Look, I don't want to berate you or beat a dead horse on this, but I just think you are wrong about a lot here and I'd rather be honest. None of this is out of ill will, either.
---Again, this is how you are talking about your fellow man with direct quotes. This is what I mean when I say "Destructive":
"The problem with him is that he doesn't understand that his lifestyle is inherently evil and the idea that he just wanted to blend into society was never going to work. It's like saying "I just want this cancer to blend in with the rest of my healthy body". No, it doesn't work. Eventually, that cancer is going to spread because it's nature is to spread."
"There is no such thing as blending in. That community should have no say in society when it comes to their lifestyle. It should not be accepted and there will never be a time where that lifestyle will simply blend in and not corrupt the rest of society even if they got rid of all "others" like trannies and infinite gender freaks."
---This is YOUR morality, not mine or anyone else's. These are YOUR beliefs, and they are BELIEFS not FACTS, as direct quotes. This is how you look down on others:
"I wrote their lifestyle was inherently evil. And it is. Regardless of what you think and how you feel about them, it is." <- This is called an opinion, not a fact. If it were really fact, it would be falsifiable. It is not an equation that can be proven.
"The lifestyle, promoted outward and accepted by society in it's institutions brings about nothing but inherent evils because the lifestyle is inherent evil as told to us by God as clear as day." <- This sounds like assuming you are the voice of god
"Homosexuality is described by Abrahamic religions as filth and one of the gravest sins. In fact, it shakes Gods throne in rage it's so disgusting." <- your opinion again in following a system of belief (not fact).
You might even be right about your system of belief, who knows. But you don't even entertain for a second you could be wrong. And for the record, I entirely agree that I do not want institutions compromised with any form of identitarian politics like sexuality and education of children. But again, the quotes above are not representative of political action so much as prejudice. Not necessarily unfounded prejudice, but a kind of prejudice. Which is not helping anybody.
Most egregious though, is this one to me:
"Your morality is from the education system, mine comes from a higher power." <- almost as if sitting on a high horse, huh? I guarantee you, I've spent far more time in my life actually evaluating, debating, and pondering the nature of morality and god than you seem to think. I'm quite the fan of works of Friederick Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Leo Tolstoy, especially in context of the topic of religion.
You assume far too much of everyone, and immediately look down upon me when I haven't even said what I think of gay people, if/and/or what god I believe in, how I treat others, or my politics. You knew none of that, and just assumed you knew it all at the drop of a hat, and can sum it up as "Morality from the education system". In other words, "I am better than you" seems more apt to say.
I can't stand that kind of arrogance.
Summarizing the entirety of a person's lifestyle based on a couple characteristics like sexuality as inherently evil is not helping anyone. If anything, you are actively destroying your own ability to reach the ears of people who otherwise may be open to listening to good arguments and changing their minds on various topics.
I would also say it's rather demeaning to boil down the entirety of a person's existence to just a few key traits and pretending like that really summarizes inherent nature. I know a ton of Christians who are plenty fine with being a terrible person to others 6 days a week and praying on the last one.
Just like the post above, if a gay person really wrote and thinks that (which let's be real - there 100% are people like that who exist - maybe not the majority or the norm, but they exist) do you really believe that talking down to them from your high horse and telling them directly, "There has been net zero benefit to this country from that lifestyle being allowed to rot our society", or essentially, 'You have no value to society' in other words, is helping anyone?
It's not.
And I don't get my morality from random strangers on the internet either, so pardon me for not hopping on the bandwagon. Everyone else is only human, they know no more or less than any other human about the potential existence of god and any ramifications of morality it ensues. People who claim to are con artists. That is why belief is referred to as "faith", not "fact". Religion is by design structured around belief.
If you really believe that their lifestyle is inherently evil, then fine. Leave it up to the god you believe in to judge them. You aren't the judge and your word matters no more than any other's in regard to morality, because you aren't privy to some special divine insight on these matters. In the end, two people can only end up talking past each other if this is how you want to proceed.
I think this rhetoric is overwhelmingly destructive to the most important goals of anons, which is waking people up and getting them united on the most important issues like our constitutional rights and the corruption in DC. I would happily accept the political support of any American who calls out the groomers for what they are, regardless of whoever they stick it in at home (as long as it is legal and consensual, of course).
Referring to any of your fellow Americans as inherently evil and a cancer on society because you disagree with their life choices is the exact same way the left wing has treated conservatives in this country for years.
"They want you divided. They want you labeled by race, religion, class, sex, etc. Divided you are weak [no collective power]. Divided you attack each other and miss the true target [them]."
This is 100% factual stuff. Great post, fren.
I eat the same way along with my long time girlfriend. I figured this stuff out researching many years ago about various topics and have been eating this way on my own for a long time. I managed to convince her of all this after some years of dating and she gave it a shot. We eat this diet together now and have been for the better part of a year. Basically I ended up curing her of type 2 diabetes (cut off all medication/insulin injections, go high fat and zero carb/sugar diet for months on end). She's on the road to recovery now and losing weight too. I pretty much managed to save her life from the severe medical complications she was having.
The truth hurts. A huge amount of chronic disease people suffer from nowadays is the result of slowly killing themselves by not being able to understand what is actually healthy for them.
Personal story - How I probably saved my girlfriend's life
I've long known about the reality of fats being the best source of nutrition for humans, and carbohydrates and sugars being fallbacks with some negative side effects. My girlfriend (who I love to death) is type 2 diabetic, and struggles with her weight. She has struggled with her weight since childhood and has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years, and been taking daily insulin and about 7 other medications for approximately 2 and a half years now.
My most fundamental argument I gave, which I must stress is simply that you must remember human evolution. There is a reason we evolved omnivorous, and we have canines. We know for a fact lipid absorption is much higher than carbohydrate and sugar in all humans, and we also know for a fact that carbs and sugars are not only more likely to be stored in fat cells on the body, but are also huge growth factors for cancers and other chronic ailments.
Until recently, that is.
I got through to her at some point. We went to see a health 'counselor' more like, a clinic alternative. They reiterated the exact same points I've made consistently. So as her condition had just been declining and she had basically given up hope, she said she hadn't had anything to lose and so she let me design her diet entirely.
First, we lowered carbohydrate and sugar intake and stopped all medication and insulin immediately. This had her blood sugar out of control for about 2 months still (which was expected), but after the first 2 months I decided to make the diet extremely strict.
Zero carbohydrate, zero sugar (aside from what exists in some vegetables), high lipid diet. Lots of meat - beef and pork only. She has a bunch of allergies due to gut health issues too so we couldn't do duck or chicken eggs even. No fruit. No medication, no insulin. 1 meal per day, intermittent fasting. For a while her blood sugar was still out of control, but now it has been 3 months. Here are the results:
I, who weighed 225lbs at 6'1" lost 30lbs despite the fact I didn't event intend to follow the diet. We live together and make all our meals together. I enjoy a good rare steak better than any kind of sugar or carb, so I was more than happy just eating meat all the time.
My girlfriend, who 3 months ago without medication was having blood sugar levels regularly above 200 without her medication and insulin and had massively inflated triglyceride levels, has now been almost cured of type 2 diabetes.
Yes, you heard that part right. Cured.
She now has blood sugar levels just slightly above normal range (110ish) on the daily, without the medications and insulin. She lost 25lbs, and is continuing to lose more. She had a wide range of nasty side effects and symptoms of her medications, now all gone thanks to not needing any of them. Her gut health is also improving. Her triglyceride levels are now within normal range despite a lipid based diet. We still are continuing the diet and for the foreseeable future will not be introducing any carbohydrates or sugars.
All this, done through diet alone. Again, a true zero carbohydrate and zero sugar diet; low sugar and low carbohydrate is not enough to fix this for a diabetic! This is because the body is so resistant to insulin, that when the body comes in contact with these sugars and cannot process them appropriately, it causes the blood sugar levels to stay elevated for extended periods of time - which prevents the resistance from appropriately decreasing by staying at low resting levels.
Note: Contrary to what many might think, weight loss as a diabetic is EXTREMELY difficult; This is because of the negative feedback loop whereby the insulin resistance of the body doesn't process sugars properly. More insulin injections heighten this resistance while treating the 'symptom' of high blood sugar and its effects, but WORSEN the condition of the recipient over time due to growing resistance and reliance, and prevent weight loss by removing adequate sugar from diet in order to maintain blood sugar levels in 'normal ranges'.
This 'treatment' is the equivalent of trying to give physical therapy to someone stuck in a wheelchair without allowing them to get up, and expecting them to be able to use their legs.
Hope you all found this informational and/or useful. Stay healthy, frens.
For those who don't get it - Frank Zappa's music featured a plethora of commentary on social and political issues in the form of satire. His lyrics are over the top and ridiculous, which feature absurd little stories or make fun of people in positions of power at the time who try to lord over ordinary folks. It was meant to be humorous, to be offensive, to be absurd. He even had songs about "flakes in California", and railed against democrats and republicans of his time. He despised social conservatism but described himself as a conservative regardless (a fiscal, and libertarian constitutionalist).
He was as American as they come. He gave a shit about the direction of society and our constitutional rights, and the entirety of his music catalog talking about the breakdown of society has been validated a dozen times over since his passing.
Frank would laugh at the idea of people being disgusted by his music or walking out of shows because he hated how uptight and restrictive everything in his time was, but he also hated the counter culture's negative influences in the form of drugs, populism, and the commies.
He was not a hippie, not like other people of his time. Listen to the guy speak, or better yet, look up his testimony for congress in the '80s where he and a few other people fought against a movie like rating system to be applied for music albums, because it would necessarily result in censorship. He argued that people ought to choose for themselves what they want to listen to, and that a reasonable solution would be printing lyrics of songs on the inside pamphlets of albums. We still ended up with 'parental advisory' stickers, but managed to avoid a full on rating system which would result in radio censorship- like television, of R rated albums. Who would have determined that? Government.
As far as the music itself, love it or hate it, it's ridiculously complex and difficult. His songs are all almost entirely compositions, written to be played the exact same way every time. I'm a musician myself and Frank Zappa had a big influence in my playing of the guitar and music theory; the stuff is no joke, as a composer Zappa was a modern virtuoso and he surrounded himself by virtuoso players like Steve Vai. Try listening to a song like 'The Black Page', 'Watermelon in Easter Hay', 'Black Napkins', or any other instrumental (like 1/3 to 1/2 of all his music is just instrumentals, but he is most remembered for his absurd songs in the public eye). He ran his band like a business man, and if someone did drugs or had a bad attitude they were out. His music is very unconventional and if you've never heard it, you are unlike to hear almost anything else like it with exception of some other fantastic, albeit, unknown artists in this day and age.
For a little historical context...
Friedrick Nietzche spoke of this phenomenon in his great philosophical work, 'Beyond Good and Evil' in 1886 (along with countless other fantastic insights and phenomenon). It's incredible to see how men in times far long past had such uncanny insight into future generations.
To paraphrase, he spoke of a kind of 'hyper-intellectualism' in man which comes from great knowledge and experience in a specific field. Man's downfall is so often a result of attempting to generalize said intellectualism to everything, or one's own arrogance; due to being generally well informed and successful in a specific field, men would believe themselves infallible in countless others. The term 'Educated idiot' comes to mind...
He said that the solution to this problem was to well round oneself in knowledge, and become aware of how much you really don't know as to prevent arrogance but allow oneself to shine in their respective professions of knowledge.
If only modern day education could resemble even a fraction of that. There's a lot of really important information tucked away in dusty old books.
It was Maxwell, almost surely. Details surrounding the whole thing have been drawn out and largely secretive obviously but there is actually over 2.7 million pages of evidence in the trial. My gawd. Probably one of the largest cases ever. Here's the sauce on a good Q proof:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12ih50fMrm/for-those-new-to-this-place--q-a/c/
Rabies is actually a virus used for this purpose.
I believe it works rather similarly with certain bacterial infections which provoke creation of antibodies upon detection of the infection, but I don't know enough about it personally.
What I do know, is that the body has certain mechanisms for remember viral infection gene sequences in order to trigger immune responses quicker upon reinfection. This is the crux behind modern vaccine theory of giving 'dead' or 'mostly dead' viruses to healthy people. mRNA vaccines do not fall in this category.
The inactive virus can't reproduce rapidly in their system to trigger onset of nasty symptoms, and gives the body enough time to evaluate it and remove it without much issue. However, after the event your body recognizes this genetic sequence and learns that encountering said genetic sequence in the future is a foreign invader to be removed.
This is also exactly why people normally only get chicken pox once in their life at a younger age. Your body remembers the Varicella virus and protects you throughout your life from it after the fact (we don't know exactly how long it can last or necessarily does; varies from person to person and based on a lot of factors). In some cases adults who have complications from that same virus can end up getting shingles (through reactivation of the virus), despite it being the case that you should in theory be protected against the virus at that point.
What we can say is that normal functioning and healthy people have a very long lasting and reliable biological method of defense for viral and bacterial infections after being exposed to it previously. Natural immunity is far more effective and long lasting than any other method we know of, funny how it's all but been forgotten since 2020.
Exactly. 19 days ago the VAERS system had near 7000 deaths reported. That is near 3 weekly reporting cycles behind. Last week was 10,900 something...
This reeks of cover up and corruption. It should be more than enough to prompt a massive audit of the CDC to screw up THIS BADLY, you know, if every 3 letter agency wasn't as filthy as Hunter Biden's dick pics.
Yes, in theory, but not in the way they claim to practice it now. Think about tetanus boosters, once every 10 years is the standard for all that is considered 'needed'.
Why in the world would you need a booster for a 'vaccine' you took within the past 10 months? And for a virus that virtually everyone has been exposed to at this point and we have naturally immunity for? And the entire narrative around variants becoming more deadly is total BS?
Because the vaccine isn't really a vaccine (gene therapy). Because the 'vaccine' doesn't work as 'intended' (side effects, adverse events). Because we need 'boosters' for a made up boogeyman (deadly variants).
Then what exactly are these injections doing to people (besides killing them and causing damage)?
Certainly nothing good.
Poster above was correct on all counts... THIS. IS. NOT. ABOUT. SCIENCE.
To quote Q... Logical thinking.
All people need something to believe in, else we succumb to nihilism. The question remains, "What do I believe, and to what end?"
I'm Atheist (Atheist simply meaning, "I think God probably doesn't exist." Obviously, nobody can truly know for sure because there is an endless amount of things that are not or can't be known in life without definitive proof in front of you. Any Atheist who knows anything about philosophy knows that any Atheist worth his salt is by definition agnostic, or else you must be some insanely arrogant ass who thinks he knows everything. A non-agnostic Atheist is basically the definition of 'anti science' by being closed off to the emergence of new evidence to say that they could be wrong), by virtue of the fact I think God probably doesn't exist, and even if he did I do not believe he could be evenly closely characterized by the descriptions of any major world religions.
Certainly, when I think logically about most of the standards of these religions I see plenty of savagery, barbarism, and tribalism indicative of the standards thousands of years ago in the world (Also some degrees of good too, I won't dismiss that - such as major charity organizations and contributions throughout history). Not that many of those things have improved that much in the time since, regardless.
Accordingly, I found value elsewhere. Reading Nietzche's works (contrary to what most think - Nietzche was a philosopher dedicated to articulating the manner by which one can create value in their life to stave off inevitable nihilism of a discerning eye). I am a 'Creator of virtue' who abides by the rules and values I create, not ones I am told to believe in without reason. The 'Ubermensch', a 'superman'; one not bound by the standards of belief of any other - totally self founded. Not so different from Christian fundamentalists and their distaste for iconography as Jesus spoke of.
So let's put it this way: I operate under the assumption my life is finite, so I must live every day filled with value and virtue, else I lose something irreplaceable each day in my limited existence. However, if God does exist, I believe an enlightened being would understand my conundrum here and the intricacies of our difficult and limited existences; and in any such a case, I'd much rather sit down and have conversations about existence with such a being rather than worship him. I'd be interested to have some logical arguments as far as the justifications for existence as it stands, the potentials of salvation or the like... But I am doubtful God really exists in the end.
I don't view Christians or any other group as an enemy or in opposition; I care about what people DO, less what they THINK. That is the standard by which I judge 'Justice'. Historically and philosophically there are plenty of things I take issue with, but overwhelmingly in this day and age Christians are some of the least intrusive groups to my ability to live and function as I please compared to the rest of society.
We might disagree on the nature of almost everything about existence, but we are countrymen who should share in the opinion that we wish for each other to live our respective lives to their best. I have no designs on their standards or ways of life, and I find that many don't have any on mine either (This is a positive change I have seen greatly change since my childhood as well).
Ultimately, it is up to the individual to bring themselves salvation within their limits. You are destined for harsh waters if what you seek in life is something genuine. That is the fundamental challenge of life, as I see it.
Hope I give a bit of insight to any fren who takes the time to read this. WWG1WGA
Zombie apocalypse is preferable to the Great Reset!
At least you can be self reliant rather than being turned into a vegetable and put in a fema camp. Also, pretty sure the 2nd amendment wouldn't be going away then!
Then I guess we've reached an impasse. I disagree with some of your takes, but I don't want to speak to you as someone lesser than me because I don't view myself as inherently better than anyone else.
Like how I won't try to insult you by belittling your beliefs or morals, unlike how you seem fond with saying things like "Leftist education", as if it were representative of anything I actually thought, which it isn't. Or dismissing a view critical of mine with someone as "Rationalizing with yourself isn't going to change reality", because you think know so much better than everyone else.
I wish you thought the same. I think your God will be very displeased with how you treat others.
All the best, good luck to you.