This is a good post. We know the response to covid was entirely overblown and unnecessary. There is also debate whether it even exists or not. However, there are people that are getting sick from something and good treatment protocols exist, but it only works if people attend to their sickness early and aggressively. We shouldn't deny or ignore reality. It is better for us to use and share our knowledge to manage the sickness so we get fewer hospitalizations and prolonged illnesses - especially in the unvaccinated - in order to change the narrative.
Your stance is that loving good or hating evil implies we are able to differentiate between the two, which is a stance of moral superiority. Jesus did not say we should never use judgment (discernment), he said don't judge others (i.e. don't be judgmental or a hypocrite). In fact, he commands us to fix our own faults first, which implies knowing the difference between good and evil, so we can see clearly enough to help our brothers.
I think the hang up is the way Aquinas phrased the last sentence "you are immoral as well as unjust." He is not condemning the reader, he is merely saying that it's a natural response of people with morals to get angry when they see injustice. It's more of an approval to have righteous indignation.
the privacy.win community seems to like mullvad vpn.
This is different. Aquinas is defining it, not judging someone out of moral superiority. It is our duty to have discernment, to love good and hate evil. Jesus flipped tables and drove the money changers out of the temple with righteous anger.
You raise a very good point. Interestingly, you and the professor see the same thing, but interpret them differently, and I feel like both perspectives are equally valid. He mentions the parallel society and how the sheep, because they have all this "free floating anxiety and discontent," need an object to hate and focus on to make sense of the world, otherwise they would tear it all down. So he sees the us/them mentality as a good thing and the only thing standing from them just killing everyone off like what Stalin did.
But what you said is just as scary as well, since it creates more division amongst a people already at boiling point. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, it helps me to see more broadly. I hope you live in a somewhat based and red area, you'd have to be fighting all day every day where I'm at. Good luck.
Well, the professor's message does not promote violence, and that wasn't the point of my post. If you watch the video, what he's really saying is that the sheep are under a spell and attach themselves to the main narrative because it's given to them really almost hypnotically by those in power with a strategy to cope. He's saying, we can't fight against that directly - these sheep cannot think rationally and any attempt to argue with them makes them uneasy and scared again, so they won't listen. They'll go so far as to commit the most worst atrocities against us, and the more absurd the better as it's almost ritualistic, which gives them a sense of belonging, as they have found security in the "collective" and think they are doing good. Actually having physical confrontations with them is a bad strategy because it only strengthens their resolve and makes them feel right about their twisted thinking.
So, the point is not to argue with them try to wake them up, but to continue to speak out and find like-minded others. We're not trying to reach sheep, but other lions, to create a sort of counter hypnosis or force to reduce this hypnotic spell. Just having a counter-narrative running shows them there are other people that think the opposite of the way they do. The point is to break the spell and give them something really to fear, which is not the virus, but that we are running straight toward a totalitarian nightmare. If we are able to do this, then we can start to discuss things rationally. If our side is silenced, the shit show starts. Things get out of hand overnight and even the commies themselves will get slaughtered. We don't want that. We need to keep on talking, get more people to talk about it. The minute this stops, the nightmare begins. Our existence alone is what is stopping it all going to hell. We need more people to speak out and keep telling the truth.
At the end of it all, the professor basically says that all totalitarian regimes self-destruct. He gave the above strategy as a way that we may be able to thwart it, but even if it doesn't work, so long as our dissident voice stays alive, we might be allowed to exist, but be marginalized because all totalitarian regimes need an object to hate. If they don't have a specific target, they will end up killing their own leaders. It's not going to be pretty and not going to be easy, but we need to find a way to survive, while the system destroys itself. This last scenario is bleak, and I prefer to focus on what we can do, which is what I wrote in the paragraph above, but always have this plan b in the back of your mind.
Mouthbreather here, so please bear with me. Is the merger guaranteed to go through? I didn't invest early on because someone mentioned that we're only guaranteed back $10 per share if it doesn't happen. I know nothing about SPACs and this seems risky to me, especially at these prices, because there are outside factors beyond buying/selling that can screw us over.
Best prophylactic is dilute povidone-iodine. In the United States, it is sold with the brand name "Betadine" which comes in a 10% concentration. You need to dilute it down. Use 19 parts distilled water to 1 part Betadine to make a 0.5% concentration. You can go up to about 1% (9 parts water to 1 part Betadine), but stay on the lower range if it irritates or burns. Use as a nasal swab/spray and mouthwash/gargle twice a day as prophylactic, and up to 4 times a day if sick. If you use this, you might be able to prevent catching anything altogether as studies show the coof lingers in your oral and nasal passageways for days before you get sick. This is all scientifically backed and is touted as THE best prophylactic by Dr. Peter McCullough. Watch this video to see a visual (but follow my formula since the doctor in the link is diluting an already 1% solution) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNFJ_IPwZ-g&t=10s
Lol, completely irrational article that offers no evidence and nothing of substance, conflating the author's own negative experience in a Baptist setting with Lin Wood's public display of faith. She's projecting her own demons onto Lin Wood, and her arguments are completely emotion driven. Extremely biased viewpoint, taking for truth any negative statements just because it matches her own. Seems like she needs to work out her own issues with Christians and narcissists.
Thanks man. Added them to my reading list.
Your friend could possibly be allergic to the fillers in the horse paste.
But the timing of that was right before the Maxwell trial, the thing everyone was complaining about that this was a distraction from. Well, I appreciate your thoughts, since I don't have experience with intelligence operations. It just doesn't make sense to me that we take for evidence the words from the very man being being questioned as to why we shouldn't question him.
Why is he divulging it now? Immediately after the release of the phone conversation. What was the point of such a short distraction if it was just that, and why is Flynn so quick to fix the public perception, which both sides can see? If this is really fog of war stuff, why reveal it a day later.
Well, if anything, haters make you famous. TDS normies may now start to pay closer attention to the trial.
This is similar to what Dr. Charles Hoffe warned a long while back: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Gm7VLbzafzn1/ and this adds support. Dr. Hoffe's office with all his research was conveniently burned down. He never mentioned graphene hydroxide, but he did talk about damaged blood vessels and heart failures killing people in 2-5 years. This plan is working well because the general populace can't think long term, so if they don't see people dying right away, the vaccine must be "safe." The longer this drags on, they can introduce more and more death shots into the boosters in place of the placebos, and being staggered in, the average normie is none the wiser. Let us all turn to God. If you haven't already done so, I recommend watching Friar Alexis Bugnalo's warning: https://unshackledminds.com/banned-video-everywhere-why-friar-alexis-bugnolo-horrors-of-covid-19-vaccine/ He paints a grim and sobering picture about how many will lose their faith as this plays out.
Yes, they are the ones starting the feud. Maybe it is theater as many have suggested. They obviously want attention. Maybe we should help and look into the accusations.
These are not hypothetical "what ifs" but the 3 distinct possibilities of the meaning of this "fight." It's one of these 3. I've said this in other comments, but let me repeat it here: Patrick Byrne says Hillary Clinton's former lawyer works with Sidney Powell and Byrne insinuates that this lawyer sabotaged the election cases and is the reason for the bad press. There are other things he mentioned in the phone conversation, but the basic gist is that the American people are being grifted and pacified. Is this not signal? This is something we can look into, but any discussion of this keeps getting bogged down with this noise/signal/distraction/movie talk.
Looking at this situation in the 3 ways I suggested: 1. Byrne's accusation is true - we have a serious problem and have infiltrators. 2. This is all theater that our guys made up to distract the Deep State. We have no idea what their plan is, but us ignoring it does not help with their intention, while playing along with it - even though we are blinded to its purpose - does. 3. Lin Wood and Patrick Byrne are stirring up shit for no reason causing a huge distraction - remember Byrne approached Wood unsolicited. Can Lin Wood and Patrick Byrne be trusted? If we can trust them, they started this whole "fight" to get some attention, us ignoring it goes against that purpose. If this is literally a high school drama fight as some here have suggested, wouldn't it be a good time to cut these bozos off because they are just "noise" so they can no longer bother us in the future?
Seems too far-fetched. Would be fishy even to the normies.
I read a good post somewhere stating that the Deep State has already lost because their power relies on being a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the minute they take off their wool, the dogs will shred them to pieces.
But this manufactured drama was created by the celebrities themselves. They have some purpose in doing so. If their purpose is to distract our enemies, wouldn't it be wise for us to look into it and "play" it up? Help their cause, so to speak? If the purpose was to distract us just for the hell of it, then sure I can agree with you that we lose all respect. If there is no manufactured drama and these were real accusations, don't we have a problem on our hands? It means there are people actively subverting the movement.
Blasphemous! Q is NOT Jesus. I put my trust in Christ, and therefore I can still hope for the plan since Q aligns with good. You are creating idols. God's Will is God's Will; Q may or may not be a part of that.