.Part 1. The Treason of Obama in Benghazi.
Barack Obama is a disgusting traitor, and Benghazi was his most spectacular act of treason so far. He conspired with enemies of the United States and sacrificed the US embassy in Libya in pursuit of personal ambitions. Obama made an agreement with a group of anti-US terrorists, in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens would be kidnapped and held for prisoner-exchange. The terrorists wanted the release of their leader Omar Abdel Rahman. Obama wanted to become more popular with Americans just before the elections in 2012.
Two Navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, refused to stand down and gave strong resistance to the terrorists when they attacked the embassy, but were eventually overwhelmed and killed. In other words, those two military men were among the few who actually did what they were supposed to do, but they had to fight all by themselves. They weren't enough to achieve victory. The fight was two Americans against 150 terrorists, and our "President" made sure that our two guys didn't get any help.
This resistance by the Navy Seals made the terrorists believe that Obama had betrayed them, so instead of kidnapping the Embassy staff, the terrorists tortured them to death.
Obama deliberately withheld available military support which could have arrived at the Embassy in time to defeat the terrorists and save the Americans who were there. Obama conspired with these anti-American terrorists in the hope of using the kidnapping of a US Ambassador as a means for winning re-election in 2012.
According to Wikipedia, "To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI); as of January 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted." That's because the involvement of Obama would be revealed at the trials.
Reference:http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/02/15/admiral-claims-obama-conspired-with-americas-enemies-to-stage-a-phony-scandal-to-kidnap-chris-stevens/Part 2. The treason of (most of) the health-care industry.
The ostensible mission of the medical profession is to eradicate disease. But what business will seriously pursue a course of action that would, if successful, put it out
of business? The doctors wouldn't like that. Neither would the pharmacists. Neither would the stockholders in the corporations that own the hospitals. There is a conflict between the purpose for which the medical profession exists and the financial interests of its personnel.
What usually happens is this: poor people don't get cured of their diseases. The doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists just prescribe, administer, and sell palliatives while sucking up medicaid money. The people who actually get cures are the richer folk who can front all the money that the medical parasites will charge.
The poorer people, meanwhile, serve the industry as a reservoir and as a vector to reinfect the richer people on a steady basis. Thus, the medical profession can pretend to be pursuing its purpose, while in reality merely managing diseases for their greater profit.
Most doctors aren't healers. They are businessmen who happen to have medical degrees and licenses to practice. There are exceptions, but there aren't many.Part 3. Comments on the 2014 Revolution in Ukraine.
(My comments in the discussion were made in both Russian and English. Presented without translation here.)
Владимир, в 1787 году не было "законная власть" в Америке, в сознании европейских лидеров. Эти ранние американские революционеры создали свои легитимность сами по себе. Наследование легитимности не является необходимым, если он может быть создан и заработал как новый факт. Поверьте в добросовестно людей Украины. С его помощью вы не нужны никакие тяжелые правительство. Без этого, правительство не будет стоять долго в любом случае. Как вы недавно доказано.
If Ukraine ties itself with European Union, then I will begin to doubt the wisdom of this revolution. Nobody wants to be one of those countries with the big debt that nobody can pay and all the economy going to hell, people with no jobs, bankers taking away peoples' houses, children living in gutters, immigrants coming in from Africa to rape and kill everybody. I can't see how a patriot would want to do this to their country, because this is the work of traitors.
I hope that I have not been cheering for the wrong side these past several days.
I am American, and maybe I will get into trouble for saying it, even if we have free speech here. But you will do better to align with Russia. I know that Ukrainians don't like the Russians because of historical reasons, but it does no good to keep alive old hate when the circumstances have changed. It is like after ww2, US and Japan did not continue to hate each other. (They became business rivals instead.)
Anyway, Russia would not have been so bad in Soviet days if it weren't for Jewish communists. And now it is Jewish Zionists in the European Union who are scheming to exploit your country once again. I like Russians and Ukrainians, both, and would like to see the two countries get along better. But I am a white nationalist. United States can burn to the ground for all I care, as long as the white people are here, we can build a better country after the fire is gone.Part 4. No day should go without a dose of sexist truth-telling.
If a woman has a dollar or two, she'll find a way to spend it to increase her comfort, without regard to the unforeseen needs of tomorrow. That's where perpetual poverty comes from.
As a gender, men evolved to take care of females. And, unfortunately, women evolved to take that fact for granted. Human cultures always find a balance between the limited rate at which men can provide wealth and women's nearly unlimited ability to consume it.
So it is quite common for women to cry for aid, but then jump ship when someone else does. This is easy to understand in evolutionary terms.
Women possessed of a sufficiently honorable nature to respond nobly to a call for assistance are rare. As a rule, a woman contemplating an act of charity is not planning to do it with her own money and by her own deeds. Most of the time, she will try to persuade someone else—often, someone male—to do the doing and the paying for her.
Women do, however, usually want most of the credit for any charitable deed they had any slightest thing to do with. That's where the silly saying comes from: "Behind every great man there is a great woman."
Typical women's fantasy:
Can you imagine the child support that the "billionaire" will be socked with after the slinky heroine has persuaded him to make her pregnant? At least, I assume that's the thrust of the story, what's coming sooner or later. There's a rap song
by a black woman that features the line: "All you got to do is fuck, and nine months later you get the big bucks." The only difference with most white women is that white men don't disappear into the woodpile like black men do, so instead of getting state benefits, white women get them from their children's fathers post-divorce.Part 5. Comments to Jaclyn-the-Atheist on Christianity and on Debating Christians.
Jesus didn't mention a lot of sins in a particular way. So the Christians aren't going to be much impressed by your first point. The tradition into which Jesus was born that supplied most of the ideas about right and wrong does condemn homosexuality. If we had to estimate what Jesus would have said about homosexuality, then our best guess would come be what his apostles said about it after Jesus' death and from what the Judaic tradition held about it prior to Jesus' birth.
Now, I'm an atheist, and I can figure that out. What ever could have given you the odd notion that you'd have the slightest impact on Christian thinking with Thing Number One?
Regarding your second and third points: I had not been aware that Christians were throwing homosexuals to the lions anywhere in the world. Certainly, this has not been going on in our country. Do you really know what oppression is?
To be sure, Christians say things that you don't like about homosexuals, and I can easily imagine that you'd like them to stop. But you, in turn, say things that Christians don't like. You aren't throwing them to the lions, though, nor into jail, so you aren't oppressing them.
When Christians say "homosexuals will go to hell," even if they intend to scare people away from homosexuality, they are not oppressing homosexuals.
If you want to teach the Christians a lesson—or try to—then you can invent your own fantasy about God's Wrath and say that people who don't like homosexuals will be subject to it. Christians aren't the only ones who have a right to make up self-serving metaphysics and ethics. You may do it, too.
Further, the Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you membership in their churches. The Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you opportunities to speak in their churches. The Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you the services of their churches. Generally, membership in an association of people—a group, an organization, a club—or services provided by them, are rightly under the control of the existing members of that group.
If you want to be a member of a church, or to speak in a church, or services from a church, then first build your own church. Somebody else's church is not yours to use or to command.
Consider homosexual "marriage." In many states, a legal association called "marriage" is allowed to homosexuals. If two (or however many) homosexuals enter into a legally defined "marriage," then they can get tax breaks also given to heterosexual married couples.
But what homosexuals can't get is Christian recognition that they are married with God's blessing. Regardless of whatever license the state might issue, homosexuals are the same scissoring, butt-porking sinners that they always were, and their legal status affects their moral status not in the slightest. So far as Christians are concerned, the queers just found a clever way to save a little money on their income tax returns, and the state is a little more corrupt than it was.
Regarding your fourth point, how do you know whether marriage or religion came first? And how do you know that marriage was originally a civil matter, rather than a religious one? I don't think that you "know" any such things, and I do think that you have attempted an argument by bold, unsubstantiated assertion. To be sure, marriage predates Christianity, but Christianity wasn't mankind's first religion.
The point you tried to make is that marriage originally was a legal (or civil) institution detached from god-belief in general—not merely from Christianity in particular—and that the institution of marriage originally was conceived such that homosexuals were as welcome to participate in its benefits as heterosexuals were. That's something that you don't
know, and your pretenses to the contrary do damage your credibility.
Regarding your fifth point, “Judge not, that you be not judged" comes from the 7th chapter of Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus goes on to say, "Because when you judge, you will be judged by how you did your judging." In other words, people will decide whether you were fair or not. And their estimate of your character will be based on whether they think that you are right, or not.
In other words, if you judge, and your judgment is based on lies, or on beliefs that most other people deem to be wrong, then you will be judged as being someone whose judgments are inaccurate, and because inaccurate: unfair.
Whether you think that your judgment is fair or not is beside the point. They are the many. You are the one. That doesn't mean that you are wrong and they are right, from an objective standpoint, but it does mean that they can probably beat your ass in a fight if you go spoiling for one. So "Judge not, that you be not judged," said Jesus as advice, knowing that his group was inferior in martial terms to the larger society in which they lived.
As it happens, however, Jesus and the Sanhedrin didn't dispute every theological point that you can imagine. In particular, if the subject of homosexuality had ever come up for debate, Jesus and the Sanhedrin and all the Pharisees probably would have stood together and waved the same flag.
Now, your sixth point is a very well-understood principle. The idea that truth is not something that can be found by the method of voting on what truth is might be considered a definition of objectivity. Yes, you were certainly right to remind the Christians that the opinions of the majority don't define the truth, whether in morality or in anything else.
But the same thing goes for minorities. Just because your favorite minority has made moral declarations does not mean that those declarations are true ones. Or, to rephrase, "Who made you God, Jaclyn?"
We have two parties (at least) who dispute the morality of homosexuality. That one side is more numerous than the other is unimportant—in both directions. What sorts of society are "profoundly sick" is something to be proved empirically: no legitimate shortcuts can be found in sophistry.
Certainly, you may take the high tone, wag your finger, and declare what you will about the goodness of homosexuality. And, just as certainly, the Christians may take the high tone, wag their fingers, and declare what they will about the wickedness of homosexuality. Neither of you will impress me much.
I'm an empiricist when it comes to seeking the truth. There is no substitute for the acquisition and the clear, statistical organization of data, and for logic in the interpretation of those data—and there never will be. I will wait for one side or the other to present a scientific case. Until then, it's all merely contentious noise.
One thing more. Jaclyn, you have the bad habit of trying to impute repute or disrepute on extraneous topics by way of metaphor. That is, you've been noticed on occasion to make some good arguments on a topic for which you can prove that you are right, or, at least, prove that your opponent is wrong, and then try to pour that credit for rightness into another topic for which you cannot prove that you are right or that your opponent is wrong. That kind of behavior costs you credibility because it is an old
trick, and people do
It is far from empirically established, for example, that racial intermarriage is harmless to society. If you assert that it is harmless, then you have at once opened up another debate in which you can't prove that you are right, and your use of that still-controversial topic as an ostensible illustration—which, actually, was a fraudulent transfer of credit for rightness—was inappropriate.Part 6. How the Jews cheat us with their banking tricks.
This isn't the only layman's explanation for how the Jewish banking scam works, but it's one of the funnier ones.
If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube
You might be wondering how this Jewish giga-grand-larceny evolved historically. Most people assumed, mistakenly, that the government and the banks acted in good faith in the public interest. Most people could not have been more wrong.
During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn't have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.
Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted for safekeeping were goldsmiths, and most of the goldsmiths were Jews. Whenever a European noble would leave some gold with a Jewish goldsmith for safekeeping, he would get a receipt for the amount of gold he'd deposited, and by this receipt he would claim his gold again when he had need of it, reduced by the amount the Jew charged as his fee.
As the years went by, the nobles discovered that they could use the receipts as money of the "bearer bond" sort. Whenever the noble wanted to buy something, he didn't like to go running to the Jew to make a partial withdrawal of his deposit (especially since the Jew was charging for that service also). Instead, when he made his deposit, he had the Jew write him receipts for 1%, 5%, 10% portions of the gold on deposit, which added up to 100% altogether. And when the noble bought something from somebody, he would sign over the ownership of one of these fractional receipts to the seller. By this means paper money came into common use. Originally, it was a certificate by which an amount of precious metal could be claimed.
For a while, it is possible that the Jewish goldsmiths were scrupulously honest in their accounting. Maybe. But things didn't stay that way. Over time, the Jews discovered that the nobles had come to rely on their paper receipts as money, and they hardly ever came to call upon him for a return of their deposited gold. By careful estimation, the Jews calculated that they could safely begin using about 90% of this gold as they pleased. So what they started doing was lending the gold to third parties at interest. The Jews had no right to do this, since the gold didn't really belong to them, and each loan carried a risk of default or of simply being stolen by thieves.
Remember that the whole point of the Jews keeping the nobles' gold was to keep it safe, in a strongbox, so that thieves would not have an opportunity to steal it. So not only did the Jews begin taking income from lending valuable property that was not theirs to lend, the very act of their using the deposited gold in this manner was a breech of contract with the nobles who really did own the gold. The Jews had begun putting at risk what they had promised to shield from risk.
More time went by, and a further financial development came about. Instead of releasing any of the gold right away, the Jews started writing promissory notes on the deposited gold. That's a note that promised to pay gold to someone who borrowed it—from the Jewish goldsmith, who didn't really own the gold that he was promising to pay with. (Instead of walking out of the goldsmith's office with any actual gold, a borrower walked out with a promise written on a piece of paper. A Jew's promise was supposed to be "as good as gold.") So now there was, upon each coin of gold in the Jews' strongbox, two written instruments by which it might be claimed. The first one was the receipt that the Jew had given to the noble, whose property the gold really was. The second one was the promissory note that the Jew had given to a borrower. And both the receipts and the promissory notes entered general circulation as paper money.
Since the Jews had taken the step of creating more possible claims on gold coins than could be satisfied by the number of gold coins they had, there didn't seem to be any reason for them to hesitate about issuing a second promissory note upon each gold coin, and then a third, and so on. And charge the full rate of interest against each borrower, as if they could have paid them all in real gold.
But, although each gold coin could be claimed by more than one written instrument, the rate at which the Jews had to produce the actual gold coins was low enough that they never got caught short. If anyone had known that the Jews would be caught short of gold were all of the possible claimants to present their demands, there would have been a "run on the bank" as each depositor and each borrower tried to make sure that he wasn't one of the persons upon whom the Jew would have to default. But by maintaining the illusion that there was enough gold to pay everybody, the Jews were able to continue making promises to pay that they could not keep, and so they were also able to continue extracting interest on loans of gold whose aggregate principal was several times greater than the amount of gold—other people's gold!—that was actually in their strongboxes.
This was sort of a gamble for the Jews, during these early days of the Jewish banking swindle. If the nobles and the kings had caught on to the Jews' tricks soon enough, then matters could have been set aright by having the king's soldiers forcibly seize all the gold and execute the offending, presumptuous Jews. But the European nobility did not catch on in time, or else they did not see where the Jews were going with their scam and so did not muster the necessary amount of concern to nip it in the bud.
And so the devil's seed grew. The Jews kept getting richer and richer by lending out other people's gold, and lending it in several different directions at once, while the working classes kept getting poorer and poorer because of the interest that the Jews charged on their loans.
Eventually, the Jews had so much money by this means that kings who found themselves in need of funding started coming to them for loans, which meant that the Jews began to have financial leverage over the governments of Europe. Leverage that could be used, for example, to start wars. The Jews had an incentive to start wars because, being expensive, wars forced governments to borrow from them further and going ever more deeply into debt, which provided the Jews with an income from the interest. The more war, the more borrowing, the more debt, the more interest, the more wealthy the Jews got, the more the Jews could incite more wars, forcing governments to do more borrowing... and so on.
And that's why Europe's history went the way it did, for the past 400 years.
Several Jewish families, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs, formalized their financial swindles as banking houses. It was still the same assortment of cheats and tricks, only now it had a patina of respectability from the spaciousness of the lobby, the sumptuousness of its furnishings, the dress and grooming of its employees, etc. And this predatory Jewish activity continues today as the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, the House of Rothschild, and other institutions that might strike you as respectable until you know what they really are: huge financial frauds, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands, improperly, immorally, and treasonously given legal sanction.
Henry Ford, writing in the Cleveland News on 20 September 1923, recognized that the only way for the world to escape from the snare of Jewish finance was to round up all of the Jews who were involved in its scams and "control them"; i.e., either execute them or hold them fast and incommunicado in a prison until they died.
"Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all." —Henry FordPart 7. How the Jews cheat us with their banking tricks.
Here's the second part of the "Jew Bankers Swindling the Goyim" series.
If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube
If Germany had won the Second World War, then none of this Jewish swindling would be going on. Adolf Hitler removed the Jews from their positions of power because they were using their power of finance to harm the German people in precisely the manner illustrated in the "Eddie Rothschild the Pig" video.
Adolf Hitler was fighting primarily for Germany and its people. But, indirectly, he was fighting for all of the white people everywhere; indeed, he was fighting for all non-Jewish peoples, because each of them will be targeted for destruction, in the order in which Zionist Jewry judges them to be a threat to itself. Alas, Hitler's Germany was not strong enough to stand alone in battle against the military forces of all the other countries that were under the control of Jewish finance.
But we may wish that things had turned out differently.
If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube