>>4446843 (lb)

Awesome, nice to have you back.

You were not kidding about that video…I just kept shaking my head at all the connections to what we've been researching for over a year. But as I said this morning, a lot of people-even anons-are going to reject it immediately.

Did you see the first 3 or 4 replies to my first post? I was getting super heavy flak just for mentioning it…I think it's huge. Later I'm going to watch the entire series of that interview.

POTUS, are you lurking? kek

>>4446927

>Q mentioning the guardian of knowledge also sparked an interest. Exactly what knowledge is he referring to?

Probably the esoteric kind…the information that the 'elites' have and keep to themselves. Though I believe the 'Guardians' reference goes much deeper than meets the eye.