Discussion 2

 

We are officially the United States of Israel. If you don't support Sharia law, then you should also not support this! Our Government has been taken over. AIPAC controls over 80% of our congress. 

 

 

Israel owns YOU!

In recent years, questions have grown about how much influence foreign lobbying groups hold over American policy. The most frequently cited example is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Supporters see it as a powerful advocate for a close alliance between the United States and Israel. Critics, however, argue that it wields disproportionate power over Congress and that such influence challenges the idea of an independent American government serving its own citizens first.

AIPAC is one of the most influential lobbying organizations in Washington. It works to secure U.S. military and financial aid for Israel, support legislation favorable to Israeli interests, and shape the political conversation surrounding Middle East policy. Each election cycle, AIPAC directs large amounts of funding toward candidates who align with its objectives. This is not illegal—lobbying and political contributions are part of the U.S. political process—but it raises concerns about whether elected officials are prioritizing the interests of another nation over their own constituents.

Estimates and public records show that pro-Israel political action committees contribute tens of millions of dollars to campaigns each year. Observers say this level of funding creates pressure for lawmakers to support nearly any policy that benefits Israel, even when it may conflict with U.S. goals or public opinion. For example, congressional votes on aid to Israel or resolutions condemning critics of Israeli policies often pass with overwhelming majorities, leaving little room for debate. Critics claim that this is not a reflection of broad public support, but of political fear—fear of losing campaign funding or facing attacks in the media.

Supporters of AIPAC argue that the organization strengthens the U.S.–Israel alliance, which they see as vital for security and stability in the Middle East. They point out that Israel is one of America’s few democratic partners in a volatile region and has long been a strategic ally in intelligence, defense, and technology. They also emphasize that AIPAC’s lobbying is transparent and lawful, representing the values of many American citizens who support Israel.

Opponents counter that the relationship has gone beyond partnership. They argue that the U.S. sends billions in military aid to a wealthy, developed nation while American infrastructure, healthcare, and education remain underfunded. They see AIPAC’s political influence as so extensive that criticism of Israeli government policies is often equated with disloyalty or prejudice, silencing open discussion in Congress. Some point to recent incidents where lawmakers faced backlash simply for calling for conditions on U.S. aid, suggesting that debate itself has become politically dangerous.

The controversy also ties into broader issues of national sovereignty and constitutional responsibility. The U.S. Constitution outlines that foreign influence in government should be limited, and that elected officials serve the interests of the American people above all else. When foreign lobbying becomes intertwined with national decision-making, it challenges the idea of an independent republic guided by its own citizens.

The growing divide over this issue has exposed a larger question: who truly sets American foreign policy? Is it the American voter, or powerful interest groups that operate across borders? The answer may shape not only the U.S.–Israel relationship but also how the nation defines its priorities in the years ahead.

Images of recent congressional sessions, campaign fundraisers, and AIPAC conferences show the scale of this relationship—lawmakers from both major parties attending, praising Israel, and promising unwavering support. Whether viewed as partnership or political capture, the influence is undeniable. As more Americans begin to question where their government’s loyalties lie, the debate over foreign lobbying and national sovereignty is far from over.

The political fight over America’s relationship with Israel is moving beyond policy and into campaign warfare. A wave of well-funded political action committees connected to pro-Israel donors are now spending record amounts to unseat lawmakers who have publicly criticized Israel’s actions or questioned continued U.S. aid. Among those targeted are Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, both known for opposing unconditional support for Israel.

In the past year, AIPAC and allied super PACs have poured millions of dollars into primary and general election races. Their goal is clear—to remove or weaken any candidate who challenges the current U.S.–Israel alliance. These efforts span both parties and often focus on Republican and Democratic lawmakers who speak against Israeli military operations or object to the billions in U.S. taxpayer aid sent each year.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has called for an America-first foreign policy that ends “blank-check” support for foreign nations, including Israel. Her statements have made her a top target of lobbying networks that see her rhetoric as hostile to a key ally. Similarly, Thomas Massie has voted against several aid packages and resolutions seen as favorable to Israel. He has also criticized what he describes as “foreign interference in domestic politics.” In response, major pro-Israel donors have begun funding challengers in both their districts, signaling a concerted effort to make examples of them.

This trend reflects a broader shift in American politics. Rather than lobbying Congress as a whole, interest groups now aim directly at individual lawmakers. Analysts say this new strategy uses campaign funding as a weapon—rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. For many in Washington, it has become politically risky to question foreign aid or raise concerns about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Supporters of the U.S.–Israel partnership argue that strong pressure campaigns are simply part of democracy. They maintain that AIPAC and similar groups represent millions of Americans who value the alliance and see it as a matter of shared security and moral duty. From their perspective, opposing candidates who threaten that alliance is not manipulation—it is political participation.

Critics, however, argue that this influence undermines the will of American voters. They see it as proof that foreign-aligned money shapes policy far more than public opinion. When elected officials fear losing campaign support for challenging another country’s actions, it raises questions about whether the U.S. government can still act independently.

The cases of Greene and Massie are testing that balance. If these lawmakers are successfully unseated through coordinated outside spending, it could discourage others from speaking out on foreign policy issues. If they survive, it might signal a growing resistance to foreign influence in domestic politics.

What remains clear is that the debate over Israel’s role in American politics has moved from quiet lobbying to open confrontation. The outcome of these elections will reveal how much control political money—domestic or otherwise—continues to exert over America’s future priorities.

Images of recent AIPAC conferences, campaign rallies, and congressional hearings show just how much attention this conflict now receives. The question facing voters is whether loyalty to allies abroad should outweigh accountability to the people at home.

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Oct 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

In the days right before October 7th something big was happening in Israel. Massive protests hit the streets of Tel Aviv demanding a new government. They wanted the overthrow of the corrupt Netanyahu government.

They KNEW It Was Coming — The Truth About October 7th and Netanyahu’s Cover-Up | Redacted - YouTube

 

The “they knew” charge rests on a stack of documented warnings and post-attack admissions that—taken together—paint a picture of systemic negligence, not yet a proven conspiracy: Egyptian officials say they alerted Israel days in advance; Israeli media and the New York Times reported a detailed Hamas blueprint (“Jericho Wall”) seen by Israeli intelligence a year earlier but discounted as aspirational; and multiple IDF spotters testified their alerts about unusual Hamas training and border activity were ignored amid broken cameras, lax procedures, and faulty assumptions that Hamas was deterred; Israel’s own agencies have since cataloged failures while the state comptroller moves to question Netanyahu and ex-defense chiefs, fueling “cover-up” claims tied to blame-shifting and delays in full accountability.

What’s still missing is evidence that Netanyahu intentionally allowed the attack; what’s on the record is a cascade of ignored signals and leadership paralysis that critics argue was later papered over by wartime messaging and political survival tactics. 

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Oct 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

In 1983, actor Paul Newman spoke out about what he saw as double standards in U.S. foreign policy, especially with regard to Israel. He warned that America often treats Israel differently than it treats other nations. (You can watch part of his remarks from The Phil Donahue Show: Paul Newman in 1983 on Geopolitical Hypocrisy.) 

Newman’s message still matters today. The idea is this: when many countries commit human rights violations or use military force, they face global backlash, sanctions, or diplomatic isolation. But when Israel does it, the response is often muted — or delayed.

This difference raises serious questions. Does Israel receive special protection from the U.S.? Does it escape accountability that other nations would not? To understand these questions, we need to explore the facts, the debates, and the recent developments.

 

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Oct 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

Chronic disease in children after vaccines

 

After multivariate adjustment 57% of vaccinated children developed at least one chronic health condition (often multiple)

17% of unvaccinated children were chronically ill.

Exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition (HR 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96). 

Exposure to vaccination

Overall, the development of a chronic health condition occurred more often in the group exposed versus unexposed to vaccination.

(p less than 0.0001) IRR 2.48, 

(CI 2.12-2.91). 

Risk independently associated with an increased risk of:

Asthma HR 4.25, (CI 3.23-5.59)

Autoimmune disease HR 4.79, 

(CI 1.36-16.94)

Atopic disease HR 3.03, 

(CI 2.01-4.57)

Eczema HR 1.31, (CI 1.13-1.52)

Neurodevelopmental disorder 

HR 5.53, (CI 2.91-10.51)

(mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders including developmental delay and speech disorder)

Ear infection IRR 6.63, 

(CI 5.73-7.66)

Chronic ear infection IRR 5.67, 

(CI 4.37-7.37)

Anaphylaxis IRR 8.88, 

(CI 1.24-63.47)

Asthma attack or bronchospasm IRR 6.30, (CI 3.85-10.31)

There were no chronic health conditions associated with an increased risk in the unexposed group.

Statistical comparisons could not be conducted for certain conditions, such as diabetes and ADHD, because there were no cases in the unexposed group. 

Ten years of follow up

The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10-years of follow up:

43% in the group exposed to vaccination

83% in the unexposed group.

(log-rank test, p less than0.0001) 

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Oct 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

World leaders will not live this long. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, 72 Kim Jong Un, 41 – 42 Xi Jinping, 72

Organ harvesting

 

 The talk swirling around organ transplants and extreme longevity imagines a world where power and money chase extra decades by swapping out worn parts, but biology still sets hard limits: repeated transplants demand lifelong immunosuppression that raises infection and cancer risks, and no new heart or kidney fixes the brain changes behind dementia. 

Yes, prominent leaders now in their 70s (or early 40s) fuel speculation that a new elite lifespan is in reach, and feel-good slogans in China about “seventy being like a child” get folded into that story, alongside breathless claims that lifespans of 150 might be possible this century. Yet the human record holders—Jeanne Calment at 122, Ethel Caterham at 116, and others past 110—are still outliers, not a new normal. Meanwhile, the data from places like England and Wales remain stubborn: dementia and Alzheimer’s lead death causes, followed by heart disease, strokes, lung disease, cancers, with infections like influenza and pneumonia jumping during bad seasons. 

Even if xenotransplants, gene editing, and lab-grown tissues advance, they won’t erase the multifactorial wear of aging—metabolic drift, immune decline, neurodegeneration—any time soon. The more sober read is that we’ll see more people reaching their 90s in decent health, not rulers resetting the clock at will.

 

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A growing body of alternative historians and critical chronologists question the conventional timeline of Western civilization, especially surrounding the so-called Dark Ages (circa 614–911 AD). This period, often described as a historical void—where few records, innovations, or artifacts exist—has led some to believe that the missing clarity isn’t due to lost history, but fabricated history. This idea, known as the Phantom Time Hypothesis, suggests that nearly 300 years were artificially inserted into the timeline by medieval rulers, particularly under Holy Roman Emperor Otto III and Pope Sylvester II, to legitimize their reign as taking place during the anticipated “millennium” year—1000 AD.

 

Supporters of this theory point out glaring inconsistencies: architectural styles appearing centuries before their time, gaps in archaeological layers, and duplicated historical records between the Roman and Byzantine periods. Even astronomical records have been examined, with some researchers arguing that celestial events described in historical texts do not align with actual astronomical phenomena unless the calendar is adjusted backward by centuries.

If this hypothesis holds any truth, the implications are seismic. It would mean that Charlemagne—long held as a foundational figure of European identity—may have been exaggerated or even fictional. More disturbingly, it suggests that much of what we believe about Europe’s “recovery” from the fall of Rome was based on a deliberately extended and altered chronology, crafted to consolidate religious and imperial power.

“The Vatican’s Role in Hidden Timelines: Keeper of Time or Architect of Illusion?”

Throughout history, the Vatican has stood not just as a religious authority but also as a central repository of historical knowledge, scriptural canon, and ancient texts. Some researchers argue that its role in shaping what we consider “official history” is far more active than passive. The Vatican, particularly during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, maintained exclusive access to ancient Roman records, early Christian writings, and global diplomatic archives—all while holding unrivaled influence over European monarchs, scholars, and scribes. This monopoly on knowledge enabled the Church to curate timelines that aligned with its theological and political objectives.

In theories like the Phantom Time Hypothesis or the broader narrative of manipulated chronology, the Vatican is often placed at the epicenter—not as a bystander, but as a co-architect. Proponents argue that church scholars, such as the Venerable Bede and later Gregorian calendar reformers, may have helped insert or compress centuries into the historical timeline to fabricate the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, anchor legitimacy for Christian empires, or rewrite the legacy of rivals. The adoption of the Anno Domini dating system—placing Christ at the center of time itself—was not merely a theological gesture but a reordering of history.

Furthermore, the Vatican Library, which houses countless unreleased manuscripts and censored documents, has long been off-limits to public scrutiny. Some believe this secrecy conceals not just inconvenient truths, but potentially entire historical epochs that were modified or obscured. The absence of certain documents from secular sources, mirrored by theological gaps in Church-controlled narratives, feeds the suspicion that the Vatican’s control over time isn't just liturgical—it may also be historical engineering on a civilizational scale.

What Was History’s Biggest Cover-Up? The Dark Ages | History for Sleep

 

The Brutal Truth June 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Did the Rothschilds create the modern state of Israel: A move of man instead of a prophetic move of God?

Who is living in Israel today: Are the Jews in Israel not real Jews? Some say they are the 'Khazars' instead.

—linking questions of spiritual legitimacy, ancient prophecy, and modern power into a web that continues to challenge conventional understandings of one of the most contentious regions on earth.

 

In recent debates, two persistent questions resurface: Did the wealthy Rothschild family engineer the creation of modern Israel? And are today’s Israeli Jews actually descendants of Khazars rather than Israelites? Let’s look at these claims through conservative and centrist lenses, using what history and science tell us.

The story of the Rothschilds often centers on Baron Edmond de Rothschild, who in the early 1900s financed vineyards, settlements, and Jewish communal infrastructure in Palestine. Known as “HaNadiv HaYadu’a” (the Benefactor), his support helped early Zionist pioneers build farms and towns—though he never dictated political direction or state policy ajc.org+14en.wikipedia.org+14youtube.com+14. A 2024 fact-check by AAP confirms that, while influential, the family did not create Israel or control its founding aap.com.au.

Today, some suggest the Rothschilds held the reins of Israel as a secretive cabal—but mainstream historians dismiss this. The state’s creation sprang from the Zionist movement, British diplomacy (anchored in the 1917 Balfour Declaration), and United Nations resolutions—not private banking influence.

The second claim, that Israelis are Khazars in disguise, is rooted in a medieval history. In the 8th–10th centuries, the Khazar elite in the Caucasus converted to Judaism—but scholars agree there’s little evidence these converts broadly populated Eastern Europe or formed Ashkenazi Jewry aap.com.auen.wikipedia.org. Modern genetic studies also contradict the notion. A 2025 investigation found Ashkenazi Jews share clear Middle Eastern ancestry, deeply traceable to ancient Israel, and show scant connection to Khazaria en.wikipedia.org.

From a conservative viewpoint, the Rothschilds’ involvement is praised as beneficent support rather than conspiratorial engineering. Their philanthropy helped strengthen a fledgling community, and modern Israelis overwhelmingly descend from biblical Israelites, not Khazars—reinforcing Israel's historical and religious claims to the land.

A more centrist perspective acknowledges both facts and narratives. The Rothschilds were important early sponsors, but the formation of Israel was a complex, multi-party process. And while the Khazar conversion is an interesting historical note, it doesn’t overturn the deep genetic and cultural ties Israelis have with the ancient Levant.

In summary, the Rothschilds were generous backers—not kingmakers—and modern Israelis are not Khazars by any meaningful measure. Knowing these distinctions helps focus the conversation on real history, identity, and heritage without veering into myths or conspiracies.

A growing chorus of alternative researchers and historians argue that the founding of the modern state of Israel was not a fulfillment of divine prophecy, but a carefully orchestrated political maneuver—heavily influenced, if not directed, by one of history’s most secretive and powerful banking families: the Rothschilds.

According to these fringe theorists, the Rothschilds, long rumored to possess unparalleled financial sway over global institutions, were not merely benefactors of early Jewish settlements in Palestine. Instead, they are viewed as the architects of a long-range plan to reshape the Middle East for geopolitical and financial advantage. The 1917 Balfour Declaration—commonly cited as a foundational moment for modern Israel—was, in this view, less about Jewish self-determination and more about British imperial interests, with Lord Walter Rothschild serving as the symbolic recipient of a carefully worded promise. Critics argue this “gift” of Palestine was made without the consent of its native Arab inhabitants, laying the groundwork for decades of conflict.

What fuels these theories further is the argument that today's Israeli population does not primarily descend from the ancient tribes of Israel. Instead, some fringe researchers assert that Ashkenazi Jews, who make up the majority of Israel’s Jewish population, are descendants of Khazars—a Turkic people whose ruling class allegedly converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century. These theorists argue that this lineage breaks the prophetic chain that connects modern Jews to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Proponents of this theory often reference Arthur Koestler’s book The Thirteenth Tribe, in which he posits that much of Eastern European Jewry might trace its origins to Khazaria rather than the ancient Levant. In this view, the state of Israel is thus a political construct, established by those without an ancestral or divine claim to the land, yet justified through biblical narratives that may not apply to them.

Some go even further, suggesting that the Rothschilds’ influence extends into esoteric Zionism, where the creation of Israel is seen not as a biblical restoration, but a step toward consolidating financial and spiritual control in Jerusalem—a necessary move in various apocalyptic or Messianic endgame visions held by elite groups.

This line of thought, while widely rejected in mainstream circles, continues to attract attention among those suspicious of global power structures. It often intermingles with broader critiques of globalist influence, central banking, and the role of secretive elites in shaping world events under the guise of religious or humanitarian goals.

It’s important to note that these claims are not supported by most historians or scientists. Genetic studies widely show that modern Jews, including Ashkenazi populations, have significant Levantine ancestry. And mainstream historians emphasize that the creation of Israel was a complex and multilayered process involving Zionist leaders, Holocaust trauma, British imperial withdrawal, and UN resolutions—not the single-handed plot of a banking family.

 

Still, the fringe narrative persists—linking questions of spiritual legitimacy, ancient prophecy, and modern power into a web that continues to challenge conventional understandings of one of the most contentious regions on earth.

Are the Jews in Israel not real Jews? - The Rothschilds & Khazars

 

---

Sources & links:

• Britannica: Zionism movement and Balfour Declaration m.youtube.com

• AAP Fact Check: “Rothschild conspiracy is ‘utter nonsense’” aap.com.au+1politifact.com+1

• Wikipedia: Edmond de Rothschild’s role in early Palestine washingtonpost.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3x.com+3

• Wikipedia: Genetic studies of Jews reject Khazar origin theory m.youtube.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2

• Wikipedia: Khazars and their conversion to Judaism ajc.org+10en.wikipedia.org+10m.youtube.com+10

 

 

THE BRUTAL TRUTH JUNE 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Muslims admit THIS about Islam live and check this on the BBC? For years, mainstream media claimed "Islam is a religion of peace," but shocking new footage from millions of Muslims worldwide show a very different story. BBC’s Eid broadcast reveals the hidden agenda! Why are 24% of Muslim youth leaving Islam? What’s causing the massive wave of apostasy worldwide? Top Islamic scholars openly confess Islam does NOT mean peace in this video, it means something far worse. Watch as we expose BBC’s secret agenda, hidden Quran verses, and truths they’ve tried desperately to conceal!

 BBC's Eid Broadcast: Representation and Reception

In April 2025, the BBC made history by broadcasting Eid prayers live from Bradford Central Mosque, marking the first time such an event was aired on UK terrestrial television. This initiative aimed to showcase the spiritual and communal aspects of Eid al-Fitr, featuring Qur'anic recitations, sermons in both English and Arabic, and congregational prayers.

The Guardian+1BBC+1

The broadcast was generally well-received, with many viewers appreciating the representation of Muslim practices in mainstream media. It provided an opportunity for wider audiences to gain insight into Islamic traditions, fostering understanding and inclusivity.

 

---

📉 Youth Leaving Islam: Exploring the Factors

Studies and surveys have indicated that a segment of Muslim youth are choosing to leave the faith. Factors contributing to this trend include:

• Personal Doubts and Questions: Some individuals grapple with theological questions or find certain teachings challenging to reconcile with their personal beliefs.

• Desire for Autonomy: A quest for personal freedom and autonomy can lead some to distance themselves from religious practices they perceive as restrictive.

• Cultural and Social Pressures: Navigating identity in multicultural societies can create tensions, leading some to reevaluate their religious affiliations.

It's essential to approach this topic with sensitivity, recognizing the diverse experiences and reasons individuals may have for their choices.

 

---

🕊️ Understanding the Meaning of 'Islam'

The term "Islam" is derived from the Arabic root "S-L-M," which is associated with peace and submission. In Islamic theology, "Islam" signifies submission to the will of God, leading to inner peace and harmony. This concept emphasizes the importance of aligning one's actions with divine guidance to achieve spiritual tranquility.

The difference between Islam and Christianity is foundational and profound, rooted in theology, history, scripture, and worldview. While both are monotheistic and trace their origins to Abraham, their understanding of God, salvation, and the role of Jesus Christ sharply diverge.

 

Here’s a concise but thorough breakdown:

1. View of God

Islam:

• Believes in one, indivisible God: Allah.

• Strict monotheism (Tawhid) forbids any division or partners associated with God.

• God is all-powerful, merciful, but transcendent and unknowable in a personal sense.

Christianity:

• Believes in one God in three persons: Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit (Trinity).

• God is personal, loving, and involved in human affairs.

• The Trinity is a core doctrine—rejected completely by Islam.

 

---

2. Jesus Christ

Islam:

• Jesus (Isa) is a highly respected prophet—not divine, not the Son of God.

• He was born of the Virgin Mary and performed miracles, but he was not crucified—instead, someone else was substituted (according to most Islamic teachings).

• Jesus is expected to return at the end of time, but not as a savior.

Christianity:

• Jesus is the Son of God, God in the flesh (John 1:1,14).

• He was crucified, died for the sins of the world, and resurrected from the dead.

• Faith in His sacrifice is the only way to salvation (John 14:6).

 

---

3. Salvation

Islam:

• Based on works and obedience.

• Muslims must follow the Five Pillars: faith, prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage.

• On Judgment Day, good and bad deeds are weighed; if the good outweighs the bad and Allah wills, a person may enter Paradise.

Christianity:

• Based on grace through faith.

• Salvation is a free gift from God, not earned by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Belief in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection provides forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

 

---

4. Scripture

Islam:

• Holy book is the Qur’an, believed to be the literal word of God revealed to Muhammad.

• Also recognizes previous scriptures (Torah, Psalms, Gospel) but claims they were corrupted over time.

Christianity:

• Holy book is the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.

• Believes it is inspired and preserved. The New Testament records Jesus’s life, death, and teachings.

 

---

5. Role of Muhammad

Islam:

• Muhammad is the final prophet ("Seal of the Prophets").

• His life and sayings (Hadith) serve as a model for Muslim life.

• Rejecting Muhammad is to reject Islam entirely.

Christianity:

• Muhammad is not recognized as a prophet.

• Christians believe that revelation ended with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

---

6. View of the Afterlife

Both believe in heaven and hell, a Day of Judgment, and the return of Jesus.
However:

• In Islam, salvation is more uncertain and dependent on Allah’s mercy and a scale of deeds.

• In Christianity, eternal life is assured through belief in Jesus’s redemptive work.

 

---

If you're interested in exploring these topics further or have specific questions, feel free to ask. contact me via email or post a comment.

 

THE BRUTAL TRUTH MAY 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is governed by a structured leadership framework comprising the Board of Trustees and the Managing Board. The Board of Trustees includes distinguished individuals from various sectors who oversee the organization's mission and values. The Managing Board, led by President Børge Brende, functions as the executive body responsible for the Forum's operations and strategic initiatives. ​Financial Times+13World Economic Forum+13World Economic Forum+13

In May 2024, Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, announced his decision to step down from his executive role by January 2025, transitioning to the position of chairman of the Board of Trustees. This move was part of a broader succession plan aimed at ensuring the organization's continued leadership in global public-private cooperation. ​Financial Times+2Reuters+2Wikipedia+2

Bill Gates does not hold a formal leadership position within the WEF. While he has participated in WEF events and discussions, his involvement is as a participant rather than as part of the governing body.​Wikipedia

Therefore, the WEF is led by its Board of Trustees and Managing Board, with Klaus Schwab serving as chairman of the Board of Trustees and Børge Brende as President, overseeing the organization's strategic direction and operations.​AP News+9World Economic Forum+9World Economic Forum+9

Børge Brende, born on September 25, 1965, in Odda, Norway, is a distinguished Norwegian politician and diplomat who has been serving as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the World Economic Forum (WEF) since 2017. ​Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie+2

Political Career:

• Ministerial Roles: Brende has held several key positions in the Norwegian government:​LinkedIn+1World Bank Blogs+1

  • Minister of the Environment (2001–2004): During his tenure, he chaired the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development from 2003 to 2004.​World Bank Blogs+2Wikipedia+2LinkedIn+2

  • Minister of Trade and Industry (2004–2005): In this role, he focused on enhancing innovation and development, leading to a 30% increase in funding for innovation by the end of his term.​LinkedIn+2PMNCH+2Wikipedia+2

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs (2013–2017): As Foreign Minister, Brende played a pivotal role in normalizing Norway's relations with China and served as a guarantor in the Colombian peace process. ​Wikipedia

• Parliamentary Service: He was a Member of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) representing Sør-Trøndelag from 1997 to 2009, serving as Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Energy and Environment during his last term. ​Wikipedia+5PMNCH+5Sustainable Development Goals+5

Other Leadership Roles:

• Secretary-General of the Norwegian Red Cross (2009–2011): Brende led significant relief operations in Haiti and Pakistan, two of the largest in the organization's history. ​PMNCH+1LinkedIn+1

• Managing Director at the World Economic Forum (2008–2009, 2011–2013): Before becoming President, he was responsible for policy initiatives and engagement with non-business constituents. ​Wikipedia

Education:

Brende holds a Bachelor of Arts in economics, law, and history from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim. ​World Bank Blogs+2Sustainable Development Goals+2World Economic Forum+2

Current Roles and Affiliations:

• President and CEO of the World Economic Forum: Since 2017, Brende has been leading the WEF, focusing on fostering public-private cooperation to address global challenges. ​

• Board Memberships and Advisory Roles:

  • Member of the Board of Directors of P4G – Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030.

  • Member of the Advisory Council of the Harvard International Negotiation Program.

  • Member of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED).

  • Member of the Strategic Committee of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po.

  • Member of the Board of the Bilderberg Meetings.

Brende's extensive experience in international diplomacy, environmental policy, and economic development has positioned him as a key figure in global discussions on sustainable development and international cooperation.​

 

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Find more information by visiting this site Our Mission | World Economic Forum