USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream

[juan]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:50:32 -0500
John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> > On Dec 23, 2017, at 12:06 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:26:24 -0500
> > grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> http://beyondthemarquee.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/902274_10153332384195401_182169004_o.jpg
> >> https://img00.deviantart.net/580e/i/2012/043/5/a/giant_hammer___drow_by_zephyr_aryn-d4pkhrv.png
> >> https://i.pinimg.com/236x/f8/83/87/f883877b2cc9804048c3ef982500e86e--harly-quinn-halloween-stuff.jpg
> >> 
> >> Found some holiday gifts for my friend Juan ;)
> > 
> >    and speaking of thor and odin...
> > 
> >    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
> > 
> >    "Christmas is an annual festival commemorating the birth of
> >    Jesus Christ,"  - except that the fucking jesus turd was never
> >    born. 
> > 
> > 
> >    "Although the month and date of Jesus' birth are unknow..."
> >    but that motherfuking joo turd was never born so there's
> >    nothing to be known. 
> > 
> >    Now the very interesting thing is that the source of All
> >    Scientfic Progressive Wisodm known as "WIKIPEDIA" is actually a
> >    tool of fascist theocratic joo-kristian propaganda. 
> > 
> 
> I agree, Wikipedia is badly skewed on this, but it seems like they
> are probably just following conventional thought on the issue. 

	Well yes but that's what a lot of wikipedia content is.
	Copypasta from mainstream media or copypasta from popular
	western superstitions and  western political propaganda. The
	wikipedia  'policy' that regards mainstream media as a
	'legitimate' 'source' of truth ranks very very high in the self
	parody category. 

	It should also be pointed out that clown j. wales is an
	american  'libertarian'. 

	Granted, some articles do have some more truthful content in
	them, side by side with the propaganda, but that's consistent
	with controlled opposition and fake 'free speech' which give
	people the illusion of freedom and 'objectivity' 


	A couple more nuggets from that jesus joke piece (which by the
	way is locked - wikipedia, any admin can edit it haha)

	"Jesus chose to be born on the shortest day of the year for
	symbolic reasons, according to an early Christmas sermon by
	Augustine" 

	That ^^^ lunatic vomit is prsented as 'fact'. 

	There are also mentions of the fact that the zombie
	jesus charade is actually a rebranding of pagan
	customs but that  is also 'explained' away here 

	"it has been argued that, on the contrary, the Emperor Aurelian,
	who in 274 instituted the holiday of the Dies Natalis Solis
	Invicti, did so partly as an attempt to give a pagan
	significance to a date already important for Christians in
	Rome" 
	
	"on the contrary", war is peace. 



> Which
> I feel is coming around to be more widely accepted that there was no
> Jesus as described in the gospels that started the early Christian
> church (though it was a common Jewish name - Yeshua - at that time in
> history, and there are a few other Yeshuas with messianic delusions
> described in the talmud from around the same time).


	I think that's been going on for a long time. A lot of
	anti jew-kristian stuff and contemporary criticism  was of
	course destroyed (and the authors prolly killed) by the
	jew-kristians, so the 'historical record' is mostly propaganda
	but still there's a tradition of free thinkers.

	Yet I don't see the jew-kristian cultural cancer becoming any
	less extended. On the contrary, western imperialism keeps
	spreading. See for instance south korea. 



> 
> 
> They do have a “historicity of jesus” page, which at least has the
> following info -
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


	"Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians,
	applying the standard criteria of historical investigation,
	find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain" 


	I don't think I need to add much to that self-evident truth  do
	I? =)


	
> 
> More recently Richard Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity
> of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, that there is
> insufficient Bayesian probability, 


	like I said, there's an old tradition of people telling the
	truth and they don't use pseudo scientific jargon like
	"bayesian probability". 

	


> that is evidence, to believe in
> the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, he argues that the Jesus figure
> was probably originally known only through private revelations 

	....? 


> and
> hidden messages in scripture which were then crafted into a
> historical figure, to communicate the claims of the gospels
> allegorically. These allegories then started to be believed as fact
> during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the 1st
> century.[106] Philip R. Davies has opined that a recognition that the
> historicity of Jesus is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus
> scholarship towards academic respectability[103] and R. Joseph
> Hoffmann at the Jesus Project noted that Jesus is getting more vague,
> ambiguous, and uncertain the more scholars study him, rather than the
> other way around.[116


	as if that was a new thinng that now some 'progressive'
	'scientists' discovered....