DJT Rockets Dig

BREAKING NEWS / DEVELOPING

Thread of threads, Decodes, Notables and Historical Considerations: A summary.
https://t.co/cA8uw2x3jm

¨ Yes, Mr. President,
This attack had the hallmarks of #Iran & its militias all over it.
This thread provides some info for those interested. ¨
--@HeshmatAlavi [click in]
https://t.co/43i7fKsUxb
A Militia you say?
Looks like Obama sold Iran those Rockets

look at the date
https://t.co/ePAUUjSBgt
Coincidence?
Countdown decode

3 missiles from Trump
107 & 18 on 3 missiles
Boom
Boom
Boom
3 shots fired > JFK @ 12:30
123 > 321 full circle.
3 missiles from Trump
2 Flags from General Flynn
1 finger from Scavino/POTUS.
Some kind of countdown. @VDarknessF
https://t.co/jritEb2fDx
Lest we forget the post decode numbers!
Lets take a look.

Q 2903 26-Feb-2019 1:49:44 PM HST Q !!mG7VJxZNCI

It's going to be HISTORIC!
Planned long ago.
[-21]
Within the next 21 days BIG BIG BIG HAPPENINGS are going to take place.
Q
https://t.co/G5cwfKeTey --@JustJoszie
Q 586 !UW.yye1fxo 01/22/18 21:47:32
What would happen if texts originating from a FBI agent to several [internals] discussed the assassination (possibility) of the POTUS or member of his family?
What if the texts suggest foreign allies were involved?
...
Q
https://t.co/8PZVat0VNF

More from Politics

I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

You May Also Like

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