Don't believe their inflated polling methods. After seeing how they oversampled people in prisons in the 1950s Kinsey samples (to falsely inflate a 1% gay rate to a 10% gay rate), be very leery of CNN polls that use the same methodologies.
Remember what newsman Walter Cronkite said: "The media is not there to reflect public opinion, but to SHAPE it".
Likewise these polls aren't there to reflect real rates of gayness, but to stimulate it. To change attitudes about it. To encourage you to join their ranks.
In short, this is a psy-op to try and emasculate you. Don't fall for it.
This is the same CNN who oversampled Democrats by 14 points in their election polls. Trust them like you'd trust any other compulsive liar.
Ancient Israel never developed a republic. They didn't even have a word for one. (They had kitarchy: i.e., rule by judges, and later monarchy. After that, they settled into theocracy.)
With all due respect, to attribute our system of government to them is as anachronistic as trying to attribute Calculus to them, or the aqueduct.
Read the Bible in vain to find out about a system of government like ours. Read Cicero's "De Republica," by contrast, and you will see an exact blueprint.
By the way, just as our political ideas were shaped by him, our entire educational system was also based on Cicero's reforms. Of the 10 grades they had in school when the Founding Fathers attended class, 8 of them centered on the teaching of Cicero as the main curriculum. His influence on their thinking cannot be overestimated. See a lecture on Cicero here, to see what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rswj2AvC1Xk
America has a hybrid form of government, based on the template set forth by Cicero in "De Republica". Cicero agreed with Plato and Aristotle that there were 3 basic forms of government: Monarchy, aristocracy and republic. These three decayed and had corrupt forms: namely, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Cicero said that, to keep the best aspects of all three (and to mitigate their worst aspects) it might be good to create a hybrid form of government, composed of all three . . . with a President [representing monarchy], a senate [representing aristocracy] and a House of Representatives [representing republic].
The Founding Fathers in America followed this recipe.
Of the three branches, only the House of Representatives had people DIRECTLY voting for the politician. (The House of Representatives represented the common man.)The other two [senate and President] had a two-tier system, whereby the politicians were installed by wiser minds. In the senate the people voted for the state legislators and the state legislators installed the senator. Likewise, with the Presidency, where the people voted for the electors and the ELECTORS chose the President.
Senators and the President were supposed to be somewhat removed from the common man, due to the common man's lack of knowledge regarding political science. Senate and the Presidency were more aristocratic in nature, with the representatives removed somewhat from politics (like Supreme Court Justices who are not directly elected, to tamp down on political conflicts of interest).
So populism was very limited in our Constitutional system, with only the House of Representatives being given over to "the people". The other two branches mitigated the excesses of the House by having men of higher stature in those positions.
In fact [to go by what John Stuart Mill said in 1861] the House was just a tack-on to prevent revolution. It was an afterthought to give the poor SOME say . . . but not much.
The adults were supposed to be in the senate and White House, to counteract the wild extravagances of the common people [who would just try to vote themselves money from the Treasury through welfare schemes].
That's the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, whatever is popular is implemented. (Like how candy is always more popular than medicine.) In a republic, it's not what's popular that counts, but what's right.
A democracy exists by mob rule and cares nothing for individual rights. Only the collective matters. Whereas, in a republic, the mob counts for nothing, and the rights of the individual are protected.
All things considered, I prefer a republic to a democracy. Like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, I consider a democracy the corrupt form of a republic. (Sadly, in America, we already degraded from a republic into a democracy. And we went bankrupt because of it. And that's why we're now living through a coup where an oligarchy is taking over. This always happens in the cycle. Plato said, "Democracy is the last stage before a dictatorship.) Take a look at the District of Columbia, with razor wire and barricades around it. This is a coup that happened because the wealthy were pissed off at the democracy that had previously run the nation's finances into the ground.
I leave you with a quote from Alexander Fraser-Tytler: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship".
You don't believe Judaism is insidious? Clearly, you haven't taken a look inside the Talmud.
Chopping your penis off isn't a "fad". Sadly, that shit is permanent. These kids are being fucked over in ways that will scar them for life. The sad part is, by the time they wake up, it will be too late for them.
...says the man who probably thinks 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, lol.
The English murdered 8 million Irish people, in the so-called "Potato Famine," too. The reality is: There was no food shortage. The English just took Irish crops and sold them in international markets, leaving the people to starve. This set off a demographic cratering of Ireland as 8 million starved to death and millions more fled to the United States or Canada. Funny how there will be no forthcoming Hollywood film about this historical calamity to humanize the victims. No Irish memorial museums to teach us "Never Again". By the way, to put this in context: Over 4 centuries, the United States only ever imported in 448,000 Africans. (Not millions.) 448,000. According to one African-American scholar it may be as low as 390,000. None of them were killed. In its entire history, the Ku Klux Klan is credited with 8,000 murders . . . mostly of white people. (The numbers of killed blacks pales in comparison to the millions of killed irish.) But you won't hear any of this in your school text books, or in emotional Hollywood movies. The Irish were killed in vastly larger numbers, and treated ridiculously worse. Even to the extent of society telling us not to give a fuck now. Their lives don't matter.
- Footnote: Imagine the perversity of a place like England acquiring new Black Lives Matter political parties and apologizing to Jamaicans who showed up in the UK 22 minutes ago. Yet not a single apology to the Irish. "We English owe this Nigerian, who showed up 16 minutes ago. We will grovel before him and give him and his family benefits. But the millions of Irish people we actually murdered? Fuck them! From now on, it's all about Africans and Pakistanis. You know: The people trafficking our children."
Let me introduce you to a little man named Teddy Roosevelt.
He said: “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have known were naturalized Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is no American at all!
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
"The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American."
It's called cultural transmission. And that's what schools are SUPPOSED to be doing. Instead, they're erasing our history, tearing down our statues and effacing our past. George Orwell said, "The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate a consciousness of their history".
A woman of the left, Donella Meadows, wrote a book called "Thinking In Systems". She said that the schools were the DNA of the society. She said, "What is DNA? It is an information transmission system across generations. Academia is the DNA of a society. Change the curriculum and you change the DNA of the civilization".
That's what the left is doing. They no longer teach about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Instead you get heaping helpings of Afro-Caribbean figures or Common Core chapters on Gandhi. (Gandhi who, by the way, borrowed the concept of civil disobedience from American Henry David Thoreau and openly said so. But open up a Common Core book and they attribute those ideas to Gandhi and hide that the concepts were American concepts. Their goal is to give credit to the foreigner.)
Universities openly say, "We're not here to teach kids about the past. We're here to turn out change-agents for the future".
Donella Meadows said, "I don't care what you call yourself. If you no longer pass on cultural transmission from the past, you are not a university . . . even if you call yourself one."
I knew Coney-Barrett was Deep State when she was touted in the media for adopting two African children. Her leftist racial virtue signaling was a massive red flag. She was basically screaming: "White genocide, death to the West," and the Republicans were promoting her as a conservative.
"All we have to do is replace our children with THEIR children and all our problems will be solved."
Yeah, to hell with that bimbo.
Regarding the headline of this thread: I knew the Koch Brothers were behind Pence well before the election, by reading Jane Meyer's "Dark Money". She's a liberal Democrat at the New York Times, writing about the financing mechanisms of the right. The Koch Brothers were the single biggest force. In the book, she says that Pence is a Koch operative, and that the Kochs funded his run for governor. Pence also headed up a bunch of Koch Brothers front companies and organizations.
I knew EXACTLY what Pence was going to do . . . what he was PUT IN PLACE to do . . . even before he rubber stamped the fraudulent vote certifications during the 2020 election.
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
Shallow = not having a heritage, culture or history, and deriving your identity from consumer products.
The Industrial Economic Machine is terrified of us recovering our identity. We're a people with amnesia. Cut off from our past.
George Orwell wrote, "The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate an understanding of their history".
The oligarchs don't want us to be citizens. They want us to be "consumers". If you're cut off from your people, your race and your past, you're not a complete human being. You're the lone antelope, separated from the herd that the lion picks off.
The emptiness that people experience (uprooted from their heritage and a group-consciousness of their people) is why individuals are so lonely now, so depressed. Why they're all on Xanax and dying inside.
Good parenting? Absolutely! They taught him the importance of ethnostates, racial purity, self-identifying paraphernalia affirming racial solidarity with his own group, and the unwavering decision to marry within his own race (to ensure his children right of return to Israel).
No Klan parent would be as proud of their child for upholding their racial ideals.
- Footnote: Of course, the Klan parent loses points for wanting to deport all non-whites. Without having different races, you obviate the possibility of slaves. Ben's parents wisely trained Ben to exploit the goyim and to transfer their wealth to Tel Aviv. Empty their nation like a piggy bank and make them work for HIS people. And fight wars on behalf of his people. Not even the Klan has such aspirations regarding the subjugation of other races. They just want to be left alone. Ben's ideology believes in treating people outside his group as cattle, insects, servants, subject races. And they mass-murdered 70 million people in Russia to uphold and advance these ideals. (After 150 years of the Klan, they have a total body count, according to the South Poverty Law Center of 8,000 people.) Sheer amateurs compared to Ben's group.
Being proud of your heritage is . . . "stooping"? Explain that. Cringing self-hate is virtuous? Willing suicide? Walk me through your logic of what is ideal civic behavior. Is only one group supposed to pledge to demographically erase itself, or are other groups called to do this? Give me the list of groups called to self-negate. (Does that "list" include only one race?) If so, is demanding their genocide ethical?
She's "posted anti-semitic memes?" She's Jewish! Her dad Stanley Kubrick was FAMOUSLY Jewish.
Exactly!
There IS no 15th Century Sub-Saharan African writer, because these tribes were pre-literate. There is no "world culture" to replace European culture because . . . I know this is going to blow your mind . . . but there IS no Australian aborigine version of Plato. There IS no Kenyan version of Archimedes. There is no Cambodian Cervantes, or Nigerian Shakespeare.
But if you want literal cannibalism, butt-rape, or tires burned around people's necks with gasoline, Sub-Saharan Africa is wide open to act as our new "role model". Hell, they're even still selling slaves in 2021. The left has done quite a job in making them our new civilizational template.
Like in the movie "Dave," where Kevin Kline replaces the President as a double?
Except now (in this weird sequel) he's been called upon to replace Bill Gates' wife?
Melinda Gates is a Roman Catholic . . . but only in the loose sense that the current Pope is a "Roman Catholic". Read: Vatican mafia.
- Footnote: I've noticed that the modern "globalism" movement seems to be patterned after the older template set by Catholicism. Even the term "catholic" comes from the word meaning "universal, or global". So the "Catholic Church" means "the GLOBAL church". Like Catholicism, globalism is based on sin and indulgences. Under Catholicism, the world was ending due to your sinfulness, but you could get out of it by giving the church money. In globalism, the world is ALSO ending . . . due to the sinfulness of capitalism and consumption. This is causing global warming. But you can stave off Armageddon by sending the U.N.a global tax to create a slushfund for unelected, unaccountable technocrats. In Catholicism, the body was held to be immoral, with women pledging to be nuns. In globalism, the body is held to be immoral, with women vowing not to have babies due to their carbon footprint. Even their terminology is similar, with the Church controlling science and jailing Galileo for wrong-think as a "heretic," and Globalists controlling science and ostracizing [read: excommunicating] anyone who goes against science-by-politician as a "denialist". Denialist? That sounds religious in tenor. Long story short: A lot of the same social control mechanisms used by the church in the Middle Ages are being used now by technocrats, but with a secular twist. Globalism is merely religion, as re-envisioned by atheists. It has all the tools and outward trappings of a religion, but without God at its core. It's empty in its middle. Hollow.
Correction of title: "How 'Woke' Teachers Nationwide Have Cancelled Shakespeare, But Can't Replace Him With African Authors from the Same Time-Period, Because They Were Pre-Literate." I love how Shakespeare's "wrong-think" from 4 centuries ago is considered worse than Africans still selling slaves in the year 2021. Yet Africans = Good, and the Europeans Who Banned Slavery and Gave The World Technology = Bad. These "woke teachers" only think slavery is bad because white people told them it was. Dump their asses in the Sudan and let them find our REAL QUICK that the rest of the world still very much believes in slavery. Then they can come back and apologize to the white people they slandered.
Ask Issac Kappy about that.
It's akin to the left claiming that Al Jolson-style blackface is radioactive . . . as they promote Eminem (who is just a minstrel without the makeup). The minstrel industry is alive and well today. What the heck do you think Elvis was? He was just a minstrel, minus the face-paint. Same thing with Mick Jagger, sticking out out his lips and bugging his eyes as he shook his butt in a primitive (and insulting) imitation of black singers. Eminem is just the latest in a long line of white people, speaking like black people and doing musical acts to make money.
He's just Amos and Andy, without the makeup. Shocking how the lack of facepaint disguises it, like Clark Kent wearing eyeglasses to hide the fact that he's "Superman". As a kid you're like, "Surely, they're not that stupid! You can CLEARLY see it's Clark Kent! Eyeglasses fooled you?" Meanwhile Eminem is like, "The lack of face paint fooled you? I'm a minstrel, bitch! And this shit be lucrative. I make mo' money now than Al Jolson did a hun'did years ago!"
Actually [to be more specific] the Roman word for slave was "servus" [serf]. See here: https://imgur.com/a/ZPnEfTU The Romans didn't generally enslave Slavs, but Germans and Gauls. The large-scale enslavement of Slavs was done in the Middle Ages, after the Muslims established the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the ones who had a large footprint in the Slavic slave-trade. And it was Jewish merchants who would wander into Christian villages, kidnap women and children and then sell them to the Ottomans. This is at the heart of the historical friction between Polish, Ukrainian and Russian communities and Jews.
These same human trafficking corridors are still in operation today from Eastern Europe to Tel Aviv, Israel (run by Jeffrey Epstein-style traffickers).
See the etymology of "Slave" here: late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery. Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave So, according to Etymonline, "slave" didn't enter the English language until the 13th Century: i.e., the Middle Ages. Before then, slave was not used as a word; serf was.
- Footnote: After the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire, all trade routes to the Silk Road were cut off. Christians could not travel east without fear of being murdered by Muslims or captured and enslaved. Muslims, likewise, were forbidden to travel into Christian territory. Only one group was allowed to travel back and forth between the two zones with impunity, giving them a tremendous mercantile advantage. This group of merchants were known for selling everything from silks to spices to artisan's goods . . . to, yes, slaves (one of the most lucrative items). To this day, slavery generates more money internationally than narcotics. The same was true in the Middle Ages.The Eastern Europeans they captured and sold to the Ottomans were called "Mamelukes" in Turkey.
You're 100% right! A third party could never work. Which is why we still have the Whig party.
Wait! What?
The Republican Party WAS a third party?
But . . . but . . . YOU said that third parties don't work. (We're still Federalists and Whigs, right?)
Third parties never win, correct?
No! You're right: We should just maintain the corruption we have now and never change. Which is why I'm glad we never had an American Revolution, and resigned ourselves to working within the British Court system. It's 2021. Have the courts in London given us our freedom yet?