Don Quixote. Reminds me of something. lol

Still, half of the write up is incorrect. That information involves an attempted coup which is not a conspiracy theory, but really happened according to the DNI

@Xtra well of course it is - wikipedia is operated by the SJW Trump hating crowd. Everybody knows that Wiki -p is revisionist - to put it kindly.

@iThink I sure would like to edit it.

@Xtra well supposedly you can - not sure how that works though

@Naomi Any venture down this road is a waste of time and brain cells.

Hello FOTD13. Glad to hear it. I don't do conspiracy theories much, but Americans seem to like them.

@Naomi To be honest I do not know This is the first time I heard the name "QAnon" so I would have to do more research to find out more. But every time I see word "far-right" I feel compelled to mentioned the problem of that. For me when I read far-right in an article and its not describing monarchists I have to question everything else in the article.

......................................

Where did the terms “left wing” and “right wing” come from? by Evan Andrews via History.com

Lets ask the French.

Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are used as symbolic labels for liberals and conservatives, but they were originally coined in reference to the physical seating arrangements of politicians during the French Revolution. The split dates to the summer of 1789, when members of the French National Assembly met to begin drafting a constitution. The delegates were deeply divided over the issue of how much authority King Louis XVI should have, and as the debate raged, the two main factions each staked out territory in the assembly hall.

The anti-royalist revolutionaries seated themselves to the presiding officer’s left, while the more conservative, aristocratic supporters of the monarchy gathered to the right. “I tried to sit in different parts of the hall and not to adopt any marked spot, so as to remain more the master of my opinion,” one right-wing baron wrote, “but I was compelled absolutely to abandon the left or else be condemned always to vote alone and thus be subjected to jeers from the galleries.”

When the French National Assembly was convened in 1791, the delegates were seated as follows relative to the Speaker’s Chair:

Right. Those who sat on the right side of the hall believed that reform had gone far enough; that the monarchy should be restored and things turned back to 1788 - before the revolution. They were opposed to change. (Monarchists, Loyalists, conservatives).

Middle. Those who sat in the middle of the hall supported moderate (mild) reform: the changes made so far to nobles’ rights and reduced power for the monarch, but no additional changes or loss of privileges. (moderates, centrists). Between the left and right sat a mass of deputies, known as the Plain, who did not belong to any particular faction.

Left. Those who sat on the left of the hall were the Jacobins and other republicans: they wanted to abolish the monarchy completely and make radical (dramatic) changes to French government and the social order. (leftists, radicals, Jacobins, etc.) They were to the left of the president’s chair on an elevated section called the Mountain.

This was not word-play on right/wrong, but simply identification of political views based on where they happened to be seated relative to each other.

.................................

@Naomi

Continued...

The divisions only continued during the 1790s, when newspapers began making reference to the progressive “left” and traditionalist “right” of the French assembly. The distinctions later vanished for several years during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte (1804 until 1814 and again briefly in 1815), but with the Bourbon Restoration and the beginning of a constitutional monarchy in 1814, liberal and conservative representatives once again took up their respective posts on the left and right of the legislative chamber. By the mid-19th century, “left” and “right” had entered the French vernacular as shorthand for opposing political ideologies. Political parties even began self-identifying as “center left,” “center right,” “extreme left” and “extreme right.”

France’s “left” and “right” labels filtered out to the rest of the world during the 1800s, but they weren’t common in English-speaking countries until the early 20th century. The terms are now used to describe the oposing ends of the political spectrum, but their origins are still evident in the seating arrangements of many legislative bodies. In the U.S. Congress, for example, Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit on opposite sides of the House and Senate chambers.

Political parties in the United States are dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, constituting what is known as the two-party system, many aspects of which have been written into law, and others of which are customary. The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, since at the time of its signing in 1787 there were no existing parties.

Republican - An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is usually associated with the rule of law. Republicanism, the ideology in support of republics or against monarchy; the opposite of monarchism. Therefore it cannot be far-right. More on this later.

Democrat - A proponent of democracy, or democratic government; rule of the people or rule by many. Democrat, Democrats, or Democratic may refer to a member of a Democratic Party.

.................................

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.

To call someone far right today would make little sense to me unless they were for monarchy. In countries that still have monarch at least on paper, like UK, it might be more easier to make the argument for far-right and play with words. But it makes no sense for a country like United States.

I stand by my claim that “the right” is a ragtag jumble of many disparate groups and individuals thrown together into a coalition—some willingly, some simply labeled as such—because they do not share the end goals of the left. I will continue to resist the label “right-wing,” because it concedes far too much power to the left. It makes the left the moral center of the political universe. It means they get to set the agenda. It means that we have the entire argument on their terms. I will not have the argument on their terms, to do so is to lose said argument before it even starts. Neither should anyone have to have it on their terms. They crave power more than anything else, so why give it to them? Those who oppose the left need to develop strategies that make “the left” increasingly irrelevant by denying them any sense of moral purchase, by refusing to dignify their emotional outbursts, and by insisting on plain speech, facts, and evidence." - Neema Parvini

.................................

@Naomi Bottom line is that "far-right" is term used not because it accurately describeds something, but much like terms "racist", "Homophobe", "transphobe", "Fascist" is used by the people to smear others and its not about rules its about who determinants the rules.

If you go on Wikipedia and search for "Nazism" or "fascism" you will find them labeled far-right. Which is insane to anyone who studied history. Its the far left proposition just like Communism is. Communism is off course the only term they could not escape, so it is generally called far left , even if both "Nazism" or "fascism" stem from the same source.

This is what those who label themselves "left" have done. They rejected ideologies that should be attributed to them and attributed them not only to the far right side, which is factually wrong, but its accusation of horrific crimes they wash their hands off.

Therefore in most discussions, the left is not a different way of thinking about politics, its the morally correct way they say. Morally superior way. And the other side, whichever does not agree with it, is smeared far-right and they are not wrong, they are evil.

Its the same hypocrisy we see with AntiFa or Left nowadays calling people racist.

“The further Fascism receded into history and the fewer visible fascists there were on display, the more self-proclaimed anti-fascists needed fascism to retain any semblance of political virtue or purpose. It proved politically useful to describe as fascist people who were not Fascists , just as it proved politically useful to describe as racist people who were not racists.” ― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

“In Italy, Fascists divide themselves into two categories: Fascists and Anti-Fascists.”
— Ennio Flaiano

The term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.

.................................

When someone writes: far-right I have to assume they are full of shit.

I hope that explains my original reaction and put the Wikipedia article about this group in question without actually knowing much about it. Its just one of those red flags.

@Naomi a place called 4chan will no doubt have further info. Also, Reddit probably still has QAnon stuff. Mysterious anonymous drops of clues....that mostly what Q provides. Folks think Q is a few insiders in intel services working to undo especially pedophile rings and other really bad stuff. I occasionally indulge, but cannot figure out the meaning of most of it, so if you like conspiracy stuff, and have time..... check it out.

@Naomi "Glad to hear it. I don't do conspiracy theories much, but Americans seem to like them."

Me neither. But they are popular because they make complex topics seems less complex and so they persist.

“People are always clinging to what they want to hear, discarding the evidence that doesn’t fit with their beliefs, giving greater weight to evidence that does.” ― Paula Stokes, The Key to Everything

Hashtag Confirmation Bias

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.” ― Alan Moore

“With enough mental gymnastics, just about any fact can become misshapen in favor to one's confirmation bias.” ― Criss Jami, Healology

“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”
― Francis Bacon

“Assorted theories have been advanced to explain confirmation bias—why people rush to embrace information that supports their beliefs while rejecting information that disputes them: that first impressions are difficult to dislodge, that there’s a primitive instinct to defend one’s turf, that people tend to have emotional rather than intellectual responses to being challenged and are loath to carefully examine evidence.
Group dynamics only exaggerate these tendencies, the author and legal scholar Cass Sunstein observed in his book Going to Extremes: insularity often means limited information input (and usually information that reinforces preexisting views) and a desire for peer approval; and if the group’s leader “does not encourage dissent and is inclined to an identifiable conclusion, it is highly likely that the group as a whole will move toward that conclusion.”

Once the group has been psychologically walled off, Sunstein wrote, “the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited, and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.” In fact, groups of like-minded people can become breeding grounds for extreme movements. “Terrorists are made, not born,” Sunstein observed, “and terrorist networks often operate in just this way. As a result, they can move otherwise ordinary people to violent acts.”

― Michiko Kakutani, The Death of Truth: Notes on Falsehood in the Age of Trump

@Evidently Yes, the Q hints at insider info, usually just vague enough, so that one can fill in with imagination. The double and triple reverse games going on in Intel, is hard enough to ever become a true picture. The complex, is always fun, to try and straighten out, in a nice clear rational explanation. And it is fun to feel one in on the inside, in the know! Q is a lot of very nice, ordinary people, from those I have read. It is like following the Who killed JFK people. How Twitter and anyone else thinks they can stamp out this....is fooling themselves, or just spinning their wheels as a pretend keeper of the gates. The Q, or any other of the people who want to know the truth, are on the side of the rational, sort of, any way. The Social Media marches on in it's paranoid dreams, of believing ordinary Americans as the Fascist Hoards.... The imaginary, is the only ones they dare fight.

"salty individuals", oh, yeah! They are salting the earth, in hopes they will stand on the Top of the Heap of ruin of the rational, they must destroy. Q exists in the mind the way the Chaz conquered a city! If Twitter wants to join the fun of mind bend games, good luck to them. It is not a business model!