He's always pretending to be on our side, but makes sure to never lead you towards the truth. And the moment public opinion sways hard to one side and he's at risk of losing credibility, he pivots and pretends like he never held an opposing view.
Candace/cadance/kad (to fall) + Owens (to own)...owning the fall.
If being implies rise (life) during fall (inception towards death), then tempting those rising, to lower themselves to influence, permits those influencing to own the fluence/flow/fall of those ignoring to rise, who're burdening themselves with information by influence.
To know implies ones perception...client (one who lives under the patronage of another) implies ones consent to the suggestion (list) of another.
If one doesn't see a client enlisting, then one doesn't know if there is a client list.
Just like any narration..."epstein list" implies a fictitious contract between consent and suggestion to distract from perception of reality.
Do you agree with...
Agreeing minds contradict each ones perceiving (knowing) mind.
Do you agree...that the reason
Only if one agrees or disagrees aka chooses a SIDE can there be a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree), which obstructs ones perceiving SIGHT.
we won't see
Because seeing implies each singular ones perception within all perceivable...not a suggested pluralism (we) tempting an aggregation of singulars to consent to what others show their deceived eyes to look/lock at.
Example...watching tell-a-vision isn't seeing.
tucker carlson
A video showing "Tucker Carlson" shows those looking at it a fictitious representation of what ones real sight doesn't see. Branding a video transmission "live" doesn't make it "alive" to ones living sight.
It's this mass ignorance of sight, which willingly permits few to abuse children out of sight. One doesn't need a list of who does what to whom out of ones sight...one needs all perceivable moving through ones perception to enable sight. Others obscure ones sight by suggesting what one wants or not wants to look/lock at; thereby tempting ignorance.
He already just said at TPUSA that Epstein was working for Israel. So this is likely out of context.
One likely interpretation is that he doesn't know if the FBI made or is holding onto a "client list". It doesn't mean there weren't any clients. Of course there were clients, all the victims said so.
I don't think this 2 second out of context tiktok clip makes him a fraud. Tucker Carlson has done a lot of good work.
If you want to call him a fraud then you should reference the red string he was photographed wearing most likely Kabbalah / (Jewish) Mysticism
How you think this is "out of context" is beyond me, but there's a full fucking minute of video for you to see what he said before and after that.
And here's Tucker Carlson mocking 9/11 truthers.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16aTVFTCuH/flashback-tucker-carlson-calls-9/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16b5q7bF1k/always-remember-the-real-tucker-/c
He's always pretending to be on our side, but makes sure to never lead you towards the truth. And the moment public opinion sways hard to one side and he's at risk of losing credibility, he pivots and pretends like he never held an opposing view.
I will always remember how he dropped the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Anyone on TV is a fraud They don't just let regular people have a voice
Yup but at least Candace has 180'd as controlled op to calling it all out.
Don't forget that she's an actress, unlikely anything about her is genuine
Candace/cadance/kad (to fall) + Owens (to own)...owning the fall.
If being implies rise (life) during fall (inception towards death), then tempting those rising, to lower themselves to influence, permits those influencing to own the fluence/flow/fall of those ignoring to rise, who're burdening themselves with information by influence.
But there is no client list.
It's the victims' sworn testimony trump is hiding (under order of pedosta and Mileikovsky) that's why people are mad at him
To know implies ones perception...client (one who lives under the patronage of another) implies ones consent to the suggestion (list) of another.
If one doesn't see a client enlisting, then one doesn't know if there is a client list.
Just like any narration..."epstein list" implies a fictitious contract between consent and suggestion to distract from perception of reality.
Agreeing minds contradict each ones perceiving (knowing) mind.
Only if one agrees or disagrees aka chooses a SIDE can there be a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree), which obstructs ones perceiving SIGHT.
Because seeing implies each singular ones perception within all perceivable...not a suggested pluralism (we) tempting an aggregation of singulars to consent to what others show their deceived eyes to look/lock at.
Example...watching tell-a-vision isn't seeing.
A video showing "Tucker Carlson" shows those looking at it a fictitious representation of what ones real sight doesn't see. Branding a video transmission "live" doesn't make it "alive" to ones living sight.
It's this mass ignorance of sight, which willingly permits few to abuse children out of sight. One doesn't need a list of who does what to whom out of ones sight...one needs all perceivable moving through ones perception to enable sight. Others obscure ones sight by suggesting what one wants or not wants to look/lock at; thereby tempting ignorance.
Doesn't the word "client" implies that the person pays for your services.
I'm not sure what you would call someone you blackmailed.
He already just said at TPUSA that Epstein was working for Israel. So this is likely out of context.
One likely interpretation is that he doesn't know if the FBI made or is holding onto a "client list". It doesn't mean there weren't any clients. Of course there were clients, all the victims said so.
Is the thread claiming otherwise?
Does the video not include Tucker saying that Israel is implicated?
What exactly is out of context here?
It sounds like you're just repeating phrases you don't understand.
https://xcancel.com/NoahsArk1000/status/1945106079383224755