I’m curious what your definition of religion is?

The problem is that influencers have shilled stupid VPN services so much that even legislatures think they know what they are and think the primary use for the technology is circumvention and privacy.

They have no idea about all the IPsec tunnels providing site-to-site VPNs for all their businesses. Or how VPN protocols like GRE, which while providing no security on their own, are still very useful for tunneling protocols through different network stacks.

If I exercise today, what will I accomplish? Will I be different tomorrow? Of course the answer is that I won’t accomplish much, and I probably won’t be noticebly different tomorrow; nobody increases their bench press 25lb after a single workout.

The point is not the results of a single workout, because what is significant is not the effect of a single workout or protest or any other long-term effort you want to examine, it is the cumulative effect of continued work toward a common goal.

The Powell Memoradum was written in 1971. The Heritage foundation began developing project 2025 in early 2022. These are efforts that have been in development for decades and years, respectively with many people working very patiently to see them implemented.

Of course a single protest isn’t going to do anything to undo decades of well-orchestrated political and economic changes. If people want to see this changed they can’t stop with a single protest. Just like making a new years resolution to go to the gym once isn’t going to undo years of neglect to change someone’s physical fitness, going to a protest once isn’t going to undo the years of damage to the U.S. Government.

Yes, because it is never comes at their own expense through self-sacrifice. True leaders eat last, not first.

The difference is that for the people dying under capitalism, the system is working as intended, and for the people dying under communism, it is not. In both cases, the leaders don’t really care, because it works for them.

That seems like an easy thing until you consider:

1. Federalized National guard troops are under Title 10 Authority.

2. Under Title 10 USC 890 Article 90: Willfully disobeying a lawful order in wartime is punishable with the death penalty.

3. With the executive branch claiming wartime powers and the DoJ willing to pursue any claim they want, they could certainly choose to pursue the maximum punishment to make an example out of someone.

The ranks of the JAG and military judges hasn’t been purged yet, so I believe it is very inlikely that a court-marshal would reach this punishment, but these orders aren’t something a Soldier can just walk away from without serious legal and financial repurcussions.

What they do in Chicago matters far more than their presence there. Every Soldier needs to recognize their ultimate purpose is to defend the freedom and liberty of their nation’s citizens. They must have a line in the sand that they will refuse to cross and are willing to die for, but simply deploying to a city to stand outside a federal building is not that line.

Can anyone tell me what that is on the shelf in the top left of this video? https://youtu.be/OZRG7Og61mw?t=272

Is that some kind of fascist symbol?

I do what I always do: run to the trolley, then jump up and pull the emergency stop because I hate false dilemmas.

I think it is pretty obvious why the government is shut down, it’s because Joe Biden signed documents with an Autopen, obviously…

If it is well known that it is illegal for law enforcement officers to wear masks, and there is an armed man wearing a mask who is threatening a group of people, it would be reasonable to assume they are not a law enforcement officer and a shooting could be justified in self-defense.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Also Matthew 6:14-16: “14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (NIV)

I know it isn’t Biblically supported, but I always thought it would be incredibly poetic if we were asked to pass final judgement on people who had harmed us, only to find out afterwards that we were actually passing judgement on ourselves for our own actions. Makes me wonder how many people would condemn others for their own actions?

This would be a very literally implementation of Matthew 12:36-37: " 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (NIV)

Yes. I think people are wise to the fact that the simple potential of facing charges is the threat that is supposed to intimidate and suppress opposition. Tying someone’s life up in a trial that has no chance of seeing a guilty verdict is the actual punishment they are aiming for because they know they have no legal standing.

They won’t shut down the internet. First, there is way to much $$$ involved in keeping it running. The Tech Bs will push back hard against that. Also, they will realize it is more useful to sensor it and use it for state approved information distribution.

Basically, this conversation will happen: https://youtu.be/gyt0bZms5zU?t=2069

I’m sorry you assume this is in bad faith. Internet text messages leave a lot to be desired when it comes to conveying a message. I am sincere, but I’m afraid I often come off as know-it-all, arrogant, holier-than-thow, in an attempt to make my point. I’m afraid it is self-defeating. I need to learn how to communicate these things better.

I sincerely hope you can enjoy your day also.

You can also dig up his body and rape it still: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/jeffrey-epstein-final-resting-place-183719617.html

You can, but you shouldn’t.

My post wasn’t meant it present an equivalence. It was meant to illustrate that both acts are degrading to the person performing them, with the latter being more extreme in its harm. It isn’t meant as some kind of “proof” that I am right. I was hoping that if someone agreed that the more extreme dehumanizng acts are harmful for them, then maybe they would consider that the lesser ones could also be. But I guess my real mistake was trying to convince people not to hurt themselves.

My point is that saying: “You have to have a storm if you want flowers” or “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelete” or “We must burn the old grass so that new grass can grow” are all just other ways of saying that “the ends justify the means” and have been used by people throughout history to justify whatever horrible thing they wanted to do.

That quote is from Adolf Hitler BTW. Replace [a] with Germany.

Will this coming storm be [a] death-struggle or the birth-pangs of a new and better age?

I’m not advocating tolerance. The key difference is laughing at someone’s death isn’t just an expression of disapproval, it is a devaluation of human life in general. It isn’t a question of being justified in laughing at their demise because they laughed at horrible things; the very act of laughing degrades yourself.

Let me put it another way: Epstein and his accomplices deserved to be gang raped by all of us in prison. Should we run a train on them? No! Because that defiles us as much as it does them.

You do you. I cannot change your mind.

I will not laugh though, because I look at myself and I see the same potential for evil in myself. I can see how I could become a Hitler or a Pol Pot and orchestrate horrific things while convincing myself I am right. Laughing at the death of a man who espoused violence and shunned empathy isn’t going to complete that transformation, but it is a step in that direction.

P.S. I originally posted a meme, but I thought it was too glib for this conversation.