As someone who holds both gold and BTC - who do you think controls most of the precious metals and land? If you think you're "fighting the system" by owning gold you're delusional and need to read on history, economics and geopolitics. I'd take gold over fiat and crypto any time but the reality is all money is controlled by the ((central bankers)) and it has been this way for hundreds of years.
Just avoid digital and pay cash.
It's mostly this guy spamming the forum. Adam Green has good rhetoric but sadly, he's a retard. He's a balls deep skeptical conspiracy guy who derides "Sky daddies", authority and mainstream history but believes in evolution and NASA's bedtime stories. Never go full retard, Adam.
Not at all, I'm a Christian monarchist. The problem is the definition of what a virtuous king represents gets a little dicey with Plato and his crew. Why? Because his definition of virtue (ethics) is subjective and even his contemporary philosophers would disagree on many points. There was no consensus and common doctrines among the pagans and OP tries to spin it the other way around. What makes Plato any more right than say Epicurus?
Right off the bat, it lumps “Jewish” and “Hebrew” theology into the same basket, which is dumb and inaccurate.
Right on. Adam Green and his fanboys fail to make that distinction and accuse Christianity of being kiked out of ignorance. They don't even realize Jesus Christ preceded the practice of rabbinical judaism as we know it today. Judaism is a sectarian religion misinterpreting the Hebrew Torah which teaches the Trinitarian God and prophesizes the coming of the Christ.
Why is AI so dumb?
Because it's only as intelligent as the people who program it. AI is a scam.
Ridiculous bs. If you actually red Plato, you'd know he's all about a centralized technocratic government by a small elite group of philosophers (he called them council of the night). He's basically the grand-daddy of the NWO, Big brother state, Committee of 300, WEF, CFR and Bilderberg. He sees no problem in socially engineering people and keeping them easy to control - ends justifying the means.
Reading the greek view on morality, you will notice none of them would judge the psychopathic elite you rail against as being evil. On the contrary - they excel at controlling the world through cold calculating reason and superb planning which makes them virtuous. Moreover if you believe in darwinism, they evolved to be at the top of the hierarchy which places them at the top of the natural world (thus fulfilling the "live in accordance with nature" postulate of stoicism).
What is the justification for morality in your pagan worldview? Why we ought to follow truth and the good?
Lolbertism originates from classical liberalism, which is masonic and revolutionary (read jewish, hence why they are anti hierarchy and authority). Ayn Rand's "do as thou wilt, pursue your desires at any cost" philosophy is exactly what spawned the degenerate clown world we live in today.
Libertarianism in a nutshell: "Getting raped by government is evil but Blackrock raping you is fine because they are a private corporation".
My ancestors were Christian going back 1000-1500 years. They converted from paganism. I speak and write the language they created (St. Cyril and St. Methodius) which is known as Church Slavonic. So what now?
The reason I call pagans larpers is because there's no such thing as a common pagan belief system or worldview. You just mix and match things you like from the past and build your own adventure. The only unifying thread is you're reactionary to Christianity. Therefore, you're a larper. So what's your flavor of neo-paganism?
That's assuming the Earth is a gazzilion years old though.
Oh, I'm sorry. Of course you're a pagan larper like Adam Green.
r/atheism tier post.
They believe in a book that were not witness to and do not not have objective knowledge of what, who and when was it written. All they have is internet evidence of something, somewhere, someplace said so. Objective knowledge is thus nil.
If that's your epistemic standard you shouldn't believe in anything written before you were born because you lack first-hand "objective knowledge". The Bible is the most well attested book in history and we know who wrote it and who compiled it too. If you want to be skeptical of the authorship you could be, but apply the same standard to all the ancient literature also. Did you know the oldest surviving Plato manuscript is from around 9th c. AD - that's 1500 years after his time?
The irony is you probably believe in the evolutionary myth just like other great skeptics who have seen through the lies of Christianity like Adam Green. Somehow, you have no problem ascertaining what happened 300 million years ago because "experts" found bones and contrived a model to date them, that happens to agree with the presuppositions of their theory. No way to verify any of this through the scientific method - just trust the science bro!
Is it rape though? Maybe he sold his asshole.
Man is fallen and that's his problem - it's not civil society or technology. If man's creations are degenerate (be it society or technology) they've been made so by man and are a symptom of our moral failings.
Adam Green is kinda retarded.
That's where they draw the line? They kill people all the time via abortions, toxic drugs, failed interventions and jibby-jabs.
The irony of you antichrists "exposing jewish lies" while falling for obvious jewish lies. The rabbi doesn't look happy to me but seething as is every jew when JC is mentioned. They've been trying to smear Him for 2000 years. Go listen to the rabbi, chud.
If you hold the antiChristian agenda as your undisputable evidence of Jews not creating Christianity 2000 years ago as the ultimate subversion tool then I have nil else to add to you.
I wouldn't count on "what seems to be the case around us" as my main argument because it could be a controlled dialectic as you pointed out. That's why my main argument is what Christianity teaches and what the history of Christianity and rabbinical Judaism is.
They were many times at least before 1945. The gold went to England. Eustace Mullins writes about it in his Secrets of the Fed.
Everything except 1. Rabbinical judaism, the Talmud and Kabbalah started after they killed the messiah. If you were paying attention at Sunday school you'd know the pharisees didn't exactly like Jesus and neither do jews ever since. Not only do they believe JC is a false prophet forever burning in a lake of fire, but He cursed their lineage (the fig tree curse), prophesized the destruction of their Temple (you know, the one where every world leader goes to cry on with a funny hat on) and called them the synagogue of Satan. It's His Church that teaches the Antichrist will come from Jerusalem when the Temple is rebuilt, that he will be a jew and he'll rule the world through the beast system. Mind you that pretty much every other major institution sucks Israel's balls as they will do when the antichrist comes.
But all you have to do to disprove this stupid Adam Green level theory is to look around in the world we live in - there's an obvious anti-Christian agenda jews push through their control of media, pop culture, politics, crime and economics. They did it at least since the execution of Charles I by the jewish puppet Oliver Cromwell. This is almost 400 years.
Their outward projection is multiple and for each there are 'meanings' by which to be fooled designed to fool specific target groups.
Sounds like any knowledge of what's real concerning this is impossible then. So why speculate at all?
We know organisms change, many natural occurring situations pushing for new strategies all the time even in the few years we live. We see the butterfly change color in a few years by adapting to new environment, thanks to its fast lifecycle.
Yes, this is observed to happen and it is what allows for hybridization to take place. My argument was against macro-evolution and speciation - the idea that life arose from proteins which then formed single cell organisms, then more complex organisms, species of plants, animals, etc. The butterfly changes some of it's characteristics and those variations are coded in its DNA (and yes there are random mutations happening too).
You are assuming no direct proof of a specific instance of the mechanism happened millions of years ago equals no reality, yet it is in line with everything else and only logical as a source.
Evo proponents make a huge leap assuming the localized observable phenomena of variations in phenotype within any given species influenced by its environment can be extrapolated infinitely if millions of years are granted leading to the gradual RANDOM transformation of living matter so that it produces a great variety and complexity of species that all have a common origin.
You can't assume what's true of the part is true of the whole, that's a composition fallacy. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists.
But it's feasible that a snake slowly evolved into that from many many 'speciation' processes, and by the way you don't see the 'losers' that it costed around...
Well, I described the problem decently. What is the mechanism that produced all the organs and chemicals needed for a snake to become a venomous snake? Random mutation, natural and sexual selection? Developing such a trait would take millions of "correct" random mutations all in a roll within a huge population (this is mathematically impossible; btw how can something be "correct" when the whole process is purposeless and blind? Can I build a computer by accident by randomly adding parts together even in a million years?). It also doesn't confer any benefit unless it's functional, so it makes no sense for such a process even to start let alone be selected for sexually and the "work in progress" to be passed on to the next generation.
This gets even more embarrassing when speaking about "transitory species" from aquatic to terrestrial and vice versa. I love the animations where a whale was walking on four legs and gradually starts getting into water and transforming its limbs into fins. Now imagine the same process but taking millions of generations. This means most of those transitory generations would be in an awkward stage where they can't properly live in water but also are now disadvantaged on earth because their hoofs are half-assed fins now.
Haven't understood your point about naturalism and determinism. Perhaps it's the semantics. You are saying those two oppose each other as models?
No, I mean naturalism and determinism are part of the same worldview because naturalism assumes the universe is governed by determined mechanistic processes (like evolution).
Evolutionism and materialism are two completely different beasts to me. So are minds and brains.
Fair enough, but most of the time evo proponents are materialists who can't make a meaningful distinction between a mind and a brain because they reject metaphysics and believe everything in existence is physical in nature and accessible through sense data.
He was a shill. A painfully obvious one. Good riddance, dear fedboy.
How do you know you are right in this and that's not the desired thought outcome of their outward projections?
Because their outward projection is the opposite - normies rarely suspect the elite is engaged in secret societies, eyes wide shut parties and occult rituals. They assume they're just being rich and extravagant but nevertheless share the same general culture and worldview as the normies. Sure, pop culture is ramping up the exposure to that occult side recently but still it's perceived as just entertainment or art (like the Olympics ceremony, Hollywood and the music industry).
Could you please reference some?
The problem of getting to a first replicator. Basically, evo proponents argue species evolve through sexual selection but there must have been a time when evolution happened without it. Think about it - they claim the ability to reproduce sexually evolved out of necessity but obviously those species did just fine millions of years without it.
The same goes for other beneficial complex systems that were formed by this blind process like snake venom, but the venomous snakes had to be able to thrive and reproduce before this "upgrade". Terms like "necessity" or "benefit" presuppose purpose and evaluation but evolution is a purely mechanistic process of inputs and outputs - there's no purpose or evaluation present, it is us who rationalize it post-factum. So how come multiple generations of snakes which reproduce successfully decide they need to develop venom sacs and hollow teeth? Such a process would take millions of generations and until it's complete, there wouldn't be any benefits from it and it would only cause useless energy expenditure. And yet every generation continually develops it for the unforeseeable future as if they're working according to plan. And they're developing it without "knowing" the final system would work properly and make them fitter at all, because there's no feedback happening.
But I prefer to take it at the philosophical worldview level - evo theory presupposes naturalism, determinism and materialism is the case (everything in existence being matter in motion, cause and effect and without purpose). But this process adheres to certain universal laws and regularities like the laws of physics and laws of logic which I would argue are immaterial concepts that are properties of a mind. Yet according to the evo materialist worldview minds are identical to brains which didn't exist for a very long time. Therefore laws of logic which govern the evo process didn't exist up until brains capable of conceptual thinking developed - this is a contradiction.
All the weird degenerate shit they engage in is occult in origin. Don't look for scientific or pragmatic reasons. They do it for the same reason it's done in pagan rituals - to communicate with demons and to gain their favor in return for power or as symbolic rituals part of various elite secret societies.
So called evolutionary theory is also based in ancient greek and hindu philosophy (Democritus) and is not scientific at all since it does not adhere to the scientific method of evaluation, hypothesis, experiment and conclusion. It's philosophical speculation at best. I can't imagine how anyone could prove it because no one ever witnessed it and no adequate experiments can be conducted. There are also many purely logical internal contradictions that render such a process impossible.
There are indeed. That's not what I meant by it being fake and gay (I don't think it's wag the dog scenario).
It's possible. He did the job and got suicided to prevent loose ends.
The irony is it was the Rothschilds, Harrimans, Morgans and the Warburgs who pushed for the gold standard 100 years ago and now people act as if going back to it is a silver bullet that will mend the broken usury system...