[–] [deleted] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
[–] yt4cz9 [S] ago (edited ago)
Sorry it's the jews. It's a jew trick to deflect from that.
For anyone reading this, you only have to look to who you can't question. https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/hitler-was-innocent-pretoria-fitness-queen-charged-for-her-comments-against-jewish-people-20200611
I can scream up and down every street stuff about the masons or LSD(lol) or Catholics and no one's going to care. Start screaming about jews and you'll find yourself in jail and on the news.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
take over the world with Globalism
There is an ancient conflict behind these modern buzzwords...the rootless against those with roots. Mankind is a species based on roots (blood; family unit; race; nation; culture; civilization). The rootless nomads are waging a systematical war against each of these to uproot mankind; to make mankind into their image; to make all wither like they do.
I'm not saying Free Masons are bad. But they've got some deranged ideas about how the world works
They are within the "chain of command" caste system that rules this world; a pyramid scheme where each participant puts blind faith in the authority of those above them; which creates the behavior of kissing up and kicking down to advance. It's also self perpetuating because those up high have committed so many crimes against those below that they all are working towards the same agenda...keeping the exploitation racket going to avoid justice from those below. A mason has to jump through the hoops of the chain of command just like a soldier; a student; a clerk or a burger flipper. The incentive for the mason are secrets trickled down to him for which he has to kiss up, while those above him carefully vet what information to kick down so that they can keep above.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
When you say "winners" you refer to history in terms of conflict. Every conflict has three different points of view...the winner who plays down his shortcomings; the loser who plays up his shortcomings and the biased and unbiased views of everyone commenting on the conflict. Test this on a schoolyard or any playground soccer game and you will always get three different stories for the same event.
History is HIS STORY, which means it's based on the perception of those who're telling it. On the grand-scale the best explanation for history is "a lie agreed upon", but for the individual a so called history has to be treated like every story presented; by the three building blocks...1.Origin, 2.Intent, 3.Target. The target is always YOU; the intent is either positive or negative towards you and the origin is either from above you or from below you. If the origin of any given story comes from above you; indicated by an infrastructure capable to spread it widely among those beneath; then the intent is always to uphold the power it came from, which means it's to suppress the power that might come from below; which means the intent is always negative.
If you comprehend these three fundamental points and are presented with a work you deemed negative; then you only have to look for that within that could negatively influence you, which will be based on a contract of belief. Names; dates; events etc. None of those matters; they are all interchangeable and act as analogies to hide the offer for a contract of belief. Take any story and try to find that which the origin tries to make YOU agree to. Then avoid it at all costs.
[–] 24267684? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
White supremacy and privilege both imply that - if true - no one would dare talk about it because otherwise the privileged supremacists would annihilate you. Instead who are we not allowed to talk about and call out?
Whites were still enslaved in Africa after their cousins had free Black slaves in America. And it's not like the white women in the harems were volunteers.