Victoria Coates is working with Q team to set up the killshot against the Fake News Media

I am going to break this into several posts that look at different sorts of evidence. But all of this is really just the starting point. Some of what I post will just be pointers to additional evidence.

Supposedly, former deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates has been "outed" as the Trump insider known as Anonymous who published an anti-Trump NYT op-ed and subsequently a book:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/04/15/heres_anonymous_trump_aides_say_and_heres_how_they_outed_her_122684.html

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/04/15/coates_linguistic_fingerprints_appear_to_match_those_of_anonymous_123171.html

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/04/15/cruzbar_cruzbar_cruzbar_cruzbar_cruzbar_cruzbar_cruzbar__123167.html

These three articles by Paul Sperry all appeared on 4/15. The first was posted multiple times to QR and has subsequently been reposted to sites like Gateway Pundit and Zerohedge, where the general trend seems to be trust what the article says.

But lets step back to the original Anonymous op-ed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

(disable css to deal with paywall)

There are subtle clues right there that something is amiss. The author depicts "herself" as a traditional "free minds, free markets and free people" "conservative". I say "traditional" only to point to the fact that the "intellectual elite" of the "conservative movement" in the past several decades have indeed been inclined to endorse a mantra like this. And she accurately points out that Trump takes many stances that do not easily align with this mantra. But the author also depicts herself as part of an entrenched group of "loyal resisters" within the highest levels of the bureaucracy. But these two standpoints are not really compatible! So-called "conservatives" of the "free minds, free markets, free people" sort standardly depict themselves as inherently hostile to government. By contrast, members of the entrenched bureaucracy, such as Lt Col Vindman, who apparently viewed disagreement with the "working group on Ukraine" (or some such thing) as an impeachable offense, tend to regard the bureaucracy itself as the source of authority.

The op-ed astutely avoids stating the contradiction outright, but when you read it as a whole, it is clearly insinuating that there is a coterie of government insiders "resisting" Trump, and that they are believers in "free minds, free markets, free people", the sort of intellectualist "conservative" mantra that has lost election after election. It makes no sense.

And so it seemed reasonably to ask right from the start whether Anonymous was not at all who they claimed to be, but rather someone working with the Q op to build some complex trap. I think there are other clues in the article, but I'll leave it at that. I haven't read the book.

Now turn to Victoria Coates. If you are at all familiar with her from before she was floated as "Anonymous", then you might reasonably have suspected that she might be one of the people working on "Q". That is what I thought. Her wide-ranging intellectual interests and eclectic background would make her a good fit. Why is an art historian on the National Security Council? Well, maybe if "Q" is part of her portfolio, that makes sense… memetic warfare and all.

When she was first floated as Anonymous, some months ago, it struck me as a dead giveaway that the whole thing was a Q op. There is simply no way that someone who seems to be a total outsider to the bureaucracy, a "conservative" in an academic field (art history) filled with the most ridiculous flimflam, would be writing the sort of things she had supposedly espoused. (And here by "conservative" I mean someone who actually cares about truth and beauty and such things, not an endorser of some "libertarian" mantra…)

But why? I'll get to that…

>>8821868

Hold those issues and take a look at some Q posts.

Q posted on "Anonymous" when this issue resurfaced. Q3855 (Feb 11) is like many posts of recent times, and seems to be superficially underwhelming.

https://twitter.com/AZShopRGirl/status/1227355093797765120

Hasn't Q repeatedly claimed that they "have it all"? Why is Q bothering to post a twitter link with a video that shows POTUS claiming (after a very long time) that he knows who "Anonymous" is? It is rather pathetic… on the surface. But perhaps that is by design… THEY read the posts too. And perhaps Q is signalling that the "Anonymous" op will be a crucial part of the bigger Q op….

Now look at Q3859, from the next day (Feb 12). Q twitter links a video of Chuck Schumer referencing a "far-right conspiratorial writer who has no credibility" and I think the qmap maintainer gets it right in suggesting that Q means to suggest that CS is referring to Q.

But I think we need to look at these two drops in conjunction. It is entirely understandable if the Fake News Media did not seek to actively expose the identity of "Anonymous". And this is true even if they are who they claim to be, active defenders of truth and democracy, etc. If Anonymous is an entrenched ally (of sorts), working against evil Trump, then we might suppose that they would hope that this ally should be allowed to undermine Trump for as long as possible without exposure. OK.

But suppose Schumer knows perfectly well that POTUS is (somehow) working with a "conspiratorial writer" who knows how to promulgate ideas up the media chain? If Trump is bad, and the ideas espoused by this "far-right conspiratorial writer" are bad (and EVERYTHING "far-right" is bad, since that is just code for "racist", which itself is code for someone ready to unleash genocide if it were respectable…), shouldn't we suppose that the honest media would be working to EXPOSE this evil writer?

Think it out: if the media were honest, and genuinely believed Trump to be evil and/or deranged, and genuinely believed him to be communicating behind the scenes to promulgate dangerous and false notions, wouldn't we expect them to at least TRY to EXPOSE what is going on? Wouldn't we expect them to try to EXPOSE the identity of Q?

It is understandable that Anons would not seek to "dox" Q, since Anons know Q works for good. But suppose you were convinced Q works for evil? Wouldn't you try to expose who is behind this?

And yet the Fake News Media NEVER made any attempt to do so. With very few exceptions, the anti-Q hit pieces completely avoid discussing anything Q actually said.

Contrast this with the case of the Unabomber. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times agreed to print the Unabomber Manifesto in full. They reasoned that "even if" they were giving in to "terrorist" demands, someone might discern something in the manifesto that would help identify the bomber. And that is what happened, and his brother turned him in. He was living in an isolated cabin, but subtle linguistic clues gave him away.

https://www.history.com/news/unabomber-letter-bombs-investigation-arrest

If Trump and Q were such dangerous threats, wouldn't we expect that the "honest media" would print all the Q drops so that some astute citizen might recognize and expose whomever is promulgating this dangerous nonsense? If it worked with the Unabomber, shouldn't we expect them to at least TRY it with the "even more dangerous" Q?

>>8821887

Now I'm making anything topical jump… I'll aim to (sort of) wrap this together with the prior two posts in the next one… but all of this is really meant as a pointer to anons ready to dig further…

On 15 April, the same day as the articles came out "exposing" Victoria Coates as "Anonymous", Q posted Q3971 (final post of the day). Anons caught the connection to Q3564, but I think there is more going on here.

Obviously, "frogs" is a Pepe reference, and multiple drops somehow contain Pepes. But only two other drops (I think… am I missing something?) contain the word "frog". One of them is Q3564, but you can't "catch" this via text search since the "frog" text is in the image. The other is Q2599, and here the text suggests that you have to "see" the frog (and maybe it isn't "really" a frog in that pic… but appearances can be deceiving…) The upshot is that BOTH of the prior appearances of the word "frog" involve LOOKING at images.

There are several possible "takeaways" here…

If the "Anonymous expose" is a setup for the Storm, then this may simply be a "Memes ready?" marker (Q2343). Both of the prior "frog" drops inherently involve images, and Pepe is obviously a marker for memes, so Q may simply be signalling that it is almost GO time… But also REEMPHASIZING that Anons will have a CRUCIAL role. If this could all be brought to conclusion by simply seizing a few evildoers, no doubt it would have been done. I think Q is signalling that it actually MATTERS how YOU bring it to the game, no matter what you are able to do.

But dig deeper… since both of the prior "frog" drops involve a "picture", this may connect with Q2347, with the somewhat cryptic line "The picture will be the signifier". This gives all appearances of somehow being a crucial drop, but maybe it has multiple (accurate) interpretations. Maybe this connects with the fact that Victoria Coates is an art historian. Maybe looking and seeing and perceiving matters more than we realize?

I didn't have room to add Q3971, where Q has POTUS saying "You'll see!" as opposed to "You'll find out" (but he did say this later)…

Finally (and this may be a stretch - think for yourself) note how the verse in Q3574 starts with 78… a possible "Q team" ID I'll mention next also starts with 78…

>>8821898

The prior three posts looked at various pieces of evidence that might help make the case that the supposed "outing" of Victoria Coates as anti-Trump writer "Anonymous" is actually a Q team op setting up the killshot against the Fake News Media. She is part of the team….

On one level, what the "expose" articles by Paul Sperry at RealClearInvestigations are doing is outlining what the Fake News Media COULD have tried to do had they been honest opponents of Trump and Q. If they had TRULY believed that Trump and Q were evil or crazy or whatever, they COULD have used methods such as those outlined in these articles, and tried to expose the identity of Q. But they did NOTHING of the sort, and anti-Q hit pieces almost always avoid citing anything Q actually said. And since it is obvious that the Q operation originates with the White House, this PROVES that those who run the Fake News Media are EVIL. Why would they AVOID even TRYING to expose that which THEY claim is evil?

(Seriously, read those articles. Look at the clues supposedly used by the WH and ask why the Fake News didn't even try…)

But also take a look at two posts from recent days.

The first one I posted after several hours of thought on 4/15:

>>8808481 (pb)

I had thought about some of these issues before, but this is NEW stuff that I caught that day that seems to point to this all being a setup.

Also look at this post:

>>8810961 (pb)

I think this might be a "Q team" post, not least because the ID begins with 78, which matches the verse in Q3564 as noted above, but also because I think it might be revealing some things very subtly.

On the surface, it is just a very solid dig into the background of Victoria Coates. It certainly adds to the case that she is not who she seems, and is very unlikely to be some anti-Trump sleeper.

But it might also be insinuating that she has been a "white hat" intelligence operative all along.

Like others perhaps?

I definitely agree that the 2:55 timestamp on that Möbius strip vid points to Q255: You have more than you realize.

>>8821916

I don't think many GOOD artists are intellectual ideologues.

I do think many good artists are, on a practical level, supporters of free thought.

I think there is a difference.

>>8822066

Well, I think that if you look at positions of the "conservative intellectual elite" of the last few decades, they veer more towards intellectual rigidity that "sounds" libertarian but does not on a practical level support human freedom. I'm thinking of people like Paul Ryan.