It's a good point but shouldn't we try to do as much good as possible? And if for instance I voted for Glenn Youngkin for governor of Virginia and he did what he said and kept children from being indoctrinated to trans ideologies and having their genitals mutilated or tits removed, wouldn't God want me to have helped bring in a man with a desire to protect children?
I see absolutely no moral problem with voting for candidates who claim to be righteous, as Youngkin did.
We should absolutely do as good as possible, it is our moral duty as men. The question is what the best and moral thing to do really is. If you believe that voting for Glenn Youngkin was a truly, morally and net good for our people, then you stand your ground in that decision.
For me, while Glenn Youngkin has been against the mutilation and the indoctrination that advocates for that bull, he is also starting a government commission to combat "antisemitism", thereby protecting the jew, their subversion and the very evil he claims to be against. It also violates the first amendment. My view is, whether anyone realizes it or not, anyone who protects or pays lip service to the jew is protecting the side of the devil, and I believe this is a literal spiritual and physical war of good and evil. This mindset is why I advocate for either abstaining from the (s)election or voting third party. I don't think I should perpetuate the problem that comes with voting for the "lesser evil."
I too believe this is a war of good vs evil. A spiritual war as you said.
What do we do with the fact that so many members of AOCs squad actively call out the jewish occupation of palestine?
I mean, if our only litmus test is jew hating, what is one to do?
That beady eyed daily wire kike shapiro makes me sick.
But his goy Matt Walsh is a gorilla tearing through woke liberal WEIMAR ideologies.
How do we rectify this duality of good and evil in our minds against what is obviously skewed and hidden battle lines? I mean, if you want to go hide in the woods, you MIGHT be able to avoid jewish association.
This is a good question - how do we judge who is not on their side. You make some good points. Unfortunately, there is no single litmus test so you have to look at the entire picture. This sometimes takes awhile but it is worth it.
The controlled opposition aspect of the ZOG system makes it a lot harder to judge. This the case with your example AOC, who is actually . I'm sure her role is something along the line of victimizing israel and making seem as if israel doesn't completely own the senate. As you know AOC also has shit leftist political views so you could cast her off anyway. Same goes for anyone who spouts (((leftist))) ideology. Leftist Ideology is inherently jewish and depraved.
On the other hand, because their political views are less shitty, "conservatives" like Matt Walsh and harder to judge to the untrained eye. He may be "tearing" through leftist ideology, but like you said, he is also a shabbat goy and has defended jews and their barbaric practices several times. To me it seem like he essentially plays as a gatekeeper for Shapiro. As I have stated before, if you on on the side of the jews, you are helping the bad guys win.
Also, while it may seem like the controlled opposition thing is just a trope or excuse, I would have to disagree judging by the collective actions of both Republicans and Democrats.
As for your last point, there is difference between simply being associated with jews and vehemently defending them, their actions and creating special councils to protect them. I guess you could say that the litmus test for judging some politicians isn't jew hating, but jew defending. Like you said, it is probably very hard to avoid association, but defending them constantly is a problem.
I am young so I may be off on some things but this is just what I see in politics today.
(post is archived)