As Jewish Heritage Month Begins, Let's Recognize Donald Trump's Achievements
David Friedman
May 7, 2024
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112409265676102328
The optics of the muhjoo shilling on 8kun QR has shifted from
"pretending to be "Qanons" to smear and slander Q, anons, and the site as anti-semitic"
to
"Shit, now everybody sees us as leftists funded by Biden donors who hate Q, anons and the site".
Must suck to be losing that bad.
According to the muhjoo logic, if a jew does not speak in defense of Q+ they're to be "called out and separated", while if they do speak out in defense of Q+, they're to be "called out and separated".
In other words, the very same bigotry George Washington referenced in 1790:
"Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens".
>jew is a made up word, never existed before 1500AD
False.
Galatians 3:28 KJV
"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"
Muhjoo logic is imploding just like anti-white racism logic is imploding.
The muhjoos blame "the jews" while simultaneously claiming "jew" isn't real and is just a made up word.
Coincidentally last night Q+ truthed an article from Rich Lowry who wrote:
"Much of the commentary reflects the contradictory argument that anti-white racism isn’t really a thing, yet, at the same time, is absolutely essential to racial progress. The same twisted reasoning was often used when the CRT controversy was at its height; critical race theory was either a right-wing myth or foundational to the truthful teaching of America’s past, or somehow both. There should be a long German word for this rhetorical phenomenon."
Bingo. Anon has been seeing these forms of rhetorical inconsistencies for years from the radical left complex. A rhetoric that contains multiple statements that are internally inconsistent.
Another example is publicly declaring anti-semitism is wrong, while privately funding anti-semitic camps on college campuses, or turning a blind eye to it as commander in chief because your donors are those funding the camps.
While on the surface it looks like a mistake in cognition, underneath there is a purpose to it, the contradictory messages are intended to be "heard" by different listeners, some the one message, others the other message, who thereby are to become divided against each other.
Then the sources of those inconsistencies end up having a form of ideological control over the people divided by the inconsistent messaging, the real goal all along of the "mistakes in cognition".
Not sure what the long German word is for this rhetoric, anon has for years called it "dialectic projection", even if doing so betrays other definitions used in philosophical circles. Anon uses "dialectic" because philosophically the epistemology of a universe ontologically divided originated with the neoPlatonist Plotinus, and anon uses "projection" because the movement of the rhetoric is not an observation of anything real outside the source speaker (because every A is an A), but is rather a phenomena of the speaker referencing the structure of their own self-alienated psychology of seeing self as divided, divided within, and divided from all of humanity in some way.
Imagine a person publicly self-described as Christian, publicly claimed a big problem in the world is anti-Christianity, while in private they funded NGOs they knew were anti-Christian NGOs that target Christians for harassment or worse.
What would you think about that person's statements and actions?
That's what this anon defines as dialectic projection. Projecting a dialectic of division that they themselves are bringing about.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112409274326036588
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/yes-fight-anti-white-racism/
KJV was written before 1500AD.
The passage refutes the false claim jew is a word that didnt exist pre 1500AD.
Id is not from Obama's handlers. It's fake.
The birth certificate is from Obama's handlers. It's real in the sense that they claim it's real despite it being faked.
The version King James established had already been written prior to 1500AD, the word jew is the english word translated from the Hebrew names/words Judah, Judea, Yehudi.
It wasn't "made up after 1500AD".
By that silly logic, any time a new reference variable name pointing to the same object is created, that we're supposed to believe that the underlying object only came into existence upon the new reference variable name declaration.
Paul wrote the Epistle to Galatians in Greek. According to Westcott-Hort, Byzantine Majority and Textus Receptus, the original greek text was:
οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
This literally translates to "neither Jew nor Greek" in English.
Are you trying to be dense or is it coming naturally?
When a text is translated from one language to another, for example a philosophy text written in German in the 1700s translated to English 2024, it is BULLSHIT to claim that the translated word REFERENCING THE SAME OBJECT THE GERMAN WORD POINTED TO, suddenly ceases to exist, suddenly never existed, and that the 2024 text is brand new and nobody can say that the statements were first made 2024.
It would be like saying mathematics was invented once it was translated from greek to english.
>jew means in current english
It's not going unnoticed that you're trying to redefine in the present to retroactively deny a past definition.
Kek
How so?
But saying what YOU said, by YOUR own logic doesn't make YOU correct.
"You just think you are".
The logic of the "jew is a made up word" arguments here pretty much boils down to "only I am allowed to speak the word and only I know the meaning, you're not allowed to speak the same word because when you say it I declare your definition is different, so if you do speak it then you're talking about something different".
It's just the same muh sad way of controlling people's speech.
kek, now you just proved you don't even trust your own garbage but for whatever reason are compelled to write it.
Nobody who is confident in their statements need to write unverifiable "I am a graduate of gender studies and I can tell you that biological sex is a myth, I'm setting the record straight".
kmao