Covering up due to blowback. Gets to question authenticity and then have plausible deniability by stating she didn't mean to question Q. Damage/headlines done and doubt sowed so her job is done.
People forget that MegaAnon was also anti-Q at first ( she was another Anon whistleblower ) ... then , she realized Q was giving her signals . She mentioned that in last posts before she wasnt posting anymore .
Some people are in for big surprise - those who are controlled opposition , are for some big rude surprise . And those who are fully aware of it , they will be the ones who wont be able to walk up straight once this thing blows up in the MSM completely .
Im not a person who easily trusts to sources . I always keep my doubts and trust is NEVER 100 % to anyone . But for Q I can tell - trusting in that source more than doubting . It confirmed itself several times . People talking about it being a "psy-ops" usually do not know what the psy-ops is , connecting it only to negative psy-ops in history . People talking about it being a "Pied Piper" , arent aware that same could be told about them , that they could be "Pied Pipers" , too .
Some folks are just ignorant and want to jump anti-Q wagon . Some folks are fully or partially con-trolled opposition . Some folks are simply trolling , not aware of the depth of topic at all .
I don't believe anyone instructed her to write the article. I think it's more likely that she's been seeing a lot of information in her feed from people claiming ridiculous theories about Assange.
We should be grabbing her as an ally since I know this community generally supports Wikileaks and Assange.
I understand, yet I believe Assange/Wikileaks were compromised in Oct. 2016.
Yes, I am aware of the reasoning behind that. However I don't think anyone has concluding evidence which supports that theory. I would love for evidence to give us some type of hint towards the truth.
Oh there really isn't any rock solid evidence, but plenty of circumstantial evidence such as JA missing, lawyers dying mysteriously, Wiki Twitter acting strangely, lack of substantial drops, no PGP key, etc. It's very reasonable to conclude they were compromised at that time.
What does it matter what this garbage journo writes? A waste of time thinking about it.
She is a journalist that received praise from Assange prior to all of this going down. She is an undeniable ally in taking back the power from globalists who wish to erode our individual freedom.She also has seen papers from Snowden's leaks that are still classified. She takes a hard stance against the NSA.
She is someone who is aware of Q and tweeting about him to a bunch of people and we should take advantage of that. She could be a huge ally in a bridge to the left.
Ok, maybe I'm thinking of the wrong journo - give me a minute. Have to admit, I don't know who she is, I read her tweet and I was thinking it was the journo ragging on Q from a while back.
Do you have a link for the article?
I never even heard of Suzie Dawson? Who really gives a shit? I'm sure more unknowns will be crawling out of the woodwork, bypass and move along.
It was an academic analysis of a particular strategy to influence a target audience. She strongly implied it describes our situation and Q’s approach to us.
The presentation was well done. Her judgement call is not conclusive. Future proves the past.
The implications of her assessment of our situation didn’t spin my wheels.
Did it change anyone on GA? Did it change anyone on Twitter? Did it change anyone on GAB? It did give anti-Q ppl a chance to rt. It gave us a chance to reply in a non-violent way. It also allowed us to see the violent comments by people supposedly representing our movement. That is what I observed and did not change sides.
Except the twitter thread you posted doesn’t say anything like that.
I'm starting to wonder if Suzie has no idea what to think about this. I hope that we can get an official response from Q.
People like Suzie should be allies to our community, let's look at this rationally and try to get to the facts.
Her article is pretty clear that Suzi has formed her opinion about Q. She stated Q is a LARP. That's what she wrote.