1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

You may as well consider this question:

where are the oldest Mosques located and what is their orientation? why can't you dig at Mecca? who then invented it?

It is actually a very strange situation that not even generally 2% of a population lets 8 billion people in a mess?

4
redtoe-skipper 4 points ago +4 / -0

Q mentioned quite a lot. Paint the picture and start here:
+
++
+++

Commonalities?

Antifa / communism + National socialism
commonalities?

Who controls: Media c.q. 4Am talking point?

Q2788:

WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF.
WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU CHALLENGE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE.

Enjoy!

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Last time, they did not think of renting some heavy machinery. No they do. Who rented it out?

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Douglas Reed book: the Jewish Question answers quite a number of the historical issues you mentioned, as he shows the root cause.

It happens to more people, once they start believing in their own messianic bull shit en indispensability.

It reminds me of a song by Udo Jürgens: Vielen Dank für die Blumen .... https://yewtu.be/watch?v=StpAMGbEZDw

" it would be terrible to lose you
but let's try that one as of the first next month".

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Interesting write-up. Thanks for sharing, P.

Reflecting on it, I could not escape the perfect Hegelian dialectic described by the author.

“Two forms of terrorism can provoke such a situation [breakdown of the state]: blind terrorism (committing massacres indiscriminately which cause a large number of victims), and selective terrorism (eliminate chosen persons)…

This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of ‘communist activities.’ After that, we must intervene at the heart of the military, the juridical power and the church, in order to influence popular opinion, suggest a solution, and clearly demonstrate the weakness of the present legal apparatus. Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.”

All in all, I would recommend to cut the coloration and focus on facts alone. Then a different type of Hegelian dialectic appears, on a much higher level. It would explain the sudden changes in direction in policies, for example regarding Greece.

Interestingly, This Q post is related to that: https://qagg.news/?q=loyalists

Also of note is the role of the SOE and we get to Maxwell and his progeny. https://searchvoat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3925401

More on the Maxwell history. https://searchvoat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3916720

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://elohimembassy.org/et-embassy-promotor/ https://aramis-international.org/page.php?11

Here you can see and read a bit about the guy behind the websites ...who is regarded as a prophet ...

High on transgenderism ....

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

added: why is usually not a very helpful question. Why is often geared towards accountability or an exclamation of despair.

Questions can be divided into two types. Closed and open questions.

Closed questions require only a yes or no answer.

Open questions are the most surprising.

My personal favorite question: Who does what, when, where, how, with what resources to obtain what objective/profit? And related to that: what are the forensics of that?

5
redtoe-skipper 5 points ago +5 / -0

It is even more pernicious.

Check out Truvia, a plant based sweetener. It is derived from the Stevia plant, used to curb female reproduction ....

Think of where this shit is being deployed .... Zero ....

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Upvoat ... but I do not want to ruin your no 17.

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

Indeed. The only gun control I submit to is my control of the gun.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

The two posts containing these phrases, in my view, leave open more meanings.

It can indeed be meant to relate to political power.
But clearly, in the context of protecting DNA, ascension indeed may help in restoring what is put under assault by the DS.

Both can be true at the same time.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

I saw a video in some chat channel with the title: Nazis STOLE the swastika.

Emo for sure, as stealing implies ownership. And as far as we can tell, it was imported into those regions by eh .... the top of the line of the hindhu caste syste, bramans ...who were blue eyed, white people ....

Nazis stole, appropriated, whatever. Every culture has done so. This is the beauty of symbols. You take it, load it with your own messaging.

Just like the Jews do with their "star of david" which is a stylized representation of the Venus star (Ishtar) touring around the sun as seen from the earth. (Apart fro the fact there is no historical record of David, except for those records put to paper as part of a political movement)

And what do you know .... there is even a synagogue mosaic of pre Roman times where these two symbols appear brotherly together ....

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

As far as I am concerned there is no need for an apology. Do your thing! It is one gigantic puzzle anyway. Who knows what you'll uncover.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think that the cars became nervous because Qanon was making conspiracy theory of them being together. The engines were injected as a booster.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

SA = primary, US is secondary, (Asia/EU) [Israel for last?]

What are we seeing?

Are we seeing a shift to Asia .... CCP Mainland vs Taiwan, putting the EU in a death-spiral?

What if wonderland is not just one geographic location but worldwide? A Global wonderland?

Also note what is missing in this equation. (Russia, Russia, Russia)

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

George Carlin: soon all you need to get into college is a pencil. Got a pencil? Get in there: it's physics.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=sNXHSMmaq_s

The last winner: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3ib_bpljYBc

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

And what a Brave New World we are seeing coming into existence ...

And those once blind, are coming to see the light.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is from the series: Starwars: Andor. Words spoken by Stellan Skarsgärd in his role as Luthen Rael.

It is actually quite a nice fit for Anon-theater.

These words were spoken to a sleeper agent deep inside the Emperors SBI.

Feast on this me 'earties. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=GQMDmb3mOY8

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

hahahha, de shone kizer = der Schöne Kaiser ( Wilhelm I or II) the pretty emperor. I never saw that name. Funny that.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would like to see the plans this guy is taking about. My bet: Frankfurt school .....

But Oh boy ... that ain't Nazi but pure wokism avant la lettre.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Deep voice: "Do you really have to guess?" ...:-)

What doe your bible tell you, or better yet: what does your own spring of knowledge tell you?

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, I guess it is a good idea to call for honesty. Such a lonely word, indeed. And since we are on that subject: Your reading of: cherry picking has advantages, is rather odd.

It reminds me of my brother and the marmalade pot, looking intently to fish out the next strawberry, leaving me only the gel. The funny part was, while he was busy doing so, he got crossed eyed.

At any rate, cherry picking is the name of a logical fallacy.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

So, from my side there is no emotion connected to the term, except maybe the image of my cross eyed brother, which makes me laugh anyway. Snarky is hardly applicable. But rather, I remarked that cherry picking has advantages. And it sure does, because, it can also be used as to device to check the quality of another member in discourse.

Of course, you may be very well reading snarky into what I wrote. It then is about you and not me.

  1. your cherry picking comment was snarky
  2. your cherry picking comment hurt my feelings for I take it as snarky.

See the difference?

I am not saying you are wrong nor inferring you are. I am saying cherry picking has advantages.

Then comes the next thing. Your question about my state of being. I am making a factual observation, explain in detail as to the basis of that observation. And yet, you want to know about my pride. Interesting.

And even if it were pride, does that invalidate the observation of cherry picking having advantages? No. the observation remains valid.

Even more so, Could it be I am accusing myself of cherry picking? Was it a warning against cherry picking? Was it an ironic remark about myself being engaged in biblical meaning? How would you know? Did you ask?

Asking about a state of being, especially leading like you do, seems to indicate another reason. By writing it the way you did, did you try to invalidate the proof?

This brings me to your direct question. As said before, allow the text to speak for itself. You can conclude whatever you wish. It is just a matter of what is reverberating with you.

As always, as Master Yoda succinctly remarked: "misread the prophesy could have been". My observation: Prophesy, generally understood today, is of a different time than now.

So, this leaves us with the question of the actual meaning of the verb: to read.

view more: Next ›