Q’anon, blood libel, and the big lie PART ONE There is a recurring tendency of mankind to somehow assign to a certain group, some abhorrent behavior; in an attempt to demonize that group and turn the populace against that group. A common accusation was highlighted by the X-Files character agent Scully in one episode of the series. [X-files clip] This is often referred to as “blood libel”, “ritual murder libel”, or “blood accusation.” It is typically antisemitic in nature in that it most often accuses the Jewish people of sacrificing children. However, the Q’Anon conspiracy assigns this terrible activity to people in the Democratic party and other influencers – consistent with Agent Scully’s suggestions that this appears to be a recuring behavior within humanity—that is, we tend to make this accusation against a certain group in order to discredit, alienate, and quite frankly, stir up hatred toward a certain group. [Channel 4 News_Pizzagate clip] PART TWO Probably the most notable demonstration of how strong this belief exists within some American’s minds is the incident often referred to as PizzaGate. Hacked emails between Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, which were believed to be coded messages, AND through some incredible application of extreme imagination, these emails led people to believe that this pizzeria was an epicenter of the sacrificial killing of children and child molestations. The belief in this conspiracy was so strong within some people’s minds, that they decided to engage in aggressive actions to rise up against, retaliate, and/or free these abused, trafficked children. Criminal activities included threatening phone calls, arson, and most notably the incident where 28-year old Edgar Welch entered the restaurant and opened fire with an AR-15. While the X-files character Scully’s suggestion that the accusation about ritualized killing of children is varyingly applied to whatever group that a certain other group may wish to demonize, this blood libel is most often associated with antisemitism. It should be noted that most of Q’Anon’s misinformation campaigns are not outright antisemitic. But certain references do exist such as assigning these horrible acts to Jews, Zionist, the banking family Rothchilds, and the philanthropist George Soros. PART THREE In any regard, the argument being made here is that the Q’anon misinformation template is not new. Some argue that blood libel goes back to the 12th Century and the Crusades. Hitler was probably the most successful person ever to execute a misinformation campaign to effectively demonize a certain group, I say this because he was able to convince an entire population that a certain group was so evil, including making the blood libel accusation, that they should be exterminated – resulting in the murder of 6 million Jewish people during the Holocaust. I mentioned Hitler as a suggestion for caution. Afterall, through his master propagandist Joseph Goebbels; he used the blood accusation to convince Germans that a certain group of people were not worthy of life...and murdering them in mass was justified. The Q’anon conspiracy, due to its similarity to Natzi propaganda, is dangerous. Each of us, when we hear an accusation similar to blood libel, should remember the use of, application of, and execution of this terrible lie back in Natzi Germany. Q’Anon is a big, outrageous lie, but many believe it. Perhaps because we tend to ask ourselves, when exposed to such a big lie, how can anybody make this up? It must be true. But remember, Goebbels once stated, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Unfortunately, the Q’Anon conspiracy meets Goebbels criteria. Social media allows the lie to be repeated infinitively and the lie is obviously massive enough to make even Goebbels proud. A core message of Q’Anon is that we should question government actions, as our patriotic duty, but equally patriotic is the duty to question bull shit like Q’Anon itself.

Thoughts on Fauci, anti-science, and a cult of ignorance This week, the nation’s leading authority on the Corona virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force spoke up about anti-science bias in America. He was speaking with assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for public affairs Michael Caputo on the Learning Curve podcast. AF: Yeah. Well, one of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable, they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority. So, when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that. And that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth. And if you go by the evidence and by the data, you're speaking the truth. Caputo pinpointed the problem in America referring to two acquaintances of his—one who trust the information that Fauci puts out, the other who doesn’t have any faith in experts like Fauci. Lack of faith in experts like Fauci, when it comes to public policy, is evidenced by the antivaxxer movement, global warming skeptics, and objections to evolutionary theory. Very recently such anti-science discourse has been evidenced by protests against corona virus safety guidelines and even theories proposing that the coronavirus pandemic is not even real. Opinion, point of view, and free speech are essential to the American democracy. But it is important to note that the founding fathers viewed the democratic process to be intertwined with a respect for science, as argued by philosophy professor Barbara Forest in the book “Anti-science and Assault on Democracy.” So what good is free speech when the populace is misinformed about the qualities of the scientific process, a question asked by professor of biochemistry Isaac Asimov back in 1980, a time when many argue was the beginnings of this anti-science movement in America. In his essay, “A Cult of Ignorance he states; “I contend that the slogan ‘America’s right to know’ is a meaningless one when we have an ignorant population, and that the function of a free press is virtually zero when hardly anyone can read.” Asimov pinpoints the issue in American democracy where it is considered proper to respect an opinion even though it is scientifically invalid. “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through out political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Susan Jacoby, in her book “The Age of American Unreason” coined the term “junk thought” and comments on the current celebration and acceptance of anti-scientific rhetoric. “The real power of junk though lies in its status as a centrist phenomenon, fueled by the American credo of tolerance that places all opinions on the equal footing and makes little effort to separate fact from opinion” (Jacoby 211) In the “Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, famous astronomer Carl Sagan points out that skepticism when used properly with true scientific process can be a reward for democracy and government. But he points out that when not properly used, it can be dangerous. “The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say high school students, habits of skeptical though, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOS, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. There where would we be?” Perhaps that is where we are now – in an era of absolutes, where we cannot respect intellectual achievement that continues to ask legitimate questions. Philosopher Bertrand Russell once said that “in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt” referring to how the Natzi movement was able to take over the entire German country. Fauci and Caputo discussed the problem with absolutes. MC: You know, so it's interesting, doc, because I kind of see that the people who don't believe science are people who believe in absolutes. That the truth is it's either true or it's not. AF: Right. MC: And in this process, we've seen the models shift. We've seen the data shift. We've seen an instruction shift. And I think perhaps those who believe in absolute truth, don't really end up being believing science that shifts. Don't you think that in the end, the American people have to begin to understand that science is an absolute truth? […] AF: Okay. So, science is the attempt in good faith to get to the facts, and it isn't perfect. And what happens is that science can be self-correcting. […] So, as long as science is humble enough and open enough and transparent enough to excel -- to accept the self-correction. It's a beautiful process. So, the science doesn't change. What it is, is sometimes interpretation. That's the point. […] MC: And I think most -- many Americans haven't. They don't get that that science is really something that thousands of people participate in to end up on one -- in one immutable truth.

You’ve probably heard about cancel culture….. [Fox 29 intro…clip] From NASCAR’s banning of the Rebel Flag to the tearing down of a statue of George Washington, things in the United States are getting “canceled.” Perhaps somewhere there has to be a point where these things have gone too far. In the current situation where America is focused on the killing of George Floyd, it is the political conservatives who are crying “foul” the most often when it comes to this “cancel culture.” When Ivanka Trump’s commencement speech was canceled a few days following apparent abuse of protesters outside of the White House, Ivanka Tweeted; “Our nation’s campuses should be bastions of free speech. Cancel culture and viewpoint discrimination are antithetical to academia.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz has also chimed in on “cancel culture” Fox…Ted Cruz tweet. But wait a minute, Cruz is against kneeling during the National Anthem. I don’t want to get into a legal debate here, but several Supreme Court cases seem to clearly indicate that actions such as kneeling during the national anthem are in fact speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Texas v. Johnson (1989) United States v. Eichman (1990) [The View Video_1 clip] After all, in the 1990s conservatives were once upset about Disney and the Teletubbies being too gay friendly. In 2012, a boycott was raged against JC Penny for naming gay comedian Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson Insert your cliché here, not having your cake and eating it too, or can’t have it both ways, your choice. Choice, a freedom often celebrated in America. Speech…also a freedom often renowned in America. [Obama Clip] In fact, Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters For America, who arguably, himself, has had issues of insensitivity in the past, appears to indicate why all of these boycotts and protests are taking place, stating “Politics is so broken; people feel impotent and powerless – you call your congressman and nothing happens. There’s something really satisfying and empowering about leveraging your power as a consumer, especially when a multi-billion dollar company replies – it recognizes that you exist.” [The View_2 clip] Getting back to Ivanka, and people refusing to listen to what she had to say in a commencement speech. Perhaps we should consider what Ivanka has to say, because she did Tweet something important. Following her cancelation, she wrote on Twitter, “Listening to one another is important now more than ever”