Monday 30 November 2020

Why do smart people still choose Keynes over Hayek?

Looking back over the last few years you have to ask how intelligent people, examining the evidence, can still choose Keynes over Hayek

John Phelan

On 4 December 2012 10:17

On October 17th a group of concerned economists wrote to the Times. The current economic woes, they wrote, were down to insufficient spending/increased saving. “[W]hen a man economizes in consumption”, they argued, “and lets the fruit of his economy pile up in bank balances or even in the purchase of existing securities, the released real resources do not find a new home waiting for them.” Crucially, “In present conditions their entry into investment is blocked by lack of confidence.” The government should step in and spend to make up the shortfall they said.

On October 19th another group of economists replied with their own letter to the Times. They believed that the cause of the economic problems was monetary mismanagement which had created “a deficiency of investment-a depression of the industries making for capital extension, &c., rather than of the industries making directly for consumption.” They argued for the necessity of increased saving to readjust this and explicitly rejected any role for government spending, writing that “many of the troubles of the world at the present time are due to imprudent borrowing and spending on the part of the public authorities.”

But this was October 1932 and the letters were written by John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. It says much about the essentially static nature of economic knowledge that an 80 year old debate remains so compelling today that it continues to inspire radio showsdebatesbooks, and even rap-offs

Keynes’s economics, in a nutshell, argues that of the two components of ‘effective demand’, consumption and investment, investment is prone to volatile swings. As Keynes put it, investment spending was reduced when their expected payoff, the Marginal Productivity of Capital, dipped below the cost of financing them, the interest rate.

Why might this happen? “Animal spirits” was Keynes’ answer; “Don’t ask me guv” in other words. Whatever it was that tipped investors from optimism into effective demand-sapping pessimism is exogenous to the model; it cannot be accounted for by it.

Either way, the policy prescriptions of the Keynesian model are obvious. Financing costs must be held down with low interest rates and the Marginal Productivity of Capital must be underwritten by a government guarantee to purchase, with deficit spending if need be, whatever output industry might produce. Low interest rates and deficit spending. That is the Keynesian prescription for prosperity.

Hayek’s theory is very different. For Hayek, when low interest rates cause an expansion of credit, this credit flows into some parts of the economy before others. This blows up bubbles in the affected part of the economy, be it in housing, internet stocks, or tulips.

At some point, Hayek argues, the inflationary effect of this credit expansion overwhelms any wealth effect and interest rates begin to rise. With no further credit available to purchase the bubble assets the prices of these assets and their attendant industries collapse. This is the bust.

A major difference between Hayek’s theory and Keynes’s is that for Hayek the bust as well as the boom is endogenous to the model, it is explained by it. The bust isn’t caused by “animal spirits” switching inexplicably out of the clear blue sky, but by the predictable outcome of actions undertaken in the boom.

As Hayek’s model is radically different from Keynes’s, radically different prescriptions follow from it. Viewing the cycle as a whole Hayek believed that preventing a future bust was as important as fighting the current one and he proposed measures to limit the ability of banks to swell credit, his favoured solution being competing currency issue by banks.

More immediately, Hayek argued that as the bubble assets and attendant industries had been pumped up by unsustainable injections of inflationary credit, they could only be liquidated; any attempt to preserve their value would only prolong the bust or, as bad, set another cycle in motion. Sound money and non-intervention was the prescription of Hayek and his fellow Austrian Schoolers.  

Looking back over the last few years you have to ask how intelligent people, examining the evidence, can still choose Keynes over Hayek. In both Britain and America we had monetary policy makers working to keep financing costs down with low interest rates. We had governments running budget deficits and applying fiscal stimulus to economies which were already growing. We followed the Keynesian prescription for prosperity and we still ended up with a bust – a bust which Hayekians, with their superior model, saw coming.

The answer lies in the prescriptions. Keynes, with his cheap credit and shower of borrowed money, is a pleasant prospect. Indeed, Paul Krugman, one of the most uncompromising modern Keynesians, believes that “Ending the depression should be incredibly easy”, all we need is cheaper credit and more borrowing. Just, in fact, what we had going into the crisis.

Hayek, on the other hand, offers a more painful prospect. As his mentor Ludwig von Mises put it:       

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved”

Which of these vistas would you prefer to gaze upon?

But these theories should be judged not on how warm and fuzzy they make us feel but on how accurate they are. On that score Hayek wins hands down yet some still cling doggedly to Keynes. It’s for the same reason the aunt who gives you chocolates is preferred to the aunt who makes you do your homework.  

John Phelan is a Contributing Editor for The Commentator and a Fellow at the Cobden Centre. He has also written for City AM and Conservative Home and he blogs at Manchester Liberal. Follow him on Twitter @TheBoyPhelan

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2199/why_do_smart_people_still_choose_keynes_over_hayek

Sunday 29 November 2020

'How much will it COST Ian?' Blackford brutally attacked after Scottish independence boast

IAN Blackford has been challenged to reveal the true cost of Scottish independence after the SNP's Westminster leader insisted Scotland was on the brink of splitting with the Union.

The MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber will today tell his party's annual conference, being held online this year as a result of coronavirus restrictions,  is "within touching distance of ". His speech comes alongside a tweet in which he shared a video touting the case for  to go it alone. In it, he commented: "Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country - playing our full part in the world as a force for progress, fairness and equality.

"Next year’s election will be the most important in Scotland's history. "Together we can put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands #SNP20."

However, there was no shortage of critics voicing their scepticism.

One simply asked: "How much would independence cost?"

A second poster responded: "They haven’t worked that out yet even though they’ve had since 2014."

Ian Blackford

Ian Blackford's tweet on the subject prompted a varied response (Image: Twitter)

Patrick Edwardson added: "Nobody disputes Scotland could be independent.

"The better questions are should it, does it make sense, would the people of Scotland be better off (both financially and non-financially)?

"It’s not obvious the answers to these are ‘yes’."

Another, referring to the mechanism whereby Scotland is able to have higher levels of public spending in comparison with England, added: "Ok so if Scotland goes independent then Scotland isn't entitled to the £15 billion per anum Barnet Formula from England it can't use the £ sterling as it's money and has no Armed forces.

"Oil is going to be outlawed soon too due to green energy so Scotland will fail in a year."

Another poster said: "It was time for independence a few years back.

"We said no because it was economically unviable. It more unviable now.

"The welfare bill is enormous. Wake up."

Selwyn Burton asked: "Without the rest of the UK, Scotland will just be another small country without influence in the world.

"I’m sure you’ll make it but don’t delude yourselves that you will be important or have a seat at any top table."

SNP independence Scotland

One poster asked how much independence would cost (Image: Twitter)

SNP independence Scotland

Another questioned the wisdom of Scotland going it alone (Image: Twitter)


Another critic suggested First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's plans for an independent Scotland to join the EU were also a factor.

Robert Davies warned: "You won’t be independent if you're in the EU and euro."

Others were more sympathetic.

One said: "Folks who object to independence need to recognise that independence as such doesn't really exist in modern international affairs.

"Scotland wants independence to a large extent because of what England has become - we want to be a self-determining progressive country."


Scottish independence

Recent polls have indicated backing for independence (Image: Ipsos MORI)

David Dwellon said: "Excellent presentation. Bring it on."

The question of how Scotland will cope financially outside the UK is a central theme for those opposed to independence.

Speaking to Express.co.uk earlier this year, Kevin Hague, chairman of the These Islands think tank, said the case for economic independence fell apart under close scrutiny not least the claim that Scotland was a net contributor to the UK economy which could afford to pay its own way.

He explained: "That was true for one year out of the last 20 years.

"It’s just not the case for the vast majority of the time.


Ian Blackford

Ian Blackford speaks in the Commons earlier this month (Image: PA)

"I always make the economic case for staying with the UK – I believe that if people are well-informed then the case for independence withers and dies."

In his speech later today, Mr Blackford is expected to say: "Our plan, our job and our focus is winning an independence majority at Holyrood next May. We have our candidates in place, we have momentum, and we have a leader our nation trusts.

"We have all come a long way - and we are now within touching distance of independence.

"But just as we have travelled all this way together - we can only complete this journey together.

"My message to all of us is this: Keep heart, keep the heid and keep the faith. A new Scotland - fairer, greener and European - is now ours to win."


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1366013/SNP-news-scotland-independence-latest-ian-blackford-nicola-sturgeon-twitter-referendum

Saturday 28 November 2020

Fishermen: EU ‘Like Bully Who Steals Your Lunch’ and ‘Expects You to Be Grateful for a Few Crumbs Back’

 Scottish fishermen have slammed the EU behaving “like the bully who steals your lunch every day and expects you to be grateful for the few crumbs he hands back” as it continues to push for control over Britain’s fisheries.

JACK MONTGOMERY

The European Economic Community, as the European Union then was, changed its rules to give Brussels control over national fishing waters shortly before the United Kingdom joined in the 1970s, bringing the richest fishing waters in western Europe with it.

The EU currently doles out more than half of those stocks to other EU member-states — Britain left the bloc at the beginning of 2020 but remains a member in all but name through the ongoing “transition” period — and has over the years overseen massive job losses in the British fishing industry, with thousands of British fishermen either driven out of business or paid to destroy their vessels.

Survivors had looked forward to regaining their lost fisheries after the vote to Leave the European Union back in 2016 but, despite EU loyalists having repeatedly played down the economic importance of fishing, the bloc has been fighting tooth and nail to retain its current control Britain’s waters, threatening to refuse a trade deal if they do not get it.

The British government has claimed it will not give way, but man Brexiteers fear they will break their word, particularly with the departure of former Vote Leave campaign mastermind Dominic Cummings having left Boris Johnson’s team, which Brussels hailed as a potential turning point.

With the transition set to expire at the end of 2020 and a no-deal on the horizon, EU negotiators are widely reported to be attempting to entice their British governments with an offer on fisheries which would see Britain’s catch increased by a meagre 15 per cent to 18 per cent — an offer the Scottish Fishermen Association has denounced as “paltry”.

“Maybe, just maybe, they are at last waking up to smell the fish. They have made a small offer to give us a paltry extra share. It would be less than 10 per cent of the total catch. Of the fish of which we now the legal owner,” commented association chief executive Elspeth MacDonald, incredulous.

“It is like the bully who steals your lunch every day and expects you to be grateful for the few crumbs he hands back,” she told the Telegraph.

MacDonald insisted the government must not give into EU demands for control over British fisheries as, in effect, the “ransom” for a trade deal, saying they should be told that “they can kiss goodbye to any fisheries deal” and “face the consequences: No access to our waters”.

Britain already agreed to pay an exorbitant sum of money towards the EU’s budget in order to demonstrate goodwill at the start of the negotiations — a concession which does not appear to have achieved any reciprocal action on the EU’s part.

Brexit leader Nigel Farage has previously said fisheries will be the “acid test” of Brexit: “have we got back our territorial waters; are we like Norway, Iceland, the Faroese, are we in control [again]”.

If not, he suggested, a true Brexit will not have been achieved.


Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/11/28/scottish-fishermen-eu-acting-like-bully-who-steals-your-lunch-expects-you-be-grateful-few-crumbs/

Thursday 26 November 2020

EU Threatens to Walk Out of Brexit Talks Unless Britain Accepts Brussels’ Demands

 Brexit deal talks are over if Britain will not give in to the European Union’s demands, Brussels’ top man is claimed to have told UK negotiators, as the clock runs down in the final weeks until Britain is expected to finally and fully leave the bloc.

European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen speaks during a debate on the next EU council and last Brexit devlopement during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Brussels on November 25, 2020. (Photo by Olivier HOSLET / POOL / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER HOSLET/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Getty Images
4:22

Brexit deal talks are over if Britain will not give in to the European Union’s demands, Brussels’ top man is claimed to have told UK negotiators, as the clock runs down in the final weeks until Britain is expected to finally and fully leave the bloc.

While talks between the European power bloc and its erstwhile member have dragged on for years, they have been fundamentally hobbled from day one by the simple fact that both sides want outcomes so radically different; anything approaching accommodation would ultimately be a betrayal to their own interests.

Evidently exasperated at Britain refusing to yield on its own red lines, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier is reported to have told his British counterparts that if they did not accommodate his demands within two days, talks would effectively be over, reports The Guardian.

The paper notes the demand came during a Zoom call on Tuesday — physical talks having been cancelled until later this week due to coronavirus — and that European negotiators might hope that the demand would pile pressure on Boris Johnson to soften his stance.

The claim of Barnier’s demand comes a week after comments from Boris Johnson’s spokesman, who said it remained the opinion of British negotiators that it would be better to leave Europe fully at the end of this year with no deal, as opposed to leaving with a bad deal. The spokesman said: “The PM said he was incredibly confident that the UK will thrive with or without a free trade agreement with the EU.”

Illustrating where friction remained, the spokesman said: “Significant issues remain, particularly on the so-called level playing field and fisheries. We are working hard to find solutions which fully respect UK sovereignty, but it is far from certain that an agreement will prove possible and time is now very short.”

Ultimately, the questions over a deal boil down to how the two sides view the future. British negotiators see a so-called Canada-style relationship between the UK and the EU, where both parties trade freely but where Britain is an independent nation and free to make its own way in the world, as is typical for sovereign states. For the European Union, the post-Brexit world should be as similar to the pre-Brexit one as possible, with Britain bound to obeying certain European rules and restrictions.

Of particular importance to Europe is that Britain is prevented — under threat of punishment — of “undercutting” the European Union, by changing its own laws, or seeking to become more competitive in the future. Brexiteers argue regaining this freedom underlines the whole point of the Brexit project, and without it, the nation’s departure would be a ‘Brexit in name only’.

The European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, emphasised the EU’s view that Britain needed to shift its stance on Wednesday, and again alluded to the ‘level playing field’ Brussels demands that would tie the UK to the bloc in perpetuity. She told the European Parliament: “These are decisive days for negotiations with the United Kingdom. But, frankly, I cannot tell you today if, in the end, there will be a deal… We will do all in our power to reach an agreement, we’re ready to be creative. But we are not ready to put into question the integrity of the single market, the main safeguard for European prosperity and wealth.”

Discussing the potential punishments Europe could mete out to Britain if it did decide to make its own way in future, von der Leyen continued: “We want to know what remedies are available in case one side will deviate in the future because trust is good, but law is better.”

These latest developments are not, by any means, the first time a party to the Brexit talks will have demanded the other side be more flexible, or even that they have collapsed. British negotiators told Europe to show more “flexibility” earlier this month, warning that talks could fall apart otherwise — basically mirror comments to those issued by Brussels this week.

Last month, talk was even more robust, with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson sensationally walking away from negotiations, declaring them to have failed and remarking it was pointless for them to go on as neither side was capable or willing of accommodating the other. Regardless, negotiators were back at the table less than a week later as if nothing had happened.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/11/26/eu-threatens-to-walk-out-of-brexit-talks-unless-britain-accepts-brussels-demands/

Sunday 15 November 2020

Qurious About QAnon? Get the Facts About This Dangerous Conspiracy Theory

 Take note, voters: A nebulous batch of ludicrous rumors that grew into a kind of stealth internet game is now playing a visible part in the 2020 U.S. elections.

  • PUBLISHED 21 AUGUST 2020


In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, elements of an unwieldy and unfounded conspiracy theory, QAnon (Q), were percolating on the fringes of the internet. While Q wasn’t fully Q yet, the groundwork was being laid through rumors that falsely claimed a cabal of Democratic leaders and liberal entertainers engaged in satanic rituals and global sex trafficking. 

By this writing in August 2020, Q was going mainstream: A GOP candidate with a record of promoting QAnon had won a primary race in Georgia; QAnon was being regularly promoted on Fox News; and Q content was even appearing in the social media threads of U.S. President Donald Trump. When he was asked about the dangerous conspiracy theory on Aug. 19 at a news conference, he refused to condemn the group, which the FBI has identified as a domestic terrorist threat, and instead called QAnon a group of people who love their country. 

As the group QAnon has grown, its tentacles have reached into all manners of political discourse, spreading lies about everything from vaccination, to Black Lives Matter, to the fight against COVID-19. It is a vehicle for disinformation, and it is quickly riding its way to the ballot in 2020. If voters aren’t aware of Q and its origins, they should be. 

So What Exactly Is QAnon?

QAnon refers to a group of people who have built a belief system by extrapolating meaning from cryptic messages that were posted by an anonymous person(s) on various internet forums.

How Does QAnon Work?

In general, an anonymous poster who goes by “Q” and purports to be a high-ranking government official drops cryptic messages and leading questions (known as Q drops or crumbs) onto 8kun, an internet forum, that are then dissected by internet researchers in the hopes of finding a coded message. In this manner, QAnon has built a rich and nonsensical body of lore that pits Trump and his supporters against a cabal of Satan-worshiping liberal elites. Pure QAnonsense.

Is QAnon Dangerous?

Yes.

The FBI identified QAnon as a threat in a May 2019 memo outlining how “fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometimes violent activity.”

The memo listed a handful of examples of how QAnon has led to criminal activity. One example: a June 2018 incident involving a man armed with assault rifles and handguns, who blocked a bridge near the Hoover Dam in an armored vehicle while making demands related to the QAnon movement. Another incident involved an armed group that harassed citizens and businesses in Tucson, Arizona, as they “investigated” claims of an alleged, nearby sex trafficking ring. In August 2020, a woman was arrested on aggravated assault charges after she chased down and attacked a woman she falsely believed was involved in sex trafficking. 

The FBI spelled out the danger of these conspiracy theories in a memo, writing:

The FBI assesses in some cases anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the risk of extremist violence against such targets. This assessment is based on several incidents where individuals threatened, assaulted, or plotted to attack entities they perceived as being linked to or involved with an alleged conspiracy. This targeting occurs when promoters of conspiracy theories, claiming to act as “researches” or “investigators,” single out people, businesses, or groups which they falsely accuse of being involved in the imagined scheme. These targets are then subjected to harassment campaigns and threats by supporters of the theory, and become vulnerable to violence or other dangerous acts.

What Does QAnon Believe?

In general, QAnon believes Trump is in the middle of a biblical war against a “deep state,” satanic cabal of baby-eating, child sex-traffickers led by prominent members of the Democratic party, entertainers who espouse liberal opinions, anybody who mentions “pizza,” and authoritative sources who relay credible information that may cast a negative light on the president. Proponents of this theory believe that one day soon the “storm” will come and Trump, with the help of an anonymous high-ranking military official known as “Q,” will round up members of the deep state, arrest them, and possibly have them executed.

Here’s how Ben Collins, who reports on QAnon for NBC News, described the conspiracy theory on the Lawfare Podcast [edited slightly for clarity]:

So Qanon is based on this idea that there’s a high-level government insider who is leaking intelligence on 8kun, which used to be 8chan […]. He posts these things on 8kun, which are known as Q drops, that are basically unfalsifiable puzzles, like little cues that show that in the future something big will happen involving traditional enemies of the Republican party: Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Barack Obama, people like that.

And it started off incredibly specific. It started off in October 2017, and he said that the next day, on October 30, that Hillary Clinton would be rounded up and that the National Guard would be activated, because so many people would be rioting on the streets because Hillary Clinton was about to be arrested and that her passport, I believe seized, or something like that, and she wouldn’t be allowed to leave the country. None of that happened, obviously.

And you would think that that would stop it. That was the very first Q post ever. But, we are here now, three years later, and it’s larger than ever. In part because people try to find some answers in these incredibly vague posts and through that they have built this community that believes that sometime soon there will be mass arrests of every prominent arrest for what they believe to be crimes of eating children, literally, satanic cannibals, and they will be rounded up and marched down the street to their execution.

In order to get a better understanding of QAnon, it’s helpful to strip this conspiracy theory of some of its specifics and look at this group in more general terms.

At its core, QAnon believes that the news is fake, that scientists are wrong, and that anyone who voices opposition to the Trump administration is likely in, or at least being controlled by, the deep state. This allows QAnon to draw distinct lines between good (Trump) and evil (Trump’s perceived enemies).

How Big Is QAnon?

It’s difficult to quantify exactly how much QAnon has grown. An Aug. 10 report from NBC News stated that the largest QAnon groups on Facebook have more than 3 million aggregate followers.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is that QAnon is starting to gain mainstream acceptance in the Republican party. In addition to Trump’s aforementioned encouraging remarks about the conspiracy theory, supporters of Q have also started making headway in their campaigns for political office. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance, won a primary runoff in Georgia and could soon become the first member of Congress to openly support QAnon.

According to Alex Kaplan, a researcher with Media Matters, more than 70 current or former congressional candidates supported QAnon in 2020. The vast majority of these candidates were Republicans (72), one was a Libertarian, and two were Democrats. 

Why Is It Called QAnon?

These claims largely originated with anonymous posts on internet message boards by a person, or persons, known as “Q” (QAnon). “Anon” is also a term that generally describes an anonymous internet poster.

Who is Q?

The identity of Q is not publicly known. As these posts are anonymous, it’s possible that Q is multiple people.

A 2018 news report from NBC News credited three people for popularizing the theory: a YouTube streamer named Tracy Diaz, and two 4Chan administrators, Paul Furber, who went by the name BaruchtheScribe, and Coleman Rogers, who went by Pamphlet Anon.

Who Is Q According to QAnon?

Proponents of this conspiracy theory believe that “Q” is a high-level military officer, government official, or member of the Trump administration with “Q-level security clearance.”

“Q Clearance” is truly a high-level security clearance in the U.S. government, but it does not pertain to the military. Q clearance comes from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Mike Rothschild, a QAnon reporter for The Daily Dot, said that Q has not posted any information that would have required high-level security clearance. Regardless, followers have suggested that “Q” is likely a high-ranking member of the Trump administration.

The Week reported:

The most popular theory among the community is that Q is someone within Trump’s administration, a Michael Flynn-type character or even Trump himself. During one Trump trip to Asia, Q posted some pictures of islands, “which supporters seized on as proof that Q was on Air Force One”, says Sommer.

But “there’s really nothing in the information QAnon has dropped that would necessitate top secret clearance or access to the president”, says The Daily Dot’s Mike Rothschild.

Another theory is that Q is in fact “a shadowy military intelligence figure who recruited Trump for the presidency”, Rothschild adds.

When Did Q Start?

The seeds of QAnon were planted during the run-up to the 2016 election as internet users claimed, among other things, that a global, pedophile sex-trafficking ring was being run out of the basement of a pizza shop. The “pizzagate” conspiracy theory has repeatedly been debunked (this pizza parlor didn’t even have a basement). But it planted several ideas — chief among them the notion that liberal politicians, progressive businesses, and all manner of celebrities took part in satanic rituals — which evolved into QAnon.

The first QAnon post, or Q drop, can be traced back to an Oct. 28, 2017, post on the internet forum 4chan. That post claimed that the extradition of Hillary Clinton was already underway and that the National Guard would be activated on Oct. 30 with the expectation of mass rioting following her arrest.

This, of course, never came to fruition.

In the following days, this poster started self-identifying as “Q Clearance Patriot” and used the “Q” moniker at the end of these posts:

While this “Q Clearance Patriot” supposedly had inside information that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, would be arrested on Nov. 3, this, too, did not happen.

A number of other anonymous internet posters (or Anons) had claimed to be high-ranking government officials, but Q’s posts struck a chord with the community. The unfounded notions of “pizzagate” that had previously been dismissed due to a severe lack of evidence, now had the support, proponents of this theory believed, of an authoritative voice who was working on the inside. 

Despite early demonstrations that this person’s information was unreliable (or, more realistically, simply made up), Q continued to post “Q Drops” or “bread crumbs.”

What Are Crumbs?

While Q may be a single entity (even if made up by several different posters), the QAnon conspiracy theory is a collaborative effort between Q and the Q community. After leaving each crumb, drop, or clue, on a message board Q followers — or bakers — work to decipher the meaning.

Here’s an example of a typical Q drop. As you’ll notice, this post from November 2017 provides little in terms of actual information. Rather, it is full of cryptic statements and leading questions:

Patriots don’t sleep.
40,000ft. v. necessary to understand [US]/SA/global events.
Paint the picture.
Decrease altitude (we will not fly that high again).
Higher the altitude greater the [risk] of conspiracy ST.
Many cannot/will not swallow.
What is No Such Agency – Q group?
Who has clearance to full picture?
Important.
SIS is good.
+++Adm R+++
What agency is at war w/ Clowns In America?
How does POTUS shift narrative?
(New) Age of Enlightenment.
80% covert.
20% public.
What has occurred over [th]e last several months?
C-info leaks?
Operations (think SA + ???)?
CNN sale?
What co’s rec large cash injections by Clowns In America (public)?
Why???
Who does [i]t hurt?
Who control[s] the MSM?
Primary objective from beginning: POTUS discredit MSM.
[W]hy is this relevant?
How is information transmitted?
How are people inform[e]d?
Why was Sarah A. C. attacked (hack-attempt)?
Why was Op[e]ration Mockingbird repeated?
Why was Jason Bourne (CIA/Dream) repeated?
Think social media platforms.
Who are the Wizards & Warloc[k]s?
What council do the Wizards & Warlocks control?
Think Snowden (inside terms dropped).
Alice & Wonderland – understood.
Snow White – understood.
Iron Eagle?
Godfather III?
Speed?
Everything has meaning.
Disney is a distraction.
Senate & Congress = puppets (not all)(power shift).
For [GOD & COUNTRY].
For HUMANITY.
GERONIMO.
Q

While the above-displayed text may not provide much in terms of information, it does give proponents of this conspiracy theory ample opportunity to draw their own conclusions. What, after all, does “Godfather III” have to do with the deep state cabal?

“QAnon Anonymous,” a podcast featuring investigations into Q by Travis View, a reporter from the Washington Post, likened this manner of “baking” to an improvisational game in which Q provides “crumbs” that “bakers” then use to turn into “bread.” If we ignore the flawed metaphor (bread is not baked via the addition of crumbs), we see that Q simply provides tantalizing and cryptic clues (not credible information or evidence gathered from high-level security clearance) that the internet then turns into a theory.

Here’s an excerpt from the “QAnon Anonymous” podcast (the full episode can be listened to here):

Anons on [web forum] Qresear.ch feel like they are unlocking the secrets of Q. But in reality it’s more like an improvisational game where they try to find a meaning that will go viral in the QAnon community or even beyond.

On Qresear.ch there are people responsible for creating and maintaining threads where people post their comments for research. They’re called “bakers.” And these bakers are supposed to help the Anons take the bread crumbs and turn them into completed research called “bread.” Let’s be clear here. This is not how bread is made. Do not use bread crumbs to make bread.

In this manner, QAnon is an ever-shifting and growing ideology. Proponents of this theory can pick and choose which threads to follow and which ones to dismiss.

What Is the ‘Red Pill’?

Subscribers to QAnon are often said to have taken the “red pill.” This is a reference to “The Matrix,” a movie starring Keanu Reeves, in which the hero is presented with a choice: Take the red pill and see the world as it really is or take the blue pill and stay ignorant.

There is a fundamental flaw to this analogy, however, as “The Matrix” is a work of fiction. When Reeves takes the red pill, he doesn’t see the world as it really is, but as the imaginary world that the filmmakers created. In this same way, QAnon believers who take the “red pill” are choosing to reject the reality brought to them by their eyes and ears and replace it with one of their own making.

What Is the ‘Deep State’?

The term “deep state” has been around for decades and typically refers to a secret group of powerful government workers who are working against their own government. In the case of QAnon, the deep state can refer to just about anyone who poses a threat (or is perceived as a threat) to the Trump presidency.

While QAnon’s first posts featured political players such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Podesta, and former U.S. President Barack Obama, the deep state has since incorporated business leaders such as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Microsoft’s Bill Gates, philanthropists such as George Soros, and celebrities such as Madonna, Ellen DeGeneres, and Tom Hanks. More recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the leaders of the Trump administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force, was also subjected to deep state rumors.

Forbes writes:

There is a growing sentiment that Fauci, who has served every President since Reagan and is a Presidential Medal of Freedom awardee, is part of the “Deep State,” a term used by many of the President’s supports and other anti-government groups to represent what they see as a bias against Trump in the federal government. These conspiracy theorists claim that players in the Deep State have roles in the government that they exploit to actively work against the President’s agenda, stymieing his efforts to “drain the swamp” and work on behalf of the American people. While many believers of the Deep State theory, including supporters of QAnon theories, believe the Deep State is made up of disgruntled Democrats, Newt Gingrich recently suggested there are plenty of Republicans in the Deep State as well. Fauci, by virtue of his longtime public service, and his willingness to contradict the President, many of these conspiracy theorists see Fauci as a prime example of a Deep State advocate thwarting the President’s agenda.

Where Is Q headed? What Is ‘the Storm’?

One of the main tenets of QAnon is that one day soon “the storm” will arrive and all of Trump’s enemies will be arrested. The term comes from an offhand remark Trump made before taking a photo with a group of generals.

The vagueness of this odd statement left it open to interpretation. To some, it was just a silly remark. To QAnon, it was a secret code word to signal that mass arrests were imminent.

What Is the ‘Great Awakening’?

While QAnon may seem a bit dark — with all of its talk about pedophilia, sex trafficking, and satanic rituals — there is light at the end of this fictitious tunnel. The Great Awakening, a term borrowed from religious revivals throughout history, is the idea that after “the storm” we’ll see a period of enlightenment as the evils of the deep state are destroyed.

How Has QAnon Evolved?

When QAnon first emerged, it was largely concerned with various political players connected to the 2016 presidential election. In the ensuing years, however, this conspiracy theory has seeped into all manners of political discourse. Elements of Q can be found spreading misinformation related to Black Lives Matter, vaccinations, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brandy Zadrozny, an NBC News reporter whose health misinformation beat has been increasingly intertwined with QAnon, said that these conspiracy groups use nearly identical tactics to increase their reach and spread misinformation.

In a podcast interview with “Lawfare,” Zadrozny described two main tactics used by QAnon and the anti-vaccination movement. First, they create an enemy. Second, they create fear. The first item gives people something to rail against, while the second gives them a noble purpose for their cause.


  • Sen, Ari and Brandy Zadrozny.   “QAnon Groups Have Millions of Members on Facebook, Documents Show.”
        NBC News.   10 August 2020.

  • Winter, Jana.   “Exclusive: FBI Document Warns Conspiracy Theories Are a New Domestic Terrorism Threat.”
        Yahoo News.   1 August 2019.

  • Wendling, Mike.   “QAnon: What Is It and Where Did It Come From?”
        BBC.   22 July 2020.

  • Kaplan, Alex.   “Here are the QAnon supporters running for Congress in 2020.”
        Media Matters.   21 August 2020.

  • Canfield, David.   “Eric Trump Suggests That Ellen DeGeneres is Part of the ‘Deep State.'”
        Entertainment Weekly.   3 January 2018.

  • Cohen, Seth.   “Is Fauci A “Deep State” Doctor? The Conspiracy Theory That Is Sickening America.”
        Forbes.   14 July 2020.

  • LaFrance, Adrienne.   “The Prophecies of Q.”
        The Atlantic.   June 2020.

  • Wade, Peter.   “Fox News Touting Qanon is All You Need to Know About the So-Called News Network.”
        Rolling Stone. &nbs; 26 July 2020.

  • Rupar, Aaron.   “Trump’s Latest Twitter Meltdown Features QAnon, Accidental Self-owns, and a Lot of ‘OBAMAGATE.'”
        VOX.   11 May 2020.

  • Rosenberg, Matthew; Herndon, Astead; Corasaniti, Nick.   “Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon Supporter, Wins House Primary in Georgia.”
        The New York Times.   11 August 2020.


  • https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/21/qanon-2020-election/