What is QAnon? Explaining the bizarre rightwing conspiracy theory.”
In the first paragraph, Wong connects to the readers emotional memories by bringing up Toms Hanks. Readers young and old have experienced Hanks characters as a part of their life. From “Big” to “Toy Story” to “The Post,” his longevity in entertaining people is unquestioned. Wong hits them with Hanks being “linked” to pedophilia, which is sure to shock many. That emotional reaction is an effective technique, because something that shocking puts the reader into a state of disbelief.
Wong might think she’s discrediting Q by association to this accusation, but had she asked a single individual that knows anything about Q, she’d realize there’s a fatal flaw in this association. Sarah Ruth Ashcraft is not trusted in the community of anons that are really following Q. She’s an opportunist, much like Isaac Kappy. She has thrown out names and accussations with no evidence. Not even a single filed police report. They want attention, and slapping a #Qanon hashtag onto a tweet is easy. I could post #BLM, but that wouldn’t mean I was a part of that movement, would it? Associations are cheap and easy. Could Hanks be a pedo? Sure, but Q hasn’t ever brought up his name. Not once.
In her next section, “Meet Q,” Wong gives a fairly short synopsis of the origins of Q. She makes the common mistake of including 4chan. 4chan was where Q originated, but moved to 8chan and hasn’t posted on 4chan since. There’s a reason every article has tried to lure people to 4chan; It’s not the official source anymore. It is easier to go offtrack if you read a second-hand source. Would you prefer to read Trump’s tweets directly or Anderson Cooper’s explanation about Trump’s tweets? Which would be the source? The media should be linking you to qanon.pub and qproofs.com, but why would they give you the unfiltered source material when they can give you their interpreted opinion about it. Which option is trying to sway your view?
Wong’s next section is titled “What do followers of Qanon believe?”This is an impossible question to answer because you’ll get different answers from everyone. You’ll get the same results if you ask people who have no idea who Qanon is, by the way. This is just a way of inserting her view of the Q followers into the story. Do you really want to know why the anons follow? Here’s one anon’s word that echoes what a lot of us feel:
Evidence is what we seek. Evidence leads to truth. Notice the contrast with Ashcraft? Evidence vs. No Evidence. One leads to truth, one leads to attention. Which one does MSM shine a spotlight on?
Next up is celebrities following Q. Yes, many you know are aware and follow Q. Of course it would be remiss of Wong to point out Roseanne Barr who shorly after mentioning Q, ruined her career by tweeting out something racist. Wong likes associations. How convenient for the MSM that someone would mention Q then get caught in a scandal.
In the most anticlimatical climax of an article I might have seen, it’s specialist time. In it’s true unbiased search for truth, Wong introduces Joseph Uscinski, who in 2017 gave a speech titled, “Conspiracy Theories are for Losers.” According to Uscinski, “QAnon remains a “fringe” belief held by “a very small number of people”. Evidence? The MSM has come out with at least 10 articles in the last 24 hour. Why would they jump on a story that only dealt with the “fringe?” Would the MSM be scared of a fringe element? If you follow Q, you already know the answer to that.
Wong won’t let the opportunity to let your emotions fade. She connects Hanks to another once-loved actor. “Bill Cosby was America’s dad,” Uscinski pointed out. “Now it turns out he’s a serial rapist. So how much should we be blaming people for thinking ‘Hey, maybe there’s something beneath the surface?’” The association here is actually disturbing. First, we’re led to believe Hanks is being named and it’s all a joke. Just a “fringe” element naming beloved Hanks. Now we’re made to think, “What if?” This might seem like the author is being evenhanded, but the next section of the article reveals it’s true intention.
Does Any of this Matter? is the true reveal about this article. Her answer to that title questions is “Sort of. Not because it’s true, but because people who believe it’s true might act on that belief.” She then leads into the obvious #pizzagate shooting (a shooting where the man shot a very dangerous ceiling) and the Arizona group tresspassing to search for pedophiles. She forgets that she just planted the message in your head that Hanks might just be a pedophile. Bill Cosby raped women, so Hanks COULD touch kids. This wasn’t unintentional. She led right into it. And of course she leads right into youtube and how they have to censor things as a solution. Every single day, the news, MSM or not, identifies evil and wrongdoing in the world. Why would Q followers be any different than the neighbor realizing the person that he lived next door was robbing banks? You’ll find pedophiles being arrested every few days if you look in your local news. Are we to believe people are more likely to attack a celebrity than someone they know and have actual proximity to? It’s a fear tactic and it’s a weak one at that.
That weak tactic is their entire basis for questioning Q. If you reread her article, not once did she try to debunk a single item that Q has revealed. The entire goal is to scare or warn people that because someone unrelated might do something random, you should distance yourself from it. Research is bad, we’ll tell you everything you need to know. Learning something on your own can lead to violence? They might want to rethink school. Education might be the downfall of society if you follow that logic.
To anyone reading this that is looking to research on their own, please never trust mine or anyone’s word on Q or anything we present. Go to the source material and make up your own mind. Go to qanon.pub and start at the beginning (bottom) and research along the way. Go to qproofs.com and see if your conclusions line up with others. Make up your own mind. You’re allowed to do that, and that is why the MSM is so scared of Q. He’s made it interesting again to be a news junkie. He’s made it interesting again to worry about facts. Real facts, not opinions that state they’re facts. He’s made the socratic method fun again. He’s made making up your own mind great again.