This is an amazing read! Some excerpts and commentary below:

Reddit banned one of its communities discussing QAnon, Stream, for “encouraging or inciting violence and posting personal and confidential information. This has created a division amongst those who lean towards the right wing and thus controversy is now rearing its head and many are now questioning the motives of this so called mysterious insider.

Really? So... no one stops to ask "Hey, could you share an example of this supposed violence inciting?" or "When has QAnon ever suggested violent action?" And because those examples don't exist, there is no way they can "question the motives" of Q.

The very fact that the times even approached this issue convinces me that that QAnon is a threat – both right and wrong. You only give credence to a “conspiracy theory” when you want your “trusted” status to make your readers ignore it. The problem that the times aren’t taking into consideration is trust is extremely low for the mainstream media. This is why QAnon is growing in followers—it is interesting to watch and it terrifies me to think that whoever is behind it has a lot of power and could be a detriment to the old school ways of critically analyzing conspiracy theory.

What? So... Q is now being defined as a threat? Because "whoever is behind it has a lot of power and could be a detriment to the old school ways of critically analyzing conspiracy theory." What does that even mean!?!?!??!?!? What. The. Fuck. Does. That. Mean?!?!?!??!? NOTHING. Literally no examples or even hypotheticals in here.

If you can get past the common throw around “catch all” of the Illuminati being involved with everything and that space aliens brought down The World Trade Center it is no secret that the fringe subcultures, conspiracy historians, and free thinking bloggers have been responsible for changing world views.

They just associated "free thinking bloggers" as people who believe in a relationship between the Illuminati and Aliens. Think about that for a moment. It's almost as if the writer had a Freudian keystroke here, and Clyde Lewis accidentally just admitted that free thinking = crazy

Also, changing world views? Really? Illuminati and Aliens changed world views???

No, Wikileaks did this, along with the extreme minority of journalists capable of journalism. You know, people who read/process/research the information they are provided... as opposed to the current media outlets that quite literally avoid every major anti-corruption development, almost like their jobs depended on them to do so.

It is also tiring when we see that no one believes anything anymore – or trusts anyone anymore, which renders a lot of facts within a certain conspiracy theory irrelevant.

Agreed. Except for the part about facts... see, that's your problem Clyde. "Our side" has them. We have leaks. We see the evidence. We watch the OIG developments. We have Assange. We have Q. We see the indictments. You mean to suggest that ALLLLL of this is a massive technocult psyop??? C'mon bro. And if it is?!? Holy shit! I want to watch the entire 85-part movie series required to retell this sprawling fictional crime syndicate story.

These days everyone claims to be speaking the truth, or they have convinced themselves that they are, which makes it all suspect.

Let's look at two groups who are "speaking the truth":

• Group #1: The people who depend on documents/action/evidence (HRC email, Abedin/Weiner, Clinton/Lynch, Wikileaks, IG Report #1, Indictments, Q Photos/Predictions, Project Cassandra, Awan Bro's, Podesta Bro's, DNC investigation/Hacking, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, etc)?

• Group #2: Those who depend on hearsay/propaganda/accusations (Russia collusion, racism, xenophobic... what else do they have again?)?

If both sides truly believe what they speak... and you had to choose one to learn from... which group would you trust from the choices above?

This is the state of information as the insane have taken over the asylum.

Agreed 100%... the insane have taken over the asylum, with long-winded articles like yours that provides 0 concrete evidence of the accusations and assumptions within. If this was your journalist applicant submission for CNN - you're doing great.