I'm wondering what is the essence of your thinking/questioning here.
Is it the idea that its wrong for religions to promote or mandate facial coverings because of the reasons re: that the face is too important for 'more important' human activities and aspects of life, more important than the religious or spiritual imperative that the practice might be seen as an expression of?
Or, are you saying simply that, regardless of any connection or context from a person's religion, face coverings are just a bad idea in general, and should not be used?
I personally dislike the use of hijab in any form, but I also have a view of religious practice that considers most human religions (and their sects) as belonging to a very, very broad spectrum, from the more animistic to the highly theistic, from the simple to the sophisticated, and that they are best understood in the context of the culture and history from which they arise.
That last point is important, I think, because in a world with hyperfast global communication and an extremely developed sphere of scientific and technical (aka intellectual (often material-related)) thought, the entire context for religions - all religions - is in flux, and I get the impression that the perspective you are offering here is specifically grounded in the environment you see around you, which is more than likely NOT the context in which the particular religious behaviors or traditions that have inspired you to think about them (in this way) are naturally grounded.
In other words, there's a cultural context here.
Anyway, I guess, I'm wondering, what is your primary concern. Is it related to the religious practices, or simply to a non-religious context (in which, for example, the whole covidmask nonsense was grounded, although to be sure, it certainly bore the hallmarks of a pseudo-religion at the time)?
If its the religious practices, then I think I can understand that, from an Atheistic perspective, you (perhaps) think there is no real value or benefit to (certain or all) <religious practices>.
However, my own view of religion tends to try to appreciate the religious practice in a relative, contextual way (religious history being a history of (generally) progressive developments headed towards a culmination which we as a species or as a family have not yet witnessed, in which case, I can generally appreciate the value that someone finds in their religious practice even if I don't personally partake.
And, freedom of religion is key to human freedom in general (including the freedom to be an atheist or a theist, for example).
So I guess I'm saying on a personal level, I find some practices somewhat distasteful, and possibly less than optimal, but also that I can appreciate that the value that a particular person derives from their religious practice is not something that I can necessarily and fully object or deny simply based on my own preferences or for that matter, on some sort of objective or material standard.
But if your question is unrelated to the religious context, then why even mention it? Are you simply trying (thinking) to find what seems to you a rational and objective reason why certain religious practices should not be considered valid?
Just thinking out aloud here, btw.
I think its fair to say that the trance-like, post-hypnotic suggestion-ism induced into mass societal psychosis during 2020 and 2021 was an equal opportunity affliction, affecting both the religious, the irreligious, the believers and the non-believers.
But are you trying to tell me that R2D2 also wore a mask? Strange programming, that one.
Ouch. Quick! Get the aloe vera!!!
Let's throw a little um, light on the source, here. I mean, for reference. The topics approached inspire reaction and polarization. So, maybe some objective perspective can help to inform. Just a suggestion.
"Grok, what can you tell me about Ian Carroll, his rise to prominence, who might be funding him etc?"
Looks likes its about 50/50.
Note: Not a "prosecutor". Attorney for the Plaintffs in a civil case. You don't have prosecutors in a civil case.
btw, here's a rumble link
https://rumble.com/vdc3hf-bradley-edwards-defends-donald-trump-in-jeffery-epstein-case.html
It's a useful clip to keep on hand.
You need to refine your conceptual framework. By saying "the US government" you put everything and everyone in that one basket, whereas the reality is that the Deep State is an infection in the US government that Trump, also part of the government now, is working to cauterize, halt and reverse.
I get that actual saying "Evil people and cliques within the US government cares more about blackmail... " etc might be less emotionally satisfying, but the black pill is ALWAYS laced with a yummy coating of emotionally stimulating sulfur.
The video report goes into how there are multiple attacks on Trump and his work, which it concisely describes as: [Mobilizing the American system and the US constitution to destroy the British Imperial banking system and their controllers].
She described the Epstein kerfuffle as one of those attacks.
She also describes how the incredible successes of Trump's first 5.5 months as outlined at the public Cabinet meeting have been downplayed and ignored in the wake of the Epstein thing and other 'distractions'. Ergo the OP's allusion to 'Media coverup'.
If it were me, I'd give this a double sticky.
As far as I know, did Bondi or FBI ever actually confirm that the 'memo' was theirs? Or did they simply confirm the content.
Because the question of how and why it got leaked is an important one.
This video clip - extremely worth listening to imo - explains clearly WHY the DS moles might want to leak the so-called 'memo' in order to create so much kerfuffle and increase another flanking attack on Trump.
Good post, OP.
Miranda Devine has come a long way from her roots in Aussie media. I'm surprised to find out that she's another Mel Gibson.
Gibson was born in America, but his family moved to Aus when he was young, and he built his acting career on the foundation of the Australian cinema. Now, faithfully beloved of both Aussie and American patriots.
Devine was apparently born in New York to a Kiwi/Aussie dad, but grew up in Sydney and Tokyo. One of our more based journalists...
Hahahah. Yeah, it's glorious. My earlier comment with nothing but factual information even got negged.
It's so.... heartwarming. I have a fan. Very devoted, too.
Indeed, there is an exceedingly fine line between hilarity and tragedy....
How very Nathan Hale of you!
(ty)
Quality feedback, much appreciated.
I have indulged in a TLDR on occasion, but perhaps I could do it more. I think your tldr here is a great example, and provides inspiration to me to incorporate this sort of thinking more in future.
for the times readers need to glance & go, the TL;DR is great.
A very salient point!
Although, I have always understood TLDR to be "Too long, didn't read". I guess because some people started reply to certain types of posts on web forums with the simple TLDR, and then this became a marker for dealing with that particular issue!
Either way, good feedback.
This!! 👆🏻🙌🏼
Can you translate those emoji (?) into readable ascii characters? (I always miss out on the emoji things, cos I always frog using my browser.
thanks red.
great comment.
Kek, you missed the Key inflection:
I'm gonna try and make this brief.
Because I swear, when I began to type, I was hoping (rather foolishly) that I could actually write a 10 line post. As I have in the last two days.
Alas! It was not to be. I aimed high, but fell to the earth.
Back to the drawing board.
I cannot imagine a person more fitting to follow up Donald Trump, the known convicted felon and twice 'impeached' president.
I read most of the post. Looks of food for thought.
One of the issues we have is that frankly, we are in a position like Paul was when he said:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Cor 13:12
We can only look at the surface of things - what is being reported, actions take (or said to be taken), people, groups, actions, reactions, etc.
We don't KNOW what is happening. We can only try to figure it out as best we can in order to shape our response based on the best understanding or idea we can conceive.
(Some just seem perfectly happy to think they know what is going on, and then make summary judgments based on that, across the whole spectrum, from "I'm done with Trump" to "Trust the Plan".
I found Sleepydudes discussion in his substack interesting and full of food for thought. I don't really know how right he is, but that's not really the point. I'm comfortable with not 'knowing' what is going on because I trust Donald Trump and I feel like I know what my best role is.
Anyway, I'm reposting the link to the substack, because different frogs come tot he board at different times. I think the substack post is certainly worth a read by many frogs.
(I would not call it 'extremely important' tho, because the value found in it depends really on people's motivation and what they are trying to achieve. But certainly Valuable, imo.)
Anyway, thanks for posting it Nurari.
I think you should consider the real objective of the Q operation AND the plan it implies is in place.
That plan was NEVER about getting arrests of certain people, and prosecuting their crimes. The plan is about destroying a system of control that has been global in nature, undermining not only the US but all of Western civilization (because in the last 1000 years, Western civilization has been the central driving force for the planet).
Arresting people, holding them to account, this is part of the process of destroying the system, but also (should be) an indicating of the success.
And, also, consider this. The Q operation was a psyop to inspire worldwide awareness on the one hand, abandonment of the mainstream trance that most people were in, and the moving of the mentality of the population.
And topics that 5, 6 years ago were extremely fringe, like for 2% of the population, are now actually mainstream, whether its election corruption, the underlying blackmail / bribery culture, etc. The Epstein thing is the perfect example of that. Everyone, but everyone is focused on this now. It's no longer some crackpot idea.
The lens at which you look at the things around you will shape what you see. Maybe you should be considering some alternative lenses.
And consider Trump's comments at the cabinet meeting (which he held, publicly, with the press there, unlike any president I can ever remember. Did Clinton do this? Bush? Obama? Anyone?). His response the the question was "Are you still talking about this guy?? When we have all these other things going on???".
This is such a track record now of how Trump manipulates and shapes the public discourse, that it really should be obvious to anyone paying real attention that this response was perfectly intended to provoke reaction.
It's not about 'believing' blindly in Trump. It's about understanding WHAT he is doing, and how he has been doing it.
Some are born to long-windedness, others achieve long-windedness through years of toil, while others have long-windedness thrust upon them.
No one in the history of western civilization ever accused me of being 'overly brief'.
Not sure, but this just may become my default logo.
They do in some theatrical productions. Take Phantom of the Opera, for example.