want some truth anons? here you go - hebrews were the trusted and loyal servants of the annunaki - the bible describes in detail the many interactions with the "gods" - just read up on ezekiel's spaceship for proof - so many others if you dig - they did ALL the gruntwork too - from building to finance and tax collection - unpopular tasks

so the hebrews were never lords and masters of other humans - always servants - the lords and masters of humans (other than the annunaki) were the hybrids - offspring of illicit annunaki/human copulation - just as described in the bible - and were set in place or allowed to govern by the annunaki.

these invididuals were super-human - think nimrod/gilgamesh - they wanted all the power and longevity of the gods but never got it - they did however spawn the line of kings and rulers that to this day (allegedly - if no longer in reality) link to those "sacred" bloodlines - as always hebrews remain the loyal and trusted servants of these bloodlines but they are not now and never were the true rulers

Jesus was never a royal bloodline that is all fiction - as are all the other stories that place hebrews "in charge" of anything. need proof? just consider why those in charge would be the ones who are persecuted scapegoats for all evils? part of the job description

all clear?

>>4488463

baker notable

good works by the ohio legislature

fuck kasich on both counts

>>4488720

typical christian lie guilt trip

pray to jebus OR ELSE

not our guy

is it just me or are anons now understanding that the nude posts are subversive?

seems pretty obvious now that the have to post under new UID every time

>>4488819

i dont think that matters

i feel like a med tech who sees nudes all day

no longer interdasting at all

>>4488834

yeah but your stupid redhead posts are no better

whats the point?

prurient interest

no more no less

still subversive

>>4488894

that is not an ad hominem attack anon

but apparently you took it personally

why?

>>4488899

fine they are

but what is the point of posting here?

is there a positive benefit to the GA?

or does it only represent prurient interests

as i said………

>>4488917

i already felt that way

my question was do other anons agree

you say yes and i am glad for it

in the past such a query met a chorus of boooos

>>4489004

sure i get it

dont doubt that element but the point remains

for me i get way more keks from pepes and cats and memes and clever anons comments

>>4489020

>Nothing sexual in my posts

if you say so - but you are wrong

thats ok though - you are either subversive or just not yet able to see it for what it is

if you think there is something misleading in my posts spit it out then

doubt if you can or will

>>4489038

well if its not the venue to discuss then how is it the venue to post?

if you define turmoil as negative then how do you fight subversion? no turmoil = no progress anon

this board is all about turmoil IMO

but my inquiry has actually been answered and the result is very good news

god bless the digital warriors