are you asking a question?
or trying to put ideas in people's heads?
'real threat' where did you get that phrase?
most bugs are held in very high regard.
Beettles, for example, have been revered.
you use a term for captive people in a way that is unkind, and in this sense 'war monger' for the wrong side.
People who are captive need to be set free.
they are not 'bugs' to be squashed and must not be thought of as that.
This is our Auswitch, you are at the gates of the slave camp. you call them bugs?
your an idiot.
I'm more interested, for historical purposes, of your use of the operational phrase 'real threat'.
I know that the rest of it is just what they tell you to put out.
did they asign the use of the phrase 'real threat' to you? do you get more money if that is used more? if someone expresses distress?
the future will want to know these things.
I'm trying to be like a cataloger of the nonsense of shill-speak subliminal operations. You know, like a meet-cute deep-state shill reveal.
anyway, ya, illegitamite mail-in votes.
ya, who will say it's a legitmate election with that fraud going on?
no need to mask your indignation.
but anyway back to your operational phrase:
'real threat'
is that the money phrase of the day?
do you get paid more when you cause distress?
there is another word too 'impossible'.
why use such a word? It's another operational word.
Does the word 'Federal' ever show up in the Constitution of the United States of America?
PS: if biden wins or the election is stolen the election will be contested.
and perhaps held again.
using an image of a distress child to project distress is not distressing except that it reveals what kind of . . . creature . . . you are.
doing a bunny hop?
'real threat'
but you still don't explain that phrase or why you keep repeating it.
hey, if you're in Europe, your elections are meaningless anyway. none of your elected officials have any power. It's like the Curia was after the imperial age started.
Who do you think P is?
some are saying it's the
Oh I won't say.
but then also, why keep saying 'real threat'
what purpose for using that phrase?
"the truth" please define tht (of course you can't, I ask the question rethorically to see if you'd dare, but then say "don't, it's a trap" by puttin this in parenthesis)
"nobody . . . listened" why? why wouldn't people believe truth? Some will. some won't.
anyway, I think you have an issue with imaginging and then saying 'this is true' when it's just a conjecture. That would be fixed by just saying 'maybe nobody' and putting the phrase into a subjunctive. no big deal, this is an informal venue, I understand..
telling people what they 'have to be willing to accept' seems like the lead into an operational phrase that you are trying to implaint. let me see if I can get that.
"an any truth"
ok, so the whole sentence is operational blather. It might mean something in spy-speak.
what, praytell, is "an any truth"
how 'it' 'fits together'.
the big use of the fussy 'it'. and then this idea of 'fitting'.
then you make a bold statement about 'Most'.
you say wht they do not have.
"ability to disassociated"
'enough to entertain'
sounds like you are saying 'most people won't let me hypnotise them into thinking the way that 'we' (my paymasters) want them to be thinking'
'stands in contrast'
if they 'know it is true' there is no 'contrast' to an unreal 'imagined configuration'
ah, and then the lie at the end of it all, your concise 'I must be right' statement.
define 'Truth'
and I already said at the top of this review of your 'operational blather' that trying to define 'truth' is a fools errand. and you even capitalize it, which makes it more of a fools errand.
so basically you're saying 'if you let me hypnotise you I will implaint in your a fake view of the world that will be more pleasing to my paymasters.'
I paraphrase.
how did I get all that?
maybe I sense a 'Truth' somewhere but I'd never dare to say that I could really say what it is, or lead people to it. You say you could lead them to it if only they would let you 'impart an alternative 'fake' truth.
sounds like the effort of demonious intention.
I know Jews who grew up near them and always thought he was awesome and would speak highly of him always, with fond memories.
in what context?
do you mean '(1 a. define ego)
b define anonymous
or do you mean
define ego && anonymous?
but what programming language?
guessing won't help.
if it were C I don't think that statement is a valid one.
just in general, if you are asking for 'english' definitions, even then those two words are too widely used with vastly different meanings in all uses.
so out of context, your question needs more input. I can't craft anything useful, other than more inquiry, and frankly, it doesn't matter.
If I were to meet your challange I'd say 'ego is the automatic mask we put on when we get our shit BTFO'd and Q tells us we are off base, or some anon is dead-nuts on about how rediculous we are.'
and 'anonymous' means 'we aren't known, the post has no attribution.' however, in the bread we have id, so that makes it a lot less anonymous.
but the automatic mask thing, that's just a kneejerk response.
no matter how much you shatter an ego, it's made of glue. It just reforms itself. It's almost instantaneous.
What are their names?
produce a list.
give charges.
murder charges can be brought 57 years later
provide a list of suspects to a prosecuting authority and let Justice do this, not your baseless slander against a whole gigantic population of people who were in fear for their lives and tried to just get along, and be along.
you don't get it.
you really don't get it.
You really really don't get it.
my post is most relevant.
that's pretty off base. I wasn't even talking about that issue.
in any case, no, it's OK to critize Q.
but ironic that you say 'oh no one should critize Q ' and then when I critique you you flip out and robo post a boasting response. Not very classy.
what joke? you think anon don't see you as one of the infiltrators that Q just warned about?
I comment on how they seem. That is helpful for moral people.
but egomaniacal shills are always upset by it and post pictures of antique actors who turned out to be rather creepy in retrospective in poses that are tuned to cause distress.
is that telling you not to post it? or is it triggering your sense of shame? because it's not the same.
but that doesn't matter, you are here to further your career in a field that shall be deprecated.
once again a personal attack.
and constant posting of the same images.
you conflate and re-conflate and dehumanize people.
so what will History, in review, say of you and your Jew-cusatinng of all who dare to say 'dude, this is bogus, and you know it's bogus and it doesn't help Q or Trump.'
I describe and then the shame of shills makes them think I'm saying 'oh plesae don't'
but it helps the NSA if you reveal all your bullshit.
so do go on.
I never say that they shouldn't post what they do but I will say in anger 'shut up' but that is when they are being particularly offensive.
but no, I describe in rather immense detail and tell the amatures how they come off.
i suppose I shouldn't help them . . . but they could defect and stop their shill but they don't.
anyway, ya, you are a newbie.
if it's a free speech then why does it bother you that my use of free speech dissects your use of operational phrses and methods of psychological grooming of MK ultra victim type methodologies?
it bothers me that I point out what a crack team of psychologists you are?
how good you are at being deceptive?
what part of that is so offensive as it's me practicing my free speech.
but it's only your free speech that matters?
get a clue, you are out of your leauge, go back for the fall semister, dropping out of your program was a bad idea.