When I was young, I was taught that the difference between a myth and a legend is that a myth is probably not real and a legend probably is based on reality. However, it is also understood that myths do not themselves appear out of thin air (unless somebody is very creative). Most of the time, there is at least some kind of factual basis upon which the myth is constructed. For example, the childhood story I grew up with, was the George Washington was so honest that when he got queried about how the cherry tree was now laying on the ground, he, as a boy said, “Father, I cannot tell a lie, it was I, who chopped down the cherry tree.”
This story is commonly held as a myth, but it is a myth that is tough to disprove. The US National Park Service discusses this on their own website (important since good old George was our first President). Whether true or not, the story illustrates an important character trait Washington was reputed to have:
…Minister and itinerant bookseller Mason Locke Weems, more popularly known as Parson Weems, was more than willing to fulfill that need and in 1800 quickly wrote and published The Life of Washington, an immediate bestseller that cemented Washington’s legendary status. It wasn’t until the book’s fifth edition in 1806 that the cherry tree story first made an appearance.
Though profit may have been high on Weems’ priority list in writing this biography, as a minister he wanted to teach morality, and the best way to do that was to show by example using the one individual everyone looked up to. Washington’s admission of guilt was proof that his public greatness was due to his private virtues, to which anyone could aspire…
So sometimes myth exists because the subject on whom the myth is based had a particular quality. The story about the Cherry Tree may or may not be true, but the character of President Washington himself is revealed to be that of a good man. We know he refused a third term of the Presidency because he understood the danger of being made into something like a new American “king” so he relinquished power willingly – partly to set the right example for all Presidents to follow him.
Sometimes myths are deliberately spun up as well. The Soviet Union had a number of these to support the extraordinary virtues of their early revolutionaries, Karl Marx, Vladimir Ulianov (Lenin), Joseph Stalin perhaps. And we have a literary example provided us of “Party hagiography” from George Orwell, who tells the tale of how Winston Smith created a Comrade Ogilvy out of nothing, and gave him a life profile paralelling that of an early Christian Saint:
Today [Big Brother] should commemorate Comrade Ogilvy. It was true that there was no such person as Comrade Ogilvy, but a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence.
Winston thought for a moment, then pulled the speak- write towards him and began dictating in Big Brother’s familiar style: a style at once military and pedantic, and, because of a trick of asking questions and then promptly answering them (’What lessons do we learn from this fact, comrades? The lesson—which is also one of the fundamen- tal principles of Ingsoc—that,’ etc., etc.), easy to imitate.
At the age of three Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a drum, a sub-machine gun, and a model helicopter. At six—a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules—he had joined the Spies, at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police after overhearing a conversation which appeared to him to have criminal tendencies. At seventeen he had been a dis-trict organizer of the Junior Anti-Sex League. At nineteen he had designed a hand-grenade which had been adopted by the Ministry of Peace and which, at its first trial, had killed thirty-one Eurasian prisoners in one burst.
At twenty-three he had perished in action. Pursued by enemy jet planes while flying over the Indian Ocean with important despatches, he had weighted his body with his machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all—an end, said Big Brother, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy. Big Brother added a few remarks on the purity and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy’s life. He was a total abstainer and a nonsmoker, had no recreations except a daily hour in the gymnasium, and had taken a vow of celibacy, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to duty. He had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Ingsoc, and no aim in life except the defeat of the Eurasian enemy and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thoughtcriminals, and traitors generally… (Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell, Ch. 4)
So when it comes to the core beliefs of QAnon, we have the following information listed in Wikipedia as their “basis of ideas”
QAnon[a] (/kjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory[2][3][4][5][6][7] alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring is plotting against President Donald Trump, who is battling them,[8]leading to a “day of reckoning” involving the mass arrest of journalists and politicians.[9]
I had heard things about QAnon on the periphery but only about one week ago I actually looked it up to see what it was. I have a strong distaste for conspiracy theories of any kind, believing that most people are sensible enough to know that they cannot possibly take over the world, nor can they hope to profit from doing so, because eventually they die and that is the end of their triumph. But the basic statements here do not seem outlandish at all.
The story of Satanic cults in Hollywood that reputedly sacrifice infants is of course horrifying, and it would not be something I would waste my time believing were it not for an encounter with a man who told us of getting on the wrong side of this community while living and apparently doing missionary work in the Hollywood area. This man told us that the Hollywood actors regularly conducted satanic rites and that in some cases this did involve child sacrifice (though one wonders where they got the children), and that they knew he knew. He said they then sought to destroy him in any way they could, and he eventually left the Los Angeles area and moved to another place. He went on to say though that their hatred for him (he was a very kind man and very gentle, but he knew what they were up to) was so strong that they crafted a character that had an enormously successful run of ghastly horror slasher films, and that character carried a slight variation of his own name.
I looked this up to see if there is any record of this particular link to the character from A Nightmare on Elm Street. Thankfully, there is no such link. The myths surrounding Wes Craven’s creation of the character are of equally dark real people doing such things that Freddy got famous for on the big screen.
But the pursuit of a simple Christian believer – no, there is no record of that ever happening.
However, the myth that Hollywood actors participate in such evil things does have some characteristics that match real life:
Most of them are super-liberal Democrats. They live lives largely without marital integrity and fidelity, they get touted as experts in just about anything important politically, while actually not knowing very much, and the small group that are conservatives are not seen on film nearly as often. In recent years the “beautiful people” have been used with great success at times to admonish the Great Unwashed about protecting the Earth, about supporting “Marriage Equality” (gay marriage), and some of the more crazy ones like Madonna, have started muttering about open insurrection and blowing up the White House in their senseless hysteria over President Trump.
Above is a May 2020 video that tries to explain what QAnon is and how it came to be.
A further bit of supporting information is George Soros himself and his Open Society Foundations, which are behind the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots. As we have pointed out countless times here, Black Lives Matter specifically calls for the dissolution of the nuclear family and elevates “queerness” and transgender, LGBTQwhatever lifestyles, something that is actually quite abhorrent to many black people. There are, strong pieces of supporting evidence that QAnon is onto something. Even if their grandest scenario might be over the top, these people are responding to a basic and thorough attack on their culture, religion and feeling of national identity, and they are responding in a very lively manner. QAnon is not a bunch of tinfoil hatters; it is comprised of very sensible rational and even Christian people.
What is also interesting is that Social Media, that bastion of conservative viewpoints (sarcasm) is on an active crusade to shut down supporters of QAnon’s basic premises. Facebook, Twitter, probably others, are all trying to squelch this message. In fact, ZeroHedge reported that a popular QAnon website was shut down after its owner was doxxed and stalked.
The world’s most popular QAnon post aggregator has been taken offline, after its webmaster – a Citigroup employee named Jason Gelinas – was doxxed by Logically.com and later stalked by Bloomberg‘s William Turton – who drove out to his house for an interview.
Under the username ‘QAppAnon,’ Gelinas launched Qmap.pub in May of 2018 under the username ‘QAppAnon,’ – which boasted over 10 million visitors in July according to SimilarWeb. The site aggregated ‘Q drops,’ messages posted by an anonymous individual (or individuals) to image board ‘8kun’ promoting the theory that President Trump is part of a military intelligence operation by ‘white hat’ insiders to take down the deep state – arresting and prosecuting corrupt government officials and pedophiles.
But if it is just a stupid conspiracy theory, then why bother silencing it? We don’t try to silence other stupid conspiracy theories about UFO’s or the real killer of JFK, or the Bilderbergers and so on, but this one is provoking a reaction from exactly the same people who are silencing conservative opinion within the “normal reaches” of political discourse.
Apparently this “myth” bothers some very powerful people. Maybe one should think about why. Like my friend who recounted his own story, sometimes there is real truth hiding behind what seems at first to be unbelievable. But “by their fruits shall ye know them” is a very good indicator.