For those who don’t know what Q Anon is, you may read my previous post.

I’ve been following Neon Revolt’s Q decodes for a while, and sharing some of them. He’s very detailed, and goes deep, whereas a lot of Q “decodes” on Youtube are little more than somebody reading the Q drops to the camera. I don’t have time to hang around the chans and decode them myself…or even to keep up with all the coverage from the two sources I follow. So I appreciate the painstaking work that Praying Medic and Neon Revolt put into that.

NR also struck me as a decent guy, too. Maybe he is. But anyway, one day I was reading one of his posts and came across this:

He said more than I’m including here on this marathon post, so out of fairness to him, you should probably visit his site and read it all in its entirety before deciding which one of us is on the right side of what follows.

Do take note, though, that the evidence he presents that “America was built on many classically fascist principles” are fasces in historic art and sculpture, and the Latin phrase “E pluribus unum” on Federal Reserve Notes. That will prove relevant in the next screenshots from a following post of his.

So superficial connections via fasces on old artwork, and a Latin phrase, are valid evidence of America being built on many fascist principles. But superficial connections between Nazis, Fascists and Communists just don’t cut it as valid evidence. Remember this logic, because this isn’t the only way or time it is applied.

Again: NR says a lot more on the subject than I’m including here, and it’s more lucid than how the average white nationalist or Nazi apologist normally present it. BTW: I’m not saying he is either one, necessarily (though I have no doubt he’s been influenced by one or more). He even makes some good points.

Secondly, it is true that the USA has been infiltrated by collectivists (called by different labels depending on the times or political winds) and other treacherous individuals throughout our history. Some of them had infiltrated America even by the time of the Revolution–meaning they were here, influencing our government, even before the republic came into being. That’s at least one blog post all by itself, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

Thirdly…well, we’ve posted here many times about white tribalism, so I don’t want to rehash that here. But while at one point you could reliably bank on two out of every three members of any white identity group being an informant or plant from a federal agency, that seems to have begun changing during the Obama Occupation. A whole lot of Fake Right trolls probably still are paid agitators, but a lot of non-shill white folks have become tired of all the institutionalized hate against whites, and have begun listening to the white identity messages–regurgitating it everywhere they go, as if it comprises their own thoughts and opinions.

These Fake Right recruits are more and more militant about reacting to standard SJW identity politics…with a big steaming pile of their own identity politics. Together, the shills and the true believers have dedicated their lives to proving left-wing propaganda correct (that everything is about race, and the left’s political opposition subscribe to white supremacy, etc.).  They’re as predictable as their SJW counterparts at introducing race into every topic–including those which have nothing to do with race.

The sad part is that some sincere people are buying into this tribalist thinking. It’s not gonna lead to anything pretty; but at this point it appears to be inevitable.

Anyway, Neon Revolt presents himself as a man who follows the truth wherever it leads. And we’re both on Gab. During a rare compulsive moment, I tagged him with a message. I don’t have a “pro” account (which allows Gabbers to write longer posts), and I’m not used to limiting myself to 300 characters, so I was forced to break some posts into parts. That, plus Gab’s display of complex threads in a visually non-linear fashion, caused me to chop certain things up in an attempt to sort it into chronological sequence here. Also, I didn’t capture all the streams that split off from the main thread (some of the comments are, frankly, incoherent).

This is a pet peeve of mine, as many readers know. There was probably a more diplomatic way to initiate a discussion. Anyway, here’s what happened next:

So at that point, I figured the conversation was over. He probably wasn’t willing to have his beliefs challenged, and that’s his prerogative. He’s got plenty of followers, of whom I was only one, so I wasn’t even banking on him replying at all. He did respond, but was pretty dismissive.

“Whatever,” sez I.

But then he replied again later, and this ensued:

Okay…asking relevant questions is revisionist and “blue pill.” And I didn’t press him on this at the time, but if he admits that both movements were funded by the same people, you’d think that knowledge, by itself, would spark his curiosity, not prompt him to gloss it over as if it’s insignificant. You’d think it would provoke questions. If the two revolutionary movements are “nowhere near the same,” why would certain people fund both of them? Who benefits from a one-two punch (or Plan A & B) like that? Presumably, two movements which are “nowhere near the same” would have radically different goals and results, yet he doesn’t find this information the slightest bit intriguing.

This was a sign that I probably had overestimated NR.

At this point I was disappointed at the knee-jerk reaction, and his lame deflection.

But speaking of “autistic screeching and bad memes,” one of his Gab sycophants decided to jump in and dazzle me with his based intellectual alacrity:

What is he mouthing off about here? What, exactly, am I being told to deal with? Absolutely nothing in this entire thread had anything to do with Q coming to /pol/. You probably think I lifted this from a different thread with a completely different conversation just to make this ankle-biter look like a fool, but I promise I didn’t. After getting no response to his first comment, he tried again later during my back-and-forth with Neon Revolt.

I wonder if guys like this really believe their input is relevant. There’s a wise old maxim that you shouldn’t argue with stupid people, because they’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience. But I must admit: I’m occasionally in the right mood to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent who is unarmed.

The sad part is, looking back over the sub-threads, these ankle-biters probably do believe their petty insults really are devastating comebacks.

I don’t know why that black strip appears in some of my screenshots. Really annoying. But back to the main thread:

Again, Gab’s character limit forced me to cut off my comment, back up and finish the first part a different way. During that annoying interruption, I took a moment to reflect. This was descending into an Internet pissing contest, which was not what I intended. So I posted the following:

Neither Neon Revolt, nor his ankle-biting sycophants. ever replied to, or even acknowledged, this post. Too bad, because I was irritable later when I came back to Gab and read the replies posted while I was out in the real world:

If you’ve paid close attention, you can see that he’s subtly contradicting his earlier admission that both movements were funded by the same people (“the people behind it all”). And now he just falls deeper and deeper into his Dunning-Kruger spiral. Really disappointing. I’ve come to expect these “ready, fire, aim!” rules of engagement from most keyboard warriors on social media, but was hoping he’d be different.

His fans are probably fooled. I’m not: he didn’t answer my questions based on basic socialist principles because he can’t answer them–not without challenging the Narrative he has latched onto and is evidently quite fond of.

So after claiming that the National Socialists and International Socialists are nothing alike, he cherry-picks one of my questions to build a straw man out of, stacking up more assumptions about what I do think and don’t know. Maybe the “#BoomerPosting” hashtag he so adroitly wielded against me means he assumes I’m a baby boomer, too? Add that to the list of names I’ve been called by the Legion of Ignorance, I guess: racist; diversity bot; Nazi; kike; cuck; autist; and, of course: conspiracy nut-job.

Again, I had to split my comment up, and it makes the thread hard to follow in some places. Unlike Neon Revolt, I had kept my comments about the facts in dispute, and avoided attacking him personally in our dialog. These posts were as close as I got:

Anyway, what follows is how it ended.

Since I’m being called a baby boomer, what have I got to lose by referring to Monty Python?

So my questions were “aggressive”? Hmm. Then, after calling me plebian; oblivious to history; revisionist (based on what “concrete evidence,” I wonder?), blue-pilled; more informed by my “vague American dogma than actual research;” calling me ignorant a few more times; and declaring my criticisms are uninformed (Holy Hypocrisy, Batman!), he whines that I acted “indignant.” But wait! He’s got one more parting accusation: that I haven’t behaved like a grown adult (implying that he has, I gather). He then mutes me, suggesting that I unfollow him.

I knew going in that there was a good chance I wouldn’t be able to change his mind. I was just hoping for a little less knee-jerk and defensiveness. In fact, I had begun the task of unpacking some books and trying to track down some other misplaced resources so I could, in fact, show him the “concrete evidence” he allegedly would accept. But this is probably for the best. I can see now that he would have just dismissed it out of hand for one excuse or another and all that time and effort would have been wasted.

As it is with 99% of idealogues in the world today.

Here’s another sub-thread initiated by an ankle-biter, coincident with the other pissing contests:

I’m frequently surprised at how so many people  on social media so carelessly sling out these demonstrably false accusations. And when she’s called out, the poor blowhard drops her bombshell–sentence excerpts that even somebody with only First Grade reading skills can see is not the “EXACT SAME WORDING”:

And when these people are proven wrong, there’s no remorse. They never miss a beat–just double down. I hate to acknowledge this, but some of these people on my side of the political divide behave just as irrationally as the SJWs. At least she’s learned not to hoist herself on her own petard anymore. Notice how she covers her retreat by building a (lame) insult around the fact that I typed: “Oh, I see.”

The “soyboy” remark was probably wasted ammo. She likely has already forgotten her own opening shots (because it’s too painful for her to remember how they backfired?).

BTW, her loony, desperate comment above reminds me (as do some of NR’s, to a lesser extent) of a tactic I’ve been noticing a lot on social media lately. I’ve been in quite a few flame wars online. Whether I’m engaging a Fake Right Alt-Retard on Gab, a normalcy-biased coincidence theorist on the Gateway Pundit, or a rabid SJW on Youtube, they ALL wind up accusing me of being enraged by something they said. There’s literally no reason for them to legitimately suspect that I’m frothing into a berserker rage. In fact, it’s often them who appear to be rage-posting–with name-calling tirades and irrational (if not anatomically impossible) accusations, after I’ve directed all my attention to their arguments, and haven’t speculated about them personally. And for whatever reason, their accusation is usually some variation of the rhetorical statement: “Looks like I touched a nerve, didn’t I?”

Is it as simple as just wishful thinking on their part? They’ve unleashed the most powerful insults in their arsenal, so they’re positive it has provoked an emotional reaction from their opponent? Or are they trying to instigate a self-fulfilling prophecy? Maybe they believe that provoking a tantrum out of the enemy…or, at least, selling that version of events to onlookers…is equivalent to victory, so they can save face.

Finally, here are a couple comments from one of the subthreads the conversation inspired:

I haven’t read through NR’s comment threads, so I can’t verify the first post. However, after this episode, I’m sad to say I don’t doubt it at all.

The second comment is evidently from one of the Q skeptics who likes to call us “Qtards,” “low IQAnons,” etc. But I thought he made an interesting point about NR’s double standard regarding “concrete evidence.”

Many skeptics like to accuse Q of trying to tell people what to think. I point out that he mainly asks questions and encourages people to think/research for themselves. How ironic, then, that Neon Revolt was so intimidated by my “aggressive questions.”