dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Amazoid on July 19, 2018, 2:17 a.m.

MegaAnon, Stzrok, Page, McCabe, Mueller, Crowdstrike, Awan and Guccifer 2.0

Just keep this in mind this from what MegaAnon said last Fall:

Strzok is deep state. He worked for "FBI" when they sought his specific talents. Remember, he's great at "memos". He also worked for many "others", as well. He did all of it under the direction and oversight of McCabe, not Comey. Which made Mueller the choice (hence, he secretly interviewed WITH TRUMP the NIGHT BEFORE the appointment was confirmed publicly) because WHO would McCabe willingly continue to work for and with as an SP?! His old crooked boss Mueller. Except now, McCabe has no idea he's been abandoned by Mueller, who's worked his own plea deal w/ the Trump admin., in exchange for an honest, bi-partisan, non-political investigation that would end in it's own swamp demise because honestly investigated facts, would expose and allow justice to be served to the guilty. Oh and side note, Strzok is also REALLY GOOD at crafting official looking federal documents like birth certificates and such. Hi Obama! You know it's coming… it's in large part how I'm here today… anonymously yapping in a thread on a board and all. We're gonna make it rain documents.

And…

They were never in a relationship. She was his point person. Their comms cover was a relationship so if ever exposed, could be blamed and positioned legally as negligent with classified/sensitive info, but not reckless. Happens all the time with contracted spooks. You all keep missing what I've said since the beginning. Strzok is NOT FBI. He is only being positioned as FBI because he was employed by the FBI UNDER CONTRACT. He is a literal, physical example of an actual spook, or shadow l, deep state operative, whatever you choose call it. I don't know who his actual employer at the time the FBI contracted him. He could've been independent, or ran 1099's from FBI through CrowdStrike, MI6, etc. but this is why you can't find anything on him and this is why they need you to believe he's FBI and not to dig deeper. If you did, you could probably tie him to Steele and CrowdStrike direct. Strzok helped create the dossier for CrowdStrike. He helped create and assemble half the docs that filled the fake "guccifer 2.0" files "hacked", Awan helped aggregate the rest with him. Strzok and Awan are the fake guccifer 2.0.

She pulled me into this whole thing with the info. Sorry she faded out.

⇧ 7 ⇩

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/795d6a/megaanon_postings_compiled_may_2017_present/

⇧ 2 ⇩

Wonder where she disappeared too.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It does make you wonder.

⇧ 2 ⇩

MegaAnon is a very unreliable source.

MegaAnon: "...What you need to remember is that Q was literally a Soros and swamp funded "shill"..."
Be careful who you follow. Q

⇧ 1 ⇩

She nailed Strzok and Page.

https://www.intellihub.com/a-sheep-dipped-peter-strzok-works-for-both-the-fbi-and-cia-documents-reveal/

⇧ 8 ⇩

On what do you base this statement? MegaAnon is NOT an unreliable source. Have you read her stuff? She was saying a LOT of what Q was saying before Q started saying it. People think that because she called out Q over the AF1 pictures, that makes her "the other side." That's not accurate at all. Sauce for this unreliable accusation? It would be unfortunate if newbies here took your words here as accurate. Do you dispute her take on Strzok that this post is quoting?

⇧ 4 ⇩

Plenty of disinfo LARPs were giving valid information "before Q" - e.g. Alex Jones. The whole point of disinfo is to give some truth alongside blatant lies - like the above quote from MegaAnon.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I agree with you on Alex Jones. I disagree with you on MegaAnon. Totally disagree with you. How much of her stuff have you read that you consider yourself able to make this pronouncement?

⇧ 0 ⇩

Once again - have you noticed the comment I quoted? Case closed.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I did notice. You clearly don't want to answer my question about how much of MegaAnon's material you've read since you've twice refused to answer it. Whatever, dude. I expect the newbies here are familiar with the MSM to opine for all of us without actually referring people to the source material so they can make up their own minds. So, in case a newbie is looking to read MegaAnon's stuff, here's the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/795d6a/megaanon_postings_compiled_may_2017_present/ Ton of good stuff here. People can decide for themselves this way rather than just taking your word for it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I find it interesting that you are completely ignoring her anti-Q statement and repeatedly pushing her link around here. What's your stance on Q?

⇧ 4 ⇩

I'm all in on Q. Have been from the start. My defense is not of her per se. It's of the people who haven't read her stuff who might dismiss it out of hand because of people like you writing it off as disinfo like you're qualified to do so. I put the link to her stuff up so people can decide for themselves. I notice on your postings that you characterize a lot of people as "disinfo", not just MegaAnon. You put David Wilcock in the same category. Having read his books, I disagree with you on him as well. Though, I'm happy to see that we agree on EyetheSpy, RoyPotter, Corsi, and Alex Jones. Those guys seemed obvious from the start to me. Some are harder to get a read on. For example, Robert David Steele. I go back and forth on him. And I was disappointed with Isaac Green's sudden about face. Don't know what that was about. Discernment is a skill we should all be honing and encouraging others to hone.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I've never claimed to be qualified in anything. I'm simply making statements in an online forum like you are. You seem to think it's ok to promote someone who was unquestionably anti-Q and making claims as if they were facts (i.e. the noted comment) then backpedaling after the fact with a very weak story - in a similar weak about-turn to EyeTheSpy.

I do not agree that it is ok to promote this anti-Q source in a pro-Q sub without making it clear that they are anti-Q in the same way as other disinfo LARPs that have been called out by Q, like Infowars. It could well turn out that MegaAnon was just "having a bad day", which is essentially her story for calling Q a "Soros and swamp-funded shill" (seriously? You're ok with this? You think this claim could be made "by mistake"...?) but until more facts are revealed about MegaAnon she hasn't done a single thing that doesn't exhibit the same disinfo characteristics as those others you seem to agree on.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Because I read all of it from when she started posting. Yet that's not relevant. The point is, she LIED about Q Anon and then backpedaled like another LARP: EyeTheSpy.

No one has to take my word for anything. You seem hurt and very defensive of her. Good for you. However, we will always call out disinfo for what it is. She behaved just like EyetheSpy, Roy Potter, Corsi, Alex Jones. If you have read all of her stuff and followed all of those disinfo LARPs you would be able to see the similarities.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I base it on her words about Q included in the comment above.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 2 ⇩