So that's what sovereignty truly looks like...oh wait they forgot infrastructure.
"Why are the majority of 'Q' attacks by "PRO_MAGA" supporters coming from AJ [MOS backed] and/or AJ known associates?"
"What happens if Mueller 'proves' 'Free Speech Systems LLC' aka 'InfoWars' is linked to a Foreign Intel Agency or other Non_Domestic entity? How can the 'LEFT' use that information to DIVIDE and CENSOR the RIGHT? Why are affiliates of InfoWars constantly attacking 'Q'?"
Is this the proof that shows AJ is backed by Mossad?
I thought you may be interested since I posted about Dickens just the other day. I never thought I'd see someone bring up John Stuart Mill like you did:
https://greatawakening.win/p/141Y9EIrHJ/oliver-twist-hit-with-content-wa/c/
They want to censor Dickens because he shows humanity the wrongs that cause our downfall. From my senior thesis outlining the main causes of the Civil War:
So what did cause the Civil War? The popular view that slavery was the cause has not always been the accepted one, as the second ‘Great Debate’ between Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill highlighted from 1861-1862. “The view that slavery caused the Civil War was popularized by Mill, the leading English writer on political economy at that time…In 1862 and during the war, he insisted that slavery was the cause of the conflict, and that theory has dominated Civil War thinking ever since.” Even Karl Marx was able to see the conflict for what it really was. He said, “The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.” Looking closer at the arguments presented by both Dickens and Mill, it’s no wonder the latter view became popular in Northern newspapers, while Dickens’ view never became mainstream.
“Though Dickens condemned slavery, he deemed it unlikely that it had been the cause of the war. He asked: ‘If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern states?’ And the answer: In the original Constitution, wrote Dickens, it was provided that all taxes ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States... so, reasoned Dickens, ‘the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions [of dollars] a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils.’ He ends with these words: ‘the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” Within the next two months, Mill published his response in the famous Fraser’s Magazine.
So why did each man have such a differing view of the war? Dickens and Mill were very different in their explanations for the Civil War as well as in their backgrounds. “Dickens grew up in the slums and squalor of London. He was twelve years old when he was forced to abandon any formal education. Growing up in these conditions colored his view of life and found expression in his novels. He saw the horrors of poverty, the love of money and its evil as a force in society, government, and all levels of life. He saw the Civil War through this lens [however, Mill’s] father decided to raise his son in a cloistered environment, removed from the real world. He learned Greek, Latin, and a host of languages at an age not much beyond today’s grammar school. He was to be a kind of super intellectual, to rise above all the learned of his day…His analysis of the Civil War and slavery as its ‘one cause’ found favor among northern apologists who wanted a simple answer to a national tragedy.”
It seems the evidence vindicates Dickens and his economic view of the war. Unfortunately, Mill’s view has survived where Dickens’ has all but disappeared. “Dickens saw money as the root of the War Between the States. Unfortunately for the cause of history, it was Mill’s, not Dickens’, argument that was reproduced in the northern press, which was hungry for an excuse to invade the South. Mill’s argument that slavery was the one cause of the Civil War became common wisdom, and the Dickensian view virtually disappeared, even among Ivy League Civil War historians who, like Mill, live in an economic cloistered world, which minimizes the role money plays in the affairs of men.” There can be no doubt that this idea survives even today, as most history tends to downplay the role of economics.
Interestingly enough, Dickens’ Wikipedia page makes no mention of his Civil War writings, specifically his ‘Great Debate’ with John Stuart Mill. At the bottom of the page there’s a ‘see also’ link that takes you to a page dedicated to proving that Dickens was an extreme racist, as reflected in his novels. Even here, only one sentence is given to his Civil War writings, and it makes him out to be a racist as well. Like the revisionists of today, this is a common technique used to paint anyone with opposing views as a racist. Dickens was apparently a racist because, “Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he nearly publicly supported the South for that reason.” The statement is false, but it seems that Dickens’ view is being suppressed even today. Lysander Spooner, a fiery abolitionist, wrote in his 1870 book No Treason, “The pretense that the ‘abolition of slavery’ was either a motive or justification for the war is a fraud of the same character with that of ‘maintaining the national honor.” This is the same guy that helped plot John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry as well as funded slave uprisings and militias in the South. How is it that one of the top abolitionists of the day claimed that slavery was not the cause of the war?
I'd be willing to bet that nobody here was taught any of this during history class.
Yeah he was definitely wrong on his assessment of the Civil War though. The Second Great Debate, as it was called, with Charles Dickens cemented the idea that slavery and slavery alone caused the war, while Dickens argued it had more to do with unjust taxation. Mill came from an elite background, while Dickens did not. It's no wonder Mill's view became the standard narrative after being shown in all the northern newspapers.
A black friend of mine once told me that Trump didn't do anything to help his people. I reminded him of the Platinum Plan and his response was:
"It's just pandering. Nothing will actually come of it."
Then I reminded him that pandering usually doesn't involve half a trillion dollars. Pandering is more like $30 million.
Not if you have coooovid haha
Here's another story: The US women's team slaughtered Russia 5-0 and Switzerland 8-0 without wearing masks at all...so who cares?
It's too bad they censor the number of dislikes now.
So krankheit is the German word for disease...anyone else think of Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in American news for decades? I wonder what the origin of his name is...
"Americanized spelling of Dutch Krankheid, from an abstract noun meaning ‘weakness’, hence probably a nickname for a sickly individual."
Were they already engaged in the propaganda campaign against Trump in 1997 when this movie came out?
I actually resigned from a job recently due to a couple of managers retaliating against me for my views on vaccines, testing, and masking. I'll spare you the details, but one of the first reactions I received was "I can't believe you would challenge something like this", regarding the mandates that were shot down by OSHA. I told them that I couldn't believe they wouldn't challenge something like that. The very next day the Supreme Court ruled against it.
Haha yeah there's that too...they have no idea what they're dealing with honestly.
The best part is that we've never been silent, only silenced.
Monsters and Starbucks?
As one Irishman wrote back home to Ulster in 1720:
“Tell all the poor folk of ye place that God has opened a door for their deliverance…all that a man works for is his own, and there are no revenue hounds to take it from us here; there is no one to take away yer Corn, yer Potatoes.”
Dutch immigrants had the same reasons for leaving a century earlier. It's amazing to me that this oppressive system still exists today.
Careful...all he has to do is make a phone call to bring it all crashing down.
Yes, now read the next 10 definitions for Zionism in your google search. You'll see that the ultimate goal is to return to the ancestral homeland in Israel but there are many facets to the plan for achieving that. Have you ever read Theodore Herzl's work? Don't be so naïve by throwing down a Wikipedia definition and moving on. Here's just a sample of what you're missing, and this is from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
"Political Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, emerged in the 19th century within the context of the liberal nationalism then sweeping through Europe...The combination of nationalism and liberalism gave birth to liberal Zionism; the integration of socialism gave rise to socialist Zionism; the blending of Zionism with deep religious faith resulted in religious Zionism; and the influence of European nationalism inspired a rightist-nationalist faction. In this respect, Zionism has been no different from other nationalisms which also espouse various liberal, traditional, socialist (leftist) and conservative (rightist) leanings."
https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/History/Zionism/Pages/Herzl%20and%20Zionism.aspx
Not bad after he already ended human trafficking and stalking world-wide just a few weeks ago. He's got to be the best President ever!
Zionism takes on many forms and has evolved for centuries. It's not as simple as defining it as a love for Israel. It's much more than that. Zionism is not just Jewish nationalism. After all, you can love Israel and not launch Communist revolutions all over Europe, South America, and Asia. Yet this is exactly what happened in the 19th and early 20th century. And nearly every time, the leader of the movement was a Zionist Jew. This is precisely what Hitler was trying to stop after seeing his own home fall victim to Communists.
Rogan has lots of fans in Brazil thanks to his background in MMA. No doubt his podcasts have a strong viewership there too.
I think you may be right.
I had to watch the speech in 1.5x speed since Soros bumbles on slower than Joe Biden even. It would've been a painful 25 minute speech otherwise.
There are so many possibilities. I like the idea that it's something out of their control that will be shown, but it could be a combination of things. Maybe Xi will announce a reformation of their government/financial systems. Soros mentioned that Xi has used real estate to grow his country since he came to power in 2013, but that it will ultimately cause China to go bankrupt. Who knows at this point?
I thought you were rehashing the plot to "The Rock."