[nomadbrah]

To finish, so we don't run around look for people steepling their fingers.

If the elites/freemasons/satanists use a hand sign such as this more than the ordinary man or even have it as a "calling card", then it doesn't mean everyone who does it belongs to them.

Far more likely is that freemasons were a sort of self imrprovement forum to begin with. Keep in mind, this was during peak catholic church which restricted anything but scripture. Naturally, hand signals such as this, which makes the speaker appear confident and in control, might be "novel" when you're living in the dark ages.

It's like how Hitler is a vegetarian, so now vegetarians are Hitler, except Hitler was a vegetarian because he was advanced for his age and in many ways a progressive (I changed my mind on this) in terms of things like animal rights.

[CynicalContrarian]

Even if Oprah wanted to; she can't announce anything for the better part of the next two years from a marketing perspective.
If she were to announce now; all the enthusiasm would taper off over the next two years cause it would be a known thing.

Wait until all the establishment hacks announce their bids. Build anticipation & then announce in 2019.

[AnonymousBosch]

(01-09-2018 12:58 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Steepled fingers is a confident hand position either done from genuine confidence or taught to increase confidence. Like shoulders back, chin up.

Nothing freemason or illuminati about it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spy...-the-hands

Quote:

Steepling is important to get your point across that you feel strongly about what you are saying, it is probably the most powerful display of confidence that we possess.

I would have though it was head up, shoulders back, chest out and not guarding your balls as you talk.



'Steepling' is an upwards triangle, usually held under the chin. Signalling allegiance to the Mystery Babylon to Lucifer's Consort is a downwards triangle, held at crotch height, pointing towards the ground, mirroring the shape of the female reproductive system. Note the 'elite' people who consistently do it also favour the One-Eye and Triple 6 hand positions.

I'd argue it's observably-consistent with insincere, fake people trying to sell you bullshit, which is why Oprah hawks New Age / Personal Prosperity deceptions. If you see it, always be on your guard. It's almost as if those whom set out to deceive are legally-required to reveal their true intentions as they do so. Perhaps it's some kind of spiritual law, or, if you're not religious, simply a psychological quirk the way avoidance of eye contact is.

Here's a video for a song by Tim McGraw, a Christian, made by Oprah's Network; as expected, what is really being sold is Globalism and the unspoken idea that all religions and cultures have equal value ie. there is not one God, but many Gods, all of whom are valid paths to the same salvation.

Note the similarity to the commercial last year by that Wrestling Potatohead Guy walking through a ridiculously-multicultural America, where Jews and Muslims apparently have no greater desire but to want to hug each other, which quickly-slipped 'love beyond age' into the equation, hoping no-one would notice.

They always have to signal you their intentions, so you can't say you weren't warned. Heed the warning.

It's interesting that I'm surrounded by people who don't use their hands when they talk at all. I watched Bill game a woman for about 15 minutes the other day, his hands were at his sides the entire time. Jeans were slung low enough on his hips to reveal his obliques but there was no crotch guarding with his hands. He didn't put them in his pockets. He didn't point. He didn't emphasize or wave them around. Just, simply, at his sides. This is usually how I talk to women, though I'll often default to parade rest if I'm standing around in a crowd for comfort's sake.

[catoblepa]

Just wanted to say WNB. Was she ever fit?

[AnonymousBosch]

^ Was she ever Not Oprah? Damn, is she fake.

[Duke Castile]

Parade rest is the posture adopted when you are awaiting orders from a superior. It is not a command position at all.

[Nonpareil]

If the economy keeps going the way it has been, Trump is going to be just about unbeatable by 2020.

Aren't he and Oprah friends, too?

As outlined by TK, what percentage of the black male vote does she get? She's done more damage to the black male community than crack and absentee fathers put together. A black woman in the white house, that's just what black men want to see...

Hell the overall male vote, what does she get there? The 10% or so never Trump crew, another 10% gay-soy-mangina vote? No self respecting man would vote for fucking Oprah, especially considering again, the economy, 'I have more money in my pocket now than I did 4 years ago... I was finally able to start up a business because there arent a million regulations anymore.'

What's even her platform? I'll bet it's back to the democrat plantation. You get an EBT card, and you get an EBT card, and you get an EBT card!

I bet she's got some pretty nasty dirt on her - this stuff tends to get dug up. There's already questions about her health and her sexuality out there.

A black woman...I feel like the democrats have only one card in their deck that they play again and again. We had a black president and he sucked, a woman has twice ran and gotten pummeled (well once for the party nom but point stands). No one fucking cares about this shit with the fate of the country at stake.

I guarantee a comparatively kid gloved treatment from the media...but do you want to put the nearly 3 billion dollars you have (before campaigning and setting up political infrastructure...so subtract at least 500 mil from that) into a blind trust?

(((They))) own her.

The best she can hope for is a 2024 run, but even then she's going to be 70 by then. As an obese black woman she's on borrowed time now.

She doesn't run in 2020 or 2024, take it to the bank.

[Rush87]

There are a lot of Masons in Aus, especially out bush where I live[d]. My grandfather worked as a shunter on the railroads during WW2. He was a devout Catholic surrounded by Masons. At a basic level most of them were just 'jobs for mates types'.

I've been propositioned to join the masons aswell. They all use similar hands signals as in the afforementioned pictures, but there are also plenty of local masons who don't. It's a strong power stance that stops you fiddling with your hands around a large audience. As a devout Catholic I do something similar too. That alone isn't enough to convince me that someone is a mason.

[Transsimian]

(01-09-2018 02:52 PM)catoblepa Wrote:  

Just wanted to say WNB. Was she ever fit?

She won Miss Black Tennessee when she was 17, so I'd say yes.

[Rush87]

Also: Gail has said Oprah isn't convinced about running. I suspect as much too, because if she were to run, she would lose and the net fall out would be a massive hit to her brand. Her name would be absolutely run through the mud during a campaign.

[Mercenary]

(01-09-2018 02:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It's almost as if those whom set out to deceive are legally-required to reveal their true intentions as they do so. Perhaps it's some kind of spiritual law, or, if you're not religious, simply a psychological quirk the way avoidance of eye contact is.

I also have gotten this feeling over the years that somehow evil is not allowed to operate 100% fully in disguise. For evil to be able to exist and operate, it must have some form of prior disclosure of its existence, modus operandi and end goal intentions.

Often that disclosure is hard to spot and wrapped in endless other nonsense. Kind of like a small font fine print, in a long contract with lots of terms and conditions. A lawyer will spot stuff like that immediately, but a "normal person" will get lost in the long words and complicated sentences.

When you know what to look for, it becomes so obvious especially in all the hollywood, mass media and entertainment bullshit. Suddenly you see it everywhere. You just have to re-train your senses to know what to look out for.

Another thing I also heard, is that if you ask one of these evil people a very direct question, they are not allowed to lie. They can change the subject, avoid the question, claim ignorance, laugh, go silent, give a vague answer, or most often tell the truth in a way that seems as if they are joking....but they cannot lie.


Here is a good example.

Jimmy Kimmel asks Obama, George Bush junior, Bill Clinton, and Hillary about "aliens".



(For the record I think aliens DO NOT exist, and I believe "aliens" is just a code word for evil demon spirits)




Obama uses the being 100% honest method. He tells the honest truth, but speaks in a way as if he were joking.
Obama says "The "aliens" won't let it happen. You reveal all their secrets. They exercise strict control over us.... That's what we are instructed to say."

George Bush junior uses the avoidance method (pleads the 5th amendment). Refuses to answer the question.

Hillary Clinton uses the ignorance method...says she wants to check the evidence again:

Bill Clinton uses the weasel technical lawyer method: (Uses answers like "sort of", claims there are no "aliens" in area 51, says he checked all "the papers" and "the papers" say nothing...) which has always been his preferred method of evasion as in "i did not have sexual relations with that woman." Meaning oral sex is not legally sex.

So legally, none of them have actually lied to a direct question.

[captain_shane]

Kind of like Louis CK asking Rumsfeld about being a lizard and him refusing to answer. Haha

[Genghis Khan]

(01-09-2018 01:06 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I'm open to voting for Oprah (hope that's not a bannable offense)

Can you elaborate on why?

Genuinely curious. Although I've enjoyed a lot of the posts on this thread, a lot of the comments also sound eerily similar to what my liberal friends were saying about Trump ("there's no way he can win for X, Y, Z reasons").

If there are guys on this forum who would consider voting for Oprah, I think we owe it to ourselves to hear them out.

Like 911 posted, Trump won with some really thin margins. I'd also like to ask posters with a better understanding of the economy: what's the likelihood we see an economic crisis before/during 2020. Stock prices have been booming like crazy.

I found a chart about economic crisis cycles here:
https://thetimefactor.com/Blog/the-wd-ga...-2028.html

It's predicting high stock prices in 2019, and panic in 2020. Anyone know how accurate this 18/19 year cycle shit is?

[911]

(01-09-2018 04:13 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It's almost as if those whom set out to deceive are legally-required to reveal their true intentions as they do so. Perhaps it's some kind of spiritual law, or, if you're not religious, simply a psychological quirk the way avoidance of eye contact is.

I also have gotten this feeling over the years that somehow evil is not allowed to operate 100% fully in disguise. For evil to be able to exist and operate, it must have some form of prior disclosure of its existence, modus operandi and end goal intentions.

Often that disclosure is hard to spot and wrapped in endless other nonsense. Kind of like a small font fine print, in a long contract with lots of terms and conditions. A lawyer will spot stuff like that immediately, but a "normal person" will get lost in the long words and complicated sentences.

When you know what to look for, it becomes so obvious especially in all the hollywood, mass media and entertainment bullshit. Suddenly you see it everywhere. You just have to re-train your senses to know what to look out for.

Another thing I also heard, is that if you ask one of these evil people a very direct question, they are not allowed to lie. They can change the subject, avoid the question, claim ignorance, laugh, go silent, give a vague answer, or most often tell the truth in a way that seems as if they are joking....but they cannot lie.


Here is a good example.

Jimmy Kimmel asks Obama, George Bush junior, Bill Clinton, and Hillary about "aliens".



(For the record I think aliens DO NOT exist, and I believe "aliens" is just a code word for evil demon spirits)




Obama uses the being 100% honest method. He tells the honest truth, but speaks in a way as if he were joking.
Obama says "The "aliens" won't let it happen. You reveal all their secrets. They exercise strict control over us.... That's what we are instructed to say."

George Bush junior uses the avoidance method (pleads the 5th amendment). Refuses to answer the question.

Hillary Clinton uses the ignorance method...says she wants to check the evidence again:

Bill Clinton uses the weasel technical lawyer method: (Uses answers like "sort of", claims there are no "aliens" in area 51, says he checked all "the papers" and "the papers" say nothing...) which has always been his preferred method of evasion as in "i did not have sexual relations with that woman." Meaning oral sex is not legally sex.

So legally, none of them have actually lied to a direct question.

Great post Merc, very revealing about the real personalities of these former and wannabe presidents, and the presidency position itself:

-Obama comes through as the puppet ("they exercise control over us...that's what we were instructed to say") who charms his way out of it, like the hustler he is.

-Dubya knows he's not smart or slick enough to field this, but as the scion to a deep state clan and Bonesman, doesn't give a fuck and just arrogantly dispatches the question.

-Hillary actively advancing the agenda and foisting the new nomenclature, very comfortable lying on the go with a straight face.

-Slick Willie very smart and manipulative. Leans heavier on his southern accent when lying and charming his audience, the same way his midwestern wife does. He's more actively involved with the program, unlike W who doesn't care, and Barry who's mostly a figurehead and just does what he's told.

[ShotgunUppercuts]

I will say the oprah herself said shouldnt run for president more than once.

Good. No more celebrities for president.

[Duke Castile]

Dismissing Oprah isn’t at all the same as when Pres Trump was being dismissed.

People called Pres Trump a “clown” because they only had a vague impression of him saying “you’re fired” and knew he has funny hair.

Generally they were people that never actually watched the apprentice, read his books, or knew anything about him.

Oprah on the other hand is very well known and almost everyone is familiar with her from watching her show at least once.

Like I said before, she has a goodie goodie image (which Hillary NEVER had).

Oprah’s whole brand will shatter when evidence and accusations come out that directly contradict that image.

It will also hurt her big league when she get’s caught up in #metoo. Liberals have been show to eat their own and Oprah’s political opponents on the left will use it against her.

As with Pres Trump, the establishment was very happy to take his money and have his endoresment, but when he wanted to come into their territory the knives came out. Leftists will do the same to Oprah and I promise she is not as smart about keeping her nose clean as the president.

I’d also like to hear why any RVF member would vote for black Hillary.

[Alpharius]

(01-09-2018 05:14 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:06 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I'm open to voting for Oprah (hope that's not a bannable offense)

Can you elaborate on why?

Genuinely curious. Although I've enjoyed a lot of the posts on this thread, a lot of the comments also sound eerily similar to what my liberal friends were saying about Trump ("there's no way he can win for X, Y, Z reasons").

If there are guys on this forum who would consider voting for Oprah, I think we owe it to ourselves to hear them out.

Depends entirely on her policy positions, knowledge of domestic and international affairs, if she can competently work with congress, and the content of her personal character.

Too many of you guys are hung up on her being black and a woman, like you voted for Trump simply because he is white and a man. Do intelligence, experience, skill and policies count for nothing?

Edit: I'm not saying I would vote for her, I'm saying I don't have enough information to decide.

[captain_shane]

(01-09-2018 05:38 PM)Alpharius Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:14 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:06 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I'm open to voting for Oprah (hope that's not a bannable offense)

Can you elaborate on why?

Genuinely curious. Although I've enjoyed a lot of the posts on this thread, a lot of the comments also sound eerily similar to what my liberal friends were saying about Trump ("there's no way he can win for X, Y, Z reasons").

If there are guys on this forum who would consider voting for Oprah, I think we owe it to ourselves to hear them out.

Depends entirely on her policy positions, knowledge of domestic and international affairs, if she can competently work with congress, and the content of her personal character.

Too many of you guys are hung up on her being black and a woman, like you voted for Trump simply because he is white and a man. Do intelligence, experience, skill and policies count for nothing?

Edit: I'm not saying I would vote for her, I'm saying I don't have enough information to decide.

I'm sorry, but I'll never vote for a woman to be president.

[Number one bummer]

(01-09-2018 05:38 PM)Alpharius Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:14 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:06 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I'm open to voting for Oprah (hope that's not a bannable offense)

Can you elaborate on why?

Genuinely curious. Although I've enjoyed a lot of the posts on this thread, a lot of the comments also sound eerily similar to what my liberal friends were saying about Trump ("there's no way he can win for X, Y, Z reasons").

If there are guys on this forum who would consider voting for Oprah, I think we owe it to ourselves to hear them out.

Depends entirely on her policy positions, knowledge of domestic and international affairs, if she can competently work with congress, and the content of her personal character.

Too many of you guys are hung up on her being black and a woman, like you voted for Trump simply because he is white and a man. Do intelligence, experience, skill and policies count for nothing?

Edit: I'm not saying I would vote for her, I'm saying I don't have enough information to decide.

Anyone that thinks a woman should be a world leader hasn't met enough women and hasn't been paying attention to Europe.

Her policies and worldviews suck. She is a secular leftist that became famous by giving away free shit on a shitty TV show and isn't above race baiting. Her gender and race just make her a reinforced stereotype.

[AnonymousBosch]

(01-09-2018 03:05 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Parade rest is the posture adopted when you are awaiting orders from a superior. It is not a command position at all.

I didn't say it was. It's a position suggesting confidence, of knowing you don't need to hide or defend your junk at every opportunity, because you know you can handle yourself. It's the military training men to fake power and confidence which, in turn, trains their brain to make it, which also seems to be the accepted course of action in the manosphere for guy's starting out.

I'd also argue confidence can be gained from a man knowing exactly where he stands in a male hierarchy, hence, receiving orders.

You can't always stand Contrapposto. A tall (clueless with women) mate of mine was very tall but had a habit of guarding his - very large - crotch with his hands. I told him to try parade rest in public and he said "It's amazing. Girls keep looking at my cock as they talk to me."

No shit.

Contrast with the Soyboys who swing wildly from diving their hands into pockets - they'd be ashamed of their balls - to flapping them around at a moments notice. I think they favour exaggerated posing and facial expressions because they don't have to think of what the hell to do with their hands.

[Mercenary]

...


Dudes here who would vote for a woman to be in charge of anything other than the kitchen, raising children, and giving blowjobs, need to re-assess if they really belong on RVF.


Your manosphere, red pill, alpha credentials will be immediately be put into serious doubt.


This is a sign of weakness and blue pill indoctrination creeping back into your thinking.
Take immediate steps to stop being a pussy.

[911]

(01-09-2018 06:15 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

...


Dudes here who would vote for a woman to be in charge of anything other than the kitchen, raising children, and giving blowjobs, need to re-assess if they really belong on RVF.


Your manosphere, red pill, alpha credentials will be immediately be put into serious doubt.


This is a sign of weakness and blue pill indoctrination creeping back into your thinking.
Take immediate steps to stop being a pussy.

Not necessarily Merc...

[Mercenary]

(01-09-2018 06:52 PM)911 Wrote:  

Not necessarily Merc...

If the only choice given is between a "right wing" female, and a weak/globalist/cucked/gay/trans/soy/whateverthefuckthesefreakscallthemselvesnow "male" I chose

none of the above.

[Latinopan]

Many have said good points why she would not run or why she will lose. But more important factor why she will not run......


Women are not risk takers

Hillary ran because because she she did not feel she was taking a risk, she was thinking to herself she had an easy win.

But Oprah knows if she ever run she will take a risk that will damage her career and her brand since demanding policies half of the country disagree is bad PR.

Hillary lose, but she does not have a brand-business to run, therefore it was safe for her in that point. Trump on the other hand took a MASSIVE risk, he losing meant he will destroyed to the point of nobody will ever do business with him ever again.

[Duke Castile]

(01-09-2018 05:38 PM)Alpharius Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:14 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:06 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I'm open to voting for Oprah (hope that's not a bannable offense)

Can you elaborate on why?

Genuinely curious. Although I've enjoyed a lot of the posts on this thread, a lot of the comments also sound eerily similar to what my liberal friends were saying about Trump ("there's no way he can win for X, Y, Z reasons").

If there are guys on this forum who would consider voting for Oprah, I think we owe it to ourselves to hear them out.

Depends entirely on her policy positions, knowledge of domestic and international affairs, if she can competently work with congress, and the content of her personal character.

Too many of you guys are hung up on her being black and a woman, like you voted for Trump simply because he is white and a man. Do intelligence, experience, skill and policies count for nothing?

Edit: I'm not saying I would vote for her, I'm saying I don't have enough information to decide.

You can’t honestly expect anyone here to believe that you don’t know enough.

I’ve noticed some leftist type posts by you, why don’t you just be straight up?