Jew World Order

I have an idea. Let’s talk homosexuality! No, let’s not. Let’s talk about race and/or culture! No, let’s not. Why not? Well, because of course we are not allowed to have our own viewpoints. You see it’s not the subject matter that we should be offended about. We should be offended about the fact that we are not allowed an alternative viewpoint to the subjects at hand. You see, homosexuality can be on the table, and it can be discussed in an adult fashion when it comes to debate, but in the end if you are to have an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream narrative about homosexuality, then you are to be cast out and shouted down as if you are some sort of criminal.

This goes for any subject at hand. Race, religion, creed, heritage so on and so forth. What is the use of having a debate about any given subject, if at the end of that debate we are going to be told that we are not allowed an alternative viewpoint to that of the mainstream media, or just what people happen to think as a majority? Isn’t debate in place for exactly that reason? So that we can decide between the two sides of that debate? Or decide between the many different angles to an argument at hand?

It bewilders me to this day that someone as intelligent as white Western civilisation’s man can be told by his peers, or his teachers, or that man in the Armani suit on his nightly news or even his very own parents, that debate is for arguing a certain point and then deciding between each other which point is more valid or simply more suited to oneself. Yet when you come to a conclusion at the end of that debate, you are told by these very same peers that you’re wrong for coming to that conclusion and you sit there and say not a word.

Since when did debate become an argument of which the end result must be agreed upon by all parties involved in the discussion? Does this not mean that everybody owning the same result must think all alike as we see in the George Orwell’s 1984? That’s exactly what this means ladies and gentlemen! This is what we mean on the alternative networks when we say, “there is no longer any such thing as critical thinking.”

Let’s use homosexuality as an example for our argument. You are debating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. I am debating that homosexuality IS a mental disorder. Where is the harm should you disagree with me and dare to come to the conclusion within your own mind that homosexuality is not a mental disorder? Where is the harm should I disagree with you and dare to come to the conclusion within my own mind that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder?

I ask you this question. Did it perhaps feel better for you when you read “where is the harm should you disagree with me and dare to come to the conclusion within your own mind that homosexuality is not a mental disorder” compared to reading the latter, where I disagree with you and come to the conclusion that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder? Both opinions are neutral. Both sides of the argument should have neither positive nor negative connotations. We both have information that led us to the opinions we now hold about homosexuality. So why does the mainstream narrative seem to dictate what it is that the end result should be as a finale?

Something to keep in mind is that just because a majority believes in something that a minority does not, should not mean for a moment that this dictates the way everybody on this earth should feel about any given subject that is being discussed at the time. Because otherwise, how is debate going to be useful to anybody if only one side of that debate, one side of the subject matter, is to be agreed upon in the end and the other side of the debate, the other side of the subject matter, be simply thrown out the window? If that’s the case, then why were we arguing at all? Because all that while there was only one side to the argument in the first place! The other side was divorced before we even began, due to not being able to utilise it as an end result.

For all of you that are not understanding me just yet, what I am saying is that if one side of the argument is the only side of the argument that can be agreed upon as final during a debate with two sides to the argument, why are we even discussing both sides? Because remember, if only one side of the argument is allowed to be agreed upon in the end, then the other side has to be divorced and forgotten about, which totally renders the argument useless to begin with. Does this make sense to you?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t see how debating homosexuality from two sides and ending up with differing opinions between the different parties arguing within the debate can harm anybody. But it seems in this day and age, the moment you do come to the conclusion that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder, you are somehow harming somebody else, whether they be homosexual or just of the mainstream narrative. This makes no sense.

The only way that I can see a debate about homosexuality harming anybody is when it becomes physical. For example, somebody from either side of the argument throws a punch at the opposing party because they didn’t like the idea that there was a disagreement. I indeed do not see how having a differing opinion can harm anybody, unless they are a half wit. And I literally mean half wit. You’d have to be an idiot, a total twit, to believe for a moment that it is harmful just because somebody has an opposing viewpoint to you about something such as homosexuality, after you yourself have invited them to a debate about the subject.

Some people can use the argument that they are offended because the argument being used by the opposing party simply is not true. There are two problems with this idea. The first: both sides of the party can claim that their side of the argument is correct compared to that of the other. The second: only one side will have ample evidence compared to that of the other to support his or her argument. The reason I say this is because anything that can attract debate will more than likely have a definitive no-nonsense answer and result.  Or multiple no-nonsense answers and results. Some of these answers and results are more powerful than others. The other side will simply be fluff. This is not always the case, but most of the time it is. As a general rule of thumb, any subject that can attract debate will more than likely have enough evidence to support one side as the winning side.

If we are going to talk about things that cannot be debated in a definitive manner then we have to resort to conversation about things such as Chaos theory. Chaos theory can be something very difficult to debate. For instance, many scientists and/or weather bureau specialists will debate the idea that weather in itself, or should I say the theory of weather in itself relates to chaos theory, when in fact it’s the small details within the laws of physics, (for the lack of a better way of explaining it) that make up the result of the weather that are, in fact, in direct line with chaos theory.

The best way to explain chaos theory I think we see in the movie known as Jurassic Park, where Dr. Malcolm places a drop of water on the back of a hand and the drop, due to certain things such as the hairs on the hand and a slight leaning of the hand, flows in a certain direction and runs off the skin. Now we take exactly the same hand with exactly the same sized drop of water, with exactly the same hairs on the back of that hand, and apply the same lean, but yet the water droplet flows in a different direction. This is chaos theory. This is because of the subtle differences within the laws of physics and the extreme subtle differences and instances on the back of that hand. So as you can imagine Chaos theory is something very difficult to debate in a definitive manner. Homosexuality is not.  Race is not. Religion is not. Creed and culture are not.

This article is not about homosexuality, race, religion nor creed. I have merely written it to show you how useless mankind really is as a majority. He is bought and sold by terms such as racism, anti-Semitism, among other useless epithets and labels and cannot even understand the true meaning of debate. Here we are in the year 2015 and human beings as a majority cannot even understand the true meaning of debate! Again I ask, does that make sense to you?

The next time somebody asks you into a debate, ladies and gentlemen, and they happen to become offended and tell you that you were wrong for your point of view during that debate and that you have hurt their feelings, tell them that they have no idea what debate is all about and it’s an insult to all of mankind that they even dared to indulge in such an intelligent pastime with a brain so feeble. I’m not against people that get heated during debate because that’s what a big part of debate is all about, however I cannot abide stupidity, and nor should you. Both parties should have a right to decide what they take away from that debate without being told that the side they choose is malignant because the mainstream narrative says so.

We are way too late in the game to accept stupid people.