quality video
Really Good White Genocide Documentary Released
Wyatt Reyes
Isaiah Wilson
Lucas Clark
Terrible editing all around, but very good information.
Thomas White
I thought it was pretty clean.
Caleb Campbell
1/2
Good thread so far but the second screencap is nothing but biblical "interpretation" and not the actual historical context of the bible as written by jews. Spreading interpretations masks the actual intent of the biblical (((authors))) and misdirects people into thinking that the bible has legitimacy and then the other harmful elements of the bible go unnoticed. Let me break it down for those who might already be mislead by it:
The Genesis 9:1 and 1:28 quotes are explicitly about the fact that there were supposedly no other human beings around that time. That's the limit to where that meaning extends. Instead that poster offers it as proof of his thesis, tacking on context that doesn't exist such as, "It is clear that God wants human beings to live separated in their own countries and nations."
The next point is about the tower of babel. This story is self-contradictory in so many ways because the main point of that story is to explain where all the different people came from, it has to backtrack and that poster has to even skip ahead to reflect back. The problem this stems from is that it comes from the story of noah which is one of the biggest examples of plagiarism in the bible. Since noah's family is all that's left after the flood, that essentially means that all people descend from noah. To make things worse, all God did was invent the other languages and "scatter" people. The poster wants to frame the context as if God's action resolves the entire issue but he is completely ignoring the part where the story essentially says we're all related but have different languages. That and the tower of babel story is another case of plagiarism.
The next paragraph is another example of circular reasoning. The poster started off his post with his headcanon that instances of the word nation actually means family. This is also contradictory since he offers no explanation for what happens if the opposite, family, is mentioned. He wants the reader to take his word for it.
The second focuses on Leviticus 21:14-25 and fills in those posts with his interpretative headcanon. There is no biblical basis for his symbolic-definition of priest, nor the torn cloth symbolism. His pre-emptive defense of the context - listed as 1) - is valid so I'll give him a point. However, he tries to dodge the counter-argument he himself brings up for 2), "It is true that God commands us to only marry other believers but that is a completely different commandment that's brought up on many other occasions as a separate argument." He is disingenuously trying to dismiss it because it is used to explain other things, so he won't explain it. The fact of the matter is that God's commandments in the bible about racemixing only hinge on the risk of not following another deity if you do so. This is repeated multiple times in the bible:
>Deuteronomy 7:2-5 and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you and you defeat them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, because they will turn your sons away from Me to worship other gods. Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and He will swiftly destroy you. Instead, this is what you are to do to them: tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, cut down their Asherah poles, and burn up their carved images.
This condition is repeated multiple times: 1 Kings 11:1-5, Nehemiah 13:24-27, Judges 3:5-8, to name a few.
Aiden Perry
2/2
The third post tries to run a victory lap and stipulates on the context of Ezekiel 44:22 on the phrase, "Of the seed," trying to equate that to genetics. While he finally admits that this has been interpretation all along, he tries to deny the specific condition that God puts in place that the reason they (wives) have to be from Israel is because they would be believers. Of course, all of this is completely pointless because it is instructions meant for jews. Moreso when he's trying to flat out deny that condition referenced earlier, he doesn't even mention the specific passage - that's how far he wants to bury it.
The final post starts off by repeating his thesis. He tries to have it both ways by combining the all-one-with-christ symbolism with but separate. At this point he's done trying to pre-emptively defend counter-arguments and simultaneously dodging them so he launches a bunch of questions raised as points. Taken at face value it sounds like he's building a semblance of some argument based around stuff that supposedly happened with jesus. But then we get to the jesus problem itself.
Galations 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
So right now there's a christian that's upset that this famously controversial passage is referenced. And some of you are just learning that jesus was pretty progressive because he doesn't believe male or female - jesus doesn't subscribe to what tumblr calls binary genders. But I like to read to the end of the chapter:
Galations 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
So that poster got done stipulating that seed or genetics is a factor, but it turns out that as long as you're christian then you're an honorary descendant of abraham. And as established earlier, god only cares that you marry a believer. Oh about that nation thing:
Acts 10:34-35 - Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
So in the end it doesn't matter about where you get your wife or where some other nation's guy gets his wife. God doesn't show favoritism, as long as they believe and if they believe they're of abraham's seed. Again, all of this is a moot point because the old testament was completely meant for kikes and the new testament was designed to rope in non-jews into this jewish religion. Therein lies the unnecessary unraveling. This is what anyone gets for trying to unravel jewish text. You're now aware that that screencap was taken by the guy who posted it.
Gabriel Ortiz
I get the potential implications but Tarzan is an Englishman like Jane, the Prince in Beauty & the Beast is actually a handsome White man cursed for being a cunt, Aladdin does not feature race mixing, Emperors New Grove is about a cunt who learns to be a much more humble leader, and Mulan (despite the obvious girl power cancer) is so nationalistic I'm surprised it got past the censors. The rest of that and the obvious implications are indeed fucking cancer and this is good OC. I just wanted to add a little perspective. Race mixing and muh Noble Savage shit is not ok.
Brody Turner
True, without qualification. Never forget, my brothers.
Elijah Peterson
Oh God, not this bullshit again - a thousand times answered and debunked, but fishing for the average newfag you yids try your luck again and again. It's all so tiresome™.
Lincoln Kelly
Learn to make a proper thread if you are going to be shekel grabbing.