Who Is @Q? (Part Six: The Number One Choice in News)
Are any of the @q posts newsworthy in and of themselves? They’re not breaking stories. Or are they?
The events that shape our world are knowable in real time. With a well-constructed map of provable reality to depend on, you know what to look for and how to find it. A well-constructed map, an understanding of the terrain, allows for new information to be incorporated into the picture of the whole. Events in reality are not discrete or random. They exist inside a larger interpretation of reality. If they do not fit a prior understanding of reality, then the prior understanding of reality must be expanded. The map must account for the terrain or else the map is useless.
Small stories from across the world begin with local, independent reporting. People in well-connected information networks - from a few friends and neighbors, to massive alternative social media followings - spread those local stories. Important and vetted information gets spread wider and as it spreads, it is further vetted. It’s not long before genuine experts in any given field are vetting the information for themselves. This vetting process is what gives the stories their substance because our experts are telling the truth, knowing their lives can be destroyed by doing so. These stories go viral, already vetted. The mainstream media is then forced to debunk the stories, and they fail at an increasing rate to do this. If the debunking fails before people forget about the true story, then a distraction to shift the mainstream narrative is necessary. Something dangerous or salacious works best.
It should be clear that this process represents a better model for the flow of information. It is far more likely to produce an informed population than what we are given: Double-masking: Why some infectious disease experts say it's a good idea.
Trust The Science. Follow The Science. When they are attacking me, they’re attacking The Science.
When legitimate experts explain the data and give their analysis directly to the public, allowing for questions, the need for an intermediary is eliminated. The media is bypassed. It becomes immediately obvious that the media’s role is to disseminated the narratives of the interests it is paid to represent. The financial records back this up. The ubiquity of big pharma advertisements and overt sponsorship back it up. Even their guest lineup proves it. Why do all of the most powerful interests in the world agree that the world must #standwithukraine, even if it means World War III? Why does Tucker Carlson have the only opposing viewpoint in the whole of mainstream media?
It is incorrect, at this point, to imagine that the global mainstream media constitutes ‘The News’ in any way. This a mistake most people still make. “The news” is a story about what happens in reality, told honestly. Analysis of ‘the news’ should include an absolute bias for hidden truths, especially when the powerful benefit from the hiding.
Most people accept that the mainstream media’s overt worship of The Truth is a thin veil over various biases, occasionally ideological, but mostly due to various corporate and social requirements. Despite realizing this, people emotionally connect to the hosts, or guests, or brand of anger, and they convince themselves that the biases have disappeared. Very few in the mainstream media’s audience would deny their favorite sources are biased. They know it’s not true, and they calculate the embarrassment of exposing themselves as ‘someone who doesn’t know that’ being more harmful than admitting someone else’s bias. Because they identify as ‘someone who holds the right viewpoint’, they will happily admit (around certain people) that they watch MSNBC. They do this to signal to their peers that they’re not “QAnon” or a “Fox News viewer”. The bias is fully understood, but it makes no difference, because what they watch makes them feel so right.
The events that shape our world are knowable in real time. With a well-constructed map of provable reality to depend on, you know what to look for and how to find it. A well-constructed map, an understanding of the terrain, allows for new information to be incorporated into the picture of the whole. Events in reality are not discrete or random. They exist inside a larger interpretation of reality. If they do not fit a prior understanding of reality, then the prior understanding of reality must be expanded. The map must account for the terrain or else the map is useless.
Small stories from across the world begin with local, independent reporting. People in well-connected information networks - from a few friends and neighbors, to massive alternative social media followings - spread those local stories. Important and vetted information gets spread wider and as it spreads, it is further vetted. It’s not long before genuine experts in any given field are vetting the information for themselves. This vetting process is what gives the stories their substance because our experts are telling the truth, knowing their lives can be destroyed by doing so. These stories go viral, already vetted. The mainstream media is then forced to debunk the stories, and they fail at an increasing rate to do this. If the debunking fails before people forget about the true story, then a distraction to shift the mainstream narrative is necessary. Something dangerous or salacious works best.
It should be clear that this process represents a better model for the flow of information. It is far more likely to produce an informed population than what we are given: Double-masking: Why some infectious disease experts say it's a good idea.
Trust The Science. Follow The Science. When they are attacking me, they’re attacking The Science.
When legitimate experts explain the data and give their analysis directly to the public, allowing for questions, the need for an intermediary is eliminated. The media is bypassed. It becomes immediately obvious that the media’s role is to disseminated the narratives of the interests it is paid to represent. The financial records back this up. The ubiquity of big pharma advertisements and overt sponsorship back it up. Even their guest lineup proves it. Why do all of the most powerful interests in the world agree that the world must #standwithukraine, even if it means World War III? Why does Tucker Carlson have the only opposing viewpoint in the whole of mainstream media?
It is incorrect, at this point, to imagine that the global mainstream media constitutes ‘The News’ in any way. This a mistake most people still make. “The news” is a story about what happens in reality, told honestly. Analysis of ‘the news’ should include an absolute bias for hidden truths, especially when the powerful benefit from the hiding.
Most people accept that the mainstream media’s overt worship of The Truth is a thin veil over various biases, occasionally ideological, but mostly due to various corporate and social requirements. Despite realizing this, people emotionally connect to the hosts, or guests, or brand of anger, and they convince themselves that the biases have disappeared. Very few in the mainstream media’s audience would deny their favorite sources are biased. They know it’s not true, and they calculate the embarrassment of exposing themselves as ‘someone who doesn’t know that’ being more harmful than admitting someone else’s bias. Because they identify as ‘someone who holds the right viewpoint’, they will happily admit (around certain people) that they watch MSNBC. They do this to signal to their peers that they’re not “QAnon” or a “Fox News viewer”. The bias is fully understood, but it makes no difference, because what they watch makes them feel so right.
