There are a few obvious red flags, imo. The approach that inthematrix have adopted, not to mention the authority. Equating himself with Q is one of those.

Talking about Liz Crokin mocking him, he writes: "Q told us they would do this", as if he is now the object of Q's comments and drops. "We are the ones Q told everyone about...."

This is a common quality among certain figures:

1. Overvoice their loyalty and unswerving dedication to the Man, Trump.

2. Attack and undermine certain people working with Donald Trump, or who enjoy his support.

3. Equating themselves with Q or being special, appealing to an authority that cannot or does not respond (i.e. Q, or God, Jesus)

4. Highlighting being 'persecuted'

You see, its all about division. Take a lesson from scripture. In the Garden, the devil asked Eve "Did God tell you x, y and z? Oh, its not true" sowing doubt and disbelief in God.

So certain shills and disinfo agents tend to do this. The goal is to drive a wedge between someone they cannot directly attack (Trump, Q, or other central figure) and certain people around them. Sow disbelief and discord. Sow doubt, amplify doubt, using a variety of psychological techniques.

Imo, red flags. Lotsa red flags.

(used to listen to in teh matrix a lot. unclear to me whether they are disinfo disrupters, or just have a really, really bad case of disgruntled resentment. imo)

Or maybe they BOTH are...

You need to access it via twitter or nitter. Then you can follow the thread, which come in the form of replies to the head post.

I think of it not so much as attacking, but as criticism.

How does a disreputable or malignant sauce change what is posted? Well, it calls into question the motivation, and motivation is critical.

Facts are facts, but facts can be used; they are like a weapon, they can harm or hurt, or they can lift up and edify. So motive is a very important factor in interpreting what is being said and why.

For example, out of a certain set of facts, people can leave out this and that fact, but include or accentuate those other facts, in order to create a certain picture. It's about the picture being painted, and the intent and purpose behind it.

The notion that facts exist in a vacuum is problematic. They don't. We see the media, for example, highlight this fact or that fact, while leaving out others - because they want to create a certain result; aka control or shape the narrative.

Seeing through that can be challenging. But part of the process is learning to recognize HOW facts are being used and put together. Aka the context surrounding those facts. It's that context that carries a lot of the telltale signs of shilldom or a less than honest or reputable agenda.

What is clear (imo) is that the (non)Authority (I mean, jeepers, what a handle) and inthematrix, etc, ARE attacking Flynn. Heavily and all the time. It's liek "Warnign, warning, warning!!!" But that's a very negative measure. Good in an emergency, but still negative in the long run.

And what's the fear here? I think (personally) that we can Trust Trump to run his administration. He clearly wants Flynn to be a part of that. I think we can trust that, or trust Trump. So is the warning warning warning blaring message necessary? Hmmm...

A final word: If you have concerns, that is good (potentially). A concern is a direct indication of something that we want. But concerns can be negative or positive, depending on how we handle them. If having concerns causes you to step back, consider Flynn while ALSO considering your own internal landscape, including prejudices, or biases, or worries, then that's a good thing.

Because a lot of the disinformation and attack agents (targeting different aspects of our community and those who are waking up) focus on tapping into the worry aspect. Into activating negative and difficult emotions, like fear, worry, anxiety, distrust, etc.

We all experience those emotions at some time, but whether we can recognize WHAT we are feeling and therefore what is being activated and what then becomes by motivation, that's a critical challenge.

As a very crude example, I'll cite two types of believers. One believer 'believes' in God and Christ, because they fear hell, and do not want to go to hell, and really want to get away from the idea of hell, etc. Another believer believes in God because they are inspired, filled with hope, and long for humanity to experience freedom from suffering, etc. Two 'believers' but two very different motivations. Two different focuses.

So while we examine data and information, including facts but also assertions, theories, beliefs, etc, we also need to examine our own inner motives, identify what buttons are being pushed, and asking whether the driving power is a generally negative, destructive one or a positive, constructive one.

Distrust, for example, is a very potent but negative emotion. It is good to distrust dishonest people as caution, as a protective measure, but the purpose of that caution or those protective measures should be to find and focus on that which one feel one can trust, and which then empowers us to be better, clearer, more productive and focused on constructive activities.

So take those concerns, and use them to push or lead you in a positive, constructive direction. If you do, then they will be 'good' concerns.

If you don’t know why Authority is not a credible source, then you haven’t been paying attention.