look, man.
every single post i've seen in here since yesterday about Parkes mention HIS NAME and not whatever the fuck he is on about.
i have no clue what he's said, or promised, or prophecized.
that, in itself, tells me all i need to know.
>why you believe he's controlled?
been years since i came to that conclusion, so can't remember specifics to cite.
but he's too big, too famous for too long not to be tolerated.
might have good intentions, but not much different from your everyday infowar grifter.
and no, there's people that can be interesting to listen to, but no one out there is both public and aware enough.
anyone too spot on would be banned already, or as soon as they gather any momentum
>Careful. These anon's are not god's
absolutely.
he's an idiot to trust me with just two sentences, but he asked for guidance. he needs it, but less than he needs to develop discernment on his own.
>been a voice of reason and accuracy for the 10 years I've known about him.¨
that should be cause for suspicion, not trust.
not saying not to listen, but you be careful too
well what else was happening that day?
cult of photogs is cringe as fuck (award-winning pics my ass), but that was the place to be
>a glowbull.
yeah those always get out of hand
glad to see they've been at least slightly taken back
bla,bla,bla.
way i see it, they always just said "oh it's been debunked"
but if there even if anything to point to, it's variations on "well we would have heard about it" and "it's not on tv", so ….
i dunno man, between Trump's rhetoric and a knife and corn cob in the stomach, the choice seems pretty easy
>dismissed as 'bla bla bla'.
ok, thanks for confirming it was self-defeating verbiage.
blablabla indeed
>, they were all allowed to just march right in with almost no resistance
well obviously.
how it's been presented and used since should clear any and all doubt