I couldn’t help, but think of Charlie Kirk as I watched this. He had a gift for not only engaging with people like her, but also, often opening their eyes, at least a little.
As enjoyable as it was watching D’Souza correcting her, he didn’t move the needle in opening her mind. And, unfortunately, some number of these people still need to wake up to push the Great Awakening over the tipping point.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think people this far gone can ever be convinced through better arguments. They can only be convinced through ridicule and shaming. You might think ridicule and shaming would never convince you.. but that is probably because you have underlying principles, these people do not.
This is spot on. Those types only respond to emotions. They exist because they have never been bullied as kids and never learned how to process emotions. Most of us growing up had to deal with childhood problems, whether it was bullies or our peers calling us stupid when we said or did stupid things. We learned from those moments and course corrected. Those kids like that now grow up in complete bubbles with no consequences or friction against their own stupidity. Now when they come across an opposing idea, they have complete melt downs. Literally the mind of a child in an adults body.
But he did make her look like the moron she is. Dinesh simply gave her back what she was trying to give him. She wasn't interested in having a dialog. There is a difference.
Yep... I've heard that term used to describe the dual nature of spirit - the melding of male/female, since nobody's essence is 100% one or the other... but the scumbags have twisted that concept into some bapho perversion...
No. We used it for the trannies. They used to go by drag queen. I live in NOLA suburbs. Been drag shows in the French Quarter for a LONG time. I went to one with 2 gay male friends when I was 18 (1983). I was the only real female there. Lol.
D'Sousa wrote a book on fascism, called The Big Lie. I recently re-read it. I highly recommend it. He goes into detail about the differences between fascism and Nazism and gives the history of each. Both are founded by Marxists. Fascism focused on selfish capitalists as the enemy, while Nazism took that idea and basically just said that Jews are the selfish capitalists, who are the enemy. Fascism does not evaluate on ethnicity and many of the founders of fascist philosophy were Jews.
Does it cover the history of what the concept was before World War II, and in Rome, cause it’s real confusing how so much of our old iconography prominently features fasces - Lincoln, Washington, buildings, money, etc.
The Mercury Dime, issued by the United States Mint from 1916 to 1945, has been the subject of many conspiracy theories, including the mistaken belief that it supports Fascism.
It’s as if they changed the meaning to be bad so we’d never look at what was actually done before. Kinda like how a lot of places spoke German exclusively before WWI, then stopped and switched to English afterward. We only discuss Mussolini’s “fascism”, and Hitler’s “fascism”, but what were all the pre-WWII American fasces about?
Like the lamp and the scales, they represented a particular attribute of the classical view of justice: physical power or the ability to impose order.
The architects working on the federal buildings of the 1930s were also extremely conscious of the political symbolism they employed. They often looked to the socialist realism of Europe for inspiration. The Federal Trade Commission building, for instance, completed in 1938, is adorned with socialist-realist reliefs of brawny workers engaged in various industries.
Mussolini was widely admired by Americans for getting Italy back on its feet. “I’m pretty high on that bird,” humorist Will Rogers said of Il Duce after visiting Italy and interviewing Mussolini. “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government—that is, if you have the right dictator.” The rise of fascism appeared to pose no direct threat to U.S. interests, and many saw it as a counterweight to scarier European movements. It was Bolshevism without the collectivization; Nazism without the racism.
There is something goofy going on here, but I don’t know what. Too many -isms and history rewrites, not enough critical thinking.
…
Andrew Mellon, who served as Treasury secretary until 1932, personally oversaw much of the planning and design for it. He was an early and durable Mussolini fan, who, among other things, helped the Italian regime secure favorable terms for its World War I debt. Mellon urged that Italian economic policies be imported into the New Deal.
Hoover recalled that when he took office, Mussolini did not “worry anybody much.” He also expressed the view that fascist Italy would have remained relatively innocuous had it not been “transformed” by its alliance with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
How the fasces survived is a mystery: Americans are sensitive, if not hypersensitive, to any potential endorsement of an enemy’s culture, language, or creed in times of war. In World War I, growers went so far as to rename the humble sauerkraut, innocent of any political connotation, as “liberty cabbage.”
This also assumes that all the architectural fasces were built in the 1920’s, which just happens to be completely outside living memory right now, and just after a lot of historical rewrites had already been begun.
Two years earlier [in 1997], New Jersey spent tens of thousands of dollars repainting the fasces inside the rotunda of Trenton’s late-nineteenth-century capitol dome [~1890].
From another of that guy’s articles…
Did Silver really think New Yorkers would buy it? In Kiev, the city where I was born, ancient and pervasive anti-Semitism made residents specialists in the art of recognizing who is a Jew. Here, most people aren't aware that one can sometimes distinguish Jews through facial features. It's a good thing, and Silver should stop trying to mess it up.
No, there was no mention of the Mercury Dime. I'd never heard of that one before. The birth of Nazism was the Eugenics movement in the USA, and D'Souza goes into great detail about that and how it morphed into the Progressive movement. Unfortunately, he did not take the opportunity to mention the whole Cold Spring Harbor thing in great detail, and only mentions it on one page.
I got pissed that they EXPLICITLY wrote FASCIST ECONOMIC IDEALS into the core operations of the New Deal, then have the gall to call us “fascists”.
These people are nothing but bundles of sticks.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong on this, but the modern definition of “fascism” seems wrong. What it seems to have been historically is “many rods together are not easily broken”. A populist, therefore, would by definition be a “fascist” by virtue of uniting many individuals, and the whole “state ownership of blah blah blah” is irrelevant nonsense.
It’s also hilarious that DEMOCRATS (literally, “rule by the people”) accuse POPULISTS (“drawing authority of/from the people”) of being “fascist”, when those two words (democrat and populist) should effectively mean the same thing, by their grammatical construction.
Really shows that the democrats, in truth, have NOTHING to do with the common man other than drawing on them for exploitation.
If we unite, they call us “fascists”, because they want us divided.
The forces of Ha’Satanwoulddo that, wouldn’t they?
Matthew 12:25-26
Knowing their thoughts, Yeshua said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Ha’Satan casts out Ha’Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
Yes, another brick thrown into the confused (on purpose) jumble of law and 'legal' systems in our countries.
I did "Legal Studies" in high school, and learned that 'common law' meant yes, the precedents set by previous cases. But that's a wholey different beast than the real common law, aka the law of the land, that pertains between all peoples.
effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline
I think this is well stated.
but regarding fasces, are you postulating that the emergence of these in the early 1900s with architecture, etc, indicates possibly a resurgence of statist-type thinking in the US at that time?
IMO, the United states emerged the embodiment of the fruits of the Christian civilization up to that time, and so, during the last 250 years, the USA has been a microcosm of Christian history. Part of the makeup of the American history, then, over the last 250 years has been the reemergence or 're-representation' of all the issues and ins and outs of thought that the last 2000 years of Christian history has experienced.
Fundamentally, perhaps, you have the Hebraism rooted in the Bible vs the Hellanism of the Greek philosophical class. These two contrasting approaches to life and the universe manifested as Christian civilization in the Roman context, where temporarily, they existed together, with the Romanism being the external framework while the Christian-ism grew and developed.
It was finally in the birth of the USA that the Christianism eventually broke free of the Romanism (state-ism, in the form of the British Monarchy, who, as a representative of the State, was supreme over other individuals). Since that time, the two forces have been locked in a death struggle, much like Jacob and Esau struggling in the womb, one sometimes gaining advantage, the other then gaining advantage.
Is the emergence of Donald Trump the signal that finally, the younger brother (Jacob, Hebraism, Christian-ism, Abel) has finally gained the upper hand to the degree necessary for birth of the new era, when the correct Jacob-Esau / Abel-Cain / Zerah-Perez is accomplished on a permanent basis? And where the Christian spirit (Hebraism) will direct and govern the external Hellanistic/Romanistic spirit in the proper way, where Spirit guides the Flesh, and not the other way around?
Directly after Adam and Eve fell and established their family, God has the elder son be in a position to humble himself to the younger son. Why? Because the 'first born' aka first created Lucifer was supposed to humble himself to the second born (aka created 2nd), Adam, so that Adam could grow to perfection and God's dominion be established over the Earth, and the universe. As we know, Lucifer the elder, failed to humble himself to Adam, but actually fell and then murdered Eve and through her Adam spiritually, to gain control over the world through God's children.
Abel making the offering, and then Esau humbling himself to Abel, would have indicated conditionally that they were separated at least symbolically from the fallen foundation (satanic nature) that Adam and Eve inherited when they united with Lucifer.
If this has been successful, the process of Bringing Jesus Christ would have been accelerated tremendously. Tragically, The elder physically murdered the younger, repeating the (spiritual) murder of Adam by Lucifer, and requiring that the reversal of sonship: the elder humbling himself to the younger - be postponed and attempted time and again in the history that precedes Jesus. Jacob was a watershed victory, and this is why 'Israel' became the chosen people.
Jacob and Esau struggled in the womb. Esau was born first, but Jacob eventually won the birthright by winning his brother's unity through sacrificial love. He first bought it, symbolically, then gained it with Isaac's prayer, but then had to have Esau, the elder brother, voluntarily submit to him, which he achieved after 21 years and 10 deceptions in Haran.
In the case of Zerah and Perez, Zerah's hand came out first and a red ribbon was tied to him, indicating he was the official or recognized first born. But then his hand retreated, and Perez was 'born' first, thus becoming the first born. This story describes the struggle between the elder son and the younger son, in which victory was finally obtained within the womb.
This became the foundation for God to bring, at the right time, his son Christ in a womb that had been liberated from Satanic dominion, because the Elder-Younger order created by the fall had been reversed, in the womb.
OK, that was a big digression. My point, however, was to illustrate that this dynamic between elder and younger (or external and internal) and the need for the latter to gain voluntary or other submission by the former is not only found in the Bible, but is also found throughout Christian history itself, one example being the competing worldviews underpinning our different 'law' systems.
Apparently she means a DIFFERENT kind of fascism... the kind that cannot stand opposing ideas.
This 👆👆👆👆👆.
"All fascisms are equal, but some fascisms are more equal than others." ~ Fred Orwell
Forget D'souza for a second.
Talk about a failure at every level with this little winter cap wearing mongrel.
Looks.
Style.
Attitude.
Facts.
Any discernable reason for "her" existing.
I'll say it again-sometimes you can judge a book by it's cover.
Abysmal.
Exactly why competency needs to come back into the room.
This is the exact person the left set up society to listen to.
u/#taunt
Well done.
I couldn’t help, but think of Charlie Kirk as I watched this. He had a gift for not only engaging with people like her, but also, often opening their eyes, at least a little.
As enjoyable as it was watching D’Souza correcting her, he didn’t move the needle in opening her mind. And, unfortunately, some number of these people still need to wake up to push the Great Awakening over the tipping point.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think people this far gone can ever be convinced through better arguments. They can only be convinced through ridicule and shaming. You might think ridicule and shaming would never convince you.. but that is probably because you have underlying principles, these people do not.
True. You can change a thousand smart people's minds with a single fact...but you can't change a single idiot's mind with a thousand facts.
Most of them have no sense of shame. Shame is just a word they try to cudgel the other side with.
This is spot on. Those types only respond to emotions. They exist because they have never been bullied as kids and never learned how to process emotions. Most of us growing up had to deal with childhood problems, whether it was bullies or our peers calling us stupid when we said or did stupid things. We learned from those moments and course corrected. Those kids like that now grow up in complete bubbles with no consequences or friction against their own stupidity. Now when they come across an opposing idea, they have complete melt downs. Literally the mind of a child in an adults body.
But he did make her look like the moron she is. Dinesh simply gave her back what she was trying to give him. She wasn't interested in having a dialog. There is a difference.
Woot woot! 🙌
u/#commandertrump
u/#libcry
She/it...Sheit...Is supposed to be in her prime...Eww!
Back in the 70's and 80's, we just called them "shims" lol. She/hims lol
Yep... I've heard that term used to describe the dual nature of spirit - the melding of male/female, since nobody's essence is 100% one or the other... but the scumbags have twisted that concept into some bapho perversion...
No. We used it for the trannies. They used to go by drag queen. I live in NOLA suburbs. Been drag shows in the French Quarter for a LONG time. I went to one with 2 gay male friends when I was 18 (1983). I was the only real female there. Lol.
EDIT: maybe it was just primarily here?
Nice!
D'Sousa wrote a book on fascism, called The Big Lie. I recently re-read it. I highly recommend it. He goes into detail about the differences between fascism and Nazism and gives the history of each. Both are founded by Marxists. Fascism focused on selfish capitalists as the enemy, while Nazism took that idea and basically just said that Jews are the selfish capitalists, who are the enemy. Fascism does not evaluate on ethnicity and many of the founders of fascist philosophy were Jews.
Does it cover the history of what the concept was before World War II, and in Rome, cause it’s real confusing how so much of our old iconography prominently features fasces - Lincoln, Washington, buildings, money, etc.
https://www.govmint.com/media/magefan_blog/Fasces_Symbol_on_the_Mercury_Dime_Header_Image_1_.jpg
It’s as if they changed the meaning to be bad so we’d never look at what was actually done before. Kinda like how a lot of places spoke German exclusively before WWI, then stopped and switched to English afterward. We only discuss Mussolini’s “fascism”, and Hitler’s “fascism”, but what were all the pre-WWII American fasces about?
https://www.city-journal.org/article/when-fasces-arent-fascist
There is something goofy going on here, but I don’t know what. Too many -isms and history rewrites, not enough critical thinking.
…
🤬
u/TaQo
This also assumes that all the architectural fasces were built in the 1920’s, which just happens to be completely outside living memory right now, and just after a lot of historical rewrites had already been begun.
From another of that guy’s articles…
…
Back to that Mercury dime from govmint…
https://www.govmint.com/learn/post/a-fascist-u-s-dime
🤬
u/Strelnieks how’s that for noticing? (Edit: he might actually just be German) Maybe I’ll go into the CDC sometime soon.
Uh, the Jefferson Memorial is that new? I had no idea.
No, there was no mention of the Mercury Dime. I'd never heard of that one before. The birth of Nazism was the Eugenics movement in the USA, and D'Souza goes into great detail about that and how it morphed into the Progressive movement. Unfortunately, he did not take the opportunity to mention the whole Cold Spring Harbor thing in great detail, and only mentions it on one page.
I got pissed that they EXPLICITLY wrote FASCIST ECONOMIC IDEALS into the core operations of the New Deal, then have the gall to call us “fascists”.
These people are nothing but bundles of sticks.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong on this, but the modern definition of “fascism” seems wrong. What it seems to have been historically is “many rods together are not easily broken”. A populist, therefore, would by definition be a “fascist” by virtue of uniting many individuals, and the whole “state ownership of blah blah blah” is irrelevant nonsense.
It’s also hilarious that DEMOCRATS (literally, “rule by the people”) accuse POPULISTS (“drawing authority of/from the people”) of being “fascist”, when those two words (democrat and populist) should effectively mean the same thing, by their grammatical construction.
Really shows that the democrats, in truth, have NOTHING to do with the common man other than drawing on them for exploitation.
Projection, projection, and more projection.
u/#q4943
If we unite, they call us “fascists”, because they want us divided.
The forces of Ha’Satan would do that, wouldn’t they?
Matthew 12:25-26
Peace through strength.
u/FractalizingIron
One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
u/#updoot
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
Yes, another brick thrown into the confused (on purpose) jumble of law and 'legal' systems in our countries.
I did "Legal Studies" in high school, and learned that 'common law' meant yes, the precedents set by previous cases. But that's a wholey different beast than the real common law, aka the law of the land, that pertains between all peoples.
I think this is well stated.
but regarding fasces, are you postulating that the emergence of these in the early 1900s with architecture, etc, indicates possibly a resurgence of statist-type thinking in the US at that time?
IMO, the United states emerged the embodiment of the fruits of the Christian civilization up to that time, and so, during the last 250 years, the USA has been a microcosm of Christian history. Part of the makeup of the American history, then, over the last 250 years has been the reemergence or 're-representation' of all the issues and ins and outs of thought that the last 2000 years of Christian history has experienced.
Fundamentally, perhaps, you have the Hebraism rooted in the Bible vs the Hellanism of the Greek philosophical class. These two contrasting approaches to life and the universe manifested as Christian civilization in the Roman context, where temporarily, they existed together, with the Romanism being the external framework while the Christian-ism grew and developed.
It was finally in the birth of the USA that the Christianism eventually broke free of the Romanism (state-ism, in the form of the British Monarchy, who, as a representative of the State, was supreme over other individuals). Since that time, the two forces have been locked in a death struggle, much like Jacob and Esau struggling in the womb, one sometimes gaining advantage, the other then gaining advantage.
Is the emergence of Donald Trump the signal that finally, the younger brother (Jacob, Hebraism, Christian-ism, Abel) has finally gained the upper hand to the degree necessary for birth of the new era, when the correct Jacob-Esau / Abel-Cain / Zerah-Perez is accomplished on a permanent basis? And where the Christian spirit (Hebraism) will direct and govern the external Hellanistic/Romanistic spirit in the proper way, where Spirit guides the Flesh, and not the other way around?
Abel making the offering, and then Esau humbling himself to Abel, would have indicated conditionally that they were separated at least symbolically from the fallen foundation (satanic nature) that Adam and Eve inherited when they united with Lucifer.
If this has been successful, the process of Bringing Jesus Christ would have been accelerated tremendously. Tragically, The elder physically murdered the younger, repeating the (spiritual) murder of Adam by Lucifer, and requiring that the reversal of sonship: the elder humbling himself to the younger - be postponed and attempted time and again in the history that precedes Jesus. Jacob was a watershed victory, and this is why 'Israel' became the chosen people.
Jacob and Esau struggled in the womb. Esau was born first, but Jacob eventually won the birthright by winning his brother's unity through sacrificial love. He first bought it, symbolically, then gained it with Isaac's prayer, but then had to have Esau, the elder brother, voluntarily submit to him, which he achieved after 21 years and 10 deceptions in Haran.
In the case of Zerah and Perez, Zerah's hand came out first and a red ribbon was tied to him, indicating he was the official or recognized first born. But then his hand retreated, and Perez was 'born' first, thus becoming the first born. This story describes the struggle between the elder son and the younger son, in which victory was finally obtained within the womb.
This became the foundation for God to bring, at the right time, his son Christ in a womb that had been liberated from Satanic dominion, because the Elder-Younger order created by the fall had been reversed, in the womb.
OK, that was a big digression. My point, however, was to illustrate that this dynamic between elder and younger (or external and internal) and the need for the latter to gain voluntary or other submission by the former is not only found in the Bible, but is also found throughout Christian history itself, one example being the competing worldviews underpinning our different 'law' systems.
Yes, Mussolini praised FDR as "America's Fascist," particularly in the way he strong-armed people into accepting the New Deal.
Awesome.
I love Dinesh.