"Do not glorify us.

Q"

>>2071526

Cool.

The article had a few good points but I cannot recommend it to anyone. Two worst defects of the article.

1. Implies that anyone could be Q … that any of the Q crumbs could have come from any of the (unhinged careless conspiratorial) anons. That there is no way to discern which crumbs actually came from a highly-placed source versus random anons.

1. Implies that Bakers and Moderators are above other anons. (We appreciate their service, but all brother and sister anons here are doing service. Q said no one is above another. )

Both 1 and 2 are false and portray Q's crumbs and the movement in a light-hearted casual light that belies the seriousness of the fight between good and evil, and the array of military power that is and will be brought to bear to rein in evil and bring our country back to a constitutional republic.

This is my only comment on the subject. That's all I'm going to say so don't bother arguing.

>>2071852

Your redtext and Muh Alarm gives you away.

Stupid shill.

Go and sit on an ant hill.

Here, have a Great Awakening.