Anonymous ID: 66fa72 Sept. 2, 2021, 11:40 a.m. No.14510061   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0081

>>14510053

Look at the d playbook 'anons' panic.

 

In 1943 the following directive was issued from party headquarters to all communists in the United States:

 

"When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them after suitable buildups as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic, and use the prestige of anti-fascist and tolerance organisations to discredit them. In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell. The association will after enough repetition become fact in the public mind."

 

Dem Playbook includes: Flooding qresearch with 'fascist', 'nazl' and 'anti-semitic' narrative to serve as a straw man to discredit Q, Anons, and this site.

Anonymous ID: 66fa72 Sept. 2, 2021, 11:51 a.m. No.14510123   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0132

>>14510110

>disprove the premise

You just committed another fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

It's not anon's job to 'disprove' any theorem that derived from your inconsistent system that can in principle output ANY statement as 'proved'.

Anonymous ID: 66fa72 Sept. 2, 2021, 12:03 p.m. No.14510185   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>14510178

https://twitter.com/stinchfield1776/status/1317450311192223746

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].

You are correct, CJ.

Retweet @ 17:17 had meaning. [mathematical probability _17:17 [day after]?]

Do you believe it was a coincidence surgical removal of You Tube accounts occurred same day as 'Hunter' drop?

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Q