Do any other anons think that the last post by Q >>827855 is an article that attempts to minimize the perception of the deep state cabal's depth and severity of collusion and criminality?
legal speak for "and others"
The tone and style of writing seemed like historical fiction to me, like a novel that is meant to appease the reader's anger with mellow stories of political chess, with sympathy being placed upon the political actors for having to make difficult decisions to save America. It reminds me of Ronald Kessler's books about the FBI and CIA.
Q has thus far called these deep state players "evil" and "criminal," but now this article says they are just people doing a tough job, making tough decisions. This also happens to occur during the /GA/ compromise. Something doesn't add up.
Perhaps. In my mind, my question to that is:
The article is already out there. How much more visibility among normies would it receive by way of Q's endorsement? I think the endorsement would largely reach anons, and normies who seek info from anons. Q calls the article "Truth" on this board, and I think the article is misinfo or, at the very least, an emotional psyop.
That's a very good point. If Q had referenced the article as a way to warm up normies to the truth, I'd be ok with it, but Q simply referred to it as "Truth." I didn't like that.
Good ideas anon, thanks.