Anons, I'm watching the rally (today/yesterday) late, and caught a big "mistake" that I haven't seen noted here. (Might have missed it, so many Q drops)
Link POTUS posted:
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OwxWLWkDYnKQ?t=17s
Go to 33:38:
"They've tried everything to stop us, and they are only getting more desperate by the day. Can you imagine if on September 3, they say "Ladies and Gentlemen, Donald Trump has been declared the winner."
You see the "problem"….
Ummm anons....
Looking at the pb notables and caught this...
>>10599911 (pb)
sauce again:
https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-daily-guidance-and-press-schedule-for-friday-1845020017
>if there is loads of stuff that indicated that coronavirus RNA must be in there. If there is none, then no coronavirus RNA is there
Anon, my biotech knowledge is not so great, but I actually did PCR years ago around when it was invented so I sort of pay attention to these discussions.
The line above seems the crucial issue in all this - saw a related vid but can't find ATM. Basically, in PCR you are reproducing small amounts of genetic material. That's what PCR does. It reproduces small amounts so you have MORE, so you can do more experimental stuff. But as I recall reading/watching, the COVID tests all hinge on attaching some UV marker (I think) to the genetic material, and then judging "how much" it shows up under light. But it seems there is no objective standard for how much there needs to be, or how many cycles of the PCR process you are supposed to run (it is a series of discrete chemical cycles -each one gives you more of the "target genetic material"). And I recall that different localities were arbitrarily setting different numbers of cycles or even changing them on the fly, so basically all of the data is crap - you can't do country to country comparisons and so on. (Or you "can" do them but Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Intuitively, I find this far more evil than the blatant sexual molestation of children.
>Why do they push it? It's become ugly.
I think ugliness itself is the goal.
Beauty is the ideal that almost everyone can grasp, even if they don't care about truth or justice or other such things.
So if you can destroy the very idea of beauty as an ideal, you can effectively prevent most from trusting in any other ideals at all.
>tie that to the type of porn that has gotten big (hint: it's not incest/step family fantasy or interracial)
I'm thinking this is porn that portrays women as total sluts.
Both incest and interracial porn involve an idea of "degradation" but this presupposes some actual ideal. (And it doesn't matter if you think the ideal is "racist" - anyone who "gets off" to white women having sex with black guys - AS PORN - is "getting off" to the idea that they are degrading themselves. I suspect a lot of antifa/BLM types get off to this because they actually "believe in racial ideals" in a very stupid way, just like the very rare actual white supremacists.) But the same goes for "incest porn" - anyone who "gets off" to this is getting off to the degradation itself - and is so likely someone who actually feels BETRAYED by "family life" - but this is only possible if some ideal of family life exists, even if somewhat burried. (If someone didn't care about families AT ALL, I suspect they'd find "incest porn" boring, much like someone who cares nothing for the Catholic church wouldn't care at all for porn with priests and nuns.)
I suspect female degradation porn is the absolute worst, and probably is increasingly popular, precisely because it directly undermines the idea that sexual/erotic engagement with a woman hinges in any way on her ADMIRABLE qualities, and so might require EFFORT. So the "black pill" is just to GIVE UP and "realize" that women are sluts.
The problem (obviously) isn't a problem just for men. MANY women "give in" to the idea that they really should just be sluts. Or they believe it, but pretend to fight it (embracing all varieites of prudish nonsense, "religious" or "anti-religious"). Actually NO WOMAN WANTS TO BE A SLUT.