Nazi symbol? You be the judge. Symbolism will be their demise. You can’t make this up.
(twitter.com)
GO FLAMES
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (89)
sorted by:
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Edit:
Here's the real problem. You think that your interpretation and your opinion is fact.
It's not a fact, and as soon as you recognize that, you'll start making more sense.
But on one thing I agree: can
Choosing not to recognize....can be a stupid choice (although I disagree with your underlying premises here) and choosing to treat a hypothesis as fact can be a stupid choice.
Firstly, this is APEC. It's not the WEF. WEF is NOT using this symbol. Apec is.
Nobody is suggesting that Schwab isn't evil through and through, or that the WEF isn't an instrument for evil, or that the Cabal doesn't use symbolism.
It's a frickin photo of Schwab in front of the logo for the APEC CEO summit for 2022, which will become defunct in 3, 2, 1 days.
It's not WEF, it's not a logo for any organization, and its completely culturally relevant.
Conflating the fact that Schwab is evil, WEF is evil, and the Cabal DOES use symbology as part of their black majik WITH a photo of schwab in front of a logo for a regional event for a regional body proving that there is malice behind the symbol = flawed thinking.
You can have your opinion that the one is proof of the other, but to me, its a reach.
I am certainly NOT attempting to or even interested in changing your opinion on this. The fact that you take such a stance is to me a strong indication that you're not approaching the issue with a balanced, objective perspective.
Keep your view Brett. But if you're not interested in discussing, opening your thinking to see or discuss other perspectives, and are going to stick to a practice of calling people who have a different view either stupid or shills, all i can say is, good luck to you. It become harder to take your view serious when you practice this approach.
Just because one does not like another’s choice on one matter, does not set precedent for another matter or subject. In other words Fractal, because I may stand my ground on my opinion of this singular matter or event doesn’t mean im going to be the same on other matters. I’m not like that with everything. But on things I’ve become firm with because of my own belief and opinion on and don’t need to spend more time on, then I’m all good and moving on.
Having a further conversation for myself regarding this singular matter isn’t further necessary for me, There are bigger fish to fry.
Thanks Brent.
I'm the same. I think we've fleshed about as much as we can at the point. I'm happy to disagree. Listening to Just Human and Burning Brights Defected #4 tonight, one of them mentions the disagreements in our wider community between very discerning people, and how that (in the opinion of the speaker) is a VERY good thing.
I would strongly agree. I think its GOOD that we can disagree on things, as long (kek) we can do it amicably and in a way that is productive, with emphasis on productive.
In the end, a lot of the work we do is about building connections that bring greater freedom of thought, greater discernment, and greater awareness to humanity. Disagreement and harbouring differing views on some subjects is a plus, not a minus.
Let's fry them bigger fish.