this one wants a 'nice' from
people being parrots to it's ideas.
if Q isn't real, then why does this thing come here and do it's discouragement kvetching?
you've been psyopped.
nothing is planned for you.
the psyopped is to get your to self distruct on your own.
Q and this place had nothing to do with it.
this one makes an appeal to it's 'intelligence'.
it badgers about spilling because it probably has a bot ass-it that is
helping it and
spilliong it in a way it doesn't
l i k e
confuses the tool sat
this one does the 'use a possessive on a noun that usually doesn't get used with a possessive attached' as a bitch scold.
this one puts out a meme demanding that the state-of-mind of people is based upon it's definition of a word commonly used, to turn the definition around to imply that others are really in distress.
it's a common inversion tactic, typically used in a psyop to groom false hood.
why should a person make a meme about it's demands for a false definition of a word?
could it be that it is farming out discontent?
the curse you delude for others is the perscription for yourself.
wow, some random person just throws darts at your posts and your ready to cast them off to a horid ending?
and you think you should be here advising others on how they 'feel'?
the answers are obvious.
you're at the fringe, and ready to spiril off into your drama-mamma-monstrosity activity.
this is why I do the descriptive anti-shill.
the ones with a quicked witt to say 'you are to have a bad end' reveal and that helps others ascertain their purpose.
it bugs them and distracts them and they have to chase me through the bread, and thus it frees others to not have to deal with it, or have the urge to reply.
it's like putting out the fuse on a firecracker before it goes off.
this one , knowing that 'date-prediction' never works, sets up for the next date-phag let-down day.
still using a tactic as if it's a pyshcologist talking to a patient.
but it's a discouragement. It's more like a prison wardon (head slave) talking to a captive (lower order slave)..
"Marjjaaa Brwaaddiuccckk "
but here is the point: we are not slaves and this is not a prison.
so what is this thing's point?
it's doing common discouragement-shilling.
the inappropriate use of a possessive pronoun as a badger-scold to discourage.
you are in a prison?
huh.
I can't see it?
how would you know? I'm not there?
it's a 'self-serve' prison.
you're given all these boxes.
(called posts)
it's up to you how you stack them in your mind.
you've made a cage for yourself.
the false dichotomy presented as hatred towards a well lvoed person who is a target of shills.
the method is this:
person presents two possible outcomes and demands that one of them is the correct choice, does this as a scold, and provides no concil as to how one might mitigate the situation, or present it in a less harsh reveal (if it were true).
if it were true . . . but the two outputs of the dichotomy are atually just made up curses for the subject of the effort (in this case it was the President that people want).
and thus one must just say 'poison narrator'.
perhaps that's a useful definion or condition for shill spotting (the idea of shill spoting is tha tyou don't get your predictions write all the time, it's a guess. a non-shill will show you quickliy how you are wrong. A shill will take out a meme knife and try to cut you with it to get you to hurt). . . .
anyway, ya, false dichotomy.
the poison narration is the key to finding a shill narrative.
sometimes people use poisoned assumptions (poisoned? )
and thus show themselves needing to be counciled.
if it is a shill, no council will help. It will use the mean it knows how to use.
other times it's a shilly person, but they are board creature, and they asscess the other posters.
they do all the things that shills do to find out about you.
because they wuv you? (maybe they do)
no anon has said this.
it's put in by shills who pose it as a question.
I've explained it elsewhere in the bread when a person did this.
this transparent method of making up a false story and then reporting it as news is a depricated method. It no longer works.
they can't get a threshold of people to even read the story, let alone believe it.
but they proceed as if the old method still works and devise strategy based upon the belief that others believe their falsehoods.
this one is doing the flase accusation.
it's is going along with the lie of a 'THREAT' by reapplying it to another false-demographic.
this is a willful thing it does.
it knows what it is doing.
if it's a real person and I'm wrong it will respond tastefully.
if not it will pull out the long knifes.
the false assumptions are given away by the choice of a subject.
the subject is 'this movement'.
but we have heard from a leader to save the wine.
so we know that means.
and saying there is no 'plan'.
the point: there is no movement. people follow the law.
and because the law works the ones who thwart the law are . . . (insert descriptive outcome)
and I think the workd 'forked'
not in the sense of a copied process, but in the sens of saying it as if you are misprouncing their fate to be nice to give them a chance to grab onto an escapre rope and climb out oft he hole that they dug for others.
so we follow the law, there is no plan, there is law.
and the democrats who are good know that the democrats who are bad must be
and we look for a kind verb
the verb we might use is 'mitigated'
there is this 'thing' in the law that is often misused by self-dealing political insiders. It is called a 'consent decree'
why is there not a 'non-consent decree'? It would be a way for common people , all voters, to register their disapproval with parts of the law, or with 'winners' of elections and take away their sanction for it.
it would be available for all to use, and be a process that would allow for a chance of law based upon the idea that 'the people do not consent.'
the people have not consented to this supposed outcome.
the need to have hard-names to tag others with is a clear sign of someoen who isn't trying to understand the concurrency of events and the good-government for the people, but instead just playing in a space of words, what they mean, and how to trick people with them by redefining them willy-nilly in a psyop.
no concern for the need for what the people need, or how to get it to them, but a necessary vocabulary that can be used like a tattoo to identify policy victims for the purposes of ? ? ?
not for the good of the public at large . . .
then it gets to a false accusation.
no, I'm describing how people redefine words or
have the necessary false-demographic word-slur as a label.
create a false demographic
make laws against those people with bad policy.
policy victims of the false demographic.
choose to not be their slur-word-demographic.
the users of the slur word demographic will have you dig a hole, and fall in and die, and then make you fill yourself in.
I describe the process.
I'm not redefining commonly used words for the purposes of defining a false demographic that will then have an MSM smear campaign put upon it.
too many post gate-keeper shill notes my presence.
the danger, anon, with doing descriptive shill spoting is that you don't really want to teach shills how to spot them, because then they modify their methods.
so I give this but I dont' make it seem important, like you are saying 'I'm failing miserably'
so shills should not read what I say here.
They don't need to know how bright they glow and how easy it is to spot them.
but, no, I'm only failing in your narrative.
you use these nouns as tags for populations that you make up in your mind.
I call that 'false demographic'
see people, not catagories.
look at the individual
follow the law , the real law.
I don't care what box you are in, anon.
I describe how you demand a false demographic pithy word as a tag to hang around others.
you do.
what that supposedly says?
what it tells me is that you
dehumanize people and drop them into catagories.
It's common. Some say it's a trait of a particular kind of person and they put that into too-many paranthesis.
I tell you your behavior, and you insist I'm discussing something else.