Deconstructing mind control: The Guardian on #QAnon

As an exercise, let’s take apart one article from The Guardian newspaper on #QAnon. Is it legitimate journalism or unethical mind control?

Deconstructing mind control:
The Guardian on #QAnon

“The man who reads nothing at all
is better educated than the man
who reads nothing but newspapers.”
― Thomas Jefferson

A defining question of our time is the legitimacy of the mass media. It is not disputed that they have sold us many illegal wars, corrupt politicians, and empty scares. The contentious issue is whether we are dealing with endemic poor journalism, driven by an ordinary need for attention and greed for power, or something far more systemic and sinister.

Historically the UK’s Guardian newspaper has been left-leaning, with its origins being a northern working and middle class readership. It is the mouthpiece of the British media aristocracy and public sector governing classes. In recent decades — post New Labour — it has adopted Progressivism (read: neoliberal eco-totalitarianism) as its political doctrine.

As such, its readership closely matches what Jacques Ellul describes in his 1962 classic book Propaganda. The liberal intellectual elite presume they are the most immune to mind control, since they are highly credentialed and regard themselves as clever. In reality, they are the most in need of propaganda, since they are expected to have a socially acceptable opinion on every matter, and are easily emotionally manipulated due to underdeveloped “street smarts”.

I have picked one recent article on QAnon as an exemplar of the kind of unethical pseduo-journalism that is targeted at the British and Australian public. I cannot know if this article is ultimately “black hat” military intelligence working to save its hide, “white hats” planting a time bomb to demolish trust in the mass media, or some other (non-)agenda. You have to research that and decide for yourself.

This is also only a critique of media methods, and I have no comment to make on the underlying story. I just happen to be a subject matter expert on QAnon, and therefore interested in overt media bias, covert criminal control, and corrupt social engineering.

Let’s kick off with the title:

[Australian] Psychiatrist struck off for posting ‘bizarre’ QAnon conspiracy theories

As a photographer, I understand how framing a composition is the figural creative act. There are two core choices: the subject (which remains partially or wholly in the frame), as well as what you crop out (and thus isn’t seen at all in the final product).

The subject here is “professional loses livelihood for unacceptable transgression of accepted beliefs”. The message is clear: one that should instil fear in the reader of emulating this unfortunate deluded person. Fear bypasses rational thinking — we equate social ostracism with death — and is the basis for mind control.

There is no room for ambiguity: the headlining of “bizarre” also tells us precisely what to think of QAnon. The casual reader will not go past the headline, and their view is now set. Whatever “QAnon” is, it is an outlandish set of beliefs that only those with serious loss of attachment to reality might adopt. A mental health professional with “bizzare” beliefs (and hence bizzare behaviours) would indeed be a problem.

The term “conspiracy theory” has an interesting history. Its popularisation is documented as the CIA working to discredit the many people who doubted the official story of the death of John F Kennedy. It is frequently used against those who dissent from the “official” position, and not uncommon for those same people to be later vindicated (e.g. Hillsborough disaster). Its use in journalism should be a “red flag”; indeed, I have even observed professionals in related fields lapsing into its use, forgetting that this is a sign that they themselves are being mind controlled by the mass media.

This headline leaves out any possibility that the subject is free speech, freedom of conscience, or the treatment of those who dissent from “official” narratives. If a detached and objective journalistic position was being taken, then the headline might be “Controversy over psychiatrist struck off for QAnon posts”. This would stay entirely within the facts, and does not manipulate the reader by assuming authority to decide on their behalf.

Now let’s take a look at the subheading…

Sydney doctor who shared alt-right views with patients on his clinic website found mentally unfit to treat people

As I mentioned earlier, I have no comment to make on the underlying case. It is quite possible that this doctor has broken the rules of his profession by mixing “business” with “personal” matters. (It seems an extreme outcome for the circumstances, and unlikely to be an appropriate punishment, but it is plausible.) What is of concern here is how this is presented in the media, and the juxtaposition of “alt-right” with “mentally unfit”.

The term “alt-right” is a form of name-calling, used to signal “like racist Nazis, but we can’t say that aloud for fear of litigation”. Again, it is being used to cudgel the reader into a thought form: dissent from (technofascist dogma) is not tolerated.

In this case, the label is also factually untrue. As I wrote before, academic research says positive sentiment to Q is neither left nor right. A mainstream conservative journalist, Patrick Howley, who is relatively new to Q, makes this observation:

And this too…

Papers like the Guardian have previously used “fringe” as an adjective for QAnon, but two years and hundreds of articles dedicated to a “fringe” phenomenon contradicts their own narrative. So “alt-” is the new “fringe”, and it is misleading at best, and mendacious at worst.

Let’s press on, so to speak… now the lead image and its heading.

Once past the sinister evil green “hacker” hands… no subliminal messages there… we get to read:

Dee Why psychiatrist Russell Everard McGregor posted QAnon conspiracy theories on his practice website claiming Donald Trump would reveal a global Satanist paedophile network.

We have an American President who has now issued multiple executive orders on human trafficking, and explicitly made it a priority of his administration. There is copious evidence of a serious problem with high-level protected paedophiles globally (think Savile, Epstein, Dutroux). Satanic occult symbology is all over music videos, Hollywood movies, and fashion magazines. It seems very hard to justify this image heading as coming from a detached and objective position. Moving on…

A Sydney psychiatrist who posted “bizarre” alt-right conspiracy theories he claimed were the directives of US President Donald Trump to his practice’s official website has been struck off the medical register.

You should be immediately thinking… what kind of actual patient harm has been demonstrated, or genuine malpractice? Why is the subject focus on the professional disbarment, and not on the controversy of Q? Why is this reported as if he’d murdered a patient, and such a striking off was an ordinary procedural matter?

The Dee Why doctor Russell Everard McGregor claimed Trump had taped evidence of a global Satanist paedophile network, that 9/11 was faked, and that the ABC was part of an international deep state network covering up the crimes of the elite.

Are claims of criminality and corruption unethical or unlawful? Is there no history of powerful media being involved in covering up crookedness? It is OK to be against ordinary rape and murder of children, but Satanic ritual abuse is unmentionable? Have false flag attacks got a long history in geopolitics or not?

The positioning here is that once you utter the “Trump” trigger, any kind of non-sequitur is permissible. Orange Man Axiomatically Bad, so objective reporting is superfluous and outdated.

Many of the 300-plus posts from 2018 onwards related to the debunked QAnon conspiracy that suggests Trump is leading a crusade against
“deep state” forces who protect satanic paedophile rings.

Let’s take a quick look at the latest Q drops

Latest Q drops

If Q is a way of Trump communicating with the public (QAnons), then we can tick off paedophilia… and lots of treason, too. Just there’s that small, tiny, problem with the word “debunked”. What, exactly, has been “debunked”, and by what authority?

The Guardian has put itself here in a position of “keeper of the doctrine”… there is no “reporting” associated with the word “debunked”. They have no need for a source beyond their own assertion. It is compelling evidence that this article is propaganda — the very opposite of holding power to account.

As fellow commentator on this hit piece, Matthew Hayden, writes:

The fundamental claim of the mysterious “Q” dude, dudette — or maybe even team of dudes and dudettes — is that he (I’ll use the singular for brevity) is in Trump’s inner circle.

This is a testable hypothesis. It would seem that the Guardian‘s debunkulator needs servicing. For the real story is that the public are rejecting the mass media’s failed narrative for a new one — Q. This story cannot be reported by the mass media! They have competition, and their only way to deal with it is to libel this doctor (I hope he sues!) and slur critical thinkers.

“Fight with your keyboard, knowledge and pen,” McGregor wrote in one post in January 2018. “Follow Q breadcrumbs on 8chan.

“The evil truth will be hard for most to bear. Be brave. Seek loved ones and offer compassion to friends and family.”

As someone who has spent innumerable hours researching the matter — I have some articles in preparation that will churn your stomach — this exhortation strikes me as very reasonable.

Note how in a carefully positioned sidebar we have…

QAnon: latest Trump-linked conspiracy theory gains steam at president’s rallies

Those “conspiracy theory” words subtly align to his statement out of the corner of your eye. It’s also both a fringe (“alt-right”) and mainstream (“right”) phenomenon at the same time. That’ll be quality journalism, then!

Back to the article…

In another post detailed by the NSW civil and administrative tribunal this week, McGregor insisted that the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, had not been hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London but was in Switzerland or Washington.

“He is an Australian hero and would make a fine future PM,” McGregor wrote.

It’s possible. Who knows. Would this be grounds to end his career? As an investigative journalist, would you not at this point be wondering if the real story was whether he was being persecuted for beliefs unrelated to his medical practise?

The doctor continues to post blogs to the official website of his Northern Beaches Psychiatrist and Psychologist Family Medical Practice.

The blog was only uncovered after McGregor submitted a detailed complaint to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency about an alleged affair between his wife and a colleague.

Ah. Oh. Oh dear.

This might just possibly have been relevant to the headline. “Jilted husband experiences second blow from vindictive wife”. Now we get a hint of the real story, which is the Q matter is actually peripheral, and being used as an excuse to punish him for daring to hold the bad behaviour of others to account.

Knowing that most people don’t read past the sub-heading, is withholding this data until here ethical journalism? I think you know the answer.

When a colleague working at the same practice complained that the information had been inappropriately shared with her as well, the NSW Medical Council began to look into McGregor’s wellbeing.

It’s positively Sovietesque, no? Blow the whistle on unprofessional behaviour by a colleague, and have your own mental health called into question. Then the fine upstanding liberals at the Guardian will come to defend the whistleblower. Not!

During a hearing into his mental state, McGregor told the medical council that if they had “any understanding of politics, you would understand that the beliefs that are actually put on the blog are actually the directives from President Trump”.

It’s an opinion. Not much different from a religious belief, many might claim. “This is how I see the world.” If you aren’t willing to defend his right to this belief about the benevolence of Donald Trump, who has conspicuously failed to start the promised WW3 so far, what kind of person are you?

When the council chair called to say his registration had been suspended, he called her a “filthy dirty fucking leftwing slut” and claimed she “knowingly used the power of political correctness to inflict woman to male intimidation and assault against [him]”.

“You think you can do this just because I’m rightwing?” McGregor asked.

As far as the Alinskyite Guardian is concerned, yes. Power is its own objective: accuse others of that which you are guilty, make everything personal, and attack the messenger. By their uncritical presentation of this reported speech, I would suggest that they are slyly endorsing her “reverse victimisation” of Dr McGregor. Everything is to be weaponised, including language and protected speech, to ensure conformity to doctrine.

And we have another sidebar item…

How journalists should not cover an online conspiracy theory

The Guardian might like to take its own advice here.

He later used the blog to label the council a “pedophile protection agency” and “deranged President Trump haters and those who are political sycophants of what the Deep State represents”.

What’s the betting there are corrupt people running this council? This is how the “mutual self-promotion club” works: blackmail and violence ensure nobody will snitch, but you’ll get on very well and be rewarded for playing the game. Key “strongholds” are judicial and regulatory bodies that arbitrate power.

Oddly, the Guardian seems uninterested in exploring this story angle. I am sure they themselves have nothing to hide.

McGregor’s deregistration was granted by NCAT on Wednesday after a hearing in which the doctor’s own assessing psychiatrist testified that McGregor was paranoid.

We now have a political opinion declared as reason to persecute a medical professional and have their livelihood removed. No harm to patients needs to be demonstrated. This is a very dangerous line to cross. But one that the supposedly liberal Guardian jaunts over without hesitation. No comment is sought from any bodies who might be concerned about the treatment of Dr McGregor; case closed.

Dr Murray Wright said McGregor had tried to win him over to the QAnon cause by bringing a 600-page document to the consultation.

So justifying your beliefs with evidence is not acceptable and indeed a violation of the rights of a medical body to pronounce on geopolitical affairs. In this court of professional opinion, you are guilty until proven a member of the established power elite.

“These are extraordinary beliefs for a consultant psychiatrist to publicly associate himself with, particularly on a website associated with his clinical practice,” Wright told NCAT.

That’s an opinion, not a fact. Doxa, not epistme. I personally know many respected professionals who share the same views about Q, just who do not feel able to express them publicly. Why so? They fear persecution and loss of their livelihood, and have rent, mortgages and young to raise.

The tribunal agreed, finding McGregor was exposing his vulnerable patients to harm with the posts and was mentally unfit to continuing treating people. “His perception is not the reality,” NCAT said.

If you think you are “liberal” and feel that such uncritical acceptance of this position is “journalism”, then I weep for you. Should you lose your job for expressing your views as a Scientologist? A vegan? A communist, even?Where’s the boundary of “unacceptable” political or religious opinion at work?

“His clients, some of whom may be prone to paranoid thoughts or beliefs, are likely to read the blog and be influenced by his bizarre and overvalued ideas.”

At this point I’m beginning to wonder if Dr Murray Wright needs a little bit of journalistic investigation himself. Also note how this appeals to an hubristic arrogance: I am in the sole position to define what is real or not in this world; there are not areas of legitimate contention or dispute; and departures from orthodoxy in matters unrelated to clinical practise are unacceptable.

McGregor was also found guilty of professional misconduct and banned from reapplying for a year over the posts and his verbal abuse. He will need to prove he has recovered significantly should he wish to practice again.

Until you reform your thought to be in compliance with Party doctrine, you will no longer be allowed to feed or house your family. We hope that others considering expressing similar views take note of your suffering. We have Freedom of Conscience training courses available run by our academic partners in North Korea.

Have a nice day.

  • Crisis support services can be reached 24 hours a day: Lifeline 13 11 14; Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467; Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800; MensLine Australia 1300 78 99 78; Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636

One of my saddest discoveries has been that these lines are sometimes run by corrupt people and organisations, to identify whistleblowers and filter out complaints against the powerful. (I have no views on these specific Australian examples.) You may wish to check out the relationship between the Clinton Foundation, sex abuse helplines, and human trafficking; or Childline in the UK and the protection of people like Jimmy Savile.

2020 is going to be a rough year for the self-righteous who have arrogantly declared themselves final arbiters of what is real and respectable. This is especially true of mental health professionals working outside of their professional competence. You can’t say that you didn’t have fair warning of your own hubris.

The purpose of political dissent is to allow for adjustment, since the mainstream is commonly wrong on important matters. The “weak signals” of those saying the mainstream is madness are important to protect and preserve. We cherish dissent because of humility: we all will sometimes be part of a deluded mainstream, and benefit from dissent later as the mainstream adjusts.

By publishing a piece like this — that denigrates dissent — it demonstrates how the Guardian is in the business of “presstitution”. This article is not professional news reporting, for it does not use its neutral ethics and objective language. It instead exhibits the methods and mechanisms of propaganda and mind control.

Such hit pieces — protecting a powerful criminal “paedocracy” — will boomerang on “fake news” providers like the Guardian, and doom them to irrelevance and ignominy. A fitting obituary headline might even be “Newspaper struck down for posting ‘bizarre’ QAnon fake news as journalism”.