"...while Rothschild questions its very nature and finds that although QAnon has characteristics of a cult, – exhibiting “an effort to employ thought reform or coerce persuasion” alongside a tendency towards destruction – it lacks one essential ingredient, a singly identifiable and charismatic leader."
Then the standard contradiction later in the article:
"Ultimately, who runs QAnon is not important, Rothschild says. It’s not a financial scam that set out to rip people off, nor has it ever encouraged violence among its followers. It is an idea that sprang from nothing and became everything."
So which is it? A cult with destructive tendencies or an idea that has never encouraged violence?
I saw this op-ed about Q today as well:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/527634-qanon-president-storm-dark/
Here's my favorite part:
"...while Rothschild questions its very nature and finds that although QAnon has characteristics of a cult, – exhibiting “an effort to employ thought reform or coerce persuasion” alongside a tendency towards destruction – it lacks one essential ingredient, a singly identifiable and charismatic leader."
Then the standard contradiction later in the article:
"Ultimately, who runs QAnon is not important, Rothschild says. It’s not a financial scam that set out to rip people off, nor has it ever encouraged violence among its followers. It is an idea that sprang from nothing and became everything."
So which is it? A cult with destructive tendencies or an idea that has never encouraged violence?
Cannot smear that which you cannot identify.
Genius.
Q had some pretty spicy things to say about the Rothschilds also, if I remember correctly.