The following is my response to the debate surrounding the meme about lead paint.
I think the meme has a point but it over simplifies it, and the first response I had was to reject it outright. People can think of instances wherein lead harmed. It's true that lead can help too, but the meme seemed, just speaking to my own experience, to drive recall of counter information FIRST.
In my own example, I thought of the report re the Chernobyl melt-down. To try to protect the public, the Soviets flew sorties in helicopters over the destroyed nuclear reactor and dumped lead on the radioactive fuel. They hadn't anticipated that the heat of the molten fuel would vaporize the lead and the populace was subjected to toxic levels of lead in the air.
So I thought removing the lead from the paint might be good for a second reason, aside from direct unsupervised ingestion, in that house fires would also release lead into the air.
It took me a few tries to see Melian's point - that our entire lives have been crafted to allow them to control us. I think that's an important point even with the lead issue. But for me the problem is the meme has to 'work' in an environment wherein lead is ALSO toxic. So 'lead is toxic' if ingested or inhaled is true and the proposition that they would remove lead for better electronic surveillance may also be true.
It might work for me if the meme acknowledged that lead is a bio toxin and that was reason enough to remove it, but that wouldn't motivate our enemies to remove it; perhaps they only removed lead from paint when it imposed on their electronic surveillance plans (If that theory is true). Q's 'baby on floor, hands in mouth' (chlorine) drop indicates part of what the meme is getting at - that common things in our environment are harming us, put there by our enemies.
I believe this meme kicks it up a notch - things removed from our environment may have been protective in some way. During the Covid lockdowns and our research on treatments, I found myself reading about 'glutathione' and the protective or necessary role in human health and around the same time discovered content that claims (true I think) that continued use of Acetominophen reduces glutathione production. I wondered if this was a Q example. Before Covid, I started reading how horrible aspirin secretly was - and wondered how it had been so successful all these years, and noted that Acetominophen had essentially 'replaced it'. So I wondered if this an example of removing something safe/good and replacing it with something harmful - ahead of a plandemic that would involve glutathione production.
Q1010
Q1114 clarifies for anons that the problem is there is chlorine in floor cleaners. So children are ingesting chlorine. A friend I know objected to chlorinated drinking water in his home because he could smell it when he took a hot shower, complaining, "Chlorine gas in showers?!"
Lately this Q drop had been coming back to me because I found it odd that I understood it at the time, it changed my world view a bit, but I didn't act on it - as if resigned or wut?
So I have been looking anew at products taken for granted. I tried buying a new crock pot made in China (as is everything else) and found there are strenuous arguments about lead leaching from the ceramic post that line the appliances. I purchased one made of stainless steel (made in China), and then spent a little time wondering what toxin might have been added to what used to be ordinary stainless steel. I'm trying to phase out purchased cleaners and am thinking about trying alternatives that may have their own problems. One is vinegar for cleaning floors. Some floor cleaners are toxic to pets on the floor - why wouldn't they be toxic to babies? Supposedly vinegar sanitizes and the repulsive odor evaporates quickly and it's pet safe.
So I now understand Melian's meme better (it made me think, H/T Melian) and yet I think it doesn't 'work' as intended. For some it immediately brings to mind misery and suffering on a scale hard to describe so the intention, which was initially lost in the mist for me, is outweighed by 'provable examples'.
For me this has been educational - the discussion by both Kalam and Melian contributed much to my understanding, both of the potential Deep State influence and the information war aspects of memes that, just in my own opinion, 'work' or don't work. For this reason it contributes to the Q thread.
I am mindful that Kalam's concerns are valid and he therefore finds it offensive. Some viewing the meme would need to see the discussion to benefit from seeing it. Others catch the intent immediately. For those who don't see the discussion, some may conclude we're contemplating provably toxic chemicals are secretly non-toxic and removed to increase surveillance. I put myself in that last category - I (mistakenly) would have rejected the meme in the wild as nonsense, provably false, had it not been posted by Melian on the Q thread.
I hope Kalam will post the URL containing his objections to the mods by clicking report abuse or FReepmail and ask them if it should be removed for the reasons he provided.
I thank Kalam and Melian for contributing meaningfully to thread growth and knowledge on a very difficult, even distressing, topic.
