Qanon [ˈkænən] itself is at stake:

The shifting doctrinal positions among Q subscribers¹

One need not believe in a religion to have an opinion on a controversy in that religion. Indeed, it is common in academia for academics—both of New Religious Movements (NRM’s) and of ancient religions like Christianity and Islam — to take opinions on—issue a sort of fatwa in their journal articles—on rising issues in that religion.

Behold then my fatQa:

(From within a Q-believing worldview,) there is no reason at all in May 2022 to doubt the veracity of the Q drops posted by @q on Truth Social. For all intents and purposes, a TSQ drop is equal to a Q drop. For all intents and purposes, TSQ inherits the Q identity, and even an 8kun drop stating otherwise would be of no effect. Only a post by the admins of Truth Social themselves could resolve the current situation in a different way.

If I were a Q subscriber, I’d believe in TSQ as there is no other logical position.

I will prove this a few ways. But first I will discuss the current Qontroversy, its background, its historical parallels, and likely next steps.

Part 1: BaQround

Historical parallels to the current Qontroversy

All religions have a set of texts that are canonical. And, in almost all religions, even NRM’s, there is controversy over whether a text is canonical or not. As an example — in the NRM of Scientology, stolen texts that make up the Operating Thetan scriptures written by L. Ron Hubbard are used. Scientologists call use of these texts “squirreling” and throw doubt on the truthfulness of their contents, holding that without the imprimatur (distribution permission) of the Scientology organization, the texts are of dubious origin.

The “Squirrel Busters” aim to defend the canonicity of Scientology’s core texts—”Marty (a Scientologist practicing Scientology outside Scientology’s official church), you don’t deliver Scientology and haven’t for years”

A similar “Qontroversy” is now brewing in QAnon.

What is the Qanon (read as canon, [ˈkænən]) of QAnon?

As a refresher, Q subscribers¹ have a complex system of deciding whether a Q post is legitimate or not. I jokingly use the term Qanonical for this system.

Many factors impact the Qanonicity of a post:

• when it was made;
• the website it appears on;
• its tripcode² (or lack of tripcode);
• its per-thread poster ID;
• and, in modern QAnon, its agreement with the doctrine of “outside communications”.

In early QAnon, the rules were lax. Q posts did not need a tripcode, they only needed to be made in certain 4chan /pol/ threads, in a certain style, by a poster named “Q” or similar (“Q Clearance Patriot” etc.).

After the move to 8chan and Paul Furber’s Qanonicity crisis (January 2018), the last bullet point was installed, and all further debates of Qanonicity were made to center around drop №s 512–515, especially № 513.

Source

Source

Please note the text of №512, as it is vital to understanding the current Qrisis of faith.

The traditional interpretation⁵ of these drops is as follows:

• Q affirms all prior drops, but he denies that he had any “private communication” with Paul Furber or anyone else.
• No communication from Q will be made outside “this platform”—and “this platform” means 8kun née 8chan.

Other fringe interpretations exist, which I call:

• Yotsubist³—Q posts were Qanonical up to drop №356
• Furberist—Q posts were Qanonical up to c. drop №473
• BDA–Furberist⁴—Q posts were Qanonical up to c. drop №473, BigDickAnon took over for Q

None of these are believed by even more than 1% of Q subscribers.¹

This of course gave great power and responsibility to 8kun née 8chan’s owners. And it is why they have a monopoly on whether drops will happen, and why their legal fears have meant none have happened.

Ron Watkins, the son of 8kun owner Jim Watkins, even launched a ridiQlous political Qampaign on the back of this newfound power and fame.

However, that very political campaign may have doomed the traditional interpretation.

The heterodox Truth Social @q’s drift towards orthodoxy

For ethical reasons, I will not relay small Q subscriber’s¹ exact statements and sentiments, I will only summarize them.

The traditional interpretation was secure until two major events happened:

• Disgraced former president Donald Trump created his own social media platform, called «Truth Social».
• An account named @q on it, registered even before Trump’s own account by one day, began posting “drops”.

Critics call the @q account on Truth Social “TSQ”. I will use “TSQ” as well.

This allowed Q adherents to begin believing the following:

1. Q drop №512 refers to Truth Social;
2. Even if not, the posts on TSQ’s account are not an “outside” communication as Trump owns Truth Social;
3. Trump, being a good man™, would not lead his people into confusion;
4. Therefore, TSQ is Q. “QED”

This created four new doctrinal positions:

• TSQ resurrectionist—TSQ is Q, even an 8kun drop would not unseat TSQ, it would be a LARP;
• TSQ skeptical—TSQ is Q, but an 8kun drop could unseat TSQ, and could even erase the Qanonicity of all TSQ drops;
• TSQ subordinationist—TSQ is “little Q”, their drops are only valid so long as 8kun Q remains silent;
• TSQ denialist — TSQ is a LARP.

In Part II of this article, I will describe the influencer shift to TSQ adherence, and predict dire results for the Watkins dipshit duo should they fail to post on 8kun as Q, as the movement congeals around TSQ.

Much of this research owes a great debt to Poker and Politics.

¹ I use this term as a neutral version of “Q believers”, “Q adherents”, “Qultists”, “QooQs”, etc.

² For information on tripcodes, please read my guide on the subject and my parallel technical treatment of it.

³ From the name of 4chan’s mascot, Yotsuba, it implies extreme 4chan loyalty.

⁴ It is dubious whether this interpretation has any modern adherent who is not named Paul Furber.

⁵ I originally called this the Watkinsian interpretation, but traditional is more fair to my critics and more neutral overall.