Of all the Q proofs, I believe that Flynn taking the WWG1WGA oath was one of the best. Flynn had spent a year signing books with WWG1WGA before this. Flynn was holding a “digital warrior” conference that was canceled.
Then, suddenly Flynn stopped. He dismissed Q as a Larp as seemed annoyed by it all. Then he suggests it is government misinformation.
What if he was outside the circle, but knew it was true. Flynn, takes it upon himself to start making Q proofs—maybe some too strong and direct for where the Q team wanted things to be at that time.
Maybe the Q team pulled him aside and told him to knock it off. Flynn is pissed and says “fine! I’ll say I don’t even believe in it!”
I have no idea. It’s just weird how he changed 180 degrees over night.
That's a very insightful question you made. I agree it does involve "deception, misdirection, disinformation, emotional manipulation etc.", but it also mixes with these things truth. I always like to use the analogy that if the devil himself lied all the time, he would be very predictable and therefore would have no affect on any of us. However, this is not the case because the devil very effectively mixes truth with deceit to get people to believe.
I recall reading that the standard MSM ratio for socially engineering the public, which can be argued as another form of PsyOp, was 85% truth and 15% lies (deception, misdirection, disinformation, emotional manipulation etc.). This was the standard prior to Trump's great exposure of the MSM. Now, the MSM is on blast mode to which the old rule-of-thumb percentage has been tossed to the ways side. It appears the percentage of lies is flipped to be at least 85%.
Your devil analogy is interesting - and I agree that the most effective manipulation /propaganda has some truth to it. That begs again the question, can there be such a thing as a "good" psyop? I don't have the answer, but my gut feeling tells me that if you are good, you speak the truth and nothing but the truth. You uncover truth and let it speak for itself. You do not manipulate others into believing the truth, you try to convince them with facts.
It's interesting what you are stating here. I don't know if you noticed it or not, but you putting the use of PsyOps in the context of a moral issue. In terms of warfare, depending on the individual's perspective, there are good guys and bad guys. We associate 'white hats' as being the good guys. Contrarily, the 'black hats' are the bad guys. Both sides use PsyOps in warfare. So PsyOps is really just as much of a moral question as war itself. Make no mistake about it, we are at war though. I don't know if a lot of people really grasp this. It's almost if the reality of this will only occur when the FBI shows up at their door to whisk them away to some gulag. Look at the J6 to get an understanding of where we are at.
I suppose your premise compares if killing in war is murder. In warfare, there is no 'real' limit to the evil that ensues.