Hey Loudmouth,

"Many people (almost a majority) voted for Trump, overwhelmingly non-Evangelicals"

Oh here we bloody go again...
You people amaze me; we all argued for 2 years over it, then you all act dimentia-like.
Articles and Opinions; Facts and statistics; - of 'Why Trump won the evangelical vote when he was so UN-Christian.
- "Grab 'em by the pussy", 'Cheated on his wife' etc; remember?

It would take too much time to answer your other questions accurately and I can just add links to get you started and you can find out for yourself if you look hard enough.
If not stay dumb to the facts as I expected some of you would.

Hey runner,

I've spoken heaps about One Word Government,
But there's also a One World Religion.
If you want to know more about this;
You and the other Christians REALLY DONT WANT TO MISS THIS VIDEO;
What do you know about the Babylonion Talmud and the Noahide Laws?
http://youtu.be/wdZtycYK_Rk
Also watch this one, which has some info at the start about big tech and Israel.
http://youtu.be/syUSQEUpTTQ

Hey ttbn,
"And, if Christians did all support Israel, that means they should be persecuted, you say."

No, you got my response mixed up. To clarify:

I wasn't commenting on whether or not they 'should' be persecuted;
- I was simply stating that that is the end result of their support.

Hey Josephus,
"Just note the persecutions of Christians in general on 'Online Opinion' by people who have not read and practised the teachings of Christ."

Don't you be too quick to chip your 2 cents in.
You're one of the 'dumb' Christians that supports Israel unconditionally, but doesn't realise that the Jewish Messiah you're helping Israel to bring back is the ANTI-CHRIST.

You shouldn't just watch the above links, you should watch 'em twice.
Maybe even several times until it bloody well sinks in.
- Seriously, watch them -

Dear Critic,

No foreign men are jailed in Israel because they got a divorce;
what you probably heard is about men (Israeli and foreign visitors alike) who were arrested because they refuse to ceremoniously agree to the divorce.

According to Jewish law, once a court of law approves a divorce, the husband must take an active step to make the divorce happen - otherwise the woman remains forcibly "married" indefinitely, cannot marry anyone else and if she then has children then these are considered bastards (who in turn face a life of sanctions). Such unfortunate women wither in agony, especially if they are religious and wouldn't have any other relationship with men while "married". When a husband refuses a court-order to divorce, usually because they wish to blackmail their ex-wife or just to torment her, then the court has the power to arrest them until they declare that they agree to the divorce. Some husbands manage to escape the country beforehand, but if they return for any reason then they can be arrested. Some have returned under a different identity, but once uncovered, they were arrested (and immediately agreed to release their ex-wife so they can catch their flight back home).

All those men need is to say the word "OK" or anything to that effect to indicate that they accept the divorce - then they are instantaneously freed. If they still refuse to agree even in jail, then they are placed in solitary confinement and as they continue to refuse, more and more privileges are taken away from them until eventually they are left with just four walls without even a mattress and only bread and water as meals.

You may say "what rubbish, the court should just free the wife with or without the husband", but this is sadly not allowed by thousands-of-years-old Jewish scripture. Believe me, the Rabbis already search in every nook and cranny for loopholes to allow them to free the wife on their own.

The most sad cases are when the husband lies in hospital in a vegetative state, never to be conscious again.

Thanks Yuyutsu for adding some more info.
I found a playlist of videos relating to this and was going to look into it more but unfortunately I lost the link to it;
- And I only mentioned it because of SteeleRedux's comment.
- I did hear one point being that only the husband can approve or allow the divorce; as you mentioned.

Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 11 April 2019 4:34:44 PM

Comment2-

"Were/are you “right wing”? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you “left wing”? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you a socialist? Depending on the definition.”

“To Antifa/Marxists/Communists I do not want to convert you, I do not want to come to an understanding. Egalitarians and those that believe in heirachy will never come to terms. I don’t want you by my side or I don’t want share power. I want you in my sights. I want your neck under my boot. SEE YOU ON THE STREETS YOU ANTI-WHITE SCUM.”

Answer2-

It's not totally inconsistent perhaps to be a Socialist but be against Cultural Marxism ie. Antifa/Marxists/Communists. When he says "Egalitarians and those that believe in heirachy (Hierarchy) will never come to terms" he seems to be indicating that the ideologies of Equality and Meritocracy are incompatible.

This seems to support SteeleRedux's comment that Brenton Tarrant is against "Locke Social Libertarianism". This therefore implies that Brenton Tarrant is either (or even multiples of) 1. Economic Libertarian 2. Economic Conservative Traditionalist or 3. Social Conservative Traditionalist.

Usually perhaps if one favours Economic solutions to governing you are considered right of centre such as Economic Libertarianism, Economic Conservative Traditionalism.

Perhaps if one favours Social solutions to governing you might be considered left of centre such as a Social Libertarist.

Given that a Socially Conservative Traditionalist would favour Social policies over Economic ones perhaps they should be considered as part of the Left. Perhaps the reason that they are normally considered as part of the right is more to do with historical reasons rather than ideological alignment.

I would say that perhaps Brenton Tarrant is a Conservative Centrist Moderate but admittedly a militant one.

Maybe there should be a militancy continuum in the political "state space".

There are times and places where the attribute of militancy is valued. But I'm sure it can be a problem for government when the ideology of militant individuals is against the governing ideological principles embodied in the laws and policies

Comment3-

Pretty hard to make the case he wasn't hard core right especially when he says the former leader of the British Fascist Party was “the person from history closest to my own beliefs”.

Answer3- Former leader of the British Fascist Party- Oswald Mosley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

Comment4-

He also regarded the leader of the United Patriot Front in Australia as an emperor and threatened someone who had criticised the clown.

Further he is clear that he “only really took true inspiration from Knight Justiciar Breivik”.

But I'm interested to hear how you distinguish ecofascism from rightwing extremism given it has deep roots in the Nazi party? Bloody and soil and all that?

Answer4-

You could argue that diversity politics doesn't take diversity and equality far enough given it only values the equality of humans and not fauna and flora. This view being perhaps ecofacist would indicate that it should be located on the extreme left- but how is this different than communism- as it appears to be? As I've said before political terms seem to be arbitrarily placed on the political spectrum perhaps due to an ideological desire to be seen as being on "the side of good".

I'm not the expert on Nazism that apparently SteeleRedux is- however I understand that Nazism has it's roots as a Socialist party- so I can understand that Nazism would have elements of "the left"- interesting how "all paths of badness" seem to go to Nazism again- as if no one else is capable of it.

"Bloody and soil and all that?" - I think the Nazi party is not unique in discussing Blood and Soil.

________________________

There are those pragmatic people that don't care about "the good" but understand the "importance of perception"- there are also people that naively believe they are good.

The world and the universe is a much stranger place than we realise a lot of the time. Questions are important but so is stability- balance. Sometimes the questions need to be sacrificed for stability- and the progressive for traditional. Stick to the plan- even if it's sub-optimal.