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 ✡️
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.