Yeah, what I have seen so far, he seems to be a great guy - almost like an Anon, but a bit more mainstream. Only complaint is that he gets distracted easily and takes a long time to get to the point, but on the plus side the meandering is interesting as well.
Tbh it was a bit of a nothing burger which tells you how strong the narrative is. If it were an actual something burger I can’t imagine what the backlash would have been.
This is so important. WW2 is the founding myth of the current world order of the synagogue of Satan. From world war 2 they get:
The United States was justified in killing its enemies and thus has a right to rule today.
Hitler is the original sin of white people (if that doesn’t work pivot to slavery, mostly controlled by the synagogue of Satan, but we’ll ignore that for now.)
Because of Hitler and the Holocaust we must: A. Always support Israel because they are a persecuted people who need a homeland. B. White people can never be ethnocentric because White people being ethnocentric always leads to anti semetism and the Holocaust. (Ignore that the synagogue of Satan is incredibly ethnocentric, see point A.)
Long story short, look at the Albert Pike letters, Jews played both sides (they funded Hitler’s rise, and
Imperial Russia’s collapse, America’s rise, England’s collapse), and if you fund both sides you control who wins no matter who does so. They also love it because it’s a satanic sacrifice of Christians and they hardly have to lift a finger and they manage to consolidate more money in their power. They also get rid of the most ethnocentric and strongest amongst us, a win on all sides in their mind. They also control our history through our history books, see Ghislane Maxwell’s dad was involved in McGraw-Hill (obviously Mossad). So because they control our past, they control our future. We have to take back our past.
Edit: oh yeah, and specifically regarding Churchill, he went bankrupt after WW1 and was owned by Jewish bankers after that.
Edit2: They’re freaking out because their lies are being exposed and as such their stranglehold on the world order is collapsing.
I agree and feel the need to distinguish the difference between Synagogue of Satan (SoS) Jews and bible believing, at least Torah believing (edit: Torah only, for now) Israelite Jews.
Just like our deep state government controls us and misrepresents the USA as a whole, so do SoS Jews.
The only history that will set us free is that which is filtered through an understanding of and belief in God’s word.
Isaiah 10:8-13 “Remember this, keep it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.
12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
you who are now far from my righteousness.
13 I am bringing my righteousness near,
it is not far away;
and my salvation will not be delayed.
I will grant salvation to Zion,
my splendor to Israel.”
Judaism is focused on the Talmud, which is the jewish teaching of how to GET AROUND the Torah.
They do NOT believe in the Torah, as in the first 5 books of Moses.
What most Christians do not understand is that jews use the word "Torah" to mean two DIFFERENT things:
(1) The first 5 books of the Bible, and
(2) ALL of the writings and oral teachings of Judaism, which includes the Talmud.
They can SAY they follow the Torah, but what they REALLY MEAN is they follow ALL of jewish teachings, where the Talmud is primary.
They even have entire schools devoted to learning the Talmud, but not the books of Moses.
There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus says to beware of the "priests" (meaning the rabbi jews) who "sit on the Chair of Moses" and then stand and preach something opposite of Moses (opposite of The Law).
While they are sitting on the Chair of Moses (which rabbis do in synagogues today), they talk about the Law as presented by Moses.
But THEN THEY STAND, and tell you why Moses was wrong, in that they preach what the Talmud says -- which is the opposite of Moses.
So, "Torah" does not mean the same thing to you as it does to them.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion
Such an important distinction. Most God fearing Christians believe that most people are talking the truth when they speak, unfortunately they have no such qualms lying to our face, because they consider us to be cattle only fit to serve them. You can’t lie to a horse can you?
Edomites are from the line of Esau who God said He hated. They are the Talmud wielding Synagogue of Satan Jews. It seems King Herod gets the credit for installing them into the hierarchy of Judaism.
I use the term Israelite Jews to describe God’s chosen people from the line of Jacob, who God said He loved and also said would end up blinded to His Servant (Jesus) before rejoining and ultimately seeing and recognizing Jesus. These Israelite Jews, for lack of better nomenclature, God’s chosen (which ultimately includes Christians but I digress as they are not a part of who I’m describing here), will be reconciled with Messiah during the great tribulation aka Jacob’s trouble described in both Isaiah and Revelation.
ELI5 version: God chose stubborn people to work through on earth. They go back and forth following God’s commandments and rebelling. Showing the prosperity God’s way provides and the sinful nature of man that cannot follow His ways. God, through His prophets, tells His people that a savior is coming to save them. He tells them when, where, and how He will be born. God tells them how to recognize Him, how they will be blinded to recognizing Him. How He will be treated and rejected by them. Although, there were some authentic Torah believing Jews that knew God’s word well enough to recognize Him and believe. Think of the multitudes that laid palms and their cloaks at his feet upon His entrance into Jerusalem. They saw the prophesied colt he rode in on. There were multiple prophecies fulfilled that day. They knew. I could go on about this but I am only trying to describe the authenticity of some Jews vs the Talmudic SoS Jews. These same Jews who recognized Him were also eventually blinded as they did not understand that He was currently building a heavenly kingdom at that time. They saw Him die and could not rectify that with the earthly kingdom He was prophesied to bring them. The earthly kingdom He will bring on His return and rule over for a thousand years.
Isaiah tells them He will stir jealousy in them by working through a different group of people for a time. This stubborn group of people remain His chosen as God adds more chosen people, Christians (through Paul’s gospel), to the “chosen” group throughout this whole time.
God also tells everyone that in the end, during great tribulation, he will remove the blindfold and bring His original chosen people back to Him as they will then see and believe.
All labels are somewhat ridiculous especially the label Jew as I’m pointing out so forget the label and understand the group of people I am talking about. There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief. As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Edit: It’s similar to how Christianity was corrupted by Catholicism, or perhaps Roman Catholicism. They claim to believe the same core doctrine as Christians but it is evident in their practices that they don’t. So much so that a reformation had to take place and yet still there are denominations to sort out. Like I said above. Groups should be less described by their labels and more acknowledged for their faith and beliefs. Even the term Christianity has been watered down to include too many. You either believe and adhere to God’s word or you forge your own path. The Israelites showed us for millennia how our own path leads to destruction. Repent and abide in God’s word to be found favorable and prosperous or don’t and lead yourself to hell. It’s really as simple as that. For the Jew first and also for the gentile.
The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.
That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.
Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.
The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?
The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.
Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.
For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!
It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.
Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.
Potential problem, eh?
Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.
We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?
Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.
Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.
Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places, but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.
It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean." But in other places, "jew" is used to mean "Israelite" -- possibly because the jewish translators were trying to change the story.
These "jew" translations happened about 200-300 or so years ago, as the word was not used (in English) before then.
This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.
Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.
But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."
These out-of-context translations cause problems.
So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...
One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
His descendants are the Semites
Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel
Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.
But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.
These are today's jews.
OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.
So, jews are not Israelites.
Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."
Israelite Judean, yes.
Jewish Judean, yes.
Edomite jew, yes.
They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).
Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.
The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.
There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.
I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).
Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.
But logically, it cannot be true.
Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.
As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.
Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).
Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.
The jews today are not true Semites.
They lie about that, too.
Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.
It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.
He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.
"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.
And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.
Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.
Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.
Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.
You may have some valid points about the nomenclature of Jew vs Israelite But everything else regarding biblical doctrine is a burning dumpster fire of falsehoods if you ask me.
Some words may indeed be mistranslated or maybe not the best representative words were chosen but nothing of significance to change the meaning of the gospel and doctrine. To believe so would be denying God’s sovereignty and power in effective communication with His creations.
Why is the promised land a land of milk and honey, when most Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews are lactose intolerant? Which race has the highest rate of lactose tolerance? It’s of my opinion that the Covenant passed to those who saw the messiah as such, and those who rejected him thus rejected the Covenant.
But in reference to Hitler, they (the Jews) wanted to condemn nationalism, the Christian religion (Hitler was Catholic) for the Jews those who love their country and being Christian is anti-Semitism, not the White person in Hitler, the Jews are White for the most part then they are also part of the problem.
Honestly I think the firewall he tripped more so than being a Christian nationalist was nationalizing the Rothschild national bank. That’s why he had to lose and ultimately became the scapegoat for such things. But ultimately your correct that they hate few things more than Anglo-Saxon Christians.
I think he told the bankers to fuck off after he gained power (though not 100% sure on the timing, as to whether or not he spoke about it publicly while running for office - he did run for president of Germany, after all, and came in 2nd).
The real issue for Hitler was that he knew the jews were the ones who murdered millions of Russian White people (also Christians, but it wasn't as much of a religious thing for him). He knew that the jews were coming for the Germans next.
You can actually SEE it in the historical newspapers from the early 1900's where the American newspapers (run by jews) were "sounding the alarm" about "jews being persecuted in Russia" then "jews being persecuted in Eastern Europe" -- once they got Russia, they were heading into Europe. Those articles ALWAYS used the 6,000,000 number, way before Hitler.
This video shows the newspaper articles from 1915-1938:
Although the person who made the video does not mention it, it was Warburg behind the money raising in the articles.
But beyond that, Hitler knew what the jews had been trying to do in Germany from the time of the end of WW1 when Germany was in chaos, as the government just abandoned ship, in terms of any upholding of law (they were losing the war, and chaos ensued within Germany).
Here is a timeline of historical events, showing in part how jews were trying to take over Germany, from 1918 until Hitler took over. Remember, the overthrow of Russia was in 1917, and they just assumed they could move straight into Europe and continue their bloodshed, as the end of the war made Germany weak at home:
A much more thorough analysis than mine, bravo. Keep doing what you’re doing. My main thrust was not that they necessarily hate us because we’re Christian, but they hate us because we’re the only people who might have a chance at stopping them.
Me neither but it's the most effective communication style. Less is more. Sometimes the more you say, the more it may look like you're trying to complicate things, talk over people's heads, obfuscate, or bloviate for the sake of arrogance and ego. Guilty on all counts, I routinely go back and chop out 2/3 of what I write. :)
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
Note that I said “inclined”, and not “exclusively”.
The foundations for my statements were both biblical (as best as I understand the verses), and observed practical experience.
Frankly, I didn’t even like the wording though, so between the downvote and this response, which is nowhere near what I was trying to get at, I’ll just denounce my comment, but it was intended to be helpful.
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why
collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
You can have excuses or results, but you can't have both.
So I understand where you're coming from with the idea of a mindset of abundance versus scarcity, and I agree that our mindset can significantly impact how we approach challenges in life. Books like Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill have inspired many people to adopt a more positive outlook and to take actionable steps toward their goals, which is undeniably valuable.
That said, it's important to recognize that while mindset plays a crucial role, it's not the only factor in achieving success. External realities, access to resources, and economic conditions, also influence outcomes. It’s not always as simple as changing one's mindset and manifesting abundance. Many people face significant obstacles—whether they be social, economic, or environmental—that require more than just positive thinking to overcome.
I think there’s value in balancing both perspectives. Yes, adopting an abundance mindset can lead to personal growth and open doors to new opportunities. But it’s also essential to acknowledge that people come from different circumstances, and those challenges can’t always be dismissed with mindset alone. It’s a matter of both: empowering individuals to think abundantly while also addressing the real-world barriers that might limit their opportunities.
As for the idea that you can’t have both excuses and results—I get the sentiment behind it. However, sometimes what looks like an excuse may be a legitimate barrier that someone needs help navigating. The key is figuring out how to overcome those barriers while staying open to the possibilities of growth and abundance.
Ultimately, it’s about finding that middle ground where mindset and reality meet, and using both to make meaningful progress.
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
I get what you're saying about the NWO and the idea of domination, but competition isn't solely an invention of the NWO.
It's a natural outcome of the physical world we live in.
Our 3D existence, constrained by time and space, makes competition inevitable.
There are limited resources, and that scarcity pushes individuals and groups to compete—whether for food, land, or opportunities.
Even if the NWO exists and promotes a specific agenda, competition itself isn't something you can just "think outside of."
It's a fundamental aspect of life because of the finite nature of our world.
Sure, we can reduce destructive competition by promoting cooperation and fairness, but we can't escape the basic reality that limited resources drive competition.
In a hypothetical world where we existed outside of space and time, maybe competition wouldn't be necessary. But in the real world we inhabit, competition has always been present, long before any modern power structures like the NWO.
So, it's less about thinking "outside the NWO box" and more about understanding how competition naturally arises from the constraints we live under, and then figuring out how to balance it with collaboration and shared goals for a better society.
If you want a simple example of natural competition, just look at an expressway.
As more people get on the road, the available space becomes limited.
Since there’s only so much physical room in each lane, drivers naturally begin competing for space.
This leads to frustration and tension, which is why road rage can happen.
This is a perfect example of how natural competition arises in our 3D world.
The scarcity of physical space on the road creates competition, and it’s not something orchestrated—it happens organically due to the limitations of our environment.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing:
Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find:
“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
You did not choose your ethnic identity.
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
Ethnocentrism fuels tribalism.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Competing for limited resources.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
Ethnocentrism leads to conflict, even within ethnic groups.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
And here is my response to why it [ethnocentrism] will never work.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
WHO gets credit for BUILDING SOCIETY?
ADMINS
LABORS
FINANCERS
ENTREPRENEURS
For Example: The first coders at Microsoft who built Windows 3.1.
Do they get credit for building MS?
What about the coders that came later to the company?
The first immigration act was limited to White people.
The industrial revolution, which created more wealth, prosperity, and freedom than any other society in the history of the world, was built by White people.
The Rule of Law principles that made it all possible were envisioned and enacted by White people.
I don't care about a specific computer program or other similar minutiae.
For example, you might come up with a groundbreaking idea, but to bring that idea to life, you need a whole network of people—administrators to manage the process, laborers to do the physical work, and financiers to provide the necessary resources.
Take Trump, for instance. His name might be on buildings, but he wasn’t out there in construction gear laying bricks or wiring the electrical systems. It took a team of people working together in different roles to make those buildings a reality.
In short, no single person or group builds a nation on their own. It’s the combined effort of all these key players that makes it possible.
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
This response of yours is confusing. It sounds like you are speaking of the findings of tribal societies being spread throughout the world, not of people giving up their tribal heritage.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
If you believe that I am think "tribal heritage as a closed society".
You are reading into this wrong.
When I said
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
This is referring to ADAPTING one's mindset to new information.
So if someone wants a pure ethnic state.
They most likely want that because they are fearful of "others".
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
Most Jewish people have been taken in by the Money-Lenders" just like the rest of us. They already had financial centres that were under their control and not the country they were in. For instance, The Fed, the City of London - the "square mile", and the Bank of International Settlement in Switzerland, but what they also needed was a bolt-hole in case it all went pear-shaped.
So, identify yourself as a Jew, create a country just for Jews then you have a bolt-hole should you ever need it.
Also, the Money-Lenders can use the Jewish population for their own ends. Kill a few here and there and claim victim status and make it so they can never be criticised. So now, no-one can even speak out against you because you can play the "anti-semitic" card.
Who said: "You know who is in charge by who you are not allowed to criticise?" Anyone who tries to oppose the Money-Lenders' money-making projects ends up either dead or their country goes to war and the money-making systems are re-installed afterwards.
Far more than speculation, fren, this is imo exactly what has been done. This is a short, but precise description of the ruling powers. There's more to it, the families, the Vatican, sure, but the Khazarian "Jews", the Money-Lenders, are the executive branch, and they shielded themselves by what you describe. If you can't get after them, you cant reach the ones behind, many problems solved.
Very good speculation but for further facts Mike King of Real News and History.com is awesome. Read all his books and they are easy and concise and will make you RETHINK all the History you have been taught. He is also a regular on Rumble channels like NewsTreason and UntoldHistoryChannel
The TRUTH about WW2 are FINALLY being exposed on many fronts. Historians like Darryl Cooper on Tucker, Mike King on so many Rumble truthers, and so many more, NOW have been unleashed.
I loved that show, always thought Hogan was so smart & handsome;)
as for the 'comedy', I remember reading a quote about the 'Ghost Dance' movement of the late 1800's...the author said once the average housewives weren't afraid of the Ghost Dance, and instead interested in the steps, they knew their battle was over.
I think HH's played a similar role, to get us to see the war in a malleable way, loose with any real facts.
You could never have a show like that today, though, because the jews would be crying their tears.
My point was that nobody knew about "muh Holocaust" until many years later, when the fake story ramped up, culminating in "Schindler's List."
But that was a work of fiction. The book won "Best Fiction" by LA Times a few years before they turned it into a movie. They promoted it like it was a documentary (hence, the black-and-white filming for drama). But the entire thing was made up. The book even says it is a work of fiction, and all events are a creation of the author's mind.
wow i didn't know that about the movie! never watched it, was too 'popular' for me...
i do remember my 6th grade teacher in the 70's telling us about the 'lampshades' etc. but she was liberal, and the only teacher that mentioned such things until i was in college...they had us read that Victor Frankl book.
This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
I've always wondered about what specifically Q is pointing out. I have tons of history books, most focused on WW2. Has anyone taken the Q history book challenge and can post the differences?
Cuban is Jewish,[11] and grew up in Mount Lebanon, a suburb of Pittsburgh, in a working-class family.[12][13] His paternal grandfather changed the surname from "Chabenisky" to "Cuban" after his family emigrated from Russia through Ellis Island.[14][15] His maternal grandparents were Romanian Jewish immigrants, according to Mark's brother Brian,[16] though Mark has claimed his maternal grandmother was from Lithuania.[17]
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be implying that Judah was a jew, as many people have been taught.
That is false.
He was an Israelite (not jew), just like his brothers, as they were all sons of Jacob/Israel.
It's kinda weird when people pick one particular brother out of the 12 and claim he was a different ethnicity, when there is nothing at all in scripture to suggest such a thing.
Are you suggesting that the term jew comes from something else and not the name Judah?
Yes. Sort of ...
From Benjamin Freeman, who was a high level jew, in the sense of knowing and having international meetings with the jewish world leadership. Later, he basically renounced Judaism.
His words are from his perspective, and I do not believe he had it entirely right, but here he explains in detail where the word "jew" comes from, and why it is incorrectly used in our English versions of the Bible.
He said (taking snippets here -- the entire discussion is on the website):
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The point is that one who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a chosen man of God, a follower of Moses and the prophets, a member of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite, or even a Semite, but one who is a resident of Judea. A Judean. But a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew" which is not the understanding intended by the Scripture of truth. Those who call themselves Jews today falsely imply they are somehow descendants of the tribes of Israel and chosen of God. Yet few of them are Jews as they are not "Judeans," or residents of Judea.
The spelling of our present-day English word Jew is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by their Babylonian conquerors for Judeans without reference to the race or religion of the captives.
Today most people think of Jews as the people of Israel, but that is not correct. An Israelite was one who had descended from Jacob.
... and a "jew" was one who lived in the Roman province of Judea, during the time of Jesus, whether they were an Israelite, a Judahite, an Edomite or a Canaanite or a Hittite, or a Chinaman.
The only thing I disagree with is the characterization of Babylon being conquerors. I think that if Judah then was anything like Judah of today then the Assyrians were welcomed as liberators and emancipators.
There is a good documentary I'm trying to find right now for you guys. In it a historian is talking about how the Ottoman Empire used to be the client-state of Jews who were known to be extremely good at infiltrating, subverting, and destroying-from-within other countries. Until they turned on their client-state and brought it down. That ended an empire that lasted 800–1000 years. Going from memory here but I'll try to find it.
Meh I honestly didn’t think so. I was hoping for him to really dive into detail of what the Germans suffered through Weimar and the details of concentration camps if they really gassed or not. He just glosses over the subjects and goes more into blacks in Jonestown for a bit and then about migration. A bit of a let down tbh
Still can’t believe the amount of progress made in the direction of truth. Everyday more and more are being redpilled and more are speaking the truth. The base has grown so much in the last year and with growing ranks critical mass needed for change will be achieved
Churchhill was a Freemason. Jay Watson of IBM was also a Freemason. According to Edwin Black, a Jewish Historian, the IBM machines were used fo target certain Jews & purge them.
Edwin Black got death threats for his research, why is that? Because two things can be true at the same time: certain Jews, mostly Torah Jews were targetted for extermination, but the 6Million figure is bogus.
Yes, that is what I mean, a global holocaust of Christians & Torah believing Jews. WWII was a Judeo-Masonic coup. American Freemason Oligarchy, the British Crown, and Talmudic (frankist, Kazzarian, Caananite?) Jews were involved.
... certain Jews, mostly Torah Jews were targetted for extermination ...
Nobody was targeted for extermination. That is the Big Lie.
The communists were targeted to be expelled from Germany, and ideally all of Europe. Just so happens the communist leadership was almost all jews (just like 20 years earlier in Russia).
Hitler even made a deal with jewish leadership to transport them out of Germany and into Palestine. Several thousand made that trip before England declared war on Germany, and they had to shift gears.
I have studied World War II quite a bit. I always thought Germany Declared war on England first. This is basic stuff. How in the hell did I not know Great Britain died at war first? World War II, England (Great Britain) declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, following Germany's invasion of Poland; essentially, Britain responded to Germany's declaration of war by declaring war back on them.
I have studied World War II quite a bit. I always thought Germany Declared war on England first. This is basic stuff.
It SHOULD be basic stuff, but is not.
Germany NEVER declared war on England or France -- all the way to the end.
The only country Germany declared war on was the United States, and that was after the United States declared war on Germany.
Hitler tried to make peace with England and France during the entirety of the war.
Regarding the invasion of Poland, you have been lied to about that, as well.
Following WW1, parts of Germany were taken away. A western slice was given to France. A southern slice was given to Czechoslovakia. An eastern chunk was given to Poland.
Hitler was taking back what had been stolen from Germany, but only those areas where the people living there (who were ethnic Germans, not French, Czech, or Poles) wanted to reunite with Germany.
In Poland, the jews who were running it were robbing, beating, raping, torturing, and murdering ethnic Germans who had lived there for decades (at least), but were now suddenly under Polish rule, due to the Treaty of Versaille.
The Germans living there were treated brutally, and Hitler wanted to put a stop to it. He asked 23 countries to support him in a diplomatic solution, including England and France.
Everyone ignored him, so he finally put a stop to it himself by sending in his military.
That was what England used as justification to declare war on Germany. Churchill set him up by encouraging the brutality of the German people.
Watch this video, straight from Hitler's own words in his speeches (with English subtitles). This is a part of history you were never told:
Following WW1, parts of Germany were taken away. ... An eastern chunk was given to Poland.
You’re missing an important fact that taken away … given to Poland actually means: returned back to Poland after dozens of years of Germany occupying these territories that (originally belonged to Poland) and were taken away by Germany during the Patritions of Poland to the level that Poland disappeared from the map for a long time. Only the determination of generations of Polish people allowed Poland to rise again in 1918 when Polish people simply took their country back:
Well, the whole region of today's Germany, Poland, and central Europe, was for hundreds of years, made up of 200-300 little kingdoms.
Over time, they consolidated, eventually forming large kingdoms, then more modern "states."
The point for Hitler was that the territory that had been part of Germany, which had become part of Poland after WW1, was made up of 90% ethnic Germans, and they were being massacred by the Poles (read: Bolshevik jews).
His purpose for going into Poland was to put a stop to the atrocities, after asking other world leaders to help, but getting no response.
They’ve tried for almost 100 years and yet after 5 generations people were able to speak Polish, beat the occupying forces and take the country back. I can’t believe you think 10% would do it after 5 generations of slavery.
… going into Poland was to put a stop to the atrocities
There were no atrocities. The proper name to describe what happened is: sabotage and false flag run by organised groups of Germans to give Hittler a pretext for future aggression.
Just think about the logistics of it. Could Hitler just respond to “atrocities” and have hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready on the border the day he got “angry”? It took months to prepare, move the soldiers, tanks, ships.
One could lump them all together and call it "Germany," but that would not be entirely accurate.
I read about "tribes" in Poland, so I don't know if they had something similar or if it was one big territory.
But this is all BESIDE THE POINT of why Hitler went into Poland.
There were no atrocities. The proper name to describe what happened is: sabotage and false flag run by organised groups of Germans to give Hittler a pretext for future aggression.
In Hitler's own words, with graphic evidence, for why he went into Poland:
Just think about the logistics of it. Could Hitler just respond to “atrocities” and have hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready on the border the day he got “angry”? It took months to prepare, move the soldiers, tanks, ships.
It did take months. It all started in May and he went in in September.
He asked Stalin for help.
If I remember right, he asked 23 countries, including England, France, and the US -- meaning, they all knew what was going on and why he ultimately went into Poland. They were just waiting for him to move in, so they could justify war.
People can watch the link I posted -- speeches in Hitler's own words, along with the responses by England and Poland.
Or ... they can rely on your Wikipedia links. Good luck with that!
Communist & the Nazi's were a two-pronged approach to destablize Christian society in order to arrive at the synthesis the Globalist wanted. The very same two-pronged approach being used today on Americans. Both Communists & Nazi's were funded by international bankers & Freemason (gentile) industrialists. Hitler was not a good guy; he was a puppet & a Jew himself. This is not me saying this, this is Russia's head of State: ;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A0PY72pWXRI&pp=ygUYTGF2cm92IGhpdGxlciB3YXMgamV3aXNo
Hitler was a Judus goat that led millions of good American & European men & women to their destruction. Yes it is true that Hitler hunted down Freemason foot soldiers but that is only after they served their purpose.
▪️Explain to me why the English sent their men to the slaughter house, meanwhile, King George the VIII (Freemason) honeymooned in Germany & was an avid Nazi Sympathizer that abdicated the thrown?
▪️Explain to me why Freemasons like Ford, Watson helped the German war effort but never got repremanded for aiding the enemy?
▪️Explain to me why Freemason FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked?
▪️Explain why Skull & Bonesmen Senator Prescott Bush was involved in bankrolling Hitler? You think Skull & Bones were the "good guys" too?
▪️Explain why Freemason Truman helped found the UN & Israel.
WWII was a Judeo-Masonic plot orchestrated to destroy individual nation states and set the stage for WWIII, per Freemason Albert Pikes letter to Mazzini in 1871.
Going back to "Mein Kampf," it is clear that Hitler was a Christian. One of the reasons he hated the jews was because they hated Christianity.
He built churches in Germany and, later, in Ukraine.
He made going to Church a high priority (though not mandatory) for the Hitler Youth.
Hitler was not a jew. That is jew propaganda. He actually imprisoned one of the Rothschild bankers for stealing from the Austrian people.
He made usury illegal in Germany.
He shut down all the jewish degeneracy from brothels to gay houses to anti-social "art" of the jews. Homosexual left Germany because they could no longer be free to do their thing in Berlin, which was the European capital of degeneracy during the Weimar years.
This is not me saying this, this is Russia's head of State
You don't seem to have paid much attention to that video you posted. He makes only one short comment about Hitler, and says ...
"If I remember right, I may be wrong, but Hitler also had jewish origins."
He was referring to Zelensky being a jew, and made this offhand comment that was not any sort of in-depth analysis of Hitler, and even said, he might be WRONG.
He IS wrong.
Everything about Hitler points AWAY from him being jewish. Maybe jews/Mossad/CIA want you to believe it, but the evidence for such a claim is not there.
Long before he because a public figure, he wrote about his Christianity.
Ford was a supporter of Germany because he knew how nasty te jews were, as they were behind the murder of millions of Christian Russians.
I'm sure other Americans knew the same things Ford knew -- all they had to do was read what he wrote:
"The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" by Henry Ford:
As for FDR, Bush, and Truman, they were all garbage.
Bush had his banking assets taken by the US government for violating the "Trading with the Enemies Act," and his father, Samuel (close friends with the Rockefellers) was accused of something similar in WW1.
The Bush family are prostitutes for the Rockefellers/Rothschilds, and that explains everything they do -- they will hook for money, in whatever way they must.
("Please clap.")
LOL.
There is much propaganda about history -- ESPECIALLY about Hitler.
We have ALL been lied to about a lot of things.
It takes a critical mind to analyze all the conflicting information out there.
I encourage you to consider another perspective.
Here is a perspective from someone who actually lived there during the time:
You simply dismiss all of the valid points because you WANT Hitler to be your hero.
Hilter was a Pagan, he was no Christian. While the WASP elites were helping Hitler rise to power, The Catholic Pope had three failed assassination attempts on him because he was persecuting Catholics in Germany:
Hitler's right hand man, Himmler was a notorious occulist.Himmler ordered a branch of the SS to carry out a massive survey of witch-hunt trial records in Europe. His SS troops combed 260 libraries and archives to find traces of the witch trials of the Middle Ages. According to academics, Himmler was on a mission to prove that the prosecution of witches was tantamount to an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to wipe out the German race.
Sorry, he was no Hero, he was a Jewish puppet & a homosexual as well. The respected German historian Lothar Machtan even claims in his book that Hitler ordered the deaths of several high-ranking Nazis to prevent the secret of his homosexuality from surfacing.
Ernst Röhm, the leader of Hitler's Sturm Abteilung or Storm Troopers, tried to blackmail Hitler by threatening to reveal his sexuality. Röhm, who was also gay, was murdered as a result, according to Machtan, a history teacher at Bremen University. Exactly like Zelenski, a gay Jewish Puppet that leads the Azov Nazi Battalion today & has the unwavering support of the Judeo-Masonic Western establishment today!
You simply dismiss all of the valid points because you WANT Hitler to be your hero.
I dismissed your "source" of a "Russian minister" because HE SAID HE MIGHT BE WRONG in an offhand comment -- nothing at all to do with an in-depth analysis.
That was a stupid "source" to try and prove your point.
Hilter was a Pagan, he was no Christian.
He wrote about being a Christian IN HIS OWN BOOK -- long before he rose to power, when he was a lowly corporal in the Army.
Gentile is a racial term.
The upper Echelon of "Jews" are semetic Caananite tribe that inner-married and grafted themselves into the Royal line of David after King Solomon married the Caananite women. The same Dynasty that helped build the second Temple that Freemasons reviere & are attempting to help erect the 3rd Temple. Freemasons are the Gentile foot soldiers; the Big Bosses are the Moabite, Caananite, Hetite family bloodline:
I personally believe that the Jews that remained religously "Jewish" after the advent of Jesus, did so under the premise that they were seduced by worldly power promised to them in their corrupted Religion & they remain under that seductive promise made in the Babylonian Talmud. However, they themselves are pawns & will be chewed up & spit out just like they were during WWII. The Messiah they are waiting / working towards, is the Anti-Christ.
Israel was established by the Judeo-Freemasons to be the battleground of Armageddon, were all three Abrahmic Religions will be dooped into mutually destroying each other, paving the way for the one world Lucifarian Religion:
Among many other brave people, Candace Owens surely had a hand in exposing the dual nature of those who call themselves Jews.
The internet is turning out to be exactly what team dark does NOT want, and that is a population that actually communicates with and learns from one another.
Too late! Too many cats are escaping their bags all at once. The unruly things just won't go back in, and animal control is simply overwhelmed.
Humility is a mirror. To those who see a humble person might see a person who has a big ego. The world will hate good by default. This psychological thing is within all humans.
When I was in kindergarten I believe they were doing psychological tests on us. They would blindfold the kids and have reach into jars and taste test what we felt.
To me I got crunchy peanut butter and to this day i remember this event.
Because of this even I hate peanut butter. I have never bought it. I love peanuts though.
For years I struggled with why I hate peanut butter so much and would see other people happily eating it. Then I remembered the thing they did in kindergarten, by this time I was older and the damage was done.
One day my wife asks me to buy peanut butter and I refused. No way am I going to buy that sickness. The most nastiest thing I can think of is crunchy peanut butter and eating it.
She says there is also creamy peanut butter and she too hates crunchy peanut butter.
My mind was blown. Yet I now accept there is two types and yet I will never buy neither, but I love peanuts.
Psychological seed planting is a very real thing and I like to reference Paul in the Bible where he said he dies daily. We have much wrong with all of us and only those who proclaim they are the most best are to me the crunchy peanut butter. :)
Would my outlook on peanut butter have been different if I got the creamy peanut butter way back in kindergarten?
Yep. So is being honest and loving. The intersection is injected with seeds and only a few will be able to see. Many are called but few are chosen. Jesus says this. To reveal this wickedness requires Jesus and His Father along with His Holy Spirit.
I do not call it balance. That too is a sleight of hand magic trick. Evil never wants balance and good wants perceived balance. Jesus says He will puke out the Lukewarm.
Evil seeds that Good people are all whack jobs and weak minded people.
Nothing I can do to change how good and evil battle but I do know balance is not the answer. This is what makes USA so great. This is why evil hates the Bill of Rights.
I feel the same revulsion toward mayonnaise on my sandwiches, tho I can tolerate it okay in a potato or macaroni salad. Taste is okay. It’s the appearance/texture grosses me out.
lol. I am just a normal person that grew up with real chaos.
The psychological thing when I was young was that children were not credible. So when things like Moms boyfriends and such would do things like lock me in dark rooms for hours or if one would rape me — the child has a sense of security in the fact that nothing can be done because the child is not credible.
The same evil that is censoring/mocking millions of USA citizens is the same evil I grew accustomed to when I was a child.
If one mocks me or threatens me to this day my very first reaction is to smile at them as an old friend. I got my very first covid test the other day where they rape your nose—I laughed at the nurse. It tickled. I had surgery some months ago now and I am having issues so I needed a xray because I fell and my toes are tingling. Worthless test but for others that is a form of torment.
For me I learned to forgive and I believe in Jesus. Many children like me became lost in law and most on the wrong side of the law. Many are no longer alive.
How many today can even say they have gone through what I have? I am sure there is many. However most people do not comprehend the evil that lurks behind a beautiful smile and of late a laughing hyena that changes their voice.
Half my family is Jew and the other half is from the UK and Poland. All 3 have much of the same culture of deception. Is it DNA or is it taught…
Those studies want to figure out if it is dna. They love twins for that reason.
I try to keep an open mind about my reality. But I have been programmed to believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and you should not mess with them.
But who are the "Jews" today? Are they the same peoples of yesteryears? From which of the twelve tribes, or none of the twelve tribes? I don't have the answer.
Speaking of lies. The modern day Jews are not, and have never been, God's Israel people as proven by the bible, history and even Jewish writings. As a people they are anti-Christ. By their own writings, 90% are of Khazar, Ashkenaz descent through Japheth. Esau is Edom, Genesis 36. "Edom is in modern Jewry", The Jewish Encyclopedia. 9% are of Edomite, Canaanite descent. These are the descendants of those who argued with Christ and saw to Christ's death. See what Christ told them in John 8 and 10. They admitted they were not Israelites and Christ told them they were not. Blessing God's enemies brings punishment to us. 2 John 1:7, 9-11 and 2 Chronicles 19:2. The elite treat the rest as they do everyone else.
i have long awaited this day. ive kept tabs on how receptive everyone here has been to the holohoax and jewish supremacism, seems the tide has been turning even here in the past year or two. i think their weird NYC tunnels maybe planted seeds of doubt. anyways, jesus is love, jesus is life, amen.
This is my line of thinking that I am sticking with.
===============================================
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
my ancestors survived 2000+ years on identity alone...We still speak the ancient language they were Thracians, Free Dacians, too free and in nature to create cities and strict structures for organized state. They would have succeeded if technology was quicker but instead they embraced brothers who created Roman empire... And fought them too. (countless of other conquerors and forces and we are still there)
Where in your "human brain is a computer" theory is there room for a soul?
Where is there room for aspiring to greatness or meaning in life?
It does not exist.
We have tried your "let's get rid of tradition and progess to the next step of humanity" and guess what?
IT HAS BEEN A FUCKING FAILURE.
Sure, if you are from the poverty of Mexico or Bangladesh or Ivory Coast, and you can get a free ticket into a White country, currently run by sympathizers who give you free gibs, then from your perspecitve it looks great.
But ... this situation is a SUFFOCATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE THE INNATE ABILITY TO BUILD A SOCIETY. In the end, everybody loses.
All we see from the "others" is an ability to tear down and destroy a society -- or, at best, to live as a free rider.
Why don't you go to Aurora, Colorado, and take up residence in one of those Venezuelan gang apartment complexes? Let us know how your "cultural diversity" (read: "racial diversity," which is what you REALLY mean, but don't have the moral or intellectual integrity to SAY it out loud) experiment works out.
The whole DIVERSITY is our strength is a PSYOP pushed to make us want to racially SEPERATE.
WTF?
"Diversity" (i.e. mix together) is the OPPOSITE of "Separation."
Cabal wants maximum "diversity" (read: race mixing, no honoring of one's culture, and anything that will destroy one's connection to history -- they want this ONLY for White people).
Sure, they want to divide and conquor, but they also want to destroy the White race by "diversity" of race-mixing and cultural erasure.
You don't get it: The White race, like it or not, is the only race in history that has built civilizations, created inventions, and is a threat to a small group of people who want to dominate the world. Without Whites, everybody else loses -- except the Cabal.
I don't hate non-Whites. I recognize that we have ALL been propagandized.
I also recognize that Whites don't really need non-Whites, but non-Whites do need Whites. Or not (see: Africa).
The Cabal's push for "muh diversity" is not to bring the best of the best together to make for a better world. That's just the surface propaganda, similar to creating all sorts of bullshit wordsmithing around why we "need" a central bank. They can't come right out and say they want to steal your wealth. They have to make up some bullshit that people will accept because most people don't really think it through.
Same is true for destroying the race that stands in their way. Can't come right out and say it (unless your name is Kalergi ... but then, who would believe such an outrageous "conspiracy theory?").
I asked you a simple question.
WHO gets credit for building something????
PLEASE TELL ME THIS!!!
NO.. the CABAL KNOWS that whites are going to get mad with the DEI bullshit. Do you not think the CIA and intel agenices thought ahead of time about the impacts of DEI???
The Cabal cannot control a UNITED people.
The Cabal wants to bring in a POLICE state using CAMERAS and SCANNING,
In order to bring in this police state.
They want TRIBAL battles.
If what you see is true.
A. Why isn't the Cabal promoting Thomas Sowell??
B. Why is the Cabal bringing in iilegals in all black areas?
C. Why is the Cabal PUSHING BLACKS to push for RACIAL SEPERATION in colleges?
If they want diversity.
Why they doing racism in REVERSE?
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all exist based on lies. It's a global security issue which is why the existence of aliens from outer space has been such a secret. That essentially destroys the stupid religions, and these religious whackos would lose their minds.
It's "lose" not "loose".
I used to think this way, more than anyone I ever met. Unexplainable circumstances put Jesus in my life. I found the truth about Jesus and my entire life changed the day I put my faith in him.
You can dismiss it, but I never met a person who did a deep dive on the history, the gospels and the prophets and wasn’t a believer.
I think the truth is shrouded by layers upon layers of manipulation like the structure of an onion. There are bits of truth in Christianity just as there are bits of truth in Satanism, ancient sumerians, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. There does seem to be a conscious aspect underlying the universe or our experience of it, and that consciousness does not seem to be limited entirely to within our heads. Whatever that means, I don't know, but the idea of God and Jesus is one possibility. Another could be pantheism or panentheism. Or perhaps we live in a simulation like The Truman Show or the Matrix. If that's the case, then there is no knowable reality.
I thought that same way my entire life until 4 years ago.
There is more evidence of Jesus Christ than anything I’ve ever seen. The gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John are the most researched books in history with more cross-referenced material than any other based on eye-witness accounts of over 25,000 manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century. With new findings proving the accuracy of the text, locations, and details every year.
That, coupled with the actions of the apostles and their extreme doubts pre and post crucifixion to their immense faith after the rising of Christ, are unexplainable any other way. They were ruined in their reputations, tortured in horrific ways (crucified upside down, submerged in acid for example) and maintained their faith for no worldly benefits, even after almost all of them doubting Jesus was before he rose. Then to after he came back, they never wavered in their trust.
From the history and my personal experiences from a huge skeptic and ‘agnostic’ to how out of nowhere, I was pulled into faith; the peace and love I feel in my life now, it would be way harder for me to be convinced it was all fake compared to me having even more faith.
I've gone back and forth like that over the years. I was so convinced when I believed the last time. Right now I think my own brain fills in gaps when I want to believe something - like an alter ego that is my own personal evangelical apologist. But when I think of what a world without a God behind it might look like, using causality and randomness, I end up with pretty much the world we live in. That is the only way to explain the gorgeous beauty of the aurora borealis while also explaining the atrocities of childhood leukemia and the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in China. There are extremes at both ends of the spectrum, indicating that no side is truly superior to the other, and that idea wipes out the idea that God is stronger than Satan. Perhaps an equal...but that would fall more in line with Zoroastrianism than Christianity. The Native American story of the Two Wolves has more truth in it than the idea of Jesus saving us all.
The problem with simulation theory (which includes Christianity) is that if this is not the real world and is some trial or simulation or cosmic video game or whatever, then there really is no way to prove that ANY reality is real. It could be a dream of a dream of a dream ad nauseum. Perhaps God and the Heavenly Kingdom are another simulation of some higher reality beyond that...and so on and so on. So for argument's sake, either this is the real world or there is no real world.
I think THIS reality is real. I was arguing against simulation theory as a useful theory. If it was true, then nothing can be known to be real. The atheistic stance is that this is all there is. There is no other reality outside of this one.
agree with much of this^ but I think there's a reality outside of this matrix,
and that's why Q posted this verse;
#1886
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
– Corinthians 13:4-13
and this prayer;
#154
Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Q
we're in a distorted world, separated from God who lives in heaven. Q is helping us to ascend to a better life, without the swamp...
#2450
We are going to show you a new world.
Those who are blind will soon see the light.
A beautiful brave new world lies ahead.
We take this journey together.
One step at a time.
WWG1WGA!
Q
#4963
Runbeck.
Dominion.
SOS Offices.
Investigators.
Researchers.
Whistleblowers.
Patriots in trusted positions.
Trust yourself.
You have seen the truth.
Time to show the world.
Focus.
FOCUS.
Ascension.
Q
They are. Well, it's a combination of ignorance, aliens, and drugs. Thousands of years ago, people saw strange things (ufos, alien beings, interdimensional beings, etc) and also unwittingly went under the influence of psychotropic drugs, such as the fungal poisoning from ergot that gets into bread.
Religious cults explained these occurrances as all having some connection to a spirit realm, and the sky people were labeled as gods or angels or demons, depending on how nice to us they were.
Identifying with a particular spiritual system to the extent that by faith alone, the individual is 100% convinced that their worldview is correct. This oftentimes conflicts with social issues involving individual freedom since many religions seek to spread like a social virus and infect the world.
Apparently this interview: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1830652074746409246
I am still 30 mins in and we are no where near WW2, but the dude is really interesting.
GREAT interview well worth the time. Will try and follow up on his podcasts. I thank Tucker for introducing Darryl Cooper to me.
Yeah, what I have seen so far, he seems to be a great guy - almost like an Anon, but a bit more mainstream. Only complaint is that he gets distracted easily and takes a long time to get to the point, but on the plus side the meandering is interesting as well.
Tbh it was a bit of a nothing burger which tells you how strong the narrative is. If it were an actual something burger I can’t imagine what the backlash would have been.
Redpilled people call certain things "nothingburger" because we have known it for ages, but it doesn't mean its not explosive to normies.
I havent watched the WW2 segment yet, but just making a general observation that may or may not be relevant here.
Fell asleep between the 10 minute ads every 2 minutes last night,[youtube] half hour in.....I still don't get the cognitive dissonance reactions.
Can someone explain it like I'm a lib?
After watching it twice and listening to his podcasts now I understand why they panicked all overt the internet. The doors of truth are wide open.
This is so important. WW2 is the founding myth of the current world order of the synagogue of Satan. From world war 2 they get:
The United States was justified in killing its enemies and thus has a right to rule today.
Hitler is the original sin of white people (if that doesn’t work pivot to slavery, mostly controlled by the synagogue of Satan, but we’ll ignore that for now.)
Because of Hitler and the Holocaust we must: A. Always support Israel because they are a persecuted people who need a homeland. B. White people can never be ethnocentric because White people being ethnocentric always leads to anti semetism and the Holocaust. (Ignore that the synagogue of Satan is incredibly ethnocentric, see point A.)
Long story short, look at the Albert Pike letters, Jews played both sides (they funded Hitler’s rise, and Imperial Russia’s collapse, America’s rise, England’s collapse), and if you fund both sides you control who wins no matter who does so. They also love it because it’s a satanic sacrifice of Christians and they hardly have to lift a finger and they manage to consolidate more money in their power. They also get rid of the most ethnocentric and strongest amongst us, a win on all sides in their mind. They also control our history through our history books, see Ghislane Maxwell’s dad was involved in McGraw-Hill (obviously Mossad). So because they control our past, they control our future. We have to take back our past.
Edit: oh yeah, and specifically regarding Churchill, he went bankrupt after WW1 and was owned by Jewish bankers after that.
Edit2: They’re freaking out because their lies are being exposed and as such their stranglehold on the world order is collapsing.
This comment needs upvotes of 5 points at a time. Spot on.
Seconded.
Thanks guys, I know we’re at great awakening.win, but these times really do feel like the great awakening that was promised.
I agree and feel the need to distinguish the difference between Synagogue of Satan (SoS) Jews and bible believing, at least Torah believing (edit: Torah only, for now) Israelite Jews.
Just like our deep state government controls us and misrepresents the USA as a whole, so do SoS Jews.
The only history that will set us free is that which is filtered through an understanding of and belief in God’s word.
Isaiah 10:8-13 “Remember this, keep it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do. 12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted, you who are now far from my righteousness. 13 I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. I will grant salvation to Zion, my splendor to Israel.”
No such thing as an "Israelite jew."
Jews are the Edomites, not the Israelites.
Judaism is focused on the Talmud, which is the jewish teaching of how to GET AROUND the Torah.
They do NOT believe in the Torah, as in the first 5 books of Moses.
What most Christians do not understand is that jews use the word "Torah" to mean two DIFFERENT things:
They can SAY they follow the Torah, but what they REALLY MEAN is they follow ALL of jewish teachings, where the Talmud is primary.
They even have entire schools devoted to learning the Talmud, but not the books of Moses.
There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus says to beware of the "priests" (meaning the rabbi jews) who "sit on the Chair of Moses" and then stand and preach something opposite of Moses (opposite of The Law).
While they are sitting on the Chair of Moses (which rabbis do in synagogues today), they talk about the Law as presented by Moses.
But THEN THEY STAND, and tell you why Moses was wrong, in that they preach what the Talmud says -- which is the opposite of Moses.
So, "Torah" does not mean the same thing to you as it does to them.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion.
That is what most Christians are missing.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion
Such an important distinction. Most God fearing Christians believe that most people are talking the truth when they speak, unfortunately they have no such qualms lying to our face, because they consider us to be cattle only fit to serve them. You can’t lie to a horse can you?
Dude! Thank you for clarifying the difference. This had me baffled to no end. Now it makes perfect sense!
This is the most educational thread on GAW we've had in a while, in my opinion.
Edomites are from the line of Esau who God said He hated. They are the Talmud wielding Synagogue of Satan Jews. It seems King Herod gets the credit for installing them into the hierarchy of Judaism.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1764531226210152661.html
I use the term Israelite Jews to describe God’s chosen people from the line of Jacob, who God said He loved and also said would end up blinded to His Servant (Jesus) before rejoining and ultimately seeing and recognizing Jesus. These Israelite Jews, for lack of better nomenclature, God’s chosen (which ultimately includes Christians but I digress as they are not a part of who I’m describing here), will be reconciled with Messiah during the great tribulation aka Jacob’s trouble described in both Isaiah and Revelation.
ELI5 version: God chose stubborn people to work through on earth. They go back and forth following God’s commandments and rebelling. Showing the prosperity God’s way provides and the sinful nature of man that cannot follow His ways. God, through His prophets, tells His people that a savior is coming to save them. He tells them when, where, and how He will be born. God tells them how to recognize Him, how they will be blinded to recognizing Him. How He will be treated and rejected by them. Although, there were some authentic Torah believing Jews that knew God’s word well enough to recognize Him and believe. Think of the multitudes that laid palms and their cloaks at his feet upon His entrance into Jerusalem. They saw the prophesied colt he rode in on. There were multiple prophecies fulfilled that day. They knew. I could go on about this but I am only trying to describe the authenticity of some Jews vs the Talmudic SoS Jews. These same Jews who recognized Him were also eventually blinded as they did not understand that He was currently building a heavenly kingdom at that time. They saw Him die and could not rectify that with the earthly kingdom He was prophesied to bring them. The earthly kingdom He will bring on His return and rule over for a thousand years.
Isaiah tells them He will stir jealousy in them by working through a different group of people for a time. This stubborn group of people remain His chosen as God adds more chosen people, Christians (through Paul’s gospel), to the “chosen” group throughout this whole time.
God also tells everyone that in the end, during great tribulation, he will remove the blindfold and bring His original chosen people back to Him as they will then see and believe.
All labels are somewhat ridiculous especially the label Jew as I’m pointing out so forget the label and understand the group of people I am talking about. There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief. As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Edit: It’s similar to how Christianity was corrupted by Catholicism, or perhaps Roman Catholicism. They claim to believe the same core doctrine as Christians but it is evident in their practices that they don’t. So much so that a reformation had to take place and yet still there are denominations to sort out. Like I said above. Groups should be less described by their labels and more acknowledged for their faith and beliefs. Even the term Christianity has been watered down to include too many. You either believe and adhere to God’s word or you forge your own path. The Israelites showed us for millennia how our own path leads to destruction. Repent and abide in God’s word to be found favorable and prosperous or don’t and lead yourself to hell. It’s really as simple as that. For the Jew first and also for the gentile.
The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.
That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.
Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.
The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?
The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.
Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.
For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!
It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.
Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.
Potential problem, eh?
Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.
We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?
Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.
Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.
Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places, but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.
It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean." But in other places, "jew" is used to mean "Israelite" -- possibly because the jewish translators were trying to change the story.
These "jew" translations happened about 200-300 or so years ago, as the word was not used (in English) before then.
This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.
Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.
But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."
These out-of-context translations cause problems.
So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...
Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.
But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.
These are today's jews.
OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.
So, jews are not Israelites.
Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."
Israelite Judean, yes.
Jewish Judean, yes.
Edomite jew, yes.
They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).
Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.
The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.
I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).
Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.
But logically, it cannot be true.
Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.
Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.
Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).
Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.
The jews today are not true Semites.
They lie about that, too.
Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.
It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.
He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.
"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.
And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.
Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.
Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.
Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.
You may have some valid points about the nomenclature of Jew vs Israelite But everything else regarding biblical doctrine is a burning dumpster fire of falsehoods if you ask me.
Some words may indeed be mistranslated or maybe not the best representative words were chosen but nothing of significance to change the meaning of the gospel and doctrine. To believe so would be denying God’s sovereignty and power in effective communication with His creations.
This might be one of those 'Kill them all, let God sort them out' situations.
Dang. That was a great explanation. Screencapped.
Why is the promised land a land of milk and honey, when most Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews are lactose intolerant? Which race has the highest rate of lactose tolerance? It’s of my opinion that the Covenant passed to those who saw the messiah as such, and those who rejected him thus rejected the Covenant.
"Torah believing jew" those exist?
Very good comment.
But in reference to Hitler, they (the Jews) wanted to condemn nationalism, the Christian religion (Hitler was Catholic) for the Jews those who love their country and being Christian is anti-Semitism, not the White person in Hitler, the Jews are White for the most part then they are also part of the problem.
Honestly I think the firewall he tripped more so than being a Christian nationalist was nationalizing the Rothschild national bank. That’s why he had to lose and ultimately became the scapegoat for such things. But ultimately your correct that they hate few things more than Anglo-Saxon Christians.
I think he told the bankers to fuck off after he gained power (though not 100% sure on the timing, as to whether or not he spoke about it publicly while running for office - he did run for president of Germany, after all, and came in 2nd).
The real issue for Hitler was that he knew the jews were the ones who murdered millions of Russian White people (also Christians, but it wasn't as much of a religious thing for him). He knew that the jews were coming for the Germans next.
You can actually SEE it in the historical newspapers from the early 1900's where the American newspapers (run by jews) were "sounding the alarm" about "jews being persecuted in Russia" then "jews being persecuted in Eastern Europe" -- once they got Russia, they were heading into Europe. Those articles ALWAYS used the 6,000,000 number, way before Hitler.
This video shows the newspaper articles from 1915-1938:
https://rumble.com/vtv060-six-million-jews-1915-1938-6-6000000.html
Although the person who made the video does not mention it, it was Warburg behind the money raising in the articles.
But beyond that, Hitler knew what the jews had been trying to do in Germany from the time of the end of WW1 when Germany was in chaos, as the government just abandoned ship, in terms of any upholding of law (they were losing the war, and chaos ensued within Germany).
Here is a timeline of historical events, showing in part how jews were trying to take over Germany, from 1918 until Hitler took over. Remember, the overthrow of Russia was in 1917, and they just assumed they could move straight into Europe and continue their bloodshed, as the end of the war made Germany weak at home:
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1918-20/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1921-23/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1924-28/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1929-33/
This timeline, IMO, puts things in the proper perspective.
Filed under: More things we were never taught in school (for some odd reason ...)
A much more thorough analysis than mine, bravo. Keep doing what you’re doing. My main thrust was not that they necessarily hate us because we’re Christian, but they hate us because we’re the only people who might have a chance at stopping them.
BINGO.
Thanks for those Weimar Republic links,fren.
Very interesting and very much appreciated.
Damned straight.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
Once freedom of choice comes into play. Human beings will always seek to do what makes them personally happy.
They won’t care about the ethnic group. They will care about their family and themselves first.
Over time… the people who are the most ethnic centric will always die out.
Simply because they will always become the most authoritarian!
How else can you force millions of people to have the same passions and desires as each other.
Racial and ethnic pride will always fail. Due to what it takes to make millions of people to passionately care that much.
Most people will not care too much about their ethnicity and roots.
Most people just want to live life and experience happiness in the world.
Such as travel, camping, boating, dining, etc.
That is a very superficial take, and one that many people have been propagandized to accept.
Ethnicity and family/self is one and the same.
Not caring about your roots is not caring about yourself.
Caring more about camping and boating is a shallow life.
I need to be less verbose like this guy, nail meet head. Said it better in less than what I did myself.
"Less verbose" is not usually how I am described.
LOL.
Take the compliment and run then! Lol
Take it as taciturn for the best!
Me neither but it's the most effective communication style. Less is more. Sometimes the more you say, the more it may look like you're trying to complicate things, talk over people's heads, obfuscate, or bloviate for the sake of arrogance and ego. Guilty on all counts, I routinely go back and chop out 2/3 of what I write. :)
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
Note that I said “inclined”, and not “exclusively”.
The foundations for my statements were both biblical (as best as I understand the verses), and observed practical experience.
Frankly, I didn’t even like the wording though, so between the downvote and this response, which is nowhere near what I was trying to get at, I’ll just denounce my comment, but it was intended to be helpful.
No, it’s not.
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
I have read Think and Grow Rich.
So I understand where you're coming from with the idea of a mindset of abundance versus scarcity, and I agree that our mindset can significantly impact how we approach challenges in life. Books like Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill have inspired many people to adopt a more positive outlook and to take actionable steps toward their goals, which is undeniably valuable.
That said, it's important to recognize that while mindset plays a crucial role, it's not the only factor in achieving success. External realities, access to resources, and economic conditions, also influence outcomes. It’s not always as simple as changing one's mindset and manifesting abundance. Many people face significant obstacles—whether they be social, economic, or environmental—that require more than just positive thinking to overcome.
I think there’s value in balancing both perspectives. Yes, adopting an abundance mindset can lead to personal growth and open doors to new opportunities. But it’s also essential to acknowledge that people come from different circumstances, and those challenges can’t always be dismissed with mindset alone. It’s a matter of both: empowering individuals to think abundantly while also addressing the real-world barriers that might limit their opportunities.
As for the idea that you can’t have both excuses and results—I get the sentiment behind it. However, sometimes what looks like an excuse may be a legitimate barrier that someone needs help navigating. The key is figuring out how to overcome those barriers while staying open to the possibilities of growth and abundance.
Ultimately, it’s about finding that middle ground where mindset and reality meet, and using both to make meaningful progress.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
No problem friend!
Let me ask you something.
How many black people do you have real bonds with? That you spend time together doing things?
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
I get what you're saying about the NWO and the idea of domination, but competition isn't solely an invention of the NWO.
It's a natural outcome of the physical world we live in. Our 3D existence, constrained by time and space, makes competition inevitable.
There are limited resources, and that scarcity pushes individuals and groups to compete—whether for food, land, or opportunities.
Even if the NWO exists and promotes a specific agenda, competition itself isn't something you can just "think outside of."
It's a fundamental aspect of life because of the finite nature of our world. Sure, we can reduce destructive competition by promoting cooperation and fairness, but we can't escape the basic reality that limited resources drive competition.
In a hypothetical world where we existed outside of space and time, maybe competition wouldn't be necessary. But in the real world we inhabit, competition has always been present, long before any modern power structures like the NWO.
So, it's less about thinking "outside the NWO box" and more about understanding how competition naturally arises from the constraints we live under, and then figuring out how to balance it with collaboration and shared goals for a better society.
If you want a simple example of natural competition, just look at an expressway.
As more people get on the road, the available space becomes limited.
Since there’s only so much physical room in each lane, drivers naturally begin competing for space.
This leads to frustration and tension, which is why road rage can happen.
This is a perfect example of how natural competition arises in our 3D world.
The scarcity of physical space on the road creates competition, and it’s not something orchestrated—it happens organically due to the limitations of our environment.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
What are these made of and where do they reside?
And which brain are you talking about?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
Some links:
https://hameroff.arizona.edu/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33232193/
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Let me clarify my point.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find: “It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Edit: found the first quote, Aristotle on democracy, diversity and Philia: https://www.reddit.com/r/democracy/comments/a1vp64/i_feel_aristotle_was_correct_in_his_assessment_of/
Well said.
"Muh diversity" has been promoted by jews for the purpose of destroying the White race through miscegenation (race mixing).
Muhammad Ali said it well:
"You're a hater of your people if you don't want to stay who you are."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4
“Diversity is our strength” is the greatest lie of our modern age and such a hard frame for us to break because the programming is so strong.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
LOL!
It has already worked??
THEN WHY THE HELL DOES SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO THE STATES???
Do you know how many EUROS have left their land to move to the US???
Isn't EUROPE a UPTOPIA of whiteness?
You have all you need.
Only on Q comment here. I can not upvote you enough
Skin color tribalism is retarded.
especially because if you go full tard, whites lose. 80% of the world is not "white"
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
WHO gets credit for BUILDING SOCIETY?
For Example: The first coders at Microsoft who built Windows 3.1. Do they get credit for building MS?
What about the coders that came later to the company?
So when you say it's built by whites?
How are you determining that?
The country was founded by White people.
The first immigration act was limited to White people.
The industrial revolution, which created more wealth, prosperity, and freedom than any other society in the history of the world, was built by White people.
The Rule of Law principles that made it all possible were envisioned and enacted by White people.
I don't care about a specific computer program or other similar minutiae.
I'm talking the BIG PICTURE OF WORLD HISTORY.
WHO gets credit in BUILDING something sir!
The industrial revolution was success because of PATIENT LAWS. Before PATIENT LAWS it was common for ideas to get STOLEN!!
You no... someone taking credit for an idea. This was very common.
Without idea protection laws. Innovation cannot happen.
Someone will steal the idea.
And you said "I'm talking the BIG PICTURE OF WORLD HISTORY."
LOL!!!!
Are you fucking serious dude?
COME ON!
I am starting to think you might be a fed here.
The whole point of this message board is the GREAT AWAKENING.
What does that mean?
To understand that HISTORY and everything we have been taught is LIES by the Cabal.
The Euro HIstory you are referring to has been financed, influenced and controlled by the CABAL!!
The Cabal has been running the world for 1000s of years.
So now all of sudden you TRUST their versions of WORLD HISTORY!!!
Look man. You just don't like BLACK people.
It's ok.. it's not the end of the world.
I gave you a list of black inventors. And you IGNORED that.
That's the problem with BIASED folks like you.
You will say "WHITES BUILD AMERCIA".
Then when I ask you to describe what build means. You cannot.
Then when I show you examples of black contribution. You ignore it.
I can take it that you don't spend anytime on researching Black/African inventors.
You are already BIASED. So how would you know black inventors when most likely you aren't spending any time researching it.
And even if you found evidence. You most likely would dismiss it as nothing.
And let me emphasize this once again!
Who truly gets credit for building a nation?
For example, you might come up with a groundbreaking idea, but to bring that idea to life, you need a whole network of people—administrators to manage the process, laborers to do the physical work, and financiers to provide the necessary resources.
Take Trump, for instance. His name might be on buildings, but he wasn’t out there in construction gear laying bricks or wiring the electrical systems. It took a team of people working together in different roles to make those buildings a reality.
In short, no single person or group builds a nation on their own. It’s the combined effort of all these key players that makes it possible.
And you said
"The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds."
BULLSHIT!!!
I am yelling BULLSHIT at the top of my voice.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS A TRAVEL and TOURIST INDUSTRY!!!
WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE GO OUT TO BARS, GAMES, ETC.
They are looking to SOCIALLY INTERACT with OTHER PEOPLE!!!
Are you suggesting that people just want to stay at home in their own area forever?
When I went to the Air Show in Chicago. There were 1000s of people out there.
I was with a white buddy of mine. We met some cool people during the show.
MEETING new people is a SOCIAL EXPERIENCE that humans naturally seek.
Which is why the LOCKDOWNS were so bad for kids. Why is it important for kids to SOCIALIZE with other kids???
So they can build bonds!!
What the hell are you talking about????
Humans are SOCIAL CREATURES.
When whites saw Michael Jordan play ball. Do you not think that a lot wanted to meet him???
Good for you, but let me tell you this:
If I am telling you what I want or what I don't want, then I don't give a fuck what YOU think I SHOULD want.
Period.
And GOOD LUCK with trying to ENFORCE what you want?
I am not going to stick to a piece of land because you hate the DARKIES.
The only thing you are going to get. Is a bunch of people calling you a racist.
LOL!!! So don't get mad at the far left when they call you a white supremacist after your WHITE POWER bullshit comment.
The world is moving on past people who think like you. The black power crazies are getting pushed to the side as well.
What you don't understand. Your mindset is the same as the SOCIAL JUSTICE racial equality none sense. You are just an OPPOSSITE EXTREME!
I'll let you get back to night sticking the color folks.
How are you DEFINING who has BUILD a nation?
Who is responsible for building a nation?
Precisely, basic maga/q people love 2a...
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
Q is worldwide, no way around it.
This response of yours is confusing. It sounds like you are speaking of the findings of tribal societies being spread throughout the world, not of people giving up their tribal heritage.
THANK YOU!!
Those that disagreed with me proved my point!
One anon instantly said that "Whites invented most of everything good". See what that mindset did?
This anon automatically assumed that his ethnic group of people are SUPERIOR than everyone else.
When in reality. Patient laws weren't around 100s of years ago.
Stealing ideas and taking credit for ideas happened a ton.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
If you believe that I am think "tribal heritage as a closed society". You are reading into this wrong.
When I said
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
This is referring to ADAPTING one's mindset to new information.
So if someone wants a pure ethnic state. They most likely want that because they are fearful of "others".
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
I pray for them.
What they don't understand. The Cabal has brainwashed them to the opposite extreme.
They see themselves as "Morally Correct" to save their own race. What they don't realize. That's the Cabal playing both sides.
Pure speculation on my part:
Most Jewish people have been taken in by the Money-Lenders" just like the rest of us. They already had financial centres that were under their control and not the country they were in. For instance, The Fed, the City of London - the "square mile", and the Bank of International Settlement in Switzerland, but what they also needed was a bolt-hole in case it all went pear-shaped.
So, identify yourself as a Jew, create a country just for Jews then you have a bolt-hole should you ever need it.
Also, the Money-Lenders can use the Jewish population for their own ends. Kill a few here and there and claim victim status and make it so they can never be criticised. So now, no-one can even speak out against you because you can play the "anti-semitic" card.
Who said: "You know who is in charge by who you are not allowed to criticise?" Anyone who tries to oppose the Money-Lenders' money-making projects ends up either dead or their country goes to war and the money-making systems are re-installed afterwards.
Correct, jews like George soros were happy to round up other jews as it was "happy time" and "good for business"
Just like they did 911 for us to attack their enemies through their puppet dick Cheney
Far more than speculation, fren, this is imo exactly what has been done. This is a short, but precise description of the ruling powers. There's more to it, the families, the Vatican, sure, but the Khazarian "Jews", the Money-Lenders, are the executive branch, and they shielded themselves by what you describe. If you can't get after them, you cant reach the ones behind, many problems solved.
Very good speculation but for further facts Mike King of Real News and History.com is awesome. Read all his books and they are easy and concise and will make you RETHINK all the History you have been taught. He is also a regular on Rumble channels like NewsTreason and UntoldHistoryChannel
Who else besides jews feel a need for a bolt-hole for their people?
Only jews.
And why?
Because, even if subconsciously, they know how much damage they have done to everyone else in the world for centuries/millennia.
That's as good an explanation ad I've ever heard. Well said.
The TRUTH about WW2 are FINALLY being exposed on many fronts. Historians like Darryl Cooper on Tucker, Mike King on so many Rumble truthers, and so many more, NOW have been unleashed.
Q told us about WWI and WWII in history books.
Something ALARMING will be discovered.
u/#q1957
THANKS for bringing up this post. Started going deeper as a result BUT then you had to look. NOW it is in everyone,s face. And ALARMING it is.
Will you summarize what has changed in WWI/WWII in history books published over the last 20-30 years?
There were no mention of victims of Holocaust like in 6 of Churchill's books,
now I understand why so much fuss about this interview, it basically denies all of their efforts in the last 124 years !
Yes please-this q post always confused me because everything could be ALARMING-just how much more informative/intelligent the older books are.
What’s portrayed/discussed differently over the years about ww?
the 'holocaust'...
Interesting. What was different from the earlier books ?
it's not there...
if you get an H encyclopedia, and search that term, you won't find the story we've been told. our history is not what it seems,
especially with the world wars, etc.
History books published in the 1950's/1960's do not mention "muh Holocaust."
Weird, huh?
They even had a COMEDY TV show about a German prison camp ("Hogan's Heros") in the 1960's.
I loved that show, always thought Hogan was so smart & handsome;)
as for the 'comedy', I remember reading a quote about the 'Ghost Dance' movement of the late 1800's...the author said once the average housewives weren't afraid of the Ghost Dance, and instead interested in the steps, they knew their battle was over.
I think HH's played a similar role, to get us to see the war in a malleable way, loose with any real facts.
You could never have a show like that today, though, because the jews would be crying their tears.
My point was that nobody knew about "muh Holocaust" until many years later, when the fake story ramped up, culminating in "Schindler's List."
But that was a work of fiction. The book won "Best Fiction" by LA Times a few years before they turned it into a movie. They promoted it like it was a documentary (hence, the black-and-white filming for drama). But the entire thing was made up. The book even says it is a work of fiction, and all events are a creation of the author's mind.
wow i didn't know that about the movie! never watched it, was too 'popular' for me...
i do remember my 6th grade teacher in the 70's telling us about the 'lampshades' etc. but she was liberal, and the only teacher that mentioned such things until i was in college...they had us read that Victor Frankl book.
https://s5.postimg.cc/lqcdpqbqf/swindlers_list.jpg
💯
I like how this was 6 years ago almost to the week!
I've always wondered about what specifically Q is pointing out. I have tons of history books, most focused on WW2. Has anyone taken the Q history book challenge and can post the differences?
What happened? I know Mark Cuban retweeted Elon to remove the video.
Cuban is a jackass who loves censorship over free speech.
Interesting early life he had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban
Yep, this part is pretty interesting.
Every time lmao
Weird how I didn’t notice this info.
They probably don’t like this either.
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1831446417149161816
Candace Owens quoting scripture in debate with rabbi.
They took multiple hits yesterday. BTW RFK Jr got involved in this and looks like Candance and RFK Jr might have a debate on Piers Morgan.
Man, its getting so interesting.
Great video.
"Saving Israel for last."
Pick one of the 13 tribes israel not named Judah or Levi
Graft yourself into that tribe through the blood of Jesus. Or rather let the blood of Jesus graft you in.
Congratulations you are now a descendent of Shem.
You by default cannot be anti shemetic or anti.Semitic
Insult away at the tribe of Judah
I'm Scottish descendent I picked Ephraim
They hated me for this ..... hated me lol
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be implying that Judah was a jew, as many people have been taught.
That is false.
He was an Israelite (not jew), just like his brothers, as they were all sons of Jacob/Israel.
It's kinda weird when people pick one particular brother out of the 12 and claim he was a different ethnicity, when there is nothing at all in scripture to suggest such a thing.
Just one of the many jew lies.
It's incredibly weird. With the insult I landed he immediately shifted from anti semetic to anti Jewish. It was such an important tell to witness.
I agree that Judah was an Israelite. Are you suggesting that the term jew comes from something else and not the name Judah?
Yes. Sort of ...
From Benjamin Freeman, who was a high level jew, in the sense of knowing and having international meetings with the jewish world leadership. Later, he basically renounced Judaism.
His words are from his perspective, and I do not believe he had it entirely right, but here he explains in detail where the word "jew" comes from, and why it is incorrectly used in our English versions of the Bible.
He said (taking snippets here -- the entire discussion is on the website):
... and a "jew" was one who lived in the Roman province of Judea, during the time of Jesus, whether they were an Israelite, a Judahite, an Edomite or a Canaanite or a Hittite, or a Chinaman.
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/The_Etymology_of_the_Word_%22Jew%22
Interesting thank you for the clarity.
The only thing I disagree with is the characterization of Babylon being conquerors. I think that if Judah then was anything like Judah of today then the Assyrians were welcomed as liberators and emancipators.
Can someone summarize the interview points?
(I'm sure I can guess a few)
https://x.com/i/status/1830652074746409246
There is a good documentary I'm trying to find right now for you guys. In it a historian is talking about how the Ottoman Empire used to be the client-state of Jews who were known to be extremely good at infiltrating, subverting, and destroying-from-within other countries. Until they turned on their client-state and brought it down. That ended an empire that lasted 800–1000 years. Going from memory here but I'll try to find it.
Check out "Protocols of the elders of Zion"
Short answer: No.
Way too much content to summarize...
Meh I honestly didn’t think so. I was hoping for him to really dive into detail of what the Germans suffered through Weimar and the details of concentration camps if they really gassed or not. He just glosses over the subjects and goes more into blacks in Jonestown for a bit and then about migration. A bit of a let down tbh
You CANNOT summarize the ENTIRE WW2 narrative being dismantled on ALL fronts. Pun intended.
I saw another thread on the show Trial of Ernst Zundel.
Great video interview red pills, even some Jewish academics had the balls to say the gas chambers never happened and call out the farcical lies.
https://nitter.poast.org/TheOfficial1984/status/1831479720116167024
Still can’t believe the amount of progress made in the direction of truth. Everyday more and more are being redpilled and more are speaking the truth. The base has grown so much in the last year and with growing ranks critical mass needed for change will be achieved
Churchhill was a Freemason. Jay Watson of IBM was also a Freemason. According to Edwin Black, a Jewish Historian, the IBM machines were used fo target certain Jews & purge them.
Edwin Black got death threats for his research, why is that? Because two things can be true at the same time: certain Jews, mostly Torah Jews were targetted for extermination, but the 6Million figure is bogus.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-KQwiHOimhc&t=619s&pp=ygUYRWR3aW4gYmxhY2sgaWJtICBtYWNoaW5l
I think WWII was a global Holocaust (burnt offering) of Torah Jews, Christians and Oriental Gentiles .
You meant saying Christians and Torah Jews targeted by Talmud Jews ???
Yes, that is what I mean, a global holocaust of Christians & Torah believing Jews. WWII was a Judeo-Masonic coup. American Freemason Oligarchy, the British Crown, and Talmudic (frankist, Kazzarian, Caananite?) Jews were involved.
Hitler was Jewish, according to Russia:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Il9L-Wf2r30
According to Edwin Black, IBM machines targetted certain Jews but not all Jews.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-KQwiHOimhc&t=619s&pp=ygUYRWR3aW4gYmxhY2sgaWJtICBtYWNoaW5l
Nobody was targeted for extermination. That is the Big Lie.
The communists were targeted to be expelled from Germany, and ideally all of Europe. Just so happens the communist leadership was almost all jews (just like 20 years earlier in Russia).
Hitler even made a deal with jewish leadership to transport them out of Germany and into Palestine. Several thousand made that trip before England declared war on Germany, and they had to shift gears.
I have studied World War II quite a bit. I always thought Germany Declared war on England first. This is basic stuff. How in the hell did I not know Great Britain died at war first? World War II, England (Great Britain) declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, following Germany's invasion of Poland; essentially, Britain responded to Germany's declaration of war by declaring war back on them.
It SHOULD be basic stuff, but is not.
Germany NEVER declared war on England or France -- all the way to the end.
The only country Germany declared war on was the United States, and that was after the United States declared war on Germany.
Hitler tried to make peace with England and France during the entirety of the war.
Regarding the invasion of Poland, you have been lied to about that, as well.
Following WW1, parts of Germany were taken away. A western slice was given to France. A southern slice was given to Czechoslovakia. An eastern chunk was given to Poland.
Hitler was taking back what had been stolen from Germany, but only those areas where the people living there (who were ethnic Germans, not French, Czech, or Poles) wanted to reunite with Germany.
In Poland, the jews who were running it were robbing, beating, raping, torturing, and murdering ethnic Germans who had lived there for decades (at least), but were now suddenly under Polish rule, due to the Treaty of Versaille.
The Germans living there were treated brutally, and Hitler wanted to put a stop to it. He asked 23 countries to support him in a diplomatic solution, including England and France.
Everyone ignored him, so he finally put a stop to it himself by sending in his military.
That was what England used as justification to declare war on Germany. Churchill set him up by encouraging the brutality of the German people.
Watch this video, straight from Hitler's own words in his speeches (with English subtitles). This is a part of history you were never told:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GvJVRJdPi9K8
You’re missing an important fact that taken away … given to Poland actually means: returned back to Poland after dozens of years of Germany occupying these territories that (originally belonged to Poland) and were taken away by Germany during the Patritions of Poland to the level that Poland disappeared from the map for a long time. Only the determination of generations of Polish people allowed Poland to rise again in 1918 when Polish people simply took their country back:
Well, the whole region of today's Germany, Poland, and central Europe, was for hundreds of years, made up of 200-300 little kingdoms.
Over time, they consolidated, eventually forming large kingdoms, then more modern "states."
The point for Hitler was that the territory that had been part of Germany, which had become part of Poland after WW1, was made up of 90% ethnic Germans, and they were being massacred by the Poles (read: Bolshevik jews).
His purpose for going into Poland was to put a stop to the atrocities, after asking other world leaders to help, but getting no response.
What other choice did he have?
Most of it isn’t correct either. Let me give you the facts:
Poland exists as a country from AD 966 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Poland#Baptism
You can see the territory on the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieszko_I#Acquisitions_in_the_east
No 200-300 kingdoms.
The map looks very close to the one recovered in 1918 after WW1.
The proportion was exactly the opposite. After the last Partition and land takeover Germans were trying to Germanise all Poles, starting from schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions
They’ve tried for almost 100 years and yet after 5 generations people were able to speak Polish, beat the occupying forces and take the country back. I can’t believe you think 10% would do it after 5 generations of slavery.
There were no atrocities. The proper name to describe what happened is: sabotage and false flag run by organised groups of Germans to give Hittler a pretext for future aggression.
Just think about the logistics of it. Could Hitler just respond to “atrocities” and have hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready on the border the day he got “angry”? It took months to prepare, move the soldiers, tanks, ships.
He asked Stalin for help. Later it was determined that it’s been agreed between Germany and Soviets to divide the territory of Poland again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
It was Poland who was trying to prevent the war and seeking help, e.g. from UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance
A lot of modern modern "historians" and those who create historical maps seem to lump together a lot of things.
Here is a map of many kingdoms of Germany, as an example:
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2142083443567827736/57C2E60E1CE468E3A379F407B0BBCC13E4D6D39E/?imw=512&&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false
One could lump them all together and call it "Germany," but that would not be entirely accurate.
I read about "tribes" in Poland, so I don't know if they had something similar or if it was one big territory.
But this is all BESIDE THE POINT of why Hitler went into Poland.
In Hitler's own words, with graphic evidence, for why he went into Poland:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GvJVRJdPi9K8
It did take months. It all started in May and he went in in September.
If I remember right, he asked 23 countries, including England, France, and the US -- meaning, they all knew what was going on and why he ultimately went into Poland. They were just waiting for him to move in, so they could justify war.
People can watch the link I posted -- speeches in Hitler's own words, along with the responses by England and Poland.
Or ... they can rely on your Wikipedia links. Good luck with that!
Communist & the Nazi's were a two-pronged approach to destablize Christian society in order to arrive at the synthesis the Globalist wanted. The very same two-pronged approach being used today on Americans. Both Communists & Nazi's were funded by international bankers & Freemason (gentile) industrialists. Hitler was not a good guy; he was a puppet & a Jew himself. This is not me saying this, this is Russia's head of State: ;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A0PY72pWXRI&pp=ygUYTGF2cm92IGhpdGxlciB3YXMgamV3aXNo
Hitler was a Judus goat that led millions of good American & European men & women to their destruction. Yes it is true that Hitler hunted down Freemason foot soldiers but that is only after they served their purpose.
▪️Explain to me why the English sent their men to the slaughter house, meanwhile, King George the VIII (Freemason) honeymooned in Germany & was an avid Nazi Sympathizer that abdicated the thrown?
▪️Explain to me why Freemasons like Ford, Watson helped the German war effort but never got repremanded for aiding the enemy?
▪️Explain to me why Freemason FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked?
▪️Explain why Skull & Bonesmen Senator Prescott Bush was involved in bankrolling Hitler? You think Skull & Bones were the "good guys" too?
▪️Explain why Freemason Truman helped found the UN & Israel.
WWII was a Judeo-Masonic plot orchestrated to destroy individual nation states and set the stage for WWIII, per Freemason Albert Pikes letter to Mazzini in 1871.
That is a bunch of nonsense.
Going back to "Mein Kampf," it is clear that Hitler was a Christian. One of the reasons he hated the jews was because they hated Christianity.
He built churches in Germany and, later, in Ukraine.
He made going to Church a high priority (though not mandatory) for the Hitler Youth.
Hitler was not a jew. That is jew propaganda. He actually imprisoned one of the Rothschild bankers for stealing from the Austrian people.
He made usury illegal in Germany.
He shut down all the jewish degeneracy from brothels to gay houses to anti-social "art" of the jews. Homosexual left Germany because they could no longer be free to do their thing in Berlin, which was the European capital of degeneracy during the Weimar years.
You don't seem to have paid much attention to that video you posted. He makes only one short comment about Hitler, and says ...
"If I remember right, I may be wrong, but Hitler also had jewish origins."
He was referring to Zelensky being a jew, and made this offhand comment that was not any sort of in-depth analysis of Hitler, and even said, he might be WRONG.
He IS wrong.
Everything about Hitler points AWAY from him being jewish. Maybe jews/Mossad/CIA want you to believe it, but the evidence for such a claim is not there.
Long before he because a public figure, he wrote about his Christianity.
Ford was a supporter of Germany because he knew how nasty te jews were, as they were behind the murder of millions of Christian Russians.
I'm sure other Americans knew the same things Ford knew -- all they had to do was read what he wrote:
"The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" by Henry Ford:
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-International-Jew-The-Worlds-Foremost-Problem.pdf
As for FDR, Bush, and Truman, they were all garbage.
Bush had his banking assets taken by the US government for violating the "Trading with the Enemies Act," and his father, Samuel (close friends with the Rockefellers) was accused of something similar in WW1.
The Bush family are prostitutes for the Rockefellers/Rothschilds, and that explains everything they do -- they will hook for money, in whatever way they must.
("Please clap.")
LOL.
There is much propaganda about history -- ESPECIALLY about Hitler.
We have ALL been lied to about a lot of things.
It takes a critical mind to analyze all the conflicting information out there.
I encourage you to consider another perspective.
Here is a perspective from someone who actually lived there during the time:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iEP3VtQ9ZTbR/
You simply dismiss all of the valid points because you WANT Hitler to be your hero. Hilter was a Pagan, he was no Christian. While the WASP elites were helping Hitler rise to power, The Catholic Pope had three failed assassination attempts on him because he was persecuting Catholics in Germany:
▪️https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/33363/the-astonishing-secret-history-of-the-pope-who-fought-hitler
Hitler's right hand man, Himmler was a notorious occulist.Himmler ordered a branch of the SS to carry out a massive survey of witch-hunt trial records in Europe. His SS troops combed 260 libraries and archives to find traces of the witch trials of the Middle Ages. According to academics, Himmler was on a mission to prove that the prosecution of witches was tantamount to an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to wipe out the German race.
▪️https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=RQRPM2921451
Yeah... real Christian, sure buddy!
Sorry, he was no Hero, he was a Jewish puppet & a homosexual as well. The respected German historian Lothar Machtan even claims in his book that Hitler ordered the deaths of several high-ranking Nazis to prevent the secret of his homosexuality from surfacing.
Ernst Röhm, the leader of Hitler's Sturm Abteilung or Storm Troopers, tried to blackmail Hitler by threatening to reveal his sexuality. Röhm, who was also gay, was murdered as a result, according to Machtan, a history teacher at Bremen University. Exactly like Zelenski, a gay Jewish Puppet that leads the Azov Nazi Battalion today & has the unwavering support of the Judeo-Masonic Western establishment today!
Are you gonna say Zelenski is a "good guy" too? 🤣
I dismissed your "source" of a "Russian minister" because HE SAID HE MIGHT BE WRONG in an offhand comment -- nothing at all to do with an in-depth analysis.
That was a stupid "source" to try and prove your point.
He wrote about being a Christian IN HIS OWN BOOK -- long before he rose to power, when he was a lowly corporal in the Army.
But it looks like your mind is made up.
So, have a good day.
Likewise! Have fun idolizing the likes of Jewish homo Nazi's like Zelenski, hope that works out for you!
Deus vult, my dude.
What is your definition of gentile? The upper echelons of Masons follow another who is not the Christian God.
Gentile is a racial term. The upper Echelon of "Jews" are semetic Caananite tribe that inner-married and grafted themselves into the Royal line of David after King Solomon married the Caananite women. The same Dynasty that helped build the second Temple that Freemasons reviere & are attempting to help erect the 3rd Temple. Freemasons are the Gentile foot soldiers; the Big Bosses are the Moabite, Caananite, Hetite family bloodline:
https://www.nytimes.com/1955/10/25/archives/canaanite-shrine-is-found-in-israel-rothschild-expedition-digs-up.html
I personally believe that the Jews that remained religously "Jewish" after the advent of Jesus, did so under the premise that they were seduced by worldly power promised to them in their corrupted Religion & they remain under that seductive promise made in the Babylonian Talmud. However, they themselves are pawns & will be chewed up & spit out just like they were during WWII. The Messiah they are waiting / working towards, is the Anti-Christ.
Israel was established by the Judeo-Freemasons to be the battleground of Armageddon, were all three Abrahmic Religions will be dooped into mutually destroying each other, paving the way for the one world Lucifarian Religion:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QrKKKHk7HRY
Among many other brave people, Candace Owens surely had a hand in exposing the dual nature of those who call themselves Jews.
The internet is turning out to be exactly what team dark does NOT want, and that is a population that actually communicates with and learns from one another.
Too late! Too many cats are escaping their bags all at once. The unruly things just won't go back in, and animal control is simply overwhelmed.
Muh feelz Eggzactly. But that also increases my bet that full on false flag cyber attack is inevitable, if not imminent. Hence, “archive offline.”
Churchill claims on tucker? What interview?
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1830652074746409246
Hitler was right.
Humility is a mirror. To those who see a humble person might see a person who has a big ego. The world will hate good by default. This psychological thing is within all humans.
When I was in kindergarten I believe they were doing psychological tests on us. They would blindfold the kids and have reach into jars and taste test what we felt.
To me I got crunchy peanut butter and to this day i remember this event.
Because of this even I hate peanut butter. I have never bought it. I love peanuts though.
For years I struggled with why I hate peanut butter so much and would see other people happily eating it. Then I remembered the thing they did in kindergarten, by this time I was older and the damage was done.
One day my wife asks me to buy peanut butter and I refused. No way am I going to buy that sickness. The most nastiest thing I can think of is crunchy peanut butter and eating it.
She says there is also creamy peanut butter and she too hates crunchy peanut butter.
My mind was blown. Yet I now accept there is two types and yet I will never buy neither, but I love peanuts.
Psychological seed planting is a very real thing and I like to reference Paul in the Bible where he said he dies daily. We have much wrong with all of us and only those who proclaim they are the most best are to me the crunchy peanut butter. :)
Would my outlook on peanut butter have been different if I got the creamy peanut butter way back in kindergarten?
We got a Nutella-job here boys... 😂😂😂
Europeans don't really do peanut butter either...
I do like toast and jam...
The world hates good by default
Yes but it's not psychological
You do not have to teach lying or stealing to anyone these are default attributes of humanity.
Yep. So is being honest and loving. The intersection is injected with seeds and only a few will be able to see. Many are called but few are chosen. Jesus says this. To reveal this wickedness requires Jesus and His Father along with His Holy Spirit.
I do not call it balance. That too is a sleight of hand magic trick. Evil never wants balance and good wants perceived balance. Jesus says He will puke out the Lukewarm.
Evil seeds that Good people are all whack jobs and weak minded people.
Nothing I can do to change how good and evil battle but I do know balance is not the answer. This is what makes USA so great. This is why evil hates the Bill of Rights.
I feel the same revulsion toward mayonnaise on my sandwiches, tho I can tolerate it okay in a potato or macaroni salad. Taste is okay. It’s the appearance/texture grosses me out.
Did you happen to be in GATE or TAG in your youth? Whole different rabbit hole.
lol. I am just a normal person that grew up with real chaos.
The psychological thing when I was young was that children were not credible. So when things like Moms boyfriends and such would do things like lock me in dark rooms for hours or if one would rape me — the child has a sense of security in the fact that nothing can be done because the child is not credible.
The same evil that is censoring/mocking millions of USA citizens is the same evil I grew accustomed to when I was a child.
If one mocks me or threatens me to this day my very first reaction is to smile at them as an old friend. I got my very first covid test the other day where they rape your nose—I laughed at the nurse. It tickled. I had surgery some months ago now and I am having issues so I needed a xray because I fell and my toes are tingling. Worthless test but for others that is a form of torment.
For me I learned to forgive and I believe in Jesus. Many children like me became lost in law and most on the wrong side of the law. Many are no longer alive.
How many today can even say they have gone through what I have? I am sure there is many. However most people do not comprehend the evil that lurks behind a beautiful smile and of late a laughing hyena that changes their voice.
Half my family is Jew and the other half is from the UK and Poland. All 3 have much of the same culture of deception. Is it DNA or is it taught…
Those studies want to figure out if it is dna. They love twins for that reason.
Cos they are worried that people are waking up and realizing that moustache fella may have had a point and that we in fact have the same enemy...
Get ready....Everyone's reality is crashing down
Aww ...He big mad his propeller fell off somewhere. Prolly scraped it in the tunnels...
I try to keep an open mind about my reality. But I have been programmed to believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and you should not mess with them.
˗ˏˋ ✞ ˎˊ˗
But who are the "Jews" today? Are they the same peoples of yesteryears? From which of the twelve tribes, or none of the twelve tribes? I don't have the answer.
Do you mean Satan?
KEK. I see what you did there.
Speaking of lies. The modern day Jews are not, and have never been, God's Israel people as proven by the bible, history and even Jewish writings. As a people they are anti-Christ. By their own writings, 90% are of Khazar, Ashkenaz descent through Japheth. Esau is Edom, Genesis 36. "Edom is in modern Jewry", The Jewish Encyclopedia. 9% are of Edomite, Canaanite descent. These are the descendants of those who argued with Christ and saw to Christ's death. See what Christ told them in John 8 and 10. They admitted they were not Israelites and Christ told them they were not. Blessing God's enemies brings punishment to us. 2 John 1:7, 9-11 and 2 Chronicles 19:2. The elite treat the rest as they do everyone else.
jews have been brainwashed by the Rothschild banking mafia just like Christians
I don't think I've seen a thread on GA until this one with so many verbose/long responses.... interesting 🤔
i have long awaited this day. ive kept tabs on how receptive everyone here has been to the holohoax and jewish supremacism, seems the tide has been turning even here in the past year or two. i think their weird NYC tunnels maybe planted seeds of doubt. anyways, jesus is love, jesus is life, amen.
Protip: They're not "just now" realizing.
Oh man, this thread. 🔥
Hitler was right.
That tucker looks like a misinfo play. Like theyre trying to steer TheGreatNoticing away from jews.
FOR ALL THOSE WHO DOWNVOTED ME!
That's cool.
This is my line of thinking that I am sticking with.
===============================================
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
it is literary false,
my ancestors survived 2000+ years on identity alone...We still speak the ancient language they were Thracians, Free Dacians, too free and in nature to create cities and strict structures for organized state. They would have succeeded if technology was quicker but instead they embraced brothers who created Roman empire... And fought them too. (countless of other conquerors and forces and we are still there)
So break down that identity in a list.
Tell me how their identity helped them survive?
What are they surviving from?
War? Disease?
other,competing,people, communities,tribes ..... bloodlines ¬
Everyone is competiting against everyone.
If a man likes an attractive woman. He most likely will have to compete with other men of the same tribe.
This competition will cause every men to fight for himself. Group team work happens only when a person see a self benefit to work in a group.
If I asked you to help me work on my personal finance tool. If you see no personal benefits.
You will say no. .
Where in your "human brain is a computer" theory is there room for a soul?
Where is there room for aspiring to greatness or meaning in life?
It does not exist.
We have tried your "let's get rid of tradition and progess to the next step of humanity" and guess what?
IT HAS BEEN A FUCKING FAILURE.
Sure, if you are from the poverty of Mexico or Bangladesh or Ivory Coast, and you can get a free ticket into a White country, currently run by sympathizers who give you free gibs, then from your perspecitve it looks great.
But ... this situation is a SUFFOCATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE THE INNATE ABILITY TO BUILD A SOCIETY. In the end, everybody loses.
All we see from the "others" is an ability to tear down and destroy a society -- or, at best, to live as a free rider.
Why don't you go to Aurora, Colorado, and take up residence in one of those Venezuelan gang apartment complexes? Let us know how your "cultural diversity" (read: "racial diversity," which is what you REALLY mean, but don't have the moral or intellectual integrity to SAY it out loud) experiment works out.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
What are you talking about here?
The whole DIVERSITY is our strength is a PSYOP pushed to make us want to racially SEPERATE.
The Cabals goals is NOT RACIAL UNITY!!
Which is why they Cabal is trying to
When you say it's not working.
You are basing that OFF OF NEWS and SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT!!!
If what you say was true.
Blacks, Asians, Whites and Latinos would be FIGHTING EACH OTHER at corporate work place.
NFL players who come from all walks of life. Would not be able to take MENTORSHIP advice from a different ethnicity coach.
My GOD!
Some ANONS here really fucking raise my blood pressure.
We preach one minute that the Cabal is FAKE NEWS and PSYOPing us with 5 GEN WAREFUL of "US" vs "THEM" content.
Then I see some anons FALLING for the "US" vs "THEM" content.
It's moving from ONE EXTREME of FORCE diversity. To the other EXTREME of no diversity.
That's what the Cabal wants!
WTF?
"Diversity" (i.e. mix together) is the OPPOSITE of "Separation."
Cabal wants maximum "diversity" (read: race mixing, no honoring of one's culture, and anything that will destroy one's connection to history -- they want this ONLY for White people).
Sure, they want to divide and conquor, but they also want to destroy the White race by "diversity" of race-mixing and cultural erasure.
You don't get it: The White race, like it or not, is the only race in history that has built civilizations, created inventions, and is a threat to a small group of people who want to dominate the world. Without Whites, everybody else loses -- except the Cabal.
I don't hate non-Whites. I recognize that we have ALL been propagandized.
I also recognize that Whites don't really need non-Whites, but non-Whites do need Whites. Or not (see: Africa).
The Cabal's push for "muh diversity" is not to bring the best of the best together to make for a better world. That's just the surface propaganda, similar to creating all sorts of bullshit wordsmithing around why we "need" a central bank. They can't come right out and say they want to steal your wealth. They have to make up some bullshit that people will accept because most people don't really think it through.
Same is true for destroying the race that stands in their way. Can't come right out and say it (unless your name is Kalergi ... but then, who would believe such an outrageous "conspiracy theory?").
LOL!!
You really think they only want whites gone!!
LOL!!!
They want only 500,000,000 people left dude.
I asked you a simple question. WHO gets credit for building something???? PLEASE TELL ME THIS!!!
NO.. the CABAL KNOWS that whites are going to get mad with the DEI bullshit. Do you not think the CIA and intel agenices thought ahead of time about the impacts of DEI???
The Cabal cannot control a UNITED people.
The Cabal wants to bring in a POLICE state using CAMERAS and SCANNING,
In order to bring in this police state. They want TRIBAL battles.
If what you see is true.
A. Why isn't the Cabal promoting Thomas Sowell?? B. Why is the Cabal bringing in iilegals in all black areas? C. Why is the Cabal PUSHING BLACKS to push for RACIAL SEPERATION in colleges?
If they want diversity. Why they doing racism in REVERSE?
Where is the Cabals's "RACIAL UNITY" message?
Thank you for the elightment.
Now I understand why these far left crazies call you a racist.
You aren't racist.
But using the terms like WHITE POWER only gives the Cabal Power. That doesn't hurt my reputation.
It hurts white men like you.
You really have no idea the game the Cabal plays. How they play BOTH sides of the EXTREMES.
The Cabal lives to PUSH both RACE MIXING and RACE SEPERATION at the same time.
If you cannot see this. I pray for you!
The Cabal cannot control a real diverse area that is free to move as they please.
But if you put every ethnic group in their own land. You can map that out on a grid.
Which means you can restrict movement of each group.
Which means you can install your puppet masters in each group.
Which means you can PREDICT where everyone is going to be at.
This is called HURDING people like CATTLE.
This is effective for control.
Because now you have an ID system in place for people. You have a color coded system of
"Black Sheep over there" "White Sheep over there" "Asian Sheep over there" "Latin Sheep over there"
That's called CONTROL!!! buddy.
The Cabal uses RACIAL messaging as a means of CONTROL.
The final outcome is control our movement via 15 cities and Vaccine Passports.
I think most of what you say makes perfect sense and I was surprised how you got radically downvoted.
This whole thread has been a huge eye-opener and caused me to think new thoughts. Thank you for your contributions!
It is certainly a fact that pondering on the jews really gets people going ;)
No problem.
Here is why I got downvoted in my view. I totally understand why people would disagree.
When the Cabal pushes Diversity.
What we have to understand is that they use "Think Tanks" like the RAND Corporation.
They know damn well that whole DEI push would cause for whites who believe in seperation to start to push for it.
They are working 3 angles at the same time.
Angle 1: Force feed whites to accept blacks/browns or else they are racist.
Angle 2: Force out the white seperation believers to start saying whites are under attack. We need our own land.
Angle 3: Use Cabal agitators on social media to stroke the flames from Angle 1 and Angle 2.
Once this is done enough. They are hoping for physical conflicts between blacks and whites.
If the Cabal can get this to happen. They now have an angle to bring in Martial Law to clapse the existing system.
Once they clapse the system.
They will agree that all ethnic groups needs their own land for "PUBLIC SAFETY" reasons.
Once they get all the groups in their own area. Then the whole 15 minute city and surveillance state can be implemented.
Once the 15 minute city and surveillance system is in place. They can now start to roll out the social credit scoring system.
Such as "If you want to leave your racial area... you need to show you are not a threat by having a good social credit score".
BOOM!
They get what they wanted.
I think a lot of white men don't realize that extreme white nationalism is also a Cabal idea.
Extreme white nationalism is just an opposite of extreme cultural diversity.
So when I tell a person that believes in a white only ethnic state. That they are pushing socalism/communism.
They believe that communist only play the left side of the things. Not true... communist play both side of the extremes.
They only care about results. So which ever extreme works.
They will use it.
I think people down voted you because you sound like jewish liberal in disguise.
Let me ask you.
Does the Cabal / Deep State play both sides?
it does look like without them as a "common satanic demons enemy" representatives present in this dimension there will be no progress and change.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all exist based on lies. It's a global security issue which is why the existence of aliens from outer space has been such a secret. That essentially destroys the stupid religions, and these religious whackos would lose their minds. It's "lose" not "loose".
I used to think this way, more than anyone I ever met. Unexplainable circumstances put Jesus in my life. I found the truth about Jesus and my entire life changed the day I put my faith in him.
You can dismiss it, but I never met a person who did a deep dive on the history, the gospels and the prophets and wasn’t a believer.
I with you bolt. Very similar experience
I think the truth is shrouded by layers upon layers of manipulation like the structure of an onion. There are bits of truth in Christianity just as there are bits of truth in Satanism, ancient sumerians, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. There does seem to be a conscious aspect underlying the universe or our experience of it, and that consciousness does not seem to be limited entirely to within our heads. Whatever that means, I don't know, but the idea of God and Jesus is one possibility. Another could be pantheism or panentheism. Or perhaps we live in a simulation like The Truman Show or the Matrix. If that's the case, then there is no knowable reality.
I thought that same way my entire life until 4 years ago.
There is more evidence of Jesus Christ than anything I’ve ever seen. The gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John are the most researched books in history with more cross-referenced material than any other based on eye-witness accounts of over 25,000 manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century. With new findings proving the accuracy of the text, locations, and details every year.
That, coupled with the actions of the apostles and their extreme doubts pre and post crucifixion to their immense faith after the rising of Christ, are unexplainable any other way. They were ruined in their reputations, tortured in horrific ways (crucified upside down, submerged in acid for example) and maintained their faith for no worldly benefits, even after almost all of them doubting Jesus was before he rose. Then to after he came back, they never wavered in their trust.
From the history and my personal experiences from a huge skeptic and ‘agnostic’ to how out of nowhere, I was pulled into faith; the peace and love I feel in my life now, it would be way harder for me to be convinced it was all fake compared to me having even more faith.
I've gone back and forth like that over the years. I was so convinced when I believed the last time. Right now I think my own brain fills in gaps when I want to believe something - like an alter ego that is my own personal evangelical apologist. But when I think of what a world without a God behind it might look like, using causality and randomness, I end up with pretty much the world we live in. That is the only way to explain the gorgeous beauty of the aurora borealis while also explaining the atrocities of childhood leukemia and the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in China. There are extremes at both ends of the spectrum, indicating that no side is truly superior to the other, and that idea wipes out the idea that God is stronger than Satan. Perhaps an equal...but that would fall more in line with Zoroastrianism than Christianity. The Native American story of the Two Wolves has more truth in it than the idea of Jesus saving us all.
If that were the case, then you could not claim that reality exists or that you exist or that your thoughts exist or that your words mean anything.
That is losing touch with reality.
"Reality exists" is an axiom which cannot be denied.
If you deny it, you are hopelessly lost. And that is no way to live.
The problem with simulation theory (which includes Christianity) is that if this is not the real world and is some trial or simulation or cosmic video game or whatever, then there really is no way to prove that ANY reality is real. It could be a dream of a dream of a dream ad nauseum. Perhaps God and the Heavenly Kingdom are another simulation of some higher reality beyond that...and so on and so on. So for argument's sake, either this is the real world or there is no real world.
The fact that you are responding and participating in this forum proves that YOU don't believe that. If you did, you wouldn't bother.
Your fantasy is just as made-up as any religion.
Therefore, you have no real point. You are just making the same argument that you are arguing against, but from a different angle.
Essentially, you are arguing against yourself.
And that is self-contradictory.
And that means it cannot be true.
And that's why we have to get back to a philosophical root of AXIOMS.
If we cannot rely on axioms as a starting point to understand the world we live in, then there is no understanding of anything.
And that is just a stupid way to live.
I think THIS reality is real. I was arguing against simulation theory as a useful theory. If it was true, then nothing can be known to be real. The atheistic stance is that this is all there is. There is no other reality outside of this one.
agree with much of this^ but I think there's a reality outside of this matrix,
and that's why Q posted this verse;
#1886 "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." – Corinthians 13:4-13
and this prayer;
#154
Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Q
we're in a distorted world, separated from God who lives in heaven. Q is helping us to ascend to a better life, without the swamp...
#2450
We are going to show you a new world.
Those who are blind will soon see the light.
A beautiful brave new world lies ahead.
We take this journey together.
One step at a time.
WWG1WGA!
Q
#4963
Runbeck. Dominion. SOS Offices. Investigators. Researchers. Whistleblowers. Patriots in trusted positions. Trust yourself. You have seen the truth. Time to show the world. Focus. FOCUS. Ascension. Q
"Brave New World" is a book about a very NOT good reality.
but Q calls this a 'beautiful brave new world', so I'm assuming it will be differnt than the book.
tthink the book was the blackhat's plan...
I personally like the theory that these religions actually are the aliens.
Elohem
They are. Well, it's a combination of ignorance, aliens, and drugs. Thousands of years ago, people saw strange things (ufos, alien beings, interdimensional beings, etc) and also unwittingly went under the influence of psychotropic drugs, such as the fungal poisoning from ergot that gets into bread. Religious cults explained these occurrances as all having some connection to a spirit realm, and the sky people were labeled as gods or angels or demons, depending on how nice to us they were.
Incidentally, there are a lot of "religious whackos" around these parts... You can't swing a dead cat without hitting 6 of them...
Define "religious whackos", please.
Identifying with a particular spiritual system to the extent that by faith alone, the individual is 100% convinced that their worldview is correct. This oftentimes conflicts with social issues involving individual freedom since many religions seek to spread like a social virus and infect the world.
The Global World is manipulating religions and preventing the Intergalactic travelers from reaching the rest of us…makes sense
Crazy but true.
You make this Global World Order sound like a band of super villains as opposed to incompetent
It's the former at the highest levels and the latter at the lowest levels.