2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mind elaborating a bit? This is something I've never really researched in depth. What does hollywood have to do with Charlottesville and Harrisonburg?

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

The VERY basic version is, now the Russian government can start forcing private business to comply with military demands because they've shifted to a wartime economy.

Think like what happened in the USA during WW II, where Ford, GM, and Chrysler stopped competing and building cars, and started building Jeeps, Trucks, Guns, Ammo, etc.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

And? Jesus said that not everyone who says "Lord Lord" will be allowed into Heaven. False prophets abound. Her giving one "good Christian" speech, doesn't override all the evil she did. Even if you want to try and discount the Children she killed and probably ate in Canada, you can't deny that she, at the VERY LEAST, enabled her pedophile family and protected them.

Meaning she at the very least, had an indirect hand in their evil.

21
cathole953 21 points ago +21 / -0

The article says 1,400 acres, not 114,000. Not saying it isn't still a problem, foreign nationals shouldn't be allowed to own ANY agricultural land in the USA, or real estate in general really. But there's quite a big difference between 1,400 acres and 114,000 acres.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

Little late to the party, but I've been busy today and I'm just now going through today's posts.

But as to the point of the post, it's growing. Outside of the points made in the Harvard study, there's several other factors at work here. There's the obvious demoralization factor that comes with fake polls and statistics that places like CBS constantly point out (remember, basically every poll and "study" is fake. I'd even be hesitant to fully believe the ones that appeal to our side like this Harvard study)

So the fake news is manipulating statistics to achieve their desired result, in this case the shrinking of Christianity since they want us to be a nation of Godless heathens who have no purpose in life other than obeying the orders of the elite. What else is new?

But I digress, there's too many methods they go about manipulating statistics to go into detail about all of them in one post. So I'll just give a brief overview of the most applicable one.

The "nones/nothing in particular". Ever wonder why this category was added? If you don't believe in anything, then by definition, you're an atheist. But that's a completely different category. So why was the "None/Nothing in particular" category added? Simple, to manipulate statistics.

The single fastest growing Christian group in America is the non-denominational Christian demographic. People are leaving mainline churches like the plague because of the corruption that's being shown more and more every day. But they're not abandoning their religion. They're simply choosing not to affiliate with a mainline church anymore. So where do these people get categorized? You guessed it. The "Nones/Nothing in particular" category.

It's basically a catch all term for people who don't fallow a mainline religion. If you factor in the number of non-denominational Christians who typically aren't counted in these types of "polls and surveys" then America is something like 75-80% Christian in terms of demographics. Now that doesn't mean that every single one of those people an overly devout Christian who obeys God's word to the T. That's never been true of any nation throughout history.

Even ancient Israel never had 100% adherence to God's word throughout their entire population. And they had front row seats to literal miracles. But what it DOES mean, is that anyone saying Christianity is shrinking is full of crap.

On a side note, these types of "polls and surveys" are misleading in another way. They're almost always based on percentages. If we go in terms of raw numbers, then there are currently more Christians in the USA then at any other point in history 64% of 330 Million is 198 Million, Meaning that there are more Christians in the USA currently then the entire population we had in the early and mid 1900s. And of course even these statistics are skewed because of census manipulation, presence of illegals, foreign nationals on Student and Work Visas, etc. If you account for all of that, then these numbers are even greater

Let me just blow your mind. If you account for the 40-50 million illegals in the country, and the 10-25 Million Foreign nationals on Work and Student Visas, then the population of American Christian CITIZENS makes up between 70.7%-77.6% of the population using the "official" census numbers. Meaning that in the 40 years since the "peak" of Christianity in 80s America, there's only been a decrease of a few percentage points.

But again, that doesn't include for population census manipulation, which is another topic entirely and I don't want to high jack this thread and rant about that. Long story short, by my best guesstimates, I'd say that somewhere between 10-20% of the USA population is just outright fake and used to manipulate political maps and gerrymandering, as well as supply the left with a steady supply of phantom votes to pull from. When accounting for this, the previously mentioned numbers put the American Citizen Christian population at being more in the 80-90% range. Which means it's grown since the "peak" in the 80's.

Which again, proves that Christianity is growing, and not shrinking.

EDIT: Went back and read the article mentioned on the Reddit Thread, and noticed this little gem. The entire "study" that was conducted, was done without a single scenario in which Christianity grows, despite it currently growing. And also admitted that the percentages were based on the "none/nothing in particular" category including people who just choose to not affiliate themselves with an organized religion. Meaning all of these numbers they're throwing around include non-denominational Christians.

So that just further proves that it's a load of propagandistic horse crap meant to demoralize us into thinking we're a dying breed, when the exact opposite is true.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

With this same logic, we can apply our recent history and current events to achieve a similar result. The numerous wars, financial hardship, and just outright tyrannical corruption that have been experienced by the current generation are more than enough to achieve that result.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not really much of a choice. The literal only option is Christianity for an infinite number of reasons.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wouldn't see me complain too awful much. But you'd have to pick which period during the 1800s. Not like every single decade was wonderful and morally upright. That's why I tend to use more modern time periods in my examples, since people can relate to them more.

8
cathole953 8 points ago +8 / -0

That was kind of the point I was trying to make here, I think that's why the plan is laid out as such. It's to bring us back to Traditional conservative Christian moral and societal norms, without letting us go too far to the right that we end up being the bad guys in the next cycle. Which may even end up breaking said cycle, if we play our cards right.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm not saying it's on the same level as today, in fact that's kind of the point. It DID happen, but it get's progressively worse every cycle. In the 20's and 30s it was a "down low" kind of thing. Where people knew it was going on, but no one said anything and it was still shameful. In the 60s and 70s it started being more open. Then in the late 90s to mid 2000s it just blew up and EVERYTHING was out in the open.

That's kind of the point I'm making. The pendulum keeps swinging harder and harder to either side during each cycle, but it always swings. Meaning we have to manage that swing this time, otherwise we'll either end up in an actual far right society, or we'll be in an even worse mess in another 20-40+ year cycle.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

Also true, just another few points to make about the 20 year pattern we seem to have. This probably goes back even further if you start looking at the Mexican American War, the civil war, etc.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

Eh, I'm of the opinion that the whole "everyone from california is a raging leftist" argument is getting kind of stupid at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain a pretty big chunk of them are. But the evidence that keeps coming out suggests that even California went Trump in 2020. And most of the evidence also suggests that people moving from California to other states are overwhelmingly conservative by like a 85-90% margin.

When people say stuff like this, it's like trying they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. We can't keep claiming that all of these states are having their elections stolen by cheating and that they're actually conservative, while also acting like everyone from these same states is a raving liberal whose only goal is to spread like a cancer.

Again, not saying every single person moving from California to Texas, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, etc. is conservative, that's equally stupid. But the numbers and patterns don't lie, and we can't have it both ways. Either they're all stupid liberal sheep, or they're conservatives who are tired of having their vote stolen and moving somewhere that more aligns with their actual morals and beliefs.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +2 / -1

The key point here is you're referring to the queen's **PERSONAL wealth, which is distinctly different from the royal estates being held in trusts.

I will freely admit that I'm not the most well versed on this topic as I'm not British, but upon a bit of further research I'll clarify where I was wrong.

British royals ARE exempt from the estate tax as well apparently, so I was wrong on that part. However, I was still correct about the trusts. The Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster (The 2 Royal estates from which the lifestyle of the British Royal Family are funded) are held in the types of trusts I mentioned.

The queen did indeed have a personal net worth of 365 million pounds (I'm American, I have a dollar key instead of a pound or Euro key), but the overwhelming majority of the $30 Billion royal estate mentioned in OP's article is held in some form of trust, either the British equivalent of a dynasty trust or a public trust (Which basically means it's treated as a national monument, kind of like the White House).

For example, the previous mentioned Duchies are also mentioned in this article as having a value of $750 Million and $1 Billion respectively. These estates can never be taxed as per the estate tax, since technically, the state owns them and the beneficiary is whoever the current Monarch/Crown Prince/Princess is.

That's how most of the Royal Estate works. Buckingham palace for example, is generally considered to be worth $1-4 Billion by itself, but it's also held in a public trust since it's a national monument with the beneficiary being the reigning monarch.

11
cathole953 11 points ago +12 / -1

Not defending that evil family, but this article is incredibly inaccurate. My understanding is that the act mentioned makes the royal family exempt from INCOME taxes. The reason they're exempt from estate taxes, is because they're not actually inheriting anything. From a legal standpoint, everything is being held in a series of special trusts (I'm not sure what the technical term for the type of trust is in the UK, but in the USA they're called Dynasty Trusts).

These trusts basically are written and created in such a way, that they never run out and either ever Trustee/Beneficiary is allowed to designate a "secondary beneficiary/trustee" that takes their place upon death, of they go ahead and lay out the rules of beneficial/trustee succession upon creation of the trust, wherein they can lay out the rules that their descendants must follow in order to get their inheritance.

By doing this, no individual heir ever legally inherits the actual estate, which is owned by a separate legal entity, and instead are only entitled to a portion of the annual estate income depending on whether they're just a beneficiary or a both a beneficiary and a trustee.

So technically anyone can do this, most people just have little to no use to do it.

On a side note, this is also a perfect way to avoid losing half your crap in a divorce and avoiding alimony. If you legally own nothing and reposition your "income" as "living expenses" then your ex has nothing to sue you over from a legal standpoint.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have no idea, that happens to me to semi often. It also doesn't load and just displays as a gray screen if you scroll too fast for me. That's why I just usually get fed up and wait till I have access to an actual computer.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well I said 20-40 Million, but I wouldn't doubt 50+ Million being the true number. In which case, this just further proves my point.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

But again, you're running into the problem I mentioned where they haven't yet implemented a CCP style "big brother" system globally. This IS their end goal, but that haven't yet achieved it. That's the point I'm making here.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

......I don't think you understand how thermal optics work. at the scale you're talking about, the heat from the lights, car engines, electric grids, etc. In a city would simply make it look like a giant blob with varying colors. There's very little chance you could pick up millions or billions of individual heat signatures the size of a human.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well yeah, but it's not through CCP style cameras on your face every ten feet with a social credit system. I'm not saying we're not all under constant surveillance, that's literally what the whole Julian Assange fiasco was about. I'm just saying that it's a different type of surveillance.

Large amounts of people don't actively use the internet much, if at all. Likewise, there is a VERY large population of people who like to do things "old school", and keep their footprint to a minimum. Hence it would be infinitely harder to keep up constant surveillance on these types. And that doesn't even touch the topic of preppers and off grid types, of which there are a sizable population in the USA.

There's a reason they want to corral us all into cities. That's step one in achieving the surveillance system you're talking about.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean, you're not wrong, but besides the fact I'm 100% against such things, the only places on earth using such technology are China and as of recently a few hyper cuck European nations who are starting to attempt to implement it.

Ergo, while that WOULD work (and I'm still against it for obvious reasons), the current numbers can't be proven using such methods.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

See, the problem there lies in the fact that you don't know how many housing units are contained in each of these building or how many are occupied for that matter, this also doesn't account for multiple people living together (families, people sharing rent, etc.), mixed used buildings which have apartments and offices/retail shops, homeless people, etc.

In LA for example, it's not unusual for 5+ people to share a medium sized apartment just to afford the rent.

Another problem with this method is the fact that we currently have a housing shortage, a well known fact at this point. Ergo, even if you DID manage to accurately estimate the available number of housing units available in a major city, the actual population would still more likely than not be higher than that given there's a shortage of available housing in pretty much every modern developed nation with the notable exception of the Scandinavian nations.

5
cathole953 5 points ago +5 / -0

.....You do realize that exact link also lists 616 cities with a population under a million, and they stop counting at a little over half a million, so literally every small town and city in the world with a population of under 500K isn't counted, thus confirming what I said about how the overwhelming number of local communities in the world are small towns and cities.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

I disagree, NYC and Tokyo are global outliers. The overwhelming majority of local communities in the world are small towns and villages. Besides, you're comparing apples to oranges here. NYC is the largest city in North America. You can hardly compare it to anything else, other than LA county (not the city proper).

Austin officially has more people in it than several states have as their statewide population, but I digress. This is all a pointless argument as the point still stands and we're arguing semantics.

There's no way to prove there's a million people in Austin currently, and if you want to talk about places with even larger populations then my point just get's further proven. How do you prove there's 8 million people in NYC or 10 million in LA county rather than say, 4 million and 5 million respectively?

You can't, since there's no way to get that amount of people to volunteer for a physical headcount. And you can't tell the difference between 8 million and 4 million people when you're just walking around anyway. It'll just look like a crap ton of people.

5
cathole953 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well I mean, not like there's not a global cabal of evil pulling the strings of society in the background or anything. Just saying, there's obviously a lot of people involved at this point, probably more than we ever thought.

22
cathole953 22 points ago +22 / -0

Didn't even occur to me, but yeah. This is another point in favor of this being what's actually happening. As you and u/Emyrylde pointed out, this is yet another way to siphon off money from the tax payers and line their own pockets while screwing us all over.

The more I think about it, and the more input I get from you guys, the more likely I think this is since it would explain so much going on, and fits in really well with much of what Q said.

view more: Next ›