Americans and Jews must be expelled from the UK

The Michelangelo Code: Lost Secrets of the Sistine Chapel is an excellent trip into the Old Testament and the madness that infected Renaissance Italy and the building and paining of the Sistine Chapel. But you don't need to go to 1993 Waco in Texas or Renaissance Italy to see this madness: this is what the Jews are!

Judaism is insanity and anyone who thinks they support Jews see this documentary.

The red cows needed for the sacrifice ahead of the building of the 3rd Temple are already in Jerusalem, and this will precede the coming of the Messiah and the "end of days."

We need to get Americans and Jews out of the UK. They are toxic, deranged and dangerous.

===

People wanting the Jews to be expelled from the UK have been given a boost and should support the Trump Plan to expel the Gazans. There are 7x more Gazans than Jews in the UK so even by Jewish standards its a fair deal.

The question then is whether we should import Gazans and whether they are value for the UK? We face the problem that like the Jews they are terrorists too. But the question would be are they like the Jews and resistant to accepting their adopting parents? I wonder whether Muslims are as big a problem as Jews? However looking at the history of the Middle East the Jews are without the problem there and by extension the problem here.

How the Universe makes us think we exist inside a body

Perhaps a stupid question but will explain. Why is it always me in the picture when I look at myself in the mirror? 

Well obviously its because I am the one looking. It cannot be any other way. When I look in the mirror, because it is me looking, it must also be me that is in the mirror.

But why is this?

Again this sounds like a silly question. But let us examine some of the higher knowledge we have.

We know there is only one world. We know that we all occupy the same world. And we know that everything is made in that world by that world.

Looking in the mirror we know that the mirror, the light, the body reflected and the body doing the seeing are all made and belong in this world. And this is the same world as everyone else.

This idea that we are someone locked in a body that is like a room with a window out of which we look is wrong. There is no secret self that is somehow separate from the world, locked away. Every part of us exists in the same world as everyone else.

So given this what means that I always see myself in the mirror and you always see yourself. It is--despite the fact we suspect otherwise--that we are somehow trapped in the unique experiences that we have and those make us completely separate from other people.

Whichever way we look at it, it seems that because we see through these eyes, what we see must be us.

But this does not mean we are trapped because we have not yet decided what "I" am.

You see for "me" to see through my eyes, I must be different from my eyes.

And for me to see "myself" in the mirror I must be different from what I see in the mirror!!

For me to feel trapped in this body I must be different from this body.

This means I do not actually see myself in the mirror!

I see the body in which I exist.

So it almost looks like you could open the lid, perhaps open the skull, and let me out.

But the problem is if we examine our deep knowledge again is there is no separate self in here. I have never and no one has ever seen a "self."

There is some idea that a self is a "soul." Not that long ago they were weighing bodies at death to see if the weight changed as the soul left. This is a very old idea that the self and the body are separate.

And returning to the top, while we might think that "I" is separate from the body we don't expect to ever look in a mirror and see someone else.

But actually how would we know. Suppose my eyes were stretched and put in someone else's head. when I looked in the mirror I would see someone else. But it wouldn't quite work because there would be the nerves going into the eye sockets and when I talked and moved it would move a body off screen. But then we can imagine I have my brain put into someone else's body and the nerves all connected. Then I could walk to the mirror open "my" eyes and see someone else. This really lends weight to the idea that I am separate from my body. And actually we really can look in a mirror and see someone else.

And on an aside we get a relativity point here. We only say it is someone else because we are "used" to it being "me" and with the sudden change and the person looking different we get a shock and call it someone else. But how long before this "other" person becomes me? In fact what we see in the mirror is not me, and never has been me, it is just the person we have got used to seeing when we look in the mirror and we only notice that were they to suddenly change.

So we have already demolished the starting observation that the person we see when we look in the mirror is "me." This me just means the "usual" person that is there.

But I wanted to go in a different direction. Let us say that all the "processing" needed to see someone and think about it and decide that this person is "me" is all done in the body that is looking in the mirror. It is a loop. Whenever a machine that can process vision and has a social concept of people so that it can decide that one of the people is itself, looks in the mirror it will always see the machine that is doing the processing (assuming no long cables or optic nerves to mean processing is happening off screen).

But we know that there is more to the world than just this machine in front of the mirror. And this machine knows that too.

This is the key observation  here. "me" is actually a greater thing than the machine that has decided it knows itself.

Knowing yourself is just looking in the mirror and puzzling over how this machine works. But that is just a part of the whole world. And this whole world can do any number of machines looking in the mirror puzzling over how each of them works and who they are.

So this is how the sense of being trapped happens. The machine (our body or any similar) when it looks in the mirror can obviously get caught in the loop and trap of thinking about itself. And while this seems profound as though we can reach out and touch an entity that we believe is a separate thing called "ourself" this is actually an illusion. This "ourself" is really just a part of the whole universe which has the power to make machines that can get really involved in themselves. The magic lies in the power of the universe to make self absorbed machine, rather than the experience of being a machine that can focus on itself.

The sense of being "inside" a body is actually only possible because of the universe making a body that can look at itself and wonder what is inside.

In that experience of being "inside" a body we are actually looking at the power of the universe! 

Is there actually anything wrong with genocide?

Here's an odd feature about how human brains work.

This Englishman is basically the same as a Jew being named Adolf. The only difference between Hitler and William the Conqueror was that William 1st won the war and Hitler lost it.

Roll forward 100 years and English people like the Shakespeares are naming their sons after the man who committed genocide killing 10% of them and who started the subjugation of the English people under the system we still suffer under. When people accept a Sir/Dame they are normalising genocide and ethnic oppression.

Now what is wrong with the human brain that it will bow to vicious authority? I guess it is pragmatism that we have to live so we do the best we can, which means accepting oppression if that is the only item of the menu... and the weird bit being so happy about it we name our sons after it.

Doesn't this throw a complete spanner in modern politics. No one cares if we are invaded and subjugated to harsh racism and genocide we will survive and be happy about it regardless. Turn that around however: what are people actually fighting for?

So our armies shouldn't be squeamish: just rape and destroy in pursuit of total dominance, but in return don't worry if it happens to you and yours. Really?

Rather than open up free speech, has the "internet" just created a new dominant narrative?

Here's a strange irony. What if the "internet" has not facilitated "free speech" but has instead created a new type of narrative? Women complaining about the roles they are expected meeting on line and finding other people think the same. But woah a sec. They disagree with the dominant narrative, but then are afraid of their individuality so run into the arms of a new collective narrative of people who agree with them. Surely if everyone disagrees with the dominant narrative and agrees with the online narrative then you just have a new dominant narrative? Wasn't individuality the observation that we are all different so disagree with everyone and everything? Why this desire to share agreement and solidarity? We actually don't like individuality, we don't like freedom, we like to be buried in a nameless and faceless herd. So why do we dislike the comfort of the dominant narrative? Isn't it because the "internet" is a machine that has *created* a new narrative that is not the familiar dominant narrative but we don't know what it is. Confused we think cos its not the "dominant" then it must be personal and particular, This is the narrative for "me." You see this with the advent of "conspiracy" theory, such people think this broad, badly thought out narratives are somehow talking to "them" precisely because they are alternative to the "dominant" narrative and the MSM. But as I point out to them just because they are alternative doesn't make them any less dominant. Now what if people don't have their own ideas at all and just absorb the tribal mythos? In fact the machine that is the "internet" has just created out of no where a counter culture. No brains or people involved anywhere, it is just a result of a new mechanism of information. What I see for sure is no thought, and no individuality at all in any of these off-the-shelf narratives.

Jews are finished. The hype is over.

I wonder if things don't get a lot worse for the Jews. Having been banging their drum ad nauseum for the last 150 years aren't Jews just talking nonsense.

So after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70AD Jews lost the place where they performed sacrifice to Yahweh. Judaism then split into conservative Pharisees who are the annoying Jews and Messianic Jews who we call Christians who believe that Jesus created a new covenant with Yahweh and completed the Moses one.

Now this Quora thread bangs on about Paul but its irrelevant because these key points of Jesus are in Matthew which is not traditionally linked to Paul. The fact that Christians focus on faith and dropped all Moses stuff, including the Promised Land, is completely fitting with Jesus' teaching (especially the Canaanite in Matthew 15:28 where Jesus acknowledges that faith amongst the Gentiles is enough - not forgetting that the stone-age Canaanites were the people the Jews invaded and oppressed - as seen here with even Jesus abusing this woman).

This means there is a strong argument that the Jews are really the Christians and there is no longer a Promised Land. And all this stuff from the modern cult of "Jews" is quite probably claptrap.

Now why the NAZIs got dragged in and made things a lot worse by writing an apparently tangible chapter to the otherwise nonsense Jewish story is a mystery. So much of a mystery that we could start to see this story (like ALL other Jewish stories) as fantasy and suspicious... highly speculative but this is the pattern. Nothing Jews say or believe is ever true.

In particular one thing they love to go on about is God, ignoring that they stole Yahweh when they invaded the area and many other people worship Him. I personally think the Edomites have more of a claim to Yahweh than the Jews because Jacob was a fraud. So it's a complete car crash held onto by an insane modern cult.

Christians are the real Jews. And Christians do not believe in the Promised Land.

This is a massive question and I have no real idea but here summarise a small bit of reading and inject a source and question.

https://www.quora.com/Jesus-s-first-follower-were-Jewish-They-believed-he-was-the-Jewish-Messiah-Why-is-their-faith-considered-a-new-religion#:~:text=All%20of%20Jesus'%20first%20followers,that%20became%20a%20new%20religion. 

So it seems that after the destruction of the second temple 70AD when Jews could no longer sacrifice to God the religion split into the Pharisees who believed penitence and pray could replace sacrifice and the Messianic which believed that their bodies were the new temple when they received the Holy Spirit. 

Now this reference criticises Paul for allowing Gentiles to convert based only on faith while not having the observe the many rituals of Judaism.

However ever Christian knows that Jesus in many places says that Faith is all you need, and in Luke 22:20 at the Last Supper he says that he is the new covenant and elsewhere the fulfillment of the Law. In Jesus it is done past tense! He is the New. So Christians don't need the Old Testament or the Old Prophets or the old relationship with God. It is reborn in Jesus. So Judaism is essentially over for Christians.

Now did Jesus say this or is this Paul backing up his new "Judaism Lite". Well Luke was a companion of Paul who learned the gospel from Paul. So while Luke is considered to be telling an independent version of the story of Jesus I cannot see how it is not fundamentally Pauls version.

But Matthew was actually at the last supper and he gives the account of the New Covenant. So if Jesus is a New Covenant with God then Christians are Jews but don't need to follow the Law of Moses.

Now for me Matthew 15:28 carries one of the most important points in Christianity.

"Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment."

This woman is a Canaanite the original Stone Age inhabitants of Levant who existed in the area long before the Hebrews and Israelite tribes migrated. The Israelite tribes massacred most of the existing people when they invaded and I wonder if this is the start of the idea that it is okay to erase people and set yourself up in their place. If the world ever decides this is wrong then both the Jews and the Americans are in trouble as the worst offenders. Germans did not erase people and move in, they erased the people who had moved in!

So Jesus is saying to someone who is not even an Israelite that their faith has brought the gift of healing from God. This traditionally is when Jesus realises that God will honour anyone who has faith in Him not just ethnic Israelites (Jews).

So we discover through Jesus that Yahweh is the God of anyone who will follow Him. We already know this because many people followed Yahweh before even the Israelites took him as their God. Samaritans most famously worship Yahweh.

So there is no link between ethnicity and Yahweh.

It seems the main distinction Jews use to define themselves are observing the Law of Moses. This is why the comments in the Quora link strongly suggest that Jews do not think Paul's Christian Movement is Jewish.

But this misses the whole point of Jesus' teaching that God forms a relationship with his followers based only on faith.

So in fact arguably Christians are the true Jews and the existing religion of Judaism is a conservative sect still bound to an archaic interpretation of the relationship with God.

But this raises a question about the "Promised Land". This exists only in the Law of Moses. Jesus did not talk about this. If he completed the Law of Moses then this suggests the Promised Land Period also ends.

So Jesus and thereby Christians do not support the Promised Land or Israel. It is just the arguably obsolete belief of the original Covenant that exists on in the Pharisees sect.

The logic flaw at the heart of the Jewish problem

The Jewish problem. When you argue with ChatGPT this is what you get. It switches between Jews being ethnic and Jews being Religious and it can't make its mind up. HAL9000 or Ash territory. What it can't work out is that the ethnicity of Jews are the Israelites from Israel and the rest of the Jewish religion is made of other people especially Russians. When Simon Schama or Rachel Riley calls themselves Jewish they are obviously not an Israelite like Claudia Winkleman. Seems ChatGPT can't handle the logic above, and neither can the UN, NAZIs or UK Government.

Israelites are from Israel; Jews are not from Israel! It's a Q->P logic error (also called Affirming the consequent). Really realising that logic errors lie behind everything (thank you ChatGPT for that). This is current Jewish logic:

(1) Israelites are from Israel (2) People from Israel have a Right to Return (3) Some Jews are Israelites (4) Therefore Jews have a Right to Return

The vast majority of Jews do not have a Right to "Return" because they were never there! They say around 10,000 people convert to Judaism each year. Obviously this figure has increased with world population, but assuming it is linear increase in conversion then over 1000 years that is 10/2 million = 5 million Jews who have never been anywhere near the Middle East. Current estimates of Jewish populations is 15.7 million so at very least 1 in 3 Jews is definitely not Israelite. It is nonsense.

And they have it back to front. Israel was not created to protect Jews, that is clearly a distortion. If this was true then anywhere would do. No Israel is a belief in a return to a mythological Kingdom just as English could return to Avalon or Germans to the 1st Reich. This belief came first. And arguably this belief is what sets Jews against other people which leads them down the road they have gone.

Here for example is the diagram for Christians. Obviously some Israelites became Christians and I some still are! By current Jewish logic then: (1) Israelites are from Israel (2) People from Israel have a Right to Return (3) Some Christians are Israelites (4) Therefore Christians have a Right to Return