repostan, per baker request late last bread

>>5819929 (several threads ago)

>[Rachel Chandler] > Idea

Using social media to gauge "customer" preferences

< "too young, keep trying"

"Boy at dinner table" by Willam Gedney 1972 (emaciated boy Rachel posted)

Further…

Rachel Chandler

per Q-

>Allison Mack x100

= procurer/facilitator

< what "looks" customers want

ages, sex, body type, race, etc.

-directly "in the know" of who is customer, who is trafficker (in possession of children)

per Q-

>RACHEL CHANDLER IS KEY.

>This one case has the ability to bring down the (many) rich & powerful people.

→ HOLLYWOOD

#metoo + much worse (kids)

→ EPSTEIN

-rich, famous (celeb & non-celeb), business, politics

-international in scope

>Prince Andrew is deeply connected.

ROYAL family implicated

>Nicky Hilton

(before they were married)

I saw James R start a fight on fb between 2 female cousins over which one he liked fucking the most. Alistair came in and calmed the situation by saying - not kidding, not hyperbole, saw with me own 2 eyes:

< "Now now, girls, let's not fight in public like the goyim. There's plenty of James to go around"

SICK, DEMENTED, TWISTED, EVIL

tip of the iceberg, you have no idea…

What if Rachel has flipped?

What if she hasn't but Allison M has?

What if it's the reverse?

What is the overlap?

REMEMBER THE EO FROM 12/21 ABOUT "VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"??? And how down the chain people can be implicated and their assets frozen?

Do you really understand what is at stake for these people?

Hence the panic-shilling is in overdrive…

THINK, CONNECT, REASSESS

FOCUS

Work TOGETHER

Thank you, Baker and all volunteers - this is what we are fighting against - each as time permits, each in our own way.

o7

>>5821426

>Sauce the nicky hilton story.

No can do, compadre, was a personal fb account so was able to see JRoth's account (he really likes to spit out the word "peasant" a lot)- blew my mind at the time - unfortunately did not screencap. So this is offered as a personal anecdote, understand no sauce, and understand to take with a grain of salt. On balance, I can never un-see that.

>>5821434

>Judaism incites racism on Jews against Gentiles

Yes. They call us and consider us to be "chattel" (goyim). They will look right in your face and lie about it, point blank.

>>5821494

>I appreciate beautiful women as much as the next anon, but some of them are just off and evil looking

It has to do with who is (((promoted))) to us as "beautiful"

>>5821515

>Look a Rothy is upset about yesterdays rerun posts.

per Q-

< This one case has the ability to bring down the (many) rich & powerful people.

< Those who scream the loudest….

What does that tell you?

>>5821557

Take a peek at the comments on the English version of ynetnews.net

Collective psychosis, it's almost unbearable. They are batshit insane, and you can see it across their media - left to right, doesn't matter.

-972

-haaretz

-jpost

-jewcy

-tablet

-times of israel

>>5821561

Why do you assume that this site is telling the ultimate truth?

How do you know that they know, and are telling the ultimate truth?

Have you considered that?

What if there is info they either don't know or don't acknowledge that would change that particular article/message?

>>5821653

>They certainly like to spit on God's creation and try to denigrate natural God-given human sexuality.

There is a school of thought much older than the Abrahamic religions that people were originally both male-female, or put another way, whole. I'm not taking or espousing a position, just putting it out there. As well, there are scholars (Patristics, specifically) who knowing multiple languages necessary, explain the passage was not the same as is told to us

>male and female, he created them

as opposed to

>male, and female, he created them

It's a whole can of worms not really suited to in depth discussion here, just putting it out there for personal reflection of any who read this.

>>5821743

Why not both?

>>5821841

>Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Right on most things, except Q (which he discounts as "hopium"). Meh, no one can be right 100% of the time.

>>5821955

No, neglected to screencap (damnit) but shook me at the time so I remember. No sauce, personal anecdote (not disclosing the much more that I saw - that was the tamest) so take with proverbial grain of salt.

Sorry, wish I had screencapped…

>>5821986

All true. I keep trying to hammer home that 90% of what happens the public DOES NOT SEE. Either it's not publicized, or is in some obscure place (like a weird medical journal or Asia Today or something) or is just a phrase or sentence in a MSM article that seems odd/out of place.

Q has been trying to get us faggots to LOOK with new eyes - to hone our skills to SEE what is there

>learn our comms

We have to learn (((their))) comms too

Networks ARE being rolled up. I think many here have seen so much that we don't see it when we see it. We know it's still happening and we want a BIG boom, but it's a series of little booms that are having the large effect.

From the bottom of the pyramid upwards.

When you take out the bottom layer, the upper layers fall downwards, right?