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.
Yes, no one engages in an open war today and everything is done through proxy and psy ops (case in point Russia-NATO war). This is fifth-generation warfare. The US will be involved (like in Ukraine) but under the auspice of helping Israel "restore justice and democracy" in the region. Modern warfare is fake and gay, cowardly, deceptive, unmanly and undignified. There are no civilians, women or children - everyone is a target.
I see some new names here regurgitating normie talking points. The pre-election disinfo task force has been dispatched.
Reddit can burn for all I care.
She was a DEI hire obviously. Don't be dense.
That's nothing compared to what Jacinda did to those poor bastards. They deserve it though for being cucks and allowing it to happen.
I didn't accuse you of bigotry - learn to read, dude. You're either trolling or retarded.
Also, yes: antisemitism was ONE of the multiple reasons for the invention of racism: link to woke CRT demented pieces
A couple of hard hitters for you:
Who "invented" racism and do you happen to accept evolutionary theory as true the way Darwin popularized it?
What race are 90% of the jews?
Does antisemitism stem from perceived racial inferiority of jews (like in the case with blacks as less evolved moronic savages) or does it have other causes?
Are jews portrayed as inferior historically and did they struggle to get ahead in the societies they lived and thus influencing their culture, politics and economy?
And last but not least: Wtf are you doing in a conspiracy forum? Are you fighting disinfo on behalf of some woke-ass NGO?
Funny how you're accusing me of bigotry when you've made statements like this:
I didn't do that. I accused you of being a troll because the things you say are over the top ridiculous to the extent it sounds deliberately so. Btw, what's wrong with me saying women shouldn't vote? Do you want to debate me on this one?
Being an asshole is called the deadly sin of wrath.
Calling people out on their bs especially when they twist Scripture and spew heresy is not wrath. It's love of the Truth. You perceiving me as being "mean" because I'm upfront and don't tolerate lies is not a sin, it's a virtue. I mean you're asking for it making retarded statements like "antisemitism led to the invention of racism". Just think about what you said.
Yes, I see people around me experiencing weird ailments recently - early onset dementia (confirmed by doctors), corneal deterioration, heart problems, lungs filled with fluid, hair shedding, etc. A relative stroked out and died shortly after getting it but they blamed it on other causes. What they have in common is the shot (in my country only about 20% took it so no problem with having a control group). The rest have not experienced significant changes to their health. Sure, that's still anecdotal but I'm not the only one seeing this. I don't even bring it up because they refuse to see a possible link.
A statistical proof would be that in my country there is negative excess mortality every single month since early 2022 as opposed to highly vaxxed places.
The biggest one is that evolution is not a scientific theory because it can't be verified using the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion). It's a myth that originates in ancient greek and hindu philosophy that got rebooted in the 19c by a bunch of degenerate Royal Society freemasons who had to come up with a justification for the natural superiority of the British Empire and its race (Darwin: "We're just more evolved, brah. Now bend over."). The "theory" also did wonders in promoting naturalism and degrading the dignity of man who's created in God's image and instead promoted the idea we came from mindless bacteria and are just more evolved apes. It then got shoved into the public education system and pop culture by propagandists like T.H. Huxley, Freud, H.G. Wells and Rockefeller. And here we are now, when most people don't even question its veracity and gobble it up as "scientific" and "rational".
Based on what, your anecdotal observation? Not every vaccinated person is affected, that's true. Besides being still here doesn't mean their health is not fucked.
You can easily sell a few BTC on the exchange. Large quantities would take more time to get rid of but yes, it's convertible to fiat money.
Trump, because it's how the script goes.
Then the voters are retarded for not knowing what Labour stands for.
Adam Green is kinda retarded.