I didn't know that. That fact would certainly add to the motivations for the "intelligence" agencies (the CIA and Mossad) who came to JFK with a plan to start a war with Cuba, via a false flag, to shoot down one of our own passenger airliners and blame Cuba for it, to start the war. JFK axed the plan, and the rest is history. I've also heard they had other false flag attacks planned as well, all to implicate Cuba.
If they're being paid by Blackrock or Vanguard, then it is money laundering. The banks print infinity money, hand out a lot of it to middle man organizations like Blackrock and Vanguard, who buy up stocks for companies, force those companies to pursue DEI in hiring and their products to keep being paid, the companies decline, as merit is destroyed and customers stop paying for their slop, but they keep getting paid by Blackrock and Vanguard to keep making the slop. It's all run off of fake money printed by bankers. So, not only are we taxed via inflation from the money printing, but that invisible taxation is quite literally funding the most malicious crap being pushed on us.
It's because of the Kalergi plan, to mass import non-whites into White nations, and replace and genocide White people, requires the demonization, demoralization, and brainwashing of White people. The official history of WW2, the Holocaust, demonization of Nazis, demonization of White collectivism, slavery, the Civil War, and colonialism are all used as a bludgeon aimed squarely at White people, to make us compliant in our own replacement and genocide, to accept it, to make us think we're inherently bad and deserve it, that our ancestors were bad, and that we shouldn't collectivize and fight back to stop it. The schools teach this official history, and then Hollywood reinforces it with endless propaganda movies, TV shows, and video games, mostly focusing on WW2 and the Holocaust. There's at least 1 every year.
It's also because Japan wasn't the primary target for WW2. Germany was. Britain (mostly the bankers, zionist backers, and string pullers in Britain) wanted a war with Germany, to destroy the German people. Britain had been gearing up for war years before hostilities broke out. Britain had a deal with Poland, that if war broke out between Poland and Germany, Britain would ally with Poland against Germany, even if Poland was the aggressor. This is why, prior to German invasion, the newly created Polish state had been genociding ethnic Germans living in the newly created Polish borders after WW1, Germans that had lived there for centuries, probably millennia. Poland had also openly bragged they could defeat Germany by themselves, and openly gave out their invasion plans of Germany, multiple times. Poland had also attacked German farms and military installations, in German territory, multiple times. This all occurred before Germany invaded.
In response, Germany invaded, to at the very least try to stop the Polish genocide of the German people. This is why Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not on Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing only days later. Poland was merely a pawn to start the war. The string pullers didn't give a shit about the Polish people. There were communiques in the Public Record Office in London that admitted to this secret deal and motivation to instigate a war, records that were kept secret until the early 90s.
Once Britain and France declared war on Germany, it escalated rapidly, which forced Germany to escalate in kind. Much of this escalation was to skirt around France's Maginot line, and to procure resources for Germany. Even though it's openly admitted to in the propaganda, Germany was woefully short on a lot of critical resources, like coal, oil, and fuel. Germany only had access to the worst form of coal in German territory, called lignite coal (also called brown coal), which was only suitable for home furnaces and burning for energy in coal power plants. Richer forms of coal could be converted to liquid fuels, which Germany desperately needed, due to the blockade by the Allies. Germany also didn't have much access to oil, which compounded this problem.
Germany also didn't want to fight against the British, considering them brothers, and repeatedly offered peace terms, even when Germany was winning, even with terms that would give back much of the land Germany had gained. This is why Germany allowed all of the British to flee back to Britain at Dunkirk, when Germany could've easily captured or slaughtered them all, over 300,000 soldiers, which would've completely neutered the British army. All of the peace terms were rejected by the string pullers in Britain, because they were trying desperately to get the U.S. involved in the war against Germany. They used Pearl Harbor to achieve that end. Even though the U.S. blockade of Japan necessarily resulted in that attack, the U.S. government knew Japan was going to attack, and let it happen, to give us casus belli to enter the war, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want to get involved. It's also why all of the U.S. carriers were outside of Pearl Harbor during the attack, to protect them.
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
They're employing every single possible control mechanism against us. It's not just one thing. They're doing all of it.
Shilling, trolling, censorship, curation of information, outlawing speaking the truth or questioning the official narratives, dictating what the official narratives are, through school, school textbooks and curriculums, media, news, Hollywood, and government, social media influence via shilling and vote manipulation, logical fallacies, bad faith debate, false dichotomies, false arguments, fake studies, appeals to emotion, appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, victim blaming, mockery from false consensus, projection, false left/right political parties, false saviors and leaders, infiltration and subversion, corruption, degeneracy, hedonism of every stripe, LGBTQ, no fault divorce, divorce courts, child custody courts, pushing women into the workforce, demonizing men, demonizing masculinity, demonizing White people, open borders, mass non-white immigration, porn, video games, drugs, TV, movies, goyslop and poisoned food and water, fake medicine, prescriptions for life to treat symptoms but not cure, lack of sleep, bread and circuses, endless wars, false flags, terrorist attacks, 24/7 fear mongering, fake patriotism, individualism vs collectivism, feminism, abortion, fake climate change, fake green energy, pushing everyone into college, demonizing farmers and tradesmen, demonizing rural life, fluorescent and LED lighting, forced diversity, the destruction of merit, removing men's only spaces, removing White's only spaces, the Civil Rights act, MLK, atheism, satanism, anti-Christianism, "science!", buying out authority figures, manipulating reality, inverting the truth, gaslighting, humiliation rituals, demoralization rituals, taxation, modern ugly architecture, modern ugly art, buying up beloved IPs and ruining them, taking away all of our heroes and hero stories, making everything ugly, modern banking, usury, fractional reserve lending and banking, endless money printing, inflation, destruction of food sources, letting foreigners lord over us, making housing unaffordable, making having children unaffordable, pushing women into college and the workforce en masse during their most fertile years, reduction is marriage rates, increase in divorce rates, reduction in child rates below replacement levels, putting all women on hormonal birth control in their teens, the entire Covid debacle, government designed diseases, forced race blindness on Whites, brother wars, banker wars, false ideologies and political solutions propped up to take away support for actual truthful ideologies and effective solutions, debanking dissidents, doxxing, control of most social media, centralizing the internet into captured spaces they control, removing things we actually own (digital everything, which is merely "loaned" to us), BLM and Antifa riots which are condoned by the establishment, whereas the mere hint at White collectivism is roundly shamed and attacked, endless hypocrisy, disingenuous right wing media, abundance of microplastics in everything, which reduced men's testosterone and numerous other negative health effects (for men and women), demonization of healthy alternatives which used to be common, glorifying ugliness and obesity, transgenderism, using the police state to quash all dissidence, building obsolescence into all products so they intentionally fail, forcing people into endless consumerism, making repairing our own things as hard as possible, insider trading, the stock market ponzi scheme, mega orgs like Blackrock and Vanguard, ESG and DEI, girl bosses, media tropes which invert racial stereotypes, listing non-whites as "White" on criminal reports, censoring criminal reports, unequally applied justice, foreigners given resplendent treatment while our people suffer, wage slavery from teenage years to death, needing to work longer hours to earn far less than what our ancestors did, both parents needing to work, shaming of feminine women, shaming of masculine men, the outsourcing of men's role as protector and provider to the government, infiltration and subversion of effective organizations which could be used against the establishment, shilling against effective organizations as "feds" to make people fearful of joining, funding our enemies, funding everything meant to harm and destroy us, demonization of the wrong people to make us fight people who aren't our enemies, sexualization of children, interracial relationships, the take over of entire industries by foreigners, cheap foreign labor, depression of wages, outsourcing of our own jobs, making us less self sufficient, fake and gay curated search engines to prop up goodthink and suppress wrongthink, injecting blatant stupidity to discredit movements (like flat earthers into conspiracy forums), modern conveniences meant to placate and weaken the masses, smart phones, constant erosion of our ability to defend ourselves or our people, the Kalergi plan, degenerate music, incrementalism to push degeneracy, corruption of our churches, altered history, blackmailed politicians, dual-citizen politicians, dumbing down the populace, Common Core, egalitarianism, equality,...
This is just the stuff I could think of off the top of my head. They're are literally doing everything possible to weaken, control, and hurt us. However, as I stated above, even with all of their control mechanisms and schemes, their lies have become so blatant, the truth become to clear, discussion of the truth so widespread, that they can't counter it. They're in a lose-lose situation. I don't think you disagree. Just restating it, and how profound what we're seeing is, with how much resistance we're up against. In spite of everything arrayed against us, we're going to win.
They're in a lose-lose situation, and many of them are starting to realize it.
They either clamp down on wrongthink even more, resulting in a bigger explosion of hostility toward the people responsible, and forcing even more people into actual free speech places where they're exposed to more wrongthink, or...they censor less, and enable people to openly talk about wrongthink, and allow it to continue to spread. In either case, the truth spreads.
Considering that inflation, caused solely by bankers, has now resulted in millions of people barely being able to afford to eat, the demographic genocide of White people being enacted, and the steady increase in hardship and loss of comforts, created by these very people, and all of our problems continuing to get worse, the truth will spread no matter what, as pure necessity forces people to reject the increasingly obvious lies and seek the truth, to properly explains these problems, who caused them, why, and what the solutions are.
The victim, a White guy, died. And the NFL and home team tried to act like it was an "accident", and rallied behind the black murderer.
Jesus's entire ministry on earth was rebuking the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees, right to their faces, calling them liars, hypocrites, prideful, sinful, children of satan, a den of vipers, murderers and thieves, unworthy of the kingdom of God. He flipped their tables, whipped them, and threw them out of the temple. He pissed them off so much they conspired to murder Him, but Jesus had so much public support they could only snatch Him in the middle of the night. And, Revelation paints how brutal Jesus will be toward His enemies when He returns.
That was my point entirely.
You're displaying that you're not reading, as this was directly addressed a few times in my previous replies. Why even continue a conversation if you're not even bothering to listen? Just go talk to yourself in a corner, as how much you're willing to partake.
The fact that you kept trying to drag it in every direction possible
Oh look, another display of "I didn't read anything that disagreed with me, and I'm proud of it" line of argumentation. I directly addressed your points, and connected it to the relevant related topics.
just to avoid the fact that you couldn't beat it
This was also directly addressed in previous replies, which you didn't read. Congratulations on your impediment, I guess. You seem to be proud of it.
and have long since started talking just to stroke your own ego.
Oh look, ANOTHER topic directly addressed in previous replies. Engaging a debate to the bitter end, even with an unwavering opponent, holds great merit. But, you are entirely afraid to do this, because you, your ideas, and your arguments are weak, which is why you become so hostile to anyone who disagrees with you, why you refuse to read anything in contradiction to your position, and why you constantly use logically fallacious arguments.
Including now when I openly admitted to ceasing to read your spiels, you continue to write them.
Another admission and prideful declaration of your own failings, with another topic directly addressed in previous replies.
So I'll repeat, please do kill yourself.
Your positions are so weak, and so are you, that you want anyone that disagrees with you to commit suicide. Out of the preponderance of what lies in the heart, spills forth from the mouth. By your own words, you reveal yourself, and what lies in your heart is poison, hubris, vitriol, and unrighteous hatred.
To answer your demand: no. I will not. I do not acquiesce to your demands. I only answer to God, and you are not God.
Not for any grand reason, only because I hope you report me to Dom for it and he bans me for doing it.
I don't censor people who disagree with me. I don't report them. I don't block them. I engage them. Precisely for the reasons I mentioned previously, which you didn't read.
Because the idea of that is really fucking funny to me.
No it's not. You're not laughing. This angers you, deep down, which is why you keep replying. My responses anger you, which is why you became so hostile and vitriolic toward me, and why you've twice now told me to kill myself. Perhaps, if you get angry enough, something will actually snap in your head, and you might, by some miracle, be forced to self reflect and change. One can hope. But you don't show much promise in that hope.
Jesus, milquetoast?
Have you read the Bible?
The modern judaized Christian church certainly likes to portray Jesus as some peace loving pacifist hippy, but that is the opposite of the truth.
As for your last question, the only times I can think of is when the jews in power genocided the people they were ruling over. It's usually also combined with antisemitism laws and mass incarcerations of the people, or on the flip side, going full hedonistic libertarian paradise, to dull the populace with vice and sin, bread and circuses. Neither "solution" lasted very long, though.
Not including the spacing guild was the biggest story breaking change. By far. It fucks up literally the entire plot as spice is now basically just irrelevant space cocaine and Paul is incapable of forcing the emperor to abdicate. They could've fixed that in the second movie but they didn't.
I absolutely agree, but that's a problem for the second movie.
Changing Liet Kynes to a black woman and her not even being the mother of Chani is actually quite a significant change.
Agreed. It's not explicitly mentioned in the book, but it seems obvious that Paul and Chani bonded, in part, because both of their fathers were murdered by the Harkonnen and the Emperor.
They pretty much completely fucked up Pitr de Vries not only by making him a irrelevant side character but also by sending him to Salusa Secunda which doesn't make any sense as that planet is supposed to be the Emperors big secret but for some reason he gives the mentat of the Baron access to it.
I consider this a relatively minor change, as the first movie portrays it, the scene shows the harsh conditions of the planet, introduces the strength of the Sardaukar, and moves the plot along between the Baron and the Emperor. But you're right, that this scene isn't explicitly in the book. But, it's not lore shattering, as Piter is killed by the poisoned tooth by the Duke shortly after the Harkonnen retake Arrakis.
Then there's a lot of other fuck ups and details they simply didn't bother to include or important characters that got far too little screen time. But honestly it's been quite a while since I've seen the movie so I can't remember everything anymore.
That's definitely a criticism I have of the Villeneuve movies, too. If you add together the total runtime of parts 1 and 2, and compare it to the total runtime of the SciFi miniseries, they're almost identical, but the SciFi miniseries included almost all the content from the books, and Villeneuve's movies left a ton out, which destroyed the lore and story. It was purely to stroke Villeneuve's ego, too, as he loves his long establishing shots.
But Dune 2 is indeed significantly worse as that movie made the entire series completely unsalvageable.
This has been my argument. While Dune part 1 could've at least been salvageable by a much better implementation of part 2, the part 2 we did get was lore shattering. I'll post another comment I made below:
This movie is absolute subversive garbage to the author and his works. Every single time film makers "adapt" a work and think they know better than the author, they ruin it.
Chani was one of Paul's most ardent supporters. Paul and Chani's love is integral to all of the following Dune books, through their children. Herbert explicitly stated, multiple times, that the Fremen are extremely zealous and pragmatic, such that if any of them suspected Paul was using them for his own ends, they'd end him on the spot, take his water, and sleep well that night. For Chani, of all the characters, to be the one that doubts Paul, is subversion and ruination of the character, the Fremen, their ethos, the story of the first book, and all subsequent books. It's a spit in the face of Frank Herbert.
And for what? To insert the overt messaging of subsequent books, in the first book? For "empowering" female characters that were already empowered in the books? This directly contradicts the plan Frank Herbert laid out and what he wrote. Villeneuve tried to claim Herbert was unhappy with how his fans received the first book, not realizing his warning against blindly following leaders, which is false. Herbert laid out the plans for the first few books before the first was even published. He intended for the first book to mostly be a classic hero's journey, for the reader to be duped just as much as the Fremen, because Paul was entirely justified in his actions. The warnings against hero worship in the first book were extremely minor, and told from a post hoc perspective. To try to lay all blame on Paul, before he's done anything wrong, is attempting to moralize pre-crime, which other scifi rightfully points out to be repugnant.
And, through Paul's last words in the ending scene of the movie (part 2), it attempts to lay all blame for the galactic war at his feet, when the book directly contradicts that assertion. Paul, for a long time, had seen multiple paths forward, all leading to that galactic war, even if he died. He only manipulated events so that he, his mother and sister, and Chani could live, so they could have children, and a have semblance of happiness, and so he could gain revenge against the people who murdered his father and people. The Fremen were going to wage their holy war regardless of what happened. And on top of this, the movie tries to moralize to the audience that the Fremen are blameless, that they were entirely manipulated by Paul, trying to assuage all guilt they hold for their own enaction of that galactic war. This removal of guilt from the Fremen is even more subversive because Villeneuve, the producers, and casting directors hired exclusively non-white actors to play the Fremen (who weren't described as such in the books), which plays into the current political climate that non-whites are oppressed by evil Whitey (all the bad guys in the movies are White or Albino White) and blameless for all of their actions. Herbert was a nuanced author, and he never laid full blame on that galactic war at the feet of Paul. In fact, multiple times, Herbert said the galactic was was inevitable. Herbert let the reader think things through for themselves, to let the words and works speak for themselves.
I can't believe any Dune fan could forgive this garbage, much less enjoy it, simply because it has a shiny veneer.
What were the big lore breaking changes in part 1? It's not that I don't believe you, but I don't remember there being lore or character shattering changes in part 1 (relatively speaking), other than the insertion of diversity propaganda, which I mentioned in the above comment. They also changed Liet Kynes to a black woman, when that character was supposed to be a stand in for the author, a White guy. Leaving out the spacing guild in part 1 is fine, as I don't recall them making an appearance in the first book until the latter half, which I attribute as another lore breaking of the part 2 movie.
The lore changes in Villeneuve's Dune movies are catastrophic, and do irreparable damage to the characters, peoples, and all future storylines. I watched Dune part 1, and mostly enjoyed it, as the lore changes are relatively minor in PT 1, until I realized I was watching Hollywood subversion, because they made all the bad guys White, or even Albino White, and made all the good guys non-white. I refused to watch part 2, and everything I've heard about it has been horrible.
If you want a faithful Dune adaptation, the closest is the SciFi miniseries.
Agreed. This only happens because the creatives behind a show, or any story medium, don't properly hammer out the details of the story before hand. They "wing it", which creates all manner of problems in the telling of the story, creating contradictions in the story, lore, and characters. It's like trying to release a book before it's finished being written, or even planned out. It invites catastrophe.
On the other hand, a properly laid out and planned story, if told well, almost universally is enjoyed more than one not planned. A properly planned and executed story plants seeds in the story, mirrors and foreshadows, metaphors and allegories, lessons upon lessons, subtleties and nuance, which upon reflection of the story, or future readings, makes the story much more rich. But, most writers nowadays, at least in Hollywood, are incapable of doing that.
When it first aired, I loved the BSG remake. Upon subsequent viewings I've enjoyed it less and less. It has some amazing parts to it (the space battles and music is amazing, and some of the storylines), but it gets incredibly nihilistic and depressing, with tons of needless character drama and "shocking twists!!!", lots of "are we the baddies?" critiques of humanity, and "the cylons are victims too!" relativist bullshit, with allegory to modern events that have all the subtlety as a sledgehammer to the face, just to pad out the story.
The same thing happened with the TV show Vikings. Subsequent viewings of the show has made me hate all of the characters, as they've done needlessly stupid and evil things purely for drama. It was shows like this that were stepping stones to the "morally gray" slop that we have everywhere nowadays.
I loathe that form of story telling. They authors of this poison hide under excuses like "our characters are complex", to justify their obvious intent to paint good people as bad, and evil people as good, to depress and brainwash the audience with ugliness, evil, and lies, to take away our heroes, to take away the characters we're supposed to emulate, to take away the virtues we're meant to embody, and to take away the lessons we're supposed to pass on, through our stories.
A genuine question is raised by your comment, in context of the OP's topic.
Traitors are more dangerous than enemies at the gate, so should be dealt with more quickly and harshly. By that same logic, should falsehoods and mistakes be corrected among our own first, or should we direct our ire primarily at the out-groups? Just curious what ya'll's thoughts are. By focusing on the out-groups first, we tackle problems from the most disagreeable downward, but by focusing on the in-group first, we tackle dissent within our own ranks first. This isn't inherently an either/or scenario. Just wondering which is more important to y'all.
All the Muslims in the West, right now, wouldn't even be here if not for open borders, mass immigration, the Kalergi plan, the demonization of White people to accept this poison, and the complete subversion and corruption of all of our foundational societal institutions which have control over all of this.
Muslim invasions of White lands largely stopped after the crusades and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Muslims messing with American lives largely stopped after we kicked the shit out of the Barbary Pirates (propped up by the Ottomans). Many modern Islamic terrorist attacks (like 9/11) have been false flags perpetrated by our own government, or "our greatest ally", to get the American public to support the global war on terror, the Patriot Act, and an ever expanding police tyrannical state. All of the Middle Eastern "refugee" crises were created wholecloth by U.S. warmongering in the Middle East, largely on behalf of Israel and bankers, where those refugees were specifically funneled into Western nations by NGOs like HIAS, to continue to enact the Kalergi plan.
You don't solve a problem by tackling the ancillary issues. You go after the source of the problem first.
is his echochamber so good that he never heard any real argument against his ideology?
Most normies, left or right, have never heard the actual arguments against their globohomo propaganda positions. They've only heard caricatures and strawmen of our arguments and positions. Their positions have never been challenged or questioned, so they and their ideas are incredibly weak, and easily picked apart and rebuked.
This is because race realists, antisemites, White collectivists/nationalists, and Nazis (REEEEEEEEEE!) have largely been censored off of mainstream platforms since the implementation of said mainstream platforms (like Facebook). It's just that the evil has become so blatant, the world has gotten so bad, that even normies are noticing, and giving ear to the voices of the only people who've been proven right, over and over and over. So, the red pills continue, and increasingly accelerate as the current trends continue.
The enemies of globohomo kept getting censored into niche spaces, but as the purity death spiral of globohomo continued, more and more people kept being pushed into those niche spaces, for increasingly small infractions of wrong think, exposing more people to the truth. And then, our numbers got large enough, people became brazen enough (what do we have to lose at this point anyway?), and a few globohomo missteps (like Elon eliminating most of the censorious bastards at Twitter), has allowed the truth to be spoken in mainstream spaces by increasingly large crowds of people who are getting increasingly and rightfully pissed at how we've been constantly screwed over, even by our purported "allies".
Good, that's the entire point. You finally got it. Everything else you've said here is completely useless blubber because this was the entire point.
Then you missed the point entirely. I said that, as a caveat, because we can't be absolutely 100% certain he was involved.
However, we can't be absolutely 100% certain about most things and people in life. We can't be 100% certain that a convicted murderer is going to murder again, but we lock him up (for one reason) to protect the public, in any case. Intelligence and wisdom isn't just the ability to absorb that information, but to use it to deduce other facts, to draw accurate conclusions from limited data, by using recognized patterns and applying those patterns to other things which display similar connections. The more intelligent and wise a man is, the more he can accurately deduce from less and less data.
Why do you think "crazy", "whacko", "fringe", "insane" conspiracy theorists have been right about so many things the last several decades? We haven't been proven right because all of these conspiracy theories are confirmed on the nightly news, but because we could, and can, infer a lot from what the people in power have done, what they've said, what they believe, who they hang out with, their repeated patterns of behavior, what they've been caught doing in the past, and what they're currently up to right now.
The other mistake, associated with your point, is that you think we need to be 100% certain to act or to judge. That is absolutely false. If you're waiting on 100% certainty to "do the right thing", you'll be waiting forever. The only thing that we can ever know for certain is sound logic. That's it. Everything else is up for debate. Even the very reality we exist in could be entirely fabricated or manipulated, from old philosophical arguments from Descartes (powerful demon/entity manipulating our senses) to the more modern simulated reality postulate. This is because we, as humans, are finite, mortal, and imperfect (with a few exceptions not relevant to this specific debate). We can't know everything, and what we do know is up for interpretation, based on the limited data we have, which can alter our conclusions. Your tacit assertion that we can't pass judgment without 100% certainty necessarily results in good men becoming apathetic and inactive in the affairs of everything around them, refusing to cast judgment or act, purely because of the foolish fear that they might be wrong, even if that chance is infinitesimally small.
I read little else of it, because its obviously more bluster to hide the fact that you have no further substance to your point but conjecture.
I already showed that you don't care about the length. You only care that I disagree, and only use the length as a straw to grasp at any way to criticize me. You levy rules against me more harshly than you levy against someone that agrees with you, which makes you a hypocrite in this. And, just because you disagree, doesn't mean my arguments have no substance, or that it's pure conjecture. Our feelings have no bearing on truth, and your feelings are obvious.
I did see the words bad faith in it, which is funny given how much you've insulted my character both directly and through your assumptions about me that now you care about respectful argumentation.
I used your own words and arguments, to discredit your own words and arguments, and to accurately infer who you are and what your motives are. I pointed out where you're being hypocritical and false, where your outward stated goals are antithetical to your behaviors and beliefs. I disparaged your character where it deserved to be disparaged. No amount of "nu uh" will change that.
But you are right I stopped actually trying days ago because both of our positions and thoughts weren't changing and it was obvious.
You don't want to continue this debate because you can't. You don't want to. You'd rather die than ever admit being wrong. You'd rather cling to your beliefs like an anchor, letting them drown you, than ever self reflecting and changing.
Actually the full sentence was originally "...and I hope you kill yourself." But after a few minutes I realized that was overt and went back and editted it out.
I noticed you only said "overt", and didn't say "uncalled for" or "cruel". So, you'd rather I die, because I disagree with you. Absolutely incredible, and you purport to be the moral and good person in this? Your positions are so weak that if they meet one iota of scrutiny and disagreement, you'd rather your opponent die, or commit suicide, than ever changing your mind. This is yet another condemnation of your own character, sprouted forth from your own mouth. I'm not the one condemning you, I only point it out in words. It's you that condemns you.
Good catch though, you noticed the thought was halfbaked though I think given how much time you wasted despite knowing I was wasting your time, maybe you should as you have nothing else going on.
Debate, even futile debate, if truth is prioritized, is never a wasted effort. Good men, just like ideas, are honed and strengthened in challenge and hardship. Weak men, just like ideas, have never been challenged, and both shirk away from all hardship, and lash out at any who dare put them through it, like you are.
I think he got banned, started a new channel, uploaded to that for a while, somehow got his old channel reinstated, and now uploads to that again. I'm not 100% certain, though.
The foundational philosophies of leftism, which is just a political extension of globalism, which is run by a specific set of people, always results in a few things.
They're quite literally satanists, whether they admit it or not (for the string pullers), whether they know it or not (for the puppets). Satan thought he knew better than God. Satan is the antithesis of God, God's will, and all the truth of creation. Truth, beauty, and goodness are of God, and since satan is the antithesis, lies, ugliness, and evil are of satan. Whether you're Christian or not, that's what these people believe. Atheism was just a stepping stone to unChristianize the West and get us to embrace their inversions, and eventually open satanism.
Leftist/globalist philosophies always result in lies, ugliness, and evil. The people who believe and practice those beliefs make themselves ugly, they espouse obvious lies, and they practice obvious evils.
Their art is ugly. Their architecture is ugly. Their men are ugly. Their women are ugly. Their TV shows and movies are ugly. Their stories and lessons are ugly. Their characters and motivations are ugly. Their plans, their words, their ideas, their hearts, the fruits they bring forth, it's all ugly. And it's because they've rejected truth, and think they know better.
Because your usage of it is deflection to avoid actually thinking about my point,
Your point is deflection. You provide excuse after excuse, apply your rules for judgment and guilt unevenly.
so instead you retreat to emotionally charged buzzwords
Wow. The abduction, trafficking, raping, torture, and murder of kids is "emotionally charged buzzwords". So, you would have me avoid the core issue itself, of what Epstein was involved in, what everyone who knew him knew what he was involved in, you would have me avoid using the actual words to describe the actual crimes that took place, avoid the words to describe the age of the actual victims, purely to appease your hypocritical stance that I not use "emotionally charged buzzwords"? Why? Because it makes your position look bad? No. I refuse to adjust my accurate language to appease your hypocritical demand on how to discuss this topic.
It's you who doesn't want to discuss the accuracy of what's involved, because you know that if you did, you'd have to actually admit how repugnant it was, and how repugnant everyone involved was, how repugnant everyone is who helps to cover it up.
and philosophy essays repeated over and over hoping the next time it will work. Its literally designed to mindkill anything but seething hatred to prevent any pesky logic from interrupting your struggle session.
You don't decry length. You only decry length that disagrees with you. Then, you grasp at straws and throw anything you can against the wall, hoping something sticks, purely because you disagree. This means that you argue in bad faith, that you apply harsh rules against your opponent that you don't follow yourself. This, again, makes you a hypocrite. "Logic"? Logic dictates that the discussion be accurately described, that rules be levied equally and fairly, that the logic be applied consistently. You have not done this, which is why I keep coming back to these core issues, in the (apparently vain) hope that you would see reason. But, as you uncovered in your previous reply, you're entirely biased in your views, and that bias has thoroughly clouded your ability to have any kind of rational or logical discussion surrounding this topic. "Seething hatred"? It is you that admitted to being patently biased because of your hatred toward women.
Shit I'm caught. Its not like I have been saying that out loud, openly for so long that even on the Leftist shithole that is KIA1 I had the "flair" of Misogymaster.
To be fair, I understand the criticisms of modern women, or even women in general. Women have been thoroughly corrupted by globohomo and feminism. It's not like I'm attempting to white knight women here. I know their faults better than most. But, I only bring up your hatred of women, because you're using that as a clear bias in this discussion. You even openly gave defense of Harvey Weinstein because of your bias, which resulted in you completely skirting around the issue entirely, of the connections between Weinstein and Epstein, of how everyone who knew them knew what they were involved in. But, you skirted around that issue by giving open defense of Weinstein, because of your bias against women.
You really are bad at this, my guy. I said what he did isn't illegal enough to be imprisoned in my point of view. That has no statement on morality, because asking the government to control morality down to the smallest detailed interaction is a dangerous game I don't wish to play.
False dichotomy. It's not an either/or choice. The choices aren't "libertarian hellhole where all immorality and crime is permitted" versus "religiously zealous police state where all morality and minutiae is dictated by the state". You seem to skip over the entire width and breadth of all of reality, where the issue exists, jumping to the furthest extreme, to "debunk" what I was saying. I'm bad at this? Have some self reflection of what you just said.
Furthermore, you are, again, resting your entire position on legality, which of itself is a losing and false issue. Not all that is right is legal, and not all that is wrong is illegal. If you, a supposed rational man, can't determine what is right or wrong, beyond what laws written on books say, then you are completely lost. You tacitly suggest we appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. And, you couch it in a repugnant view that you think all of the modern degenerate sex isn't harmful to people or society. And, again, your view is entirely dictated by your bias/hate against women. You don't want to cast blame against people like Weinstein, because you seem to tacitly approve of him hurting women, and in turn, condone the harm of your own people.
Because it creates guys like you, who take incredibly vague statements and treat them as 100% hardened truth that no possible alternative can exist by. And then they feel completely justified in forming lynch mobs off their wild assumptions.
You do realize I brought up those morality laws to show to clear correlation between the overturning of those previous morality laws, and the degeneration of society? I'm not arguing for a tyrannical hellscape where all actions are decided by the state. I've never argued that. Feel free to dig into my timeline (going back years), to see where I've ever argued for that. Quote me. I dare you.
You can make all the differentiations you want between legal and moral, but that is the very antithesis of what our Founding Fathers made this country on and is literally anti-American. And that isn't a label I use lightly.
You apparently didn't know the Founding Fathers very well. They intended the U.S. to be dictated by Christian morality, for Christians and by Christians, for White people and by White people. They didn't want every religion under the sun to become citizenry of some amorphous U.S. blob. The problem lied between Christian denominations, not between different religions entirely. They also ONLY applied that rule to the federal government, not upon state or local governments. Your (mis)understanding of this issue is at fault, not mine.
Furthermore, morality can absolutely be dictated by law. That's literally what all laws are, the criminalization of what's immoral (wrong) and legalization of what's moral (right). How in the hell would you dictate laws and legality in your world? Relativism? Truth is absolute, so is logic, and so is morality. People's understanding of those foundations may change, but the truth does not. There are clearly superior and inferior forms and understandings, governances, and laws. And, ever since we got rid of the most basic of moral laws, our nation, our civilization, has turned to shit. By the fruits a thing/person can be judged, and your defense of libertarian hedonism is a condemnation against you and your argument.
You truly think too highly of yourself. If a retard like you is ever proud of me, I'll have to reconsider myself.
I self doubt always. I challenge my own ideas all the time. That's why I engage in these long form debates. I actually like to be proven wrong. I like to learn new arguments and ideas, because it enables me to better learn and understand truth. Weak men hold weak ideas, because neither is challenged. Look through my profile. I've done these long form debates many times. I don't shirk away from them.
Just because I accurately ascribe to you your own beliefs, your own failings, and the results of what you espouse, is not a reflection upon me, but of you. You, of course, disagree, but disagreement does not equate to me being false. Our views on the matter do not change the truth. Just because I disagree with you does not make me "retard(ed)", or "think too highly of myself".
You talk endlessly about truth, but literally all you do is make grand assumptions and narratives to fit the schema you want to use
What grand assumptions did I make? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong? What schema did I use? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong?
and then deny any possibility that doesn't fit that strict set.
Well, uhhhh, yeah. That's quite literally why I believe what I do, and don't believe what I don't. I judge based on that. How else am I supposed to act and judge? It's also why I constantly challenge my own ideas, and seek opponents worthy enough to prove me wrong, and read other people's opinions, arguments, and evidence constantly.
I merely believe we don't know the truth yet.
Well, as to what we can verify, sure. We don't know, for certain, that Trump was involved. We don't have a notorized governmental form, a timestamped notarized governmental approved video with Trump literally "RAPING BABIES!". What I've been trying to point out, this entire time, is that we can infer a lot based on the available evidence, about how these people act, what they believe, the company they keep, and all of the relevant patterns that exist. By all of that standard of measure, Trump is guilty. And, given the cover up of the Epstein files his administration is currently doing, blatantly proves this. Even if you were correct, by some miracle of chance, Trump is still guilty of covering up the crimes of Epstein and everyone else involved. He was guilty of it during his first term, and he's even more guilty of it now, by actively covering it up, for "national security".
You are the worst type of fool.
That's only part of the sentence. The true form is "Because you disagree with me, you are the worst type of fool."
Why am I a fool? Why am I the worst type of fool? Be specific. When we truly dig down, it will be patently obvious that it's only because I dared to disagree with you, and point out your own bias and hypocrisy. If you actually look through my profile and look at all the other debates I've gotten in with people, you'll notice, just as I did, that most people are loathe to have their worldview challenged. People don't want to change their minds, no matter how many sound arguments, logic, and evidence you present them. They'd rather stick their fingers in their ears and scream as loud as possible. They'd rather denigrate and attack the person trying to teach them. They'd rather censor and kill the person who disagrees with them, than ever change their stance one iota. It's a shame really, but it's a repeated pattern of behavior I've seen in my own debates, and in debates between others. Truly, I don't know how most people actually change their minds, given the preponderance of evidence of how stubborn they can be to the most blindingly blatant truth. It seems most people would happily rather die, than ever to admit to being wrong, even on the smallest of issues.
On the contrary. I truly hope these liars, manipulators, and hypocrites keep talking. I hope they talk more. It reveals their heart. Out of what lies in the heart, springs forth from the mouth (paraphrasing the Bible).
The more these demons talk, the more people notice them. They're prideful and arrogant, so they can't help themselves but to boast and hang hypocrisies on every word they utter.
When the whole Pizzagate investigation ramped up, and people started finding weird satanic/saturn imagery in pizza shops all across D.C., links to Marina Abramovic, spirit cooking, and Hollywood, the instagram of James Alefantis, the Haiti debacle with Hillary Clinton's aides trying to abduct children after the earthquake, and the like, I'll never forget the deluge of stories the mainstream media came out with to "debunk" Pizzagate. Out of the tens of thousands of Podesta emails that were released by Wikileaks, they picked the most innocuous ones and trumpeted those, as if that was all of what the emails contained, completely ignoring all of the other repugnant stuff internet anons had found through the Pizzagate investigation by that point, the media claimed it was completely "debunked", and called anyone who disagreed a "conspiracy theorist", and other pejoratives.
I already had a low opinion of the media by that point, but it was then that I realized how boldly they would lie, and what manner of utterly repulsive and evil crimes they would help to cover up. I was reading those emails with everyone else, and doing research with everyone else. I saw it with my own eyes, and I was still shocked how brazenly the media lied about it.
There's only one solution for those people, for everyone involved, for everyone that knew and said nothing, for everyone that helped to cover it up. They all deserve the same punishment.
It's good to source all of your information, but we're up against censorious manipulative liars, who will quash all dissent and contrary information. Even archiving websites sometimes doesn't work, as they're removed for wrongthink.
And, when debating someone who is acting in bad faith, they use "source?!" as a cudgel and deflection, forcing you to jump through and endless parade of hoops, and adhering to the most stringent of rules, that they never, ever apply to their own position. Even when the things you're stating are plainly obvious truths and simple logic, they're decry "SOURCE?!", not as a means to truth, but with malicious intent. When debating such a person, you could cite every single claim you make a hundred fold, they would reject all of it, and proudly declare themselves the winner.