Psaki Bomb can be a drink shot where every time they're ordered, everyone laughs at Psaki.
Anons, what would be a good choice of alcohol here?
Psaki Bomb…
Japanese Sake Soda.
Can use red dye number 5.
Serve them in a circle, on the back of a plate.
Who ordered the Psaki Bombs!?!?
He'll gladly take the slings and arrows. He is needed to help guide 'pro choice' indoctrinated women (Anon was also indoctrinated) from being fetus producing machines for global criminal traffickers and sociopaths, over to the GOP where they will be protected. MOS asset 'social media sites' trying to upset this process with same 4am talking point (which matches fake news) to launch slings and arrows at Oz.
Notice the 'fecal matter' dehumanization.
Q+ was VERY DIRECT about needing to support Oz.
It makes no sense for all these supposedly anti-leftists to attack the conservative party over what was merely a week ago ZERO NARRATIVE OVER IT?
Now we're all supposed to HATE middle of spectrum conservatives who clearly can be helpful to guide the most victimized women from the horror of child trafficking and baby and fetus trafficking.
Older the person the more market value, right?
What if there exists people who view Anon's body as nothing but 'feeder' material to them?
Anon when learning of that, is no longer same Anon.
Anon in majority.
Oz is NOT who these sick twisted HATEFUL fake 'Christians' say he is.
🤢
Well, since all information isn't truly deleted, why not 'iconify' the Psaki narrative into a disgusting and revolting coagulated shot.
Sarah does not speak for all Jews.
Kek, they keep projecting.
CRT is ITSELF a weaponized information because it is logically pre-structured to divide people before any engagement of people is even had.
Go home Hillary, you're drunk.
Racist puppet of clowns to demoralize.
The hidden enemy is a centralized source deception that has corrupted the bodies and minds of people worldwide.
The Logical Aspect of Polylogism
Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of the mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.
There is no need to enter here into a critique of the concepts social class and race as applied by these doctrines. It is not necessary to ask the Marxians when and how a proletarian who succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie changes his proletarian mind into a bourgeois mind. It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock. There are much more serious objections to be raised.
Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman. Some German professors advanced all these three arguments together against the validity of Ricardo's teachings. However, it is not enough to reject a theory wholesale by unmasking the background of its author. What is wanted is first to expound a system of logic different from that applied by the criticized author. Then it would be necessary to examine the contested theory point by point and to show where in its reasoning inferences are made whichalthough correct from the point of view of its author's logicare invalid from the point of view of the proletarian, Aryan, or German logic. And finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the author's vicious inferences by the correct inferences of the critic's own logic must [p. 76] lead to. As everybody knows, this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.
Then there is the fact that there is disagreement concerning essential problems among people belonging to the same class, race, or nation. Unfortunately there are, say the Nazis, Germans who do not think in a correct German way. But if a German does not always necessarily think as he should, but may think in the manner of a man equipped with a non-German logic, who is to decide which German's ideas are truly German and which un-German? Says the late Professor Franz Oppenheimer; "The individual errs often in looking after his interests; a class never errs in the long run."3 This would suggest the infallibility of a majority vote. However, the Nazis rejected decision by majority vote as manifestly un-German. The Marxians pay lip service to the democratic principle of majority vote.4 But whenever it comes to a test they favor minority rule, provided it is the rule of their own party. Let us remember how Lenin dispersed by force the Constituent Assembly elected, under the auspices of his own government, by adult franchise, because only about one-fifth of its members were Bolshevik.
A consistent supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race. But consistency is not one of their virtues. Thus the Marxians are prepared to assign the epithet "proletarian thinker" to everybody whose doctrines they approve. All the others they disparage either as foes of their class or as social traitors. Hitler was even frank enough to admit that the only method available for him to sift the true Germans from the mongrels and the aliens was to enunciate a genuinely German program and to see who were ready to support it.5 A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race, arrogated to himself the gift of discovering the only doctrine adequate to the German mind and of expelling from the ranks of the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine whatever their bodily characteristics might be. No further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.