-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions ---ASCENSION--- -Part- --43--

a reply to: T7ROOT7H

Archons are part of a constructed belief system. Like all constructed belief systems, it's consensual agreement that makes them real. It's like reading a fairytale. A story created from imagination. If you read that story and you allow yourself to become emotionally engaged with it, you choose to suspend disbelief in order to envision it... feel the truth or reality of it... that's what makes it real. To you. You consent to this belief.

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

"Respectfully contribute"? That is a possibility. However, that notion leads to this question:

What's more important in the culmination and processing of data-- respectful contribution or honest/truthful contribution?

Do you know how to do both? It’s entirely possible to be honest, truthful, and respectful all in one turn.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: nugget1

I had addressed this surgery thing before in a few posts. A device could be implanted fairly easily into a persons head by plopping out their left eye and shoving the device into their left frontal lobe. a smallish device that could be used to send low voltage shocks into a brain can force the persons own system to release certain drug like hormones into the victims system.

This device would have to be changed out periodically, which could be why these black-eye people often get that black eye look. As seen in the picture below, this could also be why these people have speech and movement issues:

While I'm not saying that this is 100% proof of this, I am saying that there is a very high possibility that this is what's going on.

Think I addressed this when you touched on this last time and this makes the most sense of possibility. Also, when some of these people have had ‘malfunctions’ on live tv.

a reply to: G005E

Question:

Am I being disrespectful?

a reply to: Bwarefalsprofits

Not in my opinion. Not that my opinion means anything either hah.
I just happened to scroll and see that comment and decided to engage
🍻

a reply to: nugget1

Is there a reason in your photos that all are on the left except for 2? Just curious about a possible pattern, not just how many left vs right, but the total number of black eyes so far, individual's status & ETC.

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: Ektar
a reply to: nugget1

Is there a reason in your photos that all are on the left except for 2? Just curious about a possible pattern, not just how many left vs right, but the total number of black eyes so far, individual's status & ETC.

Cheers
Ektar

I just posted a pic of famous people who've recently been seen sporting black eyes, and that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. It has led me to ponder possible reasons, though.

a reply to: nugget1

Whoa please do not dis Veterinarians because animals are tested first & we ALL share most of the same drugs. I do NOT ever give any of my animals anything NEW until it's been proven safe & effective for several years. So why the Bloody Hell do people listen to BS ads on the telly & radio? It's just a F'ing ad to make money, & I never really realized how many people believe the crap & never read or research anything.
However on the research avenue, TPTB have made it more difficult to find the truth, but people should have been looking
for answers in the beginning before things got scrubbed. Soon after the first yr or 2 it became more difficult especially
if you were not in or connected to the medical field, you might not know where to to look for answers, the med
journals & etc. I don't know, but Veterinarians are GOOD, Albert Bourla = EVIL!!!

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: Imbackbaby
Jeffrey Epstein
Harvey Weinstein
Anthony Weiner

hmmmmm...

Nein
Nein
Nein
Nein!

Cheers

Yep there's other Neiners too.

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

"Respectfully contribute"? That is a possibility. However, that notion leads to this question:

What's more important in the culmination and processing of data-- respectful contribution or honest/truthful contribution? Because not everyone views these types of dialogue in the same way. I feel this is especially important to consider when a good majority of the data posted is pure conjecture which holds no real value aside from, "I just saw this thing and I'm sharing it". If you fail to provide meaning or any real, solid connections then what's the point? In order to streamline data and solidify it into something meaningful and substantial, requires critical and analytical evaluation. Coming in from this angle has a tendency to ruffle feathers when primary motive of discussion wanting/needing a pat on the back or a high five.

Respectfully, this thread and the dedicated contributors have been vigorously debated and presented with many different theories and ideas over the years. The wonderful aspect of it all is that this place has evolved into a special anomaly of sorts. There is a sense of respect that just exists here.

a reply to: Ektar

I wasn't intentionally 'dissing' veterinarians, I was questioning why one would be CEO over human drugs. If I get a cold I'm not going to call my vet and ask that he prescribe something for me, and I'm not going to take my cat to my GP for treatment. lol

CANCER rates in under-50s have surged 79 per cent in 30 years, a study shows.

Alarming 80% surge in cancer cases in under-50s as 6 key lifestyle factors are to blame

Smoking

Alcohol consumption

Diets high in meat and salt but low in fruit and milk

Excess weight

Low physical activity

High blood sugar

Gaslight call-out in comments

huh, hasn't smoking rate gone down in the past 30 years? if so, how is that causing an increase in cancer? The math doesn't work on that. Also, meat and milk consumption have both decreased slightly, so that doesn't seem to figure either. Try again, how about higher rates of pharmaceutical usage, more chemicals in food and water sources, and more GMOs?

a reply to: Thoughtful2
There's a word for this

REPORT: 28 United States Republican Senators have voted in favor of additional funding for Ukraine even though we don’t have the money. Here are theirnames

1. John Barrasso (WY)
2. John Boozman (AR)
3. Shelly Moore Capito (WV)
4. Bill Cassidy (LA)
5. Susan Collins (ME)
6. John Cornyn (TX)
7. Tom Cotton (AR)
8. Kevin Cramer (ND)
9. Mike Crapo (ID)
10. Joni Ernst (IA)
11. Lindsey Graham (SC)
12. Chuck Grassley (IA)
13. John Hoeven (ND)
14. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R)
15. John Kennedy (LA)
16. James Lankford (OK)
17. Mitch McConnell (KY)
18. Jerry Moran (KS)
19. Markwayne Mullin (OK)
20. Lisa Murkowski (AK)
21. Mitt Romney (UT)
22. Mike Rounds (SD)
23. Marco Rubio (FL)
24. Dan Sullivan (AK)
25. John Thune (SD)
26. Thom Tillis (NC)
27. Roger Wicker (MS)
28. Todd Young (IN)

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: Imbackbaby

Yes matey, a miracle happened and my loose crown was found in 15 foot square patch of beige tooth sized gravel.

It was a but loose and I guffawed at a hilarious party moment.

Sorry, I'm trying not to laugh. Happened to me once, I had a plate with one fake tooth on it, wasn't fitted correctly. I tried to tell the Dentist but no they wouldn't listen. It flew out in front room, it didn't end well for the plate or tooth when it hit the hard floor. I didn't do plates after that.

I'm scratching my head on how to link this to a Q post...Has to be Pelosi .. Hey it could have been worse, it could have been Pelosi where the whole lot shot out.

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: nugget1

I entertain all thoughts. And then I sift out the rubbish and collect the parts of value. It's this continual process of refinement that streamlines your thoughts to bring you closer to truth.

Most data holds no real value. It's junk food to your consciousness. You are looking for traces of gold in the sand. The key is discernment. Which requires analytical valuation. Without that critique, predictions will continue to be hit and miss. Like playing darts blindfolded. Fun but useless.

If my type of 'mindset' isn't welcomed here then you're right, I'm not a good fit for this thread.

I'm so sorry! You are absolutely welcome; by 'not a good fit' I meant most of us here find a great deal on value in parsing what some consider 'junk food' because-believe it or not- every once in awhile we find the mother lode. What was correct data and fact yesterday may be proven falsehoods tomorrow.

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

If you understood how reality works, it would make more sense to you.

How do you think it works?

Double in advance.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: T7ROOT7H

In order to be enslaved by archons, one must first believe they are real.

I guess you missed the break in logic there. Whether one believes they are real or not would make no difference, especially if they are.

a reply to: Imbackbaby

I more or less answered that in a previous post so I'll ask you the same.

originally posted by: Bwarefalsprofits
a reply to: Imbackbaby

I more or less answered that in a previous post so I'll ask you the same.

You claim to know how reality works, so "more or less" means nothing. I didn't read your "more or less post". You got my attention with the post claiming to know what reality is. Explain then I will. It's all good here ya know.

a reply to: Imbackbaby

I'm actually interested to hear your theory so go ahead.