It was the FBI, but it was because the communists who infiltrated its ranks had to remove him once he was bo longer a useful asset.
An asset that outlived it's utility is a liability.
He was being investigated and would have been the type to give up a lot of important embedded agents in powerful places, along with a lot of terrorists who had not yet outlived their usefulness.
There's different ways in which hate can be expressed.
Not just through violence, but also through other means.
Like getting up and telling the truth, be it whistleblowing or speaking something true but suppressed or ignored because it's unpopular.
Or forwarding a philosophy that's In stark contrast to the most acceptable ones.
Setting boundaries, such as that you shall not engage in some interaction with a person or group that offends you, on a temporary or permanent basis.
Leaving or leading an exodus, as in the example of the abused partner in a relationship.
And a variety of other ways.
The poin here is that hate is not as stupid a thing as people think it is, it's actually a lot more conducive to survival than the alternatives, which get you killed.
The universality of the capacity for hatred is a testament to that reality, making decisions based on statistical likelihood and pattern recognition is smart, even when it leads to some amount of false positives, coming to every instance on its own with no prior is a recipe for ones own destruction and repeatedly being taken advantage of.
A good compromise is to come in with priors, but modify your initial assumptions based on likelihood and patterns of experience to suit the instance using the information gleaned about it from one's experiences of that instance.
For example, if every green candy makes you sick, you might avoid eating green candies if you don't want to get sick, if you live in a culture thay views the avoidance of green candies as a moral evil, and views the claim thay green candies make you feel ill as an immoral statement, then you might feel trapped and form one of two positions.
Pretending that all candies are complete unknowns, with no statistical chances of causing illness being attached to them, or the attitude that you should take the resolute stance that all green candies make you ill, or the attitude most supported by society that all green candies are 100 percent safe, or just as likely to cause you illness as any other color of candy.
But let's say there are some green candies don't make you sick, and while they may look like the green candies that do, there's some tell signs that give away the safe green candies.
The former situation closes off the idea of inspecting the green candies in particular before eating them, as it shows that you doubt green candies safety.
You are forced into either eating all green candies and being far more likely to fall ill, or refusing them, and suffer the negative consequences from your society as someone who doesn't eat green candies.
From the evo psych perspective, in the absence of social pressures, avoiding green candies altogether is the course favored by natural selection, your inspections might let pass a green candy that makes you sick for one which doesn't.
But with the addition of societal influences, now we have a selfish gene situation where we have two survival instincts at odds with each other, you need to avoid being sick, but also to avoid being attacked by a society whose morals you had violated.
Inspecting each candy also comes at a cost beyond the risk of a false negative getting through and making you ill of you do it regardless of color, we have limited time, energy, and resources available, furthermore, we'd lose social standing by doubting every candy we come across, just as if we rejected a candy color that our society favors.
We can also see the more far reaching consequences of such thinking, it spreads around, in that any society runs on trust, without it, people will fail to follow the laws that exist, or treat authorities as authoritative, people will not help one another, and will grow distant from one another, as relationships are formed on trust as well, in fact, every facet of society gets worse.
That's the true result of approaching everyone as if they were a complete unknown without any prior assumptions, that's not a world where everyone universally trusts everyone else to be good, it's a "who goes there?" Type situation of universally applied paranoia.
That's also evolutionary, you have a better chance of survival with approaching new and unknown things with caution and worst assumptions than with taking the opposite approach, which gets you a darwin award with one encounter of a dangerous instance.
It's not stupid stupid have prejudices, it's stupid not to develop them, however, it's best to be able to modify your prejudices over time as new data comes in.
This third path is completely shut out of discourse by both halves of the political divide on this issue.
Ironically the problem is that everyone makes assumptions and their prejudices lead them to the blanket rejections of prejudice.
Just as the anti racists spew the most hateful language against the particular groups that are deemed acceptable to hate in our culture, and call themselves fighters against hate.
Because as I said the instinct to hate is innate, and when certain channels are denied, others open up with far more pressure, like the anorexic that will become a binge eater if they could be given one food that doesn't count as food.
Like how a lot of our violent impulses are redirected to increasing extremes in entertainment and leisure activities, like sport, or how pornogrqphic tastes become so much more depraved in those who are denied sex.
If a robot that is exactly like a human doesn't count as a human, what kinds of things would we then do to them that we are denied to do with other human beings?
People will fanatically defend discrimination based on race, in the name of combating racial discrimination, because that's their pressure release valve, they need some exception that doesn't count.
If hating someone doesn't count as hate, then all those natural passions instilled instance bh evolution yet denied to us by society will come out in full force upon them.
The hate towards this specific target becomes more and more vicious and irrational, as we were when white people get blamed for things that other races had done, and even for their mere existence.
That's the nature of a scapegoat, you kill the goat for the crimes of the townsfolk, so that they will not have to deal with the messy matter of who had done what, and what should be done about it.
In many ways, the need to preserve social harmony by refusing to address such problems is also innate and an intense instinct that we cannot shut off, merely redirect.
If we could have a humanity free of the capacity for hate, it would spell the end of good people, and the never ending reign of whoever is most psychopathic.
If there's one person who is free of hatred, it's an utter psychopath, we've seen it, someone unable to hate is someone unable to see other people as truly being other people.
Tied to hate is our morality, our sense of fear, the amygdala, the very purpose of the conscience and moral instinct is to avoid that which harms our success in spreading gene copies, the instinct to hate serves this same purpose, and it exists because it does so effectively.
Lots of people notice thw same patterns that are social unacceptable to notice, so they instead put all the blame for rge consequences of the realities they pretend to ignore upon a specific group that is used as the exception to this rule.
I was around for the days of OWS, involved online since I didn't live near any of the places there the protests were occurring, but kept close tabs on their unfolding.
These events were destroyed by jews.
They let people in who were supporters of the cause, strong supporters, they were Jewish and used holocaust survivor language to compare the people they were protesting against to the nazis, as both mainstream parties are known to do.
It was these Jews who started to introduce the LGBT and blm style garbage that ended up destroying the movement from within.
They knew they were doing it too, they were backed up by US government spooks, obviouy an official collaboration, but mostly this was their doing.
The tea party was also destroyed in much the same way, it was an event happening around that time, some jews join up as hard-core libertarians, again with the holocaust rhetoric that endears them to the hapless fools running the events, and then the Injection of social justice politics into the events, which successfully caused to collapse upon themselves.
Protesting the Iraq War and patriot act? Similar thing occurred.
It was always some Jewish fellow or lady, who initially comes in as a staunch ally, but leaves as the catalyst for the destruction of some real grassroots resistance to the government agendas.
I try telling people not to trust jews and to gatekeep them out, I'm always told back that it's wrong to be hateful, and that these ones are based.
They always turnout to be the orchestrations of the destruction of the cause.
When I started learning history, I saw a pattern of nations experiencing all the issues we are, time and again, the situations got worse until one specific solution was employed, and that was the solution of killing the jews.
Every time, it worked like a charm when other courses of action had failed, killing the jews is not a solution to the problems we have experienced today, it's the only one that could work.
We don't just have to kill the jews, we we need to kill anyone who had collaborated with them, typically these are the aristocracy of the time, the richest, most influential, and most powerful people.
Both this and offing the jews is a necessity, but the jew part must be done as a priority, attempting to just do the second will see the jews come into the resistance and betray it by destroying it from within.
Their methods for doing so have changed somewhat, but their acts effects have not.
Agree wholeheartedly, however, you come across as an internet tough guy who is tilted that he said something which made him look dumb and got called on it.
Fight for the equal rights of whites, use the rhetorical techniques jews have perfected to do so (I've just recently made a couple posts detailing exactly what those are).
I think we SHOULD boycott isreal funding goods, but the fact that the law against it exists in the country which had the best freedom of speech in the world right now is a sign that jews run the US gov and had since the time that law was passed.
And no, I do not beleive that freedom of speech or expression should have limits on it.
Why would you infer any of the conclusions you've arrived at from my post?
It's illegal to call for a boycott of the kosher certified food in the United States.
The USA is typically very good at preserving free expression under the first amendment, but the few exceptions made include the boycotting of isreali products and services.
There are seven civilizations that were the progenitors of the various other civilizations that formed from people who had split off from them.
Each of these cradle civilizations had a foundational mythology that all offshoot civilizations had taken with them, and transformed into new variants of the original mythology.
For example, European mythologies and religions all originate from those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, hence all the similarities that exist between the hostorical myths and religions of Europe, North Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, and North Africa, basically all the places where classical civilizations of Greece and Rome has colonized or conquered (under great leaders like Alexander and Caesar).
These mythologies and religions bled in with those of the more Eastern Asian and Southern Asian mythologies and religions, he certainly why there's a lot of overlap, especially in location where both racial civilizationa had historucally held dominance (such as places colonized or conquered by ghenghis khan) though much less so than in the places where only one or the other held dominance (rare places like Britain and France).
Perrenialism essentially connects all the religions and mythologies of Eurasia and North Africa together as having all come from a common ancestor mythology/religion, one that had both evolved over time (towards monotheism) and diverged into various splinter myths/faiths.
Hence all the commonalities, like ugly primordial giants being killed off by a younger generation, humans being crafted out of some inanimate substance and modeled after the Gods, serpents as the symbol of night, evil, and temptation, a world doomed by a woman's curiosity, a great sacrifice to bring power to humanity, a great flooding of the world to cleanse it of its hubris, a hero characterized by both great strength and frightening rage who is made to suffer under a vow for the sake of a crime he had once committed, a weakling being placed into the body of a great and divine being before coming out with a divine power, and more.
All of these exist within Christianity, but also within Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, and Slavic folklore.
The hero of strength and rage living under a vow he took to atone for his sins, he could be Samson, or Hercules, or Cu Cullain, the giants could be the Nephilim, or titans, or formorians, or jotunar, the serpent could be the serpent of eden, or apep the sun eater, or jormounger the one who bites at the roots of the world tree, the flood could be a reference to the biblical cleansing, or to the Greek gods putting out the fires of earth wirh a constant deluge, or the Norse flood when the world of fire got too close to the world of ice.
I was in a telegram dedicated to resisting the government, and the group owners were attacking those who they claimed represented "hate" (those those were telling thw truths that the conservatives pretend aren't real).
In typical fashion, they claimed that the left was the side that represents hatred over love, and that they stood with love over hatred.
These neoconservative boomers posted this under a picture of a group holding signs that identified them as being "Gay Republicans".
Apparently if you love Jesus, being a faggot isn't enough to put you outside the GOP.
Of course, the GOP seems to be completely compromised by RINOS who only care about sucking off Zionists and accepting anyone who claims to be a Christian representing Christianity, particularly "Christian Values", a term they've rendered all by meaningless.
It's controlled opposition, 100 percent, full of tactically embedded imbeciles who claim that the power that be are somehow unable to ignore the way things are supposed to be done in their system, and instead just do whatever they feel like, because the entire establishment is colluding together and will protect those who wrong their people from any of checks and balances that exist in our countries.
They claim that their oaths mean something, that the system operates in reality the way that it does on paper, except in the nigh constant cases when it doesn't.
That they will do the right thing by their positions because they are Christians who swore to to so before Gawd, or because they give the impression that they might be sympathetic to the resistance (of course the cops and politicians who are trained to tell tactical lies would never lie to them just because it's tactically beneficial for them to do so).
They claim that laws mean something when there's no one willing to abide by them, as if they are binding all on their own when consequences for breaking them are absen, and it is in fact more beneficial and less detrimental for those who ignore them than it is for those who honestly observe the obligations and restrictions that someone holding their position has under them.
I think that's enough to give you the picture of what kind of people inspired me to make this post.
That's the OG from which Christianity had cribbed a bunch of its notes from, much of the Christian conception of Jesus was taken from Ankhenaten.
Also the phonetic similarity between the names Aten and Adam are no coincidence, look into kabbalah to find a lot of origins of the modern Abraham's faiths, including Christianity.
Also Zororastrianism, which also heavily influenced these faiths.
It's how jews force corporations to do what they want them to.
GM v Ford.
It's why corporations act the way they do, it's illegal for them not to behave like ESG obsessed psychopaths.
Corporate personhood.
This shields those who work in these corporations from being held legal accountable for their actions in pursuing the all important ESG.
Combine this with the constant interference in the marketplace from the government which created the corporate oligopolies and monopolies we live under.
Combined with the stranglehold that intellectual property gives to corporations over the market.
Then you got all the opponents of how the kikes had created the monstrous corporate landscape we live in today.
Then your beliefs are in contradiction with what the Bible says.
>"if God is the Creator of all things and God's plan is divine, your suggestion, that man can decide for himself what laws to obey and know better than God, is CLEARLY wrong. As wrong as 2+2=15 is clearly wrong."
Your view of religion makes no sense, do humans have free will or do we only follow what God has planned for us?
If the latter, then maybe mankind choosing their own moral path apart from what God says is a part of his divine plan, in which case all moral decisions are a part of God's morality, even those who sacrifice babies to moloch are acting within God's inescapable moral framework, it is done because God willed it or because he allowed it within the context of his plan.
If the former, then God's Divine Plan is little more than one of many possible suggested paths that we could choose to take, we could follow God's suggestions, or we could not, t5he fact that he's the all powerful all knowing creator of the universe only holds any special authority if we choose to value it as giving him some special consideration as such.
A college degree doesn't give any sort of special consideration to your words unless the listener thinks it does, a bear, for example, won't give a flying fuck about it. What if God changed his commandments such that you'd be immoral not to sacrifice a baby to moloch every saturday night? What if God was successfully usurped by Satan and now he is the most powerful thing in the world? What if a SuperGod appeared who was the one that created God, and he started giving commandments?
All are possibilities that aren't too extreme within the context of the Biblical canon: God did change his mind many times in the Bible as he did with Abraham, Noah, and Jesus, so why couldn't he do it again? There were people who thought they were worshipping the true creator of the universe, but were deceived into thinking that a false god was the true God, couldn't we, as fallible as they were, have been deceived so as well? Lucifer led a rebellion to usurp God, why would he unless he knew God could possibly be usurped? The Babylonian's tower was built only to communicate directly with God, not to usurp him, but had made God afraid of the possibility of his usurpation at the hands of humans, so he collapsed it and confused their tongues. Why would he do so in fear of a threat that wasn't even a possibility?
The idea of God being all powerful and all knowing isn't something we know for sure, the theologians have done a better job at convincing us of this than the bible did.
The parts we have that are used to justify this claim are quotes from God himself as he brags about having great power and knowledge, but this is him boasting in order to intimidate or humble those he stands before, but we see evidence of clear limits to the power and knowledge of God, as early as Genesis we see things happening that God doesn't want, we see him discovering these events through personal experience, as if he didn't know about them beforehand, we see God say things that turn out not to be true, and we see the limits to his powers in that he speaks of things he cannot change (such as the events of the original sin), and we see God express fear, he evicts Adam and Eve because he's afraid they would go on to eat of the tree of eternal life, and then nothing will be restricted from them, he also gets angry, which goes to show that he is not all powerful, and not all knowing (an all powerful all knowing being would never get so much as frustrated, since nothing is beyond his ability to repair, and nothing is a surprise to him, instead, he just punishes everyone for their disobedience, which also shows his limits, because how could his creations disobey him if he was all powerful and all knowing?).
>"The whole principal that God's Law can be ignored or obeyed selectively would suggest that God might be wrong or God's law might not actually be law. This would suggest that mankind could decide, for himself, what laws to obey to the point of being in opposition to the laws of the creator."
Well, yes, that is what people do, most Christians do this, even in the course of their religious practices and observations, with so many interpretations of the Bible and God's will among denominations, and more among individual Christians, most have a selective few Biblical rules they will follow, and other they will ignore. There are many more who aren't Christian or even religious, who do make their own decisions regarding what morals they follow.
Look at the most degenerate and extreme social justice warrior leftist cuckold, and you will see that they aren't immoral (intentionally doing evil) or amoral (not caring about moral matters one way or the other) they intend to be moral, but their moral values are very different to yours, they care about nobody feelings being hurt except those who deserve to suffer, and those who deserve to suffer deserve it because of the suffering they cause to others, and also because they have it easier than others do, and that's unfair, so they can afford to suffer a bit (our race's extinction is okay because we ruled the world for so long), for them this is what justice is.
They view prejudice against anyone who isn't white (gentile) straight (acting) and male (cisgendered) as being an absolute evil, there's no questioning allowed regarding whether or not this is objectively wrong, "hate" of this kind is something they see as being at the core of all the ills of the world. It's an existential threat that must be stamped out (or at least the outward facing expressions of it must be gotten rid of).
>"It also suggests that by disobeying God's law that you could receive the ability to know better than God what is good or evil. These ideals are CLEARLY wrong if God is the Creator of all things and God's plan is divine. But there you are, blatantly wrong, refusing to acknowledge it."
1. I said that the Bible clearly states that you inherently possess the ability to distinguish good from evil from birth, regardless of whether or not you've chosen to obey God's law.
2. How does God being the creator and his plan being divine lend any special status to his commands? if you don't give a fuck about is power or plan, then that has no real bearing upon the significance of it.
3. I'm not wrong, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying, you assume that the things you value are the only things one could put value upon, and in the world we exist in, where the large majority of humanity seems to value something, the idea that other things could be seen as being more important than God, even to those who believe in him, is beyond your comprehension, this despite the Bible being full of such examples.
There are other laws than those given by God, moral, and legal, and even as someone who believes the Bible to be literal truth, you can choose to put any of those laws above that given by God, this likely applies to you.
As a follower of Christ, have you cut off your hand when you got angry? have you removed your eye when you've felt lust? have you abandoned your family? have you discarded all your possessions and given away all your money? when's the last time you observed the holiday of passover? are you without sin? then why are you making judgments of others?
The very fact that you are arguing with me on the internet shows that you aren't putting the words of your lord above all else, you are putting yourself above Christ for the sake of personal convenience, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine you putting the laws of our land above the words of the holy writ.
Not that it's possible to live according to the Bible, Jesus commands you to follow the laws that preceded him, then he issues a bunch of commandments that contradict those laws, and suggests a way of living that is entirely unlivable, and would collapse any society that does follow these advisements, there's a good reason that for most Christians, all they ask is that you accept Christ as your lord and savior, and stick to SOME of the ten commandments, but for the most part stick to the laws of the land, because expecting them to genuinely use the Bible or the words of Christ as a moral or legal compass is impractical and impossible.
There exists no clearer a sign that someone is about to say something false than when they preface it with lines like "obviously", "clearly", "everybody knows", and "it's common knowledge".
In my experience, such statements generally indicate that they are either mistaken about what they speak of, and are mindlessly reciting the assumptions they've made in error, or they are lying and trying to use the bias of peer pressure or the shame of doubting what is clear as day to keep tem from discovering the lie and proceeding to expose it.
A lot of what most people find to be intuitively true from their experiences is false.
One example: the idea that being in extreme cold could cause you to feel hot, and thus strip your clothes off to cool yourself in the snow is counter to most people's intuition, but it's true, and paradoxical undressing takes the lives of many inexperienced mountaineers.
The Bible says it clearly, that they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, "and their eyes were opened, knowing good from evil". I also believe it said that they "became as God" in this aspect.
This is later proven in that the way the God discovers what they had done is that he had seen them covering their nakedness, because they weren't doing that before they had eaten of the fruit.
Genesis itself tells us, in explicit terms, that God lied when he said that they would die on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit, and the serpent told the truth when he said that they would "become as God, knowing good from evil".
Crack it open and read the verses, right now. I'm operating from memory, but pretty sure I'm right about this.
So your own book refutes you.
Also, to be clear, I was speaking from the assumption given that the Christian canon and religion is true.
Yeah, and they have a set of "values" and "traditions" as well, their goal wasn't just to break down our society, it was to build it back up as the society they wanted to have.
So we can break down the society they have built, which we live in, and build it back up in the image of our choosing, but to do so, we need to follow the same steps they used to achieve what they had.
The first thing is point out the contradictions in their society, that speaking of the crimes committed by jews is wrong, regardless of truthfulness, because it comes from a motivation of fostering hatred towards them. The underlying principle being that their society is one where no group should be hated.
Yet our society is filled to the brim with hatred being incited against white people in exactly this way, with our crimes, historical or current, constantly having attention brought to them, our numbers in any institution being popular record and widely characterized as being the result of racial collusion, literally everything the jews shut down with regard to themselves, is being done to us, and with far more ubiquity.
This is criticism that could be used to make the first cracks in a rampant anti-white prejudice that the jews have created.
We can also attack on the front that white people are discriminated against on an institutional, cultural, and private level, with the facts of this discrimination, the forms it takes, the degree and level to which that exists, it's all ammunition.
Anyone who tries to counter this particular campaign has their opinions on white people made public record, we bring up the attitudes they've expressed towards us, and that will be the beginning and end of our response, they are hateful, it's all there on their archived twitter feed, so anything thyey say is motivated by hatred towards us and thus should be disregarded.
We are not strong now, we could only conceivably do something like that from a position where we are at the very least strong enough together and organize.
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
It was the FBI, but it was because the communists who infiltrated its ranks had to remove him once he was bo longer a useful asset.
An asset that outlived it's utility is a liability.
He was being investigated and would have been the type to give up a lot of important embedded agents in powerful places, along with a lot of terrorists who had not yet outlived their usefulness.
Yes, we are dealing with supervillains here.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630cc96a000d9
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
There's different ways in which hate can be expressed.
Not just through violence, but also through other means.
Like getting up and telling the truth, be it whistleblowing or speaking something true but suppressed or ignored because it's unpopular.
Or forwarding a philosophy that's In stark contrast to the most acceptable ones.
Setting boundaries, such as that you shall not engage in some interaction with a person or group that offends you, on a temporary or permanent basis.
Leaving or leading an exodus, as in the example of the abused partner in a relationship.
And a variety of other ways.
The poin here is that hate is not as stupid a thing as people think it is, it's actually a lot more conducive to survival than the alternatives, which get you killed.
The universality of the capacity for hatred is a testament to that reality, making decisions based on statistical likelihood and pattern recognition is smart, even when it leads to some amount of false positives, coming to every instance on its own with no prior is a recipe for ones own destruction and repeatedly being taken advantage of.
A good compromise is to come in with priors, but modify your initial assumptions based on likelihood and patterns of experience to suit the instance using the information gleaned about it from one's experiences of that instance.
For example, if every green candy makes you sick, you might avoid eating green candies if you don't want to get sick, if you live in a culture thay views the avoidance of green candies as a moral evil, and views the claim thay green candies make you feel ill as an immoral statement, then you might feel trapped and form one of two positions.
Pretending that all candies are complete unknowns, with no statistical chances of causing illness being attached to them, or the attitude that you should take the resolute stance that all green candies make you ill, or the attitude most supported by society that all green candies are 100 percent safe, or just as likely to cause you illness as any other color of candy.
But let's say there are some green candies don't make you sick, and while they may look like the green candies that do, there's some tell signs that give away the safe green candies.
The former situation closes off the idea of inspecting the green candies in particular before eating them, as it shows that you doubt green candies safety.
You are forced into either eating all green candies and being far more likely to fall ill, or refusing them, and suffer the negative consequences from your society as someone who doesn't eat green candies.
From the evo psych perspective, in the absence of social pressures, avoiding green candies altogether is the course favored by natural selection, your inspections might let pass a green candy that makes you sick for one which doesn't.
But with the addition of societal influences, now we have a selfish gene situation where we have two survival instincts at odds with each other, you need to avoid being sick, but also to avoid being attacked by a society whose morals you had violated.
Inspecting each candy also comes at a cost beyond the risk of a false negative getting through and making you ill of you do it regardless of color, we have limited time, energy, and resources available, furthermore, we'd lose social standing by doubting every candy we come across, just as if we rejected a candy color that our society favors.
We can also see the more far reaching consequences of such thinking, it spreads around, in that any society runs on trust, without it, people will fail to follow the laws that exist, or treat authorities as authoritative, people will not help one another, and will grow distant from one another, as relationships are formed on trust as well, in fact, every facet of society gets worse.
That's the true result of approaching everyone as if they were a complete unknown without any prior assumptions, that's not a world where everyone universally trusts everyone else to be good, it's a "who goes there?" Type situation of universally applied paranoia.
That's also evolutionary, you have a better chance of survival with approaching new and unknown things with caution and worst assumptions than with taking the opposite approach, which gets you a darwin award with one encounter of a dangerous instance.
It's not stupid stupid have prejudices, it's stupid not to develop them, however, it's best to be able to modify your prejudices over time as new data comes in.
This third path is completely shut out of discourse by both halves of the political divide on this issue.
Ironically the problem is that everyone makes assumptions and their prejudices lead them to the blanket rejections of prejudice.
Just as the anti racists spew the most hateful language against the particular groups that are deemed acceptable to hate in our culture, and call themselves fighters against hate.
Because as I said the instinct to hate is innate, and when certain channels are denied, others open up with far more pressure, like the anorexic that will become a binge eater if they could be given one food that doesn't count as food.
Like how a lot of our violent impulses are redirected to increasing extremes in entertainment and leisure activities, like sport, or how pornogrqphic tastes become so much more depraved in those who are denied sex.
If a robot that is exactly like a human doesn't count as a human, what kinds of things would we then do to them that we are denied to do with other human beings?
People will fanatically defend discrimination based on race, in the name of combating racial discrimination, because that's their pressure release valve, they need some exception that doesn't count.
If hating someone doesn't count as hate, then all those natural passions instilled instance bh evolution yet denied to us by society will come out in full force upon them.
The hate towards this specific target becomes more and more vicious and irrational, as we were when white people get blamed for things that other races had done, and even for their mere existence.
That's the nature of a scapegoat, you kill the goat for the crimes of the townsfolk, so that they will not have to deal with the messy matter of who had done what, and what should be done about it.
In many ways, the need to preserve social harmony by refusing to address such problems is also innate and an intense instinct that we cannot shut off, merely redirect.
If we could have a humanity free of the capacity for hate, it would spell the end of good people, and the never ending reign of whoever is most psychopathic.
If there's one person who is free of hatred, it's an utter psychopath, we've seen it, someone unable to hate is someone unable to see other people as truly being other people.
Tied to hate is our morality, our sense of fear, the amygdala, the very purpose of the conscience and moral instinct is to avoid that which harms our success in spreading gene copies, the instinct to hate serves this same purpose, and it exists because it does so effectively.
Lots of people notice thw same patterns that are social unacceptable to notice, so they instead put all the blame for rge consequences of the realities they pretend to ignore upon a specific group that is used as the exception to this rule.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630c2d5293340
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
I was around for the days of OWS, involved online since I didn't live near any of the places there the protests were occurring, but kept close tabs on their unfolding.
These events were destroyed by jews.
They let people in who were supporters of the cause, strong supporters, they were Jewish and used holocaust survivor language to compare the people they were protesting against to the nazis, as both mainstream parties are known to do.
It was these Jews who started to introduce the LGBT and blm style garbage that ended up destroying the movement from within.
They knew they were doing it too, they were backed up by US government spooks, obviouy an official collaboration, but mostly this was their doing.
The tea party was also destroyed in much the same way, it was an event happening around that time, some jews join up as hard-core libertarians, again with the holocaust rhetoric that endears them to the hapless fools running the events, and then the Injection of social justice politics into the events, which successfully caused to collapse upon themselves.
Protesting the Iraq War and patriot act? Similar thing occurred.
It was always some Jewish fellow or lady, who initially comes in as a staunch ally, but leaves as the catalyst for the destruction of some real grassroots resistance to the government agendas.
I try telling people not to trust jews and to gatekeep them out, I'm always told back that it's wrong to be hateful, and that these ones are based.
They always turnout to be the orchestrations of the destruction of the cause.
When I started learning history, I saw a pattern of nations experiencing all the issues we are, time and again, the situations got worse until one specific solution was employed, and that was the solution of killing the jews.
Every time, it worked like a charm when other courses of action had failed, killing the jews is not a solution to the problems we have experienced today, it's the only one that could work.
We don't just have to kill the jews, we we need to kill anyone who had collaborated with them, typically these are the aristocracy of the time, the richest, most influential, and most powerful people.
Both this and offing the jews is a necessity, but the jew part must be done as a priority, attempting to just do the second will see the jews come into the resistance and betray it by destroying it from within.
Their methods for doing so have changed somewhat, but their acts effects have not.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630b946670882
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Much respect if true, sir.
I hope your talents will be put to good use in the coming months.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630bd0c10780b
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Agree wholeheartedly, however, you come across as an internet tough guy who is tilted that he said something which made him look dumb and got called on it.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630bd0c10780b
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago
Fight for the equal rights of whites, use the rhetorical techniques jews have perfected to do so (I've just recently made a couple posts detailing exactly what those are).
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630b946670882
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago
Are you stupid? drunk?
I think we SHOULD boycott isreal funding goods, but the fact that the law against it exists in the country which had the best freedom of speech in the world right now is a sign that jews run the US gov and had since the time that law was passed.
And no, I do not beleive that freedom of speech or expression should have limits on it.
Why would you infer any of the conclusions you've arrived at from my post?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630bd0c10780b
Paradoxical003 2 points 1.7 years ago*
I propose a story about how actors from the real world start start interact with the characters they played moving to the real world.
Such as a black actor being replaced by the character he plays because fictional blacks are so much more superior to the real deal.
A white actor likely wouldn't care about being replaced by his fictional counterpart as much.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630c4ac726149
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago
More people form their opinions about reality from fictional entertainment media than from any other source.
The second place is news media and documentaries.
Edutainment media comes in at third.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630c4ac726149
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago
It's illegal to call for a boycott of the kosher certified food in the United States.
The USA is typically very good at preserving free expression under the first amendment, but the few exceptions made include the boycotting of isreali products and services.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630bd0c10780b
Paradoxical003 -1 points 1.7 years ago*
It goes further than that.
There are seven civilizations that were the progenitors of the various other civilizations that formed from people who had split off from them.
Each of these cradle civilizations had a foundational mythology that all offshoot civilizations had taken with them, and transformed into new variants of the original mythology.
For example, European mythologies and religions all originate from those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, hence all the similarities that exist between the hostorical myths and religions of Europe, North Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, and North Africa, basically all the places where classical civilizations of Greece and Rome has colonized or conquered (under great leaders like Alexander and Caesar).
These mythologies and religions bled in with those of the more Eastern Asian and Southern Asian mythologies and religions, he certainly why there's a lot of overlap, especially in location where both racial civilizationa had historucally held dominance (such as places colonized or conquered by ghenghis khan) though much less so than in the places where only one or the other held dominance (rare places like Britain and France).
Perrenialism essentially connects all the religions and mythologies of Eurasia and North Africa together as having all come from a common ancestor mythology/religion, one that had both evolved over time (towards monotheism) and diverged into various splinter myths/faiths.
Hence all the commonalities, like ugly primordial giants being killed off by a younger generation, humans being crafted out of some inanimate substance and modeled after the Gods, serpents as the symbol of night, evil, and temptation, a world doomed by a woman's curiosity, a great sacrifice to bring power to humanity, a great flooding of the world to cleanse it of its hubris, a hero characterized by both great strength and frightening rage who is made to suffer under a vow for the sake of a crime he had once committed, a weakling being placed into the body of a great and divine being before coming out with a divine power, and more.
All of these exist within Christianity, but also within Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, and Slavic folklore.
The hero of strength and rage living under a vow he took to atone for his sins, he could be Samson, or Hercules, or Cu Cullain, the giants could be the Nephilim, or titans, or formorians, or jotunar, the serpent could be the serpent of eden, or apep the sun eater, or jormounger the one who bites at the roots of the world tree, the flood could be a reference to the biblical cleansing, or to the Greek gods putting out the fires of earth wirh a constant deluge, or the Norse flood when the world of fire got too close to the world of ice.
/v/religion viewpost?postid=630b77ce430ed
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
>109
Significance of this number?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630b91f73eabf
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago
I was in a telegram dedicated to resisting the government, and the group owners were attacking those who they claimed represented "hate" (those those were telling thw truths that the conservatives pretend aren't real).
In typical fashion, they claimed that the left was the side that represents hatred over love, and that they stood with love over hatred.
These neoconservative boomers posted this under a picture of a group holding signs that identified them as being "Gay Republicans".
Apparently if you love Jesus, being a faggot isn't enough to put you outside the GOP.
Of course, the GOP seems to be completely compromised by RINOS who only care about sucking off Zionists and accepting anyone who claims to be a Christian representing Christianity, particularly "Christian Values", a term they've rendered all by meaningless.
It's controlled opposition, 100 percent, full of tactically embedded imbeciles who claim that the power that be are somehow unable to ignore the way things are supposed to be done in their system, and instead just do whatever they feel like, because the entire establishment is colluding together and will protect those who wrong their people from any of checks and balances that exist in our countries.
They claim that their oaths mean something, that the system operates in reality the way that it does on paper, except in the nigh constant cases when it doesn't.
That they will do the right thing by their positions because they are Christians who swore to to so before Gawd, or because they give the impression that they might be sympathetic to the resistance (of course the cops and politicians who are trained to tell tactical lies would never lie to them just because it's tactically beneficial for them to do so).
They claim that laws mean something when there's no one willing to abide by them, as if they are binding all on their own when consequences for breaking them are absen, and it is in fact more beneficial and less detrimental for those who ignore them than it is for those who honestly observe the obligations and restrictions that someone holding their position has under them.
I think that's enough to give you the picture of what kind of people inspired me to make this post.
14 88 GTKRWN HDNW DOTR society is a fuck.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630c2d5293340
Paradoxical003 3 points 1.7 years ago
You pagans are just as retarded.
/v/Reportblumenthepedophile viewpost?postid=630bea73023b8
Paradoxical003 1 point 1.7 years ago*
That's the OG from which Christianity had cribbed a bunch of its notes from, much of the Christian conception of Jesus was taken from Ankhenaten.
Also the phonetic similarity between the names Aten and Adam are no coincidence, look into kabbalah to find a lot of origins of the modern Abraham's faiths, including Christianity.
Also Zororastrianism, which also heavily influenced these faiths.
/v/religion viewpost?postid=630b77ce430ed
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Meinkraft realists have entered the server.
/v/CubeEarth viewpost?postid=630b486910644
Paradoxical003 6 points 1.7 years ago
ESG scores.
It's how jews force corporations to do what they want them to.
GM v Ford.
It's why corporations act the way they do, it's illegal for them not to behave like ESG obsessed psychopaths.
Corporate personhood.
This shields those who work in these corporations from being held legal accountable for their actions in pursuing the all important ESG.
Combine this with the constant interference in the marketplace from the government which created the corporate oligopolies and monopolies we live under.
Combined with the stranglehold that intellectual property gives to corporations over the market.
Then you got all the opponents of how the kikes had created the monstrous corporate landscape we live in today.
This is how they did it.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630bd0c10780b
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
How?
I'm giving you concrete actions that you can take, you reject it, and replace it with vague suggestions that need fleshing out.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Then your beliefs are in contradiction with what the Bible says.
>"if God is the Creator of all things and God's plan is divine, your suggestion, that man can decide for himself what laws to obey and know better than God, is CLEARLY wrong. As wrong as 2+2=15 is clearly wrong."
Your view of religion makes no sense, do humans have free will or do we only follow what God has planned for us?
If the latter, then maybe mankind choosing their own moral path apart from what God says is a part of his divine plan, in which case all moral decisions are a part of God's morality, even those who sacrifice babies to moloch are acting within God's inescapable moral framework, it is done because God willed it or because he allowed it within the context of his plan.
If the former, then God's Divine Plan is little more than one of many possible suggested paths that we could choose to take, we could follow God's suggestions, or we could not, t5he fact that he's the all powerful all knowing creator of the universe only holds any special authority if we choose to value it as giving him some special consideration as such.
A college degree doesn't give any sort of special consideration to your words unless the listener thinks it does, a bear, for example, won't give a flying fuck about it. What if God changed his commandments such that you'd be immoral not to sacrifice a baby to moloch every saturday night? What if God was successfully usurped by Satan and now he is the most powerful thing in the world? What if a SuperGod appeared who was the one that created God, and he started giving commandments?
All are possibilities that aren't too extreme within the context of the Biblical canon: God did change his mind many times in the Bible as he did with Abraham, Noah, and Jesus, so why couldn't he do it again? There were people who thought they were worshipping the true creator of the universe, but were deceived into thinking that a false god was the true God, couldn't we, as fallible as they were, have been deceived so as well? Lucifer led a rebellion to usurp God, why would he unless he knew God could possibly be usurped? The Babylonian's tower was built only to communicate directly with God, not to usurp him, but had made God afraid of the possibility of his usurpation at the hands of humans, so he collapsed it and confused their tongues. Why would he do so in fear of a threat that wasn't even a possibility?
The idea of God being all powerful and all knowing isn't something we know for sure, the theologians have done a better job at convincing us of this than the bible did.
The parts we have that are used to justify this claim are quotes from God himself as he brags about having great power and knowledge, but this is him boasting in order to intimidate or humble those he stands before, but we see evidence of clear limits to the power and knowledge of God, as early as Genesis we see things happening that God doesn't want, we see him discovering these events through personal experience, as if he didn't know about them beforehand, we see God say things that turn out not to be true, and we see the limits to his powers in that he speaks of things he cannot change (such as the events of the original sin), and we see God express fear, he evicts Adam and Eve because he's afraid they would go on to eat of the tree of eternal life, and then nothing will be restricted from them, he also gets angry, which goes to show that he is not all powerful, and not all knowing (an all powerful all knowing being would never get so much as frustrated, since nothing is beyond his ability to repair, and nothing is a surprise to him, instead, he just punishes everyone for their disobedience, which also shows his limits, because how could his creations disobey him if he was all powerful and all knowing?).
>"The whole principal that God's Law can be ignored or obeyed selectively would suggest that God might be wrong or God's law might not actually be law. This would suggest that mankind could decide, for himself, what laws to obey to the point of being in opposition to the laws of the creator."
Well, yes, that is what people do, most Christians do this, even in the course of their religious practices and observations, with so many interpretations of the Bible and God's will among denominations, and more among individual Christians, most have a selective few Biblical rules they will follow, and other they will ignore. There are many more who aren't Christian or even religious, who do make their own decisions regarding what morals they follow.
Look at the most degenerate and extreme social justice warrior leftist cuckold, and you will see that they aren't immoral (intentionally doing evil) or amoral (not caring about moral matters one way or the other) they intend to be moral, but their moral values are very different to yours, they care about nobody feelings being hurt except those who deserve to suffer, and those who deserve to suffer deserve it because of the suffering they cause to others, and also because they have it easier than others do, and that's unfair, so they can afford to suffer a bit (our race's extinction is okay because we ruled the world for so long), for them this is what justice is.
They view prejudice against anyone who isn't white (gentile) straight (acting) and male (cisgendered) as being an absolute evil, there's no questioning allowed regarding whether or not this is objectively wrong, "hate" of this kind is something they see as being at the core of all the ills of the world. It's an existential threat that must be stamped out (or at least the outward facing expressions of it must be gotten rid of).
>"It also suggests that by disobeying God's law that you could receive the ability to know better than God what is good or evil. These ideals are CLEARLY wrong if God is the Creator of all things and God's plan is divine. But there you are, blatantly wrong, refusing to acknowledge it."
1. I said that the Bible clearly states that you inherently possess the ability to distinguish good from evil from birth, regardless of whether or not you've chosen to obey God's law.
2. How does God being the creator and his plan being divine lend any special status to his commands? if you don't give a fuck about is power or plan, then that has no real bearing upon the significance of it.
3. I'm not wrong, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying, you assume that the things you value are the only things one could put value upon, and in the world we exist in, where the large majority of humanity seems to value something, the idea that other things could be seen as being more important than God, even to those who believe in him, is beyond your comprehension, this despite the Bible being full of such examples.
There are other laws than those given by God, moral, and legal, and even as someone who believes the Bible to be literal truth, you can choose to put any of those laws above that given by God, this likely applies to you.
As a follower of Christ, have you cut off your hand when you got angry? have you removed your eye when you've felt lust? have you abandoned your family? have you discarded all your possessions and given away all your money? when's the last time you observed the holiday of passover? are you without sin? then why are you making judgments of others?
The very fact that you are arguing with me on the internet shows that you aren't putting the words of your lord above all else, you are putting yourself above Christ for the sake of personal convenience, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine you putting the laws of our land above the words of the holy writ.
Not that it's possible to live according to the Bible, Jesus commands you to follow the laws that preceded him, then he issues a bunch of commandments that contradict those laws, and suggests a way of living that is entirely unlivable, and would collapse any society that does follow these advisements, there's a good reason that for most Christians, all they ask is that you accept Christ as your lord and savior, and stick to SOME of the ten commandments, but for the most part stick to the laws of the land, because expecting them to genuinely use the Bible or the words of Christ as a moral or legal compass is impractical and impossible.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
There exists no clearer a sign that someone is about to say something false than when they preface it with lines like "obviously", "clearly", "everybody knows", and "it's common knowledge".
In my experience, such statements generally indicate that they are either mistaken about what they speak of, and are mindlessly reciting the assumptions they've made in error, or they are lying and trying to use the bias of peer pressure or the shame of doubting what is clear as day to keep tem from discovering the lie and proceeding to expose it.
A lot of what most people find to be intuitively true from their experiences is false.
One example: the idea that being in extreme cold could cause you to feel hot, and thus strip your clothes off to cool yourself in the snow is counter to most people's intuition, but it's true, and paradoxical undressing takes the lives of many inexperienced mountaineers.
The Bible says it clearly, that they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, "and their eyes were opened, knowing good from evil". I also believe it said that they "became as God" in this aspect.
This is later proven in that the way the God discovers what they had done is that he had seen them covering their nakedness, because they weren't doing that before they had eaten of the fruit.
Genesis itself tells us, in explicit terms, that God lied when he said that they would die on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit, and the serpent told the truth when he said that they would "become as God, knowing good from evil".
Crack it open and read the verses, right now. I'm operating from memory, but pretty sure I'm right about this.
So your own book refutes you.
Also, to be clear, I was speaking from the assumption given that the Christian canon and religion is true.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
My policy is to only admit that I'm wrong when I think I'm wrong.
I'm not holding out on my positions out of pride.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Looking around these past couple decades of doing it your way, I think we do, I really think we do.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
Yeah, and they have a set of "values" and "traditions" as well, their goal wasn't just to break down our society, it was to build it back up as the society they wanted to have.
So we can break down the society they have built, which we live in, and build it back up in the image of our choosing, but to do so, we need to follow the same steps they used to achieve what they had.
The first thing is point out the contradictions in their society, that speaking of the crimes committed by jews is wrong, regardless of truthfulness, because it comes from a motivation of fostering hatred towards them. The underlying principle being that their society is one where no group should be hated.
Yet our society is filled to the brim with hatred being incited against white people in exactly this way, with our crimes, historical or current, constantly having attention brought to them, our numbers in any institution being popular record and widely characterized as being the result of racial collusion, literally everything the jews shut down with regard to themselves, is being done to us, and with far more ubiquity.
This is criticism that could be used to make the first cracks in a rampant anti-white prejudice that the jews have created.
We can also attack on the front that white people are discriminated against on an institutional, cultural, and private level, with the facts of this discrimination, the forms it takes, the degree and level to which that exists, it's all ammunition.
Anyone who tries to counter this particular campaign has their opinions on white people made public record, we bring up the attitudes they've expressed towards us, and that will be the beginning and end of our response, they are hateful, it's all there on their archived twitter feed, so anything thyey say is motivated by hatred towards us and thus should be disregarded.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630aa2bcc6d08
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
We are not strong now, we could only conceivably do something like that from a position where we are at the very least strong enough together and organize.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da
Paradoxical003 0 points 1.7 years ago
We've been taking the same damn approach for decades now, it doesn't work.
Time to do what does, what's been demonstrated to work.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630ab2d7c68da