Launching drones into the strait is definitely not "defensive." I suppose we should just let them drone strike as they please?

I was asking for sauce that "Thune alocated over 100 million for this race," not about AIPAC donations, but since you brought it up I looked closer. This $760,000 figure represents donations over Cornyn's entire career, not this election cycle. When I asked Leo about AIPAC donations it said $0 because AIPAC is not legally allowed to donate directly to candidates so technically it has donated $0. Donations are made through AIPAC-affiliated PACs and AIPAC Bundlers, thus they are not direct donations. The actual amount that has been donated this election cycle is $218,000. I mean, that still doesn't sound like that much to me, but you are right that it is more than $0.

Sauce?

It seems that though AIPAC indorsed Cornyn they did not donate a single dollar to his campaign, so this may be a bit overstated.

Where'd you get this list from?

Central Bank of Bolivia, The People’s Bank of China, Central Bank of Cuba, The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Central Bank of Russia, Bank of Sudan, and Bank of Japan are all Roth according to Q.

How could you! REEEEEEeeeeeee!!!!

I guess they should have run as a libertarian. 🤣

I thought using AI would save time. It did not, quite the opposite. You are correct about AI making things up etc., that is why I spent a lot of time proofreading and arguing with it to make sure it doesn't misrepresent/get my views wrong or make arguments that I would never make or disagree with, which it did constantly. To produce the comment that I made, I probably produced 10 times that amount of text arguing with it. It would have been easier to not use it at all.

I quite simply did not want you to assume that I just fed your comment into an AI and copy/pasted whatever it spit out, because I did not... anyway, I am not interested in a meta conversation.

First of all, regarding Hippolytus, you are completely missing the point, and cherry picking Hippolytus quotes to support your view. You are ignoring the context where he explicitly links the covenant to the Antichrist's actions.

You claim Hippolytus makes "NO. MENTION. OF. A. PEACE. TREATY. NONE." and only speaks of stopping sacrifices. This is a false dichotomy. In On Christ and Antichrist (Section 39), Hippolytus explicitly connects Daniel 9:27 to the Antichrist: "And one week shall confirm a covenant with many... Antichrist shall make war upon the saints." He identifies the one who confirms the covenant as the same figure who later stops the sacrifices.

In the context of Daniel 9:27, a "covenant with many" is inherently a political/diplomatic act. Whether Hippolytus used the modern phrase "peace treaty" is irrelevant; the concept of a leader (the Antichrist) establishing a binding agreement (a covenant, read PEACE TREATY) that is later broken is exactly what he describes.

You argue Hippolytus viewed the "sacrifice" as Christian worship. While some Fathers spiritualized the term, Hippolytus also explicitly states the Antichrist will "build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary" (Section 39). This implies a literal temple and literal sacrifices, which aligns with the futurist view of a treaty allowing temple reconstruction before the abomination.

Even if you argue Hippolytus’s view of "sacrifice" was partially spiritual, he undeniably taught that a future Antichrist would confirm a covenant in the last week. This refutes the claim that the concept of a future covenant is unique to Darby. Darby’s innovation was the Gap Theory, not the existence of the covenant itself.

You are splitting hairs over the phrase "peace treaty" (exact word fallacy) while ignoring that Hippolytus explicitly taught a future covenant confirmed by the Antichrist involving a restored temple.

You are conflating Dispensational distinctives, which are 19th-century, with Futurist substance, which is ancient.

I never claimed Hippolytus used the phrase "Middle East Peace Treaty." I claimed he taught the Antichrist would "confirm a covenant" (Daniel 9:27). He explicitly did. Whether you call it a "treaty" or a "covenant," the concept of a future political agreement enabling the Antichrist is pre-Darby.

Now, regarding Irenaeus. Irenaeus viewing the "sacrifice" as Christian worship doesn't negate the future timeline. He still placed the 70th week at the end of the age, not in the past. That alone refutes the claim that the "future" view started with Darby.

I agree that Irenaeus did not teach the "Gap," and whether he taught the Pre-Trib Rapture is a matter of scholarly debate, but that is not part of any argument that I have made. My argument was never that the early church were Dispensationalists, that is a straw man. My argument was that they taught a Future 70th Week with an Antichrist Covenant. You denied this, and the texts prove it.

You are attacking the system, Dispensationalism, to avoid admitting the substance, a future covenant, is ancient. The "Peace Treaty" idea isn't new; only the explanation for its delay (the Gap) is.

You are correct that Ribera and Lacunza were not Dispensationalists; Dispensationalism didn't exist, to call them Dispensationalists would be absurd, and I have claimed no such thing; they didn't teach the Gap or Rapture, and they didn't use the modern phrase 'Middle East Peace Treaty.' However, your conclusion that they didn't teach the 'treaty' doctrine is false.

In his 1585 commentary, Francisco Ribera explicitly taught that the Antichrist would make a covenant with the Jewish people to rebuild the Temple and restore sacrifices for the 70th week (7 years), only to break it after 3.5 years. This IS the 'treaty' doctrine. The modern political details are just applications; the core mechanism (Antichrist + Jewish covenant + temple) is Ribera’s invention.

Edward Irving translated Manuel Lacunza’s Jesuit work The Coming of the Messiah in 1827 and introduced these exact Futurist ideas to the Albury Park conferences, which John Nelson Darby attended. Darby took the Jesuit 'Futurist' framework (future Antichrist + future covenant) and added the "Dispensational" twist (the Gap/Rapture).

Daniel 9:27 says "covenant." Ribera taught "covenant." Darby called it a "treaty." These are synonyms. If Ribera taught a future 7-year covenant with the Jews, which he did, then the substance of the doctrine predates Darby.

The systematic Gap Theory is a 19th-century innovation by Darby that was not taught by the early church. However, your claim that the concept of a gap "just plain did not exist" is historically false.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) explicitly taught that the 69th week ended with Christ, but the 70th week included Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). This requires a chronological gap between the two, even if he didn’t call it a "Church Age."

Irenaeus and Hippolytus placed the 70th week in their future (the end of the world), while acknowledging the 69th week had already ended with Christ. If Week 69 ended in 30 AD and Week 70 is future, a time separation exists by definition. They observed the gap; Darby just gave it a name.

As for your automobile analogy, it is a failure. The destination (a future 70th week with an Antichrist covenant) is ancient. Darby just drew a new map (the Gap Theory) to explain how we get there. The existence of the destination doesn’t depend on the map.

Whether Darby invented the "Gap" or not, the text of Daniel 9 requires a future fulfillment. The 70th week promises "everlasting righteousness" and a final "abomination" that did not occur in 70 AD. A future week is exegetically necessary regardless of Darby’s system.

The future 70th Week is ancient. The Gap Theory is the modern explanation for its delay. Darby added new mechanisms, but you have not disproven that the core expectation (future covenant/Antichrist) predates him by centuries.

Regarding your point #3, you're conflating "partisan" with "methodological." The claim isn't that Dispensationalism is true because it's literal, or that others are false. The claim is that if you adopt a strictly literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic as your rule for all prophecy, then the unconditional promises to Israel (land, throne, kingdom, etc/) cannot be transferred to the Church without violating their plain meaning. This is why Amillennialists like Hoekema admit they interpret many OT prophecies non-literally.

Non-Dispensationalists aren't "spiritualizing" in bad faith; they're using a different method (redemptive-historical) that prioritizes NT fulfillment. But by that standard, Dispensationalism is indeed the only view that consistently refuses to spiritualize OT covenants. Whether that method is correct is the real debate, not whether the claim is "dogmatic."

As for Truman and the creation of Israel, Truman did indeed compare himself to Cyrus. However, you are incorrect about why he did so and what it implies about his theology.

Truman Was Not a Dispensationalist. He was a Mainline Baptist with a general biblical literacy, not a follower of Darby’s system. He did not believe in the "Gap," the "Rapture," or the "7-year treaty." His "Cyrus" comment reflects a broad biblical sympathy for Jewish return that is shared by Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants, not an endorsement of Dispensationalist eschatology.

His primary motivations were secular/humanitarian. Historians agree Truman’s decision was driven by Holocaust guilt, Cold War strategy (beating the Soviets), and domestic politics, not a desire to fulfill Darby’s prophetic timeline. The American Christian Palestine Committee, which was a major lobbying force, was dominated by Mainline Protestants, not Dispensationalists.

Even if Truman were a Dispensationalist, it wouldn’t make Daniel 9:27 false. The truth of the interpretation depends on exegesis, not on the political motives of a President. You are attacking the political effects to avoid the hermeneutical debate.

Truman’s 'Cyrus' comment proves he had biblical sympathy, not that he was a Dispensationalist. The creation of Israel was primarily a secular/humanitarian event with broad Christian support, not the result of Darby’s specific theology.

It is true that the majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed) hold a Preterist or Amillennial view, interpreting Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled by Christ's death and the 70 AD Temple destruction. That is the dominant historical position. However, popularity does not determine truth, and your claim that Darby's view is "nonsensical" because it is recent is ignorant of the evidence.

The Futurist View Is Ancient. History confirms that Irenaeus (Against Heresies, V.25.3) and Hippolytus (On Christ and Antichrist, 39) explicitly taught a future 70th week where the Antichrist "confirms a covenant with many" before stopping sacrifices. Hippolytus even states the week "indicates the showing forth of the seven years which shall be in the last times." This is not Darby's invention; it's a recovery of a 2nd-century view.

My argument was never that the early church taught full Dispensationalism (they didn't; they expected the end soon). The argument was that the core concept of a future 70th week with a covenant-making Antichrist is ancient. Darby's innovation was the "Gap" theory to explain the delay, not the future expectation itself.

While your view may be the majority, theological truth is determined by exegesis, not democracy. If a literal reading of Daniel 9:24-27 requires a future fulfillment for "everlasting righteousness" and the "abomination," then that view stands on its own merits, regardless of its modern popularity.

The tl;dr is that Darby systematized a recent system, but the substance of a future covenant with a future Antichrist has roots in the Early Church.

These are my arguments which I fed into the AI, it just organized them into bullet points and used its own wording. I spent 4 hours feeding it, making clarifications, and formatting, but if any use of AI is verboten for you, feel free to ignore me.

Sign the deal or you get jack shit.

I have always been highly wary of "big accounts." I think Q have placed a large amount of trust in anons. "You are the news now." Over the years there have been many big influencers that have come and gone, and anons have risen to the occasion calling them out whenever they are pushing B.S. I think of things like Stew Peters' "snake venom" push for instance, and more recently all the podcast bros turning against Trump and trying to redefine MAGA. It is a constant battle but we are winning.

Is it organic or is someone steering the ship? It could be the simple idea of truth overcoming lies, light over darkness, etc., or maybe there is an unseen hand guiding us, who can say? But truth is a good rudder. I have taken Q's silence over the years as an "endorsement" that anons are doing a good job with what they have been entrusted. I am sure that they are at least watching us very closely. If they are helping us from the shadows, dropping crumbs, etc. that would be comforting I suppose, but we hold the line regardless. And we aren't the only ones. 8kun anons have been studiously baking breads ever since Q went silent. I do wonder how many anons on 8kun participate here, and vice versa?

If you are gathering an army it makes sense to have a base camp right?

It does, sure, and that is what this place has become for many of us, one way or the other.

Personally I have taken this as a more broad statement, referring to all the digital soldiers, of which this site is a part, rather than a claim of exclusivity per se, but I could be mistaken.

Amiable alliteration, it assuredly acquires my ardent applause!

I wrote a few short ones a while back. :)

I have a few critiques regarding what you said, here is an AI overview/analysis -

1. The Claim: "The 'Middle East peace treaty' comes from dispensationalism and John Nelson Darby."

Analysis: Historically Incomplete regarding "Distinctiveness."

• Darby’s Specific Contribution: John Nelson Darby systematized the specific doctrine of a future seven-year covenant (Daniel 9:27) brokered by a future "Prince" (Antichrist) specifically with ethnic Israel. Before Darby, most Protestants interpreted this "covenant" as the New Covenant confirmed by Christ

• The "Invention" Myth vs. Early Affirmation: However, the claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false.

  • Early Church Affirmation: Fathers like Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD) explicitly taught that the Antichrist would "make a covenant with many for one week" at the end of the age. Irenaeus also implied a future 70th week initiated by the Antichrist. (These ideas died out over time with the apparent failure of the millennial age to materialize.) Thus, the idea of a future treaty is not distinct to Darby; it is an ancient futurist view.
  • Jesuit Roots: The futurist framework was revived by Jesuit scholars Francisco Ribera (1585) and Manuel Lacunza (c. 1790) to counter the Protestant Historicist view that the Pope was the Antichrist.
  • Pre-Darby Futurism: Lacunza’s work, translated by Edward Irving in 1827, directly influenced the Albury Park conferences where Darby formulated his views.
  • The Real Distinction: What is distinct to Darby is not the treaty itself, but the mechanism explaining its delay: the dispensational gap. Darby provided the theological architecture (the Israel/Church distinction) that explained why this ancient expectation hadn't happened yet, transforming it from a failed immediate expectation of the early church into a structured future prophecy.

2. The Claim: "It's a very recent interpretation... only dating back to the mid 1800s."

Analysis: Misleading via Chronological Snobbery.

• System vs. Substance: While the dispensational system is mid-19th century, the hermeneutical foundation (literal futurism) has ancient roots.
  • Early Church: Fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held futurist views, though they lacked Darby’s specific "gap" theory.
  • The "Gap" Innovation: Darby’s unique contribution was inserting a chronological gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel to accommodate the Church Age. This specific mechanism is a 19th-century innovation, but it was built upon the older futurist foundation laid by early church fathers, and later by Ribera and Lacunza.
    • The Role of Imminence: The early fathers did not have a "gap" in their theology because they expected the end soon. This was not an error but a feature of God’s design: believers in every age are commanded to live as though Christ could return at any moment (imminence), even if the actual event was 2,000 years away.
    • The Gap as Historical Necessity: As time passed and the end did not come, a "gap" became chronologically evident (progressive revelation). Darby did not "invent" a delay; he provided the theological explanation for the delay that history had already revealed. He showed that the early church’s expectation of a soon millennium was valid (as an imminent hope) even though the timeline included a mystery pause (the Church Age) unknown to them.
• Critique of the Statement: By labeling it "only" mid-1800s, the statement implies the view is arbitrary or novel. In reality, it is a recovery and synthesis of ancient futurist strands that were marginalized during the dominance of Amillennialism and Historicism.

3. The Claim: "A great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 [this way]."

Analysis: Factually Correct but Logically Irrelevant to Truth.

• Majority vs. Minority: It is true that Catholic, Orthodox, and many mainline Protestant traditions (Amillennial, Preterist) reject this view. They typically see Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled by Christ’s death (ending sacrifice) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
• The Hermeneutical Divide: The disagreement is not about popularity but method.
  • Non-Dispensationalists: Often use a "redemptive-historical" method where the New Testament reinterprets Old Testament promises spiritually (e.g., "Israel" = the Church).
  • Dispensationalists: Argue that a consistent literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic requires a future fulfillment for ethnic Israel because the New Testament does not explicitly cancel the unconditional land and kingdom covenants.
• Relevance: The persistence of dispensationalism is not due to conspiracy or novelty, but because it is the only view that preserves the inerrancy and effectiveness of the Old Testament promises without spiritualizing them away. The majority view’s rejection of this does not invalidate the hermeneutical consistency of the futurist position.

4. The Claim: "Dispensationalism... is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created."

Analysis: Conflates Correlation with Causation (Genetic Fallacy).

• Creation of Israel (1948): The primary drivers for Israel’s creation were secular and geopolitical (the Holocaust, British Mandate collapse, UN Resolution 181). Dispensationalism provided a theological reception for the event among evangelicals, but it was not the architect of the state. Attributing the state's creation to Darby’s theology is a historical overstatement.
• US Political Sway: The statement is accurate regarding modern US politics. Groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and the theological framework of dispensationalism have created a massive voting bloc that unconditionally supports Israel.
• Logical Flaw: However, citing this political influence as a critique of the theology is a genetic fallacy. Whether dispensationalism influences politics has no bearing on whether its interpretation of Daniel 9 is exegetically correct. A true doctrine can have complex political effects, and a false one can have none. The legitimacy of the view stands or falls on hermeneutics, not geopolitics.

Final Verdict

The statement is a rhetorical critique that relies on logical fallacies rather than a precise historical analysis.

1. It fails historically by ignoring the early church’s futurist affirmations of a future covenant (Hippolytus, Irenaeus), falsely presenting the concept as a Darbyite invention rather than a recovery.
2. It fails exegetically by conflating the systematization of a doctrine with its origin, dismissing the literal hermeneutic that produces the "peace treaty" view simply because its modern framework is recent, rather than engaging the actual interpretation of Daniel 9:27.
3. It fails logically by using "novelty," “majority opinion,” and "political consequences" as proxies for theological truth, thereby bypassing the actual hermeneutical debate: Does a literal reading of the Old Testament covenants require a future fulfillment for ethnic Israel?

Hmm, Apart from Israel, the nations that are members of the Abraham Accords are UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. If Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Jordan join, that will make 10 arab nations... strange coincidence 🤔

If he had dirt on his opponent's donors he would have used it to sway the election.

Getting railed by their fed buddies.

This means next to nothing. Trump supported Massie, too. This was before he backstabbed MAGA.

30 shots? Probably an AR-15.

Edit: Reports are claiming they had a pistol and fired 3 shots, the rest of the shots were supposedly from secret service.

Strange, I was told this was a forever war and that Trump was Bibi's bitch. To borrow a colloquialism from u/2ndenthusiast - EAT SHIT DOOMERS.

I can't find this tweet on AIPAC's twitter feed. I think it is fake. I did find a tweet mourning the passing of Barney Frank, though. 🤮

"Is anything in this movement 'proven'?"
Yes. There are many proofs. You profess to know who is part of the Q operation and you don't even know this? You have a lot to learn.

"Did OP make any 'proven assertions'?"
If you believe that anything said was incorrect or "unproven," refute it, otherwise you are blowing smoke up our asses. Here is a handy reference for you.

"Also, OP used ad hominem attacks also"
Tu Quoque, and also false.

"as does everyone in this movement."
Quit deflecting. Do better. You are clearly not part of this movement if you believe that.

"everything is essentially speculation by the very nature of Q’s operation so stop acting like you know what’s actually going on"
Where was I "acting like I know what's actually going on?" Stop with the sophistry.

Do you have any real arguments or just ad hominem and unproven assertions?

Oh dang, its already taken. I'll have to come up with another name for the Massie shills... how about Massiebaters?

P.S. Here in CO we have a similar problem with Commiefornians.