Absolutely remarkable:

On February 12, 2023, TGP’s Cara Castronuova first reported on the mistress and government plant infiltrated the Proud Boys. And it was the government who AUTHORED and INSERTED the mysterious “1776 Returns” document into the Proud Boys com channel.

The mysterious document was sent unsolicited to Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio’s Telegram right before January 6th by a “love interest” named Erika Flores.

It has been revealed that Flores reportedly testified to the January 6th Committee that A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL was the author of the entirety of the “1776 Returns” and that this FBI and CIA member or associate asked her to share it with Tarrio!

Tarrio has been charged with Seditious Conspiracy and currently stands trial in D.C. along with four fellow members of the Proud Boys.

According to the Motion by attorney Roger Roots:

“It appears that the government itself is the author of the most incriminating and damning document in this case, which was mysteriously sent at government request to Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio immediately prior to January 6 in order to frame or implicate Tarrio in a government- created scheme to storm buildings around the Capitol. As such, Exhibit 528-1 and the government’s efforts to frame or smear defendants with it, constitutes outrageous government conduct. This is either entrapment or outrageous government conduct, or both. Equally improper, it is a Brady violation because the Department of Justice must surely have known these revelations before putting Special Agent Dubrowski on the stand on February 9 to introduce this evidence.”

You can’t make this stuff up!

There is NO EVIDENCE that Tarrio ever looked at the document. There is NO EVIDENCE that the Proud Boys studied the document.

The FBI is conducting itself in an absolutely fraudulent manner.

It's always really awkward "liking" a twelve minute black metal track and thus adding it to my "liked songs" list because it interrupts the flow and rhythm of my usual liked songs tracklist playthroughs.

An absolutely fantastic excerpt from a great essay:

There are certain old truths which will be true as long as this world endures, and which no amount of progress can alter. One of these is the truth that the primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children, and that the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmate, the housewife, and mother. The woman should have ample educational advantages; but save in exceptional cases the man must be, and she need not be, and generally ought not to be, trained for a lifelong career as the family breadwinner; and, therefore, after a certain point, the training of the two must normally be different because the duties of the two are normally different. This does not mean inequality of function, but it does mean that normally there must be dissimilarity of function. On the whole, I think the duty of the woman the more important, the more difficult, and the more honorable of the two; on the whole I respect the woman who does her duty even more that I respect the man who does his.

No ordinary work done by a man is either as hard or as responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children; for upon her time and strength demands are made not only every hour of the day but often every hour of the night. She may have to get up night after night to take care of a sick child, and yet must by day continue to do all her household duties as well; and if the family means are scant she must usually enjoy even her rare holidays taking her whole brood of children with her. The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women. Above all our sympathy and regard are due to the struggling wives among those whom Abraham Lincoln called the plain people, and whom he so loved and trusted; for the lives of these women are often led on the lonely heights of quiet, self-sacrificing heroism.

Just as the happiest and more honorable and most useful task that can be set any man is to earn enough for the support of his wife and family, for the bringing up and starting in life of his children, so the most important, the most honorable and desirable task which can be set any woman is to be a good and wise mother in a home marked by self-respect and mutual forbearance, by willingness to perform duty, and by refusal to sink into self-indulgence or avoid that which entails effort and self-sacrifice. Of course there are exceptional men and exceptional women who can do and ought to do much more than this, who can lead and ought to lead great careers of outside usefulness in addition to—not as substitutes for—their home work; but I am not speaking of exceptions; I am speaking of the primary duties, I am speaking of the average citizens, the average men and women who make up the nation.

...
Into the woman’s keeping is committed the destiny of the generations to come after us. In bringing up your children you mothers must remember that while it is essential to be loving and tender it is no less essential to be wise and firm. Foolishness and affection must not be treated as interchangeable terms; and besides training your sons and daughters in the softer and milder virtues, you must seek to give them those stern and hardy qualities which in after life they will surely need. Some children will go wrong in spite of the best training; and some will go right even when their surroundings are most unfortunate; nevertheless an immense amount depends upon the family training. If you mothers through weakness bring up your sons to be selfish and to think only of themselves, you will be responsible for much sadness among the women who are to be their wives in the future. If you let your daughters grow up idle, perhaps under the mistaken impression that as you yourselves have had to work hard they shall know only enjoyment, you are preparing them to be useless to others and burdens to themselves. Teach boys and girls alike that they are not to look forward to lives spent in avoiding difficulties, but to lives spent in overcoming difficulties. Teach them that work, for themselves and also for others, is not a curse but a blessing; seek to make them happy, to make them enjoy life, but seek also to make them face life with the steadfast resolution to wrest success from labor and adversity, and to do their whole duty before God and to man. Surely she who can thus train her sons and her daughters is thrice fortunate among women.

...

There are many good people who are denied the supreme blessing of children, and for these we have the respect and sympathy always due to those who, from no fault of their own, are denied any of the other great blessings of life. But the man or woman who deliberately foregoes these blessings, whether from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant,—why, such a creature merits contempt as hearty as any visited upon the soldier who runs away in battle, or upon the man who refuses to work for the support of those dependent upon him, and who tho able-bodied is yet content to eat in idleness the bread which others provide.

The existence of women of this type forms one of the most unpleasant and unwholesome features of modern life. If any one is so dim of vision as to fail to see what a thoroughly unlovely creature such a woman is I wish they would read Judge Robert Grant’s novel “Unleavened Bread,” ponder seriously the character of Selma, and think of the fate that would surely overcome any nation which developed its average and typical woman along such lines. Unfortunately it would be untrue to say that this type exists only in American novels. That it also exists in American life is made unpleasantly evident by the statistics as to the dwindling families in some localities. It is made evident in equally sinister fashion by the census statistics as to divorce, which are fairly appalling; for easy divorce is now as it ever has been, a bane to any nation, a curse to society, a menace to the home, an incitement to married unhappiness and to immorality, an evil thing for men and a still more hideous evil for women. These unpleasant tendencies in our American life are made evident by articles such as those which I actually read not long ago in a certain paper, where a clergyman was quoted, seemingly with approval, as expressing the general American attitude when he said that the ambition of any save a very rich man should be to rear two children only, so as to give his children an opportunity “to taste a few of the good things of life.”

They certainly do not bring up these ideas in school anymore.

Similar to if you meet the Buddha in a dream, you must kill the "true self" - this idea of being able to discover some authentic self through refinement of oneself through culture or embellishment of the self through cultural expression and soul searching is quite demonic.

It exists in service to the ego: I am a special person and when I express myself through art I am self-actualizing; all of my eccentricities and peculiarities are pedals on the rose of my soul...

You are just a person - no better or no worse than any other. The idea that you need to build up your personhood is absurd.

The study shows that 60% of requests came from authorities in the United States and Europe. However, the U.S. requested more than double the accounts per 100,000 users than all countries in the European Union combined.

Following the U.S. in the top spots are Germany, Singapore, the United Kingdom and France.

Honestly shocking to see US requests outstrip European ones.

What, exactly, is going on with the Biden administration causing them to be so curious with what we are saying?

Tucker is on point:

It seems, for example, like an awful lot of mass shooters have taken prescription psychiatric drugs in the days before they opened fire and killed others. Have you noticed that? Maybe you have noticed that. Good luck saying it in public. You'll be shouted down immediately by someone with an advanced degree.


How dare you criticize Big Pharma? What are you, a conspiracy nut? No, actually, you're not. You're someone who cares about cause and effect. You're a rational person. The only conspiracy here is the one designed to prevent you from figuring out why mass shootings keep happening.

We are, of course, never allowed to even think that in that direction.

Consider the killings that took place on Monday in Nashville. The killer was a 28-year-old female transgenderist who shot her way into a Christian elementary school and murdered three nine-year-olds and three adults. Why did she do that? In a rational country, that is the very first question we would ask. In our country, it's the last question. In fact, often it's never asked at all. On those rare occasions when somebody finally manages to wonder out loud about motive, our leaders immediately start lying, which should tell you a lot. Here's the attorney general of the United States yesterday.

So, here's what we just learned from Merrick Garland. The FBI, the ATF and the Nashville police are all investigating these shootings. Yet more than 24 hours after they took place, none of those professional investigators can even guess as to why the shootings happened. Motive hasn't been identified, Garland told us. Really? You wonder how that could possibly be.

Just before she opened fire, the Nashville shooter wrote these words to her best friend over Instagram: "One day this will make more sense. I've left behind more than enough evidence."

That evidence includes a written manifesto where the killer spells out exactly why she killed children. The FBI, the ATF, the national police, and for that matter, Merrick Garland, all have access to that manifesto. And yet, somehow the attorney general informs us that a motive has not yet been identified.

Well, he's lying. They all are lying. We can't see the manifesto because the transgender lobby, which has far more power than you do, has pressured politicians to keep it hidden, but we can be certain what it says. Monday's victims were murdered because they were Christians. It's that simple.

They're literally running interference for a mass murderer - they are trying to safeguard their biases.

Tough luck

On March 1, authorities saw Roychowdhury stop the Toyota in a park-and-ride lot. After stepping out of the car, he threw away a brown bag containing a “partially eaten burrito wrapped in waxed paper.” DNA swabs on the burrito were sent to labs. On March 17, forensic biologists confirmed that the DNA matched that of the male from the Wisconsin Family Action crime scene, authorities said.

More luddite posting:

If you’re waiting for a text or email back from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, don’t hold your breath: The governor, at least in his official capacity, doesn’t text or email, according to two people familiar with his operation.

In place of digital communication, DeSantis communicates exclusively with face-to-face meetings or calls. If he wants to schedule such a meeting, he’ll pick up the phone or have his team help organize it. The governor’s office confirmed DeSantis’s aversion to (now) traditional means of communicating, telling Semafor that he prefers in-person conversations because the topics discussed are often nuanced and detailed.

DeSantis’s preferred method for communicating effectively narrows his already tight inner circle and has helped ensure that his administration almost never leaks.

He’s far from the only Florida governor to have tailored their administration’s approach to dealing with its transparency laws. DeSantis’ predecessor, Sen. Rick Scott, implemented a no-texting rule during his time as governor. His chief spokeswoman at the time told The Times/Herald, which had requested a host of text messages from his office in 2016, that they discouraged “the use of text messaging (for) state business by employees because text messages are hard to catalog due to the digital nature of the message.”

Call me a Philistine but it is hard to actually imagine myself giving up the ability to play chess on my long commutes.

However, I certainly admire these people.

He hasn’t forsaken the internet entirely however: Briones helps moderate a Reddit forum devoted to so-called dumbphones, which had 17,000 thousand “enthusiasts” as members as of Monday.

“People who want to regain their time and attention, and have a deeper more purposeful life, I think that is who this message is resonating with,” Briones told AFP.

Dumbphones, also referred to as feature phones, are essentially throw-back handsets without big screens and a mountain of apps.

They are reminiscent of the pre-iPhone era when mobile phones allowed users to call another line, an astounding breakthrough made when the first mobile phone call was dialed on April 3, 1973 — 50 years ago.

I can imagine myself only doing something like this if I lived in the US and was driving everywhere, or showing up at that place and being engaged... I Guess I can also imagine doing this if I were to absolutely normalize reading on my commute in the very old fashioned style: with a physical book.

Most extreme violence originates in mental illness coupled with child abuse. Rarely, it's pure mental illness. Rarest of all, it's a seemingly mentally well person from a decent background who has chosen to be agents of Evil for no discernible reason: this is profoundly disturbing, and so alienating from God that these people are the most pitiable of the bunch... They do deserve punishment, and I am completely confident that it is coming in the next life if not this one, and so I will forgive and pray that there is a single iota of goodness in them that outshines the darkness for their mother's sake...

The way I see it is that...

- People suffer mental breaks and make terrible decisions but this does not need to make me vengeful.
- We alienate mentally unwell people and fail to treat them fairly, so we are part of the problem.

Obviously, the man who cheats on his spouse, like the man who shoots up a school, made those final extreme decisions themselves... But we also do create circumstances that drive people toward their worst case scenarios. I am not suggesting they do not go to jail, so don't get mad when I suggest that you should feel guilty for bullying the mentally unwell or withholding kindness from them. Some of these people are coming completely undone and needed a more robust support network.

Anger is emotional and serves no purpose... And we should not politicize these events... Even when they are explicitly political.

At the heart of extreme violence done by an individual is illness and abuse, sometimes personal evil. None of this is political.

Most extreme violence originates in mental illness coupled with child abuse. Rarely, it's pure mental illness. Rarest of all, it's a seemingly mentally well person from a decent background who has chosen to be agents of Evil for no discernible reason: this is profoundly disturbing, and so alienating from God that these people are the most pitiable of the bunch... They do deserve punishment, and I am completely confident that it is coming in the next life if not this one, and so I will forgive and pray that there is a single iota of goodness in them that outshines the darkness for their mother's sake...

The way I see it is that...

- People suffer mental breaks and make terrible decisions but this does not need to make me vengeful.
- We alienate mentally unwell people and fail to treat them fairly, so we are part of the problem.

Obviously, the man who cheats on his spouse, like the man who shoots up a school, made those final extreme decisions themselves... But we also do create circumstances that drive people toward their worst case scenarios. I am not suggesting they do not go to jail, so don't get mad when I suggest that you should feel guilty for bullying the mentally unwell or withholding kindness from them. Some of these people are coming completely undone and needed a more robust support network.

Anger is emotional and serves no purpose... And we should not politicize these events... Even when they are explicitly political.

At the heart of extreme violence done by an individual is illness and abuse, sometimes personal evil. None of this is political.

This excerpt is pretty shocking - from Herbert Marcuse's Wikipedia page:

Many radical scholars and activists were influenced by Marcuse, such as Norman O. Brown,[30] Angela Davis,[31] Charles J. Moore, Abbie Hoffman, Rudi Dutschke, and Robert M. Young (see the List of Scholars and Activists link below). Among those who critiqued him from the left were Marxist-humanist Raya Dunayevskaya, fellow German emigre Paul Mattick, both of whom subjected One-Dimensional Man to a Marxist critique, and Noam Chomsky, who knew and liked Marcuse "but thought very little of his work."[32] Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", in which he claimed capitalist democracies can have totalitarian aspects, has been criticized by conservatives.[33][unreliable source?] Marcuse argues that genuine tolerance does not permit support for "repression", since doing so ensures that marginalized voices will remain unheard. He characterizes tolerance of repressive speech as "inauthentic". Instead, he advocates a form of tolerance that is intolerant of repressive (namely right-wing) political movements:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.[34]

This changed pretty quickly...

After a number of increasingly extreme antisemitic rants last year, Kanye West has declared that he’s alright again with Jews after watching a movie with Jonah Hill.

In an Instagram post Saturday, the rapper shared a promotional poster for “21 Jump Street,” a 2012 crime comedy in which the Jewish actor costarred alongside Channing Tatum.

“Watching Jonah Hill in 21 Jump street made me like Jewish people again,” Ye wrote. “No one should take anger against one or two individuals and transform that into hatred towards millions of innocent people.”

... And for very well thought out reasons, of course!

I was kind of big on Kanye West taking it to his opponents and against the established elites who control American foreign policy and have such an undue influence on Western culture...

And it all ends with that..?!

Some more on this:

“No Christian can be labeled antisemite knowing Jesus is Jew,” Ye added.

The post was Ye’s first on social media this year, after losing access to his accounts over his antisemitic tirades, including an appearance on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s podcast during which he praised Adolf Hitler and described himself as a Nazi.

Not entirely wrong - sure. We cannot hate people. We also have to be aware that Jesus Christ was an actual Hebrew - not a Jew, but an ethnic Hebrew who had authentic Judaism as a part of his heritage.

But he renounces the Talmudism and completely universalizes the God of Israel, as was predicted in Malachi, and Judaism as we know it actually draws to an end and becomes embodied in the universal faith of Jesus- Christ.

There are no more Hebrews. Hebrew descent people? Sure. But the religion of the Hebrews has ceased to exist as how the Hebrews had practiced it, and it now exists only in the practice of Christianity which alone recognizes the Old Testament in light of the teachings of the Messiah.

Initially, I heard that a klonkie was a black playmate for a white kid in South Africa. Each kid would often have a black playmate growing up who was a child of one of the servants, and they would be somewhat inseparable, but as they grew up, they would grow apart from one another.

The Dictionary of South African English, though, says:

klonkie, noun
/ˈklɔŋki/

Origin:
AfrikaansShow more

derogatory, offensive
Of black or ‘coloured’ people: a patronizing name for a youth; an insulting name for a man; klong.
1953 A. Paton Phalarope (1963) 25The klonkies there, the small black boys, having learned it from the soldiers who camped in Venterspan during the war of 1939, saluted him.
Show more
1989 J. Hobbs Thoughts in Makeshift Mortuary 277‘The klonkie up the ladder?’ He jerked his head at Jake. ‘He’s just a painter who was recommended to us.’

Klong is also interesting:

klong, noun
/klɔŋ/

Origin:
See klonkie.

offensive
klonkie.
1913 C. Pettman Africanderisms 268Klong,..The word is in common use in various parts of South Africa, and is applied to coloured males without reference to age, much as the word ‘boy’ is among the English colonists; indeed so far has the original sense disappeared that the expression ‘ou’ klong’ (lit. ‘old small youngster’) is by no means uncommon.
1963 A.M. Louw 20 Days 71‘He is a big klong now. I can’t work for him any more. He must work for me. What does a mother bring children up for?’ she said.

Very interesting material - check out more here:

Just wild:

Earlier this month, Free Speech Systems proposed a bankruptcy plan that would pay an annual salary of $520,000 to Jones and leave $7 million to $10 million to annually pay creditors, including the victims’ families.

This is all really wild, IMO.

The guy is being milked. Basically everything he does from now on will largely benefit people he is completely disconnected from, and who were not actually negatively impacted by his work.

It's a travesty.