This needs to go far and wide.
he knows.
— CommunityCorner (@EdenfieldPl) January 2, 2021
Lin knows what went down pic.twitter.com/3rQsblyRCR
1. China is the aggressor
2. Iran is the proxy bogeyman - the excuse to launch WWIII (look here not there)
3. Their aim is to divide the country against itself and they feel they succeeded
4. They use crime (poisoning) + law to protract the crisis
6. They are projecting their own crimes onto the victims of their crimes (eg blaming General Flynn’s “digital soldiers” for election interference - that is all of us, folks)
10. Know that when Patriots speak of the true evil of the enemy we are fighting, that they are not making stuff up.
**THEY NEED TO COMPROMISE SCOTUS TO FINISH THIS — EYES ON!**
WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP
WAKE OTHER PEOPLE UP
WHITE SQUALL!
More from Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal PhD
Sharing.
“What authority does POTUS have specifically over the Marines?”
“only branch of service that falls directly under exec command”
“Nati Sec Act of 1947, amended in 1952, specifies the duties of the USMC to include: ‘perform such other duties as the president may direct.’”
This is the QProof. Go back
10/31/2017, Q wrote:
“Why is ANTIFA allowed to operate?
Why hasn't the MB been classified as a terrorist org?
What happens if Soros funded operations get violent and engage in domestic terrorism?
What happens if mayors/ police comms/chiefs do not enforce the law?”
2020...
How is it possible?
BREAKING!!! \U0001f6a8\U0001f6a8\U0001f6a8 Rick from @TruNews claims to have intel that @realDonaldTrump WILL be issuing a Martial Law in MI, WI, PA, GA, and likely AZ as well and FULLY secure/lockdown ALL election facilities, and assets. Marines have already been recalled for duty. This is NOT a drill! pic.twitter.com/mEupUHYqof
— The Patriot Voice (17Anon John) \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f438 (@17anonjohn) December 18, 2020
“What authority does POTUS have specifically over the Marines?”
“only branch of service that falls directly under exec command”
“Nati Sec Act of 1947, amended in 1952, specifies the duties of the USMC to include: ‘perform such other duties as the president may direct.’”
This is the QProof. Go back
10/31/2017, Q wrote:
“Why is ANTIFA allowed to operate?
Why hasn't the MB been classified as a terrorist org?
What happens if Soros funded operations get violent and engage in domestic terrorism?
What happens if mayors/ police comms/chiefs do not enforce the law?”
2020...
How is it possible?
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
