>A demon that kidnaps naughty children to eat and a festival related to a Pagan Cult
>Because of course everything that looks satanic is literally satanic
You are the one who initially mentioned Satanic in that thread, yet you spew sarcasm as if you didn't.
Anons remember what the Enemy of the People fake news tried to do.
Anons remember what the Enemy of the People fake news tried to do.
It's true.
>fyi - nobody can provide even a single example where someone was arrested for producing, trafficking, or consuming adrenochrome
Nobody could provide a single example of a government agency admitting covid was manufactured in a lab.
Now there are examples.
Your logic betrays the concept of time in which you exist.
Fix your logic.
Nobody can provide a single example where Q even mentioned 'adrenochrome'.
>then post an example of someone being arrested for producing, moving, or consuming adrenochrome.
First post an example of Q mentioning adrenochrome.
This is Q research after all.
Perhaps your question is posted to the wrong site?
>did i say q mentioned adrenochrome?
Did Anon say you said Q mentioned adrenochrome?
Point exactly to where Anon wrote that you said Q mentioned adrenochrome.
I said post an example of where Q did mention adrenochrome.
If you can't, you should consider brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.
>so everything discussed here has to have been first mentioned by Q?
Obviously not. But what does have to be mentioned first by Q is what you're holding Anons on QR as obligated to answer to, as liable for holding as true, as having a burden of proof to show as true.
>i already address that weak excuse for an answer here >>18418486
>read much?
Just because you pre-tempted getting called a shill, it doesn't mean you're not a shill.
If Rosie O'Donnell posted here's and then said 'inb4 fatass', it doesn't mean Rosie magically turned into something other than a fatass.
Did you honestly believe that pre-empting ANY response in fact prevents those responses from being true?
PLEASE tell me that's what you believe so I can dap on your head.
>because “anons” are defending the idea
Which ones?
There are "Anons" like me who are not defending the idea.
Please note the basic logic fact that what one "Anon" posts here is not suddenly what "Anons" think or say as a consensus. Since ANYONE can post here, including shills who want to smear and slander the narrative of 'Q' and of 'Anon'.
Please also note that Anons ALSO believed the lab leak theory before they observed the FBI and DoE admitting it.
It's like watching someone not get picked for a team, then watching them seethe and pretend they never even wanted to play.
Kek
I tend to equate being unnecessarily confrontational, and name calling like 'slick', and calling on random Anons as having a burden of proof to show what they not once even mentioned or said it's what they believe, as likely sourced from a shill.
My example is not retarded because the same way you might define yourself as not a shill could have as much confidence as Rosie saying she's not a fatass.
It's not really up to you though is it?
I mean, I have yet to see you ask me if I even believe the adrenochrome narrative, yet you're also lumping me in as having a burden to prove it.
You're not really saying that, are you homeslice?
Thanks for telling Anons how to think, specifically, telling Anons to be skeptical of 'board personalities' who post board personality smoking pepe memes.
Trudeau simps to defend Globalist Assets in Ukraine.
https://truthsocial.com/@PepeLivesMatter/posts/109934645339251899
https://rumble.com/v2b3fis-this-trudeau-heckler-is-all-of-us.html
It's Karl the Piglet.
That isn't what Anon said you projecting psychopath.
>under your skin
I know right? That's why you're here in the first place, this place is getting under your satanist defending skin.
Kmao
Can't read what Anon filtered long ago, kek
Why are you imputing your own personal self-serving psychology onto the Creator?