09/14/2017 (Thu) 05:25:33
Correct conclusions without objective proof concerning an objective subject matter is meaningless. I seek the "smoking gun", not speculations that end up being true. Just because Jacob Rubenstein confessed doesn't mean that only the Jews were behind it all. It's ultimately significantly lacking in objective proof as to the whole scenario of what went down. One needs to see all sides and motives to see the totality of what objectively happened BEFORE there can be any subjective claims made.
I don't take everyone's word at face value, all I'm interested in is the bottom line source, it doesn't matter who says the truth, if they can prove that they aren't bullshitting, regardless of who they are, the truth stands by itself. Grouping Theodore Fred Abel as a Pollack then claim that he's a Jew when there's zero objective proof that he is one doesn't mean that the sources he got from are bad sources, which I don't objectively know, and neither do you objectively know that is the case. All historians have a motive, but the sources used are without interpretation, it's just factual statements, or so I at least hope that it is, but until I get my hands on the specific book that also happens to claim to had interviewed actual people that were living in Germany at that time since Theodore also claimed to had gone there personally to do said interviews and see the source material concerning where did Theodore Abel gets his claim from concerning the percentage of Catholics and Protestants that had voted for the NSDAP, the verdict is still out for me.>I don't give a shit about the primary or lesser religions of voters for Hitler.
Translation: fuck religion
k.>>55560>Your "arguments" all come down to extreme semantic inflation as you lack any substance, logic, or even capability to convey them in colloquial terms (probably due to severe autism and/or OCD)
Translation: ad hominem
Actual OCD people won't even bother with stupid people, while those with actual "autism" are extremely limited to their vocabulary and get too frustrated to even begin to convey their thoughts and feelings.
The actual message you're conveying is objective and subjective synthesis, which objective synthesis leads to subjective negation and so claiming subjective synthesis as well is a materialist fallacy in identifying with the shadow puppet, ergo, you're a materialist and metaphysical atheist which is nihilism which believes in subjective negation. Again, you either get it or you don't, just like how I get that you don't know the words that you're conveying while you think that I don't get what you're trying to convey. If you used the words correctly, you wouldn't see me complain.
There is no such thing as a posterior principle, all principles are anterior to its attribution. All release of potential is IMPOTENTIAL, is always less than its unmanifest potential. Even Taoists knows that fact.
Message too long. Click here to view full text.