Quick PSA for GAW's resident "joo-fags." Q said, "We are saving Israel for last." When's that? WHO KNOWS! No online community tracks the Overton window better than GAW. When it's time, you shall be unleashed! Till then? Sit tight! Mods are on the case, and the ban hammer is OUT. Thank you!
(media.greatawakening.win)
✡️ ISRAEL LAST ✡️
So which version of "Jewish" gave us legalized porn?
Which version overturned all the obscenity laws?
Which version gave us feminism?
Which version gave us centralized banking? And the usury that goes with it?
Which version gave us LGBTQXYZ?
Which version gave us BLM?
Which version gave us Antifa?
Which version gave us communism?
Which version is actively trying to eliminate the white race with unrestrained third world immigration?
Asking for a fren.
Synagogue of Satan "version"
Kazarian!
Thank you for asking, fren!
Not much different than how Republicans are labeled for that matter.
We here know that Trump followers and Q followers have nothing in common with the McCains, Romneys, and Bushes of the world, but CNN and the like intentionally conflate and obscure all factions into one.
Meanwhile, we here know there’s so much satanic evil on “our side” that many of us no longer even consider the GOP to even be “our side”.
I suspect this is true just about everywhere, in every supposed group.
I think a large part of the Great Awakening is going to be getting the good people from every group, every cohort, and every faction, to wake up to the evils on “their side”.
Part of that is indeed going to be educating ourselves on, and better defining, these cohorts within cultures and faiths we might not be familiar with.
The media is great at controlling the language used. This is an example of where we have a chance to get ahead of the language, but it can only happen with thoughtful and open discussion.
For republicans, ypou have the neocons and the MAGA (populist) republicans.
Good points. You can't have a sensible discussion about anything if you can't even define it. I don't recall anyone taking the "all Jews are good" part though, although there seems to be plenty of the "all Jews are bad" party. Good and bad have their own nuances. Is it spiritual? Is it materialistic? Also, what's with the worry that "too many Jews are in business X"? Are they ethnic, cultural, or religious Jews? I've heard similar sentiments about too many Catholics, Mormons, blacks, Mexicans, Indians, and Texans. It makes me think there is some other psychological threat about being outnumbered.
And to think almost nobody knows/understands what the original meaning and definition of the word "Jew" (Judean) meant in the bible. It had nothing to do with a place, a country, a geographical region, a belief system, a bloodline or anything else along these lines.
The "opposite" of a Judean was either called an Egyptian or Sodomite, where an Egyptian had nothing to do with a place, a geographical region or country, and a sodomite had nothing to do with a crude sexual act, as both of these words are defined today.
There's a tiny sect known as the "Ethiopian Jews" who do understand, and represent this original meaning of the word "Judean".
Nothing has proven to deceive humanity more than the slippery, often changed, often misunderstood, often mistranslated, often assigned multiple definitions and meanings of words.
We have an entire system of control based solely on this deception. We call it the "legal system", where "legalese" is consistently used to deceive the masses. Further illustrated by their heavy use of Latin, a language where words truly do only have one meaning. English, on the other hand, is a disaster, quite purposefully I might add.
If words don't mean one thing, and only one thing, then they really don't mean anything.
Khazarian. They're the problem and adopted the Jewish religion. Not all Jews are horrible people but Khazar are, they're satanic and hiding behind a new religion out of necessity.
Neville Goddard is my favorite source, but I've heard it many places other than through him. His teacher was a 4 foot 9 inch Ethiopian Jew that taught him the true and original meaning of words were in the bible. Neville said this tiny black man strutted around NYC amidst actual racism of that time (1920-1950) without ever experiencing any of it due to his understanding of this reality. The stories Neville tells are quite fascinating and amusing.
Now, trying to recall which talks he gave where he mentioned these things about Jews I can't recall. He talked about this many, many times so you'd have to be willing to sit and listen through his not-so-professionally-recorded talks to.
Here's a YouTube video about Abdullah but I haven't taken the time to listen as to whether this particular talk are where he discussed these things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6B1eGrFvw
You can parse through all Neville's talks here, best audio quality you can find. As I mentioned, Neville talked about this subject many times but I can't recall which specific talks so you'd have to put in some time to find them. Here's the link:
https://nevillegoddardbooks.com/audio-files-metaphysical/neville-goddard-audio-recordings-remastered
The Unity Church metaphysical dictionary also explains the word "jew" as well, not as anything we have been taught, but rather that it involves a "state of mind", focused on the inner/spiritual, rather than the outer/worldly. Here's the link:
https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/jews
I've seen and heard it many other places, but hopefully this will help you along with your understanding.
Yes, and no. You had me up until "If words don't mean one thing, and only one thing, then they really don't mean anything."
As a linguist, I think this view is pretty whack. This issue (imo) is not the language per se, but with what motivation it is used and activated.
Speaking around 4 languages, I find there are strengths and weaknesses in each and every one, alongside aspects of amazing beauty plus very human limitations.
But how about them Ethiopian Jews, huh. Resting place of the Ark, and all that...
So what happens if you don't know my intent and choice of definition when I use a multi-definition word? Does that not put you in a potentially vulnerable position? Especially if my goal is to take advantage of you in some way?
What if you presume one definition, but I was using a different one? Could that cause us problems?
And worse yet, what if I use a multi-definition word and presume you interpret it the way I intend, but in fact you interpret a different definition? That could be the cause for, not only confusion, but possibly harm or damage depending on the circumstances, right?
And still worse, what if you read a book written in 1900, 1800, 1700, 500, 100, 200 BC, etc. and don't know what a word meant then versus now? Has the concept/idea been properly conveyed to you? Will you draw incorrect conclusions? Will your understanding of the material be warped?
And I'm not even touching on incorrect translation and interpretation, sometimes unintended, but I contend more often purposefully performed to deceive the reader when and where it matters most.
On top of all this, as a linguist, you well know that there are not always perfect translations possible between languages, forcing the translator to make an approximation of what he/she believed was being said.
I could make you a long list of words from antiquity that meant one thing in days-gone-by, but now mean something almost unrecognizably different today. Biblical scripture is filled with numerous examples. The Buddhist word "Duhkha", still to this day is most commonly defined as "suffering" or "pain", which is an incredibly poor translation as compared to the far more accurate "dissatisfaction" - those definitions being world's apart really, rendering the word almost meaningless. And how about the words "meditation" or "yoga"? The meaning of each of these words has been so completely obliterated as to render both of these words virtually meaningless to 99% of the population. The popular definition of both today bears almost no resemblance to the actual meaning of each.
I could also make you a long list of words used within the legal system that pass for everyday ordinary words we all can agree on the definition of, but in fact those words mean something entirely different under the man-made legal system of "codes", "acts", and "statutes" (it's no accident this is what they're called). The trickery and deception is so pervasive, that not even most attorneys understand what is going on.
What if those responsible for changing, deliberately mistranslating, watering-down or obfuscating the true meaning of words had nefarious intent? Could they effectively deceive, gaslight and propagandize entire populations?
With the use of multi-definition words, I can deceive the masses in almost unimaginable ways. And this is precisely what has been done to enslave humanity.
The pen is INFINITELY mightier than the sword.
Still sound "pretty whack" to you?
Tell me, are you a "person"?
Heheheh.
Nice one.
I think we can leave that as a rhetorical question, n'est pas?
I reckon we both know what you are referring to....
But it certainly doesn't refute my point, in my view.
Aren't most Jews taught that they are the chosen people? This detail is a big fucking deal. It skews how one views everyone non-Jew.
Correct. I'm not going into details, but there are others, both religious and secular.
Sure, and it causes problems. Especially born out of a religious nature taught in childhood. Not everyone will grow up to be a douche canoe but a lot more will when taught this type of ideology
“You are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deuteronomy 7:6)
God did this to fulfill prophesy. Jesus was born a Jew.
You're not addressing what this does to a person. Especially a child that is impressionable growing up. Many of them taught this will look down upon everyone else who isn't 'chosen'