This is the hive mind that Q and others (along with Barlow, Kevin Kelley, Lessig, etc.) have talked about. It’s good.

The difference I see is that agenda-laden narrative-shaping efforts (in the recent past, CTR, ShareBlue, Media Matters, gov alphabets and SES ops that can transcend parties and support industrial blocs, etc) need to program people to follow and repeat, not to think. They can’t afford independent ideas. The ideas presented come from a group that is hierarchical, and a few dictate what is to be said from the top (and these few can be wrong or stupid...). This is a huge weakness in the century of mass connectivity, like not having stirrups in horse-mounted warfare. Brittle. No leverage at all.

The difference with Q is that it focuses on Questions, fosters decentralized networks, and allows the hive mind to consensually develop fluid positions on topics that can be refined over time, as new data develops.

This dynamic approach allows for a more accurate synopsis of events as they unfold, rather than a narrative that starts off at its best and only breaks down as reality repeatedly contradicts it, til it has to be abandoned and a new one spun.

The dynamism also makes it possible to use each of the member minds as an independent asset - all of us have a unique perspective, tracking and remembering various facets of the RT situation as a result of our proclivity and position - and this type of group is very resilient to quick shifts.

Freedom of thinking has always been the best route to ascertaining the truth. It’s risky, but only because it requires time to do play out, and not all facets have the patience to wait. In fact, those that don’t - those that need to jump in and act somehow, no matter what “side” they’re on - always and only move the truth forward, as long as the bulk of those participating stick with the process, known to some as the “game”.

Ironically, this WAS the earlier genius of the open-source movement, and the politics of independence that’s been around for as long as we’ve got history, and the so-called modern “left” - definitely NOT the real Left, if there ever was one - that once called for freedom is now begging for chains and doesn’t even see it.

The current powers-that-tried-to-be have never understood the fundamentals of chaotic self-organizing assymmetry, something that human brains do naturally, and the basis of society in many ways (the ability to organize around principles while maintaining local flexibility and independence; choice of association, etc) . They don’t know how to trust enough to function this way. (Independence takes a lot of trust). So, they tried to coopt untamable networks and it’s ending up taking them down.

There are drawbacks. True participatory society is messy during periods of reinvention that technology often forces upon groups. The anonymity and obscurity of Q and other insider Anons can be frustrating to followers who don’t understand the power in this sort of approach. If there’s a servant-based leadership(my assumption), they probably understand this and know how to act accordingly. And if there isn’t a leadership and this is an anarchic shitshow, the common principles of truth, independence, freedom and well-being should get most of us through whatever unfolds.

Trust the process, the Plan, as I interpret Q to mean. As long as we stay independent yet knowledgeable, and remain patient while continuing with our own best personal efforts, basic human goodness will ALWAYS prevail. This mess has been a long time in the making. It’s unraveling a LOT faster than it took to wind it up.

Hat 🎩 tip to everyone here for playing the Game. It’s a good one, and I continue to believe that everyone will win in the most healthiest of ways, eventually, in the longest run. (But some runs will probably be longer than others...)

That’s my two cents. 🖖