It couldnt be hidden from Satan. An ex archangel still exremely powerful has ths celestial know-how to tell. Satan can feel God's presence, all celestials can.
Celestials can all sense each other.
It couldnt be hidden from Satan. An ex archangel still exremely powerful has ths celestial know-how to tell. Satan can feel God's presence, all celestials can.
Celestials can all sense each other.
Early on in his presidency this 2nd Term he literally said hed colonise/take Greenland later into his term.
This is now the official 2026 narrative from UK Government perspective:
In January 2026, United States President Donald Trump has intensified pressure on Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, to become part of the United States. He has argued Greenland is vital to US security.
While he has often spoken of purchasing Greenland, he has also said the US would obtain it “one way or the other” and up till 21 January refused to rule out using military force. President Trump had said the US would impose tariffs on several European countries including the UK, who had been part of a military preparation exercise in Greenland, until an agreement to cede the island had been made. Following discussion with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as the World Economic Forum at Davos, he changed his mind and said tariffs would not be imposed.
Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. Were the US to use force against another NATO member, Denmark, to secure Greenland, then the mutual defence foundation on which NATO rests would be jeopardised.
Leaders in Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. The UK Government has echoed these remarks, and criticised President Trump’s threat of tariffs while emphasising that it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/
The only possible reason to say things like he will take it 'one way or another' are to imply much like he grabbed women by the pussy one way or another that he was open to nonconsensually abuse Greenland and violate the sanctity of its sovereign land.
Your turn.
Tell me why it was not reasonable for Europe to be ready for an invasion. Recall that prior to Putin forcefully and brutally trying to take Ukraine, he claimed he was not going to and just was interested. So, you hopefully realise that invasion is rarely done consensually and pre warned overtly.
I am not a boomer. Im somewhere aged 26-33. Age is within that with either end included as a possibility.
Depending which end Im on Im either a severely young Millennial or a very old Zoomer (Gen Z).
I am very sure that the idea of feminism already existed when my actual grandparents were alive.
And this idea in fact existed for centuries before in non-Islamic (Hindu and Buddhist) South Asia. The Hindus were the first ever civilisation to push on the concept that a woman should study and work. However, they had the caveat that women tend to suit part time esp if mothers, not full-time. They also tended to have patriarchal ownership of businesses.
When colonisation happened the 2nd or 3rd time (Portuguese had come way before and Dutch had showed up, plus St. Thomas long before had led to catholicism in Kerala especially far longer ago), the British were shocked that feminism was present there. The level to which the Hindu communities held women genuinely equal to men was something unseen in most ogher native tribes. Some actually were matriarchal especially in the Americas.
Hindus and also Buddhists had a concept of gender egalitarianism even in spite of Caste system ethnic inequalities.
It is extremely plausible that the reason the British were the first to actually make Feminism work (the Frebch had the concept from way back, they had actual female warriors fighting off the Nazis fully saxrificing and shooting guns, even female lieutenants, idk for sure about generals, these were seen as terrorists by the Nazi occupiers so they lacked official ranks of any kind. You did have 2 prominent females leading specific batallions but with males as their equals or even superiors in strategy.
The British likely had seen that feminism in education worked out for the Indians and Sri Lankans quite well. It did not lead to any infertility issues that we have in the west today.
This is because Hindu and Buddhist Feminism was 2nd wave only. It never ever got the 3rd wave vibe to it.
Giving a series of images against your cause does not help your case.
Those are all 1900s btw, suporting my claim that the society you want was 1500s and Catholic but I actually oppose certain elements of that socirty esp the sexist approach to education.
Neither. Inheriting large swaths of blood money from his Dad's side (inherited emerald mine money from his Grandpa) is what led to his success.
Trump is actually ethnically German via his Father's. His family name was Drumpf.
I don't know why he feels more American than European to the extent he does when on top of that his mother was a 1st generation Scottish immigrant to US.
The 2 strongest angles to explain this:
If theory 2 is true, it creates a separate issue as it would mean Satan is serving God as the Jews suggest, as a key adversary, accuser and prosecutor (testing us, not fully rooting for us to fail the test).
Theory 1 is thus more appropriate for strict Christians to uphold.
That society existed before the first pilgrim ever showed up to the americas.
The difference was that women were banned from education.
if you support that at least be more obvious a sexist.
I support female education access. However, I believe a lot of modern education syllabuses is uselsss junk and even indoctrinates kids and teens into lies at times.
The subjects of geograpgy and histiry are taught so biased and blinkered and small blip time moments as well.
Even to be specific to the Americas, youd need to explore a lot of both sides. Both what the horrors were, the torture in the iraq war deon by the US soldiers etc AND the good things US did for the world and its people.
You cannot just educate people some bulkshit propaganda biaaed either for or against the nation and its agenda and expect them to really have good knowledge.
How would those mothers be better off having a baby at a crucial moment early on in their career or late into their education?
Having a baby has massive health drawbacks. Pregnancy affects a lot in a woman's body and brain and also means she can have barely any drugs, even caffeine. This means she cannot even caffeine her way through tough work moments where she is fatigued, nor cannshe take drugs to handles anxiety etc without likely harming the baby.
The solution is a fully Catholic society. This is genuinely the most feasible and historically proven best solution. All other solutions neglect the women, children etc.
The problem is that a fully Catholic society is not free market. It is either Feudalist or akin thereof.
Can you be peasant class, stay peasant class and feel 0 resentment to the upper class? If not, pitchforks will get grabbed and rage and envy induced riots will lead to what eventually happened in Europe.
You are raised in the West to think liberally. This has led to a delusional outlook that is having MANY effects. It is why the birth rates are so low despite the sex rates being so high. It is why despite sex rates being so high, inceldom is extremely high too (1 man can hookup with many women after all).
The entire Catholic cultures of the West have degenerated so much over the past 4-5 centuries that people unironically believe that the main issue with Islam is how anti sex and anti liberty they are... No. The issues are far beyond that and they actually get family value somewhat right.
A policy like abortion appears to help the working class at first.
What actually happens is infa ts are slaughtered, casual sex happens a lot more frequently and the poor stay poor in a degenerate subculture.
This is not all poor. It is some subcultures of the poor.
This leads to vicious cycles whereby when a pioicy banning abortions or charging money rather then publicly finding the abortions occurs, it will at first hurt the poor.
On the flip side, a policy like flat tax and free markets at first will seem fair and as if the poor if they rise will be taxed less, to help them keep rising.
What actually happene is monpooie or oligopolies form, choke out all small business(es) in the industry/ies they compete in and nobody protects them.
I have other examples proving I see genuine deep flaws in both wings. It is not even that the pilitiicnas are corrupt alone, the wings themselves both have inherently flawed approaches. That is why mixed economies and middleway social pooicies are consistently what tends to be present in the most desirable places on Earth to live in.
However, I actually believe being too desirable to foreign migrants backfires. This is a view I gained much later into my life as I was raised to think as a leftist of sorts.
If you are too desirable, you find the dilemma of ethnic replacement and more inevitably takes place over time. Furthermore, the cuktures replacing you rarely give yours the mutual respect back.
This is NOT neonazi or white specific. I am not for total remigration. I am saying it needs to be very controlled. You want to attract law-compliant and assimilatable immigrants and repel ones that either will not likely obey the law or won't likely ever assimilate but it is not just that. You want to also have the amount of 'good immigration' low enough such that immigrants are at all times too low in population to win a civil war against the natives.
This is actually why I have deep issue with nations founded on a basis like what US was. US did not even identiy as a colonised nation, it confused itself to believe it was a white nation with several founding fathers, 0 of which were native.
This has led to MANY fubdamebtally racist and prohlematic aspects to US. In contrast their neighbour Canada had an ibtellectually honest realisation that it was British and French colonised. This led to it correctly handling the disparity and anguish its natices felt with the replacement of which culture was dominant. They showed a lot more respect to the native tribes than US did.
Australia had similar issues to US where NZ had less. NZ and Canada's relationship between the conqueror tribes and natige tribes was healthier because they realised it was the native's land first. The actual realisation of this wasnt enough. NZ did enslave the Maori at times.
However, in the US scenario they went so insane that they decided to bring over a whole new race and several of their ethnicities to enslave and abuse.
This is linked to the fact that Americans had a mental block in their minds, since they identified as natives of the land it led to them feeling it woukd be wrong to treat the actual natives that way (this was after a lot of raping, genociding and pillaging of said natives) so they instead decided to bring black people over, as in their minds that was an 'other' people while the natives were 'with' them.
Eventually you can appreciate how truly racist America is at a fundamental level only when you rewind to its origin and realise how it formed a torn identity as a white nation that it never actually was originally.
I don't 'think Trump ever 'explicitly said he would declare war and launch a military invasion of Greenland.
So it 'was peaceful, peace is peace and violence is violence.
In more than 1 announcement he gave on the matter, he threatened that he's willing and able to take it the 'hard' way but wants them to choose the 'easy' way. This is beyond a subliminal threat, it's a blatant threat.
Let's be clear, if you keep threatening someone's life, safety and wellbeing you are not peaceful to them. You are psychologically terrorising them and it's not just 'in their head' because the threat is very physical if you did act on it.
The hugest reason I was a left winger for most of my life is that classism is an actual real 'ism' to pay attention to in life and not just 'totally be against'.
Working class people who are truly poor from birth have entirely different experiences of life in the same nation and 'culture' than what upper to middle have.
Middle to upper differ in that upper class begin to enter proper elitism where they have actual power in the nation that truly can affect or prevent change, whereas middle merely are cushioned against changes vs the working class.
These are real things that exist.
The hard left approach is to defeat class disparity by making all working class (this never 'works' well, pun intended). The hard right approach has 2 variants, 1 is pure social darwinism, the other is a variant of the left wing approach and is why alt right even exists and always did actually exist as an undertone to the right.
The Neonazi approach fuses social darwinistic propaganda with alt right extremism that's what makes it dangerous and toxic to extreme degrees.
The general alt-right approach works by having a left-wing outlook on the elites but maintaining a right wing economic structure and not disliking a hierarchy and structure to society. Oftentimes, to 'sell this' a strong cultural unity is needed. The left unites against the elites outright, whereas the rights unite against specific elites seen as infiltrators or threats to the culture and wellbeing of those seeking to keep what they supposedly earned.
The reason many don't understand left vs right being similar at times, is that most assume left vs right is more about social issues than it is about 2 ways for inequalities in society to be handled.
The left approach handles inequality by outright fighting against the inequity that goes along with it. In contrast, the right wing approach handles inequality by either making sure the inequality is metirocratic enough or alternatively decides it can make ways so that the elites at least are more sided with the tribe of the nation the alt-right associate most with.
In the end it's unwise to be far left or far right. Both result in ruthless tyranny that ruins the nation, silences opposition and has horrific starvation and even death camps in Hitler's case.
In China and Russia today you can see that when a far left society shifts to capitalism, it doesn't actually work how most would assume it would. It frees barely anyone in a significant way. CCP literally calls themselves communist still even though what's actually in place is called Corporate statism AKA State Corporatism. This is a variant of right wing fascism that is more centrist in its approach and is heavily auth over lib instead. Russia is very similar but the system they have is slightly different. Instead of corporatism, Russia simply has raw oligarchy in place. Like literally it's just oligarchy, it's back to its tsarist system disguising itself via rigged elections and completely paralysed opposition.
If you genuinely believe that politics is just left vs right, you don't get it. I am not a mind-numbed guy who thinks saying 'both sides are bad' is a hot take. I know why both sides are bad, differently. It's to do with the elites. The elites choke the working men out in different ways. The left have dedicated to choking out the working man's masculine aura, his will to rebel and ability to climb the ladder as a whole. The right have dedicated to simply creating a term known as an oligopoly in every single industry where usually you have 2 or maybe 4 elite billionaires competing. They tax them far less, so the right more naturally aligns with the 'elite vs peasant' dynamic. That was actually how right wing began as a term at all, they're pro hierarchy and rigid societal structure. They wants peasants staying as peasants serving the noblemen, clergy, Royal family and God (but quite honestly the Lord is an afterthought for them). The left wing from the very beginning also had a Christian outlook and wanted a more 'Jesus feeds the poor' approach.
Over time, what seems to have happened is that both wings completely abandoned faith-oriented politics in the West, the Left more blatantly so. The Left used to call the Right greedy and heartless to highlight them as antichristlike. Now, so few Leftists are seriously Christian that it makes no sense to use that propaganda much. The Right used to call the Left heretics and arrogant. Now that so many of the Western Right are protestant and are indeed heretical and arrogant to the Holy See and more, it makes no sense for them to use that propaganda angle.
Both sides play filthy. Both are owned by the elites. Nonetheless, it does matter who you push others you know to vote for. Elections do matter because 'lesser evil' does exist each election.
He's a high functioning sociopath with a lot of powerful elites behind him. He is the establishment, just rebranded.
Why did this entire thing sidetrack too much into the race stuff?
This topic is about what a woman is, it's actually important to first answer that.
The difference between men and women is so fundamental that ALL cultures agreed that men weren't women and boys weren't girls. In contrast, difference between racial ethnic subsets has far more nuance and variation to it and is not nearly as fundamental to our species as the difference between our male and female species members.
As Sadolite said, and I noticed even when I leaned left for the majority of my life, you cannot have firm feminism and thus female-based women's rights and also female-specific protections and policies, if you're going to never ever define what a woman is. UK's leftist Keir Starmer caved in to this issue and finally agreed to define it biologically after a major bill held in Scotland, I believe, was won early on in his Prime Ministry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
The clash between hardline feminists and the modern fully-affirmig transgender movement is actually innate and fundamental because the former holds males as a threat to women that have to have policies in place to 'tame' that threat and protect female-only spaces etc. On the other hand, the latter believes a male can become a female and often believes all it takes is him dressing up as a stereotypical woman and saying he is one. This then, according to the latter, enables that male-sex person to enter female-only spaces and count as female on the policies designed to protect them against male 'microaggresions' as well as overt aggression.
To describe the ethnic groups Bosnian (Muslims) Serb (Christians) and Croat (Roman Catholics).
Firstly, Catholics are Christians, what you mean is Serbs are often (Eastern) Orthodox rather than Catholic.
You can convert and deconvert, it isn't like Judaism which is fixated on this idea that being born an ethnicity permanently etches a religious identity into you.
So if someone threatens to beat the living shit out of you, take you against your will and then says 'let's negotiate peacefully if you don't want that', that is peaceful?
There is probably truth to this.
I just stopped caring and designed my life so being likeable wasn't that important.
I am able bodied, capable mentally and am building a career on ability alone, not likeability. All I need to focus on is not being totally repulsive.
Ive made friends along the way but theyre loose friends. I am gonna be the type of husvand and dad who basically only gives a shit about my family primarily, others matter less but I will show genuine care and may do some charity work.
I don't care if only 892 out of 900 ppl like me. The 8 matter, most of the 892 can literally and figuratively go to Hell if they wish to.
That is hilarious... One of the only Islamic European nations has a trinity of leaders.
This won't end pretty.
Degrading me for being autistic is ridiculous coming from an autist himself.
Address what is said or run away. Don't make excuses.
USA flaunts its military power frequently. It happily slaughters thousands even millions and many of.those dead bodies are its own, for oil, power etc.
European nations learned their lesson, theyre are more cautious after ww2. In Cold War US utilised and funded jihadist groups to do a lot of the dirty work and 1 of them ended up doing 9/11. Go figure.
Another of them runs Afghanistan as a bottom of the barrel Sharia shithole rivalling Somalia and Sudan. Guess where the refugees of that regime are now running?
Of course. Europe. The best continent on Earth.
You confuse humility and generosity with weakness. You confuse active, chosen meekness with involuntary passivity.
If you want ww3, it can come in many forms.
The only reason US is so dangerous vs Europe is that your leaders truly are more willing to let many thousands of their own die and to massacre others, than modern post ww2 Europe nations typically are.
Your edge is raw aggression and bloodlust.
You see how you flip the script fast.
You went from saying Europe behaving bad to you poor wittle amewicans is why this is happening in Greenland. It is happening because of your pigheaded American greed, narcissism and bloodlust.
Good.
Keep the gaslighting threats going.
"You are really angry that our arrogant leader, elected 2 times by us is aggressively bullying nations he has no place threatening or getting involved in, especially Canada and Greenland. We do NOT support him yet in all ways we simp him and refuse to condemn him and empathise with your pain and rage. All the tariffs, overt threats and racist ideology he is spreading to divide Europeans (even their Right Wing) internally are clearly no reason to be hostile at all.
You European residents and/or citizens need to quietly take provocation after provocation verbal, economic, political and now militaristic until you break. If you snap at us then we will hate you and justify it by how you reacted."
Fuck off USA. Stay mad.
I think elites are at play.
However, ignoring that, the Right did a lot of damage to themselves with Trump.
They could have voted ANY other candidate in Primaries and he/she would have had stronger family values, cleaner past, superior conduct etc than Trump. They went out of their way 3 elections in a row to get the absolute worst candidate possible other than maybe Jeb Bush, to win.
Some of it was racism motivated, however to say Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are not white Americans just for being of Hispanic descent is ridiculous.
The entire thing reeks of corruption. Trump is barely a Christian. 3rd Marriage, admitted to molesting multiple women and never said sorry for it, paid 88 million USD on a rape case to shut her up (airtight case that is why he forked it up)... Epstein Island visitor...
He is also now actually mimicking Hitler at times. He mimicked the tariffs and the invasion of other nations. His 1st term we can argue he was not neonazi... Now it is becoming much harder to.
He has itnroduced laws and acted i whas that imply authoritarianism not libertarianism. To immigrate to US now requires you to have (yes you need to have) active social media accounts, fully piblic for.them to back-check.
You.need 5 years of handles even sites like this and 10 years of emails. I think 5 years of numbers too.
If you lack sufficient social.media you get autorejected because they cabnot secure that you are not anti US and anti Trump.
I would get rejected. I have anti Trump views. I also am.u usual as I am a genuine abalyst of pilitics who will.shift vote/allegiance when I see it as optimal.for the nation. I could vote the same party 5x in a row but that reasoning would be fresh every time I vote.
Fortunately, I do not intend to end up in US of America. They can have their fascistic policy.
I think, as a man, there is very little for either side to appreciate about Trump.
the difference is he has actively been hostile and severe to the Left consistently so obviously they resent him more.
Take your French flag off. Traitor scum!
West Europe and Scandinavia > all!
🖕🇮🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇩🇪🇩🇰🇵🇹🇪🇸🇮🇹🇧🇪🇳🇱🇸🇪🇦🇹🇳🇴 🇮🇸🇱🇺🇱🇮(And some more)
Be ready!
🇻🇦
This will be the showdown of a lifetime!
Deus vult!
You stated with friends like European nations trading oil with Russia one may as well consider them enemies.
I brought up geography and oikitics to explain why they were far more dpeendent on Russian oil than the North Amerian nations.
You missed this over and over and thought I was accusing US. I was defending against your anti-Europe propaganda.
I said Europe.needed the oil and was closer to.Russia geographically. Calling.them enemies for that is absurd.
Easy to say such shit when US's geography and international politics led it to geopootically led to rely more on Middle East and soon, Venezuela, for oil whike Europe relied more on Russia.
The sanctions and embargos brutally hurt Europe. Idk the exemptions you mean.
US has been closer (in terms of shared enemies) to Russia than a lot of NATO nations, for a long time.