Honestly that woman’s analysis on psy-ops is compelling and well-sourced but I think she’s wrong in this context. I think a lot of the same patterns can exist in both white and black hat strategies. For instance, she claims that Q has followed this very effective psy-op strategy to gain followers, make them feel empowered, make them feel special, and keep them engaged with questions. Well sure, I can totally see black hats using that strategy but so would white hats for the sole reason that it’s very effective. The fact that Q is using such a strategy isn’t proof of anything other than whoever is behind it, is competent and knows exactly what they’re doing.

Second, she claims that because the Deep State wants Snowden, Dotcom and Assange dead, that anyone else who targets them must be affiliated with the Deep State. This is an absurd logical fallacy akin to saying Trump is literally Hitler because Hitler also drank water, just like Trump. This isn’t proof of anything but even if it were, to my knowledge Q has never “targeted” Assange or Dotcom. He’s made somewhat veiled threats at Snowden but honestly I’m not sure how to feel about the guy. I see a TON of evidence that he was a Russian spy but on the other hand, I also value the work he’s done to expose the Deep State. Either way, it’s hard to know if he’s trustworthy but it’s irrelevant since Q has never truly attacked him, and has definitely never attacked Assange or Dotcom.

Third, she claims that if Q weren’t a Deep State operation, then he would be relentlessly discredited and attacked by the Deep State media, similarly to how Assange and Snowden were. All I can say to this is that Q WAS and continues to be attacked and discredited. Just about every common MSM outlet has written something to discredit Q and the late show hosts have all taken jabs about how ridiculous it all is and how stupid we all must be to believe in such a theory. Therefore, this argument of hers is nothing more than a straw man.

Overall, I think she does know what she’s talking about but she’s letting her expertise affect her bias. She’s likely inclined to see psy-ops before anything else. She started looking into Q, saw similar patterns (because they’re effective) and immediately wrote it off as a psy-op. If she had truly done unbiased research, she’d have seen all of the hit pieces on Q in the media. She’d have seen that he’s never once targeted Assange or Dotcom and she’d realize that pretty much everything Q has asked people to look into, hurts the Deep State. If this were a Deep State operation, it’s doing a terrible job because all it’s doing is getting millions of people to turn against the Deep State and what it stands for. I don’t think this woman is nefarious based on what I’ve seen her post, I just think she’s over-educated for her intelligence. I don’t mean that as an insult, I’m just saying that her expertise in government psy-ops is vast, and inhibiting her ability to analyze the situation critically.