SwampRangers

Very funny Joe (username doesn't check out). According to you, even a board designed directly to host all the forbidden facts of the ConPro community can't handle them. This is the classic appeal to censorship fallacy so beloved among conspiracists. If your facts are such that I can only see them if I already see them, I'm not interested, I'm busy researching the motivations of the founding of the DAP based on demonstrable facts (not so interested in Nuremberg and the stuff I haven't commented on that you seem to presume my views on).
 
I proposed that, if Hitler was right in 1919, the German government should logically still be unshakably pressured to expel 100,000 Jews today. You have not joined the debate on whether Hitler was right about this, whether my conclusion is faulty, or whether he didn't mean it that way. Then you accused me of not debating.

If you wish to have a formal debate we should agree on what debate is. For me, debate requires a clearly defined binary, which you have not provided. It is not ad hominem for me to explain that statements are too ambiguous to refute. (Nor have you tried to give me a timestamp where your link gets any better or more to the point.)
 
Example of debate: On 16 Sep 1919 Hitler wrote that our purpose "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". I can join a binary on this by saying that Hitler was wrong because there was no formal judgment by which every Jewish man, woman and child was found guilty and subject to "removal", and because the later acts by which this removal was attempted did not constitute such a judgment. Today Germany has one of the top ten Jewish populations by country, so it appears Germans at large also disagreed with Hitler. Now you could join this debate by showing what evils the Jews did before 1919 and what competent body heard these charges and merited his judgment. If Hitler was right in 1919, the 100k+ German Jews today, without exception, still call unshakably for removal for the crimes 100 years ago. Maybe one of us can convince the other Hitler was right or wrong on this point, or maybe we will agree to disagree having refined what we know about him and about racism in general. But any of those would be preferable to declining to debate, such as by calling it a "prove it loop" (an exercise I have always found stimulating no matter how concretized the interlocutor).

Well, then you decline the formal debate process. I call on the Arete to agree on one distinction: that between declaring all members of a group guilty without competent judgment, and between proper discrimination against a group based on a preponderance of evidence from representative members. If the Arete remain on the side of "innocent until proven guilty" all is well and our interaction will remain fruitful. If they fail to see this distinction or to put themselves on the side of the American principle of justice, they will be self-destructive.

Pardon me for not seeing this post sooner. The difficulty I have with this one as a thesis is its great ambiguity. Most of Hitler's public statements were political and thus used "right" buzzwords, just like any American politician today wants to say things agreeably. So to say Hitler was right that Christianity is good or that Marxism is bad doesn't do much.
 
Maybe what you mean is that it's right for us to judge some members of Homo sapiens as guilty solely by association. But no mere human can do this without judging himself first by the same standard. So if you'd like to make that the thesis I would be prepared to engage debate on it. The theory of "good racism" falls apart on scrutiny and definition.

First draft lost, as it's harder to save drafts here than at Scored if there is a disruption.
 
I address all facts and indeed paused several of the memes to skim through them. Memes do not become you, as I've known you to also have good historical documents that I haven't seen here; memes don't present facts to address, but preboiled conclusions. You also gave only two ambiguous propositions, and didn't bother to explore them further either.
 
OTOH I gave facts about the connection of the DAP founders to the Thule Society, which is significant as it implies Hitler's race theory was not sourced from the Christian strand of pro-white theory but from the occultists. I noted you ignored the facts.
 
So I don't gatekeep anyone, unless it means I guard the luxury time I have to indulge in sideline conspiracies and pursue only those that have solid starts (like 9/11 or birther). A little speculation about wooden doors and ballpoint pens is not going to raise your conspiracy above fake moon and flat earth, sorry. Why is it that you don't have a straightforward thesis, formal fact presentation, and inference to best conclusion that you can point to?

Not an attack, just an explanation of which sources I find more cogent. I'm very conspiratorial but also very selective about which voices I give my time to. *Marching for Zion* was much better in orderly presentation of facts and I made it all the way through in a few sittings. My offer to debate propositions in search of truth stands anytime. Blasting me for not wanting to watch an hour of your disconnected memes is not a test of the pursuit of truth.
 
I noted you ignored the facts suggesting that Nazi race theory originates more from occult than from Christian sources.
 
>Attacking format is a favorite tactic of the jew
 
So Jews started the nose noticing trend themselves? Likely.

Sorry I didn't see your missed ping. I was going to stop at 50, same as C, but I kept getting invited to co-mod other boards so I count 58 and I'm likely to stop at 60 now. I've built a reputation as mod of Christianity for a year along with C and Perun, and that is humming along quite well; I was invited to be a mod of GAW but declined.
 
I want to applaud u/admin for putting "no name squatting" in the rules here, because if the Scored admins had implied that was their intent I would have obeyed. Since they made explicit by their actions that name reservation was wide open to the taker, I selected two slates of names and demonstrated intent to populate in good faith, and Perun even personally expressed his trust in my plan and his hope that good communities would drive out bad, in one of my earliest subs. If a community arises that wants some other purpose than the default forum purpose, I can negotiate with them to everyone's satisfaction.
 
I'm mingling here because I'm looking for the excellence of arete. Truth will prevail and the excellent will see it without petty dispute. I seek to contribute positively to the platform purposes and my contributions so far will reflect that.

Not me, I think I downvoted one comment before I realized the votes are probably publishable AFAIK.
 
It's not powermodding if it's self-determining, and "subversion" is not wrong if it means Jesus overturning tables.

Ordinarily I don't even bother with movies because they're not searchable or skimmable. I gave up after 3 minutes of memes with a speaker overtalking them. Oh, it might be a better fit to argue questionable results if I took his data and said we have 450,000 alleged bodies in 3 months in one location that we were watching and didn't see any dirt from mass graves or smoke from mass burns. But that's a very general statement and I don't doubt that he has some experience behind it but you don't convince people by being generic.
  
Normally **to debunk a mass mistaken view** an author would sequentially need to present several lines of narrative in response: a documentation of the actual data presented by the apologists for the mistake; a demonstration of reasons why the data is mistaken or conflicted; an alternate explanation for how the data arose and came together; and facts that argue in favor of the alternate explanation. For 9/11 we have all those lines, for instance.
  
It seems strange to me that **when people recommend me things about Holocaust denial and Nazi purity, they never follow that approach.** For instance, in about 3 minutes, the same time it took to form an opinion about your link, I noticed in WP that *the DAP (later NSDAP) was founded by Karl Harrer, a member of the Thule Society or Germanenorden Walvater, a secret society founded by occultist Rudolf von Sebottendorf.* These appear to be historical facts stated straightforwardly, and they pique my learning interest for source-based research much more than memes theorizing about wooden doors and ballpoint pens.
  
Now your own memes are generally more fact-based and historical than this, and I value that. But the general movement refuses to put forward a consistent narrative by a known public figure in a cogent series of progressive demonstrations. And that is a big weakness for it. **I love conspiracies,** but some are true at the core and some are just trying to make much of human inconsistency that is better explained by other reasons than the core hoax belief.
  
Tell you what. **Make one or three propositions that you wish to educate me on, and I'll tell you where I stand on them and we can see what I can still learn.** You make two propositions here, for example. On #1 I can see some support for the idea that Hitler advanced public Christianity, but I also see support for the idea that diehard followers of Jesus were persecuted by him, and thus the upshot of his work may have been that Christianity became more statist. On #2 I can certainly affirm that many Jews are satanists, as are even more Gentiles; and Jews are the "curators of communism" in generally having a special affinity and advocacy for it; but to use the statement unvarnished, as it implies "all" Jews are satanists, cannot be concluded as a proposition without dogmatic racial theory. So you've produced propositions where I would need to define what you say before I could approve them with the meaning you do.
  
If you'd like to present propositions for testing in such a way that I can affirm their binary negation, then we'd be able to join a more formal debate. I appreciate your interest.

It's not really a coincidence. I compiled evidence on Scored that Prince Vladimir adopted the trident on his coins *because* he had conquered the Khazars who used it; his father's tamga was markedly different. However, those who credit the Khazars with converting to Judaism must also credit Kievan Rus with converting to Orthodox Christianity about 988, so the trident tamga thus becomes a symbol adopted by Christians.
 
In its modern incarnation it draws on many different traditions including these two. Therefore even with the Jewish conversion there are many strands of symbolic input, not just Jewish.

I can hail victory and the general victory of the white race over satanists. I'm not prepared to allow people to conclude that I hail the particular victory of Hitler's ideals that would be reasonably applied from this phrase unqualified, because I don't know enough about Hitler's ideals to affirm them. It seems to me that, due to public perception, affirming Hitler is a sure route to losing in the same way that affirming flat earth is. However, with flat earth I see a way through (which is why my alt is now specializing in that theory), and I still haven't found a way through for Hitler yet. Here to learn.

I'd love to know where you're going with this.

Logged in just so I could upvote this (except the specific application of the last two words).

The issue is as u/else says that visiting rdrama dot net may capture enough packet data to track you down and the uptick today in traffic from Scored users to rdrama's site may have given them something that allowed them to hack or guess the password of "the top moderator in c/ConsumeProduct". That's a very specific charge and I don't remember who it was on top, do you?
 
Rdrama is living up to its name but we need to fight drama with meh and indifference. I was shocked that their troll generated 700 comments in one thread by people trying to reason with a website that claims it cannot be trusted because its purpose is to create divisive drama. Then these same people added like 50 new posts to c/rdrama just to fill it up when it was already controlled by the dramatists and this would be useless.
 
DONT FEED THE TROLLS>

I am agnostic and have no denial or affirmation in those words because you refuse to define or specify.
 
I affirm that Jews like Klaus Schwab are responsible via Great Reset processes for white suffering and white genocide as defined by Getty Images to include one or more of Uighur genocide, Armenian genocide, Syrian genocide, and so on. That's the best I've got so far. Is this how you treat all newbs?

I don't feel at all about it.
 
If this quiet backwater survives and takes off like Scored in attracting attention for doing all the right things, I won't envy you at all. But I will be around to encourage you to accountable stewardship.

I faked it, it was probably a few seconds off.
 
Ooh, admin edits, thanks so much. A spaced abbreviation forum, thanks so much.

Every one of those out-of-context glosses (some of which are not even in the Talmud but are in the Responsa) is taken originally from interpreting some passage of the OT, which ought to be in your holy book.
  
If you want me to show you the Christian path by which we have limited, regulated permission to kill and "rob" nonmembers (i. e. not under those names but under legal and moral execution and expropriation), I'll show you.
  
Blaming others for our sins, other than laying blame on Jesus himself, is a touchier subject, but it's not really addressed here; only alluded in 3 or 4 glosses about deceiving. Most Christians recognize the just-war principle of disinformation, and so any dissimulation or blame mischaracterization is understandable.
  
2:22:22 2/22/22

I've never opened an account on Reddit. I don't powermod because all my communities are open to direction and moderation by their contributors. Sorry if I missed a comment, my last Sabbath was very restful, usually we go to a Christian church on Sat morning but this week we spent time with family and friends.
 
If someone wants to call me a Jew or any other category, I've decided not to fight that directly because as an anon it is better to suffer with others being overly deprecated rather than to distance myself from my defense against their hyperdeprecation.

So you're saying it's ConPro rearranged.
 
Functionality is fine but comparable to Scored. Content, well, maybe I'm looking for ParallelSociety.

So username doesn't check out?
 
All races have predilections (predispositions) to faults and temptations; white men can't jump. What turns off normies is when language becomes absolutist. All you need is to add "typically" and "often" relative words to your speech and it instantly flips the switch from muh racism to hmm you may have a point.
 
We have these anon graphics covered with Magen Davids but in the fine print it says *most* and *a majority* and it never calls out the goyim in equal positions as being just as criminally culpable of having the same grasping, jockeying careerism, plus all the hidden crimes. They may be legally accurate (I don't know) but they fail to get over the hump because they're so obviously cherry-picked even when there are lots of cherries. The parens have the same problem of making yourself glow rather than their target. As a follower of the pureblood God-man you'll see the wisdom of this.
 
For OP, you can point out that Griffin's Jekyll Island calls it the Rothschild Formula when banksters fund both sides of a war and profit from the indebtedness, for a reason. Division is stoked by those who can sell the war machines demanded by the divided. TIL the banksters funded both sides of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, crippling both and leading to Bolshevism under the watchful eye of the Napoleonic goyische Edward House (not to be confused with White House, where he practically lived).
 
Appreciated your long post!

I agree but for a different reason. Calling the perpetrators globalists or illuminati or cabalists is perfectly accurate and baggage-free by their public actions. Calling them satanists is also valid when there is public symbolism data. Those who know the Hebrew origin of cabal and satan will agree; the first "satanists" were necessarily Semitic by definition.
 
Calling them The Jews hastily unnecessarily makes us attackers of their children and loses our focus on the shabbos goyim like Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, Carroll Quigley, and Nancy Pelosi. I'm now saying NAME THE JEW, and the satanist, for real, rather than just naming "The Jews", blaming the group without making real or specific charges. The based are shown by their ability to name names.