No, I'm saying that those who do not have the Holy Spirit, they all adhere to the world system, whether they be Jew or Chinese, or Indian.
The point I was making was that they behave like all others without the Holy Spirit when those people get into powerful positions. The disbelieving side of my white family takes an anti-white stance. That's because it's the spirit of the current age.
Why should we expect disbelieving Jews to be any different?
My distinction with Orthodox Jews wasn't that they have the Holy Spirit, it's that they have some guardrails that do not promote degeneracy and the decay of the west like atheist Jews do. Japanese, Conservative secularists (like Anthony Cumia), and Orthodox Jews all have the same lack of Holy Spirit, and all will be in hell if they don't repent and turn to Christ, but the real pushers of degeneracy are the ones who have no code except for the code of the current age. Anthony Cumia, most people in his position are leftists and have no moral code. He is conservative and has a moral code, thus he defends white people, and attacks wokeness. That won't save him; but it does mean he's not one of the wokeness pushers.
Orthodox Jews who by not being Christians means they don't have the Holy Spirit generally aren't aggressively anti-white, pro-degeneracy, etc. They are more traditional and as such they have more allignment on traditional values and oppose wokeness.
As far as the 80% being democrat. Jews are a small population. And of that population the majority of them are not powerful. The democrats who are powerful are big pushers of wokeness. The average Jew who works a tech job and lives in a suburb trying to raise a family, I am skeptical of the idea that he's aggressively anti-white in the way college activists are. He may vote democrat come election time, but I think the average Jew basically just tries to carve out a semblence of a life in whatever field they're in.
The reason is I've met Jewish neighbors. They seem like your average normie. Black people? You can see it on their face that they hate whitey. That's why when I see black people voting democrat I know it's a direct 1:1 "We hate white people" thing. I don't get that from Jews I've encountered.
There's two types of Jews I've never met. Powerful Jews and Orthodox Jews. Neither are good representatives of the whole. Of the average Jew, the one just trying to raise a family in a suburb, they seem to me like Americans, not like these radical marxists.
And that's why I'm not a famous youtuber. If I was smart with the algorithm I would have gone with your idea
for atheistic "intellectuals" who do not possess the Holy Spirit? Not at all.
For Jews? Powerful secular Jews who are atheist and who's religion is wokeness? Not at all. Just like the white CEO's who are all down with wokeness, it's not an exception. Power corrupts.
As for the average Jew in America or the ones that are orthodox, they tend to be pro-Israel and more conservative.
For instance, one of the most pro-Israel Jews is Sid Rosenberg who's the main radio host on WABC 77, and this guy was big on getting Anthony Cumia on the program. The same Anthony Cumia who criticizes black people, has no shred of white guilt, is not politically correct, and even previously before being hired criticized Jews. So why would Sid Rosenberg, a guy who's gotten awards from Israel praise and buddy up to Anthony Cumia a person considered "far right" by the typical atheistic leftist Jew? Because Sid Rosenberg is pro-Israel something almost none of these "intellectual types" are. Sid Rosenberg praises Christians and defends white people as well as defending Jews. Because he's a conservative. The crap you see from Jews is to the degree that they buy into wokeness.
Name all the overwhelming amount of powerful people in all spheres of life who are based regardless of ethnicity? They are needles in a haystack. The "Jews are anti-white because they're Jews" puts the cart before the horse. Typically the more Jewish a person is, as in being for Israel, the more conservative they are. Orthodox Jews, or at least Orthodox sympathetic Jews tend to be Conservative in their values and beliefs.
Jews who are just "intellectual" atheists, yeah, they end up like most "intellectual" atheists. That is liberal, anti-white, promoting the system of the day which is anti-white.
When agendas were less subversive in decades past, Jews stuck to whatever that agenda was. They're more slaves to the agenda of the times than they are puppet masters. Anyone without the Holy Spirit is susceptible to landing on the spirit of the age, as they must be led by something, and most get led by the one the crowd's going with.
No, I'm arguing because I reject the framework narrative around the Jews.
Carl Benjamin apparently is like 1/4th African. I don't call him black. I'd call him white.
And also again, if things pass from the father, then you should say that a Jew, if it can be found out that their paternal grandfather was Irish, you should call them a European by that logic?
Or does it only cut one way?
He attendED synagogue (past tense) (says he doesn't practice Judaism today) and sides with Palestine and hates Israel and Zionism. So you have an ally there in him.
If a "Christian attended church" when they were 12, but spouted all the leftist crap, would you call them a representation of Christianity? Or would you rightly conclude they're a person of the garbage culture, claiming a Christian label without any consequential affect on them?
I deleted it before I saw your comment, but paternal grandfather is Jewish, the rest is European. We're having to go to paternal grandfather to claim Jewish? If a Jew had a paternal grandfather that was Irish, would you claim him to be European if the rest of his ancestory was Jewish?
It says while he considers himself a Jew, he's anti-Israel and hates zionism, siding with Palestine. Why is it all the lefty Jews hate Israel? Almost like there's a difference between the "intellectual" atheists who make up academia and actual Orthodox Jews.
"Jews" like him who are completely secularized hold to the woke cult or the liberal cult or whatever cult of the popular day is because they're atheist. If it were the self-interested Jews thing, he'd be pro Israel.
He's anti-white for the same reason all leftists are. Because leftism is an ideological disease that attracts weak men who want "virtuous points".
I mean he really goes for it. By like two to three minutes in he's borderline being like "Imma keep it 100 with you; Europeans were all like putting caps in each other fr fr".
It's cringy enough when it's broccoli haired gen z'rs but this guy is like 48 years old or so by the looks of it.
I thought the PS4 was a disappointment. PS3 probably my favorite console of all time. That whole next gen; just awful. 1/50th of good new creative IP's and half the reboots and sequels on PS4 from the PS3 gen were trash. RDR 2 vs RDR 1 for instance.
It had some great games like Doom 2016 and even Doom Eternal. But PS3, you couldn't go a year without dozens of gems (aside from like the first launch year and a half which was rough). The entirety of PS4's best games would fill up 2011 alone for PS3.
I blame the Last of Us. That pretentious crap ruined everything irrecoverably. I noticed around 2013 towards the end of the PS3 life that the games I liked weren't getting made at the same rate and things were starting to shift. That's also the year the Last of Us came out. But if you type in best games of 2013 way less gold than in 2012, and 2014 less than 2013; and there hasn't been a gold year since. It's just been a decline towards worse and worse quality. And this new gen. It's downright emberrassing. It's still essentially PS4 gen upscaling machines with a few sporadic releases that are terrible. When I sold my series X I decided that's the last console I'm ever buying. Sticking with PC from now on. Too many great games from the past I haven't played.
I'm not sure how it works legally. It depends on if it's public or private. If you're recording people at a park, legally you're allowed to. Anywhere that's public people are allowed to record you. The restaurant themselves let him record, so whether that makes it fall under public and legal or still a private place and illegal, I don't think it really matters. If it's legal, which it very well may be, it's an unspoken societal rule not to make recordings in places like that.
Exceptions are like, there was this documentary film with Ernest Borgnine in the 90s where all he did was travel to different small towns across the US, see what was in there, and would get something to eat at places. It was just, let's have a road trip, but also it's a celebrity so it's a bonus. The reason that's acceptable, the film crew coming into a small restaurant and Ernest Borgnine chatting up locals is A) if people ask not to be in it, typically, unlike these Tiktoker types, the editors will probably respect their wish and cut them out, not shame them and "put them on blast" for asking to not be a part of it.
B) Ernest Borgnine was the draw and he interacted with the public. The public was being used the way the public should be used for...to interact with it. It would be very different if people were eating, Ernest Borgnine shows up by himself with a handheld camera and starts monologing next to people eating. Sure some people would be star struck, even in the 90s, but a lot of people would think "that's really rude and annoying, and presumptious...even if he is a celebrity, don't just come into a restaurant and "talk to yourself". In the documentary, and the behind the scenes footage on youtube of all the stuff you don't see in the actual film, where he's just shooting the breeze with random people, he's just being a friendly guy; engaging with people. The food isn't the focus. It's "lets follow this loved celebrity to places all over America and get the local flavor of places".
In that case, the unspoken rule of "don't film randomly in businesses when people are having an expectation of not being filmed or have an obnoxious person talking near them" is given an exception because anytime a celebrity goes to a small town, especially back in the 90s when having been in movies actually meant something, it was a cool thing, like seeing a rare endangered owl fly overhead or something. The rules get put aside temporarily.
"Content creators" aren't charismatic, don't have gravitas, they aren't known for anything other than churning out content, thus them recording in places breaks the unspoken rule regardless of whether it's legal or not.
Whenever I see videos talking in public places into their phone for TikTok, youtube, whatever, I can't imagine how awkward it is. I can't fathom doing that. I'm shocked that I don't see more of these types of interactions. It's one of the cringiest things to do the "content creator" schtick out in the real world, out in public. I couldn't even do it in the privacy of my own home, because I have this pesky thing called self respect. To see people openly going "hey guys, here at -insert restraurant- and I'm about to try their world famous -insert thing-, be sure to let me know what you guys think in the comments" I want to die of second hand embarrassment.
This whole video I'm watching it going "yes, finally someone calls it out for societally unbecoming behavior that it is". The wife or girlfriend of the man offscreen had a great line. The Asian guy with the youtube food channel is saying "If I was talking on my phone with a phone call would it be any different". The wife or girlfriend says "it would be equally annoying". Yeah exactly. When people are on their phones in public places, people are annoyed, it's just slightly more socially acceptable because sometimes phone calls are needed and you don't know the context or the time constraints. A person recording a TikTok in a restaurant we know exactly the context of why they're doing it. So I disagree with the woman. It would be ALMOST as annoying as filming a TikTok food review, but still less so because there's legitimate reasons to be on the phone at a restaurant. The point is, we've failed as a society when interactions like this are A) exceedingly rare
B) uploaded by the creator knowing that people will take HIS side on this issue
and C) people in the comments do in fact take his side.
I'd love to give the guy who's saying "why do you have to do your stupid content creator stuff and not just be a normal person, or if you HAVE to do it, just bring the food into your car or something" a fist bump and tell him right on.
Yeah, it was pulpy stupid popcorn fun. Just one of those in the line of a movie like S.W.A.T or the Italian Job or Poseiden remake in terms of quality in my eyes. Just sort of turn your brain off entertainment. Not award winning serious movie, just some fun mid level sword and sandal type action film.
I mean chuck norris was not a physical imposing guy but he leaned into rugged southerner and ran with it, embraced it.
Jean Claude Van Damme is lean muscular and has always had a sense of humor about him, winking at the female audience when they swoon when he stretches or takes his shirt off (younger van damme obviously). Same with Arnold. Due to age he's not the hulking monster he used to be. He's lost a lot of muscle due to age. But Arnold still retains the masculine strength personality. The rock even at a smaller size could still embrace that brand that is "the rock". I mean in his wrestling career early on, he was semi soft and doughy looking (muscular fat) but still had the rock attitude.
He doesn't need to be huge. Scorpion king era rock is when he looked the most like an action hero. Roided out rock didn't look good in my opinion. Only a few people can pull it off, schwarzenegger being one of them. The limit of what typically looks good is Rambo 3 era Stallone. As in you can guess he's probably taking roids but his body isn't so crazy that it's not outside the realm of plausibility that you could achieve that body without roids either. It still looked like a natural body, just a very muscular one.
"Not that I'm one of them". Arnold or stallone would never say something like this.
Arnold would say "I have to inject estrogen just to keep my power in check....my raw masculinity is too powerful so I have to balance it out with estrogen to keep my power under control"
That's the type of funny and only half joking thing Arnold would say. Regardless of his awful "screw your freedoms" moment, I'm not going to stop being a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now as far as the rock, I actually enjoyed some of his earliest movies. Walking tall, the rundown, and The Scorpion King.
And something that was interesting is I never even thought about him in terms of race. I didn't think, white, black, Samoan. He was just the Rock. I truly was color blind with the rock. Then I noticed in these later movies I've seen they emphasize racial aspects of him. In Hobbes and Shaw it's a giant embarrassing part (of an embarrassingly bad movie) where he visits his Samoan family, they do traditional Samoan dances and then fight with traditional Samoan weaponry while wearing grass skirts. That's like something out of a Bollywood movie. And more and more frequently the "I'm Samoan/Polynesian....isn't that incredible?" Has become more of a thing with him when in the early 2000s the background, ethnically or otherwise didn't enter my mind because again he was just the rock. It reeks of lameness and it's embarrassing how he's going for those "intersectionality points". It's embarrassing for anyone but the Rock has already been successful. It's doubly weird when it's not a person who's trying to just make it in Hollywood. I get it, you are accustomed to a lavish lifestyle and the only way to maintain it is hope you get cast in a billion dollar franchise since that's all that exists is that or A24 indie films.
But there is a third option; lean into the rock as a brand, promote testosterone, buddy up to mel gibson, mark Wahlberg, etc and hope a new Hollywoo alternative comes about. it's riskier than playing the Hollywood humiliation ritual games but you don't have to sell your dignity. So the upsides are worth it.
No, he made a perfect world. Man rebelled and with sin came death and the curse. Hence the New Heavens and the New Earth where sin and all pain, sadness, will be forever defeated and "the former things will be remembered no more", cast into hell which is why you need to repent and believe in Jesus. Because this world as screwed up as it is, you've never experienced a world where none of Gods glory is. To the degree you can feel the warmth of the sun on your skin, enjoy tasty food, smell a pleasant smelling flower, you are experiencing the grace and majesty of God. If you think earth is a crap hole what do you think hell, where none of the good things are and where all sin that is the source of your frustration is sent to be punished for eternity?
Rejecting Jesus because you hate the evil in the world is like hating the doctor who's offering you a cure for your terminal illness and blaming the doctor for giving you the illness.
The curse on this world that God implemented when Adam and Eve sinned where God made work hard, giving birth painful and allows evil to exist is so that people know something is wrong and seek the One who can make it right. Holiness and sin can't exist together. If not for Jesus sacrifice for forgiveness of our sins, the human race would have been obliterated as soon as sin entered the world. That we have existed to the year 2026 in order to complain about the world is evidence of God's mercy and long-suffering nature wishing all would repent, not evidence that He made a flawed world. Sin brought death, sin continues to make the world hellish and God also cursed the world making it not at all like the paradise that Adam and Eve temporarily experienced.
But this life is like a vapor a puff of smoke. Paul says for those who believe, the pains of this time aren't worth comparing to the glory that is to come.
No people just had critical thinking and didn't fall for circular "the patriarchy but it's the Jews instead"
Saying "the only difference is there's no stigma against naming it" is what a feminist would say about the "patriarchy". "Every woman instinctively knew there was a patriarchy, now there's just not a stigma against it".
It's a self fulfilling circular ideology, just like feminism is.
Any worldview except Christianity that tries to have explanatory power for EVERYTHING should be rejected as bollocks.
Why does Christianity get the exception? Because objective truth means there can be a billion lies but only one truth on any given thing. Christianity, the Bible, the Holy Spirit, Jesus are the only things that are capital T truth and establish the boundaries of everything else you have an observance of.
For instance starting with the Bible first, we can know one narrative point that is able to be rejected. That the Jews are the category of most evil people. The Bible singles out a category of people who are the most uniquely evil in either 1st or 2nd Peter. That is false prophets, aka people who knowingly introduce error in scripture, not merely being deceived but rather sending people to hell for the sake of earthly pleasures. The Bible says they will occupy the same level of hell as the demons, the Greek word Tartarus is used.
While a Rabbi could be a deliberate false prophet leading people to hell, with possibility that some are unknowingly doing so being deceiveed themselves, his evilness is not due to Jewishess but is of the same spirit of evil as Kenneth Copeland. Kenneth Copeland and a Rabbi who knows what he's doing and isn't merely deceived are in this uniquely evil category the Bible lays out. Same with the Chinese "pastors" who enjoy the protection and benefits of the Chinese government by preaching from the altered Chinese CCP approved Bible.
So people who say "Jews are the most evil category of people" aren't operating from a Bible first position. The Bible tells us false prophets are the most evil and when it says false prophet, it means specifically those coming into Christianity introducing heresy for worldly gain. By sheer population amounts Jews don't make up a majority of this category. For instance in Africa they have a serious epidemic of prosperity gospel type preachers like Kenneth Copeland. It's a category of person that is utterly detached from any ethnicity.
Oh, so the guy who is deadset on being anti-Israel finds a guest who says the things he'd want to hear and promote? That's crazy. Tucker had no idea who he was booking, it was pure coincidence that such a bombshell dropped.
Crazy how that works. Stephen Colbert wants to promote that vaccines are safe and effective and out of sheer luck, the people he interviews will give inside knowledge about how safe and effective pfizer is.
Wow, what a coincidence.
On your season 5 writing ham fisted, in hindsight I feel like better call saul was also the writers trying to shove their views even further. Sort of like how the Wachowski homo brothers made the 4th movie reboot in an attempt to "reclaim the redpill" and other cases where writers inadvertently write something based and then get ticked off about it.
Well with Better Call Saul, it was like they wanted to write the anti-Skyler White in an attempt to show "we're feminists". Also they put in flashback scenes to try and recontextualize Saul Goodman and Walter White respectively. I see scenes from Breaking Bad revolving around both characters and you frequently see comments saying something like "I thought this was cool at the time, but it seems pathetic knowing what we know from BCS" as an example of a sort of comment. We all liked Saul Goodman. Again BB was competency "porn" and Saul Goodman was part of that.
We have in BCS Mike straight up tell Kim Wexler that he thinks she's made of tougher stuff than Saul Goodman. Saul Goodman, the guy who the writers previously described as a survivor, like a cockroach who'd somehow find the way to be the only one to survive a nuclear armegeddon; this lawyer lady is being told she's made of tougher stuff. And how do they do the convincing of that? By making her so stoic she essentially doesn't resemble any woman I've ever seen in real life. Her stoicism would be noteworthy in a man, and essentially never seen in a woman. So their way of getting around things is making her like a statue in terms of showing emotion.
Likewise with the ending. We waited all those seasons to finally see Saul Goodman set up shop and get to work, and they just time jump and skip over all that, and then he gives himself a worse prison sentence to make Kim like him again and prove his brother wrong. If they wanted to do a redemption thing, Nacho's redemption was the way to do it. That felt earned. The last season of BCS felt like they had no idea what to do in my opinion and how to have a satisfying conclusion to his character. I really don't think his character needed a conclusion at all. If it were merely a prequel showing him getting up and establishing this golden age of him operating as Saul Goodman, that would have been a satisfying show. But they wanted to recontextualize Breaking Bad, including by making Gustavo Fring explicitly gay. Sure, he seemed a little gay with that one flashback scene in BB, but they went ahead and just plopped a scene out of no where with Gustavo flirting with a man. Why? To score some woke points? You almost single handedly pumped out two almost completely shows that were devoid of gay crap which is unheard of in the modern day and you couldn't resist.
Yeah, I was team Walter the whole show. People have this "breaking off point" where they aren't rooting for him anymore.
I don't understand why Walter doesn't get to wear the anti-hero label like others do. A person doesn't need to be moral for you to root for them. Henry Hill in Goodfellas is probably less moral and certainly less cunning and intelligent and compelling as a person, but you root for him because of the context of the movie.
(I don't personally believe that Henry Hill never killed anyone in real life considering the company he kept; it's just he can't admit it, unlike other crimes for legal reasons).
With Walter White it's the whole "his heckin ego" thing. Well yeah, he's got a chip on his shoulder and yeah he's got an ego but it's because he's brilliant. But if all he had was "muh heckin ego" and wasn't ballsy and took serious risks that could have gone extremely poorly even to protect others like Jesse, and was a coward, he wouldn't be in the anti-hero class like the Punisher or Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Yes, I understand in their two cases they kill criminals rather than strictly speaking becoming one, but there's plenty of films where people become criminals and we quasi root for them, such as Blow, Goodfellas as mentioned before, Casino, The Godfather, and dozens of other mafia movies.
But with Walter White, anytime he does anything immoral he's framed as a monster, whereas Michael Corleone is looked at as this nuanced deep character who you still root for.
That's true, but Hank Shchrader used his connections with the DEA and leverage over Walt's cancer diagnosis to force him to cook meth for him. Walt confessed this in a video. It was a big twist. Hank didn't realize that the Heisenberg he was searching for was inside of him all along. He just needed belief in himself for it to shine through.
My post was a joke, but where did you find this/ where are the clues? I've never picked up on it. Also Skyler is already completely emasculating b - wife. The reason she's so hated is because almost every man knows a woman who does the passive agressive things she does. I don't think a more emasculating character has ever been created without going into woke shows where they create that character as someone to root for which Skyler isn't.
I wouldn't doubt what you're saying that it might have been in the original plan and some DNA of that original idea is still in there, I just haven't seen it. It's in line with her characterization.
Even before Walter "breaks bad" she's very much not in love with him and just barely engages with him. She sucks before he does anything crooked, illegal or immoral. She just uses his actions as an excuse to quadruple down on the unsupportive wife behavior she was already exhibiting in episode 1.
Of course they could, but typically most events aren't known about so far in advance to the public. The White House correspondence dinner is always the last saturday of April at the same location.
This gives people like the cartel tons of time to get blueprints, logistics, all the things needed.
Meanwhile if there's an event he's speaking at and they don't know that long in advance, nor know it well enough that they can make quick adjustments when they find the way things have shifted around, as far as security, they have a much harder job ahead for themselves.
Most "will be here in the same spot every year" sort of deals happen at the white house grounds itself.
The other places where he speaks not in a predictable place every time and place, they have more logistics they have to figure out, thus giving an advantage to the secret service who can figure out a location far sooner than the cartel can. By the time the cartel learns about a place Trump will be at, the Secret Service has already analyzed maps, strategy points, etc.
With the Correspondence dinner, the cartel has the same time advantage as the secret service does, meaning the risk is far greater.
When Trump gives the state of the union, again it's at the white house meaning you have to be downright suicidal to attempt anything there. It's like trying to steal from Fort Knox compared to the local bank.
You have critical thinking skills. Exactly. If this attack wasn't a one man loon doing it, but instead a coordinated Cartel attack involving dozens of people, they'd FAR rather choose where the correspondents dinner is currently held rather than the white house. Not even the cartel is "loco" enough to charge the white house.
I feel you on the conspiracy thing. People don't feel like people anymore. Now part of that is im terminally online. That skews your perception of reality. But peoples reaction to covid broke my mind in a big way with non online people too.
But yeah the Internet feels foreign, alien, inhuman. I can't envision the audience or who it's made for or their mindsets. While generation gaps have always existed I feel like there'd be less of "these are aliens" feeling between grandparent and grandson than there is between "content creator and their audience" vs normal not pod people.