In defense of Qanon's right of free speech

The infamous commie hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy is recreated today as the heads of the social media cancel culture (Achieves)

The infamous commie hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy is recreated today as the heads of the social media cancel culture (Achieves)

During this wide-ranging campaign by Google and other social media giants to snuff out the ability of some Americans to speak freely, hasn’t anyone wondered what it is they’re saying that is so worthy of being cast into the darkness?

Is what Qanon says so much more dangerous that depriving Americans of  conversations and debates upon which our form of government is based?

Even more important: How the hell are the rest of we Americans served by being denied to hear the voice of other Americans? Especially when the voice is warning  us about events that would bring our form of government down. Don’t the rest of us have the right to hear those warnings, to weigh them and, if necessary, to act upon them?

Sometimes those warnings are a bit confusing, but here in a nutshell is what these  Paul Reivers are trying to tell us. You or I might not agree with some or all of it, but before you say they should shut the hell up, shouldn’t you know what it is you want to blot out?

Fundamental to their argument is the proposition that China wants to overthrow our constitutional form of government by fomenting discord and revolution. (So far, so true.)

The methods are many and insidious. Most immediately, within hours (between this afternoon and Monday night) steps will be taken to put down the expected revolution. During that time, the nation’s Emergency Broadcast System will be activated to enable President Donald Trump to warn “my fellow Americans that the storm is upon us.”

The president will send seven text messages from Air Force One that puts us under full global martial law. Videos will be replayed daily for ten days featuring confessions of high profile elite individuals for their crimes agains humanity during military tribunals. Eventually, after a period of turmoil, it will usher in something called Nesara/Gesara, an age in which we will change the world into one that is peaceful, loving and kind. 

Proponents of this view cite reams of evidence detailing the how, where and when of this scenario. I present this without judgment or ridicule. Maybe it’s my (old school) journalism background that requires me to listen with an open mind. To accept the possibility that the prediction is accurate.

And what if it is? I truly hope not. The entire thing sounds like a narrative in which our Republic will be supplanted by an autocracy or an oligarchy. A benevolent dictatorship. Forms of governance that have not worked out particularly well for the governed.

But by saying this I do not doubt the intentions or intelligence of those who make the argument. I respect their motives–something that I extend to almost everyone I doubt or disagree with.

But has hearing what little of this world view that I have poorly described above injured you in some direct or vague way? Does my telling it threaten our form of government or does telling it better inform you? If you think it’s nothing but a incredible conspiracy, doesn’t it serve you better to know what it is? Whom your enemy is? If you believe it, don’t you have a right to know more about it?

Because history is now taught as nothing more than a pearly gates device to separate the good from our evil forebears, I doubt that many Americans remember the Hollywood Blacklisting scandal of the 1950s. It was horrific. The right-wing crusade to silence anyone thought to be–correctly or incorrectly–a communist, a “fellow traveler” or a “communist sympathizer” was hounded into oblivion. Hollywood created a black list of actors, writers and others who were not allowed to work in the industry.

We’re heading back to those days. But the threat to our freedom comes from the left, not the right. In this, the left will be (as the left often likes to say) “on the wrong side of history.”

With a Congress and a White House now controlled by the left, we, more than a half century later, will be called to defend our core principles. I like to think that those on the left who still cling to those principles will now join the fight to preserve and nurture them.

So far, it doesn’t look like it.

To subscribe to the Barbershop, type your email Address the address s in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • I am sure that you will once again "snuff out" my words pointing out that you too suppress opinions with which you disagree. You say, "How the hell are the rest of we Americans served by being denied to hear the voice of other Americans?" But you engage in this very practice. Hypocrisy?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I "snuff" you out when you engage in personal attacks.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    QAnon urging the annihilation of Democrats who they characterize as baby-blood-drinking pedophiles isn't "personal attacks."

    Hanging Mike Pence wouldn't have been a personal attack?

    That's about as personal as it gets.

    The right of free speech can not be denied by a private actor, only the government can do that. And while you might have a right to say what you want, the right to say it does not guarantee that you will not suffer the consequences of your words.

    Would you allow me to stand in your kitchen, shout obscenities at your family and tell your neighbors that you are a child rapist?

  • In reply to Bob Abrams:

    My kitchen isn't a public arena, which makes it different than restricting open discourse,

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I stood in your blog, not in your kitchen. You still censored me.

  • In reply to Bob Abrams:

    This well known (by Deplorables at least) video of Maxine Waters in 2018 telling Democrats to "get in the face" of Trump supporters is easily searchable. One would think that this call to violence would be eliminated from Youtube and other platforms being they are so concerned about violent acts; but no. The sycophants of Waters believe they are "punching Nazis", which is a theme repeated constantly since 2016 to justify random and not so random acts of violence. This is one example of the many. It is inexcusable, except that it is blanketly excused by the Leftist Democrat-Socialists.

  • I agree with everything Dennis has said.

    I'd also like everyone reading this to turn to the whoever is nearest them (and if you are alone, please say this out loud to yourself):

    Those QAnon folks are the ones who seriously think that leadership of the Democratic Party were slaughtering children in satanic ceremonies and eating those children in the basement of a Pizzeria in DC that doesn't have a basement. All because that Democratic leadership thinks that eating those children will extend their lives. And, there are people in leadership positions who belong to the Republican Party who take this seriously.

    There, don't you feel better for doing that?

  • In reply to dave77:

    And you wouldn't have known that if someone hadn't allowed those words to be published.

  • The rationale of the Left is that words are violence and therefore should not be allowed. It doesn't appear to matter whether these words by a Qanon or whomever actually threaten or incite violence but rather if they run counter to the Left's narrative. Words that do that are violent.

  • Dennis, as an almost-as-old-school journalist, I think your argument (in the logical sense of the term) would have been better served with much more attribution. All the "Qanon says" or "the group says" will keep you away from charges that you are the one saying this stuff.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    I wanted to provide more information but didn't for several reasons. Mostly because there's no one platform. Summarizing them all is beyond my ability or time. I would have provided a bunch of links, but because the Qanon voices have been deleted from so much of the internet, it's hard to find anything that gives their side of the story. All the links are to stories that discredit them. What I found I had to go to off-brand places like telegraph. I agree with your sentiment, though. And this from a totally old-school journalist.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: