XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns, alt.politics.libertarians   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 12/19/22 5:09 PM, D. Ray wrote:   
   > Back when Musk’s announcement to acquire Twitter was still fresh, my   
   > initial instinct at the time was to assume Musk had been selected as the   
   > frontman selectively reforming the social media platform that had become   
   > central to global, but mainly American, political discourse.   
   >   
   > The need for this reform, and Musk as the face of it, was based on the   
   > totality of current political trends including increased racial awareness   
   > and consciousness of Jewish power structures in the body politic,   
   > increasing political polarization, instability, and the politicization of   
   > self-proclaimed sacrosanct institutions such as the ADL, Musk’s   
   > professional history, and the financial backers of the deal.   
   >   
   > My fear at the time was that the type of “reform” expressed by Musk   
   wasn’t   
   > ever going to apply to those of us actually speaking truth to power; the   
   > most important tenet of which was a promised return to upholding our   
   > ostensible constitutional right to free speech, even if there were some   
   > limitations with which we all agreed, i.e., threats and violence are beyond   
   > reproach.   
   >   
   > Even as it seems that this initial assumption continues to be validated by   
   > new information on a daily basis, it was still prudent at the time to leave   
   > a margin of error and return to the platform as a litmus test. The results   
   > of the test(s) are in and it is now clear where ideological lines have been   
   > drawn.   
   >   
   > ADL Public Enemy No. 1: National Justice Party   
   >   
   > Right out of the gate, members of the National Justice Party were cited as   
   > a major threat by the ADL and we were immediately banned.   
   >   
   > All appeal attempts for accounts, both new and old, terminate with the   
   > following response from Twitter claiming the account had incited violence,   
   > even as no such act has ever occurred. Twitter refuses to substantiate its   
   > claim.   
   >   
   > When replying to this message by asking Twitter to meet a basic standard of   
   > providing evidence to back up their allegations, a second response informs   
   > users that the request has been closed.   
   >   
   > A new request asking for Twitter to cite evidence ends with the same canned   
   > incitement to violence response. Lather, rinse, repeat.   
   >   
   > If you are critical of Jews or Israel in any manner, right, left, or   
   > otherwise, you will be jettisoned from the platform.   
   >   
   > However, if you believe the moon landing is fake, Jennifer Aniston is   
   > really a tranny, or the WEF stands at the nexus of the Schwabian   
   > Illuminato-fascist nanobot world order, unfurl those stars and stripes   
   > because your speech is free at last!   
   >   
      
      
      
   Nanobots and the NEW WORLD ORDER and the WEF and TRANNY-Aniston's RIGHTS   
   are NOT "protected" by the U.S. Constitution.   
      
   *Nanobot the NEW WORLD ORDER WEF* are NOT part of the United States.   
      
   *TRANNY-Aniston's RIGHTS are NOT "protected" by the U.S. Constitution*   
   because Trans gender is NOT real... it's Kabuki theater. And Tranny   
   Rights as are Gay Rights, never mentioned or in any way sacrosanct.   
      
   Gays, Tranny, Pedophile, and other things like hetero and having a soul   
   are NOT protected by the 14th Amendment or any RIGHT of the people where   
   it hasn't been protected over and above the RIGHTS of the people and/or   
   specifically made a RIGHT of the people.  Because the RIGHTS of a person   
   is limited to "person-hood"  and the rights of a person's religion are   
   protected not as a person but as the person's 1st Amendment RIGHT to   
   exercise the (unmolested religion of their choice).  The limits on   
   molesting religion or the FREE exercise of religion is to limit   
   government interference NOT private sector speech.   
      
   It seems the Supreme Court will have to fix the mess they created.   
      
      
      
   > All of this brings my initial theory into a much sharper contrast as enough   
   > of the “bloom” has now come off of the proverbial free speech rose for a   
   > sobering closer look.   
   >   
   > Jewish Problems:   
   >   
   > - Frustration over free speech limitations is being expressed in   
   > increasingly wider apolitical circles   
   >   
   > - Years of over-zealous censorship had reached a point where grandmas were   
   > being banned/doxxed en masse for advocating basic pro-life sentiments   
   >   
   > - The vast majority of those banned were White and found common cause with   
   > other “untouchables” on a decentralized patchwork of platforms over which   
   > Jews exercise little or no control   
   >   
   > - Untouchables were becoming “radicalized”, i.e., racially aware and   
   > ultimately aware of Jewish power structures   
   >   
      
   Remember WWII, we were very aware of religions and the blood lines that   
   were both in favor and out of favor... back in the 1930's and before,   
   it's NOT new stuff. Jews lived in the Ghetto in the the U.S. prior to   
   the 1930's. Their place was taken over by blacks who also became   
   clan-ish and chose to stick together for safety and cultural reasons and   
   their cultures are also NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. but yes   
   they can live as they like and together if they like. But the GOVERNMENT   
   can't force that, or deny them their choice to live it.   
      
      
   > - Less concerning, but also problematic, untouchables were quitting social   
   > media altogether and realizing how much it actually robs them of their   
   > lives. The like button and infinite scroll were both invented by Jews to   
   > make social media more addictive.   
   >   
      
   It was invented to allow for monetizing the Social Media platforms.   
   Social scoring is how the TV rating worked and they did that for   
   MONETARY purposes.  But that was made political on TV and Cable and now   
   on Social media, because political power is the power to control the   
   MONEY, it's all tracking back to the FEDERAL RESERVE which isn't FEDERAL   
   or a RESERVE and any money that isn't gold/silver in your hand is a   
   promissory note and *ALL PROMISSORY NOTES ARE CREDIT* .   
      
   We changed from an economy of saving to an economy of credit, when we   
   went off the gold standard and that process of moving away from real   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)