1/ For all those now reporting on QAnon following the events of last week. "Q" has not posted since December 8. QAnon is a self sustaining movement and ideology, with as many variations as there are influencers and conspiracy theories latched on to the central QAnon tenet.

1/ End of year thread: in December 2019 I found out I was selected to be a 2020-2021 Public Scholar @Concordia. Though My tenure wouldn't start until May (when I started this Mega thread). I decided to start sharing more of my research in January 2020.

1/ In the Michael Butter book I read Saturday he made some interesting points. Up to the 1950s, in the West, conspiracy theories were regarded and completely legitimate forms of knowledge whose underlying assumptions were beyond question ( it was normal to believe in them)

1/ Whelp QAnon has found some more Hopeium to explain how the plan will come to fruition so let me break down how an influencer is explaining this to his followers.

1/There is a lot of hope and denialism going on in QAnon communities ahead of inauguration day so I will try and capture some of them throughout the day, and as the acts of President Trump are enacted and decoded for secret meanings.

1/ Here is my present to you this Christmas Eve, I will try and make sense what QAnon is anticipating in the next two weeks based on what adherents have been talking about in case you have from interaction with family members who have been Qpilled in the next days.

2/ Monday Dec 21 was the winter solstice & the Saturn/Jupiter conjunction. For a movement that is apparently grounded in facts they really lay some mystical importance to the natural alignment of planets. The importance is that Dec 21 shifted the world into (The Great Awakening)

stacks are eating the world

business used to be easiest to comprehend via a) market-based logic of horizontal vs. vertical STRUCTURE, b) professionalization/specialization based FUNCTION c) core competencies based BEHAVIORS

this has pretty much collapsed in the last decade

Structure = sclerosis
Functional specialization = bureaucracy
competencies = inertial habits

"Stack" thinking instead lets technology structure (rather than market structure) drive business org logic

Companies seem to do well when they identify an entire stack of technologies they are good at (not just point bits) and organize to conform to its logic. There is a "full-stack" dimension of technical specialization that is the spine of the org

It feels buzzwordy, but it really is getting to be that way. AI stack, decarbonization stack, mobility stack, electrification stack... some end-to-end pathway of turning physics into economics via layers of tech artistically baked together like a cake

Time once again to emphasize the differences between totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism. They're often used as synonyms but they are different, although they do tend to lead to each other. Order one, and the other two are usually delivered soon enough.

Totalitarianism is best understood as the politicization of everything. Every facet of life is infused with political meaning... and subjected to political control. There is little room for privacy or individualism. Every word and deed is seen as a political action.

Totalitarianism does *not* require authoritarian government, although it usually leads to such. You can be totalitarian without having any real government power at all, enforcing your political will through mob actions and corporate power. Examples from recent history abound.

Totalitarianism is the easiest of the three deadly "isms" to slide into, because it can easily be disguised with claims of its good intentions. Totalitarians usually claim to be motivated by the Greater Good. They claim to represent the interests of sympathetic victims.

Totalitarians claim that society is unjust and must be corrected by force. Before they gain the power to become authoritarians, they often assert the right to use force outside of the law because the government is corrupt or serves the interests of their ideological enemies.

To the person who thinks that they might be autistic. - a thread. /1

I imagine you have gone your entire life wondering why you are different, why you can't seem to understand things the way that others can and why everything just seems so hard. I'm proud of you for getting this far. /2

Part of you might be thinking:
"But if I was autistic, surely it would've been noticed when I was a kid? So maybe I'm making this up."
So many autistic people aren't diagnosed until they are adults, if diagnosed at all. You would not be the first and you won't be the last. /3

"My family and friends don't think that I could be autistic."
People's understandings of autism tend to be based off of the media, which doesn't show every possible presentation of autism, or based off of someone they know, and all autistic people present differently. /4

People's perceptions of autism can also be based off stereotypes, for example, "autistic people can't make eye contact, so you can't be autistic." While this is true for some, it isn't for all, so you can begin to see how one presentation of autism can't possibly fit everyone. /5

Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/

It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/

If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/

At a fringe meeting, granted no official status by Labour, an Israeli-Jewish speaker, Miko Peled, had said that he didn’t think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offense (which it is in some European countries). 4/

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold—that opinions, no matter how wrong-headed or morally objectionable, should not be a matter for the criminal law—and of course it does not mean that Peled himself questions the truth of the Holocaust. 5/