Tyb
>Are you saying "Twitter" "X" does not censor.
No, but there is no platform or publisher on Earth that doesn't censor. Twitter X censors a LOT LESS, and even more importantly, Twitter X EXPOSED AND REMOVED A YEARS LONG PEDO NETWORK.
God bless Elon Musk.
Nice try.
This blitz coordinated narrative to associate Musk and Twitter with freemasons is one of the most cringe low IQ psyops from the clowns yet.
ULTRA GLOBAL SCARE MONGERING
And BINGO, Anon's post attracting this reply is proof Anon is over the target.
Clown ops trying to reduce the extent and influence of Twitter X now their pedo network was removed from it, post confirms.
Thanks for playing.
Oh so that's why he exposed and removed the satanic pedo network from Twitter after YEARS of Jack allowing to roam free with the help of clown 'safety committees'.
Thanks for playing.
Anon can confirm that there is NOT ONE NUMBER Anon has said anywhere close to as many times as Q+ said 17 so far.
What if Fox News is using CGI to get 'trusted' faces to spew psyop?
Wouldn't be the first time they did this with Ingraham.
They used a CGI Ingraham to 'persuade' Q+ to concede the 2020 election soon after.
I'm sure it's a 'coincidence' you cherry picked Democrats.
How's that?
Vague accusation.
My guess is there is a clause in contract that allows Fox directors to use CGI Ingraham as they see fit.
Maybe real Ingraham chose not to spew psyop so they used CGI Ingraham instead.
Likely under NDA.
CGI tech in 2020s still has a 'flat' fuzzy liquidity texture.
Make sure to defend MOSSAD with predictive programming of 'attacking MOSSAD means you attack all jews'.
Elon exposed a long time pedo infiltration of Twitter, both users AND FROM WITHIN.
God bless Elon.
PS
>"but there is no platform or publisher on Earth that doesn't censor."
>is a non sequitur.
It wasn't presented as logically following from the statement made prior, so it's not a non-sequitur.
I didn't read the rest of your post because no mention of Elon ENDING THE PEDOPHILE NETWORK was even acknowledged let alone engaged or addressed.
Try harder.
>Vague accusation
>No, I'm concise
One can elicit vague and concise accusations, but to know that seems to require a higher IQ than what you're bringing to the table.
>You just make stuff up
That's what you're doing. Did you see this?:
Tell us you insist it's all real.
Same shit different pile for the clowns
>It's irrelevant that he allegedly bettered a place
First, it's not 'allegedly', he did.
Second, it's not 'irrelevant', it's very much relevant that he removed the pedos.