Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

So Joseph Boot interviewed Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin at ReformCon. The topic was biblical manhood and masculinity, despite the fact that Sandlin is a land whale. But as bad as the optics are, his argumentation is worse: 🐋There are counterfeit masculinities in the world, usually focused on physical strength...

DefiantBaptist's profile picture

Defiant Baptist

15,785 subscribers

15,915 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

I was asked by USA Today to respond to remarks made by Hasan Piker about Zionism. Piker claimed as follows: “Zionism is the ethnoreligious supremacist ideology that is exterminationist in principle, born out of the wrong assessment that this was a land without people for a people without land. It required the extermination of the indigenous population, and that's precisely what has happened since its inception. And its final iteration of that has been the Gaza genocide that we watched unfold.” You can call a blowtorch an avocado as many times as you want, but it still doesn’t have a seed, and it still isn’t green because it’s still just a blowtorch. The claim that Zionism is an exterminationist ideology is just as nonsensical as calling a blowtorch an avocado. The suggestion that Jews want to exterminate the Arabs who also live on the land is likewise, as it has always been, ludicrous and false. Zionism is a simple idea, which is that Jews have the same rights — not more rights, but also not fewer rights — than every other people on Earth have to sovereignty in their national homeland. So just as you might think that Bulgarians have the right to sovereignty in their homeland, Japanese people, Korean people, German people all have the right to sovereignty in their homeland, Zionism is just the idea that Jews should be treated the same. By the way, this is in the charter, the charter that is the foundation of the state of Israel. In that document, the word ‘extermination,’ of course, would never appear there, but anything that even remotely resembles that word or idea is foreign to any of the early laws or that document. In fact, the document says precisely the opposite. The document says that one of the purposes of the state of Israel is to allow Jews and Arabs alike to live in peace and to flourish together in the land of Israel. That's what the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel says, and by the way, that's what the state of Israel has proven, more so than what it said in 1948, in the decades since.
2:18

I was asked by USA Today to respond to remarks made by Hasan Piker about Zionism. Piker claimed as follows: “Zionism is the ethnoreligious supremacist ideology that is exterminationist in principle, born out of the wrong assessment that this was a land without people for a people without land. It required the extermination of the indigenous population, and that's precisely what has happened since its inception. And its final iteration of that has been the Gaza genocide that we watched unfold.” You can call a blowtorch an avocado as many times as you want, but it still doesn’t have a seed, and it still isn’t green because it’s still just a blowtorch. The claim that Zionism is an exterminationist ideology is just as nonsensical as calling a blowtorch an avocado. The suggestion that Jews want to exterminate the Arabs who also live on the land is likewise, as it has always been, ludicrous and false. Zionism is a simple idea, which is that Jews have the same rights — not more rights, but also not fewer rights — than every other people on Earth have to sovereignty in their national homeland. So just as you might think that Bulgarians have the right to sovereignty in their homeland, Japanese people, Korean people, German people all have the right to sovereignty in their homeland, Zionism is just the idea that Jews should be treated the same. By the way, this is in the charter, the charter that is the foundation of the state of Israel. In that document, the word ‘extermination,’ of course, would never appear there, but anything that even remotely resembles that word or idea is foreign to any of the early laws or that document. In fact, the document says precisely the opposite. The document says that one of the purposes of the state of Israel is to allow Jews and Arabs alike to live in peace and to flourish together in the land of Israel. That's what the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel says, and by the way, that's what the state of Israel has proven, more so than what it said in 1948, in the decades since.

Roy K. Altman

20,582 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

How biblically ignorant do you have to be before you stop calling yourself a Christian Ethicist? I ask that because in his debate with Joel Webbon, Andrew Wilson was not aware of basic biblical principles such as being a slave to Christ. The clip below shows four instances of this happening. Overall, this debate “Do women have less agency than men?” was a missed opportunity. Webbon and Wilson have a lot in common, so there was no reason for Wilson to approach him as if he was some OF girl on the Whatever Podcast. I think the biggest issue was that Wilson refused to let Webbon define his position on agency. Andrew assumed that Joel would only base his arguments on the Bible, and when Joel didn’t, Andrew kept hammering that like it was some massive inconsistency. But as Joel patiently tried to explain, not everything that he believes is explicitly laid out in Scripture. There is natural law. There is observation. All these kinds of things. But for issues that aren’t directly addressed by Scripture, we can and should apply biblical principles where they can be found. I don’t get the sense that Andrew has ever used Scripture in this way. To me, it seems like his Christianity is tucked away in the corner so that it doesn’t get in the way of his debates. Just one man’s opinion. Anyway, I’m biased, but I thought Joel Webbon performed as well as could be expected, given the circumstances. Feel free to watch the whole debate below if you wish. Link:
6:38

How biblically ignorant do you have to be before you stop calling yourself a Christian Ethicist? I ask that because in his debate with Joel Webbon, Andrew Wilson was not aware of basic biblical principles such as being a slave to Christ. The clip below shows four instances of this happening. Overall, this debate “Do women have less agency than men?” was a missed opportunity. Webbon and Wilson have a lot in common, so there was no reason for Wilson to approach him as if he was some OF girl on the Whatever Podcast. I think the biggest issue was that Wilson refused to let Webbon define his position on agency. Andrew assumed that Joel would only base his arguments on the Bible, and when Joel didn’t, Andrew kept hammering that like it was some massive inconsistency. But as Joel patiently tried to explain, not everything that he believes is explicitly laid out in Scripture. There is natural law. There is observation. All these kinds of things. But for issues that aren’t directly addressed by Scripture, we can and should apply biblical principles where they can be found. I don’t get the sense that Andrew has ever used Scripture in this way. To me, it seems like his Christianity is tucked away in the corner so that it doesn’t get in the way of his debates. Just one man’s opinion. Anyway, I’m biased, but I thought Joel Webbon performed as well as could be expected, given the circumstances. Feel free to watch the whole debate below if you wish. Link:

Defiant Baptist

81,096 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?
5:08

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

Terri Green

13,029 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Is masculinity in a crisis? In today’s episode, I sit down with writer and scholar Dr Richard Reeves. Richard is the Founder and President of the American Institute for Boys and Men, which is an organisation that researches and addresses issues affecting men in our modern society. In this conversation, we discuss: • The rising rate of male suicides. • Men’s mental health and masculinity. • The health benefits of marriage for men. • The toxic impact of Andrew Tate. And so much more! I used to believe - especially when I was in my early twenties, that I was invincible in terms of mental health. At that age I thought mental health issues were things that happened to other people. Eventually, I found out I was wrong! Your mental health is just as important as your physical health. This is a conversation that I hope invites others, but specifically men, to speak about their mental health and any struggles that they’re facing. Really look forward to hearing your thoughts. Hit the link to watch the full episode now 👉
1:32

Is masculinity in a crisis? In today’s episode, I sit down with writer and scholar Dr Richard Reeves. Richard is the Founder and President of the American Institute for Boys and Men, which is an organisation that researches and addresses issues affecting men in our modern society. In this conversation, we discuss: • The rising rate of male suicides. • Men’s mental health and masculinity. • The health benefits of marriage for men. • The toxic impact of Andrew Tate. And so much more! I used to believe - especially when I was in my early twenties, that I was invincible in terms of mental health. At that age I thought mental health issues were things that happened to other people. Eventually, I found out I was wrong! Your mental health is just as important as your physical health. This is a conversation that I hope invites others, but specifically men, to speak about their mental health and any struggles that they’re facing. Really look forward to hearing your thoughts. Hit the link to watch the full episode now 👉

Steven Bartlett

64,128 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

This Labour MP admits that there are "Native Brits and Non-Native Citizens." A good start. She also says that some groups are "seeking to rewrite the definition of Britishness as being based on ancestry alone." Right...Does she not realise that it was the British Nationality Acts of 1948 & 1981 that rewrote the definition of British to literally include anyone from anywhere in the world? The British People have ancestry from the British Isles dating back thousands of years. This is just a fact. Before mass-immigration, pre-1948, there was not a need to 'define Britishness'. Any definition that seeks to say 'anyone from anywhere in the world can be British' is genocidal as we are on the verge of becoming a minority in our homeland. Ancestry is everything. It is who we are as a People.
0:35

This Labour MP admits that there are "Native Brits and Non-Native Citizens." A good start. She also says that some groups are "seeking to rewrite the definition of Britishness as being based on ancestry alone." Right...Does she not realise that it was the British Nationality Acts of 1948 & 1981 that rewrote the definition of British to literally include anyone from anywhere in the world? The British People have ancestry from the British Isles dating back thousands of years. This is just a fact. Before mass-immigration, pre-1948, there was not a need to 'define Britishness'. Any definition that seeks to say 'anyone from anywhere in the world can be British' is genocidal as we are on the verge of becoming a minority in our homeland. Ancestry is everything. It is who we are as a People.

Lucy White

64,469 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"Overall, across the world, there’s reason to believe that happiness has increased for obvious reasons: people are living longer, they’re less poor, they’re better educated, and so on. That would suggest, though not prove, that there has not been a decline in meaningfulness. It’s still possible, but just anecdotally, there have been complaints that life is meaningless as far back as you can go. You know: Ecclesiastes—“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Henry David Thoreau, in 1854: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Now, how a guy living in a cabin on a pond could know this is unclear, but that was the perception. T.S. Eliot: “We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men,” in the 1920s. Starting in the 1950s, there was a great fear of alienation. That was the big issue, and part of the counterculture was the idea that suburban middle-class life was meaningless, empty, plastic, and artificial. The Pursuit of Loneliness, a 1970 bestseller by Philip Slater. Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech in the late 1970s. So it’s a constant complaint. The fact that people say it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true." Human Progress
1:19

"Overall, across the world, there’s reason to believe that happiness has increased for obvious reasons: people are living longer, they’re less poor, they’re better educated, and so on. That would suggest, though not prove, that there has not been a decline in meaningfulness. It’s still possible, but just anecdotally, there have been complaints that life is meaningless as far back as you can go. You know: Ecclesiastes—“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Henry David Thoreau, in 1854: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Now, how a guy living in a cabin on a pond could know this is unclear, but that was the perception. T.S. Eliot: “We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men,” in the 1920s. Starting in the 1950s, there was a great fear of alienation. That was the big issue, and part of the counterculture was the idea that suburban middle-class life was meaningless, empty, plastic, and artificial. The Pursuit of Loneliness, a 1970 bestseller by Philip Slater. Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech in the late 1970s. So it’s a constant complaint. The fact that people say it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true." Human Progress

Steven Pinker

47,814 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I listened to over 100 hours of a Hitler Apologists podcast. (The Stone Choir Podcast) Here what I’ve learned so far… First of all, why did I do it? I did it because I wanted to understand why people that I knew were beginning to hate Jews and blacks. I wanted to understand the road to biological racial essentialism. I wanted to understand how a Christian man could genuinely believe that the best course of action for our country is to kick all the blacks out and send them back to Africa. After listening to these guys for over 100 hours I understand the roadmap to white supremacy. It’s wild but I get it. One of the reasons these guys are so dangerous is because they are deadly accurate at pinpointing many of the problems with our modern liberal society. This is how they win your attention. The utilize a lot of scripture, and they set themselves up as martyr heroes who are willing to sacrifice all for their cause. They’ll say the unpopular thing because they are the defenders of TRUTH! I also believe they are very sincere in their beliefs. The longer you listen the more you realize that literally everything that they’re saying is colored by their distain for Jews, and their belief that whites are the superior race. And I mean everything. It literally always comes back to this. The problem is by the time that this should become obvious, they have already won your trust by saying a whole bunch of other true and helpful things. Another major problem is that very few people are attempting to engage with the actual arguments that these guys are making in their podcast (ironic I know, since I am not attempting to address their arguments in this post). There are a lot of reasons for this, the time sink alone is a significant deterrent. And the kind of men who would be well equipped to address many of the arguments probably don’t see them as enough of an issue to take the time to actually do it. Regardless, it’s worth that needs to be done. I would say that I probably agree with 80 to 85% of what they’re saying, it’s that last 15% that is laced with cyanide that poisons the whole project. Ironically, Corey is so fond of saying again and again throughout the podcast that you can judge a tree by its fruits. If this is so, then we can be sure that the Stone Choir is a rotten tree. All you need to do is look through the posts and replies on their X accounts to see their constant stream of hateful, vile, rhetoric and ANY discerning Christian should be able to immediately dismiss these men out of hand. Honestly, my hope with this post is to demonstrate that I’m actually doing my homework. And that I understand a lot of you guys who are going down the Stone Choir route. I would also invite you brothers to read through Corey and Woes X posts and replies and ask yourself if these are the kinds of men that honor God with their speech. Are these the kinds of men that Christ would be pleased for you to learn from? There is a very clear answer to this question. Many of you know this. Many of you will even say the podcast is good, but I’m not so sure about their rhetoric on X. But please understand, their rhetoric on X is the fruit of their tree. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (and types in his keyboard). You know that it’s objectionable. But you don’t want to take Corey’s own advice and recognize that that means the tree is rotten. Listen. The PWC is real. It’s a real problem worth addressing. Uprooting the hidden liberalism within modern evangelicalism is one of the most important projects currently underway. These guys are not the ones for the job. Their poison WILL get into and infect you In profound ways. I’ve watched it happen with many young men. So please… If you started hating Jews, and blacks and believing that white to the superior race…. Repent. Come back to Christ. And stop eating rotten fruit from a rotten tree. Content addressing the arguments coming soon…
0:24

I listened to over 100 hours of a Hitler Apologists podcast. (The Stone Choir Podcast) Here what I’ve learned so far… First of all, why did I do it? I did it because I wanted to understand why people that I knew were beginning to hate Jews and blacks. I wanted to understand the road to biological racial essentialism. I wanted to understand how a Christian man could genuinely believe that the best course of action for our country is to kick all the blacks out and send them back to Africa. After listening to these guys for over 100 hours I understand the roadmap to white supremacy. It’s wild but I get it. One of the reasons these guys are so dangerous is because they are deadly accurate at pinpointing many of the problems with our modern liberal society. This is how they win your attention. The utilize a lot of scripture, and they set themselves up as martyr heroes who are willing to sacrifice all for their cause. They’ll say the unpopular thing because they are the defenders of TRUTH! I also believe they are very sincere in their beliefs. The longer you listen the more you realize that literally everything that they’re saying is colored by their distain for Jews, and their belief that whites are the superior race. And I mean everything. It literally always comes back to this. The problem is by the time that this should become obvious, they have already won your trust by saying a whole bunch of other true and helpful things. Another major problem is that very few people are attempting to engage with the actual arguments that these guys are making in their podcast (ironic I know, since I am not attempting to address their arguments in this post). There are a lot of reasons for this, the time sink alone is a significant deterrent. And the kind of men who would be well equipped to address many of the arguments probably don’t see them as enough of an issue to take the time to actually do it. Regardless, it’s worth that needs to be done. I would say that I probably agree with 80 to 85% of what they’re saying, it’s that last 15% that is laced with cyanide that poisons the whole project. Ironically, Corey is so fond of saying again and again throughout the podcast that you can judge a tree by its fruits. If this is so, then we can be sure that the Stone Choir is a rotten tree. All you need to do is look through the posts and replies on their X accounts to see their constant stream of hateful, vile, rhetoric and ANY discerning Christian should be able to immediately dismiss these men out of hand. Honestly, my hope with this post is to demonstrate that I’m actually doing my homework. And that I understand a lot of you guys who are going down the Stone Choir route. I would also invite you brothers to read through Corey and Woes X posts and replies and ask yourself if these are the kinds of men that honor God with their speech. Are these the kinds of men that Christ would be pleased for you to learn from? There is a very clear answer to this question. Many of you know this. Many of you will even say the podcast is good, but I’m not so sure about their rhetoric on X. But please understand, their rhetoric on X is the fruit of their tree. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (and types in his keyboard). You know that it’s objectionable. But you don’t want to take Corey’s own advice and recognize that that means the tree is rotten. Listen. The PWC is real. It’s a real problem worth addressing. Uprooting the hidden liberalism within modern evangelicalism is one of the most important projects currently underway. These guys are not the ones for the job. Their poison WILL get into and infect you In profound ways. I’ve watched it happen with many young men. So please… If you started hating Jews, and blacks and believing that white to the superior race…. Repent. Come back to Christ. And stop eating rotten fruit from a rotten tree. Content addressing the arguments coming soon…

Joshua Haymes

60,558 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Rep. Balint on Hegseth's obsession with testosterone, his announcement of testosterone therapy for troops, and his attacks on women in combat: "I think it is indicative of the fact that there are so many people in this administration that have some weird, intense, homoerotic, feelings towards men while also being incredibly homophobic, and not just homophobic, but like hate-mongering, fear-mongering about the LGBTQ community. So, let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part. The weird part is that they pretend that that's not what it's about. And so, Pete Hegseth is like the example of this, like the manly, manly, rugged, macho man, and it's like, I don't know if you know who Tom of Finland is...this is a gay male porn that was drawn by a man. And, like, Pete Hegseth is the embodiment of that. So I feel like they must be looking at that as their example for what men look like. And in terms of not promoting women, we know what this is all about. The military, whether you support the military-industrial complex or not, it has always been merit-based. The people who are the best of the best rise to the top. And so the fact that he has systematically been keeping down women and people of color gives up the whole game. It's actually not about a merit-based system anymore."
2:00

Rep. Balint on Hegseth's obsession with testosterone, his announcement of testosterone therapy for troops, and his attacks on women in combat: "I think it is indicative of the fact that there are so many people in this administration that have some weird, intense, homoerotic, feelings towards men while also being incredibly homophobic, and not just homophobic, but like hate-mongering, fear-mongering about the LGBTQ community. So, let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part. The weird part is that they pretend that that's not what it's about. And so, Pete Hegseth is like the example of this, like the manly, manly, rugged, macho man, and it's like, I don't know if you know who Tom of Finland is...this is a gay male porn that was drawn by a man. And, like, Pete Hegseth is the embodiment of that. So I feel like they must be looking at that as their example for what men look like. And in terms of not promoting women, we know what this is all about. The military, whether you support the military-industrial complex or not, it has always been merit-based. The people who are the best of the best rise to the top. And so the fact that he has systematically been keeping down women and people of color gives up the whole game. It's actually not about a merit-based system anymore."

MeidasTouch

326,702 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk: You can tell which side is the good side and which side is the bad side by which side wishes to restrict freedom of speech The side that is restricting freedom of speech you know, that would have been the Hitlers, Stalins, and Mussolinis of the world They had very strong censorship, very strong restrictions on speech. That’s one of the signs that they’re the bad guys In fact, a restriction on speech and large government is fundamentally fascist, obviously. So ironically, in pushing for censorship, it makes it very clear that the left is the side that is against freedom Freedom of speech is simply one of many freedoms that we should have as a civil society because ideas should win on the strength of their arguments. They should not win because they are suppressed
1:03

Elon Musk: You can tell which side is the good side and which side is the bad side by which side wishes to restrict freedom of speech The side that is restricting freedom of speech you know, that would have been the Hitlers, Stalins, and Mussolinis of the world They had very strong censorship, very strong restrictions on speech. That’s one of the signs that they’re the bad guys In fact, a restriction on speech and large government is fundamentally fascist, obviously. So ironically, in pushing for censorship, it makes it very clear that the left is the side that is against freedom Freedom of speech is simply one of many freedoms that we should have as a civil society because ideas should win on the strength of their arguments. They should not win because they are suppressed

X Freeze

13,609,899 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi | On India AI Impact Summit, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "... These first couple of days have gone extremely well. There have been some glitches, but these things happen in a large event. What has been impressive is the attendance of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and world leaders, and they've come with a strong message of wanting to see a newly integrated world in AI development, where the impact upon society would be the Principle. Preoccupation in India has clearly led the drive in this area. As far as the French Rafale is concerned, parts of it are being manufactured in India, and that is a very important aspect of the deal because it is part of strengthening our defence, but also increasing our self-reliance in the defence sector... Defence is important for India not because we want to go to war, but because we don't want others to think that we are so weak that they can be tempted to go to war. It is a defensive defence literally, and I support the government on that."
1:28

#WATCH | Delhi | On India AI Impact Summit, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "... These first couple of days have gone extremely well. There have been some glitches, but these things happen in a large event. What has been impressive is the attendance of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and world leaders, and they've come with a strong message of wanting to see a newly integrated world in AI development, where the impact upon society would be the Principle. Preoccupation in India has clearly led the drive in this area. As far as the French Rafale is concerned, parts of it are being manufactured in India, and that is a very important aspect of the deal because it is part of strengthening our defence, but also increasing our self-reliance in the defence sector... Defence is important for India not because we want to go to war, but because we don't want others to think that we are so weak that they can be tempted to go to war. It is a defensive defence literally, and I support the government on that."

ANI

225,628 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”
1:14

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”

Wall Street Apes

400,395 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Michael Knowles on Hasan Piker’s influence on young men: “One thing Hasan understands that many on the left don’t is that we want men to be men. Hasan Piker is a freak. “He’s the worst version of the male attributes: he tortures his dog, he calls for political violence, he isn’t married. He might be a woman—I don’t know. He talks about how much he loves women, but he doesn’t channel that in any good way. So he is, ironically, toxic masculinity—but he’s not a fruit, to put it bluntly. “A lot of the guys who have tried to come up on the left have presented themselves as weak and effeminate. He doesn’t really do that. He wears a clown costume on stage, but it’s a clown costume of Chairman Mao. Say what you will about Mao: he wasn’t effeminate. He killed tens of millions of people, but he was a pretty tough guy. Hasan understands that. He’s appealing to the darkest aspects of a longing for masculinity. “Guys like Charlie Kirk appeal to the best of those longings. In his absence, that’s one way Hasan wants to step into the void—but he’s speaking to different people. I think he’s rallying a base more than converting anyone.”
2:23

Michael Knowles on Hasan Piker’s influence on young men: “One thing Hasan understands that many on the left don’t is that we want men to be men. Hasan Piker is a freak. “He’s the worst version of the male attributes: he tortures his dog, he calls for political violence, he isn’t married. He might be a woman—I don’t know. He talks about how much he loves women, but he doesn’t channel that in any good way. So he is, ironically, toxic masculinity—but he’s not a fruit, to put it bluntly. “A lot of the guys who have tried to come up on the left have presented themselves as weak and effeminate. He doesn’t really do that. He wears a clown costume on stage, but it’s a clown costume of Chairman Mao. Say what you will about Mao: he wasn’t effeminate. He killed tens of millions of people, but he was a pretty tough guy. Hasan understands that. He’s appealing to the darkest aspects of a longing for masculinity. “Guys like Charlie Kirk appeal to the best of those longings. In his absence, that’s one way Hasan wants to step into the void—but he’s speaking to different people. I think he’s rallying a base more than converting anyone.”

Katie Miller

52,591 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”
3:32

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Wall Street Apes

1,338,694 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

VIDEO | Delhi: When asked about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks at the G7 Summit, particularly his reference to a "trust deficit" in global affairs, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor says, "...I think the G7 remains a gathering of the most prosperous Western countries and they have tried to include in that countries like India, prominent economies from parts of the world, and each host is free to invite countries that are not in that category of being Western as well as in the top seven. But we've been invited in our own right since about 2004 to attend and we've gone pretty much every year. So that's in itself a normal thing to do... It should be simply the top seven economies, the top five economies, whichever those may be. And then India would be there as a full member. Instead, we are there as an invitee. This is a body that exists. China is the second largest economy in the world. It's not invited ever because it's not from the West. So these are the kinds of differences you should bear in mind. But on the question of the shape of the world, I was very happy to see Mr. Modi saying what he said because it echoes very much an argument I have been making for some time and I've put on social media. I've written articles making the point that the world we are living in now is very much a world of interdependence without trust. That is, we are all much more closely connected."
2:24

VIDEO | Delhi: When asked about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks at the G7 Summit, particularly his reference to a "trust deficit" in global affairs, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor says, "...I think the G7 remains a gathering of the most prosperous Western countries and they have tried to include in that countries like India, prominent economies from parts of the world, and each host is free to invite countries that are not in that category of being Western as well as in the top seven. But we've been invited in our own right since about 2004 to attend and we've gone pretty much every year. So that's in itself a normal thing to do... It should be simply the top seven economies, the top five economies, whichever those may be. And then India would be there as a full member. Instead, we are there as an invitee. This is a body that exists. China is the second largest economy in the world. It's not invited ever because it's not from the West. So these are the kinds of differences you should bear in mind. But on the question of the shape of the world, I was very happy to see Mr. Modi saying what he said because it echoes very much an argument I have been making for some time and I've put on social media. I've written articles making the point that the world we are living in now is very much a world of interdependence without trust. That is, we are all much more closely connected."

Press Trust of India

32,140 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.
6:07

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

22,015 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten