I left my country at the ripe old age of 20. In those days, AC/DC was still a Melbourne band, and Split Enz were in the charts. I came back (roughly) 24 years later, and found that internationally, AC/DC was an uber mega Rock Band, and Crowded House was internationally acclaimed.
Again, sir, you once again confirm that you are certainly not 'light'. Great clip. (ty)
Yeah. Good titles help to make good posts more effective.
England is not your friend
Time to stop thinking in normie world matrix generalized thinking. Who, or what, is "England" here? Is the the British government? The English ruling elite? The Monarchy? The Corporations and Bankers that really run the country? Is it the English people (because they are all evil?)
For decades, the mockingbird media trained us to think in terms of "country" versus "Country", as in allies or enemies, partners or opponents, but the reality is there is good and evil in each country, even in each system of government, and the truth is closer to the evil and selfish 'elites' who want to pit us one against the other, nation against nation, group against group, religion against religion, in order to keep everyone distracted while they increase their systems of slavery.
I think we can only begin to combat the real enemy when we begin to break free of the framework and mentality frame that they have created for us.
I mean, is "America" evil? Based on the impact of "America" on the world over the past 50 years, many people around the world think so. But who is really evil? It's not the country, right. We know this.
Dude, you totally messed up.
Should be TLDW - too long, didn't WATCH.
Okay, you didn't totally mess up.
But can you confirm that? Did you hear her directly confirm (yes, that memo is ours)?
Hmmmm... Owens (I think) doesn't really understand what is going on. If she's legit, she's become aware of some of the conspiracies in the world, but not the one that's the real key: Q.
They do in some theatrical productions. Take Phantom of the Opera, for example.
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.
My apologies. My pedantic note was intended to help and aid a great post, and not to detract from it.
Yes, the point stands, and stands tall! This clip is an excellent addition to the arsenal of any Trump supporter.
ty