"There is no 'QAnon'" - Q4881
? I just posted a Q drop and cited a line in the drop.
Not sure how your mind is forming the conception that I 'seem' to be thinking what you're saying I'm thinking.
I was only thinking of what Q dropped in 4881, that "There is no 'QAnon'"
If you have in your mind a 'seeming' conception of someone knowing who Q is, that's all you.
You were the only one with that thought in your head, and it's only now in my head for the same reason someone thinking first and saying first 'pink elephant' to be thought of by another person, like you're doing right now when you read 'pink elephant'.
I can read the English language, and I understand the meaning of
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
especially when 'in the same drop' Q wrote:
>Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
>WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?
>DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?
The concept of 'QAnon' per Q is a media label to deliberately attach comments, suggestions, theories, and actions by people NOT Q, to Q as if Q said them.
I am not writing anything Q DIDN'T write when I write
There is no 'QAnon'.
Therefore, I am not 'attaching, suggesting, theorizing' anything and attributing it to Q.
I am just copying and pasting what Q wrote.
Per Q: 'QAnon' is a media label designed to attach comments, suggestions and theories to Q.
So, fake news invents and cherry picks 'comments, suggestions, theories' and attaches them to 'QAnon'….as a proxy attack on Q.
Anyone can write anything and call it a 'QAnon' comment, suggestion, or theory, but they will not be addressing anything 'Q' wrote.
The only valid 'Q' information is what was posted under Q's Trip Code on 4ch/8ch/8kun.
Everything else, including me, including you, are 'Anon'.
And not all 'Anons' are authentic.
I can think for myself and know who's inauthentic by how they attack Anon posts that merely contain a Q drop:
THERE IS NO 'QANON'.
Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?
DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?
>But you ARE ignoring Q calling you out
But you're not Q so you don't know which Anon comments Q was referring to.
By claiming to know Q was referring to Anons who post Q4881 'There is no 'QAnon', you are proving yourself to be inauthentic, because authentic anons will never arrogate themselves as capable of reading Q's minds.
You ARE ignoring Q statement:
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
You are also failing to disprove that you are 'inauthentic', so by your own accusation implies guilt logic, you admit you are inauthentic.
Why do you keep ignoring
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
And why do you react to what Q wrote by attacks on Anons who merely repost it?
You are only revealing yourself to be an anti-Q pro-fake news 'consensus maker' by attacking Q drop 4881 that included
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
Why do you defend a fake news attempt to manufacture consensus?
You're only angry that YOUR attempt to push a fake news 'consensus' doesn't work here.
Muh 'Q_Anon' banner !!!!!!!!
you are the one of the fake news 'QAnon' labellers egg head
you keep denying the conclusive "There is no 'QAnon'" statement from Q.
Nothing you say changes this.
Hammer is CIA.
CIA QA > Q
When the CIA can't attack Q, the CIA uses a proxy 'QAnon'.
Thanks for playing.
>Repeat it enough and you'll believe it.
That's why you're afraid of Anons posting Q drop that contained
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
You're afraid that Fake News repeating 'QAnon' enough won't work because Anons postTHERE IS NO 'QANON'
You're anti-Q because you're ATTACKING posts with Q drop 4881 that contained
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
>if you're not part of us
I am not a 'part' of anyone else. I am an individual who thinks for themselves.
>Christ followers are Christians
>Q followers are Q_Anons
No, I am an 'Anon'. See the name on this post? It says 'Anonymous'.
Q4881:
There is Q.
There are 'Anons'.
There is no 'QAnon'.
Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
You keep ignoring Q drop 4881
There is no 'QAnon'
>You keep ignoring getting called out
You're trying to call out Anon by pretending to read Q's minds.
Yes, I 'ignore' inauthentic anons pretending to read Q's minds.
You keep ignoring
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
>And then!
Attack me all you want, it will never change this Q drop:
>There is 'Q'. 1
>There are 'Anons'. 2
>There is no 'Qanon'. 3
>Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
>WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?
>DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?
>Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].
THERE IS NO 'QANON'
>Q_ANON iS tOtaLlY nOt aN aTtEmPt tO aTtAcH tO QaNoN.
Kekekek
Sound them both out in your head, QAnon, Q_Anon.
Same.
Intentional.
Anons know.
Attack me all you want, it will never change this statement from Q:
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
There is no 'QAnon'
Attack me all YOU want, you can't read Q's minds. You don't know who Q concludes on this day to be authentic or inauthentic.
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
There is no 'QAnon' - Q4881
>Q already did
…is itself you claiming to read Q's minds. You don't know who Q concludes on this day to be authentic or inauthentic.
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
Trigger moar and cope.
>Its what he was calling out when he said
Your argument has been reduced to "Q called Q out".
Hahahahaha
You keep ignoring what Q wrote, and you keep trying to make this about one Anon.
Q wrote
There is no 'QAnon'. Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
>He was pointing
Per Q, Q is a team of less than 10. It's not a 'He'.
There is no 'QAnon' - Q4881
How that relevant to those memes?
Triggered bigly.
I dOn'T lIkE yOur mEmEs…..hOw cAn I gEt aNoNs tO dIsMiSS tHeM hErE? I kNow! "tHe lEfT cAn"t MemE!"
Newfags have no excuse though, every drop is open source. The fact these "We're trying to stop you from pushing a 'consensus'" idiots are repeating fake news stories is only them putting icing on the cake crested for them to demolish their BS.
Kek, shills going absolutely mental trying to manufacture fake news 'consensus' of 'QAnon' on 8kun.
GLORIOUS.
THERE IS NO 'QANON' - Q4881
Well yes and no.
If a credible source (POTUS, Sidney, Lin, Rudy, Jenna, CM, etc) were to first post information on their Twitter accounts, with links or not, I think it would be too much to say they ought not be used as sauce here. At the very least it means a chance for Anons (who don't visit Twitter much let's say) to save them before Twitter censors.
But if you mean some rando tweet making an unsauced claim that is then posted here as if that is sauce, yes, that is a bullshit waste of bread that newfags need to learn is not credible. That they are not 'getting there first'…as ANONS.