he only wants to challenge what I said because I mentioned God in it, and presented an explanation for why God wouldn't intervene in human suffering.

I did no such thing. In fact, if there is a God like your religion envisions it, I do agree with your explanation. Only by knowing suffering we can understand happiness, so God cannot remove suffering at least not without making us lose a significant part of the life experience that makes it valuable. The concept of God creating sentient beings with free will and that will have to experience life even through suffering makes perfect sense. The atheist argument of "there's evil in the world so there's no god reeeee" is not a good argument. We wouldn't know good without knowing evil.

I was however responding to your claim that:

Humans are designed to suffer. Suffering is an intrinsic quality of life.

I disagree with this.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience, I hope you're ok now.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment here.

You make good points, and I think what you wrote is compatible with what I said. The difference between me and the Christian vision is that for me suffering can exist in certain circumstances, but happiness and contentment in this life is not only possible - it's very common at least in our era. If you're physically healthy, you have a loving family, and enough money to have a roof over your head and food on your table: then you're not suffering and you should be happy.

Christianity on the other hand tells you that you are suffering regardless of how your life is, because suffering is intrinsic to human life. And it makes sure of that by instilling a sense of guilt for everything that is pleasurable in life. In the Bible a woman was basically saying to enjoy your life having sex and eating food, and Jesus... kills her children. Christianity hates the idea that people may be happy. Nietzsche is absolutely right on Christianity. Yes, I am anti-Christian because Christianity has brought so much suffering and misery to humanity. We could just be all happy eating, resting, fucking, loving, being proud of our accomplishments, but no... all of those are sins.

He constantly misquotes scripture, often interpreting it to mean the opposite of what is says, and then when confronted with a refutation, refuses to acknowledge it, no matter how well laid out it is.

You're lying. Just yesterday I proved to you that Jesus destroyed the family bonds, and you refused to acknowledge it and even to answer my thought experiments that proved that.

You're the most dishonest user I've seen on here. Which of course you have to be, to keep believing in your Jewish religion. But please refrain from talking behind my back to other people. That's dishonorable even for a Christian.

Of course life is struggle. It's a principle of Nature very well accepted by National Socialism.

But this doesn't mean that you can't find happiness on this earth. Go back reading my previous comment, because you haven't understood it.

Humans are designed to suffer. Suffering is an intrinsic quality of life. As mortal, finite, imperfect creatures suffering is inevitable

This isn't true at all. I'm atheist and I feel happy and content and at peace. I love life, and I love my life.

It's your religion, Christianity, that brings the idea that life on this earth is a "vale of tears". Your religion defiles and demeans our earthy existence, telling us that we must suffer because of the original sin. We could just be happy and enjoy our lives, but no, we must be miserable and feel guilty.

It's your religion that brought to you the sense of dread and suffering that you feel (which you now think it's a natural part of the human existence), to which it then offers a solution, for which you are expected to be grateful for. It's a well know technique of manipulation: you feel grateful to Jesus for saving you from a sin... that he originally condemned you to.

Your post is very reasonable. However, you need to consider that we're talking about a meme. A meme is a form of communication that is intrinsically snappy, hyperbolic, and due to its format it can only give you a little nugget of information. A redpill, if you will. Its purpose is to trigger curiosity and prompt the viewer to do further research.

The Jewish question is an extremely complex topic, that will take you through politics, history, philosophy, and religion. You cannot expect a single meme to convince you of even a small aspect of the Jewish question. To acquire true knowledge, you must read books.

I really want to emphasize this point. One is not going to be able to understand how the world works by looking at memes, or even having discussions in this forum. The true source of knowledge must come from reading books. The forum is useful to refine arguments, check understandings, and have directions on what to research next; but it cannot be sufficient. I can tell quickly if I'm talking to someone who has opinions formed by reading books or if I'm talking to someone who only has a superficial knowledge acquired in online forums.

So while what you are saying is correct in a literal sense, in practice I think you're being too harsh in judging a meme. You wouldn't expect to learn everything about a topic by reading e.g. a newspaper article, would you? The claim of the meme "every single aspect of feminism is Jewish" is correct; it just doesn't have enough space to completely argue the case. That's up to the viewer to do his homeworks.

And in case you're wondering, here's a good reading list to understand the Jewish Question. For example, the full explanation of the claim "Jews have opened the floodgates to mass immigration" is in the book The Culture of Critique. I'm afraid you'll need to read the whole book to understand the justifications for that statement; I can't put the content of a whole book into a meme.

I did not state "all feminists are Jews" or even "all the most prominent feminists are Jews". I stated that feminism is Jewish. It's different.

I think our disconnect here is that you may be a liberal who considers an ideology as being the sum of individual contributions; for me on the other hand an ethnicity has a cultural character, and therefore certain ideologies and world outlooks can be assigned to (and therefore claim that they come from) the ethnicity as a whole.

You need to look at the culture of a people, not at the individual contributors. A list of non-Jewish feminists means very little, even because it could easily be that the vast majority on that list are either cryptojews or married to Jews or pupils to Jews. But even if the majority of feminists were not Jews, that would not disprove my statement because feminism still comes from and is part of Jewish culture and it's not part of the traditional European culture.

But it is entirely Jewish. It doesn't just have "strong Jewish influences". It is Jewish.

The claim that feminism is Jewish does not rest solely on a ratio of how many important feminists were Jewish themselves, although it is overwhelming if you take into account the population.

The most important thing is that the feminism comes from Jewish culture: a culture where women are cattle and in a conflictual relationship with men, due to the Jews not having the concept of love. It makes perfect sense for a Jewish woman to be a feminist, but this ideology is completely alien to European culture where a man and woman form a family based on love and mutual affection.