It applies to Christians and Jews, that some Jews don’t follow it is their problem, they also have the problem of denying Christ, so they will have a lot to answer for on Judgement Day. The ceremonial laws and those about diet do not still apply to Christians, just the morality based ones.

I haven’t been to the Middle East, too many Muslim terrorists.

And, I doubt they would spit on me, given my size and the way I carry myself, but if they did, I would punch their lights out.

Trump ended DIE in federal hiring and promotion

It was already on shaky grounds due to a Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) – if not obvious, the opinion referred to . Plus a couple dozen states passed anti-DEI laws. This was easy fruit to hand TrumpTards, but as it’s all by executive order, it’s easy enough to reverse by the next puppet-in-chief. Why not make it law? Oh, right, Ceasar doesn’t need the Senate.

[Trump] is going after private organizations that discriminate against Whites.

For (significant) example?

Why doesn’t he do what would be the only effective method to rid the US of (generally non-White) illegal immigrants: strictly enforce laws prohibiting employment without citizenship or other work authorization, and seek to make those laws even stricter (e.g. substantial criminal penalties[1]) while the “Rs” “control Congress”? That’s how you get the illegals to self-deport – no job, no stay.

I’ll go with the guy who doesn’t hate my people.

As long as you submit to Jewish rule, Trump will pretend he doesn’t hate you. Fact is he does not care one bit about you or your nephews and nieces, White or not – he only cares about a select few people. His war against free speech, his tax and fiscal policies (including tariffs), his failure to take adequate steps to remove the illegal population[2], his militarization of federal police, his endless wars and aggression in service of ZioNazis and oligarchs, etc., are all clear manifestations that he doesn’t care about Whites (at least 95% of them), all he cares about are Jews and oligarchs (and esp. Jewish oligarchs).

Islam does not acknowledge the Golden Rule. It has one set of rules for treating other Muslims vs how to treat infidels or kafir, to which anything goes, they can lie, steal, cheat, kill, rape, etc. the filthy infidels as long as they are furthering the greater Islamic Jihad aka spread of Islam by any means.

The common enemy is Islam, the chief enemy of all other religions and atheists worldwide.

Law is the set of agreements that establish permissible behavior.

Plebney got the better of this argument: law is the set of diktats that establish permissible behavior for the serfs and among the lesser ruling castes, subject in all cases to the King’s “prosecutorial discretion”.

This desire to occupy and officially claim Greenland as US sovereign territory undermines this “contract”

The US has since its inception done much worse things, repeatedly and consistently. What “contract” do you imagine has actually been binding on the US since 1776, or even since 1976? Just in recent months the US supports/participates in a genocide; bombs almost a dozen countries (that’s openly, we’re not including clandestine operations), imposes sanctions on far more countries, undermines many more countries with “color revolutions” and the like, and threatens even more countries, all in violation of international law; regularly engages in piracy; regularly and egregiously violates the US Constitution, which is supposed to be the most “basic contract” or “basic law”; etc. But as Plebney noted, this is common to all empires. Non-aggressive, meritocratic, free countries simply do not become empires.

It smacks of desperation

It humbles the Europeans. Because they finally are seeing the obvious, if you are dependent on another who is not dependent on you, you are the vassal. NATO protects them, but not against the US. The US global financial dominance provides them protection but not against the US. They are dependent on the US for everything and day by day deepening their dependency. It’s a bitch-slap.

He is viewing the matter from perspective of strategic American interests.

Or maybe he will make himself King of Greenland and profit handsomely from the venture? Seems to be his M.O. On the other hand, Europeans should be viewing it from the perspective of strategic European interests, and the last thing they need is a massive US base so close to them. They are again being shown their pathetic impotence.

There seems to be a contradiction among the Ukrainian far right that wants war with Russia.

They say they want their independence from Russia, but at the same time they want to be part of NATO and the European Union. These two organizations are the biggest anti-nationalist and globalist enterprises on the planet. Of course NATO and the European Union would destroy immediately any sense of Ukrainian nationalism should Ukraine actually achieve its goals of defeating Russia.

Insane.

While living in Ukraine (and attending Euromaidan) I quickly concluded that the Banderites are essentially brainwashed. They have a fundamental hatred for Russians and Jews, but all they do is serve the Jews – the Jews run Ukraine, unabashedly and openly. I would point this out and the response was unanimously, “we will get rid of the Russians and then turn to the Jews, who will be easier”.

I suppose this is what they tell themselves. Of course they will never go after the Jews, and it certainly wouldn’t be “easier” if they did, since the Jews would marshal the entire world against them. It’s easy to just conclude they are stupid tools, but they just follow their leaders, and their leaders are Jews. So they are not unlike … most Americans and other Europeans. Except they at least have the stated goal of eventually turning their attention to their leaders, who like in most of the “West”, are the root cause of their problems.

Mayer Amschel Bauer (name later changed to Rothschild), original architect of the Rothschild family fortune, was born in 1744 in Frankfurt, Germany. He allegedly embezzled the family fortune (that enabled him and his sons to launch central banks in the four major European powers of the time) from Prince William of Hesse.

However, if you look at Rothschild portraits and Hesse/Habsburg/Lorraine/Hohenzollern/etc. portraits you can’t tell one group from the other. And it seems beyond incredible that Prince William would have entrusted such a fortune to an unknown Jew of meager means. Or, for that matter, that a money-changer Jew would be named “Bauer” (“Farmer” in German), if you understand anything about Jewish culture.

Most likely the Rothschilds were part of the blue blood/black nobility that ruled all of Europe at that time and converted to Judaism, with the coordination of the House of Hesse and no doubt the rest of the clan. Only genetic testing can confirm/refute.

Communism was actually supposed to eliminate prostitution

According to the authoritative source, the Communist Manifesto, marriage is to be destroyed and replaced with a “community of women”. What do you think that means? I guess the men would share the women without giving the women any commitment or money? Doesn’t seem plausible.

“The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.” You see, according to Communists, the “bourgeois” (and, obviously, this means the Christian) “sees his wife a mere instrument of production.” And of course the Communists will spare women the tyranny of marriage, of being a “mere instrument of production”. They can just hook on the corner and “live free”.

So, no, Communism was not supposed to eliminate prostitution. Communism was (is) supposed to eliminate monogamy and, most importantly, marriage. That’s what today’s “culture wars” are largely about. What, aside from prostitution, is left, given the dynamics at play? Even incels plus webcams amounts to the same.

Converted to what? When did you convert to “Christianity”? Oh, no – it was forced on you by your parents and society! You poor thing. How will you survive this horror?

There are literally 100s of millions of people who have converted voluntarily to Islam. Who do you think forced the Nation of Islam at the point of a sword on Black Americans? And who forced Muhammad and his disciples to be Muslims? Was it the sword too? Did they force each other?

And who all became Christian “voluntarily”? You think all the tribes in the Roman Empire just gave up their ancestral religion b/c they were so convinced by the metaphysics of the Trinity or the absurdity of the tale of Noah? LMAO. The fact that 1/3rd of Romans were slaves and had to believe as ordered doesn’t play a role either, right? How did Christianity come to the Americas? More of this “Trinity-and-Noah convincing” that the boundless tribes’ ancestral religions were all wrong?

Aside perhaps from Saudi Barbaria, created by “Christians”, no Muslim country forces citizens to be Muslims. So they are all “voluntary”.

Not saying you self-proclaimed Christians are any more hypocritical, arrogant and ignorant than others – just that, unlike your imagined superiority, you are no better either. None one iota. And in the end, you really aren’t Christian at all. You just don’t get it.

It’s clear that your purpose is not to understand why those things were said, or my arguments, or in fact to understand Christianity more than you do, but to defend Islam and oppose Christianity in any way the opportunity presents.

That’s patent projection.

I’m now more convinced than ever that Islam is fundamentally adversarial and indeed that the infidel is treated like an enemy

OK, I understand you pretend to have compassion and love, but truly you have no understanding of the concepts, so consumed you are with hatred, arrogance and narcissism.

And even though I’ve been to many Muslim countries and have had many Muslim friends, so I can actually speak from experience instead of ignorant, self-righteous hate, I am not Muslim. If anything I am Christian. But not a hateful, zealous one like you.

I said nothing vitriolic, I merely stated that Islam is fundamentally adversarial.

And that “Muslims see unbelievers as the enemy”. Seems vitriolic to me, par. since it’s a lie.

you’ve been unrelentingly adversarial and vitriolic about it.

Pray tell, how so? I’ve debated that false claim with you and used evidence from scripture to back it up, with plenty of actual cites. You, on the other hand, have not provided a single cite to back up your (false) claims.

it looks like a whole lot of Christianity bashing.

So quoting from the Bible is now “Christianity bashing”? So let me tell you what is going on here: you denounced Islam as, essentially, virulently hateful (“enemy” implies not just hate but desire to injure) and adversarial, while saying Christianity is pure love. Hence my reference to your “idolization” of Christianity and “vitriol” against Islam. And I used direct cites from the Bible, not generalizations, to make my point that Christianity is not as loving as you romanticize it to be. And your response: I am evil and bashing Christianity. Seriously, dude, now I will make a generalization: what I see is a BLIND and DELUDED ZEALOT, and what I don’t see from you is any of that PURE LOVE.

I don’t make false claims about Christianity, whether pro or con, and the same holds true of Islam and Judaism. I do view Judaism as a fundamentally diabolical ideology because, well, it clearly and unmistakably is judging it purely by its commandments (and its myths, e.g. Noah’s flood and the plagues and the like), and both Islam and Christianity suffer greatly because they are based on that ideology, but both suffer about equally. And both are universalist rather than having the extreme tribe-supremacism/chauvinism as Judaism.

by all means correct me from the Q’uran just as you’ve presumed to do with the Bible

Like Christianity (as I pointed out in our thread – not in “bashing”, as you characterize it, since quoting from the Bible cannot possibly be “bashing”, it is simply fact, maybe facts you don’t like but still facts) Islam has contradictory texts. This page goes through them in great detail; in particular, Qu’ran 60 is on point – you will see many of the quotes, taken out of context by the deceivers, in Qu’ran 60:1-7, but continue to read Qu’ran 60:8-9, and you will see the full context (and material misstatements accomplished by material omissions are, indeed, lies and fraud).

Another perspective of it is here (as in the previous summary I linked, there is no cherry-picking, like you seem to do with Christianity; they recite the “bad” references as well as the “good”). And it’s important to distinguish how the Qu’ran states Allah will treat disbelievers with how Muslims should treat disbelievers, and that from how Muslims do treat disbelievers, which is what your utterly false generalization was about – go yourself to a true mosque and talk to the worshipers as a Christian and tell me, do they treat you like an enemy? And like Christianity, Islam accepts the concept of repentance. But in both religions, disbelievers do not go to heaven (which leaves hell, despite your protestations to the contrary). However, Islam does not incorporate anything as draconian and evil as 17 Deut. 2-7!

there’s a difference between the infallibility of God (and by Christian association his son Jesus) and the infallibility of one’s own beliefs. Men’s beliefs are inherently fallible

So if your beliefs are fallible, it follows, obviously, that your belief that God and Jesus are infallible (or actually exist or existed, let alone the Trinity) is also fallible. In fact it would be absurd to argue otherwise, but zealots do anyway, since by definition logic is not their forte.

Even though my knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is woefully inadequate going back to the original languages helps us to understand things that didn’t translate well into English.

They are (were) dead languages and nobody knows what they “really mean” (well, aside from those who believe they are “infallible”, lol). But, the “eternal punishment” part is quite clear and I doubt that is a translation issue, there is far more nuance/ambiguity in other words.

Why, I don’t know.

Just go back to how our conversation started: with your vitriolic and false proclamations about Islam and your similarly false contradistinction of Christianity (all despite the obvious history of Christians having murdered untold millions of “infidels” and “savages”, let alone their barbaric internicine warfare and violent inter-sect rivalries – “you will know them by their fruits” ring a bell? well it applies to all beliefs, doesn’t it?). Maybe stick to your idolization of Christianity, which you obviously know, and stop with your slander of Islam, which you obviously don’t know?

I don’t see how you can claim to be a Christian and call the Old Testament vile crap.

I feel sorry for you. But you didn’t answer my question: if your faith is so infallible, would you kill your mother, sister and daughter if any of them didn’t share your beliefs?

Well since Christians believe Jesus is God (the Trinity), 17 Deut. 2-7 answers the question, and it quite directly commands you to kill the disbeliever, even if it is your wife, your son or your father.

Of course, I don’t believe anything in the Old Testament, I think it’s vile crap, but the vast majority of self-professed Christians believe in it. It’s their “infallible” “faith”.

If your faith is so infallible, does that mean you follow such commandments? Or maybe there is room for doubt in this one? And maybe others too?

I don’t see how one can be serious about any faith without believing it to be the only true path

What do you mean by “serious”? To kill and die for it? Maybe you shouldn’t? If you don’t permit the possibility that you are wrong, again, that is the definition of arrogance and pomposity. It’s also dangerous. Nobody is infallible. Even Jesus had second thoughts as he was crucified. Matthew 27:46.

it’s healthy to always cast a critical eye on your own beliefs, and faith, and one can only do that if one dispenses with the presumption of one’s own infallibility. After all, you (or at least the vast, vast majority of folks) only have your faith b/c you were taught it as a child before having critical capacity to question it. “It just happens” that your parents were right about everything and everyone else’s wrong about everything (and everyone else thinks likewise). Uh-huhh.

none of these seem to apply specifically as eternal punishment for unbelief

What the heck are you fabricating here? I gave you specific quotes re: “eternal punishment”, “eternal fire” and being “tormented day and night forever and ever”. That’s just disingenuous.

which is why I said earlier that some people believe Hell exists and some people don’t

If you can selectively ignore multiple consistent texts of the Bible b/c you don’t like them, well, that seems to undermine the Bible in its entirety. But of course people do that all the time. There’s enough contradictory text that anyone can believe almost anything and attribute it to the Bible. Another reason not to believe in the infallibility of your own particular vision.

You are a lying idiot. Period. Full stop.

But worth noting that you laugh when someone asks you for evidence for your lies. That just makes you diabolical and, obviously, a far lesser being than those whom you so vehemently condemn.

Technically no infidel nation can make peace with a Muslim subjugated land. Islam allows that the Muslims pretend to make peace, lay low, just until they gain enough strength to return to full Jihad war. Permanent peace is not allowed by the doctrines of Islam.

This is actually meant as a reply to Jackabond but due to some broken HTML I can’t reply to that one ….

I don’t hate Muslims.

Good to know, but that makes me curious what drives you to write that Muslims view all nonbelievers as the enemy. The worst treatment is for Muslims who abandon the religion (as opposed to those who never believed in the first instance), which is akin to the Jewish treatment of apostasy. Though Judaism is extremely draconian, see e.g. 17 Deut. 2-7, and as Deuteronomy is “officially” part of Christianity, the punishment from the Church for apostasy was often death as well. The fact is that outside perhaps Saudi Barbaria (or more generally the anti-human Wahhabist sect, which trains terrorists to hate in their “madrassas“, all with the approval and support of the “Christian West”), nobody imposes the death penalty for apostasy. I don’t consider Wahhabism to be Islam and it would be most deceitful to equate Wahhabist views – which stem from the House of Saud, which the West obviously put into power after defeating the Ottoman Empire – with Islam.

But don’t confuse the commitments of faith with pomposity and arrogance.

When your faith tells you only you are right and everyone who believes otherwise is wrong, well, that is the definition of pomposity and arrogance. It is possible to have faith without believing you have some monopoly on the truth. For example, you may believe Jesus is the Son of God, or is God, whatever you make of the Trinity, but that doesn’t mean that you have to believe Muslims are wrong in believing Jesus was “merely” a prophet. It is possible, in other words, to respect different faiths and beliefs and not to postulate the infallibility of your own beliefs/faith.

… And since that is the basis of Christian belief it makes logical sense that if you don’t believe in Christ the divine person and his power to save people from separation from God, you will be separate from God. That’s simply logic. It’s not arrogant to state the plain logic of it.

The point I am making is that the Islamic logic regarding unbelievers is similarly “logical”. The problem is that logic follows from predicates, and if you don’t agree on those, it matters not one bit whether or not the conclusion is “logical”.

It may surprise you to know that Hell isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

There are many references to what people call “Hell”, and a number of passages actually use the word “hell”. See e.g. here and here. In particular, Matthew 25:46 speaks of “eternal life” vs. “eternal punishment”; Revelation 20:10 refers to the devil being thrown into “the lake of fire and sulfur” to be “tormented day and night forever and ever”; Matthew 25:31-46 refers to those who do not help others (by e.g. not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, not visiting the imprisoned) as those who will “go away into eternal punishment”, which in Matthew 25:41 is akin to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels”; Matthew 5:29-30, 10:28, 16:19, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33, which actually use the word “hell” (in the context you would expect); etc., etc.

Muslims see unbelievers as the enemy, as their religion is fundamentally adversarial.

No, they don’t, and no, it isn’t.

Christianity isn’t like that at all. You may see it that way through your unbelieving eyes

Your lack of situational awareness is utterly astounding. Since no doubt someone as superior as you can’t figure it out: your take on Islam, “through your unbelieving eyes”, is even more absurd. Unlike Christianity, Islam doesn’t state that if you don’t believe Christ is God you will burn in Hell for eternity, or at least have no chance of salvation. Which is pretty rough on people who have been taught to believe other things, let alone have never heard of Christ, isn’t it, you so deeply loving Christian?

The fact is almost every person is pompous and arrogant enough to believe that their own beliefs are the best and everyone else is wrong. That’s almost a direct consequence of consciousness. In this regard you are no different than the Muslims you accuse of viewing those who think differently as the “enemy”, as it seems you do actually hate Muslims. And Christians are also well known for hating, and viiolently attacking, those who think differently from themselves. A long, long history of that.

Carlson is part of the machine building Hamas up into next year’s freedom fighting Viet Cong equivalent.

But they are freedom fighters; the invader-settlers are the terrorists. However, the invader-terrorists and their tribe rule the West, and Hamas rules only Gaza.

How that can be a victory for White people or Western Civilisation, beats me.

It’s a victory for White people to stop alienating and antagonizing the entire planet b/c of the insular chauvinist ideology of a group of terrorist invaders. I don’t get the impression TC wants to nominate them for a Nobel Prize; rather recognizing the validity of Hamas and its cause is something anyone not brainwashed with Jewish supremacism would do, and so what TC is trying to do is deprogram the White cattle and that is as fair a place to start as any, given the circumstances of the world today.

FIRST, Christians built the vast network of Roman roads, then aqueducts, then systems of government

Those obviously predated Rome’s adoption of Christianity. The Romans incorporated the technologies of every place they conquered or traveled too, such as from the Greeks, Etruscans, Celts and others.

And that was about 300,000 years after humans supposedly evolved. Look at everything invented in the 2,000 years since: rockets, airplanes, ICE/automobiles, particle colliders, computers, nuclear reactors, cellphones, etc.

To clarify the negatives: No other people in the ancient world had a holy book; only Jews did.

To clarify, it was the Levites who had a written Tanakh, for the other tribes (including Jesus’) it was still oral (and, I would add, very different from the Levi version).

Moreover, many religious books predate the Tanakh. The Sumerians created a tablet, the Kesh Temple Hymn (or Liturgy to Nintud), on the creation of man and woman as early as 2600 BC. Also ancient are Egyptian texts, carved on pyramid walls and within the sarcophagi of the Saqqara pyramids, containing religious instructions (e.g. burial of the pharaohs), called the Pyramid Texts, and a separate set called the Coffin Texts and also the Book of the Dead. Then there is the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hindu Rigveda, Samaveda and Yajurveda, etc. And these are just the ones that survived to the 19th century or so, so that they were chronicled.

In the Roman world, the most consequential texts were authored by the Roman scholar Varro.

Maybe you know of some books, texts etc. that defined what Roman pagans were required to believe to remain in the good graces of their religion.

That is not what “religion” means. Religion often, but not always, includes a moral code and prescribes punishments for its violation (either in the here or the hereafter); Judaism is an entire body of law with courts to enforce them and is probably the most aggressive of religions in this regard. More generally, religion is a system of beliefs/practices that connects believers to the supernatural or spiritual world, which is why even the Pyramid Texts are considered “religious”. Religion often, but not necessarily, involves moral codes, rituals, and a sense of community. Roman religion emphasized rituals and ceremonies (and of course belief in the gods), but also had priests and various requirements to follow, lest the gods be angered. Which is pretty much true of Judaism as well, their god gets very angry, heck, destroyed the entire world once he was so filled with hate and anger (the Noah tale).

“Romans made a mistake: they thought that by destroying the temple they would destroy the Jews”

That’s just silly. Romans viewed the Temple as a center of Jewish resistance and the Jewish revolt, which it no doubt was; they laid siege to the city and destroyed many parts of it, as was common in all sieges of the time.

For over a thousand years, Romans got along without such a book, or prescribed gods

The gods were all prescribed, i.e., it was a known set with known areas of responsibility. E.g. Jupiter was the king of the gods, Mars was the god of war, Neptune the god of the sea.

But still nobody has answered the original question: if Christianity is to die, what is to replace it? Atheism is Communist/materialist; and these types of folks have attempted, unsuccessfully despite expenditures of vast fortunes, to replace belief in the supernatural with the belief in non-scientific myths (Big Bang, Evolution and the like) and to instill the core belief that life has no purpose and is just some random development (from what, though, they have no answer to). This suits the purpose of the Global Mafia b/c people without beliefs or purpose are very easy to control, as they have no principles to rest objections on, which control is, after all, the principal goal of the Global Mafia and their endless assets.

How about the story of him entering a room of naked teenage girls at a beauty pageant

There’s so much more, even though, at this point OBVIOUSLY, a great deal is being covered up by the Global Mafia/Deep State that rules the West. For example, the many women who have credibly accused the Orange Rapist of sexually assaulting them (16 accusations, two of which amount to rape, apart from the entire Epstein crime syndicate).

Two more recent revelations: here and here.

The latter is about an Epstein survivor who claimed that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped her in a posh hotel (and that the rape was arranged by a woman “with a funny name”). The victim, who refused to report the crime to police for fear of being killed, was later found dead with bullet holes in her head, and her death was ruled as a suicide (even though the investigating police claimed that was impossible).

Oh yes, the “suicide“. That’s the model where Global Mafia soldiers enter your home, force a gun into your hand, point it at your head, and pull the trigger. Sometimes more than once.

I can’t believe anyone still takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

He is an opportunistic liar and a complete fraud.

Doesn’t anyone remember why he was booted off Fox news? He was on the air supporting Trump, while simultaneously trashing him in private texts.

You can’t believe a word that fucking rat says.

You are, pray tell, aware that there was a time … when there was no Hebrew book and no Christ operating system

Derrrhhhhhhh … ahhhhhhh …. yup. Did you notice the six other gods I listed? But in those times virtually all tribes/city-states/empires – and certainly all of the “advanced” societies you reference – did have a religion. So I was obviously asking, what to replace Christianity with? Did you understand that simple question? Because it seems it went over your head. The only ones who want to eliminate religion altogether are Bolsheviks. Are you a Bolshevik, Zumbuddi?

yet millions of people lived and developed highly successful, creative, cultures, art, languages, and systems of organizing people for mutual benefit.

First of all, all of those things developed mostly under Christianity – everything from Roman technology on (even though that was a relatively short period in human history). But, again, all of the most advanced societies – be it Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Mesopotamian – that existed before Christ had their religion and gods. I presume every society of any significant advancement had one, but that’s impossible to prove (or disprove), so I am sticking with what are generally considered the most advanced societies at or before the birth of Christ.

There is ZERO evidence that Trump was fucking children.

What’s “evidence”? Would a video showing the Orange Pedophile raping a young boy serve, or would that necessarily be an AI fake?

There’s only “no evidence” if you ignore not only the “easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt” mounds of circumstantial evidence (most inmates doing hard time have less evidence against them), but witnesses as well. See e.g. here and here. There are dozens who have accused him of rape (though not necessarily minors, it shows how he feels about the need for “consent”).

All no evidence to you, no doubt, b/c, without a shred of evidence yourself, you just discount their stories, ignoring his candid admission of habitual sexual assaults on camera (the infamous “just grab ’em by the pussy”), b/c it makes you feel good for supporting the Orange Pedophile/Warmonger/War Criminal/Traitor/Fraud/Liar/Rapist/Loser/Demon.

Yeah, TC never proclaimed himself a White chauvinist (or a White nationalist for that matter). So basically it’s an article critiquing TC for not having the same ideology as the author. I guess we’ll let the two commentators’ respective “page views” speak for themselves.

And what, pray tell, do you want to worship: Horos, Svetovid, Wōden, Odin, Zeus or Mars? Or what will take the place of the religion around which Western civilization formed, essentially its core? Maybe no religion – the Bolshevik/”woke” route? Or, perhaps, yourself (narcissism)?

The depraved, Satanic Tarantino is a self-proclaimed ZioNazi settler who occupies stolen land in “Israel” with his ZioNazi wife Daniella Pick.

You only have to watch one of his “movies” to see he is a diabolical, deranged lunatic with wanton bloodlust.

We have declassified documents from 1941 showing the Nazi plan to starve millions of Slavs to death as part of the Hunger Plan
<a title=”"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan"&#8221; href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan&quot; title='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan&#039;

LOL, if you take away the propaganda from that Wikipedia propaganda article, which removes about 99% of it, what you have left is Germany’s recognition that (a) during the third year of war the Germany army would need to feed itself from Russian resources (not a word about taking food and shipping it to Germany), and (b) this would probably result in the starvation of millions of Russians. The key here is that this was not in any way a desired outcome, but indicated as one of the (many, obviously) negative outcomes of a (preemptive) invasion of the USSR. Should be mentioned, too, that during WW II the British killed millions of Indians by stealing their food to send to the UK, and of course no mention should need be made of the Holodomor, which was food theft leading to mass starvation which Stalin inflicted on his own people (predominantly Russians but Ukrainian nationalists like to pretend it was only Ukrainians). In reference to the latter, the German leadership was all too aware of the starvation that would occur in Europe if the Red Army succeeded in their planned invasion and subjugation. Theses risks need to be weighed against each other, but since Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, it doesn’t bother with such minutiae.

“It is well known” only to Nazi Übermenschen ideology addled dysfunctional, warped panzerjugend minds such as yours.

Quite contraire, it is denied only by warped, decrepit, Stalin-deifying, Komsomol-addled minds, such as yours.

Don’t worry about Stalin: worry about your own Führer.

It’s truly hilarious how you Stalinist worshipers constantly project your passionate love and adoration for Koba onto others.

What’s the difference?

Unlike your fawning idolization of Stalin, and your crude, clumsy efforts to label me as Hitler youth just because I don’t worship Stalin, I don’t claim there is a difference. Since your reading comprehension is as poor as your love for Koba is fervent, let’s remember the context here: you blamed 100 gazillion deaths on Hitler, the better to try to exculpate your beloved hero Uncle Joe. It was to that which I responded. Remember now, comrade?

These are the people youse delusional panzers defend?

I’m not defending any of it, more of your projection. And obviously your projection, as typical, emanates from your profound love and devotion for your Uncle Joe, who mobilized about 520,000 children into the Red Army and partisan movements. P.S. what does “youse” mean? Do you imagine me to be a doppelganger? lol

[Downfall: Famous Bunker Scene] … [VIDEO]

And you claim you are not a Jew! But nice production quality, propaganda easy for Stalinist Communist loyalist simpletons such as yourself to grasp on to!

In case you have reading/comprehension problems – I was talking about Hitler’s invasion of Soviet Union.

It is you who obviously has writing problems, since your absurd claim was not limited in that way. Perhaps you are too blinded by your love for your Uncle Joe to realize what you write implies.

понимаешь?

Generalplan Ost envisioned exterminating about 30 million Slavs/Russians.

There was a plan to resettle them, but the genocide/extermination hyperbole is just more idiotic blabbering from the Koba lovers.

Too bad for you Stalin is dead and you can’t worship him from under his rule in some desperate, dark hovel he lovingly permitted you to exist in.

the far more reliably documented untimely deaths caused by Nazis, Wehrmacht, SS, Waffen SS, and Einsatzgruppen.

Yeah? And what would those be? The Holohoax? What evidence is there of that, aside from the incredible confessions of tortured prisoners of war whose families were also threatened with execution? Oh yeah – piles of shoes! The horror! lmao

Stalin probably killed most of them

It’s well known Stalin regularly massacred retreating soldiers and those who refused to fight. On top of that, as the Red Army retreated eastward at the start of the war, they implemented a “scorched earth” policy but did not evacuate the civilians. Don’t you think it occurred to them if they scorched the earth so that the Wehrmacht could not eat or keep warm, the same problems would inflict the civilians left behind – who didn’t have supply lines from Germany?

Of course it’s easy to blame the Germans, that’s all Commies ever do – Stalin was a saint who wouldn’t hurt a fly and Hitler was a monster who wouldn’t help his child. Except that virtual reality has no bearing on actual reality whatsoever.

So, start in with your ad hominem attacks, that’s what you always do, right?

communism you are talking about is Trockite zio nazi Bolshevik

Your reading comprehension is shockingly poor.

There is a reason Stalin purged those out of power

He purged some but not close to all. Khrushchev largely finished that job, markedly improving the social structure. And in fact I did point out differences between Stalinism and Bolshevism, but, again, your reading comprehension ….

Russia today is a leading technological power

What on Earth has that to do with Stalin? And Russia leads in a few areas, it’s far behind in far more.

I lived under communism

Under Stalin, eh?

it was a much fairer society and system

And that’s why each of the former Soviet republics, including Russia, and each former Warsaw Pact member, like Latvia and Poland, is now democratically choosing and yearning for the Communist path, eh? Or maybe it’s just some tiny minority of slackers who dream of being safe and secure without having to do anything, the precise mentality which was instrumental in causing Communism to fail everywhere it’s been tried. And nobody has even tried the “pure Communism” of the Communist Manifesto with the abolition of family, religion and ethnicity. But go ahead and try, somewhere far far away from me.

It is fanny how you talk about communism being a slavery

That’s called redirection. I never supported or defended chattel slavery or genocide of natives. It is you who is supporting Communism, the greatest evil ever imagined. Communism is essentially the Ost Plan for the ZioNazis – except it applies to the entire world outside Israel. Which makes you a pathetic ZioNazi tool, and not one bit better than the slave traders or genocidal colonialists – except my guess is you’re not a Jew so it means, if, Heaven forbid, your dreams are eventually realized, you will be enslaved too.

Stalin displayed great organisational skills, creating industrial power house out of relatively backward country.

LOL, sure, he was helped by a global network of Communists/Jews. For example the lend-lease program and countless other initiatives. Stalin was good at murdering and terrorizing his subjects, betraying those loyal to him (not that anyone loyal to that monster deserved better, just saying), and in general a cowardly, anti-human, totalitarian tyrant.

Think space exploration and nuclear energy.

Technologies stolen from others – sure, he threatened to murder the entire families of his German scientist captives to get them to serve him. And other technologies were provided to him directly and indirectly from the global Jewish Communist network / Global Mafia that still hoped they could turn him and regain control over the USSR. Great organizational skills indeed!

Soviets endured enormous sacrifices, but they were all proud of their country

So it seems – b/c they were terrorized into not opposing their country. To do so was to meet death, either from a firing squad or a slow death in the gulags. Lesson was learned after Bolsheviks and Stalinists combined murdered about 20% of the population – a vastly greater percentage, and even much more vastly greater number, than the Israelis killed in Palestine. And yeah, after all the intellectuals were murdered off, most of the rest were just brainwashed peasants happy to support their “god”, as their completely totalitarian media ordered them to do.

Even 70% of Ukies didn’t want it to end (referendum which was ignored).

The referendum was on preserving the Soviet Union, nobody in their right mind wanted to preserve Communism (and you can see what percent of the vote that party got in the various republics after the USSR dissolved). And the Communism of Gorbachev was a gazillion times better than Stalinism. But Stalin didn’t hold any referendums, did he now? And as to voting, we all know his pithy view on that: “The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do”. Well that is true everywhere ….

Total deaths 800 000

I’m not going to debate numbers with you but even if you are correct, that means he tortured 800,000 people to death, most of whom were in gulag simply for not being a willing slave to the worst tyrant in human history (and most of them expressed their unhappiness privately – and were betrayed by family members or friends, so diabolical was that regime).

Don’t even start on who initiated WW2.

Yeah, that’s where almost everyone is thoroughly brainwashed. Read Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag given upon the launch of Operation Barbarossa. It’s easy enough to find. Then tell me why Hitler was wrong. But there are two basic facts that cut through all the propaganda, sloganeering and ad hominem attacks on this issue. First, the Germans utterly routed the Red Army for the first few months. And this is because the millions of Red Army soldiers within a few hundred kilometers of the USSR’s border with Germany were in offensive positions, not in the defensive positions alleged by the Stalin apologists. If they had been in defensive positions, the battles would have closer resembled Stalingrad. Second, the Red Army soldiers who were routed by the Germans were carrying maps of Germany, including Berlin. Why did they need those if they were defensive?

while communism made huge advances with several successive and successful 5 year plans

Again, Stalin was greatly helped by the Global Mafia network. But compare their “huge advances” with those made by the Nazis in Germany. You want to see real advances, study that. And the Nazis did not use innocent hostages, educated in another country and threatened with the murder of their entire families for lack of cooperation, to achieve their feats. A country that learned from the Nazis successes is China – which is obviously not Communist at all, not on any of the four pillars (abolition of private property, family, religion and ethnicity), though I suppose one could argue about the religious pillar.

How is your capitalist scammery going?

Whatever the problems of capitalism they are a tiny fraction of the problems with Communism. Capitalism has been utterly corrupted by the Global Mafia and doesn’t serve the people, nor is it very capitalistic, and I don’t support large concentrations of capital. I believe each individual has the inherent, God-given right to start their own business, and will fight to the death anyone who tells me that’s illegal. That doesn’t mean I believe one has the right to exploit the labor of others or to concentrate power above a certain level, or to pass that power to their offspring upon death.

I am not a Communist b/c Communism is an ideology designed to enslave humanity to the Global Mafia. Anyone who is a Communist is as much my enemy as a slave trader was the enemy of an 18th century West African (and it’s worth pointing out, the profiteers of the slave trade was … the Global Mafia, the very same Global Mafia that promotes Communism …. hmmmmmm). Again, that does not mean I support other means of exploitation – I think large corporations, after a certain threshold, should be owned either by their employees (in proportion to their salary income or similar measure) or by the State.

the conflict within the Soviet communist party, which, thanks god, resulted in the victory of Soviet proletariat and peasants.

I would hardly call Stalin the protector of those groups – he literally murdered millions of them and as well (and I know most people are taught to believe differently) was the primary reason for the German-Soviet war, which resulted of course in immense suffering of the people you claim he championed. Khrushchev much more so but that involved de-Stalinization of Communism. But I agree that Trotsky was a champion of Jewish supremacism and nothing else.

This is the reason Stalin is demonised in the west and Trotsky protected.

This all has to do with the Jewish issue. Trotsky was a loyal ZioNazi and, as such, he wanted to impose Communism on the non-Jewish world – the cattle – since in Judaism Yahweh has chosen the Jews to rule the world. See e.g. 20 Deut. 10-15, in which Yahweh commands the Jews to enslave the entire planet outside Greater Israel (while 20 Deut. 16-18 commands them to annihilate all non-Jews inside Greater Israel – this is why a Jew can easily be both a Communist and a Zionist, there is no contradiction, both ideologies are simply an expression of Jewish supremacism as reflected in the Jewish bibles, the Tanakh and Talmuds).

In fact, the Western Communists, who in the leadership ranks were primarily Jews but also included their token servile toadies (the “house goy”), called Stalin’s rule “the revolution betrayed” – which, translated from Communist propaganda into English, means “the Jewish coup betrayed”. Even though Jews were able to control Stalin in various ways, including getting him to pursue global Communism despite his claim to be focused on the USSR and to oppose imperialism, and to recognize (capitalist) Israel despite Communism’s claims to be fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist. In return for his loyalty, the Jews gave the USSR the atomic bomb (which they had stolen, via the Rosenbergs, from their US cattle).

Settling amongst the Jewett in New York, [Trotsky] can be considered a father of American neocon movement.

Grandfather – the father was Leon Strauss. Neocons are of course just following the ZioNazi model I outlined above – ZioNazism (“goy” extermination) in Greater Israel and Communism (“goy” slavery) everywhere else.

As to why I relate Communism to slavery – that is precisely what it is designed to be. Many of the ignorant believe Communism is only about the abolishment of private property and the “empowerment” of the proletariat – ha! how tragically ignorant. It is much more than that! – it is also for the abolishment of the family, religion, and nationality (ethnic identity) – see Part II of the Communist Manifesto, often referred to as “cultural Marxism” today and spread by the (very Jewish) Frankfurt school. Regardless of what the proletariat think (who can trust a “goy” to think anyway? they need the (Jewish) vanguard to think for them!). And precisely what category of people, historically, had no religion, family, ethnic identity or private property? Slaves. And nobody else.

I wish I could find a particular article about the West’s participation, showing how all their actions actually benefited the Bolsheviks. Let’s remember Germany objectively supported the Jewish coup of 1917 by allowing Lenin and Trotsky to travel to Russia in the notorious “sealed train”, carrying massive amounts of gold Lenin had procured from Jewish donors in the banking capitols of Switzerland (where Lenin spent the years predating the coup) and Trotsky had procured from Jewish donors on Wall Street (where Trotsky spent the years predating the coup). The explanation for that was that Germany wanted to weaken Russia in light of the ongoing war (WW I). Though of course that explanation, obviously a cover story, was moot by the time the West intervened on behalf of the Jewish junta.

As to Syria, the West didn’t merely undermine the secularists. All the ISIS (as well as subsequent al-Qaeda) leadership was trained at Camp Bucca in Iraq by the CIA. They were then provided with extensive training, equipment (think the massive fleet of Toyota trucks), weapons, etc. by the Turks, Qataris, Saudis, CIA and their respective assets. To make it all “kosher” (i.e. to establish plausible deniability), the CIA created a front organization “The Free Syrian Army”, which was allegedly comprised of “moderate rebels”, and they would have al-Jewlani send his radicalized (by Saudi madrasas) goons to this army to receive weapons and training and once that mission was accomplished they would return to ISIS. Then there were also several massive airdrops of weapons and supplies the CIA assures us were meant for “moderate rebels” which “accidentally” were airdropped right onto the ISIS positions. And there were endless other means of support, don’t want to go too far on a tangent here.

Worth noting, too, in relation to the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Libya, there was obviously a CIA-ordered stand-down on that occasion. Stevens’ last meeting before the assassination was with the Saudis, with my interpretation being it was a last-ditch effort to bribe him to remain quiet about the fact that the CIA was transferring massive amounts of arms from arm depots near Benghazi (Libya) to ISIS. His death was blamed on al-Qaeda, and since al-Qaeda is and has always been a CIA asset …. you do the math.

There is also substantial research to indicate the “Western” intervention was actually in support of the Reds, though, for obvious reasons, publicly promoted as supporting the Whites.

I guess you could also argue that the US and UK were “fighting ISIS” in Syria. That is also the publicly promoted claim, again, for obvious reasons.

Forgot to mention something in regards to incorporation of the Old Testament into Christianity ….

Before the Roman adoption and proselytizing of Christianity, many (all?) Christians, now referred to as Gnostics, completely rejected the Old Testament. In fact it’s not clear, historically speaking, how those books came to be part of Christianity. My view remains that it was incorporated by the Roman emperor Constantine (most certainly not a believer in Jesus) at the First Council of Nicaea, but there does not seem to be a consensus on that (or any other explanation).

Hence my query. What did the Jews (bankers) promise Constantine (or whoever officiated over the “incorporation”) to get him to include that diabolical text into Christianity?

In your opinion, is Yahweh the father God that is referred to in the Trinity

Of course not, I wrote as much in the post to which you are replying. They have certain similarities b/c they are based on a common “original” understanding, but Yahweh, as known today, reflects solely the sect of the Levite rabbis, while the God of Christianity reflects the god worshiped by Jesus’ tribe. That there were many sects is obvious from the fact that the Levis Jews mass-murdered many of them (incl. of course the golden calf worshipers, but also e.g. Hellenized Jews, Sodom and Gomorrah, …).

Now technically Yahweh and the Lord are the same, as the Hebrew YHWH translates literally to Lord, but as we know language evolves and translations can be incorrect, whether deliberately or through misinterpretation. Once one understands that the Jewish Yahweh is a diabolical demon and not our creator or anyone else’s “god”, it makes sense to reject this false translation and not to mix the words. Which is why the Old Testament should refer to Yahweh and the New Testament to God and the Lord, and Christianity should be emancipated from the diabolical evil of the Old Testament (and tell me if you know how it came to be that these “books” were incorporated into Christianity – and in particular, were bribes paid or deals made?).

Deuteronomy is not only in the Torah, it is also in the Christian Bible.

True, but Jesus’ teachings “supersede” those of the Old Testament. While the OT’s Yahweh loves only Jews and, let’s face it, hates everyone else, the NT’s Jesus and Lord love everyone. And one could go on and on and on. On the other hand, the Talmud, which is what the Jews have built on top of their Torah, goes quite in the opposite direction, including denouncing Mary and Jesus in the most objectionable fashion imaginable at the time.

Do not the words of Deuteronomy reflect poorly on all three Abrahamic faiths and not just the Jews?

Despite that, I agree with this point. In fact I don’t believe Jesus ever believed in the Torah, in fact he referred to it essentially as the “Synagogue of Satan” (see 8 John 42-47). I went into more detail on that point here. The key fact is that the Levites – to whom Jesus is referring in the afore-cited 8 John 42-47 – wrote the Torah, while the other tribes, which included Jesus’ tribe, kept an oral tradition. The tribes were separated for centuries and, as you can see with Islam, Christianity and other religions and ideologies, even in the best of worlds with a fixed, written record, sects with major differences will develop over time. But for whatever reason it is now just assumed, without evidence and in fact in the face of the evidence, that all Jews then living believed the same thing, as memorialized in the Torah.

because there is assistance for college students in a variety of ways, you simply didn’t qualify or didn’t bother checking into it.

Earlier, you wrote: “[lower income people] get rental assistance, educational assistance, job training assistance, medical assistance, utilities assistance, transportation assistance, and food/supplies/clothing for free from various food banks,”. Whether any of these is available depends entirely where you live – what state and city, rural or urban, etc. And eligibility requirements vary greatly. On top of that, someone has to apply for these benefits. For each of these reasons, your claim is obviously false.

If a worker pays no income taxes, then there are no such costs to include in pricing.

Another laughable reading comprehension failure. Even if my income does not require me paying income tax, the producers of the goods and services I purchase – think food/farmers or healthcare/doctors, e.g. – do, requiring them to raise their prices. Sure not every farm worker pays income tax but the point is all income taxes paid by a producer, whether on corporate profits or payroll deductions, as well as for property taxes, fuel taxes, tariffs, etc., are reflected in the prices of the produced goods and services, irrespective of the income bracket of the consumer.

many low income families can avoid paying any federal taxes at all

You have a problem with basic reading comprehension, perhaps sue your school system? As I wrote, federal and state income taxes increase the price of all goods and services purchased. Even if I am not paying income tax on my income, I am paying income tax on a worker’s income when I purchase goods or services produced by that worker – though of course this is an indirect tax, since it increases the cost of those goods and services.

Try to think about things. And anyone responding to a post with AI garbage is by definition a moron. In the case of FICA, your Artificial Idiot is simply stating how FICA is taxed when you receive it, not the fact that poor people have to pay it on their income no matter how low (and no there are no offsets or credits or reductions for paying FICA/Medicare/Medicaid taxes).

On top of those, they get rental assistance, educational assistance, job training assistance, medical assistance, utilities assistance, transportation assistance, and food/supplies/clothing for free from various food banks

Some might but many do not. When I was in college I was utterly poor, yet I paid taxes (including FICA) and didn’t get one cent of your alleged “assistance”. You really understand very little about life, but go ask your Artificial Idiot.

I would have wanted every right-thinking congregant at Park East to emerge denouncing Zionism as a blight on the splendor of Judaism’s authentic traditions.

This type of egregious, if not willful, ignorance is enablement of evil and all too typical. No, not every religion deserves to be respected, especially not Judaism, which, fundamentally, is vastly worse in its extremism, chauvinism and violence than the most extremist Nazi. Like any religion, Judaism is an ideology, and if it’s OK to hate Nazis, it’s 100% OK to hate (self-identifying) Jews, as their ideology – and, historically, their deeds – are both far worse.

Just in regard to calling Zionism a “blight” on the “splendor”, just read the easily accessible texts of the Torah, such as 20 Deut. 16-18:

[I]n the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance [Ed: Eretz Israel, which includes E. Jerusalem and the West Bank], do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

In other words, the horror the Jews are committing is more lenient than what their religion/ideology commands them to do. Where is the “splendor” in that, Mr. Lawrence? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm??????

Except for sales taxes, the poor don’t pay taxes.

That’s completely wrong. FICA/Medicare, property taxes (included in “rent”), FCC taxes, gasoline/energy taxes, tariffs …

And, yes, income tax. Why? Because the income tax paid by workers and corporations increases the price of all goods, including the goods purchased by the poor. When you buy goods and services you are paying not just the wages of those producing those things, but the income tax to which they are subjected, all of which contribute to the costs of the goods produced.

If you pay high income tax on your income, of course, you get an even worse deal – paying for taxes on post-tax income. Counting direct and indirect taxes, I calculated at one point that 80% of my income went to taxes – so about 10 months of the year I was a slave to our mendacious, malicious, repugnant State. Everyone is screwed by the tax man and the massive, almost unimaginable corruption he robs you to fund.

‘The Synagogue of Satan’, for example, is a phrase often attributed to Jesus, yet quoted from Revelations, a book attributed by some Christians to John the apostle, while others attribute it to a latter day figure with the same name. As such, there’s no evidence Jesus ever used the term, much as it may be an apropos description of contemporary Jewish power.

But Revelations claims to be quoting Jesus. Jesus did not author any of the books of the New Testament or any other book I am aware of, so if you want to discard a verse for merely being “attributed” to Jesus, you will have nothing left. Plus there is a similar passage in 8 John 42-47, though of course it is (also) penned by Apostle John.

As for the apparent savagery of The Torah, either it’s a product of editing or we’re dealing with a paucity of historical context, the details of which are not always readily apparent to the reader.

Well aren’t all books edited? As I wrote above, the written Torah is the product of the Levi tribe, and, clearly to me, that tribe had established its own sect, different from the other tribes, at the time it was recorded.

One can’t imagine God ordering the utter annihilation of a people unless those people actually pose some kind of existential threat. How this was so remains difficult to tell given the scarcity of detail, though rabbinical exegetes would have us believe such was the case.

The answer is simply that Yahweh is not the same being as the Lord. Yahweh is the god of the Levites, not the God of Jesus. The two beings are virtually polar opposites. Hence the “Synagogue of Satan” / “devil” exhortations from Jesus.

Are you a Moslem?

I don’t consider myself as such, though I’ve been told many times I am Muslim ‘in essence’. Just assume I’m a card-carrying, 33rd degree freemason. That should clear things up. 🕶️

Are you lying or do you have a comic book understanding of Islam?

Every time you take me on where Islam is concerned, you end up too scared to continue, usually conceding defeat with a feeble ‘Disagree’.

All of the Levant was Christian before the Moslem invasion.

Before the Levant was Christian, it was occupied by both non-Christian, non-indigenous Rome and Persia. In fact, none of the land you mention was Christian until the house of Constantine adopted Christianity and set out to impose its preferred dogma upon its subjects at the edge of the sword.

Irrefutable historical fact: Christians who held dogmatic views that differed from those of officialdom were compelled to exile, persecuted, slain, or recanted their faith.

Now, before any conflict with them, Muhammad engaged in diplomacy with Rome and Persia — among other kingdoms. If you’ve read the contents of his letter written to Heraclius, you’d know that it does not threaten military action in the least. As I said upthread, the first bloodshed between Christians and Muslims was by the hand of a Christian leader allied with Byzantium. This was the initial act of war that ignited a zero-sum dynamic of conflict between Christendom and dar al-Islam that endured for centuries, with noteworthy exceptions in the interim. (Charlemagne, for example, would ally with the Abbasids against an Ummayad-Christian coalition. Yes, history is sometimes more complex than you might imagine.)

Problem is, you’re still clinging to some straw man argument I never advanced. Not once did I say that Islam doesn’t call for fighting. It most certainly does, when the occasion warrants it, just as Christianity has its ‘just war doctrine’.

As I also said earlier, one may reasonably question whether certain campaigns were consonant with Islamic teachings. I’m not interested in some polemic that exonerates Muslims at each and every turn, but it should be understood that in the Middle Ages, the general dynamic between polities of mutually contending worldviews (e.g. Christianity and Islam) was zero-sum conflict, a winner-takes-all perspective in which the subjugated had to acquiesce to the new political order to ensure their survival.

In dar al-Islam, non-Muslims paid a nominal tax to ensure protection of their life, property and religious exercise. In Christendom, they owed even more and enjoyed no religious liberty.

Use your favorite AI program and conduct a little research for yourself, comparing life in al-Andalus with that in contemporaneous France, for example.

If, that is, you’re not so attached to your prejudice.

Alternatively, you could just stamp my post with ‘Disagree’. Probably easier for you, anyways. 🕶️

All of the Levant was Christian before the Moslem invasion.

And all of Europe was pagan before the “Christian invasion” (well, it was the Roman invasion, they forced Christianity down everyone’s throats long after conquest but the principle is the same). And thereafter, all the European colonial powers spread Christianity wherever they went by the power of their swords, considering pagan non-believers to be “infidels” and “savages”.

Why do you hold such blatant, obvious double-standards?

[The Koran] calls for jihad and the murder of infidels. In several different places. Koran 5;33, 8;12, 8:67 are just 3 examples, there are many more.

Koran 5:33 deals with armed attacks against civilians. Read all of Qur’an 5 (Al-Ma’idah), or at least paragraph 32 as well, and it is obvious.

Qur’an 8:12 is just about disbelievers. Don’t Christians believe that disbelievers – not even in God generally, but in metaphysical believes, e.g.., that Christ himself is God and salvation is through Christ – will go to hell? Isn’t that severe punishment for not believing? It’s similar.

Qur’an 8:67 is about not taking captives during battle until victory. One can certainly debate the justice of this, but back in those days keeping prisoners during active conflict was a whole different proposition than it is today. And, moreover, par. 61 states: “If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them” – i.e. avoid war. In stark contrast to the Old Testament, where genocide is the agenda time and again.

You are spreading disinformation, I presume/hope innocently. There are many “Deep State” sites that spread such disinformation about Islam (as well as other ideologies, to be sure) – always double-check with the source, i.e., the Qur’an, and be sure to read the context, sometimes that requires reading … a while page!

A Christian can only kill in self defense.

Same for a Muslim. Of course as with Christianity, the lines are not so bright in war, but war itself can only be fought in self-defense.

A soldier who commits wanton murder would not be a Christian.

Not true, all purported Christians sin and by your definition nobody is a Christian. Christianity is about belief, not action (though of course at some point action disproves claims of belief). But one can say the same about Islam – that’s why I wrote Wahhabism is not really Islam, as it violates fundamental tenets, and also pointed out that Wahhabism was a minor, discredited sect, until the British conquered the Middle East and imposed the Wahhabist Saudi hereditary dictatorship onto the Muslim “holy lands” (par. Mecca and Medina).

It takes more than kneeling on a rug and facing East.

Funny that you would show disdain for actions which prove devotion to one’s religion. Esp. in context of claiming that not being faithful to it – i.e., not being devoted – means you are not really a believer.

Moslems consider the Old Testament a holy book.

You are correct, and as with Christianity, essentially all the “bad” in Islam stems from that. But they also accept the Gospel of Jesus (Injil) and the Psalms (Zabur), and of course the Qur’an. And they don’t constantly reference the Old Testament like “Christians” do.

Christians read the Old Testament in light of the revelation of the New.

Yes but why read it at all? It’s the polar opposite of the New Testament and Jesus referred to it as the “Synagogue of Satan”. (In this context, it is important to remember that: Judaism was an oral tradition; of the thirteen (or twelve, depending on perspective) tribes were split apart for centuries; the Levites were the only tribe to record their version of the Torah, i.e. their sect, in writing; and Jesus specifically referred to the Levites as the “Synagogue of Satan”, which obviously implies that while there was similarity in their sects, such as names and major events, the details were extraordinarily different.)

Obviously, you know nothing about Christianity.

Obviously, you are completely wrong, shamefully wrong. I know the Old Testament forms an integral part of Christianity, even if you deny it and claim to be the ultimate arbiter on who is or is not a “Christian” (one could say that is rather haughty). The inclusion of the Old Testament is a pox on the religion; it’s not even known why it is included, but no question Levite Jews were involved in that decision. See for example this “Christian” screed, referencing the grotesque genocide in the Old Testament.

Have a look at 20 Deuteronomy 10-18, in which your “God” commands Jews to enslave the entire world outside Eretz Israel (10-15), and to annihilate all non-Jews in Eretz Israel (16-18). Probably the most vile passages ever written. And part of Christianity.

You’re not half as smart as your momma told you that you were.

I doubt you know your momma, one look at you and she threw you in the garbage. Who saved you, an alley rat?

‘Christianity’ isn’t a race or ethnicity.

Wow, you impress me with your genius! All that learning from a rat mama!

On the other hand, your holy book, the Koran

Typical redneck thinks just b/c I don’t hate Muslims, same as yourself, it is my holy book. That’s what you get for being raised by a rat momma.

calls for, the murder of ‘infidels’.

You don’t know anything about Islam or the Qu’ran. Stick to breeding with your sisters, OK, redneck? But I’ll give you a hint: the “murder” of “infidels” was during a war with the Medians, who had savagely repressed Muslims. So they went to war, and this passage you quote, but know nothing about, came to be. But in the end, when the Muslims under Mohammed won, they didn’t kill anybody. Not even the individuals directly responsible for the repression.

On the other hand, Christians have the bloodiest history on the planet by orders of magnitude. The 16th-19th century colonial powers, UK, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, …, murdered probably over a billion people who did not bow to the colonialists’ God.

I guess, according to you, none of them was a Christian, albeit they called themselves that. And guess what? Most Christians – the vast, vast majority – incorporate the Jewish Torah into their religion, calling it the “Old Testament”, a wretched, diabolically evil work which does commit genocide after genocide, stones people to death, cuts off their heads, etc. There really is no literary work more pernicious and evil than the Old Testament in all human history. YOUR Bible. And all the evil they committed is completely consistent with that demonic book. Go suck on it, redneck.

I’ve seen photos of some of these men married to multiple wives, you can look up youtube videos of this stuff.

Islam permits multiple wives (not multiple lovers) but that is not “promiscuity”. As it seems you don’t know, promiscuity” means casual sex. Marrying someone, and being obligated to support them for the rest of their life, is not “casual” by any stretch of the imagination. Casual is meeting someone in a bar and sleeping with them that night then never seeing them again, which is the utopian model for the “West” and its delicious Freedom Fries. Of course one can say any sex out of marriage in “casual” but I would not go that far.

As it were, polygamy was allowed in Islam b/c there were many more women than men for various reasons, including of course war, and no Big Benevolent State to care for them. The principle is if a woman otherwise has no support and a man has the means, he can support more than one woman. So you can critique it for being “sexist” but get rid of the state and technology and you will find that modern “Western” women, in general, are incapable of supporting themselves too, and, yeah, nature and reality are both “sexist”, and we don’t need Darwin to understand that.

I see where the author is coming from, and I get it. That said, I do not want Muslims in our country, period, bright or otherwise. Mamdani is not an American, does not belong here, and should be deported. As for the idiots supporting him, they should be sent to forced labor camps until they get their minds right.

They dream, but the Islamist have done.

Nobody matches the industrial scale of murder than Christians. WW II alone …. And what religion droppped nuclear bombs on civilians? Wahhabists?

This is a key indicator of what ails you. You fear women.

LOL, put down the crack pipe, girl.

What bothers little men like you is giving others the freedom to choose to think and behave as they see fit.

So you’re an anarchist? Why object to Muslims, is it b/c you are a little crybaby who can’t stand others doing aqs they see fit?

What idiots like you fail to comprehend

Wow, youa re a vicious ugly little b**ch. But you have the freedom to be one, right? Right as you and your ilk destroy the civilization your ancestors – who were much closer to Muslims than you will ever be – assiduously built.

Hence I stop reading your nauseating, ignorant verbal vomit.

What is the core of modern Wahabbist Islam

You are using the most extremist brand of Islam, if it even is Islam, as your norm or, perhaps more accurately, as the consensus? Why not use Evangelical Rapturist Christians who dream of Armageddon (it’s a great thing, don’t cha know?) and radical ZioNazi Jews as the norm for those religions?

They breed like rodents

It isn’t much higher than others, if you adjust for class effects. Let’s remember the population density and size of India and Southeast Asia as well.

they treat their women like slaves

You mean they don’t worship women like goddesses like you do. Which is one of the main drivers of the degeneration of the “West”.

most modern ‘islamic’ societies are total shit

You don’t have to be a genius to know that most modern ‘islamic’ societies are under the boot of the “West” and ZioNazis, who have deliberately and conscientiously made them as shitty as they can. It says vastly more about the British and Americans, and Christians and Jews, par. their hate, pathos, envy and all-around barbarism, than about Muslims. The West also turned China into shit for a long time, proving its prowess in this regard, but alas that country was too populous to continue the humiliation indefinitely.

their children like cattle

What? You mean they kill and eat them? What you droning on about, man?

They turn their own societies into screaming miserable overpopulated hellholes where people only dream of escaping.

You are astoundingly full of nonsense. Plenty of Muslims can leave their home country, but don’t. Even the Palestinians, who have to bear the brute forth of ZIoNazi barbarism and savagery, mostly don’t want to leave their homeland. But sure, Western aggression (or Christian aggression, for someone with your extremely limited if non-existent intellect) has driven many from their homes. The consequences of Western indoctrination of vulnerable youth with extremist radical “Wahhabist” ideology (which only has any prominence due to “Western” support and indoctrination – recall that Wahhabism stems from the House of Saud, the un-Islamic barbarians that the British installed as hereditary dictators of Mecca and Medina and have supported ever since) and its use of these “tools” to wage mass terror campaigns for benefit of the ZioNazi invaders is precisely the desire of many Muslims to escape their predicament.

They hate everyone

Sounds like reflection.

They ban music and alcohol and fraternizing with the opposite sex

Banning alcohol is a bad thing? They don’t ban fraternizing but they do ban promiscuity. And so they don’t have abortion, the industrial murder machinery so beloved by the “West” – why not, murder a baby and get some freedom fries!

Humidity is 100% a relevant variable. The fact is that cocoa, even if it appears dry, has a certain amount of water content due to the fact they don’t use a vacuum chamber to produce it. According to my search engine’s AI, “Cocoa powder typically has a moisture content of around 7.5% after the drying process, which is important for secure storage. Proper moisture levels help maintain the quality and shelf life of cocoa products.” I don’t doubt that.

Anyway, if it’s so dusty, how come the landing with the rocket engine didn’t unleash a massive dust storm? There’s typically no “wind” on the moon but that landing (and the take-off) sure did create lots of wind. Even the astronautsactors didn’t kick up dust as they were prancing around, even later with a dune buggy (my truck creates large dust clouds on Earth in dry areas just going 5mph). Given the low gravity and lack of atmosphere (to slow the dust down), dust would have risen quite high and lingered around for an extended period of time too. I can’t recall a single picture with dust in it. Hmmmm.

my climate model makes a prediction

My God, you are so incredibly stupid. That is the problem with “democracy”, even if it weren’t absolutely corrupt, absolute morons like you get to vote.

The broad agreement between the temperature databases

They use the same underlying manipulated data, you astoundingly stupid idiot.

Speaking of Berkeley Earth, this graph (source page) is interesting. Look at the wild annual mean fluctuations in the 18th century. Peaks are higher than today. What brought it down, according to the charts, is a series of volcanoes. (Notice no large volcanic eruptions anywhere the size of Laki or Tambora in the last 175 years – since 1850, by coincidence no doubt – to cool things down.)

Of course what they don’t discuss is solar cycles. And how our sun just went through a super-cycle with exceptionally high solar energy output. And of course the sun is the greatest (by far) contributor to the fact that Earth is not near 0 degrees Kelvin. So would it be surprising that perhaps extraordinary sun solar output – sure, maybe the highest in 2,000 years or 200,000 years, who knows – would warm the Earth more quickly than previously? (And the very old ice core “data” don’t have yearly temperatures, even their scam measuring techniques don’t claim such resolution.)

I did not have to do that to contradict you.

You have to show it’s a climate prediction and it isn’t, it’s an orthogonal event. The flooding would occur no matter the cause of the ice sheet melting, and, moreover, the prediction is of the nature “Assuming my Climate Scam arguments are correct, then flooding”, which means you are assuming the model is correct rather than proving it with an accurate (in hindsight) prediction. The fact that you claim you are correct on this suggests I am conversing with someone either incapable of reason or too stubborn to admit a mistake. Either way, good day.

My prediction stands: if the Greenland glaciers melt away, many of the world’s greatest cities will be flooded.

It’s an ice sheet, not glaciers (there are glaciers too but they pale in water volume to the ice sheet). But anyway this is not a prediction based on the Climate Scam. The Climate Scam predicts that this ice sheet will melt, I don’t know, by when? And what do we get “if” they’re wrong?

Re: the CRUTEM5 data, it admits prominently on their website: “New quality control proceedures (sic) are applied to screen for outliers in station data.” I already told you they manipulate the data. Temperature too low, and supposedly too high, to support the scam? Just drop it. That’s what Climategate was about.

They report temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperature, without providing the reference point for the period in question (based on 1981-2000 means, so the priests tell us). This makes it difficult if not impossible for anyone to check the data against their own reference data.

They at least admit that they don’t properly account for urbanization bias. Fortunately, the media priests don’t bother their flock with such trivialities. It’s certain!

When calculating the global mean, they make huge assumptions based on the fact that stations measure only a tiny portion of the planet, and occur in varying densities at different locations. Basically they say one station measures a huge area. Apparently the word “micro-climate” is unknown to them.

There’s also of course a sourcing issue. The data is obtained from “national meteorological and hydrological services”, tell me, how is one to know if they have altered the data prior to providing it? There are certainly folks ready to feed large juicy carrots to such manipulators. And manipulating a single station can have a large impact if it is the only one in a large radius. Which reminds me: supposedly the greatest warming is occurring in the Arctic. Where nobody can really check that.

I would be a lot less worried about these matters if, in fact, the government paid skeptics the same amount of research funds as the climate alarmists. That way we could be sure there is critical review and others are assembling the data in other ways. But that doesn’t happen – in fact, it’s the exact opposite of science, it’s like the Church: dissidents are excommunicated from the research fund pool, and if the only other source of funding (“Big Oil”) funds them, well, then obviously they are biased! lol. And that’s not a conspiracy theory, b/c a “conspiracy theory” is a term used by dopeheads to try to smear those who question government lies. Sort of like the “witch” charge in the days of the older religion.

Regarding ice cores, another utterly unreliable measure of temperature – it is based on ratios of 16O and 18O isotopes. Which are affected by a large number of things and everyone admits it’s not a constant even during periods of identical temperature. Yet variations in this ratio are used to “determine” temperatures 500,000 years ago. LOL.

And all of this is orthogonal to the question, if indeed the temperature is rising on average, what is causing it? We know the climate is constantly changing. Even if temperatures are changing more rapidly now than they did in the prior 175 years (since 1850), that’s a tiny blip in geological time. It’s like saying the Yellowstone supervolcano will never erupt b/c it hasn’t erupted since 1850, or if it does, it must be caused by me driving my car! lol.

So I contradicted you by making a prediction that is almost certainly NOT wrong

No, you didn’t, are you really that confused? You wrote “if” all the ice melts – well that’s a simple volume calculation, there is so much water, and you need a delta x in Earth’s radius to absorb that, in light of the amount of the Earth’s surface area composed of water. That is not a climate scam prediction but a fluid dynamics calculation, i.e., engineering. Now if you want to predict something, predict how much of that ice will melt every year for the next 100 years, and if we live long enough we can confirm your predictions are ludicrous. But of course the climate scam advocates have long predicted ice melting, and all those predictions have been wrong. You can call them “extremist” but they were heralded as the “scientific consensus” at the time.

You should have little trouble coping with computer files

I don’t, I opened a sampling of the files and found exactly what the description says – they are maps of “anomalies” and even use “statistical sampling” to create data out of thin air and include in their model. How scientific! Use your model to create the data that your model then uses! Perfect snake eating its tail!

So again, you have failed at your point. My point is: the raw data isn’t available, or at least wasn’t last time I thoroughly checked. And that’s not how science works.

I rely on evidence.

Models are not evidence, they are predictions, and in the climate scam world, they are nefarious, manipulated, end-driven scams. Anyone can model anything.

Again, you avoided my question, can you “model” how a newborn infant will die and at what age. Your silence proves my point. But as a true zealot, you are unwilling to admit anything. And with that, I have to end this conversation – at least in this conversation, you are truly hopeless, you wouldn’t admit the sun is bright if I claimed it. Maybe over the years, though, a scintilla of critical thinking will enter your mind re: the climate scam, and then you can recognize it for the nefarious fraud it is.

the Flat Earthers, who as a group are some of the most stupid people I have ever seen

Actually, the climate alarmists are even dumber. At least the Flat Earthers aren’t trying to pass laws to prevent sailing and air travel b/c the vessels will fall over the edge. It is just their opinion. You, the climate alarmists, you are actually dangerous b/c you want to use the power of the state – i.e. force and violence – to impose your absolutely ludicrous and insane ideology on those who are vastly smarter than you..

if Greenland’s glaciers melt away, many of the world’s greatest cities will be flooded. You are unable to refute this obvious prediction, so you ignore it.

Yeah, and if a nuclear bomb goes off over your head you are dead. Or if a meteor strikes you. Or if you are visiting Yellowstone when the super volcano there erupts. Or if you starve b/c plants don’t produce enough nutritious food. Or, wait, I know there’s an obvious one – one of the 1,000s of bio-labs doing genetic engineering of bio-weapons has one of its cute little bugs released, which is nearly a certainty at some point in the near future since your scientists/priests are reckless, irresponsible morons. I suppose if the media spent 24 hours a day brainwashing you about the dangers of bio-engineering viruses and other pathogens – well, that wouldn’t be brainwashing since those clearly do kill in large numbers. Perhaps everyone. And that risk is actually quite easily mitigated – stop doing the damn bio-engineering.

But sure, if 3 million cubic meters of ice (which I haven’t confirmed is there, not sure how that amount was calculated), which is on average over 2 km deep, melts …. Yeah, I ignore insignificant risks, but also I live at over 1,000 m elevation so a 7 m rise doesn’t affect me much.

But of course the whole issue is whether me driving a car is going to cause all that ice to melt … which it certainly isn’t, any more than it will cause a super-volcano to erupt or a meteor to strike Earth.

Some of the wilder claims of the climate extremists are almost certainly wrong.

All the claims are wrong.

Where is this temperature data – the full set?

the graph cites the HadCRUT5 database …. Here is the database — the full set from 1850 to now

Which file? There are lots of files in the netCDF format. Show me for example which file shows the hourly temperature at two weather stations (whichever you like) in Colorado and Iceland from 1850-2025. The description doesn’t indicate such raw data is available; instead they claim to show “anomalies”, which means, they have processed the data. I am asking for the raw data, not manipulated data.

Not to mention, you did not address my comments about why the data, even in the best of situations, would be unreliable – changes in measuring equipment, urban micro-climates and the like. Now that is true intellectual dishonesty.

Are you truly an engineer?

Yes, and you are truly an irate zealot. You don’t understand anything, you just repeat the garbage you are fed. In actual science, we call this “garbage in, garbage out”. You read some garbage, without the slightest critical analysis, and then repeat it as your gospel. Just like any religious zealot.

that is your problem, not mine

No, it’s actually more your problem, b/c you’re the irate zealot. I’m not afraid of the sky falling and constantly lambasting the non-deluded with fairy tales.

It clearly rejects the scientific method. All these lies about “consensus” really mean – you’re a quack if you don’t believe our lies. That’s not how science works. That’s how the Church worked in the days of Galileo. And that’s how your contemporary priests work now.

that you will die someday

The inevitability of death is actually extremely well understood. Let’s move to something more interesting – why don’t you model what day I will die, and of what cause? And not just me, do it for infants – we want to get as close to 150 years out as possible.

Yet we can make reliable predictions.

LOL, my God, it’s already been pointed out to you that 100% of the predictions of these idiotic, manipulated, goal-seeking “models” are wrong – from no more snow in UK to melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers (I visited a few this summer in Colorado and Montana, glad to report they were still there!) to temperature increases to every single thing. But don’t let a 0% success rate spoil your blind faith in your (highly paid/bribed) priests ….

This is irrefutable evidence.

Where is this temperature data – the full set? You have a link? Oh, by the way, I’ve watched weather stations go offline when the temperature drops below what the models “expect”. But not when it rises above. One of many examples of goal-seeking. Another is: are the temperature sensors the same ones used 100 or 50 years ago? No, they are not. So you have different measuring tools. Are the weather stations in the same environment? No, they used to be in rural areas, now they are in large cities with asphalt and the like, which are known to be hotter than surrounding rural areas due to various heat effects of contemporary urban design (understood as urban microclimates). So you are not actually measuring the same thing at all. Does the data actually show increases? No, that’s what Climategate is about (a rare glimpse into the actual emails of the priests, due to a hack, which communications are otherwise well hidden behind a wall of secrecy). The data doesn’t show that. And the climate priests are perplexed. They’ll nee more funding ….

Will global warming cause deserts to expand and reduce our supply of food?

What we do know is that during times food production has greatly increased. As I’ve noted, this is largely due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which makes it easier for plants to absorb the C which is the building-block of life. What happens if we reduce CO2 in the atmosphere? That’s actually a real danger. Even if deserts were to expand due to heating, at the same time tundra would thaw, creating new land for farming.

supernovas … we have seen so many across the universe

Sure, but that is actually reproducible to some extent – you can make a hypothesis and test it against the next supernova event, though of course the data available is extremely limited and one doesn’t know its reliability. But the same doesn’t hold true for climate change b/c the time periods involved are too long. And as I’ve mentioned multiple times, all the hypothesis formulated by the climate priests have turned out to be completely wrong, a far lower success rate than random guessing – precisely b/c they goal-seek (since that is how they are paid – if they change their mind and oppose the climate scam, their lavish funding suddenly disappears – science indeed – “they blinded me with science“).

P.S. Your latest response, when I responded thoroughly to your Arctic misrepresentations, was “noise ignored”. Yup, that’s “blinding science”. LOL.

each [ of the hard sciences ] has great reliability and predictive value

I’m glad we can agree on something. But let’s be clear: “Climate Change” is neither science – because is absolutely rejects the scientific method and is ideologically and financially massively manipulated, indeed, it’s utter fraud – nor is it hard – “modeling” something that is very poorly understood is also utter fraud. They can’t even predict the weather today, but they know the global temperature within 2 degrees 150 years from now? You have to be an absolute fawning tool to believe that.

Having lost on why the Arctic had lush forests

I didn’t lose anything, delusional liar. Go back through the thread.

I will not respond to further religious arguments.

Oooh, the zealot is touchy about having his mind-numbingly idiotic religion challenged. How cute.

The global climate crisis has an absolutely gigantic amount of evidence behind it.

Is the evidence reproducible? No, b/c the data is kept secret. I’ve already exposed Climategate, the fact that this is about the coolest period in Earth’s history (according your your priests), the divergence issues, the polar “oil” conundrum, and other matters.

But of course like any devoted zealot, nothing will change your mind about your idiotic religion. I have far greater respect for Christians and idol worshipers, at least they admit it is their faith, you claim to have truth on your side, while in truth you have only lies, speculation, fraudulent and manipulated data, and secret “models” (which scientists are paid huge amounts of money, provided, and this is important, they spit out the “correct” result).

In short, nothing could be further removed from actual “hard science” than the global warming scam, which has the pernicious political objective of impoverishing the vast majority of humans while your priests – and more importantly, their sponsors – get filthy rich. And you, by pushing this nefarious lie, are just as profoundly evil and anti-human as its sponsors.

Science is not a religion.

Sure it is, at varying levels. There are some “hard” sciences, like parts of physics and chemistry, and then there’s a whole lot of propaganda and indoctrination masquerading as “science”. Historical stuff, social “sciences”, and various obviously politically-motivated scams like anthropomorphic climate change being prominent examples.

Even if we presume something that is most obviously not true, that the powers that be are honest and earnestly striving for truth, there are limits to epistemology. Again, esp. anything historical.

You’ve obviously been thoroughly indoctrinated and buy the junk science. Because you can’t think for yourself, but still think you are smarter than everyone else. Just like those who follow other religions.

Do you even know what idealism is and it’s implications? Can your “science” disprove idealism? lol.

In fact, an immense amount of science is behind the Internet.

I’m a computer engineer, genius.

What I said was correct: today’s Arctic was at temperate latitudes in the Permian period and therefore had lush forests.

First of all, the Arctic isn’t a land mass, it’s a location (the north pole), and, as such, has never moved. Antarctica is a land mass. But in those maps western Eurasia – par. Siberia – is practically sitting over the Arctic. And in this map, you can see oil-rich Alaska is also close to the North Pole – right next to the “Big Arctic Lake”.

For example, one article (link) shows two independent ice cores.

You have great faith in your religion. The list of assumptions, as well as the list of everything that can go wrong in measurements, is each vast and profound. And in any event the scope limit is “100,000s of years”, not “100 millions of years”. Big diff, but that’s actually math. And math I can believe in. I’ve studied enough science to know that all the inconsistencies are just covered up or thrown away. Because, well, the “narrative”.

Now for some modern data

I’ve also studied the Climate Scam long enough to know that this data is utterly unreliable and fraudulent. Look up Climategate. And the Divergence Problem. BTW the Divergence Problem is one of those many inconsistencies I mentioned above which are just ignored. Same is true e.g. of Carbon and geological dating, sometimes leading to vastly different results for the same sample. Methods like Carbon-14 dating, inter alia, assume that all inhale and absorb the same amount of Carbon-14 per pound during their lifetime (and none at all thereafter), as well as uniformity of Carbon-14 distribution over geography and time (over time assumes a perpetual equal rate of atmospheric creation from solar energy and decay of the C-14 already formed), assumptions which by themselves are deeply flawed, but such nonsense passes for “science” in the halls of the Believers.

If this rate continues ….

And if each female mouse produces 60 offspring per year, then in 100 years we will have 6,533,186,235,000,709,230,034,068,928,691,287,343,700,324,585,314,296,867,722,640,545,345,121,774,145,098,416,101,607,381,667,300,811,080,828,609,214,055,796,893,078,458,763,823,293,748,842,154,779,319,623,108,143,171,180,246,289,350,656 mice. Wow!

We would have to be utterly stupid to believe the climate scam nonsense.

Fixed it for ya.

What we call the Arctic had lush forests because the region was at temperate latitudes.

No, it wasn’t. Maps of Pangea, if anything, show vastly more land mass was near and over the poles than is the case now. In your link, the view is from the top (north) – note the “Big Arctic Lake” right in the center. Not that I buy into any of this unproven (and unprovable) speculation about the distant past.

Previous warmings took thousands, maybe millions of years

We have no idea how long they took, do you think they know the average global temperature to the 0.1 degrees 500 million years ago and daily changes to it? LMAO! It’s all speculation. But I can hazard to guess that the large cataclysmic volcanoes and meteor impacts had far quicker temperature effects than driving cars, that’s just common sense.

Will Earth become a burning hellhole like Venus?

LOL, well if you believe what they fraudulently call “the science”, Earth was a flaming ball of fire a few billion years ago and in less time the sun will supernova and consume the Earth entirely. So be scared, very very scared!

Far more likely, given how violent and aggressive (not to mention insane) the “West” is, is a nuclear war, which will cool the Earth much faster than you can say “But but but ….”

There simply is no credible evidence that man is causing the warming. In fact there isn’t much evidence of warming. Polar ice caps … still there. UK … still snowing. Weather station temperatures – still fraudulently manipulated. “Science” – replaced by government mandates, censorship, group think and intolerance, not to mention fraudulent data and “secret models” (hint: climate models are not science, they are secret and fantastical).

Every. Single. Prediction. Made. By. The. Climate. Alarmists/Scammers. Has. Been. Proven. Wrong. But keep believing, you have to believe in something, right? Why not a made-up idiotic narrative that justifies hating mankind more than you already do? Yay!

This is just the final stage of the Israeli project of expanding and clearing out the native population which has been ongoing since the inception of the state.

Sadly, the ZioNazi project is far more ambitious than you give it credit. Eretz Israel (Greater Israel) runs from “the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates” (see e.g. here, here and here, and Isaiah 27:12 and Genesis 15:18-21 – using very different political sites to point out this is a fact, not opinion) – while nobody is sure of the precise boundaries laid out in the “Abrahamic covenant”, it includes not only all of Palestine but huge swaths of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and almost all of Lebanon. Here is a more contemporary polemic re: Eretz Israel and its far greater boundaries than you imagine (per that piece, you are imagining only what the author believes is the eternal grant made to Jews by their diabolical god, while the other areas are granted but not eternally, so Israel must take them gradually, though tbh I think this distinction is a dog whistle to somewhat hide the ZioNazi ambitions from cattle eyes).

The ZioNazis are just getting started. They need lots of Lebensraum and to dispose of (read: utterly annihilate) a lot of Untermenschen. See Deuteronomy 20:16-18. They truly believe their god (demon to everyone else) wants them to rule the entire world.

Please spare us the Anthropomorphic Climate Crisis doom and gloom propaganda. Do you know why there is oil in the Arctic? Because it used to be lush, dense forest. Have a look at this video from NOAA, the Climate Hoax Propagandist in Chief, which claims now is pretty much the coolest it’s been in 500 million years. So it will get warmer again. Big deal.

Even if humans were causing warming, which they most certainly are not, so what? People just move north a few miles on average. The Sky Ain’t fallin’, Chicken Little.

On the other hand, extra CO2 is the reason we have so much food. The main building component of plants is … carbon, which plants get almost exclusively from … CO2 in the air. The fact that CO2 levels are higher means plants grow denser and produce more food. If CO2 went down, perhaps billions would starve. The Climate Hoaxers never discuss this issue, because, frankly, my darling, they don’t give a damn. All they care about is impoverishing everyone else and enriching themselves. That’s the scam. Stop enabling the scam with your Chicken Little screeching, bro. Grow up.

Let the Gaza bombing resume.

Let the ZioNazi culling commence, so that every barbaric ZioNazi, like the despicable monster “meamjojo”, dies an agonizing death and spends eternity burning in hell.