Friday, February 9, 2018

VoxDay vs. Churchian: Churchian Wins...




Chruchian is, of course, a Marxist and as such sees Murica as a model for his beloved religion of  globalism.

Vox wants to defend Murica as a bastion of nationalism.

The problem for Vox  should be obvious: Hawaii was not one of the original 13 colonies.

In fact around 85% of the United States, as currently defined, was not part of the original 13 colonies who declared independence -only to be screwed over and lose their independence to “the union” via the constitution. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were the George Soros and Bill Gates of their day.

America is a legal construct. It’s created on paper. Irregardless of what the average-Joe colonist presumed

It had no legally specified ethnicity, race, language, religion or even borders.

It’s kinda hard to square American nationalism with the Louisiana Purchase, no?

Dutch, Germans and Irish. Jews too. And then French speakers as Murica’s fluid borders kept moving. Then Spanish Speakers as Murica swallowed up the west. Indians, blacks, Chinese. And then half way out into the frickin Pacific Ocean!

And let’s not forget that Murica tried, TWICE, to invade and subsume Canada.

Since WWII western Europe and east Asia have been occupied by Murican military. And those countries that have been under the Murican thumb have seen their societies transformed into little-Murican McBabylons -and as such their populations are dying out and/or committing mass suicide.



America and all that it stand for is ground zero for the neo-Babylonian world order that is in ascendancy.



THIS is the problem with debating today. Our language has been thoroughly twisted around by the revolutionaries (merchants) who came to power during the industrial revolution/enlightenment.

We speak THEIR twisted language and our thoughts flow from their perverted re-writing of reality.

They’ll win every time if we operate in their paradigm.


As I pointed out in an earlier post, the definition of ‘Tyrant’ used to mean a ruler who denied God God’s rights.

Post-enlightenment the definition was altered 180 degrees to mean a ruler who denied people their rights.





WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH GLOBALISTS.

Even the words we use and their meanings are completely different from theirs.

Imagine opening two dictionaries that all list the same words but have completely different definitions.

That’s where we’re at.

We have our own definitions that are contrary to theirs.


But if you use their definitions, you concede their paradigm. And they win, even if you’re a better debater.