The main theme of "Dracula" is that the modern West, by adopting a rationalist worldview that rejects belief in things like demons and vampires, is becoming naïve rather than wiser. Dracula flees Transylvania for England because the "superstitious" Transylvanians know what he is and have largely succeeded in protecting themselves from him. That's why he is so old-looking at the beginning of the story: he hasn't been able to get much blood lately (he becomes younger as he starts to drink more blood). He wants to go to England because the people there tend to have a more rationalist or materialist view of the world and are unlikely to see him for what he truly is. Abraham Van Helsing, being scientific (as a doctor with knowledge of the latest techniques such as blood transfusion) but also open-minded to the supernatural, is able to see what's going on and to open the eyes of the other heroes to the nature of the threat that they face and the necessity of turning to faith in God as their weapon against evil.
It might be more complicated than that. I've studied the alien abduction phenomenon for years, and the evidence always leads me to the conclusion that it's likely the work of demons or some sort of demonic beings (maybe demon/human hybrids) disguised as aliens. That said it's entirely possible for real aliens and demons posing as aliens to both exist, and I've seen some compelling evidence that Mars was once inhabited (the YouTuber ArtAlienTV does a good job of covering it.)
I've started to trust MTG less and less. First, she showed that she wasn't a trustworthy defender of free speech when she was in favor of deplatforming the Kiwi Farms, then she implied that Kari Lake should just give up on fighting the Arizona election fraud and spend time with her family.
If you're referring to Pinault, no.
The Pinault family, which owns the majority shares of the Kering luxury company — you know their brands Gucci and Balenciaga, for example — have also pledged one million euros to the rebuilding project, though that family has no Jewish affiliation. “This tragedy is striking all the French people, and beyond that, all those attached to spiritual values,” Chairman Francois-Henri Pinault said in a statement. A French oil and gas company as well as the American company Apple have also promised donations.
As for Salma Hayek, she's half Mexican and half Lebanese, and as far as I can tell, Lady Gaga isn't Jewish either.
One season of "American Horror Story" starred Lady Gaga, who co-starred in the movie "House of Gucci" with Salma Hayek. Hayek is married to François-Henri Pinault, who is the chairman and CEO of Kering, which owns Gucci and Balenciaga.
What is your take on the Holocaust
I'm inclined to think it happened. I've looked into the theories that it was faked in some way, and so far, the evidence has all fallen apart when I looked deeper, because it's cherry-picked and ignores other evidence. For example, the supposed discrepancies regarding how long it would take to cremate so many bodies fall apart when you read the records from concentration camps detailing their cremation process (which was drastically different from normal cremation processes and speeded up the process many times over). Similarly, the arguments that there weren't any gas chambers, that Auschwitz wasn't so bad because it had swimming pools, etc, are based on cherry-picked information and fall apart when one looks deeper (for instance, Auschwitz wasn't one camp but a collection of smaller camps, not all of which were for housing Jewish prisoners; the section for Jews was called Birkenau and there were no swimming pools located there).
Gets complicated when you consider Stalin was a Bolshevik jew targeting Jews
I'm not sure Stalin was Jewish. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (arguably the greatest historian of Soviet communism) didn't seem to think so. He wrote a book called "200 Years Together" detailing the history of Jews in Russia, including their role in the Bolshevik revolution. The book is banned in many places and hard to find, especially in its uncensored form. Here's a link to an uncensored PDF of it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20221129195455if_/https://fs12n1.sendspace.com/dl/630c95ca41b11b90630229444756d027/6386634f30e8f7e0/10xc7v/Two Hundred Years Together - Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.pdf
There's a popular fake Solzhenitsyn quote that often makes the rounds. It goes like this:
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"
However, it has never been sourced back to anything that Solzhenitsyn is documented to have written. In chapter 15 of "200 Years Together", he criticized attempts to absolve Russians of all blame for the October Revolution and to put the blame solely on Jews. In fact, the "you must understand..." quote reads an awful lot like someone took some of his words from the portion of chapter 15 quoted below and twisted his words to mean the opposite of what he intended:
"This theme—the Jews alongside the Bolsheviks—is not new, far from it. How many pages already written on the subject! The one who wants to demonstrate that the revolution was “anything but Russian”, “foreign by nature”, invokes Jewish surnames and pseudonyms, thus claiming to exonerate the Russians from all responsibility in the revolution of seventeen. As for the Jewish authors, those who denied the Jews’ share in the revolution as well as those who have always recognised it, all agree that these Jews were not Jews by spirit, they were renegades.
We also agree on that. We must judge people for their spirit. Yes, they were renegades.
But the Russian leaders of the Bolshevik Party were also not Russians by the spirit; they were very anti‐Russian, and certainly anti‐Orthodox. With them, the great Russian culture, reduced to a doctrine and to political calculations, was distorted.
The question should be asked in another way, namely: how many scattered renegades should be brought together to form a homogeneous political current? What proportion of nationals? As far as the Russian renegades are concerned, the answer is known: alongside the Bolsheviks there were enormous numbers, an unforgivable number. But for the Jewish renegades, what was, by the enrolment and by the energy deployed, their share in the establishment of Bolshevik power?
Another question concerns the attitude of the nation towards its own renegades. However, the latter was contrasted, ranging from abomination to admiration, from mistrust to adherence. It has manifested itself in the very reactions of the popular masses, whether Russian, Jewish, or Lithuanian, in life itself much more than in the briefings of historians.
And finally: can nations deny their renegades? Is there any sense in this denial? Should a nation remember or not remember them? Can it forget the monster they have begotten? To this question the answer is no doubt: it is necessary to remember. Every people must remember its own renegades, remember them as their own—to that, there is no escape.
And then, deep down, is there an example of renegade more striking than Lenin himself? However, Lenin was Russian, there is no point in denying it. Yes, he loathed, he detested everything that had to do with ancient Russia, all Russian history and a fortiori Orthodoxy. From Russian literature he had retained only Chernyshevsky and Saltykov‐Shchedrin; Turgenev, with his liberal spirit, amused him, and Tolstoy the accuser, too. He never showed the least feeling of affection for anything, not even for the river, the Volga, on whose banks his childhood took place (and did he not instigate a lawsuit against his peasants for damage to his lands?). Moreover: it was he who pitilessly delivered the whole region to the appalling famine of 1921. Yes, all this is true. But it was we, the Russians, who created the climate in which Lenin grew up and filled him with hatred. It is in us that the Orthodox faith has lost its vigour, this faith in which he could have grown instead of declaring it a merciless war. How can one not see in him a renegade? And yet, he is Russian, and we Russians, we answer for him. His ethnic origins are sometimes invoked. Lenin was a mestizo issued from different races: his paternal grandfather, Nikolai Vasilyevich, was of Kalmyk and Chuvash blood, his grandmother, Anna Aleksievna Smirnova, was a Kalmyk, his other grandfather, Israel (Alexander of his name of baptism) Davidovitch Blank, was a Jew, his other grandmother, Anna Iohannovna (Ivanovna) Groschopf, was the daughter of a German and a Swede, Anna Beata Estedt. But that does not change the case. For nothing of this makes it possible to exclude him from the Russian people: we must recognise in him a Russian phenomenon on the one hand, for all the ethnic groups which gave him birth have been implicated in the history of the Russian Empire, and, on the other hand, a Russian phenomenon, the fruit of the country we have built, we Russians, and its social climate—even if he appears to us, because of his spirit always indifferent to Russia, or even completely anti‐Russian, as a phenomenon completely foreign to us. We cannot, in spite of everything, disown him.
What about the Jewish renegades? As we have seen, during the year 1917, there was no particular attraction for the Bolsheviks that manifested among the Jews. But their activism has played its part in the revolutionary upheavals. At the last Congress of the Russian Social‐Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) (London, 1907), which was, it is true, common with the Mensheviks, of 302‒305 delegates, 160 were Jews, more than half—it was promising. Then, after the April 1917 Conference, just after the announcement of the explosive April Theses of Lenin, among the nine members of the new Central Committee were G. Zinoviev, L. Kamenev, Ia. Sverdlov. At the VIth summer Congress of the RKP (b) (the Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks, the new name of the RSDLP), eleven members were elected to the Central Committee, including Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky.[1781] Then, at the “historic meeting” in Karpovka Street, in the apartment of Himmer and Flaksermann, on 10 October 1917, when the decision to launch the Bolshevik coup was taken, among the twelve participants were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Sokolnikov. It was there that was elected the first “Politburo” which was to have such a brilliant future, and among its seven members, always the same: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sokolnikov. Which is already a lot. D. S. Pasmanik clearly states: “There is no doubt that the Jewish renegades outnumbered the normal percentage…; they occupied too great a place among the Bolshevik commissioners.”
Of course, all this was happening in the governing spheres of Bolshevism and in no way foreshadowed a mass movement of Jews. Moreover, the Jewish members of the Politburo did not act as a constituted group. Thus Kamenev and Zinoviev were against a hasty coup. The only master of the work, the genius of October’s coup de force, was in fact Trotsky: he did not exaggerate his role in his Lessons of October. This cowardly Lenin, who, he, had been hiding out, made no substantial contribution to the putsch.
Basically, because of his internationalism and following his dispute with the Bund in 1903, Lenin adhered to the opinion that there was not and never would be such a thing as a “Jewish nationality”; that this was a reactionary action which disunited the revolutionary forces. (In agreement with him, Stalin held the Jews for a “paper nation”, and considered their assimilation inevitable.) Lenin therefore saw anti‐Semitism as a manœuvre of capitalism, an easy weapon in the hands of counter‐revolution, something that was not natural. He understood very well, however, what mobilising force the Jewish question represented in the ideological struggle in general. And to exploit, for the good of the revolution, the feeling of bitterness particularly prevalent among the Jews, Lenin was always ready to do so."
In chapter 14, he wrote this:
"The closer it got to to October coup and the more apparent the Bolshevik threat, the wider this realization spread among Jews, leading them to oppose Bolshevism. It was taking root even among socialist parties and during the October coup many Jewish socialists were actively against it. Yet they were debilitated by their socialist views and their opposition was limited by negotiations and newspaper articles – until the Bolsheviks shut down those newspapers.
It is necessary to state explicitly that the October coup was not carried by Jews (though it was under the general command of Trotsky and with energetic actions of young Grigory Chudnovsky during the arrest of Provisional Government and the massacre of the defenders of the Winter Palace). Broadly speaking, the common rebuke, that the 170-million-people could not be pushed into Bolshevism by a small Jewish minority, is justified. Indeed, we had ourselves sealed our fate in 1917, through our foolishness from February to October-December.
The October coup proved a devastating lot for Russia. Yet the state of affairs even before it promised little good to the people. We had already lost responsible statesmanship and the events of 1917 had proved it in excess. The best Russia could expect was an inept, feeble, and disorderly pseudo-democracy, unable to rely on enough citizens with developed legal consciousness and economic independence.
After October fights in Moscow, representatives of the Bund and Poale-Zion had taken part in the peace negotiations – not in alliance with the Junkers or the Bolsheviks — but as a third independent party. There were many Jews among Junkers of the Engineers School who defended the Winter Palace on October 25: in the memoirs of Sinegub, a palace defender, Jewish names appear regularly; I personally knew one such engineer from my prison experience. And during the Odessa City Duma elections the Jewish block had opposed the Bolsheviks and won, though only marginally."
The book is very thorough and nuanced, neither downplaying nor exaggerating the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution. Solzhenitsyn carefully addressed every aspect and angle.
Bright side is now the "Jews control everything" narrative is reentering peoples minds
Why are you so sure that's a bright side? The whole thing reeks of a psyop to smear everyone right of center (even milquetoasts like Tim Pool) as anti-Semitic.
"The Jews" being to blame in general has always been a psyop. The Cabal are Satan worshippers, many of which hide among Jews (and perhaps are Jews in terms of physical descent, but not spiritually). The average Jew is not a member.
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." - Revelation 3:9
The Cabal (or at least their highest-ranking members) are cultists who follow a Satanic Babylonian mystery religion founded by Nimrod* (and are following his vision of uniting humanity under one tyrannical government). Since the Jews spent time in exile in Babylon, some of them were early converts to this religion and passed it on through the generations, which is likely one of the reasons why a high percentage of the Cabal are - or at least appear - Jewish.
But there are also Gentiles in the Cabal (the Clintons, Obama, Bill Gates, etc).
The Cabal - even the Jewish ones - have no sense of loyalty to Jews in general. Israeli citizens have been force-jabbed with the Coronavirus "vaccine" weapon more than any other country on Earth other than perhaps Australia. George Soros openly admitted that he feels no remorse for the time when, at age 14, he went door to door with his Nazi godfather, helping him haul Jews away to concentration camps and confiscate their belongings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiqHiQYuoOs
The Cabal have been hiding behind Jews for centuries. They appeared as Jews so that the Jews would get the blame (and the punishment) for their misdeeds. But Hitler handed the Cabal an extra advantage (possibly at their command). Where before, Jews were scapegoats for the Cabal (offering them one layer of protection and suffering pogroms and deportations for the Cabal's crimes), now they offer the Cabal two layers of protection due to the public's memory of the Holocaust and the resulting high level of stigma associated with even being suspected of anti-Semitism. Before, the Jews would get blamed for the Cabal's crimes, now it's verboten to even mention the Cabal or the idea that their crimes might be happening for fear of being branded anti-Semitic. It is in the Cabal's interest - now more than ever - to appear Jewish for this reason.
Think of it like this: an extraordinarily high percentage of convenience store robbers are black, especially when factoring their smaller numbers in the general population into the calculations. But that doesn't mean that Dr. Ben Carson is going to rob a convenience store, nor that the majority of black people will. In much the same way, a high percentage of the Cabal being (or appearing) Jewish doesn't mean that a high percentage of the total Jewish population is involved in the cabal.
Was Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Jewish by birth and religion), who fought "vaccine" agenda until his last breath, a Cabal member? Was Andrew Breitbart (Gentile by birth but a convert to Judaism)? What about Ike Perlmutter, who gave some of President Trump's biggest donations and got kicked out of his leadership role at Marvel Studios for opposing Kevin Feige and Bob Iger's plan to add leftism into the Marvel movies?
That's why the real goal should be to name the Satanists, Molech worshippers, and Nimrod-followers. Naming "The Jew" is just playing into the Cabal's plans.
- From Josephus:
"Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.
Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!
Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion."
Interesting. It's possible that he's telling the truth about being framed to discredit him. That said, it's also possible that he's lying about all of it. It's hard to know for sure.
I've always found his story interesting. I don't know whether there's any truth to it or not, but it's a fascinating concept.
Bill Brockbrader (AKA Bill Wood) lied about being a Navy Seal and was arrested on pedophilia charges. His claims are highly suspect.
I think that he might be controlled opposition. Even after his apparent conversion to Christianity, he has still included occult symbolism in his performances*, and many of his recent actions might be fake. The whole Harley Pasternak situation especially smells scripted, as if it was created just in time to make "The Noticing" trend on Twitter in order to give ammunition to those who want to paint free speech as dangerous.
I think that he might be controlled opposition. Even after his apparent conversion to Christianity, he has still included occult symbolism in his performances*, and many of his recent actions might be fake. The whole Harley Pasternak situation especially smells scripted, as if it was created just in time to make "The Noticing" trend on Twitter in order to give ammunition to those who want to paint free speech as dangerous.
Several members of the Trump family (including President Trump himself) are also in the Black Book. The Black Book is just Epstein's list of contacts. Not all of them were people who involved in his pedo ring (although he probably wanted to lure all of them into getting involved).
There's a good review of it that explains how it's essentially subtle propaganda cheerleading the demise of white men.
Exactly. Thomas Jefferson argued it brilliantly:
"But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them.
Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged.
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices.
In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves.
But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them.
Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up?
Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
Now that I think of it, this might actually go somewhere. Maybe they made a big mistake by pulling the "malfunctioning machines" trick. The political establishment and mainstream media has turned against any and all mentions of voter or electoral fraud, but voter suppression is a very different matter. They always scream about voter suppression (supposedly against racial minorities) before and after every election, so this might be tougher for them to weasel out of.
I'm pretty sure that's a picture of a young Elon Musk.