dChan
Anonymous ID: 91de8c Jan. 4, 2021, 12:29 p.m. No.12313455   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Q#4881

Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 10/17/2020 12:36:26

https://twitter.com/stinchfield1776/status/1317450311192223746

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'. 3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?

DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?

Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].

You are correct, CJ.

Retweet @ 17:17 had meaning. [mathematical probability _17:17 [day after]?]

Do you believe it was a coincidence surgical removal of You Tube accounts occurred same day as 'Hunter' drop?

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Q

Anonymous ID: 91de8c Jan. 4, 2021, 12:48 p.m. No.12313723   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12312938 (/pb)

There is no 'inherent fallacy' in proposing an if statement.

 

Your assertions however do contain a fallac.

 

IF the information is disinformation, then it will NOT be 'detrimental' to the cabal that already knows everyone is talking about it in one form or another at least in vague terms.

 

The cabal cannot contain it any more, so, it could be the case that they are trying to 'get ahead' of the real truths by first flooding Twitter, Twitter not censoring, nobody is yet suing him, so that the people will get tricked by disinformation and disbelieve the general narrative that the cabal is certainly NOT controlling right now.

 

There is indeed strategic logic in having an asset target certain people with certain disinfo.

 

Another way your logic can instantly be seen as flawed is by presenting you with this:

 

"If you're right, then fake news would never have posted any articles on 'Qanon' since the start, because they would not 'want eyes on it'".

 

Your post is fallaciously relying upon the false notion that the cabal controls the narrative.

 

They don't.

 

When you don't control the narrative, this is precisely what we could see.

 

Not saying I'm right, just saying your logic is fundamentally flawed and can easily be seen as such by just considering the fact that the media has been posting thousands upon thousands of articles on 'Qanon'.