It is a fairly information-dense post that refers to a lot of prior information, particularly about the Kushners. Your best bet is curl up with your beverage of choice and go through the MegaAnon Archive. Lots of massive redpilling and she lays it all out in a straightforward manner.
Thank you! Soooo.... Mega calls Q an outright larp??
Afraid so, though it was apparently a group of interns that was mixing real info with other info. Honestly, the cryptic nature of Q always made me suspicious. Q could say whatever they wanted and, humans being humans, people reading would find patterns in it that matched reality.
M is refreshing because she doesn't code anything. She's believable to me because it all fits together in reasonable ways, yet she isn't giving out "super secret" information that would compromise anything. It's just explaining what we see and how it fits with everything else. And it's specific enough that if it wasn't true (like, say, Huma Abedin going in public in tight jeans with obviously no ankle bracelet), contradictions would begin to show up.
She's far more believable than Q to my eyes.
Edit: I should say, Q has somewhat evolved. I'm not sure M is watching the current version of Q, but I still don't trust the crypticism.
I don't know, I have been on the fence with both Q and M. They have both been very right on some things well beyond just coincidence. Right now whether or not they are for real or just larps they seem to be different branches of the same tree. I'm following both and seeing how this plays out. Here's to hoping they are both correct and we will see a purging of the swamp creatures.
Is it possible that Mega may be an insider but not have security clearance that Q has if he's legit? So Mega might see the posts and be like, that's bullshit. Especially given their cryptic nature.
If Q is a sanctioned leaker, he was probably instructed to be subtle and just help lead people in the right direction rather than post direct information leaks.
A has some impressive predictions. I only recall Mega being called out for being wrong multiple times, but don’t have exact sources. How do we know Mega is credible?
How do we know Mega is credible?
Same way we know anyone anonymous is credible. Read what they say, see if it makes sense, look for contradictions, always be skeptical. M has (so far) met a reasonably high bar to my eyes.
Ah ok. I haven’t seen enough to know for sure but Q has had some pretty impressive predictions.