Two new podcasts on Q with Jake Anderson

Last summer I did a podcast with freelance journalist Jake Anderson on the Q phenomenon. Due to technical issues it never got published at the time.

I am pleased to tell you that the original interview is now available to be heard. I believe it is one of the best I have done on world of Q and the anons. One question in particular (on the overtly Christian ethos of Q and how that is meant to appeal for unity with non-Christians) is something I still lack a good answer for.

Note that the intended audience is not those who subscribe to this newsletter, but rather those beyond the “Trump zone” who come from a skeptical inquiring place — more below.

recorded a follow-up in December, which was not so well received by those on this mailing list, since it was more adversarial, and less inquiring. Let me explain to you why I hold Jake in high esteem, and continue to engage, even if his content isn’t to your immediate liking. (Also please bear in mind he is also just starting at podcasting and finding the right tone given controversial interviewees.)

I turn down nearly all interview requests. I have done a few with Robert David Steele when I have something very specific to say that needs to get into the world. I decline 100% of requests from corporate journalists, and virtually all from alt media too, unless there is a special reason to make an exception. I have no wish to become a media personality or public figure; quite the opposite.

I am doing these interviews with Jake because I view him as an unacknowledged American journalism hero simply for turning up. He does not self-identify with the radical neo-Marxists, but is from a broadly left-leaning outlook that has a long and noble heritage. Neither of us personally carries the label Christian or conservative, not that there is anything amiss with those who do!

We share a common interest in what might be loosely termed “libertarian non-state collectivist” ways of solving societal problems, even if we don’t use the same labels. You can think of institutions like co-operative societies and mutual insurance companies as being products of this perspective. Individual liberty may be the bedrock of society, but we can build a better world on top of it by working together in novel ways.

Furthermore, absent any corporate or Mockingbird-aligned agenda, his motive is pure: Jake is to me “the only real journalist in America”. Let me qualify that, as it is a big claim. There are a lot of “Patriots doing journalism”, and that includes the “radioactive” subject of Q and the anons. The primary motivation is the Patriot cause; journalism is the means. However, the number doing honest (i.e. open inquiry, respectful, follow the facts) “journalists covering patriotism” is minuscule — to the point of being exactly one.

Q is in my view the biggest story in the history of journalism, I am a starkly notable Patriot commentator on it, and Jake has turned up for the conversation when nobody else did. That itself is quite remarkable.

Jake has to take abuse from “his side” for giving people like me a platform. It takes courage to engage and ask good questions that might give the interviewer and his audience pause for thought. I also value his questions because they force me to examine his framing and come up with really good answers (where I can, on the fly). I learn by doing this.

This is what real journalism is: a contest of ideas that doesn’t require either side to dominate or defeat the other as a human being. We can buy each other a beer afterwards, and feel safe as neighbours to look after each other’s kids. Jake may not realise his work is (small p) patriotic, but it is. It comes from a love of truth and the brotherhood of all who seek it. From a Great Awakening vernacular, it has WWG1WGA values attached.

I also believe that people like Jake have a lot to contribute down the road. This isn’t going to be a one-sided “awakening” of a single part of society lecturing another on how much more discerning they are. It was the traditional left that was sounding the alarm on the defence-media-academia-industrial complex and illegal wars. The right has often been all too guilty of celebrating the outcomes of “winner takes all” social competitions and unaccountable power (especially military and religious).

We are also going to need alternatives to psychopath-friendly hierarchical transnational corporatism. Peer to peer systems, or conventional commons (like open source software), act to rebalance society and decentralise power. Those too are dominated by “left” type thinkers. The American Constitution is an enabling device: it provides a safe foundational framework (rooted in individual liberty) for audacious experiments in socio-economic progress. A world of only conservatives is brittle and dull; only liberals is chaotic and conflicted; the joy is in the tension between them.

There may be difficult truths for those of deep religious conviction to take onboard in future, so don’t imagine the boot will never be on the other foot. I believe that the two of us are modelling “bridge building” conversations that find common ground, re-establish good manners, and expose difference without damning each other for it. So whether you like this interview or not, whether it pleases my audience or his, is beside the point.

The fact that it exists is a win for us all. “Patriots talking to Patriots” is boring; and the radical left has its own bubble. Let’s start some new conversations where we learn to listen again and understand what makes us both the same — and different — without having to “win”. A helpful active listening phase I find useful is “so… what I hear you saying is…”. It makes the other side feels acknowledged and understood, and gives you a chance to shine a different light without having to disagree.

We need both a shared foundation of values as well as dissent on how to apply them for a fun and functional society. Jake and Martin having a civilised conversation is real journalism on a real subject that brings together distinct audiences and beliefs. I plan to carry on this series as time evolves, so we can see how the experiment changes both of us.