Q…
A question, from someone who understands how journos work:
What if they're under orders not to ask the question?
What if they've been given very specific instructions to treat "Q anon" as a conspiracy theory and nothing else, and warnings that their continued paychecks depend on it?
How do you counter that?
That could be one approach. Contact those especially invested in pushing the "Q is conspiracy theory" line, and tell them they haven't looked into it deeply enough. No attacks, no mockery, just tacit statements about their reporting being inadequate due to poor informance. Show them where to learn more.
I do see the full extent of the counter-reaction. The panic, the discredit psyops, the "common consensus" they've artificially built with their army of persona management usernames. Problem is, most normies don't look that deep. They don't really look at the elite and try to discern what they're thinking, what they're afraid of, what they've hired "social media firms" to counter. Journos are, today, gatekeepers of what normies pay attention to. How do you get the big TV talking heads to talk about Q in terms other than "kooky nazi conspiracy theory lol"?
>What "intel" has Q revealed so far? What was in the public domain already? Crumb related.
The overarching picture is pretty clear if you take a step back. For starters, there are multiple agencies in the US alone, with varying motives, capable of total surveillance. Existential threat.
There's always that other question. The one that asks, why aren't we doing the right thing, as a species? Why are we so distracted, so incapable of considering the future? Shouldn't we be in space by now, millions of us? Shouldn't we already be conquering other planets? Heavy shit.
Yeah. To even consider that route, they'd have to admit they were wrong about a lot of stuff. Their very characters are built upon being right. They'd pretty much need to reinvent themselves to admit anything else.