Here is a very well-made video by the S2Underground, explaining ways to avoid modern thermal imaging techniques from drone. In case the technology is turned on your community and forces you to refugee, while you flee for safety with your family in the woods at night, this is valuable to save a copy of and watch.
And what if we are fleeing in the other direction as refugees from a possible genocide by a tyrannical government after the final coup?
Those drones will not be magically restricted to only be allowed to target migrants headed to the north.
If anyone cries out "But its sources were only Wikipedia, anyone could edit it," remind them (1) that Wikipedia contributors are among the most leftist narrative-protectionists that exist, and yet this was still found, and (2) to fuck off.
Kekeke is also how "lol" is known in Korean iirc, where they play many video game
Glad he tagged Dr. McCullough
I said "Framers," not Founders. However, the intent of the Founders on this is actually a clearer example than rounding up the Framers' letters around the time of the Convention, or its minutes.
The Founders would NOT tolerate the institution of Marxism nor ever endorse it as a desirable form of government. However, they WOULD allow it to be discussed, and even taught. Keep in mind that the Founders were influenced by the Enlightenment movement, which encouraged the free flow of ideas and alternative viewpoints. Some good and some bad.
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, that ALL Founders signed and consented to, reads in pertinent part:
...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We will not argue whether Marxism is a terrible, evil political ideology that indeed perpetuates genocide. It is. And there is no other form of government as just and stable as the democratically-elected Republican Form of Government that our Constitution guarantees.
However, this choice language makes clear, the Founders DID consider the right of the People to change to new forms of government to be a natural right, given by our LORD God. That extends to speech about other political ideologies. Our laws will NOT allow any other form of government to be instituted here, since the aforementioned "Republican form of government" is guaranteed. U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4. But speaking about Marxism, even teaching it, is not the equivalent of "a man with a gun standing outside my house telling me he’s going to murder my family." Pushing Marxism is more the equivalent of "a man outside my house training people, with drills and exercises, so they can later come back to kill me and my family."
The appropriate response to someone discussing or teaching Marxism is not to take away their freedom of speech and force them to be silent. Instead, you tell them in no uncertain terms "If you try to overthrow our government and push this 'Marxism' you believe in so much, we will prosecute you as a seditionist and even kill you if necessary." And you make the students of them hear the same thing, so their only reaction can be "The teacher made some points, but it is not right, and we best move on and not dwell on it."
Also, frankly, I do not want the Marxists going underground. They will be hard to track, very motivated and angry, and once they slither under the rocks they will be harder to catch once they try to actually conquer the Country. We should not hunt at night if we do not have to.
Because sexual relations, that you and I may consider deviant, are at the core of their identity. It is like telling the oil industry you support fracking. When it is central to their purpose, if it is controlled you control them and more importantly their vote preferences.
Then free speech doesn't extend to the deceptive grifting efforts of capitalism, by that logic. And maybe that is a wrong statement. I have a right to speak wrongly, and you have a right to accuse me of being wrong.
We do not compromise on freedoms, ESPECIALLY the freedom of speech. Because just as it is their right in this Country to spew their evil nonsense, it is the SAME right that allows you and I to publicly denounce and shame them.
Libertarianism DOES work, just not at a national level. We acknowledge this, largely. But, when you try to cherry-pick who has the right to speak freely and who does not, you offend the First Amendment and our Framers' vision of a free Country.
Very true observance.
I have interpreted that in some ways during my research: (1) Cyberwarfare, (2) subversion of national defenses through corrupt politicians, (3) intellectual infiltration of schools so the next generation will be conditioned to welcome communism with open arms upon an invasion on the West Coast, and/or (4) economic sabotage in one of the myriad of ways they could.
What are your thoughts?
Not in every town or city, but in every plant and power station. Computer viruses, like what was done with Stuxnet in Iran. And keep in mind, Stuxnet's code was made public online shortly after. Anyone that thinks the CCP has not already reverse engineered it into their own version is a fool.
Already is. Inside.
This is a strange and unpleasant feeling to me. It is a mixture of disgust, pity, confusion and depression all at once. Like emotional whiplash.
I do not want to know why, but also, why? Did this person really destroy their dignity, marriage, possibly their career, for...whatever this is? Just, pitiful.
No one can begin to fathom just how dangerous this technology (the ability to deepfake pictures, photos, even voices) is becoming. Remember what Stalin did to his political enemies like Nikolai Yezhov...
3D printed and CNCed firearms, my fren. There will never be full "ban" of guns. God Bless Defense Distributed!
You can always edit the comment and insert a Spez explanation
I think "morality" should be a given in this context, as it is our Country's founding in Judeo-Christian principles that guided us at the onset and (are supposed to) have since. Qualities such as mercy, charity, temperance, and the like.
And if you imply, or believe, that our current authority has strayed away from morality as it has grown larger, like every cancer, then I am indeed "anti-authoritarian." Even more so, if that is true as I believe it is.
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming.
We do. However, we believe that SIZE and MORALITY of government are inversely correlated. The Smaller the government, the More Moral it is likely to be. The Larger the government, the Less Moral it is likely to be.
So let us just, for a moment, assume this is true. Is this not another reason to NOT SEEK WAR with them?!
The Democratic members have contended that Republicans intend to use the event for political purposes.
THEN SHOW UP TO COMBAT IT, if that's what they believe! Cățele lași, TOATE!
May the LORD God bless you and keep you, and may He watch over and protect both mother and child. Congratulations fren
I am getting the feeling that is not the point of thos trend, or at least not the only point.
The message, to me, seems to be "Being a traditional wife is not inherently bad, and feminists that support women working should simply not focus on destroying the traditional lifestyle, but coexist with and respect the choice of other women."
It is a tall order, to convince such a stubborn ideological group to stop persecuting an alternative view, but it has to start somewhere. Thoughts?