>>Meanwhile the anti-”Q” faction invaded the other thread to boast of the “loss” without knowing any of the history ROFL <<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Steven, I’m shamelessly borrowing your excellent (as always) post to graft on a thought I had at the very end of the old thread.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\
Axenolith wrote in #2510:
>>At worst it would be a deep state internal struggle, but then the complexity is off the scale for that. <<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe the Q phenomenon is something we have never quite seen before.
Rush was talking today about how the media is forever trying to repeat their great triumph in bringing down Nixon; but, it is not working. Still, they try and they try.
Is Q an independent phenomenon from Trump? Two one-of-a-kind “movements?”
Obviously, they may be of a single cloth ... with Q being a clandestine branch of Trump’s own communications genius; but, in either case (separate but interlocking; or, both under common control) the Q movement (like Trump himself) is revolutionary—in the sense of being a radical breakthrough in national leadership, and in cultivating the large group psychology of our great nation.
Like the media’s Watergate campaign, Q will be studied and copied for a very long time, but doubtless NEVER duplicated.
My personal GUESS is that the Q movement is a direct part of the Trump movement. It is simply too unlikely-—there being two black swans show up at the same time.
Who is winning the Q war? Q, or tag-alongs?