Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

The question Randall keeps returning to is deceptively simple. Why? What is the motive for quarrying and assembling 20 ton stones into monumental structures? In a world where virtually all of humanity was either farming or nomadically hunting and gathering, megalithic construction is not a natural cultural priority. Survival...

randallwcarlson's profile picture

Randall Carlson

170,628 subscribers

116,656 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Modern construction uses stones that one strong person can manipulate. Not because larger stones are unavailable - but because working with ten or fifty ton stones is economically irrational. The cost in time, labor, and logistics makes it impractical for any society operating within normal resource constraints. That economic reality is precisely what makes the global pattern of megalithic construction so difficult to explain within the conventional framework of prehistoric hunter gatherer societies. The argument that one exceptional group of people devoted their spare time - between foraging, following game, and moving their encampments - to quarrying and transporting fifty ton stones is already a stretch. People operating at the margin of subsistence do not divert resources toward economically irrational construction projects. But that argument at least has the theoretical possibility of applying to a single isolated case. What it cannot explain is the repetition. The same pattern of working with impossibly large stones appears over and over and over again across the world - in cultures with no documented contact, on different continents, across vastly different time periods. At that point the explanation of an exceptional local anomaly collapses entirely. Something else was going on - and Randall argues the honest response to that pattern is to admit that the current framework simply does not account for it.
0:48

Modern construction uses stones that one strong person can manipulate. Not because larger stones are unavailable - but because working with ten or fifty ton stones is economically irrational. The cost in time, labor, and logistics makes it impractical for any society operating within normal resource constraints. That economic reality is precisely what makes the global pattern of megalithic construction so difficult to explain within the conventional framework of prehistoric hunter gatherer societies. The argument that one exceptional group of people devoted their spare time - between foraging, following game, and moving their encampments - to quarrying and transporting fifty ton stones is already a stretch. People operating at the margin of subsistence do not divert resources toward economically irrational construction projects. But that argument at least has the theoretical possibility of applying to a single isolated case. What it cannot explain is the repetition. The same pattern of working with impossibly large stones appears over and over and over again across the world - in cultures with no documented contact, on different continents, across vastly different time periods. At that point the explanation of an exceptional local anomaly collapses entirely. Something else was going on - and Randall argues the honest response to that pattern is to admit that the current framework simply does not account for it.

Randall Carlson

19,839 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Taken individually, any single ancient monument can be explained away as a feat of organized labor and brute force. Randall’s argument is that when you take the full picture in totality - the scale, the precision, the sacred geometry, and the global distribution of structures built from stones weighing ten tons or more - a different conclusion forces itself. There is a common system at work. These cultures shared a body of knowledge that we have forgotten, and that knowledge included something that made the manipulation of very large stones considerably easier than simple muscular effort would allow. The question Randall poses is direct - is the sacred geometry embedded in these structures merely an homage to a king's ego, a decorative impulse scaled up in stone? He dismisses that explanation not with contempt but with logic. The consistency of the system across cultures with no documented contact, the precision of the geometry, and the physical improbability of the construction methods conventionally proposed all point in the same direction. What was being built was not a monument to human vanity. It was an application of a knowledge system sophisticated enough to make the seemingly impossible routine - and whatever that system was, its loss is one of the most significant gaps in our understanding of what our predecessors were actually capable of.
0:35

Taken individually, any single ancient monument can be explained away as a feat of organized labor and brute force. Randall’s argument is that when you take the full picture in totality - the scale, the precision, the sacred geometry, and the global distribution of structures built from stones weighing ten tons or more - a different conclusion forces itself. There is a common system at work. These cultures shared a body of knowledge that we have forgotten, and that knowledge included something that made the manipulation of very large stones considerably easier than simple muscular effort would allow. The question Randall poses is direct - is the sacred geometry embedded in these structures merely an homage to a king's ego, a decorative impulse scaled up in stone? He dismisses that explanation not with contempt but with logic. The consistency of the system across cultures with no documented contact, the precision of the geometry, and the physical improbability of the construction methods conventionally proposed all point in the same direction. What was being built was not a monument to human vanity. It was an application of a knowledge system sophisticated enough to make the seemingly impossible routine - and whatever that system was, its loss is one of the most significant gaps in our understanding of what our predecessors were actually capable of.

Randall Carlson

14,080 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.
0:45

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.

Randall Carlson

11,737 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Emerging Worlds — A New Series with Marshall Vian Summers Something unprecedented is happening in our world, and most of humanity isn't paying attention. We are facing a convergence of forces — environmental decline, resource depletion, growing instability — at the very moment that humanity is emerging into a larger arena of intelligent life in the universe. These are not separate crises. They are part of one great transition that will define the future of humanity. Emerging Worlds is a forthcoming series featuring Marshall Vian Summers, presenting the full scope of his body of work across a range of subjects that few are willing to address with this level of clarity and sobriety: → Why the world is changing in ways we cannot reverse — and what that demands of us → The reality of contact with non-human intelligence (NHI) and extraterrestrial life and why it's happening now → What the evidence actually reveals about who is in our world, what UAP are, and what they want → The hidden threat to human freedom and self-determination → What life is really like in the universe beyond our borders → The path forward for a humanity that must now grow up — or fail → Why you are here at this time, and what that means This isn't speculation. This isn't entertainment. This is a preparation. Follow and turn on notifications so you don't miss the first episode.
0:48

Emerging Worlds — A New Series with Marshall Vian Summers Something unprecedented is happening in our world, and most of humanity isn't paying attention. We are facing a convergence of forces — environmental decline, resource depletion, growing instability — at the very moment that humanity is emerging into a larger arena of intelligent life in the universe. These are not separate crises. They are part of one great transition that will define the future of humanity. Emerging Worlds is a forthcoming series featuring Marshall Vian Summers, presenting the full scope of his body of work across a range of subjects that few are willing to address with this level of clarity and sobriety: → Why the world is changing in ways we cannot reverse — and what that demands of us → The reality of contact with non-human intelligence (NHI) and extraterrestrial life and why it's happening now → What the evidence actually reveals about who is in our world, what UAP are, and what they want → The hidden threat to human freedom and self-determination → What life is really like in the universe beyond our borders → The path forward for a humanity that must now grow up — or fail → Why you are here at this time, and what that means This isn't speculation. This isn't entertainment. This is a preparation. Follow and turn on notifications so you don't miss the first episode.

Marshall Vian Summers

204,409 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE VISIBLE WORLD IS AT ITS ROOTS DESIGNED IN THE INVISIBLE WORLD Before language, before numbers, before thought, there was form. Not arbitrary, but precise. Not invented, but revealed. Sacred Geometry is the blueprint beneath all becoming—the hidden grammar of light, sound, and matter. It is the spiral of galaxies and the whorl of a shell. It is the vesica that births light, The triangle that gives rise to stability, The square that anchors space, And the pentagram that mirrors life’s golden proportion. Sacred Geometry does not merely decorate creation, it structures it. It governs the growth of leaves, the pulse of waves, the rhythm of your breath. It reveals that harmony is not a concept, it is a code. A flower blooms not by chance, But by a silent obedience to phi. A crystal aligns not at random, But by listening to the quiet song of symmetry. This is not mysticism, it is order. This is not dogma, it is design. Sacred Geometry is where the visible and the invisible meet: Where math becomes art, Where number becomes movement, Where space becomes spirit. To study it is not only to learn, it is to remember. That beauty is not a luxury. It is the signature of coherence. And when we align with it, We don’t just build structures. We become them. Everything that has form in this dimension is made up in its essence of sacred geometry. All this construction of the visible world is at its root designed in the invisible world.
1:50

ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE VISIBLE WORLD IS AT ITS ROOTS DESIGNED IN THE INVISIBLE WORLD Before language, before numbers, before thought, there was form. Not arbitrary, but precise. Not invented, but revealed. Sacred Geometry is the blueprint beneath all becoming—the hidden grammar of light, sound, and matter. It is the spiral of galaxies and the whorl of a shell. It is the vesica that births light, The triangle that gives rise to stability, The square that anchors space, And the pentagram that mirrors life’s golden proportion. Sacred Geometry does not merely decorate creation, it structures it. It governs the growth of leaves, the pulse of waves, the rhythm of your breath. It reveals that harmony is not a concept, it is a code. A flower blooms not by chance, But by a silent obedience to phi. A crystal aligns not at random, But by listening to the quiet song of symmetry. This is not mysticism, it is order. This is not dogma, it is design. Sacred Geometry is where the visible and the invisible meet: Where math becomes art, Where number becomes movement, Where space becomes spirit. To study it is not only to learn, it is to remember. That beauty is not a luxury. It is the signature of coherence. And when we align with it, We don’t just build structures. We become them. Everything that has form in this dimension is made up in its essence of sacred geometry. All this construction of the visible world is at its root designed in the invisible world.

🧬Maxpein🧬

13,405 просмотров • 8 дней назад

The death and resurrection of a divine king is not a uniquely Christian idea. Randall Carlson points out that the archetype precedes Christianity by thousands of years, appearing across multiple ancient traditions long before the Gospel narratives were written. That context alone raises the question of what relationship the story of Jesus bears to the much older mythological pattern it so closely mirrors. The outrageous hypothesis Randall entertains is that Jesus did not die on the cross in the way the standard account presents - and that reading the Gospels carefully, with attention to the specific details rather than the broad narrative, produces something that looks less like spontaneous historical events and more like a pre-planned ritual being executed with deliberate precision. He stops short of asserting this, but argues the case is plausible and that the details are there in the text for anyone willing to look.
0:39

The death and resurrection of a divine king is not a uniquely Christian idea. Randall Carlson points out that the archetype precedes Christianity by thousands of years, appearing across multiple ancient traditions long before the Gospel narratives were written. That context alone raises the question of what relationship the story of Jesus bears to the much older mythological pattern it so closely mirrors. The outrageous hypothesis Randall entertains is that Jesus did not die on the cross in the way the standard account presents - and that reading the Gospels carefully, with attention to the specific details rather than the broad narrative, produces something that looks less like spontaneous historical events and more like a pre-planned ritual being executed with deliberate precision. He stops short of asserting this, but argues the case is plausible and that the details are there in the text for anyone willing to look.

Randall Carlson

10,197 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”
0:50

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”

RedWave Press

53,415 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Iris Murdoch on what philosophy actually is: Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define even for those who practise it. Speaking with Bryan Magee in 1977, Murdoch doesn't sidestep the question. She leans into it. "It's notoriously difficult to find philosophy… it's very difficult to say what it is." Her first move is to locate philosophy in the territory of structure and depth. It is "to do with conceptual structures," she says with "very deep structures of belief and knowledge," with meaning, with significance, with the question of how language relates to the world. But definition by content isn't enough. So she defines it by exclusion. Philosophy is not science. That much feels familiar. Yet Murdoch adds a subtler distinction: even when philosophy adopts a scientific style, "the actual what you're doing is certainly not science." The manner may borrow from the lab, but the activity is something else entirely. And philosophy is not art either. Her sharpest line is reserved for this boundary: "It's very important it's not sounds… as soon as you start doing sounds you're falling right out of philosophy." Sound aesthetic sensation, the seductive surface of language pulls the mind away from what philosophy actually is. The moment writing becomes music, it stops being thought. So if it is not science and not art, what is philosophy? Murdoch's answer is quiet but precise: "a kind of reflection on concepts." Not experiment. Not expression. Reflection. A sustained, disciplined turning of attention onto the structures we use to think — and asking whether they hold.
0:45

Iris Murdoch on what philosophy actually is: Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define even for those who practise it. Speaking with Bryan Magee in 1977, Murdoch doesn't sidestep the question. She leans into it. "It's notoriously difficult to find philosophy… it's very difficult to say what it is." Her first move is to locate philosophy in the territory of structure and depth. It is "to do with conceptual structures," she says with "very deep structures of belief and knowledge," with meaning, with significance, with the question of how language relates to the world. But definition by content isn't enough. So she defines it by exclusion. Philosophy is not science. That much feels familiar. Yet Murdoch adds a subtler distinction: even when philosophy adopts a scientific style, "the actual what you're doing is certainly not science." The manner may borrow from the lab, but the activity is something else entirely. And philosophy is not art either. Her sharpest line is reserved for this boundary: "It's very important it's not sounds… as soon as you start doing sounds you're falling right out of philosophy." Sound aesthetic sensation, the seductive surface of language pulls the mind away from what philosophy actually is. The moment writing becomes music, it stops being thought. So if it is not science and not art, what is philosophy? Murdoch's answer is quiet but precise: "a kind of reflection on concepts." Not experiment. Not expression. Reflection. A sustained, disciplined turning of attention onto the structures we use to think — and asking whether they hold.

Big Brain Philosophy

18,908 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The water erosion visible on the Sphinx is not a minor detail or a contested footnote. It is a geological clock - and Randall reads it directly. The last time significant rainfall occurred in the region of the Giza Plateau was approximately 10,000 years ago. If the erosion pattern on the Sphinx was produced by water rather than wind and sand, as the evidence strongly suggests, then the structure has to be at least that old. Randall states he is 100% on board with that minimum date. The emphasis, however, is on the word minimum. Randall’s position is that the Sphinx is much, much older than 10,000 years - placing it potentially in the same company as the most ancient megalithic remains he has encountered in his exploration, including the extraordinary stonework at Baalbek. The rainfall record gives a floor. The geology, the construction style, and the broader context of what Randall has been finding across multiple ancient sites suggest the ceiling is considerably higher than mainstream archaeology has ever been willing to acknowledge. The Sphinx was not built at the dawn of Egyptian civilization. It may have been ancient even to the ancient Egyptians.
0:38

The water erosion visible on the Sphinx is not a minor detail or a contested footnote. It is a geological clock - and Randall reads it directly. The last time significant rainfall occurred in the region of the Giza Plateau was approximately 10,000 years ago. If the erosion pattern on the Sphinx was produced by water rather than wind and sand, as the evidence strongly suggests, then the structure has to be at least that old. Randall states he is 100% on board with that minimum date. The emphasis, however, is on the word minimum. Randall’s position is that the Sphinx is much, much older than 10,000 years - placing it potentially in the same company as the most ancient megalithic remains he has encountered in his exploration, including the extraordinary stonework at Baalbek. The rainfall record gives a floor. The geology, the construction style, and the broader context of what Randall has been finding across multiple ancient sites suggest the ceiling is considerably higher than mainstream archaeology has ever been willing to acknowledge. The Sphinx was not built at the dawn of Egyptian civilization. It may have been ancient even to the ancient Egyptians.

Randall Carlson

18,513 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

There is so much at stake in this election, and, ultimately, the question before us is: What kind of country do we want to live in? The beauty of a democracy, as long as we can hold on to it, is that each of us has the power to answer that question.
0:58

There is so much at stake in this election, and, ultimately, the question before us is: What kind of country do we want to live in? The beauty of a democracy, as long as we can hold on to it, is that each of us has the power to answer that question.

Kamala Harris

32,989,993 просмотров • 1 год назад

Leisure is the basis of all human culture. Most have forgotten what leisure actually is — it's not the absence of work or activity, but the presence of depth. Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper: "Leisure, it must be remembered, is not a Sunday afternoon idyll. It is the preserve of freedom, of education and culture, and of that undiminished humanity which views the world as a whole." Leisure is a willingness to encounter the world — not as a resource to be used, but as a mystery to be contemplated. Use your leisure time to engage with the deeper aspects of life.
0:33

Leisure is the basis of all human culture. Most have forgotten what leisure actually is — it's not the absence of work or activity, but the presence of depth. Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper: "Leisure, it must be remembered, is not a Sunday afternoon idyll. It is the preserve of freedom, of education and culture, and of that undiminished humanity which views the world as a whole." Leisure is a willingness to encounter the world — not as a resource to be used, but as a mystery to be contemplated. Use your leisure time to engage with the deeper aspects of life.

The Culturist

402,915 просмотров • 1 год назад

At the Munich Security Conference, Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton did not exaggerate. She did not rant. She simply described, with cold precision, what is unfolding before our eyes: pressure on Ukraine to surrender, a cynical convergence with Putin, and the erosion of the values that have underpinned the West since 1945. This is not theatre. It is the defence of democracy, sovereignty and human dignity. What is at stake today is the credibility of the democratic world itself.
1:26

At the Munich Security Conference, Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton did not exaggerate. She did not rant. She simply described, with cold precision, what is unfolding before our eyes: pressure on Ukraine to surrender, a cynical convergence with Putin, and the erosion of the values that have underpinned the West since 1945. This is not theatre. It is the defence of democracy, sovereignty and human dignity. What is at stake today is the credibility of the democratic world itself.

European Democrats

143,992 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

There is a moment in every man's life where the question is not what is strategic, not what is convenient, not what is politically comfortable, the question is simply, what is right and what is wrong. These sources did not step forward for fame. They stepped forward because they believed in something greater than themselves. They infiltrated one of the most brutal regimes in the Western Hemisphere. Their families — including children — are now being hunted because they chose to stand on the right side of history. Those are real people, in real danger, right now. The United States of America asked these men and women to trust us. They did and the silence they have received in return is not a bureaucratic oversight. It is a moral failure. Plain and simple. I have spent my life in service to this country. I know what we ask of people who work in the shadows. I know the weight of that ask and I know that when a nation stops honoring its word to the people who sacrificed the most, it has lost something far more valuable than any intelligence asset. This is not complicated. These people did right by us. Now we do right by them.
0:27

There is a moment in every man's life where the question is not what is strategic, not what is convenient, not what is politically comfortable, the question is simply, what is right and what is wrong. These sources did not step forward for fame. They stepped forward because they believed in something greater than themselves. They infiltrated one of the most brutal regimes in the Western Hemisphere. Their families — including children — are now being hunted because they chose to stand on the right side of history. Those are real people, in real danger, right now. The United States of America asked these men and women to trust us. They did and the silence they have received in return is not a bureaucratic oversight. It is a moral failure. Plain and simple. I have spent my life in service to this country. I know what we ask of people who work in the shadows. I know the weight of that ask and I know that when a nation stops honoring its word to the people who sacrificed the most, it has lost something far more valuable than any intelligence asset. This is not complicated. These people did right by us. Now we do right by them.

General Mike Flynn

61,706 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The story of the feeding of the 5k is a treasure mine for analysis. It is the only miracle besides the resurrection of Jesus that is found in all 4 Gospels. This story allows us to read it across each account and check for corroborative or contradictory details, that would allow us to validate it as a historical event or identify it as a fraud. What we find then in this particular story is very helpful
8:19

The story of the feeding of the 5k is a treasure mine for analysis. It is the only miracle besides the resurrection of Jesus that is found in all 4 Gospels. This story allows us to read it across each account and check for corroborative or contradictory details, that would allow us to validate it as a historical event or identify it as a fraud. What we find then in this particular story is very helpful

Wes Huff

74,625 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Scott Jennings just shattered the narrative that President Trump is calling the entire Epstein scandal a hoax. As Phillip attempted to paint Trump as callous toward Epstein’s victims, Scott Jennings cut her off cold and exposed her spin for exactly what it was—pure theater. “Well, the hoax is, Democrats and others, who have gone on television and either implied or worse, that he had something to do with it.” “There’s not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that’s what they want people to believe. That’s the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That’s the hoax.” “He’s never said what happened to them is a hoax.” “In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump.” “And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply, or worse about him.”
0:42

Scott Jennings just shattered the narrative that President Trump is calling the entire Epstein scandal a hoax. As Phillip attempted to paint Trump as callous toward Epstein’s victims, Scott Jennings cut her off cold and exposed her spin for exactly what it was—pure theater. “Well, the hoax is, Democrats and others, who have gone on television and either implied or worse, that he had something to do with it.” “There’s not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that’s what they want people to believe. That’s the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That’s the hoax.” “He’s never said what happened to them is a hoax.” “In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump.” “And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply, or worse about him.”

Overton

228,648 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."
1:53

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

The All-In Podcast

910,450 просмотров • 1 год назад

POSOBIEC: Multiple reports raise the question of whether the killer said “Allahu Akbar,” or was calling out “Ella.” Hard to know. What is clear is this was not random. It spared the TA and targeted Ella Cook. That alone demands serious scrutiny.
2:20

POSOBIEC: Multiple reports raise the question of whether the killer said “Allahu Akbar,” or was calling out “Ella.” Hard to know. What is clear is this was not random. It spared the TA and targeted Ella Cook. That alone demands serious scrutiny.

Grace Chong, MBI

66,649 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Tom Holland says “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” wouldn’t be half the movie it is without director Destin Daniel Cretton “I think we can all agree that Destin nailed it.” “We are so lucky to have Destin as the captain of our ship. You know, he came into this process when the movie was going in a hundred different directions, and really what we needed was someone to come in and focus us all on one idea.” “And what's so amazing about Destin is that he's able to do that and focus on this idea of what is life like for a young person who is alone.” “And that is something that people deal with all across the world. It doesn't sacrifice the action, it doesn't sacrifice the scope and scale of the movie.” “So if we didn't have Destin, this movie wouldn't be half of what it is.”
0:40

Tom Holland says “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” wouldn’t be half the movie it is without director Destin Daniel Cretton “I think we can all agree that Destin nailed it.” “We are so lucky to have Destin as the captain of our ship. You know, he came into this process when the movie was going in a hundred different directions, and really what we needed was someone to come in and focus us all on one idea.” “And what's so amazing about Destin is that he's able to do that and focus on this idea of what is life like for a young person who is alone.” “And that is something that people deal with all across the world. It doesn't sacrifice the action, it doesn't sacrifice the scope and scale of the movie.” “So if we didn't have Destin, this movie wouldn't be half of what it is.”

agim𓍯

460,779 просмотров • 1 месяц назад