Was Q created as a cover to ridicule real wrongdoing?

Kentonio said:

Sudden thought just occurred, the emergence of Q as a ridiculous over the top conspiracy theory has pretty much ensured that any discussion of child abuse by the powerful can be easily batted away by painting it as Q Anon nonsense. Yet as we know thanks to Epstein (and a number of cases in the UK involving past celebrities and politicians, there have certainly been child abuse rings involving very powerful people, and strong rumours regarding people at the very top of the political world being involved in such horrible deeds.

So could Q have been deliberately created as a propaganda tool to deflect justified discussion and investigation? If someone now talks about this stuff publicly, isn't it almost certainly going to get laughed at and the people discussing it called crazy conspiracy kooks? It wouldn't be the first time this approach has been taken.

Click to expand...

Good point, it's worth considering.

It's sort of like how the media spun the story of "satanic panic" as a mass delusion even thought this type of Satanism, albeit in less flamboyant forms, is/was a real thing (I have encountered people that have first hand experience with it, usually it involved ritual sadism).

Also, unfortunately child sexual abuse isn't that rare in the US, and goes underreported. The very real trauma that often attracts people (especially women) to QAnon shouldn't be discounted, even if many elites in the US don't want to confront the dark side of human nature in our society.

Kentonio said:

Sudden thought just occurred, the emergence of Q as a ridiculous over the top conspiracy theory has pretty much ensured that any discussion of child abuse by the powerful can be easily batted away by painting it as Q Anon nonsense. Yet as we know thanks to Epstein (and a number of cases in the UK involving past celebrities and politicians, there have certainly been child abuse rings involving very powerful people, and strong rumours regarding people at the very top of the political world being involved in such horrible deeds.

So could Q have been deliberately created as a propaganda tool to deflect justified discussion and investigation? If someone now talks about this stuff publicly, isn't it almost certainly going to get laughed at and the people discussing it called crazy conspiracy kooks? It wouldn't be the first time this approach has been taken.

Click to expand...

Ridicule is a cheap and easy attempt at delegitimization. The MSM made good use of ridicule at a time when Q was reporting stories which were very inconvenient to the MSM agenda.

royal priest said:

Ridicule is a cheap and easy attempt at delegitimization. The MSM made good use of ridicule at a time when Q was reporting stories which were very inconvenient to the MSM agenda.

Click to expand...

What’s the msn agenda?

Kentonio said:

Sudden thought just occurred, the emergence of Q as a ridiculous over the top conspiracy theory has pretty much ensured that any discussion of child abuse by the powerful can be easily batted away by painting it as Q Anon nonsense. Yet as we know thanks to Epstein (and a number of cases in the UK involving past celebrities and politicians, there have certainly been child abuse rings involving very powerful people, and strong rumours regarding people at the very top of the political world being involved in such horrible deeds.

So could Q have been deliberately created as a propaganda tool to deflect justified discussion and investigation? If someone now talks about this stuff publicly, isn't it almost certainly going to get laughed at and the people discussing it called crazy conspiracy kooks? It wouldn't be the first time this approach has been taken.

Click to expand...

I see it more as a case of a blind hog stumbling across an acorn. Someone makes a lengthy series of outlandish accusations but then some set of facts exist to support parts of those accusations. And the accusations are not specific, only that some global pedophilia ring exists and it is run by powerful people.

In the Epstein case it is not pedophilia per se, but the abuse of underage girls. It's two different things. And the accusations seem almost like a palm reading. The palm reader says something vaguely similar to something that may have happened before, or may happen in the future, but not exact enough to give them credibility.

HTacianas said:

I see it more as a case of a blind hog stumbling across an acorn. Someone makes a lengthy series of outlandish accusations but then some set of facts exist to support parts of those accusations. And the accusations are not specific, only that some global pedophilia ring exists and it is run by powerful people.

In the Epstein case it is not pedophilia per se, but the abuse of underage girls. It's two different things. And the accusations seem almost like a palm reading. The palm reader says something vaguely similar to something that may have happened before, or may happen in the future, but not exact enough to give them credibility.

Click to expand...

Good point. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, as they say. THe Epstein case is so bizarre and goes against a privileged cultural narrative about elites, that it seems to parallel a dark fantasy or conspiracy theory.

royal priest said:

Ridicule is a cheap and easy attempt at delegitimization. The MSM made good use of ridicule at a time when Q was reporting stories which were very inconvenient to the MSM agenda.

Click to expand...

Q is some guy in his mom's basement doing it all for the Lulz on 4Chan. I've been on the Net long enough and seen it all evolve to where it is, to know that. There is nothing new under the sun.

FireDragon76 said:

Q is some guy in his mom's basement doing it all for the Lulz on 4Chan. I've been on the Net long enough and seen it all evolve to where it is, to know that. There is nothing new under the sun.

Click to expand...

Quazy!

Jimmy D said:

What’s the msn agenda?

Click to expand...

Increase in their stock price.

Kentonio said:

Sudden thought just occurred, the emergence of Q as a ridiculous over the top conspiracy theory has pretty much ensured that any discussion of child abuse by the powerful can be easily batted away by painting it as Q Anon nonsense. Yet as we know thanks to Epstein (and a number of cases in the UK involving past celebrities and politicians, there have certainly been child abuse rings involving very powerful people, and strong rumours regarding people at the very top of the political world being involved in such horrible deeds.

So could Q have been deliberately created as a propaganda tool to deflect justified discussion and investigation? If someone now talks about this stuff publicly, isn't it almost certainly going to get laughed at and the people discussing it called crazy conspiracy kooks? It wouldn't be the first time this approach has been taken.

Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that children are trafficked to the wealthy and powerful, all over the world. That's not even a question.

Do I believe that world leaders are murdering babies and drinking their blood? Injecting themselves with adrenochrome to stay "young"? No.

Is it possible that the Q conspiracy is hoping to cover up the reality of child sex trafficking to politicians and world leaders? Sure.

HTacianas said:

In the Epstein case it is not pedophilia per se...

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by this?

NerdGirl123 said:

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Click to expand...

Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. It's often used erroneously to describe statutory rape.

I don't know the ages of all of Epstein's victims, but there is a picture floating around on the internet of Prince Andrew and a young woman who the claim has been made Andrew had sexual relations with while she was underage. You cannot tell absolutely from looking at her that she is in fact underage. Say for the sake of argument that she is sixteen years old. Some States may consider her to be of age, some States may not. In most States she could be legally married. There are other technicalities, such as protections for students who might be unduly influenced by a teacher, but sexual relations between an adult and a sixteen year old is not always illegal, and is not abnormal.

Pedophilia is a case where a child, say eight years old, is involved. It is in all cases immoral and illegal.