Post: #51

(12-02-2018 03:13 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I was going to write something yesterday, Leonard, but such a reply is going to be very time-intensive on my part, tying together years of experience, and, well, I had other duties to perform first.

So I'm asking: do you want a serious reply to your question? Or do you just want to vent about Christianity regardless of what is said?

I'm dead serious. DBG isn't fond of my overly expressive manner but this is not about point scoring.

No man can bargain with God, but most Western fathers and husbands by default must bargain with Christendom. Show me a way forward under the cross that does not require us to surrender our nations and the future of our kin to evil.

We lament the loss of men to atheism, but in its current understanding Christianity offers only the surrender of earth to Satan. This is the prime inversion in my opinion. Men will not stand for the cross if the price is the surrender of their lands and loved ones.

Post: #52

(11-30-2018 01:26 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Then why not just say that? Building a boat looks even more hedonist. It reminds me of Jerry Falwell's Holy Land theme park. We are dying because we don't have a mythology that inspires our people. Christianity has been weaponized against us. What they don't say in the media is that Catholic charities makes millions of dollars on illegal immigration, and they need the people because churches are closing up in America. What they are doing is just over the top ugly and mind boggling - taking your boy away from you and redefining him as a girl through surgery and drug treatment. But millions of Christians in America say if you go against those who are doing this to you, God will curse you. These people are worthless for fighting evil. They are complicit agents.

Does not the underlying narrative of Noah's tale still indicate hedonism is hellish?
If internet folk get lost in arguments about boats & pairs of animals, cause they have preconceived agendas in mind, rather than taking the message for what it is.
That's on their misguided intent / nature.

As for the latter element of your comment. What was the actual percentage of those who actively fought in the American Revolutionary war against Britain?
The common figure is only 3% while the higher end of the scale has it at only 15%.

Post: #53

(11-26-2018 10:08 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I've spoken before how the Progressive Left is simply the religion of Reform Judaism, and about the weird inversion of values they push, meaning, anything they take over will eventually set out to offend God and, as I mentioned in the recent missionary thread, they will try to make you believe moral truth is Subjective and open to a personal interpretation of right and wrong, rather than Objective Truth, meaning, God's Natural Law, leading you, predictably, to dysfunction.

I have really felt for a long time that this is truth, but so few people see this that I have often doubted myself.

I can argue conclusively that todays "Secular Progressive" movement is actually a functional religion. However, making the connection to Secular Judaism I always lose people. However, it can easily explain why so damn many leaders of the movement going back hundreds of years are from the Jewish community.

As a historical note. In the middle ages Jewish communities in Europe were viewed as outside of Christian Law. This means that for example, the local European Kings or Nobility could not technically extend the laws of their land to Jewish communities. However, as the idea of the nation state began to take hold this began to change. Rabbis prior to 1600 literally had the power of life and death over their communities. If they said someone should die... they were killed. As the Nobility of Europe began to usurp this power the Rabbis seem to have responded in 2 major ways.

The first way is by becoming Zionist and dreaming of a return to Isreal. The second is by embracing a more secular view of Judaism that eventually became socialist/communist. This is why Karl Marx was Jewish. They basically took the Jewish idea of heaven at the time and attempted to make it secular.

Anyway... I feel like this is an amazing post you made and I thank you for it!

Post: #54

(12-01-2018 09:22 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This is my problem with modern Christians. They seem to think that they end will come on their terms. What do they imagine? That as the communists rumble up the driveway in a tank that the Flanders family will huddle in a circle and say their final prayers before a HE round vaporizes them all painlessly and propels them into God's arms?
Christendom exists because Christians had the will and the moral framework to keep or in some instances retake their lands by force. Obviously there exists a framework in the orthodoxy for earthly resistance to invasion and subjugation by the forces of evil.
So as someone who was raised as a Christian I'm asking earnestly of people that are far more versed in these matters than me, what is the earthly system for defending on a societal level against evil?
I'm not interested in kneeling in prayer in my living room only for my kids to end up abused and shot in a Soviet style orphanage and my wife and I turned slowly to animals in a re-education camp.
Speak to me of the Christianity that survived the Moors, when Christendom still had its balls. You want to talk about inversion? Refusal to choose life in the face of murder is an inversion. Refusal to defend your lands from invading idolaters and heretics is an inversion. Refusing to defend the weak among your flock such as the women and children is an inversion.
What is the Christian orthodoxy for fighting that earthly evil and expelling it?

This is a very deep question.

I know the history of the church well, and leftist people have been working for decades to destroy the church from within. We generally call these folks Theological Liberals. The Presbyterian Church was virtually destroyed by such people back in the 1920's. The fight went back several hundred years as wealthy Liberals were funding Theological Liberal Preachers through seminary schools... mostly because the Theological Liberal position of the day supported slavery.

Now the conservative of the Presbyterian Church had firm control. On many occasions they debated whether to throw out the Theological Liberals and purge the church of heresy. The Liberals always begged for mercy, and every time it was granted. Now in the late 1920's the Liberals finally got enough power to take control of the finances of the church. They decided at the start of the great depression to purge the conservatives from the church. To take the conservative pastors and their families and in the middle of the worst depression in US history, to throw them and their wives, their children into the street with nothing. The conservatives begged for mercy. The Liberals gave none.

I have learned this is a pattern with Liberalism. They will always beg for mercy when they have no power, but once they gain power, they will give none. They will persecute with no conscience or remorse.

The Christian religion absolutely allows for violent resistance to such a threat. However, because Theological Liberals have been beating away at the foundation of our theology for hundreds of years... most Christians don't know enough about their own doctrines to believe this.

The US is not savable through democratic means, nor can the Christian church in its current form save it. Instead a period of great persecution is likely coming. The only thing that could prevent it is an Oliver Cromwell figure. A Lord Protector of the Realm, that will make the hard decisions and route the liberals from their positions of power by violence. Most Liberals are by nature bullies, they only come after the weak, and when faced with strength they become cowards and beg to be spared.

This is my interpretation from what I know of history.

Post: #55

(12-01-2018 02:52 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 10:20 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  By doing so, they consciously obscured the more dominant and accomplished empires of the day: Greek, Roman, etc.

What accomplishments exactly? Widespread abandonment of live babies (functional post birth abortion), Bacchanalia and sexual debauchery, public pornography, social acceptance of sodomy, gays in the military, institutionalised pederasty (12 if freeborn, no age limit if a slave), and mass immigration? The Greeks, the Vikings and the Romans all thought Sodomy wasn't 'gay' if you were doing the penetrating. What's the trade-off? Indoor plumbing and inflated notions of man's self-importance?

1.) What accomplishments exactly?

You're kidding, right? The Parthenon, the Colosseum, Ephesus, Leptis Magna, Plato, Aristotle, the Olympic Games, Pythagoras, Cicero, Quintilian ...I'll stop because the accomplishments are too numerous to list.

2.) "Widespread abandonment of live babies (functional post birth abortion), Bacchanalia and sexual debauchery, public pornography, social acceptance of sodomy, gays in the military, institutionalised pederasty (12 if freeborn, no age limit if a slave), and mass immigration? The Greeks, the Vikings and the Romans all thought Sodomy wasn't 'gay' if you were doing the penetrating."

When you read the major works of that time (Thucydides, Aristotle, Boethius, Parallel Lives, The Twelve Caesars, etc.) you barely hear mention of these behaviors. Sure, these perversions happened. But no culture that preferences homosexuality over heterosexuality can become a major empire. Perhaps these behaviors become prevalent as they are descending...but never when they are rising.

3.) What's the trade-off? Indoor plumbing and inflated notions of man's self-importance?

Many cultures would still be shitting in a cave if not for indoor plumbing...don't speak so lightly of it. As far as "man's self-importance"...it's the ego of GREAT MEN that drives humanity forward (Thomas Hobbes put that well). And Greece and Roman were overflowing with great men.

Post: #56

(11-28-2018 01:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:57 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  But the enemy now is sort of amorphous. It's behind the banks in which we deposit our money. It's in the tech companies whose products we use. It's buying the favors of our politicians.

It's also behind the media people consume and get their "facts" and concepts about life from. Example: Conservative Web sites complain about Cosmo, but they don't think to step back and look at the bigger picture. Who is behind Cosmo?

Cosmo is owned by Hearst Communications, which owns scads of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, Web sites, and syndicates.

So, that article that encourages teenage girls to have anal sex isn't coming from a writer per se. The writer is the tool being used by a MASSIVE organization that has a board of directors of international billionaires.

At risk of outing my actual background, here's an exercise I suggest everyone interested in the topic undertake.


I want you to 1) Write down five to ten brands you associate with SJW-ism It doesn't particularly matter what the brands are or what product they offer. They just need to be global brands that have pushed leftism in aggressive ways. 2) Identify each brand's parent company. If they aren't publicly traded scratch them off your list. 3) Go to Yahoo Finance's Symbol Lookup. For each parent company, punch in their name and ticker. Once you do that navigate over to the "Shareholder information" tab for each company. 4) Write down the top 3 shareholders for each company on your sheet

Notice I'm NOT giving you any specific criteria for what companies to pick. It literally doesn't matter because out of the universe of large-cap, global corporations almost any 5-10 will be fully promoting the globo-homo agenda. I'm also extremely confident that the results of this exercise will be largely the same for any sample of 5-10. Technically you need 25 samples for a statistically valid, 90% 1-tailed confidence interval but the variation between results is so low that as few as five or so samples is virtually guaranteed to give you the same result I get.

If you're intrigued by what you see, the next step is to start looking up the ownership structure of those entities. The entire structure has evolved into an extremely complicated maze relative to feudalism but if you keep following the money, equity ownership ultimately ties into the same group of people.

It's late at night here and I had a long day. I took your challenge expecting nothing.....

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

I looked up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and AT and T. I won't say who the "Big 4" are but these groups own about 5% of the company and they more or less are in the top 4 owners in each company. 1 of them is #1 every single time. Obviously not spoiling for the rest of you please do this underrated exercise.

Post: #57

(12-03-2018 03:49 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  You're kidding, right? The Parthenon, the Colosseum, Ephesus, Leptis Magna, Plato, Aristotle, the Olympic Games, Pythagoras, Cicero, Quintilian ...I'll stop because the accomplishments are too numerous to list.

Each side is a tradeoff. Those who favor conservatism value safety and stability and social cohesion more than freedom and individualism. Most people would prefer to live somewhere in the middle that doesn't impose too many negatives associated with extreme left or extreme right-wing culture/government. That being said, there are always going to be people advocating extreme left/right who are unable to see the downsides. They see it as a panacea for the ills of society. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You see this playing out most recently in the hell-hole of Venezuela that Chavez built. The younger the ideologue the more naive they tend to be, which is why college campuses are teaming with lefties wearing Che Guevara T-Shirts. So ideology tends to rely heavily on a grass-is-greener mentality.

Post: #58

Meeting Poppy in person is extremely traumatic to normal human beings.

Post: #59

(12-04-2018 11:55 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Meeting Poppy in person is extremely traumatic to normal human beings.

What is happening there? is she some horror movie character or what? How is this relevant?

Post: #60

(12-04-2018 01:54 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:55 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Meeting Poppy in person is extremely traumatic to normal human beings.

What is happening there? is she some horror movie character or what? How is this relevant?

https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusines...ime-is-up/

Post: #61

(12-04-2018 01:57 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 01:54 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:55 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Meeting Poppy in person is extremely traumatic to normal human beings.

What is happening there? is she some horror movie character or what? How is this relevant?

https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusines...ime-is-up/

I'm really feeling sorry for these kids. Either extremely well scripted performance or none of them recognize true beauty when it's right in front of them.

Post: #62

Once again the cabal laughing at our faces while clearly showing what they are doing via Hollywood and media.

Post: #63

(12-04-2018 12:36 AM)ChicagoFire Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 01:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:57 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  But the enemy now is sort of amorphous. It's behind the banks in which we deposit our money. It's in the tech companies whose products we use. It's buying the favors of our politicians.

It's also behind the media people consume and get their "facts" and concepts about life from. Example: Conservative Web sites complain about Cosmo, but they don't think to step back and look at the bigger picture. Who is behind Cosmo?

Cosmo is owned by Hearst Communications, which owns scads of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, Web sites, and syndicates.

So, that article that encourages teenage girls to have anal sex isn't coming from a writer per se. The writer is the tool being used by a MASSIVE organization that has a board of directors of international billionaires.

At risk of outing my actual background, here's an exercise I suggest everyone interested in the topic undertake.


I want you to 1) Write down five to ten brands you associate with SJW-ism It doesn't particularly matter what the brands are or what product they offer. They just need to be global brands that have pushed leftism in aggressive ways. 2) Identify each brand's parent company. If they aren't publicly traded scratch them off your list. 3) Go to Yahoo Finance's Symbol Lookup. For each parent company, punch in their name and ticker. Once you do that navigate over to the "Shareholder information" tab for each company. 4) Write down the top 3 shareholders for each company on your sheet

Notice I'm NOT giving you any specific criteria for what companies to pick. It literally doesn't matter because out of the universe of large-cap, global corporations almost any 5-10 will be fully promoting the globo-homo agenda. I'm also extremely confident that the results of this exercise will be largely the same for any sample of 5-10. Technically you need 25 samples for a statistically valid, 90% 1-tailed confidence interval but the variation between results is so low that as few as five or so samples is virtually guaranteed to give you the same result I get.

If you're intrigued by what you see, the next step is to start looking up the ownership structure of those entities. The entire structure has evolved into an extremely complicated maze relative to feudalism but if you keep following the money, equity ownership ultimately ties into the same group of people.

It's late at night here and I had a long day. I took your challenge expecting nothing.....

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

I looked up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and AT and T. I won't say who the "Big 4" are but these groups own about 5% of the company and they more or less are in the top 4 owners in each company. 1 of them is #1 every single time. Obviously not spoiling for the rest of you please do this underrated exercise.

Glad to see someone tried it.

I've had same results. I've had to look up a lot of companies over time for both professional and school purposes. Every....single...time the #1 holder is one of three companies.

Post: #64

(12-04-2018 02:25 PM)loremipsum Wrote:  Once again the cabal laughing at our faces while clearly showing what they are doing via Hollywood and media.

Poppy normalizes the completely dehumanized female. It is a subtle kind of subversion of normal values. You could also say that she is a bit of AI and transhumanism predictive programming because of how unnatural she is and how everything she says might as well have been an AI program's idea of how to talk.

She is cute and ironic and funny.

You could say that she is a personified hypnotic induction. A pretty face to look at. Simple songs to listen to. Endless repetition of phrases and words.

And once the viewer is in the groove of following along, they sneak in weird bondage themes, satanic themes, actual demons.

The inversion agenda affects everyone, even people who are aware of it by introducing concepts and images you wouldn't be exposed to otherwise, so even if you reject them, you are still being exposed to them over and over, and that initial shock and revulsion fades, and it becomes normalized merely through repetition.

The most harmful aspect of the inversion agenda is the sense that it is okay to do whatever you want, and celebs like Poppy move the Overton Window of whatever you want further and further away from natural human inclinations.

You might say we are all being primed constantly, in all sorts of media, in the direction of whatever you want.

This is the grounds of much of the evil in the world. Everyone has the basic impulse to say, fuck it, I'm doing whatever I want this time.

With archetypes like Poppy and others in the world, the natural limits of whatever we want are much further towards degeneracy than they would have been otherwise, and figures like this can even be used as an excuse for our own bad behavior. We can think, yeah, I might be sleeping with my best friend's girl, but I am not a tranny or into bestiality.

It can have an effect on you, even if you reject it, just because it is there.

That video (of That Poppy) is the last video in a series.

In the first one, kids react to her:





They instinctively know that there is something really off about her. And there is something pretty inhuman about setting these kids up and telling them they are going to star in a Youtube series, and then subject their tender little psyches to loveless, willful, weirdness that has no point. It primes them to accept the next weirdness they see. They are trying to make their real discomfort seem like the normal goose bumps of a scary movie. You can see though some real expressions of distress.

Much of what the kids say is genuine in that way only kids can be, accurately reporting their authentic emotional experiences. One girl even says: "I just want to watch more. What are you doing to my emotions, Poppy?!"

The next video is Poppy reacting to the kids reacting to her, and everything she says has a kind of sinister double meaning, but because she is kind of cute and kind of charismatic, and of course because she is a gurrrrlllll, it seems somehow acceptable.





Priming us for the unnatural state of doing whatever we want, and starting when they are young.

And that, Mage, is what this has to do with this thread.

Post: #65

(12-03-2018 07:18 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 09:22 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This is my problem with modern Christians. They seem to think that they end will come on their terms. What do they imagine? That as the communists rumble up the driveway in a tank that the Flanders family will huddle in a circle and say their final prayers before a HE round vaporizes them all painlessly and propels them into God's arms?
Christendom exists because Christians had the will and the moral framework to keep or in some instances retake their lands by force. Obviously there exists a framework in the orthodoxy for earthly resistance to invasion and subjugation by the forces of evil.
So as someone who was raised as a Christian I'm asking earnestly of people that are far more versed in these matters than me, what is the earthly system for defending on a societal level against evil?
I'm not interested in kneeling in prayer in my living room only for my kids to end up abused and shot in a Soviet style orphanage and my wife and I turned slowly to animals in a re-education camp.
Speak to me of the Christianity that survived the Moors, when Christendom still had its balls. You want to talk about inversion? Refusal to choose life in the face of murder is an inversion. Refusal to defend your lands from invading idolaters and heretics is an inversion. Refusing to defend the weak among your flock such as the women and children is an inversion.
What is the Christian orthodoxy for fighting that earthly evil and expelling it?

This is a very deep question.

I know the history of the church well, and leftist people have been working for decades to destroy the church from within. We generally call these folks Theological Liberals. The Presbyterian Church was virtually destroyed by such people back in the 1920's. The fight went back several hundred years as wealthy Liberals were funding Theological Liberal Preachers through seminary schools... mostly because the Theological Liberal position of the day supported slavery.

Now the conservative of the Presbyterian Church had firm control. On many occasions they debated whether to throw out the Theological Liberals and purge the church of heresy. The Liberals always begged for mercy, and every time it was granted. Now in the late 1920's the Liberals finally got enough power to take control of the finances of the church. They decided at the start of the great depression to purge the conservatives from the church. To take the conservative pastors and their families and in the middle of the worst depression in US history, to throw them and their wives, their children into the street with nothing. The conservatives begged for mercy. The Liberals gave none.

I have learned this is a pattern with Liberalism. They will always beg for mercy when they have no power, but once they gain power, they will give none. They will persecute with no conscience or remorse.

The Christian religion absolutely allows for violent resistance to such a threat. However, because Theological Liberals have been beating away at the foundation of our theology for hundreds of years... most Christians don't know enough about their own doctrines to believe this.

The US is not savable through democratic means, nor can the Christian church in its current form save it. Instead a period of great persecution is likely coming. The only thing that could prevent it is an Oliver Cromwell figure. A Lord Protector of the Realm, that will make the hard decisions and route the liberals from their positions of power by violence. Most Liberals are by nature bullies, they only come after the weak, and when faced with strength they become cowards and beg to be spared.

This is my interpretation from what I know of history.

It is the same in all the Churches. Manifests a bit differently, but this is what's happening in the Roman Catholic Church as well. This is the narrative of all modern institutions...

...and yet many want to get into denominational fights.

Post: #66

It is useful to review some of the history to get a perspective of what is happening.

People today don't realize what a huge shock Darwin's Theory of Evolution was to people in the 19th century. It was the second biggest shift in consciousness in the West, the first being Copernicus. Darwin destroyed the myth of Genesis. His proof was so massive and convincing that the real top thinkers in the West could never again be Christian. Herbert Spencer, the English aristocrat, applied Darwin's theory to society and began the revolution of thought. Not long after, Karl Marx came on the scene.

Marx is considered one of the leading founders of sociology, and his theories dominate Western academies. Marx created "conflict theory" where he framed all social reality in terms of groups competing for resources. Sociologists also created the term "Social Constructionism" based on the theory that all social interaction is invented by someone.

So, you can see these two concepts from sociology working today. The main tactic of the left is to create conflict, so that it forces a process of dialectictic change. You could see how the trap is set. The left starts talking about "white privilege" and talking smack about "whites". The provocation is set. Some men in Charlottesville take the bait, and walk with torches saying "we will not be replaced". They created a prefect image that fit into the narrative which could be easily constructed because they control the media. This event was hugely beneficial to the Democratic Party politicians who brought it up over and over again. Change through dialectics.

The other is "social constructionism". At first, the sociology departments focused on "race" as being a social fact and not a real fact. They deconstructed race. Then they turned to sex, saying there is a difference between sex and gender, and that "gender" is socially constructed. For example: why blue for boys and pink for girls? This is a socially constructed reality and the answer can't be found in the physical world.

With these two concepts, the left can change society in any direction they want. You can convince people that the sky is green, and the grass is blue, if you can convince them that they are social constructs.

The weakness of their approach is rarely challanged. Namely, Sociology claims to be a social science. But, they are not doing science, but choosing what they think is right and dressing it up as scientific truth, and what they don't think is right is "deconstruted" for the purpose of destroying it. Their whole system is based on fraud. Social engineering is a conscious choice of values and is not objective scientific investigation. It is a mistake to assume that they don't have values. They do have rigid and strong values and intend on forcing them on the rest of the world through manipulation, fraud, and ultimately violence. You will be eliminated for being the "inversion" of their reality.

Post: #67

Just a quick follow-up to Sherman (not disagreeing with what you posted, merely picking a theological nit; your description of social thought seems quite apt to me).

Evolution in no way contradicts the Christian understanding of Genesis; from the earliest days it's been understood to be metaphorical by major theologieans. St Augustine, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis wrote:

Quote:In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life, which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course.

He also commented on the problem with ignoramuses presenting the Church in a foolish light:

Quote:It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation

As for Creationism - aside from being as obsessively materialist as philosophical Darwinism (the difference being, the Creationist obsesses over the objective, material, literal interpretation of scripture), it's drops God from the role of creator, into the role of intervenor. Thomas Acquinas dealt with that foolishness ages ago - here's a link explaining what's wrong with it.

All of that said, the Evolution Question is largely irrelevant to the faithful, at least in matters of spirituality. It certainly seems to be mostly correct, from where I'm sitting, but it has nothing to say about the moral dimensions of a universe that needed a saviour.

Post: #68

(12-04-2018 03:03 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:36 AM)ChicagoFire Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 01:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:57 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  But the enemy now is sort of amorphous. It's behind the banks in which we deposit our money. It's in the tech companies whose products we use. It's buying the favors of our politicians.

It's also behind the media people consume and get their "facts" and concepts about life from. Example: Conservative Web sites complain about Cosmo, but they don't think to step back and look at the bigger picture. Who is behind Cosmo?

Cosmo is owned by Hearst Communications, which owns scads of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, Web sites, and syndicates.

So, that article that encourages teenage girls to have anal sex isn't coming from a writer per se. The writer is the tool being used by a MASSIVE organization that has a board of directors of international billionaires.

At risk of outing my actual background, here's an exercise I suggest everyone interested in the topic undertake.


I want you to 1) Write down five to ten brands you associate with SJW-ism It doesn't particularly matter what the brands are or what product they offer. They just need to be global brands that have pushed leftism in aggressive ways. 2) Identify each brand's parent company. If they aren't publicly traded scratch them off your list. 3) Go to Yahoo Finance's Symbol Lookup. For each parent company, punch in their name and ticker. Once you do that navigate over to the "Shareholder information" tab for each company. 4) Write down the top 3 shareholders for each company on your sheet

Notice I'm NOT giving you any specific criteria for what companies to pick. It literally doesn't matter because out of the universe of large-cap, global corporations almost any 5-10 will be fully promoting the globo-homo agenda. I'm also extremely confident that the results of this exercise will be largely the same for any sample of 5-10. Technically you need 25 samples for a statistically valid, 90% 1-tailed confidence interval but the variation between results is so low that as few as five or so samples is virtually guaranteed to give you the same result I get.

If you're intrigued by what you see, the next step is to start looking up the ownership structure of those entities. The entire structure has evolved into an extremely complicated maze relative to feudalism but if you keep following the money, equity ownership ultimately ties into the same group of people.

It's late at night here and I had a long day. I took your challenge expecting nothing.....

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

I looked up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and AT and T. I won't say who the "Big 4" are but these groups own about 5% of the company and they more or less are in the top 4 owners in each company. 1 of them is #1 every single time. Obviously not spoiling for the rest of you please do this underrated exercise.

Glad to see someone tried it.

I've had same results. I've had to look up a lot of companies over time for both professional and school purposes. Every....single...time the #1 holder is one of three companies.

Vanguard, Blackrock, and other similar companies are just investment advisers and asset managers. It's like some state's pension fund making investment decisions for its own employees. They don't directly own the assets/shares but manage them for their clients which can be institutions , governments, or individuals. Their investment decisions are mostly done by very complicated AI algorithms and the human factor is almost zero. They barely engage in active management anymore.

However, Easy_C is right and the founders of those companies are closely related to each other. It's a closed group and you can't just climb the career ladder and end up amongst them.

In my opinion, active investors like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett with his Berkshire Hathaway exert more power on the day-to-day decisions of hundreds of corporations. Just look up the holdings of Berkshire Hathaway.

Post: #69

(12-04-2018 08:48 PM)Aurini Wrote:  ...
As for Creationism - aside from being as obsessively materialist as philosophical Darwinism (the difference being, the Creationist obsesses over the objective, material, literal interpretation of scripture), it's drops God from the role of creator, into the role of intervenor. Thomas Acquinas dealt with that foolishness ages ago - here's a link explaining what's wrong with it.

All of that said, the Evolution Question is largely irrelevant to the faithful, at least in matters of spirituality. It certainly seems to be mostly correct, from where I'm sitting, but it has nothing to say about the moral dimensions of a universe that needed a saviour.

Yep.
If the conversation is in regards to a literal omnipotent deity.
Whether it's "creation" or "evolution" or even a "simulation".

All of that is possible with a literal omnipotent deity.

Post: #70

I believe there is a connected group of less than 1000 men (probably closer to 100) that own most of the world's Fortune 500 companies, and are using those companies not to make more money, but to control humanity. This is the most plausible explanation for why corporations across vastly different sectors can have identical agendas that appear at identical times.

Post: #71

(12-04-2018 10:02 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I believe there is a connected group of less than 1000 men (probably closer to 100) that own most of the world's Fortune 500 companies, and are using those companies not to make more money, but to control humanity. This is the most plausible explanation for why corporations across vastly different sectors can have identical agendas that appear at identical times.

Especially with the media.
Always tiresome how Australian media will make a fuss over some PC type nonsense that has nothing to do with Australia.
All the while, the Aus. media will parrot the exact same diatribe as American or Canadian outlets.

Post: #72

It is definitely humbling to see the sheer depth of knowledge from the posters on this thread. No surprise a lot of the heavy hitters weighing in here. Thanks Guys

Now that I've done my daily inversion agenda homework, off to the boobie thread.

Post: #73

(12-04-2018 09:24 PM)speculator Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:03 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:36 AM)ChicagoFire Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 01:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:57 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  But the enemy now is sort of amorphous. It's behind the banks in which we deposit our money. It's in the tech companies whose products we use. It's buying the favors of our politicians.

It's also behind the media people consume and get their "facts" and concepts about life from. Example: Conservative Web sites complain about Cosmo, but they don't think to step back and look at the bigger picture. Who is behind Cosmo?

Cosmo is owned by Hearst Communications, which owns scads of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, Web sites, and syndicates.

So, that article that encourages teenage girls to have anal sex isn't coming from a writer per se. The writer is the tool being used by a MASSIVE organization that has a board of directors of international billionaires.

At risk of outing my actual background, here's an exercise I suggest everyone interested in the topic undertake.


I want you to 1) Write down five to ten brands you associate with SJW-ism It doesn't particularly matter what the brands are or what product they offer. They just need to be global brands that have pushed leftism in aggressive ways. 2) Identify each brand's parent company. If they aren't publicly traded scratch them off your list. 3) Go to Yahoo Finance's Symbol Lookup. For each parent company, punch in their name and ticker. Once you do that navigate over to the "Shareholder information" tab for each company. 4) Write down the top 3 shareholders for each company on your sheet

Notice I'm NOT giving you any specific criteria for what companies to pick. It literally doesn't matter because out of the universe of large-cap, global corporations almost any 5-10 will be fully promoting the globo-homo agenda. I'm also extremely confident that the results of this exercise will be largely the same for any sample of 5-10. Technically you need 25 samples for a statistically valid, 90% 1-tailed confidence interval but the variation between results is so low that as few as five or so samples is virtually guaranteed to give you the same result I get.

If you're intrigued by what you see, the next step is to start looking up the ownership structure of those entities. The entire structure has evolved into an extremely complicated maze relative to feudalism but if you keep following the money, equity ownership ultimately ties into the same group of people.

It's late at night here and I had a long day. I took your challenge expecting nothing.....

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

I looked up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and AT and T. I won't say who the "Big 4" are but these groups own about 5% of the company and they more or less are in the top 4 owners in each company. 1 of them is #1 every single time. Obviously not spoiling for the rest of you please do this underrated exercise.

Glad to see someone tried it.

I've had same results. I've had to look up a lot of companies over time for both professional and school purposes. Every....single...time the #1 holder is one of three companies.

Vanguard, Blackrock, and other similar companies are just investment advisers and asset managers. It's like some state's pension fund making investment decisions for its own employees. They don't directly own the assets/shares but manage them for their clients which can be institutions , governments, or individuals. Their investment decisions are mostly done by very complicated AI algorithms and the human factor is almost zero. They barely engage in active management anymore.

However, Easy_C is right and the founders of those companies are closely related to each other. It's a closed group and you can't just climb the career ladder and end up amongst them.

In my opinion, active investors like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett with his Berkshire Hathaway exert more power on the day-to-day decisions of hundreds of corporations. Just look up the holdings of Berkshire Hathaway.

Blackrock has $6 trillion in assets, that's bigger than the whole GDPs of France and the UK put together. How they move their assets moves the markets. So these assets can be used to push the markets in the direction they want, giving them built-in legal insider power, and on top of that they also take a cut of those trillions in management fees.

Blackrock is closely tied with the Rothschilds.

Post: #74

For anyone who thinks there isn't a spiritual dimension to inversion, check out this video from 6:00 to until you've had enough.

This woman takes up astral projection and immediately gets filled with a dark entity that tells her good is bad and bad is good.

This is not a high level person being initiated. This is a normal person's internal, private experience.

Post: #75

(12-04-2018 09:24 PM)speculator Wrote:  Vanguard, Blackrock, and other similar companies are just investment advisers and asset managers. It's like some state's pension fund making investment decisions for its own employees. They don't directly own the assets/shares but manage them for their clients which can be institutions , governments, or individuals. Their investment decisions are mostly done by very complicated AI algorithms and the human factor is almost zero. They barely engage in active management anymore.

However, Easy_C is right and the founders of those companies are closely related to each other. It's a closed group and you can't just climb the career ladder and end up amongst them.

In my opinion, active investors like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett with his Berkshire Hathaway exert more power on the day-to-day decisions of hundreds of corporations. Just look up the holdings of Berkshire Hathaway.

Correct that they are just asset managers.

However, just because they don't use the power that they actively have over companies doesn't mean that power doesn't exist. Furthermore it's relatively rare for clients to be individually picking and choosing individual stocks.

That means that these firms comprise a relatively tight knight, incestuous group of people who have the ability to exert substantial control over companies (nobody is going to fault them if they mass-ditch a company's stock because the CEO went full populist)....and whose clients consist of the most wealthy and powerful men in the world.

As I did point out they're not the end all be all. Take the next step and look at who owns these companies (note that one of them is effectively a trust owned by its clients), and who gives them their capital to work with.