Everyone is eating babies because of Freemasonry and they all took oaths which means they can't say shit...

Everyone is eating babies because of Freemasonry and they all took oaths which means they can't say shit. I'm constantly getting harassed by them. I'm convinced the Jews are setting me up as Messiah ben Joseph/antichrist. The ultimate red pill is Islam. Find me a mistake in the Qur'an. Americans are fucking retarded. Blood Libel is real, the Jews like to sacrifice little Christian babies and eat them to open their third eye. It's the only way to do it. When you open your third eye you can read people's thoughts, travel through walls and do all sorts of shit. How? The universe is conscious based. Israel is evil and secular. America is evil and secular. Europe is evil and secular. Indians eat people in the Temple of Kali. Jesus could break trees with his mind. Allahu akbar.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth#anchor28
biblehub.com/1_kings/3-2.htm
breakingisraelnews.com/97595/mystic-leader-god-soon-reveal-messiahs-identity-dream-message-rabbis-worldwide/#/
biblehub.com/ezekiel/39-17.htm
withoutbaggage.com/msgs/71/71598/wide_71608_D0G.jpg

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/USevIRwwkN8?t=241
youtube.com/watch?v=MVa4q-YVjD8
youtube.com/watch?v=ZZz-yMrXHz0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No shit Sherlock

I have sirens going off outside my window as I type this. Post was removed from Reddit. Is Sup Forums just as controlled by these Zionist psychopaths?

Thanks Julian, inspirational.

Can someone tell me the meaning of 666? It looks like it's related to the Tribe of Dan.

...

Why do I have songs made about me?

youtu.be/USevIRwwkN8?t=241

>Everyone is eating babies
Is this another millennial diet fad?

It's the jews.

It's the Freemasons as well. Everyone's a fucking Freemason. You probably are too. Are any of them good? I'm convinced they're all brainwashed by edgy Jewish Kabbalah doctrine.

It makes you powerful bro.

>It makes you powerful bro.
Really? Seems like they'd be too fatty. Too lacking in nutritional value to be worth it, similar to foie gras. But hey, lamb and veal are pretty good, i guess.

It lets you boost energy up the spine, the snake rising up the coil, hence the 33 columns of the spine in Freemasonary. I had a book on it from the Freemasons that I found online but MI5 removed it from my phone.

>It lets you boost energy up the spine
How, though? Like biologically that doesn't make sense, since your body doesn't work that way.

You are schizophrenic my friend.

I don't know, the Freemasons keep it a secret. It awakens a spark in a spine. Something to do with energy hidden in the spine and the mind. A lot of science is fake, they have to keep it that way to keep power. I don't think anyone has a clear explanation of it. G-d is real and so is Lucifer. We are designed not evolved and man is made in the image of G-d so it has something to do with that.

>, the Freemasons keep it a secret.
Pretty sure they don't. It'd be easily measurable.
>It awakens a spark in a spine.
Yea, what does that mean physiologically? What is the observable effect?
>A lot of science is fake
Not stuff you can repeat, observe, and eventually explain. That's what science is.
>G-d
Oh, you're a Jew. That's why you don't like Masons or science.

That was literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. Congratulations. Fuck islam and the goatfuckers who believe in it.

Consciousness is not measurable or describable by science. Stop trying to apply physical phenomena, which is what science is, to non physical realities. I'm am not a Jew, I don't follow any religion. I am just not a Freemason.

Have sex, Mario

>Consciousness is not measurable or describable by science.
Yea, it actually is. We just don't have every detail of it. But if you're saying it's not measurable or describable, why would you try to assert that a certain act of it is?
>I'm am not a Jew,
Only jews are incapable of writing God. There is no other reason.

You have to take them out bro, they're coming for you.

Jesus could do all his miracles without being a cannibal. The Left hand path will only leave you to the life of a slave. Same with Islam. Repent.

How on Earth could we have any detail of it? It's impossible to describe what consciousness is. How could something that is something, describe the something that it is? It's infinite recursion from thereon.

I don't write G-d because it's disrespectable. I am like the Jews in that way but am not a Jew.
I believe it's d

Jesus probably circumcised people and opened his third eye without killing people.

Good luck with that, I'm monitored by Mi5 and Mossad. No one will touch me.

The spine thing is a reference to the Kundalini energy of Hinduism. It's something that can be activated through certain yogas. If you look at this from an Eastern perspective it makes more sense. They don't need to eat babies to activate it, btw.

Jokes on you I'm just an aryan little grill like 99% of posters here.

>Oh, you're a Jew. That's why you don't like Masons or science.
Actually it's more confusing than that.

>How on Earth could we have any detail of it?
Brain scans.
>How could something that is something, describe the something that it is?
Why would it not be able to? If it could speak, a dog could describe what a dog is. Just as a human could describe what a human is. Nothing prevents consciousness describing itself.
And anyway, you were the one alleging something which you now cannot explain.
>I don't write G-d because it's disrespectable.
By what measure?
>I am like the Jews
Clearly.

>The spine thing is a reference to the Kundalini energy of Hinduism
Of course. But it's not a measurable phenomenon.
>If you look at this from an Eastern perspective it makes more sense.
Yea, i know what it means, as a practitioner myself. But OP is getting all kinds of shit confused, or just wrong.

Well it was worth a shot, but in all seriousness you are experiencing a manic or psychotic episode my friend. Not trying to offend you or anything but I strongly recommend you see a doctor for that condition before you hurt yourself.

> Australian
> Aryan
Lel

How on Earth does a brain scan describe consciousness? If humans can't describe what consciousness is, why would a talking dog be any different.

Yes, they do, that's why they worship Kali.

There is a particular flavor of internet Christianity that is hyper-paranoid of the idea that mankind are more than human. They think admitting to deity-nature ala Pythagoras is Satanism. Unfortunately the elites that are about to be arrested for subverting the world politically also are aware of these things and many practice them. A witch-hunt is being organized over the masons and illuminati. As a result bad times ahead for people who walk the path, probably.

Why are you such a shill?

You don't need to worship anything to activate Kundalini. You can do simple visualization exercises to unlock it. Some of you guys are hilariously misguided. Yes, there are evil ways of accessing it, but no they aren't necessary. It can be done easily and legally.

It's not Christians bro, it's Hindus who don't like evil, Jews and Muslims. All who know more than you. Back to the lodge with you brother.

I wouldn't be surprised. Before I was put on brain damaging pills, I was onto something dark. The world was no longer a good place. Evilness lurked behind everything. People said some shit which made me question what the fuck is really going on.

You can't even visualise things without opening your third eye. Kundalini is a separate thing to opening the third eye and unlocking the feminine energy in your spine.

I'm a Buddhist you fucking retard, not that you'd have any realistic understanding of what that means, either. Have fun with your pstchotic ranting. Religious freedom is the cornerstone of America.

Your imagination is visualization. Goodbye.

>free to practice any religion you want
>not free to stop your government from spying on the whole world and engaging in multiple wars

Also, how does one open their third eye?

this spinal stuff, stop!

Buddhist philosophy is retarded, just like your country. Heathens.

You're only able to visualise because you ate someone. You know you did...

Why was your father such an abusive alcoholic?

>How on Earth does a brain scan describe consciousness?
It shows the existence of it. We're constantly learning more things about it.
>If humans can't describe what consciousness is,
Can, though. Not 100%, but a sufficient amount to cover what it is.
>that's why they worship Kali.
Not how Hinduism works. It's even more fractured than Christianity. Yes, there are Kali worshipers, but you can't apply one concept of Hindiusm to all the sects.

>There is a particular flavor of internet Christianity that is hyper-paranoid of the idea that mankind are more than human.
Yea, i never got that. It's usually the fundies who are just so fearful of everything thanks to their own ignorance.

Now you're talking sense.

> Not how Hinduism works. It's even more fractured than Christianity.
Uh no... They just worship many Gods.
> It shows the existence of it. We're constantly learning more things about it.
They knew more about it in ancient times before we had science.

>They just
No. There's no just. You might as well say all Christians are just Presbyterians.
A large portion of Hindus are actually monotheistic, because in the Bhagivad Gita, Vishnu/Krishna says that all prayers go to Him, and those who worship other "Gods" are focusing only on particular aspects of Him.
>They knew more about it in ancient times before we had science.
That is entirely backwards.

Well then Hindus aren't fractured. Science is just distraction. A lot of it is false. Engineering works but you don't really need science to have engineering.

>Well then Hindus aren't fractured.
Agreed?
>Science is just distraction. A lot of it is false
Wrong. Science is not a belief. It's a tool for finding what is or isn't, and why. A hammer cannot be false. It's just used.
>Engineering works but you don't really need science to have engineering.
It is a science, though. You can't have a bridge based on hope.

Science is a belief. Have you ever seen an electron? You've seen what you believe to be the effect of an electron but you've never seen the electron. So the electron is just a belief that is in your mind. How is this any different to a religion? You can knock down a tree and use it to cross a river. Did you need science for that? No. Then why do you think engineering is science?

>Science is a belief.
No, science functions in spite of belief. It's a method, not a faith.
>Have you ever seen an electron?
Not in person, my school was too cheap to have good microscopes.
But i've also never seen Dublin in person, yet it's safe to say it exists.
>How is this any different to a religion?
Consistency and application. If i pray to Manaan for good sailing weather, it may not happen. Even if i sacrifice and do all kinds of things. But if i practice chemistry according to scientific methods, it's a consistent result each time, and we know why.
>Did you need science for that?
Yea, physics. Just because you don't write out your method each time doesn't mean you're not practicing scientific endeavours.

The results are consistent but are the conclusions drawn up from the experiment consistent? No they are not, they change over time and are based on previous assumptions. Dublin is just a label for a particular place, it doesn't really exist. Nothing exists but God.

ERIN GO BABBY

>The results are consistent but are the conclusions drawn up from the experiment consistent? No they are not, they change over time and are based on previous assumptions
Only somewhat. Given all known information to make something consistent, the conclusions themselves ought be consistent. To reference prayer and sacrifice again, if i were to sacrifice a sheep to Minerva for a good harvest on one part of my farm, and i have a spot which does give good yield, we can observe it's not the prayer which results in the extra growth, but the fertiliser.
That's why the scientific method works the way it does, so you can examine multiple variables to find the truth.
>Dublin is just a label for a particular place, it doesn't really exist.
It does, though. That particular place is Dublin. Or the Eiffel Tower. Or Niagra Falls. You can argue Thesseus' Ship all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that at a time it does exist, and is observable without relying on faith.

Also, OP: WHY DO YOU THINKS IT'S CALLED TEMPLE BAR AND FREEMASONRY HAS ONE OF ITS GRAND LODGES HERE

>why does he have songs made about him?
when ya ear drum bursts, perma-deafening ya hear--
Stealing the thunder, stealing the show
when the country deports ya to the moon, remember there's two sides to the coin

youtube.com/watch?v=MVa4q-YVjD8

>WHY DO YOU THINKS IT'S CALLED TEMPLE BAR
Because of Sir William Temple.
>FREEMASONRY HAS ONE OF ITS GRAND LODGES HERE
No, GLI is on Molesworth St, over a click away.

Why didn't the IRA destroy this?

Why is he called Sir William Temple?

Dunno. Was probably descended from a Templar or church man. Which, is another theory to the name of Temple Bar. It wasn't itself a preceptory, but named itself after Temple Bar in London (because it was a Knights Templar preceptory).
Or did you mean why was he Sir'd? It was because he was a Baronet. And he was able to be that because his father, Sir John was knighted for services rendered to Charles I.

He's talking about Kundalini energy, which is separate from the spiritual perversion involving ritual abuse and adrenochrome

You're doing quite well here in what looks to be some sort of an odd spiritual disinformation thread? But you are making an error with the 'a priori' of logic... aka science.

Religion = man-made attempt to explain metaphysical truth
Science = man-made attempt to calculate/measure physical and metaphysical truths
Both are equally unqualified!!! Both are systems SEPARATE from what they are attempting to explain/measure
So, for example, to assert that God (he symbols man have created to represent metaphysical truth) doesn't exist is to assert that the foundation of existence rests within a man-made system of measurement. Which is impossible

The symbols man have**

Larp Larp Larp Larp Larp Larp Larp Larp laaaaarp

>Both are equally unqualified!!!
Well no. The scientific method is there to check out what you can know. Again, it's not a belief in of itself.
And religion is perfectly qualified for dealing in religion. It's also great when it embraces science, like various forms of Christianity do.
>So, for example, to assert that God doesn't exist is to assert that the foundation of existence rests within a man-made system of measurement.
I wasn't asserting that, nor does one necessarily lead to the other.

>well no
Yes. Both are NOT qualified to validate the metaphysical truth of our existence. You can argue different vectors of measurement to see one or the other win, but both are systems made by man, and therefore flawed.
>I wasn't asserting that
That's why I said for example. And yes negating one does implicate the other. Has man made any other systems to measure metaphysical truths?

>Both are NOT qualified to validate the metaphysical truth of our existence.
Technically both are qualified, we just lack the information necessary to put into the system right now.
>but both are systems made by man
Religion kinda is. But science isn't. You don't need humans for 1+1=2.
>That's why I said for example.
My bad.
>And yes negating one does implicate the other.
No, and that's a very narrow assumption. You don't always need something ready to fill the gap if you reject another.

...

> Religion kinda is. But science isn't. You don't need humans for 1+1=2.
Yes you do, humans just made maths up. Sure, it describes ratios but do ratios even really exist?
>Technically both are qualified, we just lack the information necessary to put into the system right now.
Because that system doesn't exist. Even in quantum physics reality is consciousness based, just look at the double slit. Nothing can really be explained by science, it's just the continual break down of stuff in categories with no relationship between the categories.

>technically both are qualified
You're missing the original point then. It has nothing to do with the actual mechanisms of measurement. It's due to the fact that the mechanisms doing the measurement are SEPARATE from the metaphysical truth. It's a truth as that humans, as locales of observation, cannot escape.
>science wasn't made by man
Who else? We are the observers who've created the system. It's literally impossible for it not to be made by man.
>my bad
No biggie, just going through the points, it's nice to argue this desu hehe
>narrow assumption
It's based on the systems we have in place. If you're an atheist and you claim God does not exist, what are you asserting the foundation of existence to be?

>because the system doesn't exist. Quantum physics
Yep and of course we can't ignore the fact that science has already lead us back to issue of metaphysical measurement

>humans just made maths up.
Well no, it's a discovery, not an invention.
>Sure, it describes ratios but do ratios even really exist?
Yea, they do. If an apple sitting on the ground is joined by another apple falling off a tree, there are then two apples.
>Because that system doesn't exist.
It does. Don't confuse the system for the information. An empty water trough is still a trough, even without the water.
>Nothing can really be explained by science
You're using the word wrong, and yes, everything can be explained scientifically, just some times we're not yet capable of doing so.

Basically you're overcomplicating shit.

>It's due to the fact that the mechanisms doing the measurement are SEPARATE from the metaphysical truth.
So?
>Who else?
It's innate.
>It's literally impossible for it not to be made by man.
Like you said, we're observers. It's impossible to actually make it.
> it's nice to argue this desu
Rather. Far more enjoyable than just calling each other niggers.
>It's based on the systems we have in place.
Doesn't have to be.
>If you're an atheist and you claim God does not exist, what are you asserting the foundation of existence to be?
The atheist doesn't need a substitute, though. You wouldn't need to have met the painter before dismissing the assertion of a painting having formed on it's own.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=ZZz-yMrXHz0

>so? It's innate
You're mistaking the system for the truths that the system can reveal. The universe is separate from us, and that is what is innate. The system itself is not. It reveals innate, measurable consistencies but even then it's not "precise". The speed of light (which is proposed as universal constant) has changed considerably over last few decades
>you wouldn't need to have met the painter before dismissing the assertion of a painting having formed on its own
That's the incorrect understanding of God. The painting itself is God. The foundation of the universe as it continually creates itself into being, propping our existence up, is God. This is why you can't go without a substitute. The foundation of existence is what we are debating, not guy in sky.

> Well no, it's a discovery, not an invention.
What's the difference?
> Yea, they do. If an apple sitting on the ground is joined by another apple falling off a tree, there are then two apples.
In comparison to what state? When there were no apples, nothing existed about the statement. So you've just formulated a statement out of nothing.

>It does. Don't confuse the system for the information. An empty water trough is still a trough, even without the water.
Is it? Maybe there's a different definition for something without water in it. Who says it's a water trough if there's no water in it. It's just a trough then not a water trough. Is it an apple trough if I put apples in it?
> You're using the word wrong, and yes, everything can be explained scientifically, just some times we're not yet capable of doing so.
How do you know that? That's not very scientific. You're just making assumptions.

>You're mistaking the system for the truths that the system can reveal.
Not at all. The system can be used to find them, and is therefore linked. It doesn't matter what we call the system.
>The universe is separate from us
Bit philosophical, but i have to disagree, there. All is one, all is God, etc.
>The speed of light (which is proposed as universal constant) has changed considerably over last few decades
It has? Because it's pretty constant in a vacuum, and can only be changed by the universe itself changing.
>That's the incorrect understanding of God.
I wasn't referring to God, and that's an odd thing to say, since you can't just ask God for confirmation either way.
Bearing in mind i'm not disagreeing with your understanding of God (very similar to my own), but it's a separate matter to my original point: That you don't need a substitute to disagree with something. Or rather, you don't need the right answer to be able to identify the wrong one.

>What's the difference?
Inventions have to be created. Discoveries are revealed. Ie. the printing press was an invention, but the Americas were a discovery.
>In comparison to what state?
The state of one apple sitting lonely under a tree. Yes, i created the analogy, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's often the only way to understand metaphysical matters since we lack either the information or the comprehension of the whole truth by itself.
>Who says it's a water trough if there's no water in it.
This is just obfuscating matters. Let it be an apple trough, then. An object when can only accept apples, and no other substance. If it were empty, it would still be an apple trough, for it can be nothing else.
>That's not very scientific. You're just making assumptions.
That's exactly what science is, though. Not assumptions, but the system of trial and error for understanding. It might start with an assumption, but then it get verified or not.

>system can be used to find them, therefore linked
I'm not saying science can't reveal wonderful things. It certainly has... and by many vectors of analysis it has its superiorities... but they are still separate entities. The tool of measurement and that which is measured
>all is one
The paradox of observation. The act of observing creates an observer and that which is observed. We are both wrong in that sense. It's far more complicated than a simple dichotomy. But it illustrates the point that at the tier of observational analysis, the separation exists. Our tools to measure the truth reveal truths, but the tools are not the truth hehe
>speed of light has changed?
I'll try and find data on that. But pretty sure I remember that correctly. "Changed massively" also means massively for a scientific standard lol. Aka it didn't change a lot but any change from the internationally established constant is counter-intuitive. And would reveal the inherent flaws in the observer observed relationship
>I wasn't referring to God
>your original statement "the atheist doesn't need a substitute, though. You wouldn't need to have met the painter before dismissing the assertion of a painting having formed on it's own."
Is it incorrect for me to use your metaphor to illustrate my point?
>don't need a substitute to disagree
I understand what you're saying... this depends on the pieces of the puzzle. If it can only be right or left, then not-left equals right. And here we would be using the common convention of LOGIC and FAITH being the primary 'a prioris' that humans operate with. We could argue the 'a prioris' though

>but they are still separate entities
I'll concede that only in that the tool isn't itself part of the end result (like the hammer isn't part of the house it builds. Hopefully).
>The act of observing creates an observer and that which is observed.
I get that, but i wonder if we're being a bit semantic. Like yes, those are unique positions, but is it inherent, or just limited by our human understanding?
>"Changed massively" also means massively for a scientific standard lol
Oh aye, even the tiniest iota of difference is pretty massive in such terms. Whether or not it was outdated equipment, or something more interesting.
>And would reveal the inherent flaws in the observer observed relationship
That's what i meant about deficiencies in our own abilities.
>Is it incorrect for me to use your metaphor to illustrate my point?
Not at all. Always best to turn ones own words against them. But in my case, i wasn't trying to make a theological argument. Just used a bad analogy when trying to separate it.
>If it can only be right or left, then not-left equals right.
Absolutely. I concur entirely, but i was aiming for when we don't have a binary choice.

>2017
The year satire became indistinguishable from reality
>2018
The year obvious schizophrenia became indistinguishable from reality.

what is kike blood libel