dChan
Anonymous ID: 7233b6 Nov. 11, 2018, 9:49 p.m. No.3863124   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3248

>>3862769

>>3862784

Oh, you bet he's here daily.

 

You guys are really going to hate some of the actors by the time this is all said and done. Instigators drive people away (repelling magnets) with a goal in mind that the repelled usually don't see until it's too late.

 

If Q is real, and we know that Adams and Prosobiec met with Trump (and Lionel; but he's different), and obviously asked the question, then there are possibilities:

  1. Trump denied it flatly to both. They both are MAGA, and also anti-Q. Neither offered any evidence, and the outcome is they took Trump at his word, and feel they are trying to help people. The problem with this is, they use ad hominem to prove their point. That's a losing position, plain and simple.

 

  1. Trump denied it flatly to both. They both are fake MAGA, and also anti-Q. The problem with this is, they use ad hominem to prove their point. That's a losing position, plain and simple.

 

  1. Trump brought them into the fold, and the "less than 10" rule is out the window long ago. They both are MAGA, but Trump told them to play instigators. They are doing their job.

 

  1. Trump brought them into the fold, and the "less than 10" rule is out the window long ago. They both are fake MAGA, and Trump told them to play instigators. They are doing their job because their lives depend on it due to MOS.

 

All of these options work for Q, and would play into whatever Q would have planned that they'd do as a result of these meetings; whether it be attempt to out Q as authentic (in which case, it'd be their word against the world), or trumpet that it's an imposter/fake. If they took up the mantle of defending Q, then anons would be following them relentlessly looking for tips. If they deny Q, then it fits the overall objective of the Q movement better by emboldening anons.

 

BREAK:

Anons here need to ask themselves a very simple question. Why hasn't someone from the media asked, yet? No seriously. This thing has so much steam, it's insane that a reporter hasn't balls up to do it, yet. Ingraham and others have used material discussed here on their shows. Hannity is THE normie source for Q info.

 

The answer is simple. They are all in on it. Right down to Acosta (although he may be one of those that's unknowingly a part of the plan). Journalists these days really do suck. Most of them have sources and sources on top of those sources (MOS), and they don't actually do anything for a living other than pass the info along in columns, editorials, and op eds. If it's outside of the script, they don't talk about it.

 

Q is that much of an insider as to know their scripts as they know them, and is using that against them. That would also mean that the theory of Q "assimilating" themselves into the cabal and tearing it apart from within is extremely plausible.

 

Then there's Lionel, and this is the tell, if you are paying attention. Lionel has NOT backed away from his message. He has, however, backed away from Q hastags, and pushing the Q movement, itself, in general. However, his twitter feed reads like a Qanon decipher. He's still talking about indictments, election fraud, etc. All the Q-esque posts, without the label.

 

As far as Adams and Prosobiec go, I'm thinking option 1 for Adams. Possibly option 1 or 2 for Prosobiec. Definitely something similar to option 1 for Lionel, without the outright denial part.

 

Disinfo is necessary. This is part of it. The sooner anons are able to cope with that, the better. Our jobs here are specific. Bashing anti-Q types isn't one of them. Simply ignoring them and moving along, however, is. Eye on the prize!