She's more Asian-Indian than she is black.
At least Obama was 50/50. Kamala isn't even that. She's clinging to the black identity as a virtue signal to the left. That's it. She's trying to buy street cred by over-representing her black ancestry.
(100% Indian mother, mixed race Jamaican father with white ancestry who was also a major slave owner.)
It's almost ironic that these racists who go around calling everyone else racist are so obsessed with the "one drop rule" that anyone who is even a minority fraction black is, in their eyes, totally black and is only ever identified as black because that wins them oppression points and thus a higher ranking on their progressive stack.
My message was much less polite when I did the same earlier.
The Biden Inaugural Committee stream or whatever it is claims to have over 1.7M viewers.
I can't help but wonder how many fake viewers they've drummed up, just like the 200,000 flags they put on the mall to pretend to have an audience, because they wouldn't let actual Americans in because they knew they would all chant Trump's name and boo Biden.
These people have learned well from their CCP masters.
Why are you hating on Gab?
You have some kind of a problem with verified Gab users? o.O
I'm confused.
First, yes, the vast majority of biblical scholars today. That is, most of the actual scholars of Christianity agree with me. Not you.
Second, as I clearly stated, the vaccine and the patent that includes the digits 060606 are totally unrelated.
WO2020060606 - CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY ACTIVITY DATA
And from YOUR OWN LINK...
This is likely where the Twitter user got the idea that the vaccine will change your DNA. The thing is, that’s not how transfection works. Let’s look at this list of vaccine proposals from the University of Michigan’s health department for examples. Rather than changing DNA, these vaccines are designed to deliver the instructions for proteins to recreate an immune response to COVID-19 using the genes of the virus.
Finally, let’s look into mRNA. According to NIH’s National Cancer Institute, mRNA (also known as messenger RNA) carries genetic information from the DNA in the nucleus of a cell to the cytoplasm where proteins are made. mRNA is naturally created in the human body, and it’s harmless. The tweet is likely referring to the use of synthetic mRNA as a vaccine. We read up on this as well and found several key points, explained well in this fact-check from the Associated Press. First, the use of mRNA vaccines does have complications that scientists are still researching. But most importantly, it is simply not true that mRNA vaccines alter human DNA in any way.
Further...
The vaccine doesn't require luciferin/luciferase etc. They were used in testing to be able to more easily see cellular uptake because the cells would literally fucking glow as a result. That's the whole point of it, and why it includes "lucifer" in the name, which brings us back to my original point about why the word was used in the bible to refer to Jesus and the other guy that some Christians interpreted to mean the devil/satan etc. Because it just means "light bringer" or "light bearer" (or morning star, venus, etc.) That name, which just happens to be lucifer when written in Latin, applied to other things long before the latin version of the bible was written using that word, and continue to mean those things today, separate from cosmic monster connotations of a particular religion that created its own narrative based on a name that they formed long before it crossed their minds to translate the book into latin.
Put bluntly, the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek etc... not Latin. It was only later translated into Latin. So the word "lucifer" existed already in another language unrelated to the bible, referring to something that had nothing to do with the cosmic baddy in question, and in the context of the latin language itself and its standard usage in scientific terminology remains so today.
It also, as most Christian scholars agree with me, is used in the Latin Vulgate to refer to both "the devil" or "satan" etc in Isaiah, and at least TWICE in the New Testament to Jesus himself, with the latter usage toward Jesus being much more clear and unarguable than the reference in the Old Testament.
Your argument is about as stupid as having a phrase "water bringer", and then someone writing a story where for some reason a main bad guy happens to also have a nickname of "water bearer" for some reason... and then later you translate that story into a different language, where the word "blather" means "water bearer", and so that word ends up being a nickname for that bad guy that sticks and becomes a sort of proper name itself rather than a description, such that when the story gets translated into other languages, they don't translate the word into the other language, but leave it as "Blather" instead.... and then a long time later the speakers of that language are working on an enzyme that transports water in cells, and so they call the enzyme "blatherase" because the word LITERALLY FUCKING MEANS WATER BEARING ENZYME, and mouth breathing retards like you start frothing at the mouth because it must mean that this water bearing enzyme, as the name LITERALLY FUCKING MEANS, must actually be a code word for this enzyme being in league with the cosmic baddy, rather than you dumb fucks just misapplying a phrase in scripture and turning it into a name for a character in your story that you then stopped translating along the way for some unknown reason and now seem to think that the actual speakers of that language can't use their own fucking language anymore because you idiots borrowed a word from their language and applied it to someone in your story once.
(Which reminds me of how Jesus is just a bastardization of the Greek translation of his Hebrew name, and how he would more accurately be called Joshua (from the original Yeshua), not Jesus, if we went straight from Hebrew (Yeshua) to English (Joshua), rather than Hebrew (Yeshua) to Greek (Iesous) to English (Jesus)... and now people think Jesus was his actual name... or similar to how Christ and Messiah are the same word, just in Greek and Hebrew respectively etc... but most people don't know that, and don't even know the two words are in any way related... but I digress...)
Anyway... this whole thing is just spectacularly retarded on your part.
Further...
Gates' patent has nothing to do with the vaccine. The 060606 patent is entirely unrelated to the vaccine or to coronavirus. 666 isn't even necessarily the Number of the Beast, as our oldest sources actually give it as 616.
Papyrus 115 (which is the oldest preserved manuscript of the Revelation as of 2017), as well as other ancient sources like Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, give the number of the beast as χιϛ or χιϲ (transliterable in Arabic numerals as 616) (χιϛ), not 666; critical editions of the Greek text, such as the Novum Testamentum Graece, note 616 as a variant.
Further, the covid vaccine does not use Luciferin or Luciferase. These were only used on mice etc in lab testing, for obvious reasons.
Further, the quantum dots do not contain any Luciferin/Luciferase either.
Further, the quantum does are just a copper based pattern of dots just under the skin, like a normal tattoo, that show only vaccination history. Nothing else.
- https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/
- https://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
- https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/11/523/eaay7162
Basically every single point about this is just ignorant piles of bullshit all smashed together from either tiny pieces of totally different stories, or just whole cloth fiction pulled straight out of someone's ass with zero connection to anything in reality.
I was just commenting initially to point out the stupidity of getting one's panties in a bunch about the references to luciferin or luciferase in some of the related studies. It's not even in either the vaccines or the quantum dot tech.
The *ONLY remotely valid questions one might raise about this technology would be in relation to privacy concerns (having some part of your medical record visible on your skin, even if you might need a special program on your phone to see it), or maybe in light of the covid bullshit these days, the concern that governments might decide to limit your freedoms based on you not having the covid vaccine. A valid concern, but not in any way related to ancient middle eastern superstitions and cultural mythology.
The more you keep trying to cling to your shit argument, and spew out more nonsensical and self-contradictory bullshit, the more stupid you look.
I'm done wasting time on this.
If someone has a valid question/response, I'll consider answering, but at this point the issue has been addressed clearly enough.
End of story.
Is that why I linked to Christianity.com and you can find this all over biblical scholarship as a reference to Jesus in Peter?
The "transfiguration" was the moment witnessed by Peter, James, and John when Christ was revealed in His bright and shining glory (Luke 9:28–36). The voice of God from heaven declared that Jesus is His Son (2 Peter 1:16–18). The reality of that event confirms the Old Testament prophecies. Peter has the privilege of eyewitness testimony, of both that single event and all of Jesus' other signs. This vindicates everything which had been written about the Messiah by the prophets of old.
Many of those prophesies were fulfilled with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Other prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. We still live in a world of darkness. But those prophecies about Jesus, including the ones about His return as judge and king, are a lamp in our darkness. They encourage us, lead us, and educate us. But these lamps, those prophecies, will no longer be needed when the day comes, when Christ returns.
Peter describes Jesus as the morning star, a name also used of Him in Revelation 22:16. Jesus will bring lasting light to the world and also to our hearts.
And...
- https://www.simplybible.com/f415-2pet-the-morning-star.htm
- https://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-19.htm
- https://www.truelife.org/answers/aren-t-jesus-and-satan-both-referred-to-as-the-morning-star
And on, and on, and on, and on...
Keep grasping at straws.
(Again, it's also in Revelation 2:28. And these are mainstream biblical scholarship. You're just illustrating either your own ignorance of the bible, or your own dishonesty. I'm not sure which it is. But neither is really my problem.)
And again, the patent HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE VACCINE OR THE CORONAVIRUS. It's related to data-mining like with cryptocurrency. Like wearable tech that uses your movement to generate randomness for cryptomining. Not even nanotech.
And the number isn't 666 or even 060606. The 060606 is only the end of a longer string.
This entire thing is just layers upon layers of ignorance and stupidity.
Please, for all our sake... get a clue.
It's just a different way of getting the same general result.
Putting the weakened or dead disease in your system to trigger the immune system is kind of a blunt force way of triggering the immune response. The mRNA way of doing it just takes a tiny bit of code that tells your cells to make a little piece of a protein that is used in part of the "spikes" on the outside of the coronavirus, which it uses to enter our cells. This little piece of part of the virus is enough to trigger your immune system to be on the lookout for when this potentially shows up as part of the whole virus later on, without any living or dead disease needed.
They're both triggering immune responses, just via two different methods.
(Similar "vaccines" can be custom tailored to cure many types of cancer as well, as each cancer is just the DNA in a cell breaking and causing it to no longer kill itself off when it's made too many copies of itself. But that's another topic. Definitely worth familiarizing yourself with.)
Did you even read what I wrote?
No, you didn't.
I specifically said, and quoted, 2 Peter 1:19 as referring to Jesus, and Isaiah referring to "the devil" as many Christians (incorrectly) believe (as I already elaborated on a bit more in another comment earlier as well.)
So no, I never said that Isaiah referred to Jesus.
Please try reading what I actually wrote. Thanks.
Except that they're not.
Lucifer is only called that because of an apocryphal link between "the devil" or "satan" and a reference to the the morning star in Isaiah that doesn't even refer to the devil, but instead to a human king. The latin word "lucifer" was used because it literally just meant the morning star or light bringer.
If you can't understand why scientists would use latin to name something perfectly correctly as a light bearing enzyme, despite some religious people having misinterpreted the bible and taken the literal latin word that was used to describe a king in a story and incorrectly having ascribed it to some fictional cosmic bad guy, and that their intention had nothing to do with this uneducated story, and everything to do with the ACTUAL MEANING OF THE WORD THEY ACTUALLY USED IN THE CORRECT LANGUAGE FOR SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY, then you're just retarded and beyond my help.
Good luck with that.
See my comment a few minutes ago. That patent doesn't even have anything to do with the vaccine or coronavirus.
If I have reservations about the vaccine, it's due to it being rushed. Not in relation to the efficacy of vaccines in general, nor certainly anything to do with these laughably ignorant and delusional claims about lucifer and the antichrist based on easily refuted ignorant and wildly misinformed (or intentionally dishonest) ramblings.
To answer your first question;
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/jesus-and-satan-referred-to-as-the-morning-star.html
And to illustrate it in both English and Latin;
First, Jesus in 2 Peter 1:19 (the Christianity.com article above incorrectly references 2 Peter 2:19, but it's actually in 1:19.);
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
And "the devil" in Isaiah 14:12
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!)
And then to answer your second question;
https://www.healthandsciencefacts.com/post/bill-gates-chips-in-vaccines
What Microsoft did was patent the idea that human body movement or even brainwaves could aid in data mining by providing a secure way to prove that a human is behind the activity and not a bot. The technology has nothing to do with the coronavirus or vaccines. Also, the technology to do this isn't nanotechnology (think more like a wearable device) so it couldn't fit in a vaccine. Additionally, the technology isn't designed to invade your privacy, this would be a technology that data miners would purposefully adopt to earn bitcoin. Lastly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus. One version of the story is that the patent number: 060606 is a vaccine that Bill Gates created before the SARS-Cov-2 virus to trick people into getting his vaccine. Which he plans on using for nefarious purposes of course, i.e. population control, testing new drugs, mind control. Of course, Bill Gates hasn't developed a vaccine, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provides billions of dollars for vaccine research. The partial patent, # 060606, has been shortened to 666 by some groups to show that this patent reflects the Mark of the Beast. The full number is WO2020060606. Conspiracy theorists have carefully taken this to mean: Wuhan 2020 - 666. The WO is in reference to WIPO and the 2020060606 is the entire number assignment and not a date. Regardless of the fact that the Patent Office is the one that assigns these, that the virus was already in existence in 2019, and that the patent has nothing to do with vaccines. The myth continues to spread. The actual patent is here.
Hopefully that answers both your questions to your satisfaction.
Not this ignorant shit again...
Luciferase comes from the Latin "Lucifer", which simply means "light bringer", and even Jesus was called Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate due to this.
Luc- (Lux) for "light", and -fer for "bearer".
Also known as the morning star.
So just like every other Latin based scientific name, they're naming an enzyme that FUCKING GLOWS as Luciferase because it *drumroll* brings light.
Not because some particular religious sect happened to also take that Latin word and come up with the story that it also applies to the devil somehow after the fact.
That story comes after the word itself already meant light bringer.
Luciferase is a generic term for the class of oxidative enzymes that produce bioluminescence, and is usually distinguished from a photoprotein. The name was first used by Raphaël Dubois who invented the words luciferin and luciferase, for the substrate and enzyme, respectively. Both words are derived from the Latin word Lucifer – meaning lightbearer.
Luciferases are widely used in biotechnology, for microscopy and as reporter genes, for many of the same applications as fluorescent proteins. However, unlike fluorescent proteins, luciferases do not require an external light source, but do require addition of luciferin, the consumable substrate.
For a site full of Christians, you folks don't seem to even have biblical scholarship 101 under your belts.
It reminds me of the same level of ignorance as people who see a "swastika" on an ancient Asian temple, or native American design, and instantly claim "Nazis!" instead of realizing that these uses long predate the Nazis by centuries and have nothing to do with that particular later usage, other than both happening to have drawn from the same original root meaning to create something completely different and almost wholly unrelated to each other.
Sites like 4chan, 8kun, or the late voat.co etc were actual free speech platforms, or at least a lot closer to it.
You could say anything you wanted so long as it wasn't illegal. Yes, all of the things you just said.
(I think about the most you'd get bitched at for was posting something off-topic in a particular group. You were free to make your own section, or post in the appropriate section, etc... but if you were posting gay porn in a straight porn section, that might get your post moved or get you in trouble, or if you were posting my little pony crap in a political section that might also raise hackles. The site itself was a broader platform for enabling these things, and pretty much anything outside of illegal went in the comments etc. I think that while not 100% unlimited, they were/are much more free speech oriented. Voat specifically being started precisely to be an actual free speech alternative to Reddit. And of course because of that it was full of neo-nazis, racists, etc. But at least it didn't ban them or forbid them because it didn't want to offend people.)
This site is not that. I wouldn't care if it weren't trying to promote itself as such.
Now of course you have an argument for limiting free speech, because as you said, you limit your audience by not doing so. You also reduce the signal to noise ratio by not limiting free speech because people might be in a particular forum to discuss Donald Trump, but not want to wade through countless posts about sex with animals or whatever else in order to find posts about what they actually want to talk about. Again, there are valid arguments to be made for limiting the scope of discussions in order to have a better signal to noise ratio and make the site more useful for a particular purpose or community.
But that's not making you a free speech site. It's just being a little less restrictive than twitter/facebook, or just catering your censorship to better serve a conservative audience rather than a liberal one.
I think we should be careful about letting the definition of "free speech" be shifted to simply mean a narrower subsection of speech suited to your own particular desired audience. With topics you don't want to talk about being censored in order to promote what you do want to talk about. Just like Facebook and Twitter are censoring things they think people don't want to talk about, or which offend people or push a counter-narrative, etc.
(How many of the people getting banned on this site do you think are actually CIA/FBI/BLM/Antifa etc... vs people who just have different opinions? For example how would we argue for free speech if we had someone coming here and arguing for Marxism or defending Socialism or something and they just got banned instead of debated or ignored? Or how valid would it be to label anyone who actually really was a patriot and firmly believed that violent revolution was the only viable solution today, as being a glowie or something? It's like the left calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi, regardless of whether or not they might actually be one or anything like one in reality. It's a kneejerk way to justify silencing dissent.)
Again, I understand the arguments for limiting it, and to an extent I agree with them to achieve some of the stated goals that I think we both agree on.
I just don't like that being done while claiming to be some kind of free speech platform. It seriously degrades the meaning of "free speech".
It's like the politicians arguing that the 2nd Amendment only applies to hunting. It ignores the historical meaning, the actual and necessary extent, etc... it's not that it can't also apply to hunting, but that's not the most accurate or even the most important definition of it.
I guess in closing, while Wikipedia is hot lefty garbage these days, these pages can still be worth a read.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
Sorry for the lengthy comments.
Again, you're asking a SLAVE TRADER to turn around. It says "you have no idea what you're bringing here." They obviously know what slavery is, that it already existed, and that they were transporting slaves for it. They knew exactly what they were bringing.
To pretend the meme isn't calling black people the problem would be retarded.
But yes, it would also have prevented BLM, which is Marxist anti-white garbage, and Stacy Abrams, who is also Marxist anti-white garbage... but again, those link to black people being here at all being a problem.
That was the point. To go back and not bring any black people here to begin with so that we wouldn't be stuck with the toxic effects of that today. We'd have less than half the murder, most major cities would see almost all murder disappear overnight, most crime, etc. We'd have vastly higher social trust, social harmony, civic participation, lower corruption, etc etc etc.
As I said, the image is true... it's just not on-topic right now on this website and is actually against the rules. I wouldn't care and would just give you an upvote and go about my day if it weren't for the fact that we're only 3 days away from Biden being inaugurated and our country turning into a communist shit hole and we need to be focusing on THE CORRUPT FRAUDULENT ELECTION rather than validly bitching about how black people are a net burden on this country that we'd be far better off without.
So again, while true, it's off-topic right now, causing a forum slide, which harms our movement, and is technically against the rules.
It's not perfect, but it's better than direct Twitter links.
Screenshots would deprive Twitter of all traffic outside of the initial page load it took to take the screenshot.
The point is to starve Twitter as much as possible and watch them wither on the proverbial vine.
You can't claim to support free speech if you forbid speech that you find offensive.
The two are antithetical.
Free speech NECESSARILY includes the right to be offensive and to promote ideas that you might not like. The TDW people even claimed that they allowed speech that others might agree with, but then turn around and ban speech that might offend people, reduce their traffic, or get them in trouble. They cucked out.
If you won't allow someone to say something racist, then you don't support free speech. You support only that which supports your particular narrative. You're just a mirror image of Reddit. Same bullshit excuses, just on the other side of the aisle.
Is that your best argument?
It's very lefty of you to not be able to understand the difference between free speech and personally desiring to advocate racism and/or violence.
Let me help you a little, progressive shill friend.
It's like the difference between saying "I don't personally want an abortion, but I don't want to have everyone's right to one taken away just because I don't want one" and "I want to kill babies and I'm mad you won't let me."
Try to think real hard about it... maybe you'll get a tiny bit of a clue.
Explain to me what you think the final statement actually means?
Because a slave ship absolutely knows they're bringing slaves. So it's not about slavery being bad.
I think we have a good idea what it means, especially considering the context of everywhere you see it posted on the internet.
It means that the black people themselves being in the US in the future is the problem that they're trying to go back in time to prevent.
That is racist.
While it's true, it's still racist and against the rules, and not even a little bit on topic for the current election crisis.
It's a red herring. A distraction from far more pressing matters which only serves to push more important information down the list of posts and out of site. Forum sliding.
TDW posted a list of future plans, but it's pretty clear they're full of shit and cucking out already... let's consider a few of their statements...
It's time to look out for free speech as a whole, though. Even beyond politics, words, thoughts, truth is censored. We can fight back by branching out and building a larger Community on the internet. A community that promotes free speech, with a place for everyone, even those we might disagree with.
Bullshit. They censor anything that might even have a whiff of racism, despite that being perfectly legal free speech. Or anything that might support pushing back on the government, even if that might potentially lead to violence at some point in the future... again, still constitutionally protected free speech.
Their definition of "free speech" is not even close to the actual legal definition, nor the philosophical principle, and is far closer to that of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Hell, at this point it seems like Facebook might actually end up being better.
Further,
These communities will have strict no-politics rules, Left or Right. Just a place to go to take a break, have a laugh, or learn something about your interests. How the internet used to be, ya know?
Panem et circenses.
They want you to be entertained, and have "free speech" of the Twitter variety.
They're full of shit and turning into the next Reddit right in front of us.
Got a source for that? I think they just said they set things up so they couldn't be taken down, thinking that Epik was part of that. Epik seems like they're going back on their previous stance now due to pressure.
I do agree that it might have sounded like they built it all in-house, but this deal with Epik was never a secret and was kinda "big news" because the left was so outraged that anyone would help them instead of helping the authoritarian left censor everyone's speech they didn't like.
True, but forum slide etc. Stay on topic.
High Energy No forum sliding, consensus cracking, topic dilution, etc.
No Racism No racism, including slurs, non-factual content, and general unfounded bigotry.
STOP POSTING LINKS TO TWITTER!!!!!!!
Use Nitter instead, or post a screenshot. STOP DRIVING TRAFFIC TO THE ENEMY.
Thank you for using Nitter like a winner, instead of Twitter like a retard. :)
They apparently keep deleting the downvotes, but they keep flooding in. They're desperately trying to maintain the lie... but now that they've been forced to re-enable comments due to massive public outcry at their hypocrisy and apparent violation of the very legal arguments they used to force Trump not ban anyone on Twitter lest he violate their freedom of speech, at least there's another way to call them out for their moral bankruptcy.