These are three things that historically didn't go together, with the new age in particular being not entirely incorrectly associated with the occult. Of course new age is itself an odd hodge podge of occultism, spiritualism, new thought / "the secret" / prosperity gospel, appropriated native beliefs, and hippie counterculture stuff.
I also find Qanon deeply disturbing for its totalitarian tendencies, such as cheerleading for mass arrests and martial law. The combination of fringe Christianity with the new age has a not so great history with groups like Heaven's Gate and The Solar Temple. It's a combination that seems to self destruct as the new age and occult/magic(k)al influence brings out a strong tendency to try to immanentize the eschaton.
One of the darkly hilarious parts of the latest "Q" drops was that the entire cast of Friends had been arrested and executed. (Why? One can only imagine it had something to do with laugh tracks.)
It feels like "Q" predicts "marshall" law (his acolytes can never get the spelling right), executions of public figures, or impending power grabs/coups every month or so. None of them pan out, but his followers will usually call those predictions "intentional disinfo."
I imagine the only way this kind of hysteria ends is with a new conspiracy theory. And that gets uprooted by yet another conspiracy theory. And so on until the heat death of the universe.
Trump's rise was certainly boosted by his involvement in birtherism.
The Trump equivalent of 2024 or 2028 is probably tweeting about QAnon right now.
You don’t lynch someone in effigy because you’re trying to say that you don’t think they aren’t 35.
It is known and not under any debate that John McCain was not born on US soil (he was born on an army base in Panama), and yet Obama’s legitimacy was the one in question. It’s very obvious why one candidate was considered a foreign other and one was not.
I would recommend checking out the Epstein stuff and the spygate stuff, since that looks like it’s unraveling now (will we learn soon that Cruz campaign was also spies on?)
I’ve been tracking this Q thing for years, since nearly the first post. I’m curious where this assertion comes from? Did Q name these folks qanons? No. In fact he calls them “anons”. Please provide a source.
*: I would say 4chan isn't a good example of imageboard culture after the eternal September that followed Project Chanology, but apparently they kept that aspect of their culture.
Edit: genuinely curious why I'm being downvoted, I found this pretty interesting
Doesn't that just show that liberals are more likely to talk about it, at least in the sources to which you listen, than that they are more likely to know about it?
For example, one explanation—which seems plausible to me, but which I do not claim is the truth—of the observed facts is that conservatives who aren't QAnon believers don't want to discuss what they see as a fringe position within their party, whereas conservatives who are believers only discuss their beliefs with those they feel are, or might become, initiates. I can also believe that liberals would be both more frightened by these beliefs, hence more likely to talk about them, and more motivated to highlight what they perceive as fringe or embarrassing beliefs of their ideological opponents.
probably because the kind of people who discusss QAnon as a phenomenon are more likely to be young, actively engaged in (digital) politics and possibly more educated, which correlates with political leaning, in particuar in the last election. As Pew points out, NYT readers or NPR listeners are also much more likely to have heard of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if liberals score higher if you question US demographics about pretty much any internet phenomenon just because of the make up of the group.
It’s quite amazing to watch.
For example, Birtherism was easily disproven but persisted for years among a high percentage of Republicans and even among members of Congress, the current President, and many of his appointees. There’s nothing remotely equivalent on the Democratic side - you could probably find someone saying just about anything you imagine but they’re at the fringe rather than making official government actions based on those beliefs (remember Benghazi?)
As for “which side has more conspiracies,” I don’t think anyone can truly know which side is more or less out of touch with reality when each of us has some kind of affinity to one side or another and will thus have bias that tilts our perception.
But as someone who followed the spygate saga, Q seemed to know just enough inside baseball to make it interesting and keep me curious. I thought maybe some foreign intelligence op or something.
To give Qanon credit though, they were taking about Epstein for two years, when Epstein was still considered untouchable. Apparently their cohort isn’t so untouchable anymore.
You ever see a psychic or other con-person work? Think more like that.
Among the intelligence people I follow (such as Rich Higgins, former NSC staffer), the consensus seems to be that Q is a psyop against POTUS, from either a foreign or domestic intelligence). People can decide for themselves.
I can't point to any concrete "predictions" from Q other than Ted Cruz's campaign was also spied on. The only "prediction" with a date turned out totally false.
Why is it so hard to find a thoughtful, technical, ripping to shreds of Q’s posts?
Its only value is a sick kind of entertainment - "I am so much more clever than these idiots". I say this as somebody who has consumed this kind of media myself in the past.