Bingo, even if every cabal and corrupt politician or government person died at once right now, in a month or two all of those positions would be readily filled by people that see opportunity and are corrupt.
We need to be prepared to take positions that open and fill them with good people. That way even if Q doesn't come and open them all up and bring us a sort of "deus ex machina" we are still fighting for and on track to victory!
Just to add on/little PSA
There's very little evidence that shedding transmission is a real thing. People have talked about what you mentioned there, but it is very possible that that phenomenon is more pheromone-based (person with the vaccine is messed up, other person's biological clock adjusts to the goofy one). I highly doubt that these effects would be permanent or particularly risky, unless perhaps someone stays with the person that has their cycle all out of wack for months or something.
That said, we won't know until proper extensive research has been done. As there is fierce opposition to any kind of research on the reality of the situation, that will probably take a while. I wouldn't worry about it too much but consider that it is a possibility.
There's very little evidence that shedding transmission is a real thing. People have talked about being around others that have been vax'ed and that altering their period, but that is likely pheromone-based (the vax'd person is messed up from the vax, and the other person's clock naturally adjusts to start to match, as has been observed with women for a long time now). As such I'd doubt it'd be permanent or particularly risky.
That said, we won't know until proper extensive research has been done. As there is fierce opposition to any kind of research on the reality of the situation, that will probably take a while. I wouldn't worry about it too much but consider that it is a possibility.
99.9999% sure this is bunk.
Look, here's the thing about the whole chipping thing. Ignoring the medical implications side of things, there is zero reason for them to need to chip you. This man is walking around with a phone; the overwhelming majority of people are strapped to a cellphone like it's their complete lifeline. They do not need to chip you to track you; even if you do not have a cellphone. There are cameras absolutely everywhere, and top-level facial recognition is extremely effective, even with facial coverings (see Hong Kong protests for more on that).
The only additional benefit they could get for chipping you would be to be able to kill you on moments notice, or something; even then, though, they can do that way easier in a billion different ways.
This is almost certainly bait/trolling to get laughs out of people's legitimate reactions of fear to this. Mildly elaborate, but it isn't exactly hard to make certain screens show up on phones and TV's. Hell, he could have a Bluetooth device on him that he has assigned that tag to.
Then we get to the medical implications; first, chips don't operate without power. There have been some theories of being able to utilize blood-flow as a sort of micro-hydro, but I don't really believe anyone has gotten that far with any of that because it's so extremely dangerous - for the exact same reason putting anything solid in your blood is dangerous; you don't want to cause clotting.
Most commercial ideas of implanting microchips in people involve implanting them under the skin, and NOT in the bloodstream.
All of that effort for something they don't even need. If you don't believe me, just look again at China; I've not heard anything about China chipping people (yet), because they're able to do enough without the chips anyway. There are cameras everywhere; that video is paired with precise location information. Tracking an individual without a cell is as simple as spotting them and then tapping camera feeds automatically by GPS, following them wherever they go.
Really? Looks like the same man to me.
Start with the chin: approximately same dimensions (though the shading makes it a little hard to tell). The skin is looser but there isn't a tight collar, so that's that.
Go to his mouth; lips form pretty much same shape in the smile, teeth look pretty much spot on too. Corner "dimples" look a little different but not really that much, same dimensions, just him looking a bit older.
The lower jaw skin folds twice, in approximately the same spots and in the same way.
Now his nose: Same dimensions, same hook, even same light wrinkle/possible scarring along the top. The corners of his nose are especially similar.
Then his ears: pretty much the same folds and dimensions. Then we go to eye area: The creases in the corners are about the same, albiet more numerous and slightly droopier, as would be expected with age and without extensive makeup. The eye bags themselves are identical in shape and size between both pictures.
Eyebrows appear to be the exact same shape and dimensions, as well.
Here's one of the big kickers: You can see the crease marks between his eyebrows; they have a very distinct shape and position, and that matches perfectly between both images (more pronounced in the left one, obviously, because less makeup and more age).
Hairline, from what we can see of it (above ears, mainly) is pretty much same. Hat hair to be sure, but line and general flow is almost the same precisely.
Skull shape (as seen by shading in the forehead in particular) is spot on.
There is not a single facial feature that doesn't match that can't be easily explained by age or makeup. They are the same man; the biggest thing going on here is that the left side Trump isn't absolutely plastered with makeup and just got done with a hard day's exercise.
Plenty of patriots not in those parts that are standing with us but can't say it out loud or they'll have angry mobs come and slaughter them. That's true for all of the states, just important to remind people of that.
Yeah I just don't know with the guy, seems like grifter 101, but I don't know what motive he would have. Given his background he should be set for money, and I don't even think he gets anything out of this. It's just weird.
No idea, I'm afraid, but it definitely wouldn't need a quantum computer to do either of these. The latter is complicated, but like I mentioned the social media companies already do this to some extent. It's just a matter of degree and who they can get information from.
Just as an aside, can anyone tell me, with source, if he has ever lost a lawsuit?
I thought I heard a while back that the answer is no; if that is true, that can be a go-to argument to totally make this nonsense I've heard from all over about him reporting selective editing BTFO, because if it weren't true they'd have sued him (and I recall they did, could be wrong) and won.
Much appreciated!
Disclaimer; I misunderstood slightly the implied data being discussed. The actual program appears, from the OP and the comment I'm reading, to be about combining aerospace related data from multiple sources; I have potentially misunderstood as a system of combining data on individuals. If it is a system for aerospace, then it's totally fine and good. If it's about tracking people, the following applies:
Nobody should have to power to, at the drop of the hat, learn damn near everything about a person from what they've done to what they will do, without that person ever giving that information away. This is, in effect, what this will be if this description is correct.
People have fundamental patterns. By analyzing the patterns of huge swaths of people and cross examining them with the known data about an individual, you can determine way more than you'd ever think about them.
Big tech collects this data for this very reason. Location data, every picture you take, every word you say in range of a microphone, everything you type, every purchase you make, bank account transaction, all of it is logged. All of it can be used to build a model that will, with extreme precision, be able to tell the person wielding it where you are at all times, what you're doing, and what you'll do next.
Here's the kicker; they can assemble this without you ever giving them any information, because inevitably you will be tracked by others around you. Someone is taking a selfie and you are in the background? Bam. A store has a security camera and you're on it? Bam. There's a "smart" electronic device within 20 feet of you, recording everything? Bam.
This data already exists. It is already being exploited. What this tool would do is take it all and combine it to create the ultimate system of automatically knowing everything about a person.
That is a power no human being should ever have, period. It is a power that makes the atomic bomb, social media spying, all intelligence services operations up until this point, all censorship, all of it, look pathetic in comparison.
That's a pretty unique and good take; I think SCOTUS had standing to deal with the fraud cases, but at this point their hands should be off, because checks and balances dictate they shouldn't have any sort of singular control of the executive branch.
1.) First of all, the part of the argument you chose to is not the significant portion. I will address it, but first let's make the primary point clear: This passage only condemns those that profess to be Jews but do lie. This means that utilizing this passage as the basis for claiming all citizens of Israel (or by implication, all Jews) are evil is flat out false. Not all citizens of Israel even claim to be or are Jews to begin with, and not all lie.
Now to the point you tried to argue. This also applies to the "proto-christian Judas" point.
Jesus was a Jew. He was a "Jew" ethnically and spiritually; He was the fulfillment and embodiment of the law; the God of Christianity is the same God of proper Judaism. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17, KJV). In that sense, all true Christians can also be considered Jews; Judaism is the original faith in God.
So in that sense, "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" does refer to all of the faithful. Jesus did not destroy the Jewish faith; He came to fulfill it's teachings, clarify it's law on earth (for it was being manipulated by those in power who were corrupt), establish a new Covenant, and ultimately, offer salvation for all of humanity. This is why our Bible contains the Old Testament as well as the New; it does not negate the old, it clarifies it.
Regardless, not all professed Jews followed this; many followed the corrupt religious hierarchy instead. They are not Christians, but if they follow God's law in alignment with the clarifications Jesus made, they are still "Jews". They may be incorrect, and improper, and in some degree of wrongness, but nonetheless, if they earnestly believe in their faith, they are not lying in their claims, meaning they are not considered the "synagogue of Satan" by that verse. Lying must be deliberate; if it is not deliberate, it is merely being incorrect.
Given this, Judas was a "proto-christian" in the sense that Christianity wasn't exactly established at the time of his faith; yet, he was, until his betrayal, a follower of Christ. He was also a Jew. Regardless, he and he alone bear the fault and responsibility for the betrayal of Jesus. Your quote in any sort of application towards the people of Israel or "the Jews" at large is improper and a non-sequitur.
2.) I will admit I jumbled up a few words in my response. Allow me to clarify and restate my argument: The crowd who echoed "his blood be on us, and on our children" was but a crowd. Not all of Jerusalem, probably a tiny fraction, really, were involved in Jesus's crucifixion. This verse can be applied as symbolic against all of humanity, for we are all born with original sin; in a literal sense, it only applies to those there. What's more, neither the power nor the authority to assign judgement or guilt lies with humanity; it lies squarely with God. Jesus said "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34, KJV). In this, their "slate" so to speak is just as cleared as ours, and all of humanity's.
You and I do not have the authority to deny others of salvation; nor do we have the authority to judge souls. The implication that you can judge an entire group of people, either on some notion of ethnicity or on some notion of them not having "true" faith that they profess in the same God is wholly flawed.
Nonetheless, that is not my point in all of this; my primary point is that your apparent "evidence" or reasoning does not sufficiently match your claim. Those verses you quoted do nothing to prove that all Israelis are evil (or that all Jews are evil).
Again, I remind you, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7, KJV). Be wary, for just as "all they that take the sword shall parish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52), those with sin that condemn others with sin may face their own condemnation.
I don't know if they even need that to be honest. Automation goes a long way, especially with intelligence agencies working with big tech and probably virtually infinite funds.
Also, it looks like it's actually the post office that'd be monitoring you, not even the FBI lol
Also, if you believe patriots are already in charge, that changes this entire move substantially. The way I see it, the big thing we're waiting for now is just enough people to wake up. Gas shortages and major national hacks might do that real damn fast. Also the whole "hack a pipeline, but can't hack an election?" thing.
I'm not even going to try to say which if either it really is, but that's just my two cents at the like possibilities.
I don't think it will be, it doesn't really match and it wouldn't really work very well frankly. Maybe you're right, but it seems like a horrible move (as in it would hurt them), even for them (they make mistakes all the time, but this?).
Also it's not an easy technological undertaking. They'd have to actually make something that isn't absolute dogshit for it to work, and I've not yet see the government do that on any large scale when it comes to web design or employment.
I mean, above all else, it would go totally against their MO. They like people having access to stuff they don't like, because they can track it all anyway, and use that to make lists of people that are against them. If they blocked it out, it would stop people like us from accessing this website (in theory, anyways, ofc that isn't really true in practice) and as such make it harder to find people that are of the kind of thinking to visit this website. As it stands, they likely know who all of us are in real life and have all of the forums infiltrated fully, monitored, and influenced.
What's more, their MO is more about indoctrination than prevention. Why should they care if people can access this website if they already have them mentally locked down? It would just validate us more than anything, which would risk their indoctrination more than leaving us up.
No, I think it's more about a scrambled excuse to fabricate an "oil shortage" and probably a cop-out to blame Russia. Who knows, though.
Wow, they all have white skin! Must be that damned white controlled systemic racism at work putting the boot on all of the rest of everyone again, just because there's majority white people in government for the majority of time...
It's still more complicated than that. You can condemn spending billions on Israel while still supporting them. The thing so many people here seem to be struggling with is this extremely rigid black-and-white thinking.
I, too, am not anti-Semitic. I despise the BS about "Mah joos" that a lot of people (or bots) floating around the .wins constantly pedal; it's rooted heavily in collectivism, generalizations, and logical jumps.
I also don't believe we should be giving Israel any money (or other kinds of "free" aid; supplies, etc.). As with all diplomacy, there must be a trade involved.
That said, I have no quarrel with Israel. They accept the money; so what? What good leaders wouldn't try to secure the best deal for their country? I can respect that, even if I won't give them that deal. I guess you could raise objections to their founding, but how long do those objections have standing? Should Israel "give back the land"; and, if so, should we "give back the land" of the US? Where would you stop?
It's one thing to hold objections to actions taken in history. It's another to seek reversal.
If Israel is attacked by militants, I see nothing wrong with them defending themselves appropriately. That said, I firmly believe the best thing for America is to just stay the fuck out, unless we're bringing serious good, as Trump did, in the form of successful peace negotiations at minimal cost to Americans.
Basically, I wouldn't equate Trump's verbal support for Israel, and condemnation of the present "administration" and their failure to maintain the peace he laid the groundwork for, with shipping Israel billions.
Even then, there are still gray areas. Not everyone will agree a deal is fair; that's because, in part, people have different senses of value, different objectives, and different perspectives.
"Let he without sin cast the first stone"
IF you can read, look again at that last line you bolded. "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie." It's literally saying that the synagogue of Satan is those who claim to be faithful but are not.
What's more; the second verse is irrelevant to your point. Pilate was a Roman; his expression that Jesus's blood "be upon us, and on our children" is applicable to ALL of humanity. Jesus died for all of us, not just some. As such, His Blood is on all of our hands. That's the point of Jesus's sacrifice.
The first verse ties more into my initial point than yours; "he that delivered me unto thee" is primarily Judas. Judas was a follower of Jesus; a proto-Christian, if you will. He claimed belief yet betrayed all; therefore, by the first lines, he is of the "Synagogue of Satan".
Finally; have you ever stopped to consider that there are Christians that are Israeli citizens?
u/AmericanScholar373 might have delivered his message in fairly ineloquent terms, but his point stands; collectivism is a plague and inherently anti-Christian. God judges the individual soul.
I believe the shortage of fuel is real, but I don't believe the shutdown is causing it, at least not this fast. I think they just used the pipeline stuff as cover to just cut off fuel in general, instead of it being caused by the pipeline. Longer term the shutdown would affect it but I just don't think it's that fast.
That really isn't the only thing left. If you think so you haven't been paying attention.
The audits right now are a great step. Securing state governments is our current objective; national doesn't even really matter if you have a good state secure.
I know he's just an asset/shill, but just the concept that he wouldn't understand it is astonishing. It's like when they were attacking Gina over similar things; the retards can't even see past their own eyeballs.
The questions are always "How the hell did the Nazis end up committing mass atrocities?" and the answer is simply put because people let them. It didn't come out of nowhere; it came out of a repeated history of raising the stakes. Just like how you don't (for the most part) get addicted to a drug after the first use.
Then the question is always "Why didn't good people stop it or say something?" The answer is "they did try - they were ignored, ostracized, and ultimately, killed."
We are those people waiving the red flags. They're irrefutably the people that would have gladly cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis. Fuck them all.