I've seen lots of posts about the first arrest shocking the world being posed as a Q drop. This is simply not the case. Q never said this and I think it's important to keep the drops succinct and accurate so as not to falsely shape any Anons beliefs or expectations. This is a PSA, not an admonishment.
Link to drops in comments.
I think that is very likely. The sentence about the indictment implies a public component (communication). The sentence about the arrest does not suggest anything public at all.
The "first indictment unsealing will shock the world" is also wrong. That was never said. It's very important to not mix and match the wording of different sentences. It confuses the meaning of what is obviously two different ideas.
"First indictment [unseal] will trigger mass pop awakening."
and
"Truth will shock the world"
These are not tied in any obvious way.
Nor are they tied directly to
"First arrest will verify action and confirm future direction."
"Unseal" suggests public awareness. Such a sphere is reaffirmed in "trigger mass pop awakening". This will be the event that will signify the beginning of the final act in this play (imo).
"Truth will shock the world" is self-evident. The context in which they were originally stated was about familial relationships with current world leaders and Adolf Hitler in one case, and media narratives in another. However, that context is not necessarily the only way it was meant, and as I said, given our own research, such a statement is undeniable, almost trite.
While they can be joined loosely together with the first arrest (especially the first indictment), none of these have anything to do with each other in any explicit or implicit way. "Mass pop awakening" and "shock the world" are not the same idea. One is an awakening and one is shock. People act very different when they have an epiphany and when they are in shock. One can cause the other, but shock is not the only possible reaction to epiphany and they should not be conflated imo.
Now my nit-pick is on.
Since we are clarifying, the climax in a play almost NEVER takes place in the final act. First Act sets the stage: introduces the setting, the principles, and generally sets up the main plot. Second act is rising action, 3rd is climax, 4th resolution.
3 act plays combine the rising action and climax in the second act, but this isnt that kind of play.
We are currently in the second act.
Fair enough.
I have a feeling this might not be that type of play though. Unlike the standard format that needs to fit into a specific time frame, I think there may be a real plot reveal (setting up a whole new play) in one of the acts of this play (the act after or during the climax).
That is only a guess though. My evidence for that is currently difficult to corroborate.
Quite possible and not without precedent.
.
I've wondered about this myself. Going back to the movie analogy, almost like it is setting up for an episodic reveal to kick off a television mini-series or a set of spinoff series.
Much in the same way the MCU has become.
With so much going on and so many actors, we could certainly use more focus on each event.
Although I would much prefer short seasons and good wrap up on several of the plot points. Seeing evil escape all the time doesn't add to the excitement or make good viewing, only causes me to pursue cancellation or change channels.
Mmmmhhmm. Maybe we have been programemed by T.V. to admire the former and not the latter, hence that feeling of rejection or to keep on going when evil gets away with it. Maybe we have to reprogram our brain so that it may have the opposite effect. So if we see evil get away with it, the event will strengthen our resolve and we will keep moving forward. Instead of changing the channel, we need to focus on the next move, improve, adapt, overcome.
Shakespeare usually had Five acts...
True, but the idea still stands, we aren't very close to the final act.
By that description I can't disagree.
Thank you for clarifying that so carefully.
High zoot post, Slyver.
Have a great day.
There is a succinct truth in that reply.