slug.com slug.com
1 3

Portland's district attorney enabled deadly Antifa rioting

Sep 13, 2022 In my episode 11 of my livestream, The Post Millenial editor-in-chief Libby Emmons & I discussed how the leftist district attorney in Portland enabled & supported the deadly nightly Antifa riots. Support my journalism at: [subscribestar.com], [ngo.locals.com] or [patreon.com]

Full video:

......................................

George Soros- Rogue District Attorneys

Nov 18, 2020 A few episodes ago, we began to uncover a plot driven by George Soros (and others like him) to completely reshape law and order in America. On this episode, we continue to expose the left's coordinated effort to dismantle traditional, independent-minded prosecutors who put the rule of law above politics and party. They are then replaced by rogues who usurp the constitutional role of the legislative branch by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crime. The question is: why would billionaires want to change up the system that they have benefitted so much from?

Krunoslav 9 Sep 13
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Portland DA enabled...
Well yeah - so did the DA's in all the major cities around the country where rape, pillage and burn (real rioting) was going on - but that is 2 year old news.
There have been no negative consequences for the politicians who facilitated the riots of 2020 and there obviously will be none. No one will be held to account for it...not legally nor politically held to account. The DA's the mayors, the other state, county and city officials who obviously - unabashedly - facilitated those riots all should have been prosecuted - fined and put in jail/prison for their malfeasance, incompetence, and outright criminal behaviors...but they were not - and clearly they never will be held to account for it.

iThink Level 9 Sep 13, 2022

As was intended by the agent of chaos himself, soros. The real rhetorical question is why is he not tried and dealt with , since its not exactly a secret what he does. But that is how you know, the countries that have kicked out his NGO's are able to operate as countries, vs others who are not really countries, but tools of people like Soros. Hungary, Russia, China kicked Soros NGOs. While even the might USA allows him to operate, even in Florida, where he funded various Spanish speaking radio stations to spread the anti DeSantis message. And in Texas he donates to Beto O'Rourke. Countless other examples, from schools indoctrination, DA's encouraging criminality, to border invasion. Open Sociaty doctrine of chaos.

@Krunoslav The only feasible explanation for how and why Soros has not been stopped, charged, prosecuted for his activities is that he must have compromising information over anyone who otherwise has the power to stop him. I'm thinking along the lines of Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell kinds of information.
I do wonder however if Soros has any real affinity for any political philosophy at all. Is he a socialist or a communist perhaps? Is he a capitalist? surely Soros is that. Does he imagine himself and the supreme leader of a Global Government? What exactly are the things, ideas that motivate him?
How old is G Soros? Must be in his 90s by now. I know he as at least one son who will carry on after he dies. But just what is their end game? What are they after?

@iThink I think Soros has God complex and sees himself a the agent of chaos with mission to create his open society. Basically a society where no individuals or national sovereignty exists, and its all domain of God Soros to do as he pleases. He will work with anyone, communists, capitalists, Nazis, Jihadists it does not matter, as long as his open society project is expanding.

Using Non Governmental Organizations via his open society foundation he specializes in subverting countries and if they don't follow his culture changing policies, he does color revolutions and topples governments, installs his people and continues.

He aligned with World Economic Forum and others and shares their ideas of global goverment, but he does not share all their ideas, he has his own vision. That is why he especially hates Xi, orban and Putin, because they kicked out his NGO's and for his open society vision to work, there must be no opposition or national government or anyone who is above him in terms of law and rules.

I would not classify him in any previous category because as far as I can see he is willing to use state apparatus to get his way. Even if he comes from Jewish background he was pointing out Jews in Hungary to Nazis to advance his position. He worked with Communists in China and other places until they figured out what he was up to. He is happy to rig the markets to make himself a billionaire and thinks rules don't apply to him.

The closest thing I see about him is God complex who has fondness of watching the world burn. Ana agent of chaos. And gets very upset when there is strong enough force to oppose him.

From what I can see, like many of these people he is a psychopath, but in his case I really don't see any other motivation other than open society, world domination where he is God. Just megalomaniac type ego the size of cathedrals. To specific interest in anyone , sees people as ants, he has no problem crushing or destroying for his increase in power. No special religion or reason other than being God like figure from what I can see.

People like Klaus Schwab and Bill gates and others have some kind of screwed up religion, but Soros seems to be just a guy that wants to watch the world burn and watch it while selling matches. The technocrats and trans-humanists have something they believe in, some concept, God like AI that runs everything or something along those lines. They see themselves saving the world.

But Soros, seems to be just content with burning it. His signature is creating chaos for no appernat reasons or logic other than to see the systems burns people's lives destroyed and him achieving his open sociaty where he as God has no restriction to what he can destroy.

He does not build. He does not preserve. He creates chaos. That is what he does. Weather its indoctrination programs to create genocidal type conditions, like in Ukraine where he started his pet projects of hating Russians back in 1990's. or various NGO's around the world for color revolutions or subverting culture and society. Funding radical DA's to let criminals loses and cause chaos. or rigging the markets and destroying everything as long as his makes money.

I am not a Christian, but if you are looking for Evil, I guess Soros would be it.

@iThink Born György Schwartz
(1930-08-12) August 12, 1930 (age 92)
Budapest, Kingdom of Hungary

@Krunoslav
I am not a Christian, but if you are looking for Evil, I guess Soros would be it

So being NOT a Christian means that you do not ascribe to any religious philosophy at all?
Also your statement implies that you do not believe that "evil" exists.

Just have to ask what do you believe is the source of the Universe? Did the Universe spontaneously come into being? Is there goodness and evil in the Universe as you see it?
I am not suggesting that you must be Christian in order to believe that there is a "source" or a "creator" of the Universe.
All we know is that we exist and our logical minds tell us that there must be a source of all things great and small - Christian or otherwise.

@iThink "So being NOT a Christian means that you do not ascribe to any religious philosophy at all?"

I am not a member or follower of any religion. That is correct. But I do subscribe to some of the philosophies of some religions in part. You can say that I am a non-religious atheist, but I’m not anti-religious, I just think that all religions are not the same and some are exceptionally dangerous and destructive. Like communism, for example. 

Also, your statement implies that you do not believe that "evil" exists.

I made that comment because I would explain what many Christians would call evil in other terms, mostly psychological terms, but I recognize the concept of evil, and I think its suitable term to use because most people would know what I mean without complicated explanations. In other words, I do not believe in religious concept of evil, but I recognize the meaning of it and I think for most people it’s a term that suits people like Soros. For the simplicity of argument and emotional satisfaction. 

"I just have to ask, what do you believe is the source of the Universe?"

Honestly, I don’t know. Also, honestly, I spend almost no time thinking about it, I just take it as is for now. 

"Did the Universe spontaneously come into being? Is there goodness and evil in the Universe as you see it?"

I believe in personal responsibility and the moral agency of individuals. In other words, my moral code is similar to that of traditional religions, like Christianity. I just don’t believe in the supernatural. I think that morality is important to keep oneself mentally healthy and, by extension, society healthy. 

I think an individual like me can be non-religious but use similar morals as, for example, Christians. I don’t think society can do that, I think for society to have shared moral code in order to function well, it needs religious sources, not everyone choosing their own morals. That is why I’m against liberals and prefer a Christian society or some similar religion. 

"I am not suggesting that you must be Christian in order to believe that there is a "source" or a "creator" of the Universe. All we know is that we exist and our logical minds tell us that there must be a source of all things great and small—Christian or otherwise."

True. I agree. For whatever reason, I was never really that interested in that question, to be honest. I accept it as it is and leave the source of it to others for discussion. I think that if someone believes it’s made by the Big Bang or made by a supreme being, it makes very little difference to my life. And since I don’t have a great interest in the particular question of the creation of the universe, I just think it's better to spend my energy engaged in more... earthly activities or closer to where I live. After all, the universe might be big. We are but a speck of land in it. Fair enough? 

@Krunoslav Fair enough - I would say that more people than not live their lives in that manner. There are certainly "forces" beyond our comprehension but we really can't do anything about that - so on we go, like blind men feeling our way along the corridor of fate.

@iThink " I would say that more people than not live their lives in that manner. There are certainly "forces" beyond our comprehension but we really can't do anything about that - so on we go, like blind men feeling our way along the corridor of fate."

I'm sure they do. Many embrace any of many religious out there to deal with this dread of uncertainty.

In my own case, I try to follow advice of Carl Jun or something like that.

Carl Jung, (1875 - 1961), Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist who founded analytic psychology, in some aspects a response to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. Jung proposed and developed the concepts of the extraverted and the introverted personality, archetypes, and the collective unconscious. His work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, literature, and related fields.

“The growth of the mind is the widening of the range of consciousness. Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself. To find out what is truly individual in ourselves, profound reflection is needed; and suddenly we realize how uncommonly difficult the discovery of individuality is and that there is no coming to consciousness without pain. What we do not make conscious emerges later as fate. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by simply imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The most terrifying thing is to accept oneself completely. And we cannot change anything unless we accept it. We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.

Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.

My friend...care for your psyche...know thyself, for once we know ourselves, we may learn how to care for ourselves. Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” ― C.G. Jung

"I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life. They seek position, marriage, reputation, outward success of money, and remain unhappy and neurotic even when they have attained what they were seeking. Such people are usually confined within too narrow a spiritual horizon. Their life has not sufficient content, sufficient meaning. If they are enabled to develop into more spacious personalities, the neurosis generally disappears.” ― C.G. Jung

Every person has three needs, to be accepted, to feel secure and to be significant.

We have the same emotional needs but different ways of trying to meet them. Some ways are more neurotic than others.

“Neurotic suffering indicates inner conflict. Each side of the conflict is likely to be a composite of many partial forces, each one of which has been structured into behavior, attitude, perception, value. Each component asserts itself, claims priority, insists that something else yield, accommodates. The conflict therefore is fixed, stubborn, enduring. It may be impugned and dismissed without effect, imprecations and remorse are of no avail, strenuous acts of will may be futile; it causes - yet survives and continues to cause - the most intense suffering, humiliation, rending of flesh. Such a conflict is not to be uprooted or excised. It is not an ailment, it is the patient himself. The suffering will not disappear without a change in the conflict, and a change in the conflict amounts to a change in what one is and how one lives, feels, reacts.”

― Allen Wheelis, How People Change

“Neurotics complain of their illness, but they make the most of it, and when it comes to taking it away from them they will defend it like a lioness her young.” ― Sigmund Freud

“The tenacity with which the neurotic adheres to any attitude is a sure indication that the attitude fulfills functions which seem indispensable in the framework of his neurosis.” ― Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Towards Self-Realization

P.S.
...though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious.

A striking feature of Marx’s writing is his hostility to Christianity and religion. For example, in the preface to his ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ (1843) Marx wrote:

"‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world … It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions’."

“It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world. Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.” ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

“Marxism was a simple substitute for Christianity. Replace God with Marx, Satan with the bourgeoisie, Heaven with a classless society, the Church with the Party,” ― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

“It is quite true that Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. But of course we now know that Marxism is the crack cocaine of the people.” ― Douglas Wilson

As evident by crazy radical Marxists on the streets of America and in collage campuses, you don't need to be fanatical Christian to act like a fanatical lunatic. You can do it by adopting any number of worldview points.

“It is quite true that Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. But of course we now know that Marxism is the crack cocaine of the people.”
― Douglas Wilson

@iThink Nature of the Desire for Change:

There is in us a tendency to locate the shaping forces of our existence outside ourselves. Success and failure are unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfillment think it a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change. The tendency to look for all causes outside ourselves persists even when it is clear that our state of being is the product of personal qualities such as ability, character, appearance, health and so on. “If anything ail a man,” says Thoreau, “so that he does not perform his functions, if he have a pain in his bowels even … he forthwith sets about reforming—the world.”

It is understandable that those who fail should incline to blame the world for their failure. The remarkable thing is that the successful, too, however much they pride themselves on their foresight, fortitude, thrift and other “sterling qualities,” are at bottom convinced that their success is the result of a fortuitous combination of circumstances. The self-confidence of even the consistently successful is never absolute. They are never sure that they know all the ingredients which go into the making of their success. The outside world seems to them a precariously balanced mechanism, and so long as it ticks in their favor they are afraid to tinker with it. Thus the resistance to change and the ardent desire for it spring from the same conviction, and the one can be as vehement as the other.

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national, and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat.

The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.

Glory is largely a theatrical concept. There is no striving for glory without a vivid awareness of an audience... The desire to escape or camouflage their unsatisfactory selves develops in the frustrated a facility for pretending -- for making a show -- and also a readiness to identify themselves wholly with an imposing spectacle

Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self. The act of self-denial seems to confer on us the right to be harsh and merciless toward others. Scratch an intellectual, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk. The act of self-denial seems to confer on us the right to be harsh and merciless toward others.

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not. The anti-theist is a religious person. He believes in atheism as though it were a new religion. There is a tendency to judge a race, a nation or any distinct group by its least worthy members. Though manifestly unfair, this tendency has some justification. For the character and destiny of a group are often determined by its inferior elements.

The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle. The reason that the inferior elements of a nation can exert a marked influence on its course is that they are wholly without reverence toward the present. They see their lives and the present as spoiled beyond remedy and they are ready to waste and wreck both: hence their recklessness and their will to chaos and anarchy.

For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and the potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.

Those who would transform a nation or the world cannot do so by breeding and captaining discontent or by demonstrating the reasonableness and desirability of the intended changes or by coercing people into a new way of life. They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope.

Crude absurdities, trivial nonsense and sublime truths are equally potent in readying people for self-sacrifice if they are accepted as the sole, eternal truth. It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has rather to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. […] The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds. […] If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.

On the other hand, there is no more potent dwarfing of the present than by viewing it as a mere link between a glorious past and a glorious future. Thus, though a mass movement at first turns its back on the past, it eventually develops a vivid awareness, often specious, of a distant glorious past. Religious movements go back to the day of creation; social revolutions tell of a golden age when men were free, equal, and independent; nationalist movements revive or invent memories of past greatness.

Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, ‘to be free from freedom.’ It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?

A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. The vigor of a mass movement stems from the propensity of its followers for united action and self-sacrifice. When we ascribe the success of a movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda, leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but referring to instruments of unification and to means used to inculcate a readiness for self-sacrifice.

One of the rules that emerges from a consideration of the factors that promote self-sacrifice is that we are less ready to die for what we have or are than for what we wish to have and to be. It is a perplexing and unpleasant truth that when men already have “something worth fighting for,” they do not feel like fighting. People who live full, worthwhile lives are not usually ready to die for their own interests nor for their country nor for a holy cause.

Misery does not automatically generate discontent, nor is the intensity of discontent directly proportionate to the degree of misery. [...] A grievance is most poignant when almost redressed. […] Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than when we seem to lack but one thing.

The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ. All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance. All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind. Though there are obvious differences between the fanatical Christian, the fanatical Mohammedan, the fanatical nationalist, the fanatical Communist and the fanatical Nazi, it is yet true that the fanaticism which animates them may be viewed and treated as one.

The same is true of the force which drives them on to expansion and world dominion. There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self-sacrifice. There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective. He who, like Pascal, finds precise reasons for the effectiveness of Christian doctrine has also found the reasons for the effectiveness of Communist, Nazi and nationalist doctrine. However different the holy causes people die for, they perhaps die basically for the same thing.

Nowhere at present is there such a measureless loathing of their country by educated people as in America.

Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.

The men who rush into undertakings of vast change usually feel they are in possession of some irresistible power. The generation that made the French Revolution had an extravagant conception of the omnipotence of man’s reason and the boundless range of his intelligence. Never, says de Tocqueville, had humanity been prouder of itself nor had it ever so much faith in its own omnipotence.

It is futile to judge the viability of a new movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its promises. What has to be judged is its corporate organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated. Where new creeds vie with each other for the allegiance of the populace, the one which comes with the most perfected collective framework wins.

There is in us a tendency to locate the shaping forces of our existence outside ourselves. Success and failure are unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfillment think it a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.

...though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious.

A pleasant existence blinds us to the possibilities of drastic change. We cling to what we call our common sense, our practical point of view. Actually, these are but names for an all-absorbing familiarity with things as they are. The tangibility of a pleasant and secure existence is such that it makes other realities, however imminent, seem vague and visionary. Thus it happens that when the times become unhinged, it is the practical people who are caught unaware and are made to look like visionaries who cling to things that do not exist.

They who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually their innermost desire is for an end to the “free for all.” They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

All mass movements deprecate the present by depicting it as a mean preliminary to a glorious future; a mere doormat on the threshold of the millennium. That the deprecating attitude of a mass movement toward the present seconds the inclinations of the frustrated is obvious. What surprises one, when listening to the frustrated as they decry the present and all its works, is the enormous joy they derive from doing so. Such delight cannot come from the mere venting of a grievance. There must be something more -- and there is. By expatiating upon the incurable baseness and vileness of the times, the frustrated soften their feeling of failure and isolation. It is as if they said: 'Not only our blemished selves, but the lives of all our contemporaries, even the most happy and successful, are worthless and wasted.' Thus by deprecating the present they acquire a vague sense of equality.

An active mass movement rejects the present and centers its interest on the future. It is from this attitude that it derives its strength, for it can proceed recklessly with the present—with the health, wealth and lives of its followers. It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life.

Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably multiplies failure and frustration. Freedom alleviates frustration by making available the palliatives of action, movement, change and protest.

A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases then to be a movement and becomes an enterprise. According to Hitler, the more “posts and offices a movement has to hand out, the more inferior stuff it will attract, and in the end these political hangers-on overwhelm a successful party in such number that the honest fighter of former days no longer recognizes the old movement…. When this happens, the ‘mission’ of such a movement is done for.

― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Recent Visitors 8

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny Liars A Look at CDC, Big Pharma, MSM & Social Media Cartel Owners SUMMARY: I like the Natural News Anti-Medical Tyranny stand.

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators