Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
NoNewNormal
MillionDollarExtreme
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
Win uses cookies, which are essential for the site to function. We don't want your data, nor do we share it with anyone. I accept.
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

7
If the US weren't the world's terrorists, would at least one other be doing that work?
posted 8 days ago by AI_ML_Expert 8 days ago by AI_ML_Expert +7 / -0

This seems to be the true justification for the terror brought upon the world by the US.

12 comments share
12 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (12)
sorted by:
▲ 2 ▼
– TallestSkil 2 points 8 days ago +4 / -2

Obviously. The jews need their golem. It was Spain until Britain beat them. Then it was the US. When the dollar hyperinflates, they’ll move to China, where they’re already the only non-Han who enjoy Inner Party membership.

Get rid of the jews and the world’s only terrorists would be Muslims.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– cant_even 4 points 8 days ago +4 / -0

You'd think the Chinese would have learned after the humiliations they suffered at the hands of the (((you-know-who)))-financed "British Empire".

I thought the Asians were supposed to have "long memories". Guess not in this case.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– AI_ML_Expert [S] 2 points 8 days ago +2 / -0

Fuck, you make it sound simple

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 6 ▼
– TallestSkil 6 points 8 days ago +6 / -0

If you track the history of the world’s “reserve currency” and look into the geopolitical changes that happened at the transition points (and the persons who were the catalysts) as it flowed from one nation to another, it’s like opening the back of a watch to see how everything connects.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– AI_ML_Expert [S] 1 point 8 days ago +1 / -0

Is there any way to live a moral life?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– TallestSkil 4 points 7 days ago +4 / -0

Sure. It requires sacrifices that most don’t want to make, though.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– AI_ML_Expert [S] 1 point 7 days ago +1 / -0

I'm curious

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– glownigger8675309 1 point 7 days ago +1 / -0

imho, innawoods with minimal possessions conveniences not made by one's own hand is about it. still have to be constantly mindful about not causing undue harm to others, though (again, imho; ymmv :)

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– alltheleavesarebrown 2 points 8 days ago +2 / -0

Love and forgiveness. Of self and others.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– free-will-of-choice 1 point 7 days ago +3 / -2

What if life exists in-between FORWARDS GIVING (inception) and FORWARDS GETTING (death)...hence struggling within what it got, while resisting the temptation of what it gets?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– free-will-of-choice -1 points 7 days ago +1 / -2

a) MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, moris, manner.] - "form; method; way of performing; custom"...flow (inception towards death) defines the morals of form (life)...unless ignored.

b) consenting to suggested moralism gives those suggesting the power of consent to define; redefine and contradict moral behavior.

In short...moral (perceivable) or immoral (suggested) aka need/want (balance) implies ones free will of choice in-between.

  • Perceivable morals....life in-between need/want (balance).
  • Suggested moralism...life in-between want vs not want (imbalance).

Example: struggling to resist appetite (want) for hunger (need) represents moral; reasoning over hamburger (want) vs cheeseburger (not want) represents immoral...switching sides to cheeseburger (want) vs hamburger (not want) doesn't make falling for the temptation of appetite moral.

Reason (immoral) or Implication (moral)...it's your choice.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– glownigger8675309 1 point 7 days ago +1 / -0

U.S. is the puppet. or, in this case, "golem" would be more accurate.

permalink save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Warning: Some describe this as a "fringe" conspiracy forum. If you're afraid of the info you may encounter here, please confine yourself to Win's safe-space conspiracy forum, here.

Submissions of exceptionally low quality, trolling, spam, and those submissions determined to be intentionally misleading, may all be removed.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2023.11.02 - 7vmhb (status)

Copyright © 2023.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy