Q is Owen Benjamin

Many of the criticisms aimed at Owen Benjamin were already fired at Q, but because Q has been on the scene for a bit longer, folks have already moved on from those types of criticism. Both Owen and Q pay ample lip service to civic nationalism, the idea that various nations can be unified by a shared legal code. Both have made claims about various conspiracy theories that are dubious at best.

But both are also great boosts to morale. Both get people excited, energized. Both get people realizing that they aren't alone after all, that the feelings of isolation are just that, and that there are a lot of other folks out there who are experiencing the same exact thing.

The major difference between the two is intelligence, and I don't really mean in the sense of being smart or not, though there is some of that, predominantly I mean in that Q is active where Owen is passive, the Q team are working behind the scenes and letting stuff drip out, where Owen is in full public view, trying to work things out and express what is on his mind.

As such, the nature of the demographics between the two audiences is going to vary considerably, and may even be pitted against each other at some point, but they're just two different flavors of the same lite-right political philosophy.

Both Q and Owen Benjamin place a heavy emphasis on rhetoric in their communications, the dialectic is few and far between, and that's where the minor quibble about the smartness on display could be made, in that Owen is not an engineer, he's not a scientist, he's not a scholar, but that's not to say he isn't smart or skilled, it's just not the same category as the Q folks.

When Q digs into dialectic, it's heady legal, surveillance, and "can you connect the dots between these two shady people" type stuff. It's objectively a more intellectually engaging theme of content, which doesn't make it any better, it's just going to appeal to a different category of folks.

You'd still likely enjoy drinking a beer with someone who follows either very closely, but the conversations that you'd have over that beer would vary significantly, and that's ok.

It's easy to want to sit back and be a critic.

"Q said X would happen on Y date and it didn't!"
"Owen said Z didn't happen, and that the world is really ABC!"

The nature of the criticism comes from a dialectic standpoint, which makes such criticism inherently ignorant, because neither are trying to convey information. That's not their primary purpose or intent.

Criticizing them for that would be like claiming soccer players don't know what they're doing because they're not playing by football rules. It's a category error, to cite Vox Day's framing of such a mistake.

Both are doing good work, and while you may disagree with one or both, we cannot undermine and backstab them and think that we're doing anyone any favors. If you don't want to support or follow them, don't, but don't make a big deal out of it either, because the people that care don't matter, and the people that matter don't care.

Instead, at the minimum, at least learn from what they are doing. Learn about how rhetoric works, what the "rules" are, how they go about doing their business, and understand that it's going to be unnatural for folks who are implicitly dialectic in their approach.

They're going to look like they're doing "something wrong", when to really declare something like that so concretely, again, ignores what they're really trying to do. Of course, according to the rules of checker, moving a knight is "wrong", but if folks are playing chess, the rules of checkers no longer apply.

Remember this before you elect to level criticisms or air your disappointments about either.

Q is not a savior

In our current world, it's hard to get folks to operate outside a binary. As before, to go beyond a binary requires discernment and critical thinking, two skills which go hand-in-hand, and also two skills which people have not bothered to develop.

Resource abundance removes selective pressures, makes survival easier for everyone, and because we are naturally efficient creatures, we're not inclined to waste time and energy on anything not required of us.

For the same reason that we must fake physical strain and toil through exercise because our lives do not otherwise require such efforts, we must also synthetically apply intellectual struggle to separate out the good ideas from the bad. These are all externally motivated, because of the truth behind the phrase "ignorance is bliss".

So, all that said, when I bother to actually go look at the raw posts, and see something like #2526, it's a useful reminder that, just like Trump's Presidency, nothing is guaranteed in this life when it comes to human affairs. People make plans, but people are fallible, and so while they may be useful, you should not place your hope in them.

"A WORLD UNITED IS A BEAUTIFUL THING."

Really?

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. - Genesis 11:5-9 (NKJV)

If God didn't think too highly of a unified world, why should we?

"People are inherently good."

Really?

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. - Romans 1:20-23 (NKJV)

From a dialectic standpoint, these claims are just absurd, especially as Q has a penchant for using the framing of spiritual warfare, making overtly religious statements, and even citing verses from scripture and so forth.

It's because people are not inherently good that we were kicked out of Eden. Adam, because he was pussy-whipped and cowardly, and Eve, for being gullible and greedy enough to believe that equality with God could, or should, be attained. These two existed before propaganda, before the Frankfurt School, before (((mass media))), before death, before war, before sin had entered the human sphere.

And they still screwed it up. The belief that humanity is "inherently good" requires subscription to delusions which are destructive and suicidal, and this is magnified in that God never found human unity a good thing, because about the only thing that ever reliably unified humans was their opposition to God, taking up arms with their brothers and sisters in rebellion, convinced that this time, this time for sure, their efforts will be successful in overthrowing God.

But, all that said, Q is an avatar of rhetoric, so trying to use a dialectical measure is a bit stupid.

Q is trying to act as a unifying force for "the right", because it currently sits so fractured by arbitrary and irrelevant distinctions that it can be systematically destroyed, and this process was going to be so quick and decisive that "the left" had to go so far as to recruit actors to "play resistance" against them just so that the speed of the defeat was easier for people to stomach.

Oh, we sure fought hard, campaigned and donated as best we could, but in the end we lost fair and square, so let's welcome our new overlords with happiness and not get any ideas about rejecting the authoritarian system we all apparently wanted and needed.

About the only saving grace for "the right" is that, as discussed in the opening, because the resistance against "the left" was fake, their actual skills in undermining "the right", in directing the narratives, in having the patience to implement Fabian strategies, rotted away because they didn't really need those skills any longer.

Gone is the ability to craft a convincing narrative to distract people from what is really going on, because not having needed to be creative, their knee-jerk reactions to try and explain the disparities between what they claimed and what is being observed don't bridge the gap anymore. When the bad consequences of their choices was insulated, contained, always in someone else's city, or state, or neighborhood, it was easy for folks to continue to buy the narrative. To believe that, despite rumors to the contrary, what was claimed is what could be expected.

But the gap is too big now. The consequences are in everyone's face, and the ability for "the left" to weave their fables in a pleasing manner, the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, is entirely absent. When a white person who has owned no slaves, and whose ancestors owned no slaves, is being told that they are implicitly racist and guilty of terrible crimes for which reparations are due, there is no "pleasing lie".

An example of a past "pleasing lie" could be seen with abortion. The lie was along the lines of "but what about rape/incest/life of mother?"

It didn't matter if 9 of 10 abortions were because the mother just didn't want to have a child, people could convince themselves that abortion remaining legal had justification.

Divorce is another example. "What about women in toxic relationships?"

Men often knew at least one guy, directly or indirectly, who treated their wives and families poorly, and so it didn't matter if 9 of 10 divorces were because the wife was bored and wanted to trade up on her husband for a new man that made more money or excited her more sexually.

Women's suffrage, legal immigration, the topics are numerous where a suitably convincing lie was told and people thought that they'd be perceived better for going along with the game instead of refusing to play, and since they wouldn't have to live with the consequences of the game, they'd figured they "got away with it".

It's in this same manner that Q is trying to exploit this same dynamic to create a unity that will last long enough to destroy "the left". Q is trying to foster unity for folks on "the right" who have been doubling down on their distinctions for generations, to get them to find common ground with each other long enough so that the plans of "the left" can be broken permanently, forcing them to start over again from scratch.

Q is going to say things that are wrong, superficial, or misleading, because when you are forming unity on more important things, there will be things you have to ignore at a "lower level" when trying to retain focus.

Given Identity > Culture > Politics, Q is going to say things that are trying to appeal to identity which may seem backwards or delusional at the cultural or political level, because it's not until there is unity at the identity level that any of those "smaller" issues could ever be dealt with in the first place.

It doesn't matter if Sessions supported asset forfeiture or marijuana laws if those things assist in breaking the plans of "the left" from coming to fruition. It doesn't matter if Trump executes civilians under martial law if it assists in breaking the plans of "the left". It doesn't matter if Whitaker should recuse himself and doesn't, if his prosecution of the evil assists in breaking the plans of "the left".

What folks need to realize is that the plans of "the left" were laid a long time ago, and until Trump came on the scene, they were well on their way to achieving their goals. Even so, Trump must either break their plans completely, or only end up being a pause button to the whole ordeal. Especially if Trump was approached by existing factions within the government who were already losing a cold civil war that they were fighting in secret, the goal for "the right" cannot be in trying to establish a more perfect political system, but to destroy the plans of their enemies.

I don't ultimately care what laws are broken by the Trump administration if he can successfully derail the demonic globalists plans. If he, and the people he is working with, and the folks behind Q, and so on, can effectively scuttle the globalist agenda, then AND ONLY THEN can the discussions about what our laws and our practices look like under normal circumstances take place.

Q is trying to warm people up to the idea that there is a war, people on the "other side" have already broken laws, and that "our side" has both the moral and pragmatic imperative to do whatever it will take to prevent these plans from coming to pass.

But people aren't ready for that yet. People don't see that we're already in a civil war yet. People are acting like discussions at the political level still matter, that discussing the merits and flaws between two largely similar political positions has a role.

People don't think we're at war, don't think the circumstances are that dire, don't think that their lives are endangered, and don't think that unity with folks they have minor disagreements with is all that important.

This is why Q is important, and useful, in that they are trying to bridge gaps with narratives people can buy into. The narratives may not actually be true, and the results of the choices may not be as advertised, but this is how people have been conditioned, by both nature and nurture, to react, to respond, to think. This is how people function, and so if we want results, we have to do what works, not just what we think should work.

The double-edged nature of this dynamic, though, is that everything Trump and the folks behind Q tries to do to foil the plans of the Neo-Babel globalists, should they fail, becomes another nail in the coffin. Another sin, another offense, another damning traitorous act against the prince of this world.

The harder you try to fight evil, the more evidence evil has that you are good, and the more passionate evil will be in trying to destroy you and everything you stand for. Evil knows its enemy and will act accordingly, and without mercy.

Q is not a savior, because Q isn't actually doing anything. It is a front, a propaganda piece, for those that are, and they are fallible humans with plans that may fail just as much as they seek to cause the failure of the plans of others.

Even if Trump succeeds, sin is still present among us, and will not be conquered until Jesus Christ returns again. So there will still be evil in the world, though its plans for our current age will certainly have been foiled, and the degree to which evil manifests could be curtailed. There will be those with silver tongues that re-learn the skills of deceit and manipulation, to hide their motives behind pleasing lies, and the process starts all over again.

Q is useful, but Q is not a savior, and so while we can cheer on the efforts of those behind Q, pray for them and our President to be successful, we should not place our hope in them, for they may fail.

Instead, we should place our hope in Jesus Christ, put our faith in his work, because we already know the ending of His story for our reality. We already know that Jesus Christ ultimately wins out against evil, and it's not even close. Evil is decimated, able to lay claim only those so foolish to have ignored the constant warnings and cautions that God had sent.

Evil does not win anyone over to "their side" at all, they capture no territory and hold onto nothing.

Good does win in the end, and should Trump and Q be truly aligned with God's work in this world, and should their success be part of the story that God seeks to tell through our times, then praise be to God.

Should their failure, and the expansion of darkness be part of the story God seeks to tell through our times, to demonstrate fully how pathetic and weak, feckless and delusional, humans are to believe that they can defeat evil without a complete reliance on God, then praise be to God.

Whether Trump or Q succeed or fail, you need to be right with God, such that regardless of what circumstances you will face in this life, your fate in eternity is never in question.

Put your faith and hope in Jesus Christ, declare Him as Lord, and call on His strength to repent.

Thoughts on Q

Of late, everyone seems to be polarizing regarding the cryptic anon known as "Q".

If you are a binary thinker, Q is either horrible, or the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The problem with Q though is that when there's no room for "maybe he's wrong about some stuff and right about other stuff, and maybe that's on purpose", it should set off an alarm in your head that there is a false dichotomy being forced onto the situation.

It's odd because, in the election cycle back in 2016, a lot of folks cited how Trump was good at saying something that fell into the category of speech called "rhetoric". In short, rhetoric is largely about emotional impact, and its contrast "dialectic", is about informational impact.

When you use facts and data to try and persuade, you're using dialectic when the circumstances more likely demand rhetoric. So when Trump says he had some 10 billion in assets or whatever, and he literally only had 3, it was rhetoric because what you're left with is "he's not quite as rich as he claimed, but he is still rich."

While factually, literally, inaccurate, rhetoric is not quite the same as lying, which is yet another concept difficult for binary thinkers to grasp.

This oddity is multiplied when you account for the fact that Trump is a negotiator, and you never open negotiations at the price you want. If you're selling, you start high. If buying, you start low. You then haggle towards what the final price would be. Your opening offer isn't a lie, it's an offer, a possibility.

This is where the value of rhetoric comes from. It forces you to consider a possibility, whether true or not, and so someone skilled with rhetoric will make an opening offer that is exaggerated, but sets a starting point for negotiation.

With that in mind, if you think of Q as a negotiator, by default some of the things shared are not going to be true. They're going to be an opening offer, a first stab.

We're in the midst of a cold civil war where a faction of the existing government has been working behind the scenes to secure great power and control for them and their buddies. If you wanted to avert making a cold civil war go hot, because the people whose priorities you share are still blissfully unaware and woefully unprepared, how do you still make progress? How do you "claim territory" in a way which doesn't provoke an escalated response that will not be handled in a calm, rational fashion?

Well, if your enemy has worked behind the scenes, using public narratives to distract, your most viable option is to do the same thing. In such a manner, the enemy can't really blow your "cover" without also blowing theirs. You fight behind the scenes in hopes that, securing victory there, the conflict doesn't spill out into the streets.

So from the outside, to those who are just "awake" enough to realize something is going on, it's going to look like you're doing nothing. And it may be that what you are trying to do might even fail!

The degree to which people loathe or love Q comes off as being tied to their natural level of impatience. Even folks much more intelligent than me haven't successfully resisted the urge to take potshots, apparently unaware how closely their criticism echoes that of the liberals regarding Trump's behavior in public.

Again, though, if Trump is trying to negotiate a  peaceful "civil war", one which avoids wanton bloodshed, he's not going to try and use logic, facts, data, etc. He's going to use rhetoric.

Q acts like a personification of rhetoric. The information may not be accurate, but if that's what you're looking for, you're making a "category error" in understanding the kind of information being presented. For the same reason that facts and data aren't very persuasive, opening bids and disinformation aren't very informational.

The goal isn't to dictate the future in explicit and accurate detail, but to shift narratives and influence possibilities. For example, if a liberal was going to do X, but there is enough clout with Q that something Q posts dissuades the liberal. How would you "prove" that Q did anything at all?

If your opening bid were smaller, how would that have affected the final negotiated price? What about if bigger?

What this "means" is that folks are trying to use the nature of indeterminacy to claim that something someone else is doing is wrong, misleading, or even hurtful, because of how they interpret the cause-effect relationships and the consequences which follow, while hopefully distracting you from the fact that they'll offer no better alternative.

If nobody can predict the future, does that mean Q is "wrong" for trying to influence it to make certain possibilities more probable based on the information that whoever is behind Q has?

Are other prognosticators and translators of current events any more reliable than Q when it comes to details, or are they likewise most accurate when it comes to broad strokes?

Some of the things Q says are true. Some of the things Q desires I also desire.

Some of the things Q says are false. Some of the things Q desires I don't also desire.

But this is true of everyone I know, and not just Q, so why should I or anyone else be forced to "denounce" or "pledge allegiance to" whoever is behind the computer screen?

The shortest answer is "because someone believes their interests are best served by what they are doing regardless of how what they do impacts your interests."

Sure, there are people who have a desire for a messiah that will make too much of Q, but that's the codependent case anytime anyone shows up and claims that they can help solve an issue. If folks are so lazy as to think that a single source of information is all they'll ever need in life, then the problem is those people, not whatever the functional savior it is that month or year.

They're merely someone exploiting the foolish better than anyone else at the time, and are we really going to begrudge them for doing that?

If someone wants to help, immediate acceptance or rejection is foolish. If someone claims to have truth, immediate acceptance or rejection is foolish. Being forced into a binary when there are other viable options is foolish.

The whole circumstance is rather disappointing because, in the need to gain social status, folks have made a claim one way or another with respect to Q, and in so doing, have invited the very opportunity for being exposed as a fool that they believe taking a stance on Q was supposed to have helped them avoid.

Q puts out a lot of opening bids and it is very difficult to see what the counteroffers are, or whether negotiations on a topic have settled, or been responded to directly at all, because this game isn't being played out in the open for all too see. The signals and counter-signals are not meant for the people whose job it is to distract you from what's really going on, and they're not going to send a clear signal back as a response either.

We don't know for sure, and we may not live long enough to know for sure, so be wary of anyone who does know for sure and has follow-up suggestions to you on what you should do next based on their conclusions.

Don't be lazy, test and grow in understanding. Know your options and be willing to stand by the choices you make, regardless of what is popular. Cling to truth and not social status.