1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is such a thing as Abrahamic religions. Those religions who believe the god of Abraham to be the one true god.

But the God of Abraham is Trinity, which includes Jesus Christ, the Son. Last time I checked Judaism and Islam don't believe in that God. Islam especially is very particular about Allah not having any sons and that's because Islam is based on the Arian heresy popular at the time. Both Islam and Judaism don't believe in the incarnated God.

Christianity and Islam are proxies of Judaism, created for the purpose of having the world believe in the lord god of Israel and of Israel to be gods chosen people.

That's your truther atheist-gnostic interpretation. In reality, historically the jews who didn't become Christian (so called rabbinic judaism and their Talmud) hate Christianity and were constantly banished from Christian kingdoms in the East and West because they were usurers and promoted degeneracy.

That's why they organized the revolutionary movements to topple the monarchies and establish their NWO which is international communism (which is NOT opposed to free market trade and capitalism, this is a common normie dialectical mistake "muh capitalism and muh free market economy").

They started with Britain in 1640 and the execution of Charles I by Oliver Cromwell, who had struck a deal with the jews letting them back in the empire and establishing the first central bank - Bank of England. Then the French revolution initiated by the jewish controlled jacobins (your namesake) and illuminati-infiltrated freemasons. And finally, the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 which subjugated the Russian Empire to the jews (the commies were jews naturally, it's widely known and attested). And now we're amidst the final global revolution and the establishment of a one world government. This is the grand scheme of things and a quick briefing of history and how we got here.

All major cultural revolutionary movements which naturally opposed the Christian traditional society and considered Christianity as the main enemy were instigated, financed and carried out by jews. Atheism is part of their psy ops and here you are spewing their propaganda (notice how zionists are mostly atheistic and only use the Torah for geopolitical and propaganda purposes as per the Ben Gurion educational program).

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Vague gnostic schizo Q drivel doesn't substitute for epistemic grounding and a coherent hermeneutics. You just pick concepts from completely different worldviews and systems and mix them together assuming they are somehow connected, meaningful and are not contradictory. The result of course is an incoherent and arbitrary all-you-can-eat-buffet worldview.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Clockwork orange?

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Perhaps they themselves are just slaves to a being (not God) and are being used.

They obviously don't worship the one true God who became flesh, died and was reincarnated. So yes, they follow satan and they will bring about the antichrist and his rule once the temple is rebuilt. There's no such thing as "Abrahamic religions" - this is a jewish psy op. The God of Abraham is the Christian God (I am that I am), not the god of Judaism or Islam.

6
SmithW1984 6 points ago +6 / -0

Makes sense. He said men surely can become women. This is jew logic right there.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

I eventually asked you to read ONE PAGE and bring me some critique.

My critique is at the worldview level and it's very basic. I don't need to read anything to make that argument, which is: How do you know what you're saying is the case? What is your epistemic grounding for the things you claim? Why should I trust the gnostic paradigm as opposed to the Christian paradigm? How do you know which historical source was "tainted" and which one is reliable, which leads me to the most basic question - how do you discern truth and what's the standard for truth?

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Eight-year olds, dude.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hjalmar Schacht was a Rothschild puppet and a high ranking freemason, same as the fucking socialist puppet that you Idolize.

Can you read, dude? The quotes I posted say the exact same thing. It also says that Hitler dismissed the for that very reason and nationalized the Reichsbank taking it away from Rothschild's control.

I don't support national socialism or idolize Hitler at all, because it contradicts my faith. I'm just interested in historical truth. You're an idiot to assume that and you just bore false witness against a fellow Christian. But cool ad hom/strawman, too bad it doesn't function as a proper argument, you absolute retard. "Anyone not agreeing with my schizo made-up version of history is a freakin' nazi, reeeee!!!". You sound like an antifa libtard, seriously.

Is Ford, the guy who popularized The Protocols and published the International jew: The World's Problem and was prosecuted because of it, also a Rothschild puppet? You're fucking ridiculous.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

The best way to fight the depop agenda of the malthusian eugenicists it to become like them? Brilliant plan.

2
SmithW1984 2 points ago +3 / -1

The Rothschilds created and funded Schicklgruber, and Schicklgruber never harmed/killed them or confiscated their Banks/wealth during WW2. Now what?

Restating your claim doesn't prove anything. Still waiting for you to put forward some kind of evidence.

Now it's my turn. Does the following sound like a jewish Rothschild agent to you?

"I next argued that the gold standard, the fixing of rates of exchange and so forth were shibboleths which I had never regarded and never would regard as weighty and immutable principles of economy. Money, to me, was simply a token of exchange for work done, and its value depended absolutely on the value of the work accomplished. Where money did not represent services rendered, I insisted, it had no value at all".

"I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would be to jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realised then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder's speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle."

"Break down the thralldom of interest is our war cry.^^ What do we mean by the thralldom of interest? The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labour, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much lead. So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.

"Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labour, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation's hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilisation throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question.^^

"Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

"Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.

"Nationalisation of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.

"Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non- interest bearing state bonds and without using ready money.

"Introduction of a fixed standard of currency on a secured basis.

"Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans.

"Fundamental remodelling of the system of taxation on socio¬ economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation.)^

"Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.

"The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state's right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results."'^

In January 1939 matters came to a head when the President of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht, refused extension of three billion Reichsmarks worth of Off a and Mefo bills, because of fears of "inflation". On 7 January 1939 Schacht sent Hitler a memorandum signed by himself and the eight other board members of the Reichsbank, which contained the following main points.

  1. The Reich must spend only that amount covered by taxes.

  2. Full financial control must be returned to the Ministry of Finance. (Then forced to pay for anything the army desired.)

  3. Price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated.

  4. The use of money and investment markets must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank. (This meant a practical elimination of Goring's Four Year Plan)."^^

Schacht concluded his memorandum with the ambiguous words: "We shall be happy to do our best to collaborate with all future goals, but for now the time has come to call a halt."^ By these means Schacht intended to collapse the German economy,^ which during the period 1933-39 had increased its Gross National Product by 100 percent. From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with 7,500,000 unemployed persons,^ Hitler had transformed Germany into a modern socialist paradise. He was justifiably angry and rejected the recommendations of the Reichsbank as "mutiny".^ Two weeks later Schacht was sacked. Roger Elletson describes this momentous event as follows: "On 19 January 1939, Schacht was summarily dismissed, and the Reichsbank was ordered to grant the Reich all credits requested by Hitler. This decisive action essentially emasculated both the Reichsbank's control over domestic monetary policy, and the German power base of international Jewry. It had the effect of removing from Jewish bankers the power to deflate and destroy the German economy.

Excluding the implications of the interest rate paid on the MEFO bills, Germany could now be viewed as being on a "Feder System", rather than a "Schacht System". The Reichsbank effectively became an arm of the government, with the only real change being in the fact that bills were now monetised, or discounted, under the auspices of the State rather than some Jewish lackey in the Reichsbank presidency."^ Thus only in January 1939 did the Reichsbank become an authentic State Bank. Schacht's dismissal also terminated the transfer of confidential information regarding all Germany's economic developments,^ which he had been deviously giving without interruption to Montagu Norman, ^ a fellow mason and Governor of the Bank of England (1920-44).

A new Reichsbank law, which was promulgated on 15 June 1939, made the bank "unconditionally subordinated to the sovereignty of the state."

Article 3 of the law decreed that the bank, renamed the Deutsche Reichsbank, should be "directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fiihrer and Reichschancellor."'

Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, who in 1800 had established the Banque de France as a state bank, suffer the same fate; an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country. It was this event which triggered World War II - the realisation by the Rothschilds that universal replication of Germany's usury-free state banking system would permanently destroy their evil financial empire.

Source: A History Of Central Banking And The Enslavement Of Mankind by S. Goodson

4
SmithW1984 4 points ago +4 / -0

Is this why he backed the palestinians against the jews? Hitler also took control of Germany's central bank getting rid of the private Rothschild agents - this is probably why Germany was goaded into WWII by the zionist warmonger shills like Churchill in Britain and Roosevelt in the US.

This has to be one of the stupidest conspiracies about history. Do you have any arguments proving this besides Hitler bad?

5
SmithW1984 5 points ago +5 / -0

Obviously one can't be a follower of Judaism and a Christian at the same time but of course one can be an ethnic jew and become a Christian - Christianity is for everyone.

I can't even process how anyone could think Judaism is compatible with Christianity - a Christian can't follow any other religion or ideology that somehow contradicts its teachings. I thought this goes without saying? Are people that stupid?

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope 9 guys pump your ass full of semen the way those subhuman coon pigs did to the poor girl and have 8 of them walk free. Then come asking me a binary pointed question like that you pedo defending piece of shit.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

But why is tolerance always good to begin with (except towards intolerance)? Why should I choose being tolerant over being intolerant? What makes your position and its dogma (no intolerance allowed) normative and the standard for judging all other worldviews?

5
SmithW1984 5 points ago +5 / -0

I know about it. I've studied logic and epistemology. Calling it a paradox doesn't stop it from being self-defeating and logically fallacious.

The conundrum refers to the real-life application of that principle and the pragmatic problems arising from it, which are assessed post-factum. As far as deductive formal logic goes, it's contradictory.

6
SmithW1984 6 points ago +6 / -0

Ah we are also committed to not tolerate intolerance

That makes you intolerant also. It's a self-contradictory position. Talk about making no sense.

"I'm committed to pacifism, but I will wage war against any warmonger till my dying breath".

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lot's and lot's of claims made here.

Christianity is a cult religion only according to your distorted definition of it, which has zero historicity behind it.

You ask me to read a 400+ page book. If I asked you to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers against the heretics and gnostics would you do that? If you're so sure of your convictions why not see what the other side arguments are?

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Creation is made from Ideation first. All things.

Another proposition. What's the source of ideation? How do you have knowledge of the ultimate truth behind the interpretations and various takes? What makes universal metaphysical concepts like knowledge and truth at all possible in your worldview and where are they located?

6
SmithW1984 6 points ago +6 / -0

My religion says I have a duty to discriminate and condemn such behavior. Your religion says you shouldn't discriminate against other people's behavior and convictions. You don't have a case against bigoted Christians.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yet.

Either that or you got a lucky batch. Statistically, even if only 10% suffer serious adverse effects that would be huge and would result in millions people dying.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›