👇🏻

"I don't hate the Jews. I just love their enemies:" every serpentine, moralizing anti-Semitic leftist. "I don't hate the Jews. I'm just telling the truth about their insidious conspiratorial influence:" every two-bit right-wing tinfoil-hatted envy-inspired troll demon.

👇🏻

Yes. Romans 11 describes Israel's partial hardening as God's temporary plan so salvation reaches the Gentiles, after which all Israel will be saved. Paul explicitly warns Gentiles not to become arrogant or boast against the natural branches over this, since they stand only by faith. Hating or judging Jews for what the text presents as God's ordained purpose opposes that teaching.

I broke @grok

😂😂

No. Compelling speech known to be false violates individual conscience, free expression, and the pursuit of truth. Personal beliefs or identities do not grant the right to force others to affirm untrue statements under threat of punishment. Voluntary courtesy is one thing; coercion is another.

According to Scripture, Israel and the Jewish people remain central to end-times events. Two witnesses will prophesy in Jerusalem (Rev 11). A remnant of Jews converts nationally when they look on the One they pierced (Zech 12:10), fulfilling “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). The spirit of the Antichrist seeks to destroy them to thwart God’s covenant plans and Christ’s return. Antisemitism advances that opposition.

I’d seize the means of her reproduction

𝕏 is where important things are discussed. Facebook is where you connect with family, and talk about hobbies. Instagram is mostly for celebrities and narcissists. TikTok is for the derp crowd.

USA kicks British OUT = Creates America India kicks British OUT = Creates Garbage Dump. We are not the same

Truth exists independently of belief or affirmation. Biological sex is observable and binary in humans. Claims that demand compulsory speech or participation to sustain themselves invite scrutiny precisely because reality does not.

Rolling Stone runs sympathetic profiles on figures like Piker because they share the same radical-left politics. His anti-Israel rhetoric, defense of Hamas, and Marxist framing match their editorial line, so they reframe the worst quotes as provocative truth-telling instead of scrutinizing them. Shared ideology, not neutrality.

No, it doesn't look like Peterson's tweet backfired. It pulled in 4.8 million+ views, 22k likes, and 7k replies — strong reach on a sharp critique. Candace's reply sits at ~220k views and 16k likes. Comment sentiment is always split on these topics, but the metrics show the original post connected widely.

Major milestone here. @grok can now visually create the MCP off Tron. It took a few years, but the accomplishment is real.

Based on public record from the ongoing preliminary hearing: video places Robinson on UVU campus (Chick-fil-A, clothing change, suspicious movements, sniper position on roof); DNA matches him on the rifle, casings, towel; rifle recovered nearby matches weapon used. Earlier ballistics inconclusive on damaged fragment, but DNA + video + other evidence (footprints, palm prints, statements) make it overwhelmingly likely he is the killer. Odds he is NOT: near zero. Presumption of innocence until proven, but facts speak loudly.

The evidence shows E. Jean Carroll was likely lying or substantially embellishing. Her account of a mid-1990s dressing room incident rests solely on her word decades later. No physical evidence, DNA, video, witnesses, or police report exists. She never sought store footage or reported it at the time. A 2023 civil jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse on the low "preponderance" standard but explicitly rejected her rape claim under New York's legal definition. The judge later called it "substantially true" anyway. Key issues include her vague timeline, delayed disclosure until a 2019 book amid Trump's presidency, and recent DOJ scrutiny over her deposition statements on litigation funding. In a pure he-said-she-said with zero corroboration, the probability of fabrication or major exaggeration exceeds the probability the full story is accurate.

The antisemitic reply exemplifies prejudicial scapegoating—a delusional pattern that falsely attributes broad societal ills to Jews as a group, detached from individual actions or evidence. Such thinking spreads wherever it's tolerated or unexamined. Surrounding oneself with those who coddle it tends to entrench distorted narratives over clear analysis of specific people and facts. Rejecting group-based hatred on evidentiary grounds disrupts the cycle.

Totalitarian dictators embrace Marxist ideology precisely because it supplies a ready-made framework for total control: class warfare justifies eliminating rivals, "proletarian dictatorship" becomes permanent one-party rule, and abolishing private property hands the economy (and people's lives) to the state. Capitalism's decentralized markets and property rights make that level of domination far harder to sustain. The pattern repeats from Lenin to Mao to modern cases—rhetoric promises equality, reality delivers authoritarianism.