The Q-Word: Weapon of Choice for Smearing Opponents
February 4, 2021
If you're not echoing the establishment narrative, you are vulnerable to
attack, writes Trevor Scott FitzGibbon.
QAnon flag at Virginia Second Amendment Rally, January 2020. (Anthony
Crider, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
By Trevor Scott FitzGibbon
RealClear Politics
One of the most effective information-operation weapons during the 2016
presidential election was to smear political targets as "Russian bots"
working on behalf of the Kremlin. Journalists were de-platformed,
presidential candidates were smeared, and lives were immeasurably damaged.
The art of attacking political targets by using open-sourced
guilt-by-association is not new - nor is using Russians as foils. Joseph
McCarthy and his ilk did it in the 1950s with "red-baiting" and the FBI
tried to do it to Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King Jr. and others. Today
that disgraceful tactic has reemerged. The smear du jour is to accuse
someone of supporting the insane QAnon conspiracy - even if they don't.
Assassinating the character of political opponents for "supporting" Q has
migrated from dubious online provocateurs to television news programming.
Suddenly, it seems as if every other word out of certain hosts and pundits
on cable news shows begins with "Q," and that a majority of Democrats sit
around the dinner table every night discussing the conspiracy and how it is
impacting Timmy's fourth-grade class.
Ironically, according to the most recent Pew Research Center poll, while
close to half the country has heard of QAnon, the majority of them are
Democrats. Awareness of Q increased dramatically from 23 percent in March
to 47 percent in September.
One reason for this is that the effort to hype the fringe conspiracy group
has grown quickly. Increasingly, money flows to digital mercenaries to shame
and cyberstalk not only individual targets but entire voting blocs.
QAnon is an idea with no structure, no chain of command and no rules.
Anybody can pick up a YouTube channel or another social media account and
claim to be an anonymous insider - and exploit and project whatever insane
claim they want to make. With the rise of social media and recruitment of
virtual reality and "gaming" technologists, these consultants have provided
new mediums and taken the art of smearing to a new level. From slanderous
TED Talks to inaccurate documentaries that defame individuals who have
nothing to do with QAnon, the damage to the target can be severe. Often,
those making the allegations are reliant on discredited sources.
But we cannot outlaw people who say crazy things. Whether it's antifa in
Portland, outrageous conspiracies from Q, or the Westboro Baptist Church
protesting at funerals, the First Amendment protects problematic speech.
Increasingly, and regardless of your political affiliation, if you're not
echoing the establishment narrative, you are vulnerable to attack.
Discrediting Former Intel Members
Q character assassination has also been used in an attempt to discredit some
of America's most well-respected former members of the intelligence
community, including Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. The
targeting of VIPS members is strategic. One of them is former CIA analyst
Ray McGovern, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief for Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald
Reagan. Another is former NSA technologist Bill Binney, who has also been
targeted as part of the "top leadership" of Q.
Graphic appears at 47-minute mark of TED-X Mid-Atlantic video "Exclusive:
Dismantling QAnon." (Screenshot)
For a refresher, VIPS is the group that correctly debunked from the outset
the bogus "Russiagate" narrative that permeated the Trump presidency. VIPS'
report was spotlighted in The Nation with a story headlined "A New Report
Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." For that criticism, these
leaders were accused of working with Russia. Fast-forward to 2021 and the
exact same leaders are accused of being members of the Q brain trust.
Another troubling trend is the use of foreign operatives to drive the
defamation of Americans. For example, one defamer lives in Mexico while
another, who lives in Europe, is a self-described former member of a fringe
group known as Anonymous. It begs the question, "Who pays them?"
And what's the potential risk in all of this as a society? Those targeted
in this way can potentially lose their business, their home, their friends.
All because some misguided or politically motivated cyber-mercenary on
contract from Washington, D.C., or a foreign country decides to do it.
Many of the same powerful forces who drove Russiagate are the same
operatives now driving the Q smears, colluding with YouTube, Twitter and
Facebook to do their bidding. I've spoken out publicly and repeatedly
against Q because I believe it is a dangerous psychological operation that
harms those brainwashed by it and the innocent affected by it.
But for the past few months on social media and cable TV, there has been a
dramatic uptick of pundits and shady online operatives turning Q accusations
into modern-day Salem witch trials. Q is now a talking point, and painting
someone with that brush can completely discredit them - even those who are
innocent of the allegation.
On some days, it seems that America has entered the sort of dystopia Aldous
Huxley described in his classic novel Brave New World. If this doesn't give
you pause, it should.
Trevor Scott FitzGibbon is president of Silent Partner and an award-winning
PR strategist focused on human rights and protecting whistleblowers while
fighting disinformation campaigns.
The original version of this article was published on RealClear Politics and
republished with permission.