Do you have selective hearing? Literally 5 seconds later he said "I'M JUST KIDDING I DON'T THINK MICHELLE OBAMA HAS A DICK, BUT I BELIEVE ALL THAT OTHER SHIT"
I'm of what is probably a rather limited minority, I suppose, that thinks that Michelle Obama probably is simply a big woman, despite everything (a few easily manipulated clips and Joan Rivers comments, notwithstanding).
But at this point, it is almost moot. Big Mike has entered the zeitgeist and the mainstream, and become a meme unto itself.
Obama's gayness, likewise.
Yes, Big Mike has become larger than life, it seems. M. Obama's actual DNA, which we may never really know, is almost insignificant at this point.
Give me a forensic report, with cross references to control data, including biological women who appear male or have strong male characteristics, etc, and I'll take the assertion more seriously.
To many folks think they are experts when they are not.
Either way, the narrative of Big Mike itself has outstripped the actuality (in terms of significance), imo.
I'm no expert, but it's been documented for 100 years . It's actually very simple.
Men and women have different body proportions, with the primary distinction being the relationship between shoulder width and hips:
Shoulder to hip ratio: Women average 1:1.03, while men average 1:1.18.
Pelvis: Women have broader pelvic bones to bear children, making their hips the widest part of their body.
Men's shoulders are the widest part.
Waistline: Women's waistlines are level with their belly buttons, while men's appear lower.{this is another big tell}
Torso: Men's torsos appear longer.
Silhouette: Women have an hourglass silhouette, while men have a more trapeze shape.
To me where there's smoke there's fire. And Michelle is on fire {as is Serena Williams for that matter}
PS. In addition to the generalized proportions you are quoting, also consider: how development and growth can affect appearances. A professional female swimmer for example, may well have a much greater developed upper body frame than the 97 pound weakling around the corner.
All biologically explainable but very possibly not obvious to the average layman.
That's some concrete information, and a good place to start.
The problem is, however, is that the side of truth is actually under constant attack from disinfo operations, counter-operations that seek to poison and muddy the pool of truth. And, given that background, a higher level of care is required (imo) when dealing with things that under purely normal daily circumstances might appear simple.
For example, the ratios and characteristics you are citing here: what is their source? I'm pretty sure that, generally speaking, these are generalized. In other words, over a whole population of men and women, this will be the consistent norm.
But there are always exceptions to the norm. That also needs to be accounted for. There are some women whose facial features look positively masculine. In some genetic groups, women have facial hair that in the UK, for example, would be seen as extremely unusual.
In my view, this then would be the definition of due diligence and actual concrete tangible 'evidence': not only the 'standard' being considered, but also control groups, potential less than common and less than standard differences.
If the approach so often applied to this (and many other 'theories') were used in academic circles, doing a PhD or such, the theorist would be laughed out of bounds. Because actual, real study requires taking into account all those other factors.
But it seems to me, a LOT of people only consider the evidence that supports their chosen belief or idea (aka 'bias'), while ignoring all the others.
It's an unhealthy tendency that has been fostered deliberately under the propaganda machine and psychological operations of the last 5+ decades. It's hard to break out of. But it's critical to do so.
This is actually why a LOT of mainstream folks are NOT convinced of the core themes that the Great Awakening is attempting to expose; because although there is so much information out there, too many folks on our side present a less than solid approach to the information they have.
For a long time now, I've observed a certain kind of thinking and mentality when some of us are presented with "Oh, X person is NOT a female! Obviously a male!~" There seems to be a sort of psuedo-religious tendency to just accept and even believe anything that is presented along those lines. Which is so ironic, because we now have ACTUAL males masquerading as women and ACTUAL women masquerading (pretending to be) males, right out in the open. And the facts in these cases are usually very obvious, as far as I can see.
But in this current climate, a woman whose facial features or body proportions are less than the perfect idea of womanhood are ALSO being denigrated in the form of, "Gee, that must be a guy".
Like I said, too many people think they are experts (meaning they really do not know how to apply serious critical thinking to their own thought processes, and simply believe they 'know'.)
What you've presented here is good information. We need more of that. But for me, it's not enough. I'm looking at the macro-tendencies within our own community, and finding that in too many cases for my tastes, parts of our community resemble more and more a pseudo-religious group rather than hard, cold-nosed, critical thinking researchers and analysts...
Personally, I've VERy religious, but for that reason, I've made a LOT of effort over the years to critically analyse how beliefs work, how they are formulated, I and other humans are influenced by them (both positively and negatively) and the distinctions between belief and knowing, between theory and fact. These are all important things, but when the lines are blurred, they can become dysfunctional.
Well yeah, that's science. There can be varying degrees within the averages.
However it's very difficult for a female to deliver those ratios, and vice versa. Even women body builders vs men body builders- it's an extremely difficult metric to hit, and they are basically hormonally turning themselves into men while training and still can't get that ratio.
Michelle Obama is no workout warrior.
The rest of your essay I agree with for the most part. 😊
On one hand, you have video that's been shared and promulgated showing Michelle with a bulge that looks like a swinging dick.
But then, also apply some counter-thinking. Have you seen that video in its original format, on TV? Or is it a promulgated video, being shared around as 'evidence' or 'proof'? As a video being shared around on social media, unless you can track down its original source etc, you HAVE to acknowledged that it could be a manipulated video. It might not be, but also it might be.
That's called reasonable doubt.
Also, if Obama is a transvestite (if she/he still has a dick, she/he is not transexual, is she/he?), then why, as one of the most focused on, public figures in the world ('wife' of the president of the USA), would she/he take any sort of risks that would make the dick obvious? A broken strap, perhaps? But it seems bloody careless if not ridiculous to me. If they are trying to hide the fact, which ostensibly seems the case, then why these obvious instances?
For me, the real point here is NOT actually whether Obama is a biological male or a biological female. Far and away what is more important, to me, anyway, is HOW I deal with the information, aka the data and 'evidence' - circumstantial and direct - that comes across my desk, as it were.
In cases like Michelle Obama, I simply keep my skepticism high, particularly so when so many people seem so happy to engage with belief as if it is fact.
Time will tell. In the meantime, HOW I process information, that's about 1000 times more important me than M. Obama's genital situation.
I'm pretty sure that some of those pics have been doctored. Some of them blatantly obviously so.
I get that some folks believe and then equate their belief with fact, but the reality is, there is still a lack of direct evidence. For example, if Obama came out and said he or she is a tranny, then that would be direct evidence.
But with circumstantial evidence, I tend to try to keep my beliefs in check.
You think Obama’s gayness and his wife being a dude is just nonsense? A guy that he did coke with and who gave him blowjobs told us all about it and he himself admitted he was gay in a letter to a girlfriend. Obama himself has called “Michelle”, Michael multiple times publicly. Who gets their wife’s name wrong like that? More than once?
He’s gay and he is married to a guy named Michael.
You think Obama’s gayness and his wife being a dude is just nonsense?
You are putting words in my mouth, fren, so allow me to clarify:
"Big Mike" as a concept has become part of the mainstream, and so has Obama's gayness.
Like many, I recognize that Obama is definitely homosexual.
As for Michelle being Michael, I'm a skeptic. I do not think it is nonsense. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence implying that Michelle is a tranny, but it remains circumstantial evidence. If there was DNA samples available, this would be direct evidence.
My general tendency is to err on the side of skepticism when there is a lack of direct evidence. The fake stuff that comes out pretending to be evidence promoting the Big Mike view doesn't help, and is a negative indicator, imo. Stuff like the forged/fake birth certificate / voting card. Obvious fake stuff. That sort of stuff dilutes the pool of evidence, in my view.
In any case, I am skeptical to the extent that so far, I don't find enough direct evidence for me to just go all-in on the belief. So, I keep an open mind, keep my belief systems in abeyance, and wait. Because I simply do not know.
But the point of my comment was, those issues all aside, the Big Mike narrative is now mainstream, and to some extent, the factual reality has become almost secondary in terms of importance.
Some folks like to go full throttle on their beliefs, but personally, I think that Q's real focus for us was to inspire critical thinking, empirical factual considerations, not mere beliefs.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Q3906
It's just as important to apply the above principles to Q doctrine and Q beliefs as it is to all the other stuff out there. IMO.
It doesn't mean that I think the Big Mike theory is nonsense.
Ive noticed a definite uptick in redpill material on these streaming services. Paramount has a new documentary series. I caught just part of the ad for it passing through as my wife was watching something. But the gist was a womens son was an alcoholic. He died from it. She donated his body to a University (?) the Government (?) so they could study the effects of alcohol and they sold it to the military. His body was used as a crash test dummy in an exploding humvee test. She was beyond heartbroken that this was done without her consent. She has a box of ashes but doesnt even know if they are his.
The comments, such a collection of the jabbed and trans that are maybe starting to think chopping off their genitalia and injecting themselves with a experimental drug wasn’t such a great idea.
Anybody got the clips because from my perspective Joe Rogan is not really that funny he doesn't really know how to deliver a joke and I don't want to sit through an hour-long special to get to the good parts
He also said explicitly that "Michelle has a DICK". Aka big mike
Do you have selective hearing? Literally 5 seconds later he said "I'M JUST KIDDING I DON'T THINK MICHELLE OBAMA HAS A DICK, BUT I BELIEVE ALL THAT OTHER SHIT"
He got it out there without being sued.
but if he did get sued... would there be discovery? lmao
He'd be forced the whip it out.... eeeewww
Ya these clown stars are not on our side. They all seem like they are, but they aren't.
Bc he doesn't want a target on his back. Just ask joan Rivers how that worked out for her.
You are all talking about it. It can't be taken back.
I'm of what is probably a rather limited minority, I suppose, that thinks that Michelle Obama probably is simply a big woman, despite everything (a few easily manipulated clips and Joan Rivers comments, notwithstanding).
But at this point, it is almost moot. Big Mike has entered the zeitgeist and the mainstream, and become a meme unto itself.
Obama's gayness, likewise.
Yes, Big Mike has become larger than life, it seems. M. Obama's actual DNA, which we may never really know, is almost insignificant at this point.
Absolutely not. It's pure math.
Statistically the ratios/ shoulder width to hip its a man.
Give me a forensic report, with cross references to control data, including biological women who appear male or have strong male characteristics, etc, and I'll take the assertion more seriously.
To many folks think they are experts when they are not.
Either way, the narrative of Big Mike itself has outstripped the actuality (in terms of significance), imo.
I'm no expert, but it's been documented for 100 years . It's actually very simple.
Men and women have different body proportions, with the primary distinction being the relationship between shoulder width and hips: Shoulder to hip ratio: Women average 1:1.03, while men average 1:1.18.
Pelvis: Women have broader pelvic bones to bear children, making their hips the widest part of their body. Men's shoulders are the widest part.
Waistline: Women's waistlines are level with their belly buttons, while men's appear lower.{this is another big tell}
Torso: Men's torsos appear longer. Silhouette: Women have an hourglass silhouette, while men have a more trapeze shape.
To me where there's smoke there's fire. And Michelle is on fire {as is Serena Williams for that matter}
PS. In addition to the generalized proportions you are quoting, also consider: how development and growth can affect appearances. A professional female swimmer for example, may well have a much greater developed upper body frame than the 97 pound weakling around the corner.
All biologically explainable but very possibly not obvious to the average layman.
Thanks Donny.
That's some concrete information, and a good place to start.
The problem is, however, is that the side of truth is actually under constant attack from disinfo operations, counter-operations that seek to poison and muddy the pool of truth. And, given that background, a higher level of care is required (imo) when dealing with things that under purely normal daily circumstances might appear simple.
For example, the ratios and characteristics you are citing here: what is their source? I'm pretty sure that, generally speaking, these are generalized. In other words, over a whole population of men and women, this will be the consistent norm.
But there are always exceptions to the norm. That also needs to be accounted for. There are some women whose facial features look positively masculine. In some genetic groups, women have facial hair that in the UK, for example, would be seen as extremely unusual.
In my view, this then would be the definition of due diligence and actual concrete tangible 'evidence': not only the 'standard' being considered, but also control groups, potential less than common and less than standard differences.
If the approach so often applied to this (and many other 'theories') were used in academic circles, doing a PhD or such, the theorist would be laughed out of bounds. Because actual, real study requires taking into account all those other factors.
But it seems to me, a LOT of people only consider the evidence that supports their chosen belief or idea (aka 'bias'), while ignoring all the others.
It's an unhealthy tendency that has been fostered deliberately under the propaganda machine and psychological operations of the last 5+ decades. It's hard to break out of. But it's critical to do so.
This is actually why a LOT of mainstream folks are NOT convinced of the core themes that the Great Awakening is attempting to expose; because although there is so much information out there, too many folks on our side present a less than solid approach to the information they have.
For a long time now, I've observed a certain kind of thinking and mentality when some of us are presented with "Oh, X person is NOT a female! Obviously a male!~" There seems to be a sort of psuedo-religious tendency to just accept and even believe anything that is presented along those lines. Which is so ironic, because we now have ACTUAL males masquerading as women and ACTUAL women masquerading (pretending to be) males, right out in the open. And the facts in these cases are usually very obvious, as far as I can see.
But in this current climate, a woman whose facial features or body proportions are less than the perfect idea of womanhood are ALSO being denigrated in the form of, "Gee, that must be a guy".
Like I said, too many people think they are experts (meaning they really do not know how to apply serious critical thinking to their own thought processes, and simply believe they 'know'.)
What you've presented here is good information. We need more of that. But for me, it's not enough. I'm looking at the macro-tendencies within our own community, and finding that in too many cases for my tastes, parts of our community resemble more and more a pseudo-religious group rather than hard, cold-nosed, critical thinking researchers and analysts...
Personally, I've VERy religious, but for that reason, I've made a LOT of effort over the years to critically analyse how beliefs work, how they are formulated, I and other humans are influenced by them (both positively and negatively) and the distinctions between belief and knowing, between theory and fact. These are all important things, but when the lines are blurred, they can become dysfunctional.
End of essay. :D
Well yeah, that's science. There can be varying degrees within the averages.
However it's very difficult for a female to deliver those ratios, and vice versa. Even women body builders vs men body builders- it's an extremely difficult metric to hit, and they are basically hormonally turning themselves into men while training and still can't get that ratio.
Michelle Obama is no workout warrior.
The rest of your essay I agree with for the most part. 😊
Thanks Don.
Carry on!
Man-ipulated videos? Like on Ellen's show?
OK, let's apply some critical thinking.
On one hand, you have video that's been shared and promulgated showing Michelle with a bulge that looks like a swinging dick.
But then, also apply some counter-thinking. Have you seen that video in its original format, on TV? Or is it a promulgated video, being shared around as 'evidence' or 'proof'? As a video being shared around on social media, unless you can track down its original source etc, you HAVE to acknowledged that it could be a manipulated video. It might not be, but also it might be.
That's called reasonable doubt.
Also, if Obama is a transvestite (if she/he still has a dick, she/he is not transexual, is she/he?), then why, as one of the most focused on, public figures in the world ('wife' of the president of the USA), would she/he take any sort of risks that would make the dick obvious? A broken strap, perhaps? But it seems bloody careless if not ridiculous to me. If they are trying to hide the fact, which ostensibly seems the case, then why these obvious instances?
For me, the real point here is NOT actually whether Obama is a biological male or a biological female. Far and away what is more important, to me, anyway, is HOW I deal with the information, aka the data and 'evidence' - circumstantial and direct - that comes across my desk, as it were.
In cases like Michelle Obama, I simply keep my skepticism high, particularly so when so many people seem so happy to engage with belief as if it is fact.
Time will tell. In the meantime, HOW I process information, that's about 1000 times more important me than M. Obama's genital situation.
Man shoulders, man arms, man hands, man ankles... that's a man, baby.
Even pics of her as a man. So maybe she was a female tranny.
I'm pretty sure that some of those pics have been doctored. Some of them blatantly obviously so.
I get that some folks believe and then equate their belief with fact, but the reality is, there is still a lack of direct evidence. For example, if Obama came out and said he or she is a tranny, then that would be direct evidence.
But with circumstantial evidence, I tend to try to keep my beliefs in check.
You think Obama’s gayness and his wife being a dude is just nonsense? A guy that he did coke with and who gave him blowjobs told us all about it and he himself admitted he was gay in a letter to a girlfriend. Obama himself has called “Michelle”, Michael multiple times publicly. Who gets their wife’s name wrong like that? More than once?
He’s gay and he is married to a guy named Michael.
Mike, they’re on to us….. we’re gonna have to chop it off.
You are putting words in my mouth, fren, so allow me to clarify:
"Big Mike" as a concept has become part of the mainstream, and so has Obama's gayness.
Like many, I recognize that Obama is definitely homosexual.
As for Michelle being Michael, I'm a skeptic. I do not think it is nonsense. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence implying that Michelle is a tranny, but it remains circumstantial evidence. If there was DNA samples available, this would be direct evidence.
My general tendency is to err on the side of skepticism when there is a lack of direct evidence. The fake stuff that comes out pretending to be evidence promoting the Big Mike view doesn't help, and is a negative indicator, imo. Stuff like the forged/fake birth certificate / voting card. Obvious fake stuff. That sort of stuff dilutes the pool of evidence, in my view.
In any case, I am skeptical to the extent that so far, I don't find enough direct evidence for me to just go all-in on the belief. So, I keep an open mind, keep my belief systems in abeyance, and wait. Because I simply do not know.
But the point of my comment was, those issues all aside, the Big Mike narrative is now mainstream, and to some extent, the factual reality has become almost secondary in terms of importance.
Some folks like to go full throttle on their beliefs, but personally, I think that Q's real focus for us was to inspire critical thinking, empirical factual considerations, not mere beliefs.
Q3906
It's just as important to apply the above principles to Q doctrine and Q beliefs as it is to all the other stuff out there. IMO.
It doesn't mean that I think the Big Mike theory is nonsense.
But then backpedals. I understand why but it’s too bad that he did.
Surprised, Netflix is allowing
Ive noticed a definite uptick in redpill material on these streaming services. Paramount has a new documentary series. I caught just part of the ad for it passing through as my wife was watching something. But the gist was a womens son was an alcoholic. He died from it. She donated his body to a University (?) the Government (?) so they could study the effects of alcohol and they sold it to the military. His body was used as a crash test dummy in an exploding humvee test. She was beyond heartbroken that this was done without her consent. She has a box of ashes but doesnt even know if they are his.
It was funny as hell. Highly recommend
I laughed out loud many times...
"Obliterate" means "utterly wipe out."
He told some jokes about them.
"Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats," of you're gonna search for it on the high seas.... arrr
Absolutely hilarious... Give it a watch, I think I understand him better, but still on the fence.
The comments, such a collection of the jabbed and trans that are maybe starting to think chopping off their genitalia and injecting themselves with a experimental drug wasn’t such a great idea.
Posting the text of Daily Mail articles here would help
They don't like my ad blocker
Which one do you use?
That's a great question. It just says "We see you have an ad blocker" but I don't recall which one ;p
I use AdGuard and it didn't say that for me. (Using a PC, not mobile atm)
I will listen to him when he names the joo, not before.
Could be Fren, he has been online for a long time tho.
He doesn't want to disappear like Catboy Kami did does he?
That could be a tactical mistake, but it'd be nice to see.
Talk about waking up. Joe did.
Why would Hussein allow this?!
Anybody got the clips because from my perspective Joe Rogan is not really that funny he doesn't really know how to deliver a joke and I don't want to sit through an hour-long special to get to the good parts
Agreed his past stabdups not good. This one starts off rough too I think out of nervousness. When he gets settled in it’s pretty good though