This isn't Ancient Rome, when the Praetorian Guard hauled Claudius from his hiding place, to take the reins, after they had killed Caligula!
There once WAS a time, in America that each party actually DID line up candidates to run, the mostly unknown, by the American populace, backroom guys got together and either pushed a candidate or blackballed them in smoke filled rooms, and also forced their picks for VEEPS down the throats of presidential runners.
I've read Q's stuff,read and watched most of the YouTuber "explainers", long before this stuff was ever mentioned, let alone become a force of its own, on FR, and they range from mordant idiots, to raving lunatics, to people who are earnest, but not really all that knowledgeable when it come to history, politics, nor much of anything at all bujt are great at weaving fantasies.
What finally just tore it for me, was one pimple face kid who didn't even know Gloria Vanderbuilt's name nor the history of her family, and claimed that Andersen Cooper was NOT named Andersen Cooper! AND YOU GUYS WANT ME TO BELIEVE WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY IS THE "TRUTH"/THE REAL FACTS?
Calm down, get some smelling salts.
You're oversimpliying, here, nopardons.
I don't know of any concise analogy or framework to put it in.
So let's just start with a couple of historical examples.
Hillary Clinton.
When the story about Monica was about to break wide open, (was it Newsweek who decided to kill it?), an unknown named Matt Drudge came out with it.
I remember driving my car home from work in horror: There's no WAY he survives this! An affair! In the Oval Office! With a mere intern! And...(what was back then) a perversion -- remember the movie Deep Throat was banned in 1973 when it came out.
And then the news of (I think it was) Carville quoting Bill Clinton as saying "Well, we'll just have to win, then."
Hillary's comment about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" : the left took up the taunt, while at the same time shouting down and condescending about ANY collusion on the left, as the deranged products of diseased minds and kooks.
Then the blue dress. Why didn't anyone attack Hillary for lying through her foul teeth? (She had *led* the "bimbo eruption squad.")
Well, what does this teach us?
Yes, conspiracies exist.
But since this is "out in the wild" and not in a laboratory, under tightly controlled and recorded conditions, it's hard to tell what's what.
So here's a mix, of the things that are out there, for any important doings behind the scenes.
1) The principals -- the people who are actually involved.
2) Their support staff -- secretaries, couriers, confidants, advisors, attorneys, hatchet men.
3) Their favored buddies in the press, who suppress some stories, emphasize others, divert, spin, "lead the pack" and all the rest.
4) The fixers -- from muscle to powerful bullying lawyers, to bribers.
5) The hangers-on : those who WANT to be in the inner circle, and name-drop / bluff in hopes of being allowed in.
6) The cast-offs: those who have fallen from grace and miss the perks of being recognized, who are seeking to be brought back in or to join another circle.
7) The reporters and analysts: desire for confidential access balanced against the want to break the next big thing, and conflicting demands from their editors and their own increasingly left-wing bias.
8) The pundits and analysts: seeking to describe what's going on to the public, and by using their experience, contacts, and thinking caps, to divine what is going on in the inner circle.
9) The faithful opposition: always seeking to exploit a crisis, or widen a minor happening into a crisis.
10) The amateur websurfers: everyone from FReepers to the weaponized autists of the chans. Seeking to rapidly crowdsource ideas and tie them to observable data, to see if the ideas set forth are accurate, or reasonable, or frightening.
11) The conspiracy nuts: the people always thinking about the last big scandal, or that everything is a coverup, or that Michael Pence is the love child of BigFoot and William Howard Haft, or something. They string together *anything*, good, bad, or indifferent, and their sheer exuberance and energy don't convince many, but they get certain ideas into "mindspace".
Then you have the "would-bes," people who want to make a splash into any one of the above groups, who introduce lies, or tell tall tales, or LARP, just for attention.
And just to make it all very very fun, over time, people in any one group can merge or fall into another, sometimes without notice.
How much credibility does Ronald Reagan, Jr. have compared to Michael Reagan? How about ex-CIA man Phil Agee who made the rounds on liberal University quads?
So the problem is one of signal-to-noise ratio: where does a wise man hide a leaf? In a forest.
Q has openly said, that he is not about directly communicating every *action* of the President; but of preparing a large set of people to think independently of the press, so that when bad, hitherto "beyond the pale" things *are* revealed, those who have learned HOW to think for themselves, can explain and reassure the normies who will be bowled over.
Hint: what were the odds that an admitted marijuana and cocaine using mulatto from Chicago, with a short time as an Illinois State legistlator, and less than one term as a US Senator, would be bankrolled by George Soros and *defeat* Hillary Clinton to become President? And then give billions of dollars in CASH to Iran while superseding the Constitutional definitions of a treaty, in order to give them a clear path to nuclear weapons?
How likely was it before that, that a sitting President, would transfer to the Commerce Department, the power to give to Red China sensitive information from LORAL, which enabled China to MIRV their nuclear weapons?
Yet both of these happened, and nobody does as much as blink.