Nazi satanist stuff just helps the elites

[Sustacel250]

If youre satanist youre doing the catholic church a favor. Just like atheist movement did the church a favor.

If you call yourself "atheist" or "pagan" or "heathen" you do them a favor. They use these names as slander and if you wear that personality you live with the identity artificially created by your enemy.

Its like if you call yourself "white supremacist" or "capitalist". By itself none of these identities existed when the enemy was using them to describe reality or social issues. But the moment you wear the label it becomes true and you embody the enemy.

If you call yourself "atheist" you make the church happy. In the times of atheism debates on the internet, most of the atheists were invited in religious universities, most of the debate was driven by religious institutions. Did you not notice it? Most of these atheist fools went to schools to debate with religion people.
The public was deceived, the point was not to win or lose. Many of these religious universities accepted to lose. Mostly lost smiling, they had a bigger plan. Many redditors are deceived thinking that "atheism won the debate", because it seemed as if it won. There were these "master debaters" like hitchens or dawkins that wiped the floor.

The trick is they didnt "win", all they "won" was just acquiring the personality and worldview imposed on them by their enemy.

It is the same if you call yourself "satanist" you just help your enemy. Then, they will finally have a reason do an anti satanist coalition. If there is no satanist to be found, they are just imbeciles listening to alex jones. The moment you become a satanist they attack you.

A "nazi" just serves the purpose to scare jews, so they will listen to mossad, so they wll listen to zionsits. Why all these nazis only target jewish rich neighborhoods? Why they always go and scare jews? Yes they have been created by jews themselves, none of them is legit. Theres no neo nazism, they are accessories of jewish power.

The principle to draw from this discussion is do never take the identity your enemy wants you to have. This is also for incel topics, dont be seduced by hollywood, dont listen to ecelebs, dont become a "joker" dont be like taxi driver or the guy from falling down movies. Yes hollywood really is evil, its not just a saying we conspiracy theorists have. Hollywood is a lie, and all these movies with the "relatable character" cost millions to make and promote, do you think really they do it to make you happy? Obviously the want you to be like that.

[KingDavid]

If youre satanist youre doing the catholic church a favor. Just like atheist movement did the church a favor.

If you call yourself "atheist" or "pagan" or "heathen" you do them a favor. They use these names as slander and if you wear that personality you live with the identity artificially created by your enemy.

Its like if you call yourself "white supremacist" or "capitalist". By itself none of these identities existed when the enemy was using them to describe reality or social issues. But the moment you wear the label it becomes true and you embody the enemy.

If you call yourself "atheist" you make the church happy. In the times of atheism debates on the internet, most of the atheists were invited in religious universities, most of the debate was driven by religious institutions. Did you not notice it? Most of these atheist fools went to schools to debate with religion people.
The public was deceived, the point was not to win or lose. Many of these religious universities accepted to lose. Mostly lost smiling, they had a bigger plan. Many redditors are deceived thinking that "atheism won the debate", because it seemed as if it won. There were these "master debaters" like hitchens or dawkins that wiped the floor.

The trick is they didnt "win", all they "won" was just acquiring the personality and worldview imposed on them by their enemy.

It is the same if you call yourself "satanist" you just help your enemy. Then, they will finally have a reason do an anti satanist coalition. If there is no satanist to be found, they are just imbeciles listening to alex jones. The moment you become a satanist they attack you.

A "nazi" just serves the purpose to scare jews, so they will listen to mossad, so they wll listen to zionsits. Why all these nazis only target jewish rich neighborhoods? Why they always go and scare jews? Yes they have been created by jews themselves, none of them is legit. Theres no neo nazism, they are accessories of jewish power.

The principle to draw from this discussion is do never take the identity your enemy wants you to have. This is also for incel topics, dont be seduced by hollywood, dont listen to ecelebs, dont become a "joker" dont be like taxi driver or the guy from falling down movies. Yes hollywood really is evil, its not just a saying we conspiracy theorists have. Hollywood is a lie, and all these movies with the "relatable character" cost millions to make and promote, do you think really they do it to make you happy? Obviously the want you to be like that.

What’s your religion bruh? Are you a new ager? An atheist? A Jew? A satanist? A pagan? A phallic penis worshipper? I know you’re not a Christian. Who is the enemy? My enemy is Satan the devil. It’s not the church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church might be corrupt and fucked up but they don’t represent Christianity and the body of Christ. Jesus was without sin. Even saints and the pope have committed sins before. I agree with you about the Jews and Hollywood. Satanism is bullshit and as a Christian I’m adamantly opposed to any forms of satanism. Along with new age, Jewry, paganism etc. my religion and my holy book tell me all these are sins and of the devil.

[Sustacel250]

What’s your religion bruh? Are you a new ager? An atheist? A Jew? A satanist? A pagan? A phallic penis worshipper? I know you’re not a Christian. Who is the enemy? My enemy is Satan the devil. It’s not the church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church might be corrupt and fucked up but they don’t represent Christianity and the body of Christ. Jesus was without sin. Even saints and the pope have committed sins before. I agree with you about the Jews and Hollywood. Satanism is bullshit and as a Christian I’m adamantly opposed to any forms of satanism. Along with new age, Jewry, paganism etc. my religion and my holy book tell me all these are sins and of the devil.

In the concentration camps the semitic superstition they gave me was catholic. But the catolic superstition is probably one of the best, because in our superstition we are "saved". Basically we do a bunch of rituals and we get "saved". People who get "saved" walk away from the church and never come back.

The catholic superstition basically tells you "hey youre saved". Done, you dont need them anymore. So I walked away and went into conspiracy theories.

My dad was already a "schizo retard" but back in his days he was considered such just for havin a bible that was translated from hebrew sources and greek. I on the other hand came as far as to deny jesus and the torah. We contemporary people can even deny the torah, its all a book of fables. Conspiracy culture progressed a lot.

[KingDavid]

What’s your religion bruh? Are you a new ager? An atheist? A Jew? A satanist? A pagan? A phallic penis worshipper? I know you’re not a Christian. Who is the enemy? My enemy is Satan the devil. It’s not the church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church might be corrupt and fucked up but they don’t represent Christianity and the body of Christ. Jesus was without sin. Even saints and the pope have committed sins before. I agree with you about the Jews and Hollywood. Satanism is bullshit and as a Christian I’m adamantly opposed to any forms of satanism. Along with new age, Jewry, paganism etc. my religion and my holy book tell me all these are sins and of the devil.

In the concentration camps the semitic superstition they gave me was catholic. But the catolic superstition is probably one of the best, because in our superstition we are "saved". Basically we do a bunch of rituals and we get "saved". People who get "saved" walk away from the church and never come back.

The catholic superstition basically tells you "hey youre saved". Done, you dont need them anymore. So I walked away and went into conspiracy theories.

My dad was already a "schizo retard" but back in his days he was considered such just for havin a bible that was translated from hebrew sources and greek. I on the other hand came as far as to deny jesus and the torah. We contemporary people can even deny the torah, its all a book of fables. Conspiracy culture progressed a lot.

Deny Jesus? You’re gonna go to hell.

[CyberSchizo]

No. Disbelief and doubt do not redeem blind faith. That's a non-sequitur argument.

The trick is they didnt "win", all they "won" was just acquiring the personality and worldview imposed on them by their enemy.

Public debaters and orators influence many people. The atheist debaters you attempt to discredit as oblivious pawns of the Church convinced many impressionable youths of the unbelievable absurdities of religion. You can call them edgelords and soyboys all you like, they helped shift the collective perspective and understanding of religion. Martin Luther didn't help the Catholic church by repudiating and polemicizing it.

[Sustacel250]

Public debaters and orators influence many people. The atheist debaters you attempt to discredit as oblivious pawns of the Church convinced many impressionable youths of the unbelievable absurdities of religion. You can call them edgelords and soyboys all you like, they helped shift the collective perspective and understanding of religion. Martin Luther didn't help the Catholic church by repudiating and polemicizing it.

I listened to lots of these atheists. Both in my country and the ones from UK that were the most skilled at debating. My favorite was dawkins because I think he was 50-50. I mean 50% he was interested in the notoriety and the idea of "saying edgy thing" and 50% he was sincere. The rest were 100% into "saying edgy things".

I came to believe this is a way of the anglo. These people like to be contrarian and do a fashion statement similar to Oscar Wilde. The core idea is you say something fashionable and edgy and old karens talk about you. "oh my god he said something unacceptable". That sort of thing.

In the past, in UK, there were catholic people like tolkien or chesterton. "being catholic" in UK was the equivalent social status of "atheist" in our times. These english lords enter debate and they are wealthy well educated and high caste in society, and they represent "edgy opinions". This is the core of atheism.

Now, your comparison with martin luther isnt suited. I am speaking of cozy english lords who posture as "edgy". The "atheism" of these people was empty, they had crap arguments that "sound good". For example they were used to say since there are lots of religions then all have to be fake (only 1 can be true), which is false. Or religion is evil. Or god is angry therefore is evil. Or, religion causes suffering and we should get rid of it. Another thing they did was associating their atheism with marxism.

You see they arent really serious. They took the name given to them by the abrahamitic enemy and called themselves "atheist". In the end, they lost. In contemporary generation they are not even considered relevant. If you go in society with these "edgy opinions" you just make the church stronger and is not a coincidence the churches and universities themselves hosted the "atheist debates".

[CyberSchizo]

Public debaters and orators influence many people. The atheist debaters you attempt to discredit as oblivious pawns of the Church convinced many impressionable youths of the unbelievable absurdities of religion. You can call them edgelords and soyboys all you like, they helped shift the collective perspective and understanding of religion. Martin Luther didn't help the Catholic church by repudiating and polemicizing it.

I listened to lots of these atheists. Both in my country and the ones from UK that were the most skilled at debating. My favorite was dawkins because I think he was 50-50. I mean 50% he was interested in the notoriety and the idea of "saying edgy thing" and 50% he was sincere. The rest were 100% into "saying edgy things".

I came to believe this is a way of the anglo. These people like to be contrarian and do a fashion statement similar to Oscar Wilde. The core idea is you say something fashionable and edgy and old karens talk about you. "oh my god he said something unacceptable". That sort of thing.

In the past, in UK, there were catholic people like tolkien or chesterton. "being catholic" in UK was the equivalent social status of "atheist" in our times. These english lords enter debate and they are wealthy well educated and high caste in society, and they represent "edgy opinions". This is the core of atheism.

Now, your comparison with martin luther isnt suited. I am speaking of cozy english lords who posture as "edgy". The "atheism" of these people was empty, they had crap arguments that "sound good". For example they were used to say since there are lots of religions then all have to be fake (only 1 can be true), which is false. Or religion is evil. Or god is angry therefore is evil. Or, religion causes suffering and we should get rid of it. Another thing they did was associating their atheism with marxism.

You see they arent really serious. They took the name given to them by the abrahamitic enemy and called themselves "atheist". In the end, they lost. In contemporary generation they are not even considered relevant. If you go in society with these "edgy opinions" you just make the church stronger and is not a coincidence the churches and universities themselves hosted the "atheist debates".

I could also argue that the disinterest in religious debates insinuates the declining relevance of religion, should this be the case then atheist iconoclasts have certainly undermined the Church's authority and prominence. Atheists espoused the pejorative title granted to them out of definitive convenience, its meaning simply entitles their godlessness; every connotation of lesser station by reason of irreverence is engendered by passionate faith conflicting with rational disbelief, not by an innate quality of the irreverent. To suggest the Robespierre unintentionally benefited French monarchy is fallacious as he sought its discontinuation by revolt, in contradiction with the monarchy his influence does not perpetuate nor embolden its power. Similarly, the atheist repudiates the Church and its caste of priests making them natural adversaries.

Religiosity is at its lowest point historically in relative proportion to the world's population, enabling Atheists to refute God in front of Church-goers would not reverse or abet this trend.

[Sustacel250]

I could also argue that the disinterest in religious debates insinuates the declining relevance of religion, should this be the case then atheist iconoclasts have certainly undermined the Church's authority and prominence. Atheists espoused the pejorative title granted to them out of definitive convenience, its meaning simply entitles their godlessness; every connotation of lesser station by reason of irreverence is engendered by passionate faith conflicting with rational disbelief, not by an innate quality of the irreverent. To suggest the Robespierre unintentionally benefited French monarchy is fallacious as he sought its discontinuation by revolt, in contradiction with the monarchy his influence does not perpetuate nor embolden its power. Similarly, the atheist repudiates the Church and its caste of priests making them natural adversaries.

Religiosity is at its lowest point historically in relative proportion to the world's population, enabling Atheists to refute God in front of Church-goers would not reverse or abet this trend.

Ok I can see you have a point about religion is down.I do not think nonreligious people get into atheism. And also I have theh impression you attribute success to the past atheist movement. I would say (to contribute to your viewpoint) that if you consider the result of their debates atheist people of the past wiped the floor and "won".

I was going a bit forward and in my opinion they did not truly win.

Now I would not compare these atheists to robespierre or whatever. I would compare them to satanist organizations like church of satan, temple of set, secuntra, OTO, O9A, whatever. Basically people who organize around an identity that was provided to them by the enemy. This is also a feature of abrahamitic religions and the technique of scapegoating. Its not that every single person opposing an adversary or a government automatically has to follow this particular logic, so robespierre is out of it for example.

If I oppose the democrat party does not means automatically I am following this logic. Its something that happens in the context of these abrahamitic superstitions. The trick is they invent an enemy that doesnt exist, like "the satanist", they work so the enemy manifests in real life so they can win against it.

One example you could have made that is close or identical is when america invents enemies like "the arab bomber" so they bombed their own twin towers to have an excuse to kill arabs. If an arab was fascinated with the hollywood portrayal of "muh dangerous arab" he would have played the cards dealt by his opponent and made them a favor. Or, another example is the identity of the rap listener "menace to society". That identity has been created by jew producers and if you become "rap thug" you hurt yuorself and help your enemy.

So these aer appropriate comparisons. Robespierre was apple to oranges instead.

[CyberSchizo]

I could also argue that the disinterest in religious debates insinuates the declining relevance of religion, should this be the case then atheist iconoclasts have certainly undermined the Church's authority and prominence. Atheists espoused the pejorative title granted to them out of definitive convenience, its meaning simply entitles their godlessness; every connotation of lesser station by reason of irreverence is engendered by passionate faith conflicting with rational disbelief, not by an innate quality of the irreverent. To suggest the Robespierre unintentionally benefited French monarchy is fallacious as he sought its discontinuation by revolt, in contradiction with the monarchy his influence does not perpetuate nor embolden its power. Similarly, the atheist repudiates the Church and its caste of priests making them natural adversaries.

Religiosity is at its lowest point historically in relative proportion to the world's population, enabling Atheists to refute God in front of Church-goers would not reverse or abet this trend.

Ok I can see you have a point about religion is down.I do not think nonreligious people get into atheism. And also I have theh impression you attribute success to the past atheist movement. I would say (to contribute to your viewpoint) that if you consider the result of their debates atheist people of the past wiped the floor and "won".

I was going a bit forward and in my opinion they did not truly win.

Now I would not compare these atheists to robespierre or whatever. I would compare them to satanist organizations like church of satan, temple of set, secuntra, OTO, O9A, whatever. Basically people who organize around an identity that was provided to them by the enemy. This is also a feature of abrahamitic religions and the technique of scapegoating. Its not that every single person opposing an adversary or a government automatically has to follow this particular logic, so robespierre is out of it for example.

If I oppose the democrat party does not means automatically I am following this logic. Its something that happens in the context of these abrahamitic superstitions. The trick is they invent an enemy that doesnt exist, like "the satanist", they work so the enemy manifests in real life so they can win against it.

One example you could have made that is close or identical is when america invents enemies like "the arab bomber" so they bombed their own twin towers to have an excuse to kill arabs. If an arab was fascinated with the hollywood portrayal of "muh dangerous arab" he would have played the cards dealt by his opponent and made them a favor. Or, another example is the identity of the rap listener "menace to society". That identity has been created by jew producers and if you become "rap thug" you hurt yuorself and help your enemy.

So these aer appropriate comparisons. Robespierre was apple to oranges instead.

The Church never invented atheism, atheists and skeptics like Anaxagoras and Socrates have always spoken against dogma. Your entire argument depends on this principal but it is untrue. You are essentially libeling atheism as an antithesis which corresponds in direct relation to the thesis of a religion, however, both are originally mutually exclusive. Only when the atheist decides to superimpose his faithlessness and doubt onto religious dogma does he become its antithesis. Atheists naturally do not organize an identity around a religion only to benefit it through criticism, religious institutions may attempt to explain atheism as something intrinsically part of their dogmatic system (especially as a revolt which culminates in the religion's synthesis); but this is merely an effort to discredit atheist's criticisms as subsidiary to religious dogma. It's nonsensical moral dialectic.

The concept of an ideological system conceiving its opposition to compliment and validate its premise is interesting, and it works in the cases of many religions. The Christian is justified by the Satanist, Christ is vindicated by the Anti-Christ; the Zoroastrian contrasts Ormuzd with Ahriman: although, this does not work with atheism because atheists repudiate dogma and faith. By refusing to participate in religion, atheists act to its detriment. The atheist is not some imaginary enemy brought to life by sheer faith in the faithless, if that were true religion must have predated the ignorance of religion. Only when the noble savage learns of gods can he believe in them, before he is proselytized his disposition is that of the godless.

I think you have it all wrong. It is the priests that invented idols and those who pledge service to these idols pledge service to the priests. You are one of those who unknowingly do the bidding of the religious institutions, the atheists you smear as ignorant benefactors of the Church are its doom. I feel like this should be common-sense.

Also, the American ethos only invented terrorism in reaction to Islamic attacks. The American government didn't kill its own citizens just to create some boogeyman to instill order through fear. I dislike that kind of Moore-esque conspiracy.

Many copes are to be read in this thread, that they are.

[Sustacel250]

atheists and skeptics like Anaxagoras and Socrates have always spoken against dogma.

No I dont think the people who were blasting semitic superstitions in the past were "atheist" "godless". Its not true. Atheism is a slander. The greeks were not "godless" they were not "atheist".

The ones who acted edgy in the past generation (hitchens, dawkins, etcc) self described as "atheist", so they are the only atheists in existence. Anyone who was labeled "atheist" in the past was not "atheist", they simply had different beliefs and they were slandered and called "godless". If you do not believe in the semitic superstition today they will also call you heathen or pagan or call your beliefs "myth" and so on.

Atheists naturally do not organize an identity around a religion only to benefit it through criticism

But they did. They organized their identity around marxism. Not only these english lords that I already quoted, they existed in my country too, they had same exact traits, all marxists. Marxism coincidentally is the 4th abrahamitic faith. So as I said they are playing the poker with cards dealt to them by their enemy. It can be they are stupid, or blind, or maybe they know what they are doing.

The atheist is not some imaginary enemy brought to life by sheer faith in the faithless

Yes its the case. Who uses this slander is abrahamitic superstitions and they have been doing it since forever. Example they slandered people of urartu called them "atheist" and then killed them. Later, archeologists revealed these people of urartu had their gods. Or, you read it in the bible, the story of golden calf. Golden calf was a benevolent deity, the abrahamitic superstitious people slander their god and call them names, then kill them and slander them on the book of jewish bullshit (bible).

the atheists you smear as ignorant benefactors of the Church are its doom

With wisdom of posterity I am right. Atheism was short lived, it does not exists nowadays. Nobody can use their past arguments they would not work today. I can blast them myself if you want to. Im not religious. I was criticizing atheists on another non-religious perspective. I dont need religion to prove the atheists are all wrong and I can sum up their arguments pretty easy.

The American government didn't kill its own citizens just to create some boogeyman to instill order through fear

Yes they do it. American government is known for 2 or 3 conspiracies against their citizens. The 2 that are publicly known and considered true by the masses are: MK ultra and 911. Most normies will tell you these 2 are conspiracies. But in reality there are thousands of projects like these ones. Fooling the normie masses is a constant effort. Obviously in the past, the priests were occupied with the same tasks today are done by intelligence operatives.

Back to my topic. Yes, if you acquire the identity described by your enemy you lose. Dont come and tell me "satanists" would exist independently of the christian boogeyman. If christianity did not exist, satanism would not exist either. Or, dont tell me "atheists" would exist in absence of semitic superstitions, they would not exist. People who refuse to worship gods in an european religion are not persecuted. Our european religions do not want you to bow downto zeus or odin, nobody is going to give a fuck if you dont submit to 1 god.

[Sustacel250]

Listen is easy. Its like when you dialog with a wigger. I had to talk to a wigger in the blackpill forum his forum name was "celinhell".

Basically this wigger sincerely and profoundly believed his rap listener identity was an idea that came in his head "on its own" and he identifed with an artificial identity given to him by the enemy. So he was listening to the rap music and doing edgy threads on incel forum fantasizing about being a gang overlord and having "respect". I seen his photo, he was very skinny and had facial features visibly highlighting his lack of IQ and deformities that usually are associated with lack of intelligence. But beyond the mere looks he also was acting like a robot, he took the identity of rap listener, he was bowing down to an identity created for people like him.

So I told him about the real mechanism of drug trade, told him how is the state itself that organizes it, so he is not a "rebel". One nrmie would ask himself "but if the drug dealers are not the enemy, why are they portrayed as enemy in rap music?" Dont you realize it? Dont you get it? Or a normie would ask himself "why does the state allows the drug dealers to boast on rap videos if they oppose them?" Dont you get it yet?

Think about it. If the state wants to censor you, do you think they lack means to do it? Do you think is hard to censor you? For instance, why all these journalists went to RT (russia today)? They were all censored and some had to flee away from the west. If the state sees you as a "public enemy" do you really really really think they wuld struggle to censor you? Why does the state allows and even promotes rap music? Dont you get it? Do you get it now?

That is an artificial identity promoted for dumb people. And yes if you become a wigger you are being described by your enemy. You lose when you become a wigger. Simple as. Do you get it now?