(1 of 2)

Think this out Anons: what is the Storm?

Anons seem to commonly see two components in the Storm, but it is not really clear how they fit together.

One component is that POTUS will seize the guilty by force. The other component is that Anons will unleash the truth.

But which comes first, and how do they fit together?

Some anons think the force comes first, and Anons will then provide a voice of reassurance. But will this really work? Many decent people still think POTUS is a moron, and if he unleashes force on those they have been taught to trust, will it really help them to know you have a dank collection of Pepes? Inexplicable force will further delegitimize POTUS in the eyes of many, and they won't believe any "evidence" revealed after the fact.

So it makes more sense to think that Anons must strike first, perhaps on a signal, maybe "the tweet". This fits with many things Q has said: it will not be safe for them to walk the streets, can we simply arrest the opposition before the truth comes out, etc. So probably Anons will have to unleash the truth first. We are not merely observers on what is essentially a military operation, but we play an absolutely crucial role.

But there is a problem here too: which version of the truth do we promulgate? The more you learn, the stranger it all gets. If you think you understand "the basics", you are likely deluding yourself. Who is a white hat? Who is a black hat? Who really committed what crimes, and when, and where? Is this all just about taking down criminals, or is it something more? There is no "official answer" to these questions.

On one level, that is not a problem, and Anons should call it as they see it. But now think about THAT from the perspective of someone who is reasonably intelligent, but actually thought POTUS was a moron, and had never heard of Q, or else believed it was absurd nonsense. It would be like drinking from a firehose. Now on some level there is no way to avoid that, but wouldn't it help if the plan provided some solid fact to help maintain steadiness, something that is revealed as clearly and undeniably true, and yet which the media has obviously lied about.

WE all have that fact already: it is the fact that the Q op originates with the WH. We have each established this to our own satisfaction using some combination of the vast array of Q proofs.

The next point is probably the most crucial, and I now suspect it is an ingenious component of the plan: it is possible, in principle, to establish and believe that the Q op originates with the WH… EVEN if you think that the op is deranged or evil. Again we have all figured out that that is not the case. I saw an anon the other comment that if this is a black hat op then it has backfired spectacularly, and anons will get that, but a total newcomer won't. It will be possible for some who utterly despise POTUS to come to grips with the fact that he has not merely tacitly encouraged "deranged conspiracy theorists" but has actually directed the entire operation. And it will be possible for such a person to come to grips with the fact that the MSM has obviously lied about this.

So simple question: to convince those skeptical of POTUS, which is better tactically? To try to convince them of things that are liable to seem crazy? Or to convince them of the fact that POTUS has directed the Q op, which they can come to believe while STILL DESPISING POTUS?

>>8442127

(2 of 2)

Now, how do you get, in one strike, a skeptic to take seriously the idea that POTUS has directed the Q op.

Perhaps by revealing one person as an obvious participant in that op, acting under the direction of the president.

And perhaps that person is Dan Scavino, who puts out obvious Q comms that POTUS obviously endorses. But the MSM does not put the dots together. Many anons DO put the dots together, but I think many do not emphasize it because they have reasonable questions about whether we are supposed to "dox Q". But maybe IDing Scavino as a crucial player, who is maybe even Q, is crucial to turning the tide…

Think it out… at least twice, Q has pointed to particular individuals as possibly being Q. One is Mike Rogers. The post about him being the 17th director of the NSA was a clear insinuation that he is Q. It might be disinfo, but that is what the post insinuates. And the other person is Dan Scavino. The meme clearly insinuates that Scavino is Q. Again, it could be disinfo, but that is what the meme and the post insinuate.

I think that the reason Q is DIRECTLY pointing at TWO different people is to direct anons to actually debate the issue. It was already obvious that both Rogers and Scavino were players in the broader op. But by hinting at each of them "being Q", I think Q is trying to legitimize debate on this issue.

Now think about the difference between Rogers and Scavino. Rogers works in intelligence, so we are not likely supposed to "expose" what he is doing in intelligence, and we most surely could NOT do so. But Scavino works in communications, and if he is putting into his comms info that points to his being Q, or at least OVERTLY a part of the team, then it seems we SHOULD pay attention to that.

Of course, many have paid attention to that, but I suspect many have underestimated the degree to which this might provide the weapon with which to destroy the MSM. Just look at the one case of the violin meme. The MSM was "forced" to admit that POTUS might be "encouraging" the Q movement with his tweet. But POTUS was not just randomly posting a meme… he was retweeting a post by Scavino, WHO WORKS FOR POTUS and who obviously understood the meaning of the meme in the first place.

The violin post by POTUS was not merely a Q proof, but a proof that Dan Scavino is OVERTLY a part of Q team. Maybe he is "Q", or maybe there is some more complex play underway, but the crucial point is that a named individual has been very obviously identified.

And the deeper point is that TOTAL SKEPTICS can "get" this even if they hate POTUS and think the whole "Q conspiracy" is dangerous nonsense. And they can "get" that the MSM is intentionally obfuscating this. But I think this hinges on Anons doing more to push angles like this. But I think many avoid this for fear of "doxxing Q".