OR . . . as the red-hatted hordes CHEERING for NASCAR driver bRANDON BROWN would say . . .

"Right on, Q!"

Start here. 

Welcome back boomers (and kids) to another edition ... uh, addition, ... or is it merely a rendition? 

OK, enough bull about Durham . . .

I Think, Therefore I Drink

Based on that, I think once a week should be the proper dosage of this comic relief, plus or minus a paragraph or two. If you could just help me calibrate it . . . if you don't mind . . . that would be great.

We are hunkered down in the Carolina Piedmont, stocked up with white bread, toilet paper, and almond milk. We got hit by a full inch of snow and sleet, just before MLK Day. Then we got hit again just this weekend. 

And the NFL isn't rigged. Hmph.

I can hear my Yankee friends laughing scornfully at the Southern facade, the genteel, neurotic, Prince of Tides machismo, panicked at the prospect of driving in icy conditions. It's hard.

Speaking of scornful mockery, I will do my best to never mention or use the disrespectful term "President Brandon." Never again. So how's that working out?

And as for you little vegan fairies, stop drinking so much damn soy milk and grow a pair! Tits or balls, I don't care. Wait 'til this summer -- when I'm 64. 

There is a reason for stereotypes, regardless of the hundreds of millions of counter-arguments put forth by We the Feeble, We the Sincere, We the Pitiful Bloggers trying to set the record straight. Pay no heed to the boomer behind the curtain. Most of us are probably a lot like this guy anyway --- insofar as having a penchant for quixotic rants. 

Speaking for most older bloggers, I don't want to set the world on fire. People just need to have their say, and . . .

Oops. Strike that. 

As a matter of fact, during the Summer of 2020, a small group of younger and extremely energetic "bloggers" actually did try to set the world on fire!

From THE LEFTIST HANDBOOK: "Think like us. Or else."

It's been -- one year since we looked at the "inauguration,"

Five years since they laughed at us for saying "fake news,"

Three years since the living room TV showed a "flu" in China,

But it will still be two years 'til they say "I'm sorry, Boomers."

Did you catch the pop reference?  If so, you may not be a true baby boomer. You do, however, have the ability to think in non-linear fashion, bless your heart.

And THAT, in a nutshell, is what the "Q" phenomenon was about ... the ability to think in non-linear fashion.  The phenomenon was more than a reductivist oversimplification: "something, something, something ... politics stand ... something, something ... I love Trump." God, no. 

Many others mistakenly believed it was a quasi-religious cult with dastardly racist(!) intent. On closer examination, the Q "thing" was far above and well-beyond that mean stereotype. Nor was it some "right-wing conspiracy," as it was so gleefully, so erroneously, and so fearfully, characterized.

"Luke, trust your instincts."

And for fuck's sake, don't tell me you are so gullible that you are giving any serious credence to Wikipedia, one of the internet's leading fonts of misinformation.

OK, bye. Come back soon. This topic, any discussion of that letter that rhymes with "cue" the 17th letter, creates weird somatic responses in readers, a neuromuscular, gastrointestinal reflux making pink, purple, lime-green, and blue-haired readers, even ones in pinstripe suits, abort rational thought or wear red baseball caps. Or both. I reckon if a reader is triggered by my rapier wit, I am already BLOCKED, i.e., filtered, censored, ignored, ghosted, and generally will never be heard from again by you. Bye Bye Bye. (Uh, is this a bad time to ask you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe? 😉)

Science ≠ Morality

That's alright. Think of this essay as a less-explosive version of the classic millennial TV series, "Mythbusters," and in today's episode we examine the impact of asynchronous mass communication on various digital platforms manifests in the neuropsychology of users, the failure of ethics in journalism, and the national security implications of those effects, particularly those unique to American culture.

Use Ockham's Razor, apply the scientific method, stay smart and skeptical, and I promise you will overcome the initial barrage of auto-reflex impulses subconsciously telling you to reject what boomers (or your elders) say, just because a particularly effective content creator from somewhere on Sullivan Street has captured and cornered our cultural narrative utilizing this ... this ... accursed symbol from the Latin alphabet --- 

So, back to school. Classical scientific method originated from Cartesian Philosophy, within the discipline called Skepticism. Descartes was a younger contemporary of Galileo, the person generally accepted as the central figure of the Scientific Revolution. And you may already know the word "science" derives from the Latin word meaning "knowledge."  I'm not sure why, but I just noticed that I over-italicize things. Anyway, the first step in using the classic method of applied science is to ask a question. Yes, you too, can be a conscious, critical thinker like me.  That was condescending. Sorry about that. Or am I?

Oh, Ram Eye

But seriously even without Adam, Jamie, Grant, Kari, and Tory's help, we should be able to agree that proper science seeks to discover or create Knowledge, not to establish moral constructs. 

Think of Science as the Yin. The Yang, the necessary opposing principle of scientific inquiry is Humanism, which seeks to define and prescribe the moral conduct of human beings. Thus, I contend that amorality, the absence of moral proscription, is a definitional, fundamental element of pursuing and having "faith" in the scientific method. Science alone is a grossly imbalanced non-humanistic enterprise.

Think of Sheldon Cooper. He's a really (really) smart character. Great theoretical physicist. To be honest, though, he is a horrible person. Great scientist. Total asshole. And we're talking legendary asshole.

Anyway ... Insofar as that absence of morality's imperatives predicates applied science . .  I think . . 

er . . .uh . . .  wait . . . oh my . . .  I'm trying not to digress  . . .  

really . . .  trying . . .  not . .  not . . .  oh, no . . .

... ARGGH ... shiiitt ...  

the memes beckon ... the memes . . . the damn memes . . . 

Ah, screw it . . .

"Entschuldigung Sie bitte."

What were we talking about? ... oh yeah, Science.  Or was it the letter cue?

Shit. I'm already approaching my word limit, which means attention spans wane at this point of the essay.  Let us boil it down to the FACTS, and then we can move on to the cure for cancer . . .  I mean, the Corona virus, er . . .  uh, excuse me . . . I meant, the common cold.  Someone stop me.

Definition #1: "Q" was a user handle of a person(s) who posted messages on the internet from October 2017 to December  2020. That user has not been conclusively identified.

Definition #2: An "ANON" is simply an individual human citizen of no particular nationality, ethnicity, or social standing, who "gets," that is, has read, understands, and acknowledges the intrinsic content of the MESSAGE, i.e., the medium, which is -- the Internet. 

Definition #3: Distinguishing from the first two definitions, "QANON" is a resultant vector. It is a descriptive noun, invented to capture and communicate to non-readers something they have not personally experienced, but is occurring in the offline world. "QANON" is a MSM entity, borne through manipulation of language, primarily by corporate network gatekeepers, a noun adjunct modifying a manifestation that has had tangible and significant psychological, spiritual, cultural, political, and global impact. The manifestation, the phenomenon, is more simple --- real Anons are people who have read Q posts, and have "heard" the content (well, technically, they "read the message") and have encouraged others, readers and non-readers alike, to think for themselves and make up their own minds regarding the messages. The term "QANON" was put into popular vernacular to be intentionally pejorative and misleading.

That's all, folks. We're talking about asynchronous multi-vector content messaging 

. . . and bullies. (Hat Tip: Nikola Tesla and H.G. Wells)

Like Mercutio, I dislike binary political constructs, formal organizations (save the Bar), and their 501(c)3, 501(c)4 quislings. A lot of boomers have been online before AOL and BBS. We had dial-up the internet on x286 processors. We can spot a shill from ten hyperlinks away.

I'm a lot like you.

Not many boomers hang out on the so-called "dark web," although I concede that shit on 4chan and 8chan can get pretty dark. But we're way past cat videos. 

Here's the point. To discredit certain informational content, because you don't like the source is simply killing the messenger. It's bad form.

Processing information nowadays, with the massive reach of modern telecommunications technology, demands that users be their own psychological filters. The sources might be lying. Everyone seems to be lying. Online messages are not useful until properly and accurately received. We are programmed to receive. After one receives (sees, reads, or hears) the message, only then can one decide whether the content resonates - True.  

We are programmed to receive.

Here's a useful analogy, the movable-type printing press. It really was the Internet of the 15th Century. Gutenberg published the Latin Vulgate. That was, in fact, the actual content, the message in the medium. The Reformation was a cultural phenomenon that came about because of technology, because content became self-filtered. Individuals had to learn to read content that for centuries had been spoon-fed by Father Pete or Friar Tuck or Sister Mary Elephant. Likewise, from 2017-19, we have experienced the Q "thing" with differing degrees of tolerance, humor, fear, and yes, Love.

Your digital device = Gutenberg's press, right?

Now what?

Heck, movable-type printing explains how 600 years later, a Catholic Filipino raised in an American military family identifies as "born-again Protestant polytheist" despite years of institutionalized learning from anally-retentive sadistic nuns, and enduring false accusations of chemically-induced mental illness, overcoming shame of being cast as an inferior heretic who should instead be making proper tribute by confession, by eating wafers and drinking wine with celibate, globalist, perverts in robes reeking of incenst. Spell-check is so wrong.

Dark web, indeed. How's your "compliance" now, Agent Smith?

Mainstream sources (friend, you are now far far away from the mainstream), those entrenched, anti-American forces, apparatchiks protecting their bureaucratic Swamp turf, for whom free spirits and independent thinking pose an existential threat, respond to Q messaging with ad hominem fallacy, followed by implementation of the Saul Alinsky playbook, maliciously characterizing thought-provoking and intelligent content as something "spooky," something to be immediately dismissed as nonsensical and pointless. 

For the sake of Science, or more specifically, Social Science, ask this:

How did non-linear, cryptic posts on some innocuous internet message platform used primarily by masturbating teenagers evolve into a consciousness-raising, race and gender inclusive, global movement that allegely threatens the existence (and operations) of the "Deep State?" 

Why would powerful internet platforms and corporate network broadcasters censor the content of some dude or dudette's rambling internet posts? Jesus, have you been on the internet lately? Admittedly, the corporate gate-keeping could be done better, and by better I mean worse.

What is more puzzling is this -- the extent to which Anons (not  QAnons!) are vilified as unintelligent, and violence-prone, when 99.9% of civic violence since 2017 has been carried out by their opposition. 

"But what about January 6th?" you say. 

And to that I say, "What-About-ism is intellectually dishonest."

And reasonable minds can agree. Special Counsel Durham's work is not done yet. The midterms lurk.

Put it another way. What IDEAS pose the biggest threat to the world's most powerful elite, not just in America but throughout humanity? Science has been completely divorced from Morality, yet people with little or no knowledge of Virology or Immunology talk and act as if they truly believe they are morally superior to people who are just uncomfortable in face diapers, or who don't want to participate in a genetics experiment, or simply don't like needles. 

Even if the abyss between Morality and Science is philosophically irreconcilable, what makes the reconsideration of moral precepts so frightening to certain factions in the War of Ideas? 

Well, I'm hungry. It's time to end this.

Mark 8:36

"We understand you don't like our censorship policy. But it's for people's safety."

"Fuck off, Liars."

It's not too late, America. Step up. We didn't start the fire.

Places everyone. Lights, camera . . . and . . .

Right on cue.

Repeal the 17th Amendment