Diapering Under Duress?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A reader sent in the following, which neatly encapsulates the dilemma so many of us face with regard to Face Diapering. My reply follows.

 I coach track and cross country at the High School level. Our teams compete at a high level. We are always in the mix at the State meet. Many of my kids have gone on to compete in college several even in the Olympics.  I love your site because of the free and open discourse. It is elevating. The really horrible thing is that I have to put up with the Diaper in a limited way; if I do not I will be abandoning my athletes. Fortunately we can doff the Diaper most of the time, hard to breath through a diaper when you are running.  Even us coaches run; we need to in order to follow our kids. The point is I could say, “I will not Diaper” then they would say fine, you are gone. I would rather do the de minimus and be there for these 13-19 year old kids. We do the minimum of Diapering. Most of the kids get it (that it is moronic). There is hope for the younger generation.

This is a very tough one, as kids are involved. If you were to refuse to Diaper – and forced to “retire” on account of it – you would likely be replaced by an ardent Diaperer; a person who would don the loathsome cultic symbol because he believed the cult’s tenets – and would proselytize them.

But with you – a Diaper Dissenter – the kids see an adult whom they know hasn’t drunk the Kool Aid. I am betting that, if asked by one about your thoughts on Diapering and the rest of it, you would give them the right answer. I would encourage you to be as blatant about your dissenting as you can “get away” with, as by using a bandana. As by purposely leaving your nose free to breath – and so on.

And yet, there is a counterargument to be made.

We are not – yet – at the stage where feigned obedience is one alternative and the other is a trip to a concentration camp or a ditch. Diaper Dissenters risk fines, loss of job and the opprobrium of the mentally ill. It is arguably not a heavy price to pay given the price that will be asked if it is not paid.

The Diaper Pushers (who are pushing Diapers to demoralize the populace, maintain a state of Sickness Siege and to thereby lay the foundation for the Needling and Tracking they are planning) require the complicity of good people such as yourself, who are willing to put up with a despicable thing for the sake of a good thing – i.e., being there for those kids. Your kindness is being used against you, in other words. In the same way that people’s instinctively protective attitude toward the elderly has been used to coerce their donning of the Diaper.

Granny might die . . . and you wouldn’t want to be responsible for that, would you?

Of course not. But that does not mean wearing a medically useless disposable Face Diaper – much less an old bandana – is going to prevent granny from dying, at least from anything you might be carrying, sans any symptoms. But even though your Undiapered self isn’t going to kill granny – unless you accidentally back over her with your car – you are guilted into not arguing with the believers that you will. To avoid hurting their feelings and raising a row, you don the symbol of the Sickness Cult.

This is not going to cure Sickness Psychosis, though.

Arguably, giving in to it spreads it. Normalizes it. Makes Needling inevitable, too. Especially for kids, who fall under the jurisdiction of the Gesundheitsfuhrers even more so than adults, who are at least not formally imprisoned in “public” (read, government) schools.

Kids are already being required to get Needled in order to be “schooled” by the government – an interesting double entendre.

The likelihood of a Corona Needling is very high, especially if the Fear is maintained. And Diapering is the essential prop device to do just that. If kids see Diapers everywhere – if they are forced to Diaper everywhere – they will become acclimated to Sickness Psychosis, by dint of already having submitted to it.

They will lose their will to fight – if they ever had any – if they see the adults in their lives Diapered up. They will reason – rightly – that if adults have to give in to this or do this willingly, there must be something to it and resistance is futile. Worse, the thought of resisting will never even occur to many of them, precisely because they see so much obedience by the adults around them.

Carl Sagan once said – when asked what he thought about the existence of aliens – that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We live in extra-ordinary times and extra-ordinary measures are necessary.

Such as refusing to Diaper – for the sake of those kids. And letting those kids know why. Their parents, too. And letting them know that you will continue to coach them under Undiapered Auspices, as a club.

No fees – and no Diapers.

There is no reason – and no law – that says you can’t do this or that the kids who want to can’t join the club.

The same applies to churches that insist on Diapering and the other despicable “practices” that are being force upon us, in order for us to be allowed to do the normal things, abnormally.

Anyone’s backyard – or basement, if it comes to that – can be a church. Anyone’s garage can be a gym. And you can coach your kids just as well on your own – on any road or field or trail of your choosing – as you could under the auspices of the government.

Better, probably – as you’d be free of the government, Gesundheitsfuhrers and all the rest of it.

The price you and they would pay is not being allowed to compete within their system. But nothing says you can’t compete – and teach outside their system. Is a Stalin Prize valuable?

Sometimes, it is necessary to jump ship when the one you’re on won’t hold water. Or is infested with plague carrying rats.

That time has arguably come.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.  

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!



Share Button


    • Ok I cant read through these message chains but if the andromeda galaxy was brighter it would appear as a beautiful spiral in our night sky bigger than the moon. In addition theres no doubt you can see the milky way. It takes a really dark place but it just feels you with awe how many stars there are. Theyre countless. We should look to the heavens more to give us humility about really how insignifant all of us are and how lucky we are to be here.

      • Hi Mark,

        Where I live, on a clear fall or winter night, you can see the Milky Way; it is breathtaking. The sky is a planetarium. I’ve seen Mars and even Jupiter through a telescope. If they’re faked – lights in the sky, nothing more – then I give up. Time to just chop wood.

        • I find it hard to believe cell membranes and DNA with reproductive capability with mitochodria could spontaneously pop up in a primirdial puddle somewhere and then develop – why- into multicelluar creatures. Its usually the left that thinks they know everything. But how did it start.

            • Hi Eric,

              You do not disagree because to do so would contradict what your own senses perceive. Your powers of observation are functioning as they were designed to.

              What it means is that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We have cells that are irreducibly complex. All parts must function or they cannot exist as such. How can such a magnificent composition come into place by random action?

              And yes, it does mean Jesus. Christians believe all things came into being by him.

          • Add to that, Mark3, the probability that not only could such highly organized complexity appear spontaneously from unintelligent less complex inanimate sources, but that they would also possess perfectly compatible reproductive systems, so that they could replicate themselves via procreation- which would also demand that such appear at the exact same time and place and at the same level of compatibility so as to enable that procreation!

            Such is utterly unfathomable.

            Between the astounding complexity of DNA, and the fact that paleontologists have not been able to find any evidence of intermediary changes- forcing scientists to either accept punctuate equilibrium (the belief that species just appeared suddenly), honest scientists have largely recognized the absurdity of evolution as anything but an academic and political dogma.

            • Nunzio, I’m PAINFULLY aware of the limits of the theory of evolution. But until we get a better answer than; Let There Be Light… It will have to do. There are several potential paths, but until the Old Guard and their fixation on adding epicycles to a broken system subside, it is what it is.

              • BJ, how about “….that things which are seen[physical matter] were not made of things which do appear[of things which can be seen]” -Heb. 11:3

                That statement which was declared over 1900 years ago still can not be disputed, and in-fact is the summation of nuclear physics.

                At some point, matter and energy did not exist…and then it did. No one can dispute that- including any legitimate physicist.

                We ALL start from the premise that at some point matter, energy and life came into being. The only question is from whence did it come?

                “Science” can cite no wiotnesses to events of the distant past, much less any who were present when matter came into being; neither can they observe new matter or life or energy being created out of nothing- which precludes the very notion of such being within the scope of actual science.

                I find the words of One Who claims to be an actual witness and participant- and whose word has proven reliable- especially as we see events occurring right now which were foretold to occurr- to be much more plausible than the ever-changing babble of some guys who are philosophically opposed to that witness, and who always seem to favor and advance collectivism.

                Both they and we start at the same place- matter and light and energy and life come into being where none existed. The only difference is how those things came to be- and all they have are mere theories, which change constantly, and are racked with fruad and omissions and arbitrary choices as to what they will choose to believe as “the current narrative”.

                One is as much a faith as is the other- but one is more honest; is cognizant of a realm beyond the physical (About which mere physical investigation is not suitable to ascertain), upholds the snactity of life and property, and jives with the physical evidence we see all around us much better.

                For an example of the above: Clam shells in plentifull evidence in the alpine regions of virtually every major mountain chain conforms perfectly to a worldwide flood.

                Meanwhile, those who claim otherwise require hurculean movement of the earth’s surface to explain the same- but at the same time, they deny any widespread catastrophic activity in the supposed “billions of years” of earth’s exostence (The only way they can deny all of the evidence for the flood)- Huh?! So they have to invent all sorts of absurd theories to justify the physical evidence- and this they do while often citing Occam’s Razor to Creationists!(pot/kettle!).

                Such stunts, IMO, move their worldview from a mere faith, to outright hypocrisy and the Land Of Make-Believe.

                • Nunzio, I’ve attempted to address the issues involved, multiple times. None of them have done justice to the topics involved. I’m obviously not talented enough in either presentation or communication. But I will say this. Science and Religion are two very human activities. Both thus have all of the virtues and vices of humanity itself. Science in its ideal form is about understanding the universe and ourselves. Religion in its ideal form, is about understanding our relationship to our God. But just as no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy, both science and religion have been distorted and warped to serve other agendas. That is tragic, but again, all too human. We will once again, have to agree to disagree. But this has been a fascinating conversation. I thank you for your time, and patience.

                  • **”both science and religion have been distorted and warped to serve other agendas. That is tragic, but again, all too human.”**

                    Well I agree withj you there, BJ! Underlying philosophies mean a great deal- but ultimately, many people are less interested in truth than in immediate trivialities which affect them personally in the short term.

                    Hey, thank you for a good conversation as well! I’m sure that I’m not the easiest writer to read, and thank you for bearing with my wordy attempts to convey my thoughts.

                • Oh, come on, Nunz, you also cannot deny that the idea of atoms came from the ancient Greeks well before the birth of Christ, or for that matter that ancient Hindu writings made even earlier “predict” quantum mechanics. The very generic description given in Hebrews 11:3 is nothing special.

                    • First try seemed to go into the bit bucket. (The Agents of Goldstein at work?) Trying again…

                      The information is as close as your favorite non-Googul search engine.

                      Some examples… The ancient Greeks who conceptualized atoms:


                      Here’s a couple of articles regarding ancient Hinduisum and quantum mechanics:



                      The first article primarily concerns the influence of the ancient Hindu texts on modern quantum physicists. The second delves more into the texts themselves and the concepts therein.

                    • OK, it looks like Eric’s spam filter is bouncing my response because there are a few links in it. Basically I was saying that the information is as close as your favorite (preferably non-Googul) search engine. Will try posting links individually below…

                    • Thanks, Jason.

                      [Regarding the Hindu references] Pretty much what I was expecting- Some stuff about “unity” and “perception”- but that’s hardly comparable to the overt statement of Scripture which flatly declares that all physical matter was created from invisible non-matter.

                      And it is telling, that those Hindu writings in-fact contain the basis of communistic ideas that “Everything is a part of everything else / we are all a part of each other” -which is the very philosophy which, as I’ve stated, is the natural outgrowth of the evolutionary worldview, and the diametric opposite of Scriptural Creationism, which maintains the uniqueness of human life, individuality, personal responsibility, and private property.

                      Such is illustrated by the Hindu veneration of cows- or the vegan/environmentalist view that all life forms are of equal value- and ultimately, the secular evolutionary view that the state has the right and obligation to regulate or “protect” all relationships in the physical world.

                      (Haven’t looked at the Greek stuff yet- but really- from what I’ve seen of the ancient Greek’s various speculations, one can pretty much find any idea they’re looking for, if they look enough- and nothing is authoritative or integral- but one must take “some from here and some from there” . In my 35 years of study, I’ve yet to see anything which is authoritative and cohesive as the scriptures are- much less which promote the ideals of self-ownership and private property- as virtually all philosophies which eliminate God ultimately condone a collectivist orientation).

                      This is exactly what I have been saying: Call it “science” or philosophy, or “religion”- but it all comes down to a battle of religious ideas.

                      The god of State; the unknown/unknowable god, or the intelligent personal Creator. Choose who you will worship, for all ultimately worship at least one.

                  • Nunz, from the standpoint of a skeptic the Christian writings are no more overt and predictive than the Hindu writings. (Also the Greeks came up with the idea of invisible atoms well before the Bible. Were they divinely inspired?) Both the Christian and Hindu texts dealing with these issues are written in general philosophical terms. Neither is “proof” of prophecy, which by the way would imply time travel, at least of information.

                    If I may make an observation, it basically seems that you accept scientific discoveries (such as the atom, possibly quantum mechanics) if they appear to have support in the text of the Christian Bible. You reject those that do not appear to have such support, and believe them to be conspiracies.

                    If this is the case I really have no problem with that. As far as I am concerned people are free to believe whatever they want to on whatever basis they want to as long as they don’t use that as an excuse to oppress others. However, it’s a tough row to hoe if attempting to convince people who are not already “Believers”.

                • Nunzio,

                  A simple, straightforward objection to Evolution is its fundamental logical underpinning. Darwinian Evolution basically says that nothing created something out of nothing. That’s impossible!

                  Another one is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, IIRC. It basically says that all things in the universe go from better to worse. What does Evolution say? The opposite.

      • Use a pair of binoculars that have infinite focus, aim it at the sky on a clear night, you will see more stars than you can shake a stick at.

  1. Jeremy, I think Nunzio’s argument would make more sense to you if you (or he) substituted “truth” or “true” for “rights”. I think Nunzio would make the same argument which is why I point this out. At that point, his argument makes much more sense. The opposite point of view then makes no sense.

    • Hi Shnarkle,

      Thanks, I’ll give that some thought. Anyway, Nunzio’s argument seems to be a variation of Aristotle’s “prime mover”. “…there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world”. So, is such a being “real” or “true”, or is it a postulate necessary to make sense of the otherwise explainable? Could it be a product of the human imagination, logically necessary due to the limits of our understanding?


      • Jeremy, if there is a ‘prime mover” or “grand designer”, I would like to have a word or two with him regarding the design of the prostate.

      • Jeremy, your questions reveal something that I always find incredibly remarkable (and unfortunately for most people, incredibly long winded), i.e. when we use words like “true” or “real” we tend to forget that without the truth, nothing makes any sense to begin with. It has to be assumed in order to continue a meaningful discussion.

        Nunzio is approaching this from the Judeo Christian perspective which personifies The Truth with Christ. It is a loud proclamation that the TRUTH is an existential fact that without it, the world immediately devolves into incomprehensible chaos.

        The real can be divided into subjective reality, which is the perspective you identify with, and objective reality which is what you perceive with your senses, and interpret with your intellect.

        The problem is that all of that is derived from this interface between subjective and objective reality.

        Anything that is derived cannot be fundamental. Our understanding cannot stand under reality. Reality is always and everywhere fundamental, but it can never be verified, or validated as it validates itself. Knowledge can never validate reality, but can only acquiesce. In other words, one can never know the truth unless one as an immediate connection to the truth. it can never be validated by the intellect.

        Whenever most people refer to “God”, they are referring to what they’re imagination conjures up for them. As I pointed out to Nunzio, this is idolatry.

        I spent years debating biblical truths with atheists, and suddenly discovered that the authors of the bible were clearly pointing out that God can’t objectively exist. The term “God” has no objective referent, and never can as it is logically impossible.

        Paul distinguishes between God and Christ by pointing out that the term “God” refers to the origin (not to be conflated with the beginning) of everything that exists including existence itself, while Christ refers to the means by which everything comes into existence or Christ himself. The origin and means are thus clearly distinguished along with their respective titles.

        Moreover, Paul has simultaneously placed the atheist and the theist on a level playing field by refuting the necessity of an infinite regression, and pointing out that the origin of existence logically can’t exist. He frustrates the atheist’s logic, and terrorizes or insults the theist’s theologies.

        By way of explanation, being is not who God is, but an attribute. Being is OF or from God as origin. In other words, being is the subjective genitive of God. Being is a possession of Origin. It is not who God is. Christ is who God is, or the manifestation of the origin of being.

        I know this sounds like pure unadulterated bs, but by way of analogy: Polarity is one thing, yet it consists of two poles. Likewise we can’t conceive of something without simultaneously conceiving of nothing. Conceptually speaking, we can’t have one without the other. From a logical or empirical perspective, nothing doesn’t exist to begin with. By definition, it can’t exist. This is equivalent to the term “God”.

        There is no defined entity that can accurately be equated with the term because this subjects them to being. God cannot be categorized, or placed into a category. God cannot be compared to anything. The biblical authors point this out repeatedly, and yet Jews, Christians, and Muslims all come to the opposite conclusion that God is a well defined being rather than just being (itself), or more accurately, the origin of being.

        The biblical god transcends objective existence, and therefore can no longer exist. There is only the “logos”, or “Word” itself with no referent. The word signifies transcendence, and eventually transcends it’s own limitations as a Metaphor or Symbol as well.

        Here’s where it gets really interesting. The means is contingent between the origin and the objective reality. Under the Christian perspective this is Christ, yet Christ calls everyone to enter into this contingent position. Not coincidently we are already in this position ourselves. We subjectively look out at the objective world from our subjective position.

        The only difference is that we assume a separate identity that is literally nothing more than an abstract creation of the mind. It is nothing but a concept, and unless you believe that you are a concept, your identity is a catastrophic fraud. it is a mask projected out to the objective world that can only be removed. That’s what they’re for. They’re for hiding behind, and then whenever one is ready, they’re supposed to be removed.

        This is what Jesus does. He removes the mask revealing God, but no one can see anything because the origin has emptied itself into Christ. There’s nothing there. The gospel writer goes so far as to invite his readers to peer into Christ’s tomb, and what do we see? Nothing. A big fat goose egg.

        So before anyone requests that proof of God requires evidence, it should be noted that we are assuming quite a lot about ourselves that is all just assumed, and with no justification whatsoever. There is no proof “you”, whoever you think you are, is actually who you are.

        Descartes famously assumed that the thoughts he was aware of were his with no justifiable reason for thinking this. Just as relevant is the fact that one may be acutely aware of existence without ever having a single thought to verify that existential fact.

        We think of ourselves as separate individuals, but this is an oxymoron. Our language gives us away, and we just ignore it. We think we can possess our own identities like only demons can.

        Pure consciousness can’t be conscious OF anything so it must retreat to make room for the objective world, but the objective world can’t be aware of pure consciousness either. In point of fact, objects are not conscious, but the objects of consciousness, or conscious awareness.

        None of this has any integral connection to religious beliefs, and not coincidently, the biblical stories are all about what people actually see. They believe what they see rather than believing what they have never seen. This is why they’re called “witnesses”. This is why they “confess” what they have seen rather than “profess” what they’ve been taught.

        The problems arise when people don’t notice what they’re actually confessing. When one doesn’t have to tweak it for it to make sense, then they have the truth.

      • Nay, nay, Jeremy- No similarities to Aristotle’s line of thought.

        I’m just simply saying that rights would be entirely subjective and variable- or just plain non-existent if the only reason for their existence was our desire to have them.

        I’m not saying that “God must exist because rights exist”- but quite the opposite: Rights in the true sense of the word could not exist without God. Most of our rights no longer exist…but that does not make God cease to exist.

        Our acknowledgement of God’s existence would go a long way toward firmly establishing those rights, since He has authored and granted those rights- and conversely, in a world that increasingly refuses to acknowledge God, we see that many of the people who do so also refuse to acknowledge those rights, because “rights” can be whatever anyone defines them as, or not exist at all.

        God’s existence is not predicated upon nor proven by the existence of any rights….but any true rights are reliant upon the existence of God for their legitimacy and authority….else, they would be nothing but mere desires and feelings.

        • Morning, Nunz!

          I’m not understanding your argument that rights are subjective absent a “giver” God.

          First, is it not objective that we exist? That we exist as individuals? This seems self-evident to me; no faith required, no reference to a “giver” God necessary to establish the fact.

          Since we exist, it follows that we own our existence – by default, since I do not see how anyone else can adduce a superior claim, objectively speaking.

          It’s paradoxical, in other words, to assert you own the existence of someone else since you obviously, objectively, do not. The other person not being yourself. That one person can assert ownership via physical force is a different question altogether.

          Now, if we own our existence – which is to say, we own ourselves – we express a right. A right that follows, necessarily, from the fact of our existence.

          This right elaborates. If I own myself, I certainly own what “myself” creates, since no one else created myself or the things myself created. Thus, property rights.

          There may or may not be a God. This is not an objectively provable thing, if we are intellectually honest. It may be likely, it may be possible. It is not certain in the sense that it cannot be objectively adduced.

          But our existence is inarguable. It is not necessary to ask: But why do we exist? Is there a creator/giver God behind our existence? These are interesting questions of course, but – so far – not answerable beyond assertions and hunches and . . . beliefs.

          We exist – ergo, we have rights.

          • Hey Ya Eric!

            After much careful consideration I have arrived at the conclusion that it is an observable fact that we exist 😀

            Do we own ourselves? You and I would certainly say that we do, and agree that all others own themselves too. Not everyone agrees with us, unfortunately, and the mere fact that we exist independently of anyone else is not enough to convince them any more so than a cow existing independtly of them entitles the cow to be left alone. Indeed, minus any moral absolute conveyed by someone superior to us who defines the order of creation, people are basically free to treat any other evolved carbon blobs around them as their own imagination dictates.

            For instance: They can maintain that cows are entitled to the same “rights” as huimans (as many are in-fact now asserting!), or that certain humans are entitled to certain benefits and privileges at the cost of others- be that via enslaving the poor and ignorant, or the penalizing of those who are more capable (e.g. you must pay so that “all” can have a “right” to healthcare or ‘education’).

            And what can constrain those who believe so? Their schemes are limited only by their own imaginations and what they can convince others of going along with.

            This is why it was necessary to destroy Christianity and all other religions which promote similar moral absolutes and belief in a personal intelligent Creator, in order to advance their “New World Order”.

            When the Western world largely believed that human life and private property were ordained of the Creator, any philosophy which opposed those absolutes was rejected and destroyed. Once the near universal belief in a Creator was removed, the sanctity of human life became a mere opinion and only one ofr many options, which in the eyes of a given beholder could be just as valid or invalid as any other philosophy.

            I am not saying that the existence of rights demands(proves) the existence of a Creator (Though a creation with matter of a finite nature does…), I am saying that there can be no absolute inviolate unalienable rights if there were no Creator who has established a hierarchical order of purpose within and for that creation.

            Sorry if I’m repeating myself here….but I’m no philosopher (Damn Greeks! 😀 )

            • Nunzio, in a nut shell, what some seem to require is some ultimate POWER to support a given position. You do know that I personally choose to believe? Its a choice. One I freely extend to others. What other people believe is entirely up to them, just so long as they extend the same to me. Other wise, matters will get unpleasant. My belief doesn’t require an ultimate authority/power/head sky spook. It naturally flows from the logic and reason of examination of the questions involved. At least it does for me. Again, what others believe is their choice. Actions on the other hand have consequences. These questions have been going around and around for literally thousands of years. Different schools of thought come to different conclusions. Which is why some take the appeal to some final authority approach. Thats never seemed necessary to me. One of the things that attracted me to Rothbards works was his reason/logic approach to these questions. Its also what turns some people off. But again, that is their choice. Choice in the final analysis is one of the definitions I use for good and evil.
              I consider it evil to take others choices. Its unfortunate that most people never examine these questions.

              • Well-said, BJ!

                Whenever I discuss religion – faith– with someone, the latter must be agreed as the foundational premise. I am not disparaging faith. Faith is real – e.g., I have faith in my friends – which I know is real; but it is not something that can be established objectively in the way that 2 plus 2 equals 4 can be established objectively. So while I will insist that 2 plus 2 does equal 4, that it is not a matter of faith, I will never insist that Jesus is the son of God (as one example, the same applies to Allah, et al) nor deny it, either. I will say that I don’t know. That no one does.

                Because no one can prove it or disprove it. These are matters of faith. So long as no one is insisting upon it – for others – there’s no problem. But many faiths insist on proselytizing – and more. Christianity has been guilty of this; so has Islam, among others.

                My wish is that people could discuss these existential/cosmological questions in good faith – as we do here – without insisting and without resorting to violence.

              • Of course, BJ.

                What I find disturbing, is when certain beliefs/religions are advanced as “science”- and even promoted at public expense and or even given legal legitimacy and imposed by laws and courts- e.g. if you don’t comply with what their religion defines as “the proper medical care” or “proper psychological treatment”(a.k.a. “right-think”; right discipline….) for your kiddies….the god of State gets to intervene and punish you and rearrange your fambly.

                Speaking of which, check out the latest crusade being enacted in TN, and soon the whole country, as it is already in some other places- in which “they” will be personally, physically “checking up on” every child in every home:


                This is illustrative of the major philosophical conflict between the view which recognizes a personal Creator who has endowed men with autonomy which even He respects, vs. the philosophy which rejects an intelligent creator and instead is reliant upon various theories advanced by the malicious and retarded human gods.

                Of course, there is often overlap between these two extremes, based upon people’s understanding, motives and actions- but ultimately the underlying concepts are the foundations of two opposite worldviews, which when either one is adhered to will result in tow opposite worlds.

                • Nunzio, tyrants will be tyrants. People get as much of their antics as they allow. Its just that simple. In todays world, after generations of government indoctrination (I mean “education”…) and with the corporate mass media on their side, what else would you expect? This will continue until a critical mass is achieved. It always goes this way. Some times it takes longer, but it always happens. That is what terrifies our beloved Over Lords. Which is why they keep coming up with more and more complicated control schemes.

                  So, its either the Head Sky Spook, or the Great White Father, back in Mordor on the Potomac? Or some combination of both?

                  Personally, I don’t require either. My God, doesn’t play special effect games, or take peoples choices. Free agency is the entire point of the exercise. But I tend to agree with Agent K, in my dark moments.
                  “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

                • Morning, Nunz!

                  I’m with Jefferson in re this. No one should be forced to fund the propagation of ideas he despises. Or for that matter, forced to fund the propagation of any ideas whatsoever. Theft is theft; the use toward which the stolen funds are put is beside the point.

                  Where you and I differ – in re the rest – is on the question of a Creator God. And – to fine tune it a bit – what (if anything) this Creator God expects of us. These are very tough question because they cannot be answered – so far as I have been able to determine – in a way that is objective and beyond reasonable doubt, in the manner of say 2 plus 2 equals four or that I exist – etc. I personally suspect there is “something” behind nature. But I can go no farther than that. Because there is nothing (for me, that I have been able to adduce) beyond that more than feeling, inference and so on.

                  • Evenin’ Eric!

                    As you may know, I have always been greatly conflicted about Jefferson. While I love many of his ideas, I also find many to be oxymoronic (as I’m sure you do also)- and this extends to and is even illustrated by his theological views.

                    I mean, someone who claims to believe in the God revealed in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures- and yet rejects many of the claims of supernaturality- to the point where he rewrote the Gospels, deleting the miracles of Christ…

                    But to get to the point I wanted to make…

                    I think where many (and often good-intentioned) people go wrong when it comes to theology, is that many seem to think that God is now ruling this earth- and that He needs help to do so 😀 -so they desire to provide that “help”- be it personally, or through the political process, etc.

                    They fail to notice that God is a Libertarian- and while He at this time offers us an opportunity to be a part of his spiritual community/kingdom- to enter into a covenant relationship with Him, in which He offers us blessings here and now, and a future in His actual Kingdom if we so choose to embrace His ways- He is NOT forcing anyone to worship and obey Him- and certainly doesn’t need nor desire our “help” to do so.

                    Those of us who willingly choose to be foreign citizens of His Kingdom, are mere ambassadors for it here and now. Jesus pictured us as wheat growing in a field which has been sown by an enemy in tares(weeds)- He lets us grow in that field, so that we may become mature and grow up into wheat among the tares, because to uproot the tares would destroy us and our future growth- much like you and I realize that the destruction of this country, while being a fitting end to those who are causing it’s destruction would a deserved end, it would also cause us great harm.

                    But, right on schedule as foretold, humanity would become so incorrigible, that God will no longer allow men to run rough-shod over this once-beautiful creation- and He will intervene and rule this world.

                    But when men seek to forcibly impose various schemes of worship and or obedience upon this world in which God currently lets men decide the course of life they will choose for themselves…then we ALL have problems- just as we do when atheists decide to enforce their schemes upon humanity.

                    Jesus Christ refused to act as a physical king on this earth, and nowhere authorized His followers to compel any man by force or coercion- but merely to proclaim the Gospel- so that those who desire may take hold upon His covenant.

                    • Morning, Nunz!

                      As I understand the deism of the Founders, it was an acknowledgement of the probability of a creative intelligence behind creation, but as to its nature and intentions, it said little that was specific.

                      I am more inclined toward the Gnostic ideas but in any case I think it’s pretty clear that all of us have our various ideas – and therein lies the rub! None of us really knows and as far as I can tell, can’t. Or at least, we can’t know in the way that one can know a mathematical statement such as 2 plus 2 equals four, by which I mean we cannot prove the former to others while we can the latter.

                      This is said without any intention to impugn or malign belief/faith. It is simply my own statement that faith/believe is more difficult on account of its not being a mathematical statement. It is something personal, the veracity of which ought not to be argued much less insisted upon by dint of it being a matter of belief/faith. I think if all religions adopted this attitude – here is what we believe; it seems like a good idea to us but you are free to agree or not – there would be less issue with religion.

                    • Hi Ya, Eric!
                      **”As I understand the deism of the Founders, it was an acknowledgement of the probability of a creative intelligence behind creation, but as to its nature and intentions, it said little that was specific.”**

                      Yes, I agree- but I think it goes a little deeper than that, in the sense that what is self-evident is the fact that since it is apparent that that creator does not actively or visibly force compliance to His moral laws, nor delegate the administration of such, that that establishes free moral agency and “equality” in the sense that no one has the right to impose upon others thast which even the Creator does not impose us- and that it is the recognition of such which is the basis of our rights.

                      Although the specific nature of the Creator may not be agreed upon, the fact (just for one example) that there is no natural consequence for saying the “wrong thing” [i.e. as bolt of lightning does not strike someone] is evidence that men are free to say and think whatever they please without physical penalty.

                      Conversely, the naturalistic orientation demands that one’s actions must be regulated “science”- i.e. that in order to ensure a successful continuity of life and the natural world, we must practice some “harmony”- as determined by observation and or consensus of the “enlightened”- to which all must be subjected.

                      This is why such things as “environmentalism”, veganism, animal rights, socialism, et al have increased in popularity in direct correlation to the promulgation of the evolutionary mindset and the eradication of creationism- and why there is little resistance to that evolutionary narrative outside of the Christian world- because, as illustrated partially by the references which Jason posted, virtually all other religions spring from the exact same foundational ideas which evolution embraces and is based on- and T’other way around.

                      Make no mistake about it- regardless of what side one is on, this is a war of religious ideologies- not “science” vs. religion.

            • Morning, Nunz!

              Whether others agree is not relevant to the fact. We exist; it is inarguable. It is also silly for one man to claim self-ownership of another. Her can assert it, of course – as by force. But it is oxymoronic on the face of it.

              We own ourselves only – because no one else does. It’s almost an axiom!

              No reference to a creator deity is required – and besides, it can only be asserted. It cannot be proved. It is a matter of speculation. Of faith.

              It is not a matter of speculation or faith that we exist.

              In re the rest: Arguably, what we had – subsumed under the general term, Western civilization – was as much the byproduct of the Enlightenment, Reformation and humanism as of Christianity, which was tempered by the former. Before the Enlightenment and Reformation, civilization had been in a state of stasis for more than 1,000 years. Most people were illiterate and led brutal, short lives.

              I disagree with you that religious faith – any faith – is required for people to act decently toward one another. Many of us here – myself among them – are not religious in the sense that our moral premises do not flow from a religion but rather from humanist premises. That we are a minority does not disprove the possibility; rather, it proves it is possible.

              Some take the view – of the elites – that the masses are mindless cattle and require religion to act decently by rote (i.e., “just because” the book says to) according to ritual and fear of divine retribution. This may be so. Napoleon thought so, apparently.

              And he may have been right.

              Still, I’d rather a personal, consciously made choice to respect other people’s rights on the basis of self-ownership than on the basis of an injunction from a man-made religion (no offense meant) which claims to speak for a deity whose existence and nature is defined by men, arbitrarily, and enforced on the basis of faith.

              • Hey Ya Eric!

                **”Whether others agree is not relevant to the fact.”**

                Ostensibly true- but the thing is, what one believes will ultimately control their actions and opinions. While “belief” does not confirm the legitimacy or existence of anything, it does give life to ideas which when embraced by significant groups does essentially animate the pretext on which those ideas are based.

                **”It is also silly for one man to claim self-ownership of another.”**

                You and I see this, of course- but look at the billions who currently do not- e.g. those who believe that some have a “right” to a product or service at the expense of others/all- such as “socialized medicine” or a “social safety net” or ” ‘free’ edumacation”….. Ultimately, their beliefs are based upon the assumption that “we all have a responsibility to everyone else” (the very opposite of self-ownership and cause and effect) and that such should be enforced “for the greater good”, reasoning that we all arose from “natural forces and the same elements, and so therefore are all a ‘part of one another’ “.

                That is the ubderlying philosophy of communism, and in the minds of those who hold it, is just as valid, and more so than our view of self-ownership. “Since all wealth comes from the earth, all belongs to everyone equally”(LOL)

                They would claim that the basis of that philosophy is “science” whose determinations can not be disputed- and since that [pseudo]science has been advanced and propagated on a mass scale, MOST people in the developed world now have been indoctrinated with the core philosophy of collectivism- which is the diametric opposite of what you and I believe, and the opposite of any philosophy or religion which advances the contrary- like private property and personal responsibility.

                And “they” think that their ideas are legitimate and beyond question, since they believe that the foundational philosophy behind those ideas is “science”.

                **”We own ourselves only – because no one else does. It’s almost an axiom! “**

                Unfortunately, most people these days would disagree with us- such as by advocating that those who have been elected as the philosopher/kings by a majority in a given locale “own” all who were born in or who reside in that locale. They would say that our claim to self-ownership is no more valid than that of a jellyfish, because “we all evolved from common elements” and that being more “advanced” does not grant us any more pre-emminence than a jellyfish- and that if it does, then thusly, those who are more advanced among us have a “right” to rule the less advanced the same as we do to cows or jellyfish for the same reason- and that their belief is established by “science” and is therefore superior to our mere opinion, and undisputable.

                See how that works?

                **”I disagree with you that religious faith – any faith – is required for people to act decently toward one another. “**

                That can be true and often is- but the problem is, who gets to define what is “decent”? In Germany, it was thought “decent” to exterminate Jews.

                This is precisely WHY the elitist attitude of “ruling them for their own good” exists, and why it has indeed become commonly accepted, even though many may overtly complain about “elites”- yet those very same people ultimately believe in ruling others for their own good- as they wouldn’t hesitate to call CPS on someone, or demand rent-control or welfare for themselves or “the underprivileged” etc.

                It really ultimately boils down to good vs. evil, and a battle of religious ideas- one’s ultimate view of the nature of the universe and the source of life. It’s not always cut-and-dry, as many believers in any given faith are often ignorant of the implications of their faith, and or are still motivated by persona agendas or deception or incompetence, etc. -But what has really turned the tide, and is largely responsible for the major changes in the current world, is that one faith has displaced another- and this new faith is promoted as “science”, rather than as the religion, which it is.

                BTW: The classic humanism you referenced- not to be confused with the modern variety {Like modern liberalism has no relation to classic liberal of past centuries) was in-fact a product of Christian thought- and in concert with the Reformation, a rejection of the oppression of the Catholic political system. Erasmus was a quintessential humanist….. [He did more to advance Christianity than probably anyone since the Apostles].

                In case it’s not obvious: I am not necessarily arguing with you- just trying to clarify some things which might not be so obvious, since terms and concepts have become so muddled over time- and because we live in a day where “religion” is no being propagated as science- yay a religion which requires more faith than belief in a supernatural deity- and which is ultimately reliant upon a supernatural diety- but just claims ignorance as to the nature and intelligence of that deity. A deity which they call nature- whose origin must be assumed, and whose supernaturality must be believed in, because it’s creative processes transgress the laws of physics just as much as does any other supernatural force or being.

                • Nunzio , you are straying quite close to the Straussian concept of the “Noble Lie”. One of the more recent examples was Lord Fasci, and his original statement that masks didn’t work. Later reversed as we know. Why? because the domestic supply of PPE hadn’t been replaced by Bad King Obama. I’ve run across quite a number of people who do not believe themselves, but support the idea of religion for control of the masses. I’m hoping you aren’t one of them.

                  • BJ, where are getting this stuff from? Were you distracted when reading my posts?

                    The Straussian concept is that which is employed by the state’s academics and “scientists- If anyone doubts that, a quick overview of why I say that can be had by viewing Ben Stein’s “Expelled” documentary, in which many academics and scientists [including some big names) admit that they reject as science that which they must advocate in order to retain their position and credentials.

                    -People knowingly advancing and propagating what they know to be false, thus enabling those who perpetrate the Straussian concept- and such is the case in many fields of state-funded/controlled endeavors- including medicine, as you so rightly point out.

                    The whole point of government-funded “science” is to justify the need for various agendas.

        • Hey Nunz,

          Well, I see a similarity between this, “…there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world”, and this, “Without recognizing an ultimate authority and order which has created all things for a purpose and has thus determined the bounds of use of those things, there can be no rights”.

          I understand that your primary claim is that, without an absolute authority, rights cannot exist. Again, this is a claim. Even if true, “God” does not solve the problem. Absent absolute certainty, absolute authority is just a postulate; one that is far less self evident than self-ownership. You have claimed repeatedly that, without God, no moral distinctions can be made between humans and other animals. This is false. Humans, unlike other animals, are capable of respecting the rights of others, what I call moral reciprocity. This is an observable fact; it is not arbitrary. It, along with self-ownership, provides a foundation for a theory of natural rights. Is this foundation absolutely certain? Of course not, but neither is any other foundation. It is, however, logically consistent and supported by observation.

          If people are convinced that rights are meaningless unless God exists, then the “death of God” poses a serious problem for the future of civilization. It is unlikely that we will get back to a “society largely onboard with God”; it is extremely unlikely that a uniform understanding of morality would emerge if this happened. The same arbitrary, inconsistent and confused moral beliefs would be proclaimed; people proclaiming them would find justification for their beliefs in their own vision of God; the “personal preference” problem you describe, would still exist.

          So, I consider advocating for a theory of rights, based on self-ownership, to be important. Not as a repudiation of a faith based theory of rights, but as a compliment to it.


          • Evenin’ Jeremy!
            **” I see a similarity between this, “…there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world”, and this, “Without recognizing an ultimate authority and order which has created all things for a purpose and has thus determined the bounds of use of those things, there can be no rights”.”**

            A little different. I’m not saying that “there must be”- i.e. I’m not saying that since rights exist, there then must be a giver of rights”. I am, I guess you could say, coming from the other direction- i.e. that legitimate inviolate rights can only exist IF there be a Creator. (I’ve never read philosophy- except for one whom I have known all of my life: Testicles [Test-i-klees] 😀 )

            **”“God” does not solve the problem. Absent absolute certainty, absolute authority is just a postulate;”**

            That could be true, except that when most people agree that life and the universe were created by a deity- even while differing on such things as his nature or revelation, one is forced to recognize and respect the order imposed upon that creation. Conversely, apart from such a belief, one may believe whatever their own conscience allows.

            **”without God, no moral distinctions can be made between humans and other animals. This is false. Humans, unlike other animals, are capable of respecting the rights of others, what I call moral reciprocity. “**

            But that is predicated upon one’s acceptance of such an idea, and how they define it’s subjects. One may state that those who can not fathom, recognize nor articulate self-ownership are nonetheless entitled to it, and that as “more highly evolved creatures” we are just as responsible to uphold such for them- or they may take the opposite tack and say that since this moral reciprocity does not extend to spiders or zebras, then neither should it extend to any humans who are not capable of recognizing, articulating or reciprocating it. Those things may be as self-evident to some as self-ownership is to us.

            I caught a racoon in my trap T’other night. That racoon sure seemed to be doing his damnedest to articulate his self-ownership, by hissing and trying to get out of the trap; he did respect my self-ownership, as when he was free, the only thing he did was come and eat the food I put out for the stray cats. Is he therefore not entitled to the same treatment due a human, as your moral reciprocity philosophy dictates?

            **”If people are convinced that rights are meaningless unless God exists, then the “death of God” poses a serious problem for the future of civilization. It is unlikely that we will get back to a “society largely onboard with God”; “**

            Precisely why they “killed” God. In the recent past, -in my own lifetime, tyranny was mostly much less overt. Now look at it; Half the freaking country is demanding socialism, and people are arrested for going to church[sic] or borfsday parties, while rioters can burn the cities asnd shoot chimdren, unmolested. That is the course we are on.

            While the moral reciprocity argument works for you, and I would concur with it, the fact remains that there is nothing to convince any who oppose it that it is any more legitimate than their own person ideas on the subject. They can just as easily say that they believe in it to the point where they believe that “civil rights” are superior to property rights……

            **”it is extremely unlikely that a uniform understanding of morality would emerge if this happened. The same arbitrary, inconsistent and confused moral beliefs would be proclaimed; people proclaiming them would find justification for their beliefs in their own vision of God; the “personal preference” problem you describe, would still exist.”**

            That is true- as it was in the past- but on the whole, while people will always quibble about absolute morality and such, the thing is, at least when their is near universal recognition of a creator, at least some of the most foundational basics can be widely agreed upon- like the sanctity of hiuman life. That is indeed the way it used to be- the tradition of the Western world which kept civilization together (and largely civil) and unified. Now that we have gone 180* from that in the last few decades, look where we are…and what is coming.

            **”So, I consider advocating for a theory of rights, based on self-ownership, to be important. Not as a repudiation of a faith based theory of rights, but as a compliment to it.”**

            I wholeheartedly agree! I believe in a practice self-ownership, and in fact partly because the “self-evident rights with which we were endowed by the Creator” demands that we recognize and practice such- and so of course, such an idea is in no way contrary to faith and worship, but rather a compliment to it and even a component of it.

            It is that idea, as reflected by the writers of the Declaration Of Independence, which was responsible for the Renaissance and Enlightenment (and the overthrow of the oppressive and dark Catholic powers), and which manifested itself in such things as the spirit of classic humanism and liberalism (Of course- obligatory note for any readers who may be unaware- That classical humanism and liberalism had NOTHING to do with what is called by those names today- but quite the opposite!)

            As always, Jeremy, I appreciate the good and thoughtful convo!

  2. Marky, the distance between stars is irrelevant due to “entanglement”, or as Einstein put it, “spooky action at a distance”. The effective distance is reduced to nothing. This is especially the case with regards to infinite space.

      • Sorry about the mistaken “handle”. For some reason I got you mixed up with someone else’s e.g. “Markymark”. Isn’t that someone on this forum? I can’t remember.

        What is relevant is that science has already been able to see how that distance is of no significance when one atom instantly affects another atom regardless of the distance between them. Distance is an illusion along with space, time, etc.

        • Agreed Mark, Princeton did a study years ago where they went back something like 40 or 50 years and showed that state and federal government representatives always voted according to their corporate sponsors, and never according to what the people they were supposed to be representing wanted.

          The flat earth issue is a testament to our failed public education system. Who can blame anyone who bothers to look at what their own observations clearly point out? Why should anyone believe what the government says when they’ve been caught lying so many times?

          Quite a lot of people who believe the earth is round are still only repeating talking points they don’t even understand themselves.

          When one sees the curved shadow of the earth on the moon from one position on earth, that’s a disc; from two opposing positions, then it can only be a globe.

          Good luck finding any public school in this country that will point that out. Instead they show our children pictures from NASA which doesn’t prove anything other than NASA produces some great pictures.

  3. Well put Nunzio, I would only add or clarify that “Without recognizing an ultimate authority” or “a Creator” are categories, and can never be God as God is beyond categorization. In other words, the term itself is all there is. There can be no referent for what transcends all categorization. So it is not “an ultimate authority”, or “a Creator”, or even the Ultimate Authority, or just Ultimate Authority.

    Once one comes to some idea of the Ultimate, one has stopped short of transcendence. There can be an ultimate standard, but that isn’t enough to establish rights. There can be no such thing as a transcendent standard, yet transcendence allows for the establishment of rights, morals, etc.

    As soon as we create a well defined god, we have crossed the line into idolatry. Even an undefined god is still subject to categorization, and thus no god at all. Therefore, the biblical authors point out that the term they use can have no objective referent. As John puts it, there is only “the word”, e.g. “in the beginning was the word”. He doesn’t say, “in the beginning was God” because God is the origin of existence or the word.

    Again, the term “God” has no referent. There is only the “Word”, or Metaphor, Symbol, copula, mediator, medium, image, icon, window, door, way, path, etc.

    • Nunzio, here again I would only add, as someone who is not attempting to evangelize; that regardless of one’s beliefs, or lack thereof, we should want there to be a transcendent just, merciful Authority even if there isn’t because it tends to foster justice and mercy, albeit, there are some glaring exceptions, but the alternative seems to only spotlight that there’s nothing inherently wrong with doing pretty much anything one wants to. Experience eventually proves that’s not the case, but what good is that after the fact?

      As far as these labels, e.g. “Christian”; they are meaningless to the biblical authors as they only recognize one’s “fruit”. What does that tree produce? That’s what matters. I’m preaching to the choir, but I have to point that out when the labels are brought up. It’s just like the mask issue. Some people wear the mask, but it doesn’t seem to affect them while others have health issues, or see it as a uniform conforming us to some ideology.

      • Very true, Shnark!

        In the abstract, apart from the finer details and specifics, the overriding point is that one’s belief relating to the origin of life, humanity, and the physical world will largely determine one’s views on the relationship between all of those things, and who or what gets to define them.

        To wit: In the naturalistic viewpoint, if we are just “evolved” carbon blobs, then any privileges or sanctity ascribed to us only exists because we are “more highly evolved and intelligent and capable” i.e. superiority. And thus, if it be that which distinguishes us from “less evolved” life forms, then why not extend that to other humans- the same as we would to apes?

        And indeed, that is the way it has become since the ascendancy of naturalism. If the more intelligent, more articulate, more capable have a right to rule cows because of those traits, then why not make the same distinction among humans?

        This of course leads to the mentality that we have a “right” to protect people from themselves; to protect children from parents, or to establish protocols “for the greater good of all”- as defined by “science” or the “more intelligent” or “the will of the majority” based on nothing more than what some may see and observe and reason- and thus nothing can be inviolate, as all becomes based upon a current and limited understanding of what may be observed and how such is interpreted by those who appropriate to themselves the right to make such determinations.

        And such IS the exact mentality we see operating in all modern institutions, from government, to medicine, etc.

        Conversely, if we were created and given inviolate sanctity by a creator, the nature of our relationship to the rest of creation and to other humans is subject to the order which that Creator has established- the basics of which, even if one does not accept any particular revelation, can be ascertained by observation, and which are would be quite different than what one would reason if they believed that the creation were nothing more than the result of unintelligent, purposeless and amoral forces.

        Those who would rule the creation have always been in rebellion to the latter (order based on intelligent and moral design), and have always assumed the former(Unintelligent amoral randomness). The difference is (and why things have changed so much now) is that formerly, the masses largely, to one degree or another, accepted the latter.

        For the last hundred or so years now, a concerted effort has been made to destroy the creation narrative, and to switch the masses to the unintelligent randomness narrative- and now, that is by and large what most believe and practice, and thus they have become complicit with those who deign to rule and who work to destroy the former order.

        The former order can be illustrated by the old political declaration “That we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,….”

        Despite theological differences and lesser details, virtually all of society (‘cept those who fancied themselves rulers and profiteers who, much like their fellows today who reject the order of creation) agreed with the sentiments of that declaration, and thus recognized the source of true human rights, and that such are inviolate.

        And although many who drafted those words were not “Christians”, it says a lot that at least virtually all recognized the source of life and the basis of true rights- and that such could only exist if we indeed sprung from something or someone who possessed morality, and power and intelligence greater than it’s product- and that is really what it boils down to: Can we be superior to that which is responsible for our existence? Since it obvious that we can not create nor life, then it is obvious that we are not superior. If that which created us is mindless and amoral, then we can not be more intelligent or moral- and thus there is nothing constraining us to be so, and in fact, it would be impossible to be so, for any definition of morality would be of our own invention.

        • Hey Nunz,

          “…the overriding point is that one’s belief relating to the origin of life, humanity, and the physical world will largely determine one’s views on the relationship between all of those things, and who or what gets to define them”.

          This is clearly false. The faithful show the same varied, inconsistent, self serving, incomprehensible, etc… moral beliefs as the non-faithful. Their belief in the divine origins of the world does not largely determine their moral system.

          “To wit: In the naturalistic viewpoint, if we are just “evolved” carbon blobs, then any privileges or sanctity ascribed to us only exists because we are “more highly evolved and intelligent and capable” i.e. superiority. And thus, if it be that which distinguishes us from “less evolved” life forms, then why not extend that to other humans- the same as we would to apes”?

          Come on Nunz, I’ve answered all of these questions.


          That doesn’t mean my answers are correct, but please, address them, and tell me why they’re not.

          “This of course leads to the mentality that we have a “right” to protect people from themselves; to protect children from parents, or to establish protocols “for the greater good of all”

          These are beliefs held by the majority of self professed Christians, as well as most everyone else. It is especially funny that you include this, “… the mentality that we have a “right” to protect people from themselves”. The majority of Christians ardently support the drug war, some support alcohol prohibition, almost all are opposed to legal prostitution, etc… Every one of these laws are designed, at least in part, to “protect people from themselves”. The belief in the divine origin of life doesn’t lead them to the “correct” moral views that you favor. You are the aberration here, one that I admire very much, but an aberration nonetheless.

          “Conversely, if we were created and given inviolate sanctity by a creator, the nature of our relationship to the rest of creation and to other humans is subject to the order which that Creator has established”.

          Again, clearly false. Nobody agrees what is “the order which that Creator has established”. So, even in the impossible event that everyone believes in the divine origin of life, people would still have wildly different, inconsistent, self serving, incomprehensible, etc… moral beliefs.


  4. Jeremy,
    While it is true that self awareness creates the concept of self ownership, this can only occur within the context of a limited self awareness. An omniscient self awareness would not create a sense of self ownership because pure awareness doesn’t allow for the concept of self. Pure awareness or pure consciousness cannot be conscious OF anything. There can be no object of consciousness within pure awareness or consciousness.

    The concept of self necessarily requires reflection which is necessarily derivative. Moreover, concepts don’t actually exist as anything other than concepts.

    • Hi Shnarkle,

      I agree, in addition, the body places a constraint on our self awareness. Also, concepts are “real” in the sense that they are products of the human imagination, but don’t “exist” outside of us.


  5. Nunzio, there is one way in which one may be excluded from engaging in commerce regardless of whatever system is in place, and that is the person themselves may prevent themselves from this system because it is immoral.

    We see something similar with Paul’s claim that there are no powers in heaven, earth, hell, etc. that can separate one from the love of God. Of course the person themselves can prevent themselves from receiving the love of God.

    The institution of prostitution is inherently immoral to some which by its very nature are prevented from participating.

    I really don’t know why so many people ignore that as a possibility.

    When Jesus walks into the temple, and tosses the moneychanger’s tables, is he prevented from praying because of what’s going on in the temple, or are they actively preventing him from praying in the temple?

  6. Glad I started this with my original rant. Great to read all the conversation without being twitted and meemmeed to death. I ibegan a no diaper allowed policy today at my place of business. I am not a big box store. More of a service industry. The coaching is my real avocation, the thing I love. I will not say “I do it for the kids”. That particular phrase means “If you don’t do what I say your kid will pay”. I do it as I love the sport, I also enjoy passing on skills and knowledge of the past. I am a teacher of the Socratic method. If they can ask questions they can figure out answers. I will continue to question. Until I am dragged into a re-education camp. Probably won’t arrive as I do not drag easily. Everyone keep doing what you can to slow the spread of idiocy.

    • Excellent, Ugg!

      I will have a new (and happy) Diaper Report out later today along the same lines, with names and places redacted to prevent retribution from the Sickness Psychotics.

      PS: I’ve been unable to run for about a week now; weird deep-tissue ache in my right calf, which I have never had before. It’s like reverse shin splints. I’m reduced to riding the exercise bike at the gym… Undiapered, of course!

  7. How did people survive 200 years ago with no face diapers, not much in the way of medical facilities, very spartan or non-existent sanitation and the lack of knowledge about how the body works? They had an immune system that was mainly responsible for keeping them functioning and alive. Diapering, distancing, less social contact, isolation, less sun, and stress caused by watching the fake TV news all cause the immune system to deteriorate. That is part of the plan. There will be more and more people getting sick in the colder months simply because their immune systems have been somewhat compromised. We will be told by the media that there is another outbreak and the draconian dictates will only be ratcheted higher. People will be given untested, fake vaccines which will further put their lives at risk. You comply or die…meaning you will be killed off for non-compliance…OR, you do comply and you will be killed off in a more subtle nature.

    I am now 100% convinced this is a planned pandemic being used to destroy the world’s economies and for population control by the megalomaniacs like Gates and Soros and the thugs running Google. Once the economies fail, they will be replaced by a new world order, possibly via the UN, which is based on fake green technology only. Big Pharma is involved, much of Congress, big tech and many other institutions are behind this fake pandemic.

    Many dentists are seeing people who have been diapered up for months and their dental health has deteriorated. This is not good for the body either. You won’t hear about it in the news. Diapering also allows much more bacteria to circulate in the mouth and you are likely drinking less fluids while masking.

    If I subject myself to one of Gates’s poison RNA-altering vaccines, will I be allowed to ignore diapering, distancing and all the other fake-demic dictates? NO. We will still have to practice these useless measures. Masking and distancing will become PERMANENT! It’s about subjecting you to control, not protecting your health. You will either resist and risk being murdered for non compliance or bow down and subject yourself to a slow death by other means. Will enough people resist when push comes to shove comes to risking your life?

    • I had to laugh recently as I read of a cholera outbreak in NYC in 1832. The overlords enacted travel restrictions and quarantines….because they did not know that cholera is not spread by casual contact…..

  8. While I appreciate the dilemma faced by the coach and respect his/her decision to compromise for the perceived greater good I would also point out that compromise is a victory for the enemy. They are perfectly ok with a series of compromises to get what they want and, like a ratchet, they never go backward. The end result is tyranny, just takes a bit longer.

    • Yes, Milo!
      This is why I reject the idea of “Just wear a mask to get in the door”. THAT is precisely how tyranny is achieved- but getting even the reticent to give up a little bit at a time. The masses will comply with just about anything- but how to get those on the periphery to comply? Just take little bites at a time- make little concessions….you become acclimated to it…”It’s no big deal”- and before long, it’s ALL gone.

      This is how it worked with everything from the income tax (“Just a small tax on the wealthiest 1%) onward……

      When they can make you do something that you would not otherwise do- and not even for a legitimate reason, but just as a symbol of obedience to an owner…..they have won- and even playing the part briefly, is in no way resisting- it is acceptance and proof that one will ultimately obey if not doing so has any consequences- even mere inconvenience.

      Like with all other breeches of liberty- if we keep moving back the line in the sand….we soon find that we have no more ground. Now that line has arrived at our very faces- and they are not satisfied with that, but will be demanding to breech even that, and invade our very bodies, bloodstream, and DNA.

      • Amen, Nunz – exactly!

        It’s why I am so adamant about the Diapering. I see what it means to give in to this; you do, too. I wish more could. Or would at least try.

    • The whole diaper idiocy is all about control – “Hey, look what we made the peasants do!”

      Once the land of the free, home of the brave, it appears that we’ve morphed into Land of the wimps, fops, dandies, limp-wrists, and snivelers, cowering before our “masters,” begging for permission to take a leak or drop a steamer into the toilet bowl.


  9. My late dad once summed up typical youthful rebellion thusly: “Whatever it is or who commenced it, you’re against it.” So if teachers, parents et al. non-government “authority” figures double down and badger “yutes” to wear their masks (as in “clean your room,” “dress right,” “get a haircut,” etc.), is there a chance that the yutes will rebel now as yutes used to always do? Or has this character trait, like common sense, been totally “educated” out of them by generations of government schools? I, for one, am not hopeful. In the movie The Wild One, motorcycle gangsta Marlon Brando was asked by a town girl what he was rebelling against. “Whadya got?” was the memorable reply. I’d say plenty, these days. Beginning with mandatory masks.

  10. We have never been subjected to such a fact free psyop before. What are put forth as “facts”, are often reversed, proven wildly inaccurate, or not proven in the first place. Once again, public education must be congratulated. They have created at least one complete generation of mindless warm blooded robots who have been ardently trained to OBEY! When children are excoriated and punished for holding their hand in a manner that vaguely resembles a hand gun, how can we expect them NOT to comply. Especially when such punishment is handed out by on campus armed government goons who think slamming a 10 year old to the deck and giving them the George Floyd treatment is appropriate. There’s one bright spot. By keeping the schools closed, so teachers can get paid for doing nothing, parents become a much stronger influence. Some may even discover how easy home schooling is. Plenty of lesson plans available, and you only have to stay one lesson ahead of the student.

    • Morning, JWK!

      I have maintained and will defend the proposition that saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seats are the root of all of this. Almost everyone under 30 today grew up strapped into a saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seat, a training device meant to inculcate passivity based on fear.

      • that all came from the feminization of society and men being dominated by their rotten wives. it was women who demanded this safety disaster

        • Women are hardwired to default to safety/security. Some are able to over ride their hard wiring. But basing an entire society on such priorities, is obviously a VERY bad idea. We see the results all around us. What we need is the separation of school and State. Government at all levels must be kept strictly out of education.

          • Women are humans. Hardwired for survival. Modern woman adapted the skill of bitchery. It works so well, that she can decide to take half of a man’s life earnings on the basis of being unhappy, with the law on her side.

            Early woman was a strong robust animal. She was capable of a day’s labor without tiring. She invented basket weaving and agricultural.

            At some point, there were lots of baskets made and food stores, that she didn’t have to use her body for anything but procreation. That’s a very boring purpose. Their minds dulled and bodies weakened.

            Some early women remain. Those broads who will help chop fire wood. Those who keep a shitty car running with hand tools and YouTube. Women who protect their young at all cost. Women who will fight any battle for her man.

            Squawking about one’s needs works in infancy. Bitching works with girls. It fails women. Instead of honing their natural survival skills, they master the art of bitchery, and bitch their way to ruined families and a miserable lonely existence. They don’t stop until everyone else within a screeching distance is miserable too. This is why my car is equipped with the technology to straight bitch me out every time I don’t strap in.

            Bitchery is the art of control. Most women enter adulthood equipped with it. A skill that works so well, people wear drawls on their face now just to stave off a bitching.

    • 9/11 was a psyop. Do a little research. Look up Dr. Judy Woods. This “plandemic” is the second big psyop of the 21st century.

      • Eric P. and others: America is over and done, Trump has no power, the Emergency powers act is now in control of gov. since late March. Trump is nothing more than a mouthpc like a used car salesman. Fauci and Birx (CDC and WHO) are telling people to wear the masks. Trump is puppet of the elite and is controlled also by CIA dir Gina Haspel. No use voting, it won’t stop bio weapons being released ongoing or agenda 2030 control grid.!! it is all over we will become slaves because there are NO patriot men of fighting age to stand up and revolt. Old men and women esp moms and granny’s cannot win the fight alone. We wil become like the E.U., Aust. and N. Zealand soon: http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/4314-the-totalitarian-future-globalists-want-for-the-entire-world-is-being-revealed Why aren’t family men w/ kids or g’kids care they will be separated forever from their wives and kids?? have people lost their minds?

  11. On Lew Rockwell by Bill Sardi……

    New York State bill A99 which is now under consideration in the NY State legislature. It allows the state to take an individual “suspected” of being infected or contaminated to a detention center and there compel her or him to receive any medical treatment deemed necessary – including forced

    The PCR test they’re using is not only worthless for diagnoses but also is prone to many false positives.
    ASSUME the virus is real. Just because they find the virus in your nasal passage ways that doesn’t mean you’re sick. To be sick the virus must be replicating big time. What it means is your immune system is successfully fighting off the virus.
    However, What they’re gonna say is you are asymptomatic. You are a Typhoid Mary. You need to be isolated. They are doing this right now in Australia. They will drag you from your home and put you in one of these detention centers and that is the end of you. If we allow this, it’s all over.


    The hits just keep on coming…… They’re pushing and pushing hard to eliminate any dissent.

    • Hi Ken,

      If that comes to pass, resistance is obligatory because it is morally justified. Anyone who disagrees is saying it is morally acceptable to drag a person suspected of something off to a prison and perform medical procedures on them. In other words, they are saying Dr. Mengele wasn’t a criminal.

      • Unfortunately everyone has some breaking point. “Do it to Julia!”

        The point being that at some point in all of this we have to stop it before there is no one left who can resist. Does the “land of the free and the home of the brave” any longer have what is needed to pull that off. I am seriously skeptical that “we” do.

        I can’t see any possible solution except partition between this, BLM, war, taxes, policing, etc. First cut, by time zone would be a good start. Second, the Eastern and Central zones additionally by north/south. E unum pluribus. I am seriously skeptical that “we” can pull that off either. The alternative seems to be a civil war (our first, of course).

        • Hi Arylioa,

          A split up is problematic because it’s no longer a question of regional differences (e.g., North vs. South). But there is a dividing line between rural and urban. The cities are lost – and perhaps cordoning them off (or rural areas cordoning themselves off) is the answer.

          I expect it to get ugly. Because the people on the other side of the aisle are not willing to live their way and let us live our way.

    • I have been reading Lew R for yrs, Sardi, Mercola and Barnett are my favs. get lots good info from them. Others are real wordy tho’ like they are doing a dessertation for a doctorate degree.

      • Thanks Shnarkl, I’ve seen that. But one would have to be a Wild Eyed Conspiracy Nut, to believe that… You aren’t a Nut, are you Citizen?… Amazing how many of the boxes got checked with the current Plandemic…

  12. Views from the past couple weeks of continued diapers.

    2 Sundays ago on my weekend to work, a rural church in the middle of a fork in the road wherein the people must park across the road in a separate lot and cross the road to the church, I saw a family hit the beginning of the crosswalk, I stopped, and allowed as many as possible to cross. NOT A SINGLE MASK IN SIGHT!!!!!!! I was so happy to see that.

    Late night drinking session over the phone with longtime friend who does not keep up with politics. Really good guy but just doesn’t have a clue right now. I’ll be darned if the weeks of me and another best friend telling him, meme-n him, he still LOVES the masks. Him and his wife are buying this despite me and another friend, being very logical and long time friends who discussed things as we grew from young-uns to middle-agers, can’t get through to him. It’s weird. Normally any other topic, he will hear an opposite view even if he didn’t take it. It feels like he is totally tuning us out on this one. We have both decided to let this sheep graze until the wolf appears.

    And finally, today, I finally had my “coffee shop” experience while at work. The sign on the door read “No Face Mask, No Service”. It wasn’t a coffee shop, but that doesn’t matter. Seeing as to how I am working and that the place I was entering was technically “my customer”, I took a deep breath, and went in without a diaper.

    While I took that deep breath in anticipation, I did not anticipate how I would handle the situation. As soon as I came through the door, I had the attention of the person behind the counter. Before he could even say the first hint of anything, I acted like I owned the place and told him I was there to service a piece of equipment vital to their operation. I could tell they wanted to say something to me being unmasked, but I was in control. I had anticipated saying I was “exempt” etc, as the situation necessitated, but they didn’t say anything. So I continued showing a bit of control by acting like they can’t tell me squat while killing them with kindness.

    Further, when a piece of equipment that was shipped overnight to the location so I could make an immediate repair, the box could not be found. I made a couple of phone calls, made the manager make a couple of phone calls, and then I searched their operation for the part I was looking for. Low and behold, people in the back not visible to their customers were making product while not wearing masks.

    But the best was yet to come… As I am standing there without a diaper, making phone calls, an employee asked one of their customers to put on a diaper. His significant other retrieved one but he refused it right in front of them. I was happy to see him make a stand. However; I suspect that since what they were there to get wouldn’t be immediately available, they were asked to wait outside until their request was ready. Personally, I would not have patronized the business, but to me, anyone defying, standing up to, but not being obtuse and showing they can be nice about this diapering difference, are good to go with me.

    To note, my hair keeps getting longer. Damn the diaper, full speed ahead.

    • Excellent, J!

      Diaper Dissent is spreading. I’ve noticed videos mocking it popping up on the ‘Net – and that is a big indicator, I think, of increasing sickness of sickness psychosis.

      The more of us who refuse to give in, the sooner this sickness ends.

    • Great news indeed. There’s mandatory masks where I work, but they are not enforced. I haven’t diapered up so far. It’s no coincidence since the plant manager objects to the things but diapers up anyway.

  13. that guys completely justified killing and maiming of three BLM idiots in kenosha is just a taste of whats to come. Wait until trump wins in november.

    • That was the old America. John Wayne would ride into town and take out the bad guys with his six shooter.
      Fast forward to 2020,,, The good guy comes to town with his AR, takes out a couple bad guys trying to hurt him and goes directly to jail,,, do not pass go.
      So even though the cops refuse to protect private business neither can anyone else…. or else.

    • Mark, from the video I’ve seen, and the reports, that kid was entirely justified. He also demonstrated a training and reaction level, that I’d expect from someone much older and more experienced. He is also going to have to carry with him, that horrible experience. Its not one I’d wish on anyone. I’m not at all surprised that he has been arrested. Its only to be expected, given how the Progs have infested and subverted most of our cities.

  14. Or, you could do what Pastor John MacArthur is doing, and FIGHT!


    I’ve said it here before, youze guys slobbering over “Muh Constitution!” have left off the Jesus nut. Literally. Where do our inalienable rights come from? I’ll give you a second. You know the answer.

    Without God at the center of our government and our society, everything the Founders built simply falls apart. The right to be left alone is not something people will raise a hand, as we clearly see today, much less die for. Think your enemies aren’t religious? You better believe they are. Their gods are varied: the State, equality, anti-racism, etc, but you see with your own eyes that they’re willing to put their lives on the line for their god. You either don’t have one, or don’t love Him enough to fight. Which is how they push you over so easily.

    Start fighting, and you’re sure to win. Bitch on the internet, and enjoy the fires of Hell. Twice.

      • Everyone prays when there’s a crisis.

        What do you do when you don’t have to? Or when it’s “not quite” bad enough?

        • “What do you do when you don’t have to? Or when it’s “not quite” bad enough?”

          You always should consult with God,,, whether “it’s” good or bad.

    • Hi Bardelys,

      I’m not particularly religious, so bear with – and know I mean no offense and hope none is taken. But isn’t ascribing our rights as being given us by Jesus/God the same as saying we haven’t got any; i.e., that they don’t derive from our existence as such? Also, isn’t referencing Jesus – or any deity – essentially an authoritarian position?

      The broader problem with religious appeals is that they reduce to human interpretations. No one knows what God – assuming one exists – wants. We only know what other humans have said he wants. Which assertions must be taken on faith. This is hugely problematic, for all the obvious reasons.

      The right to be let alone, on the other hand, is something that can be defended without reference to “just because” (or because God).

      It claimed by the believer that we are the “children” of God; that we are created and owned by God, who gives us rights and that these rights must be respected because they issue from God… not because they are right in and of themselves.

      But all of that rests on assertions – on faith. And – no offense meant – one faith is as valid as another.

      On the other hand, it seems self-evident that we exist – as individuals. There is no evidence – objective, irrefutable evidence – that anyone owns us except ourselves. We are certainly not the property of other people.

      If we own ourselves – as seems self-evident given we exist and given the absence of an objectively irrefutable counter-claim – then it follows we have rights that flow from this self-ownership. That everyone has the same equal right to self-ownership. Which includes the right to be let alone.

      • Hi Eric,
        Your observations are spot on! It is not only possible to make these observations absent the Bible, it is a responsibility of our humanity to know and recognize this truth as independently verifiable. We exist, we have being and consciousness, and as such are sovereign individuals.

        When you say “No one knows what God (Reality and eternal Being) wants…we only know what other humans have said he wants.” is also accurate. Therefore, one must use one’s mind and reasoning ability to know which witnesses are credible and which are not. By way of his witness to what God wants, Jesus makes bold claims about his relationship to our Creator (John 14:10) and this is verifiable by way of his resurrection – which either occurred or it didn’t.

        I believe Jesus presents a credible witness about himself, our relationship to him and the Father, and to each other. Contrary to saying this means I haven’t got any rights because of this statement, it affirms them. I am free to respond to his call and free to love my fellow man and also free to defend my position, just as Jesus did when he cleared out the Temple and made himself and enemy of the established authorities.

        Thank you for your website and all that you do to reaffirm the value of our individuality.

      • Eric, you and most so-called Christians have this all mixed up. Our natural rights accrue to us as a matter of law, that is, the universe functions as it does because there are “laws” in place that govern it. Do we fully understand those laws? Some think they do, but I suspect not. If there are laws in place that govern things then there must be a creator of those laws. I don’t believe for a minute that sort of organization occurs willy nilly.

        He who creates a thing owns that thing. Gm creates a truck and offers it up for sale. You pony up the cabbage and “ownership” is transferred to you (not really because you allow the dealer to transfer title to the state because you have a lien, or because you mistakenly believe they have some claim on it even if you are paying cash, but that’s a different topic for another day). This does not mean you can defy the rules of engineering simply because you have claimed an ownership right. In other words, you are obliged to put gasoline in the gas tank or risk catastrophic failure. Creation demands the same consideration, follow the laws of the universe and all will work out right. There really is no true ownership in this world because we didn’t create it. There is only property interest. We have a property interest in our vessel/body, that is, we have the right to use it in the way we see fit. We have been given dominion over it. But, it comes with rules just like your new truck. One of those rules is that we have certain “rights” associated with it because the proper exercise of those rights ensures peaceful co-existence with the other “owners.” Those rights are part and parcel of creation. Therefore, it follows those rights come from the creator, just as the engineering principles that went into the creation of your truck come from GM.

        Now, if you want to argue the existence of a Creator, that’s up to you, but, a good, long look in the mirror should be enough to convince you that you didn’t just happen without some set of principles to organize the formation of your body. And those principles don’t just happen without first having been conceptualized by some sort of consciousness. The thought precedes the thing. So you decide for yourself, does that thought come from somewhere, the Creator, or from nowhere?

          • Well stated Jason. I’ll always remember that turtles example. Its a true timeless classic. Our rights originate from our humanity. Self ownership is the most fundamental right. Everything else, naturally flows from there.

            That is why collectivists worship power. It is how they force their world view on others. In their warped/distorted minds, might makes right. In reality, might makes able. Simply because one can do a thing, does not mean that one *should* do that thing. There is a reason that real history and philosophy are no longer taught in government schools.

            • How does “humanity” convey any rights- if there is no creator and we are just the random products of random processes and forces- which if true, would mean that as humans, we are nothing more or less than any other product of those processes and forces?

              If such were true, then “more advanced” or stronger or more intelligent humans could legitimately claim superiority over “less advanced or capable humans”- since “superiority” becomes the only metric which distinguishes us from amoeba or cattle?

              • Hi Nunz,

                My view: Rights inhere as a function of our ownership of ourselves, which seems to me “self-evident” or at least there is no evidence to refute it. If we own ourselves then it is implicit that others don’t. Ergo, they have no right to take what (obviously) does not belong to them. That they do sometimes – because they can – doesn’t make it right.

                • Hey Eric!

                  Yes, while that makes sense to you and I (And pretty much everyone here, I’d imagine…), one might say (As some environMENTALists and vegan types do) why then does not a mosquito or cow “own itself” too?

                  If there were no creator who created us as preeminent, then a case could be just as easily made for that viewpoint, no? And for that matter, a similar case could be made for any other viewpoint- such as the “right” of the stronger or more “intelligent” to do to us as we do to cattle and mosquitoes- and indeed, isn’t that what many do?

                  It just becomes a contest of competing ideas, with no absolute morality, because one is then free to advance their own idea of morality, based on nothing but what they consider to be acceptable.

                  • Nunzio , no cows can’t own themselves, because they have no self to own. ^^ Rothbard was fond of saying that only people and property exist. (And people are NEVER property). Some of us added that people doesn’t have to mean just human. ^^ I suspect that intelligence beyond a certain point involves quantum field effects. Entanglement comes into play for one. Perhaps that is one of the aspects of our connection to our God?

                    Human rights naturally flow from our humanity. If you wish to connect that to God, I have no real objection. But I consider it unnecessary in my own mind.

                    • Well-said, BJ –

                      For myself, I have no problem with people believing in god – however defined – and practicing their faith, as they like. Provided they do not cross the line into insisting others believe – and practice. The problem lies in the believer’s tendency to believe he is right – and thus, not just justified but compelled to “spread the faith” – often, by force. This is why so many people are leery of religion. It is not the religion, per se – but the things which religious belief often leads to, if the not held in check by the believer himself. But that is often a paradoxical thing … because of the believer’s belief, which tends to trample restraint.

                    • But BJ, if (as some say) we are nothing but carbon blobs “evolved” from stardust, how does being classified as human distinguish us from any other life form?

                      One might say it is because we are more intelligent, or capable, or able to articulate ideas, etc.- but that is exactly the point: If we were just advanced animals, then any rights we claim exclusive of any other life form, are indeed just a manifestation of superiority/power/intelligence/etc.

                      Conversely, if we are created in the image of the One who created all things for a purpose, and who has defined the nature of our relationship within that order, only then does being human convey any superior status over other forms of life.

                      This is precisely why communism and it’s related manifestations such as environmentalism are atheistic and has no reservations about imposing tyranny or committing genocide, because ultimately if we are just evolved animals, then we are of no more value than animals.

                      If the only thing that distinguishes us from cows or toads is the superiority of being “more highly evolved”, then they can legitimately reason that some humans who may be more highly evolved than others thus have a right to rule those who are less so.

                      And indeed, wasn’t that the very worldview of the Nazis and Soviets, et al?

                  • Hey Nunz,

                    “If the only thing that distinguishes us from cows or toads is the superiority of being “more highly evolved”

                    Again, it’s not about superiority (which is a subjective valuation), it’s about reciprocity, which is an observable fact. Humans are capable of recognizing, and respecting, the rights of others, other animals are not. It is absurd to think of a Lion respecting the “rights” of a lamb, or even other lions.

                    Rights, to be meaningful, must be reciprocal. Think about it, if you accept the validity of natural rights, one is bound to respect the rights of others UNLESS they violate your rights. One possesses rights in so far as one respects the rights of others. One loses rights when he violates the rights of others.

                    God may be involved, but his existence is not necessary to recognize this distinction between humans and other animals.


                    • Indeed, Jeremy! Don’t get me wrong I love Nunz, in the most heterosexual way possible of course. 🙂 But there are certainly things I disagree with him on, and this kind of thing is one of them. Not my first go around with Believers, of course, and I’ve read a fair amount of their literature, books, and been in on their discussions, as well as read the bible itself.

                      Basically their arguments come down to circular reasoning, faulty logic, and massive assumptions. As I’ve said I have no issue with anyone saying they Believe based on faith, but if trying to convince skeptics on the basis of real evidence that is a tough row to hoe.

                      Many Believers also decry science, which is based on evidentiary testing and observation rather than gleaning what meaning can be pulled out of texts that are thousands of years old. (At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Humans being what they are, science is certainly subject to abuse as in Globull Warming.) Of course science is what makes it possible to even have this discussion in this venue, versus religion which in a practical sense has never produced so much as a flush toilet. The utility of religion is establishing an ethical framework for humans to deal with each other. The supernatural aspects? Phhhht… sorry, I’m not buying it.

                    • Hi Ya Jeremy!

                      **” Humans are capable of recognizing, and respecting, the rights of others, other animals are not.”**

                      [Again, I’ll play Devil’s advocate]

                      So then, ipso-fatso (:D ) (and as some actually assert) then why would that obligation only extend to others of our own “species”?

                      Some would assert then that since we are capable of recognizing such rights, we are then obligated to recognize that other forms of life are entitled to the same treatment, and more so, because we are capable of recognizing such rights and they are not.

                      And (as some would also assert) that being capable of recognizing such rights is indeed an attribute of superiority- so in effect, such an argument IS asserting that superior ability is the criteria which gives one a right of dominion over other living creatures, and therefore there is nothing to prevent one from asserting such a philosophy over “less capable” humans.

                      While of course I do agree with you, the point I am trying to make is that without an appeal to an absolute authority which grants humans a higher status than that of mere animals, any claim to a higher sanctity of life for humans becomes nothing but an opinion or preference, as valid or invalid as any other position advanced.

                      It’s interesting, because this matter is extremely relevant today as many liberals now promote post-birth infanticide, precisely because their worldview is indeed that of what I proffered as Devil’s advocate.

                      Now, while you and Eric happen to come to the right conclusions without appeal to an absolute authority, the fact is, that there is nothing constraining you to do so- and why many don’t.

                      Ultimately, if there were no Creator and we are just the product of processes and “happy accidents”[cue Bob Ross] then it just becomes a matter of mere personal opinion- as random processes do not convey any rights nor sanctity on the products of their workings.

                    • Hey Jason,
                      Science, is observing that when water is heated to 212*F it boils and vaporizes into steam.

                      Science is NOT coming up with hypotheses of what may have happened “billions of years ago” and then trying to validate those hypotheses making a few observations based on a smidgeon of the myriad processes and theories and interpreting them or fitting them into the chosen hypotheses, while ignoring all else to the contrary, and even censoring those who proffer anything contrdictory or different.

                      We see this perfectly with the “Climate Change science” , dietary “science”, medicine, etc.- and those are things which are at-hand and can be easily observed and tested in real-time- how much worse is it when it comes to wild speculations of the past and things which can only be observed, tested and measured by a certain few who have been chosen by our enemy, the state, and only with the help of their “special machines” and as interpreted by a team of others who work for the same entity?

                      We have reached a point where “science” and technology are at the highest levels they have ever been able to attain to in the history of the world, with more money and resources and manpower being put into it then in the sum total of prior history….and look what it has gotten us!

                      Do you like what you see?

                    • Hi Jason,

                      I believe that religious faith, absent the force of the State, is a positive force for most people. I have one deeply religious friend who credits “finding Jesus” for saving his life. At his lowest, he was a homeless alcoholic, unhealthy and without purpose. Now he is a loving father of three, has been sober for 35 years, is a kind and generous man; he is happy, enjoys philosophical discussion, and has a great sense of humor. He knows that I am an atheist but doesn’t try to convert me. We discuss religion on occasion, always respectfully and in some depth.

                      Anyway, the purpose of this story is that, like you, I have no quarrel with religious faith, and would never try to destroy it for those that have it. Unfortunately, there are some among the “new atheists” who are deeply disturbed that others have faith, and actively seek to destroy it. Such people are monsters. Whether God exists or not, it is undeniable that my friend’s faith saved his life, physically and spiritually, I cannot fathom the depravity of those seeking to destroy it.

                      Still, I do not accept the assertion that, without a creator, we can make no moral distinctions between animals and humans, or that we have no duty to respect the rights of others. Such a duty can be derived from self ownership and the capacity of humans for moral reciprocity.


                    • Hi Heremy!
                      **”I explained why by introducing the concept of moral reciprocity, we have a duty to respect the rights of others in so far as they respect our rights.”**

                      What rights? As defined by whom? -That is what it comes down to if there be no Creator to define the order and use of the creation.

                      You seem to be saying that certain rights are self-evident. They are not.

                      For instance: We believe in the absolute right to private property. Many others who base their worldview on naturalism believe quite the opposite- i.e that everything belongs to everyone collectively, since all wealth comes from the eart and we are all a part of the earth and entitled to the benefits thereof” [I’ll feel sullied even typing that bullshit!], or that some get to apportion property ‘for the common good” or to achieve “equality”, etc.

                      Many vegans and environmentalists believe that the “rights” of animals are just as valid as ours or even more so.

                      Many say that your children do not belong to you, but rather to “the community”, who can relieve you of them if they feel that your parenting is not in accord with “the child’s best interests”.

                      Many (if not most…. 🙁 ) believe that a person has a “right” not to be discriminated against, and that that “right” is superior to one’s right to private property and free association- and they would claim that such “rights” are just as self-evident, recognizable, and valid because of reciprocity, as anything which you proffer to the contrary.

                      Without recognizing an ultimate authority and order which has created all things for a purpose and has thus determined the bounds of use of those things, there can be no rights, because, as I stated previously, rights (nor good nor evil) do not emanate from thin air and happenstance, nor that which is inferior to what it has created.

                      Without the ability to appeal to absolutes which mandate the sanctity of human life and private property, etc. any rights are only what anyone imagines or desires them to be- and thus (for one example) they could say that their “right” to equally share all resources” is just as self-evident, recognizable and reciprocal as is our recognition of private property.

                      It was the general recognition of the divine nature of the sanctity of human life and private property and free speech, et al, which when practiced even only in part, made Western civilization great, and which resulted in greatly increasing the number of people on earth who were able to enjoy a great deal of liberty, prosperity and security. Now that that divine order has been rejected, we are seeing those benefits disappear very quickly as the world now heads the opposite way.

                      And while it may indeed be possible to come to a recognition of legitimate rights, as you and Eric and others have, without appeal to the authority of a Creator, that is just one possibility of many- as you could just as easily have come to the “human rights” and “collectivist” conclusions, as many do, as they see them as just as self-evident- but the thing is, I am constrained to believe in the sanctity of human life and private property (etc.) because I recognize the Creator- and all who do so must also believe in these things- therefore, when such was the common practice, these things were accepted by the majority of society because they could not be rejected without rejecting the One who instituted them.

                      Your way, one’s rights can be defined by whatever one cares to recognize as valid according to their own definitions of morality- and this is exactly what we see happening in the world- and why in-fact, it has been the agenda of the men behind the curtain to destroy any vestiges of real Christianity and traditional Western culture- for they KNOW that as long as those institutions are still functionally extant, that they could never achieve their despotic communistic life-sucking NWO.

                      Without a Creator, YOU become the definer and author of any rights you claim- whcih may be fine as pertains to yourself- but trying to get everyone else to respect those rights….not so much, as they may have their own ideas of how you are to be treated, or are expected to treat them, which may differe greatly from what we recognize as valid- and without any superior authority constraining anyone, it just becomes a matter of the stronger or more ruthless who ends up determining what “rights” you have.

                  • Hey Nunzio,

                    “So then, ipso-fatso (:D ) (and as some actually assert) then why would that obligation only extend to others of our own “species”?

                    I explained why by introducing the concept of moral reciprocity, we have a duty to respect the rights of others in so far as they respect our rights. Animals cannot respect our rights, or those of other animals, and thus have no “rights” in a meaningful sense. Still, we may have a duty to be good stewards of the natural world (or, at the least, to refrain from wanton destruction). I’m playing around with the idea that such a duty can be derived from the homesteading principle, but I haven’t fully fleshed it out yet.

                    “so in effect, such an argument IS asserting that superior ability is the criteria which gives one a right of dominion over other living creatures, and therefore there is nothing to prevent one from asserting such a philosophy over “less capable” humans”.

                    Recognizing an observable difference between humans and animals is not necessarily an assertion of superiority, though some believe that it is. Moreover, I have never claimed that superiority is the condition that grants us our moral status, I specifically reject the idea. Superiority is is a subjective valuation. It is meaningless as a general term, it has meaning only when the terms of comparison are defined.

                    As for “less capable”, humans, as a species, are capable of respecting the rights of others. This is either/or, not more or less. Now, some humans choose not to respect the rights of others and, in doing so, release us from our duty to respect theirs. This is why one has the right to kill another in self defense. Now, there are some humans who, perhaps, lack this capacity due to severe mental retardation or some other disability. It is true that the eugenicists believed that this gave them the right to kill such people, but the particular capacity of any individual does not confer ownership of that person to another.

                    Another group that may lack this capacity is psychopaths. But, we cannot know this about any particular person. We can judge them only by their actions. If they aggress against others, they have lost their claim to rights, at least in that particular circumstance.

                    You have made two primary claims in this discussion: First, that, without a creator, no moral distinctions can be made between “us” and other animals. This is demonstrably false, as I have tried to explain. Second, that, without a creator, we have no duty to behave morally toward others. This is an opinion, derived through circular reasoning, no more or less valid than my opinion, also derived through circular reasoning. Your circle goes like this, “I believe that moral duty must be imposed on us by a creator, I believe that I have a duty to be moral, therefore God must exist.” My circle goes like this, “I believe that human flourishing is a self evident good, I believe that natural rights are logically derived from self-ownership and most conducive to this good, therefore, we “should” impose this duty on ourselves” (I think of myself as a natural rights utilitarian).

                    I don’t believe that “rights”, and the moral duty that derives from them, can be proven. I believe that the concept of “natural rights” is a product of the human imagination, real in that sense, but not some eternal truth that exists outside of us.

                    You are correct “that there is nothing constraining you to do so- and why many don’t”. This problem is not solved, except in a logical sense, by postulating the existence of God. While most people choose to place such constraints on themselves, some do not. Ultimately, everyone makes this choice for themselves, whether they believe in God or not. Your faith informs your belief in moral duty, yet I doubt you would reject such a duty if it was somehow proven to you that God does not exist (an impossible task).


                  • Hey Nunz,

                    I understand your argument, I just don’t accept it. You claim that, without a creator, there can be no rights. This is a belief, neither provably true, nor provably false. You make a consistent logically correct argument, “rights exist, only God can create rights, therefore God must exist”. That the conclusion is valid from the premise, does not make the conclusion true.

                    “You seem to be saying that certain rights are self-evident. They are not”.

                    I believe that self-ownership is self evident and that property rights and the NAP can be logically derived from those concepts. But, that doesn’t make them true, it makes them consistent with my belief in self-ownership. This belief, just as yours, is neither provably true nor provably false. I accept this belief because it provides the moral framework that I favor. So, your comments on preference are valid, but they apply equally to those who derive their concept of rights from God. Those who profess faith in God, show every bit as varied and inconsistent moral beliefs as those who do not.

                    In my opinion, “rights” do not exist outside of the human imagination. This bothers a lot of people because it provides no “absolute” authority on which to base the concept. You are correct about this. But, because nobody can know the mind of God, those of faith come to wildly contradictory conclusions about what God commands of us, just as those without faith.

                    The lack of an absolute authority does not bother me, as belief in such a being could simply be a product of the human imagination, invented to solve the the thorny moral relativity problem that you accurately describe. If so, my belief in self-ownership performs the same function as your belief in God.

                    As you know, I do not claim that God does not exist, just that his existence is not necessary for me to “believe” in rights derived from self-ownership. Again, my belief does not make the claim true, it serves a purpose that I favor.

                    There is an element of utilitarianism in all moral philosophy, whether based in religion or “reason”.

                    “It was the general recognition of the divine nature of the sanctity of human life and private property and free speech, et al, which when practiced even only in part, made Western civilization great,…”.

                    This is a utilitarian argument, just as my preference for “natural rights” derived from self-ownership, is a utilitarian argument. I wish to live in a world that promotes human flourishing, I believe that a moral philosophy grounded in “natural rights” is most conducive to that end. You wish to live in a world where people revere God, obey the moral constraints that he has placed upon us, leading to a love of liberty, a recognition of the sanctity of life, and which fosters a “great” civilization.

                    Practically, for us, our beliefs lead to nearly the same place. Most people, whether of faith or not, decide what they think is right or wrong and adjust their religious or philosophical beliefs to conform to their personal beliefs. Whether God exists or not, does not change this.

                    I admire your faith, and the moral conclusions you draw from it. But many, maybe most, of those who profess to share your faith do not arrive at the same conclusions. They think they’re just as “right” as you do.

                    Anyway, this is probably getting tiresome to some. I won’t persuade you, and you won’t persuade me; not because I think you are wrong, or that I am right, but because I see no possible way of proving either case.


                    • Hey, Jeremy!

                      **””rights exist, only God can create rights, therefore God must exist”. “**

                      Oooo…no, no, no. My bad if I gave that impression- I am not the best at articulating these things.

                      I’m simply saying without God/a creator; if life and matter are just somehow the products of random unintelligent forces, then the only rights anyone could have would be that which they are capable of securing for themselves, and that there could exist no distinction between whose definition of “rights” is right or wrong, because it could vary from person to person depending on their preference or view of what life is, and the purpose for it’s existence if any, and it’s relationship to the universe and or who or what created it. -i.e. relativism. (And is that not what has indeed replaced the former worldview, transforming civilization into the mess we now see destroying itself?)

                      **”This belief, just as yours, is neither provably true nor provably false. I accept this belief because it provides the moral framework that I favor. So, your comments on preference are valid, but they apply equally to those who derive their concept of rights from God.”**

                      This is true. The thing is, when society was largely onboard with God, the rights we speak of and value so much were generally agreed upon and accepted by the vast majority, and flourished (at least to some degree) because the basis of those rights were held in common at a fundamental level as the most basic moral precepts, regardless of any differences in theology or practice at a more detailed level.

                      And as such, any philosophy which rejected those basic rights, was rejected.

                      When God was “replaced” by various theories which ascribe life to amoral forces, it made life and rights amoral, and open to interpretation- and as such, men were thus able to claim that “democracy” or “science” or “the survival of the fittest” or the rulership of the “wisest” are just as valid as any claim we may make of self-ownership, or which someone ascribes to a cow even though the cow can not articulate such a position.

                      **”Those who profess faith in God, show every bit as varied and inconsistent moral beliefs as those who do not.”**

                      Yes, unfortunately, that is the case, and more so lately. It looks even worse than it really is, as there are so many who claim to Christian, who have never picked up a Bible in their life, and are utterly ignorant of what it says- instead relying upon others of their own choosing, or those who are familiar, to inform them of what they believe 🙁

                      I do agree with much of the rest of what you’ve said, and I agree that I guess we should call it quits.

                      I also greatly admire your integrity and honesty, and the fact that you have come to conclusions which you have purely by observation and the exercising of your character.

                      As I mentioned to Eric in another post, guys like you and he would make SUPER Christians if you should ever see that light- and even now, could show many who profess to be Christian a thing or two!

                      BTW: I’m not trying to evangelize you here (Though I have to admit, I wouldn’t be disappointed if that happened- but I know it’s not going to via this)- I did just want to make the point, which you have gotten- that these rights we speak of are not universally self-evident….if they were, we wouldn’t be in this predicament in which we now find ourselves, and which is getting worse daily.

                  • Hey Nunzio,

                    Thanks! I actually envy (a mortal sin) those with faith such as yours. My friend Greg, who I described earlier, is such a person. I may one day “see the light”, but I have not been able to reason myself into that position.

                    “The thing is, when society was largely onboard with God, the rights we speak of and value so much were generally agreed upon and accepted by the vast majority”.

                    Yes, I lament the “death of God”, especially as the institutions that have arisen to take his place are either actively hostile to morality (politics and the State), or incapable of providing a moral framework (science). When Nietzsche declared that “God is dead”, he was not making a metaphysical claim, he was stating what he considered an observable fact (God is dying in the hearts of men). His solution was to propose the “revaluation of all values”. Many insist that his goal was to fundamentally transform values, which is partially true, but his larger goal was to create a foundation for values not dependent on God.

                    So, if we wish a return to widely accepted, beneficial values, we can either reignite faith in the hearts of men, or create a secular foundation for those values. Neither approach seems very likely to me. But, I consider the latter approach slightly more likely. While I cannot prove the existence of natural rights, I can show that the concept follows logically from self-ownership.

                    “…as there are so many who claim to Christian, who have never picked up a Bible in their life”.

                    On a lighter note, this is for you.



              • Hi Nunz,

                “… since “superiority” becomes the only metric which distinguishes us from amoeba or cattle?”

                It’s not “superiority”, it’s reciprocity. Humans are capable of recognizing and respecting the rights of others, cattle are not. This may be due to divine creation, or it may not. God may exist, but such a being is not necessary for morality or the moral legitimacy of rights.


                • Good points Jeremy. Homo Sap (for all of their sins) are aware that they are aware.
                  That provides a distinction between humans and cows. That awareness leads to the ability to understand higher order consequences, and also simulation of others reactions. Or the reciprocity you mention. The Christians have a saying something like Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Even Cow Tse Tung had to learn that the hard way. ^^

                  • The Nazis thought Aryans were of a higher order……

                    Some Jews think they are of a higher order……

                    Some blacks think….well…they may be more realistic…and just revert to the law of the jungle…. 😀

                    • Might I remind you Nunzio, that the Nazi’s lost? ^^ People can think what they wish. Imposing it on others is another matter. The Usual Suspects have been playing their games for centuries. It remains to be seen, what will come of it. This is a VERY complex game, and no one can see all of the pieces, as they move through the shadows and through time. We will have to see what transpires over the next few months to few years.
                      Cheer up! If its the End of Days™ you get to have the last laugh. ^^

                    • BJ, I’d say that the millions killed by the Nazis and Communists, and all such who do not value the sanctity of human life and liberty, are the ones who lost.

                      And as the worldview which those criminal psychotics held has overtaken the world, and is now propagated through every government skool and the popular culture, those atrocities will only increase- indeed, is it not our resistance to such which is our very reason for being on a site like this?

                      Oh, I am cheerful though…as I know how it will end.

                  • Hi BJ,

                    Thanks! Recognizing that humans are self aware and capable of respecting the rights of others is an observable fact, a creator is not required to observe this distinction between humans and animals. Likewise, self ownership is logically derived from self awareness. One can choose to believe that God owns us, but that belief produces the same moral constraints with respect to the treatment of others, as self ownership.


                    • Nunzio, yes, its sad that so many people died. But the Nazi’s loss, demonstrated that they were not a “master race”. Looking at WW2, its obvious that it wouldn’t have happened without the stage being set by the treaty at the end of WW1. As for the Usual Suspects and their antics, the jury is still out. We will have to see what transpires. But this game they are playing is horribly complex, and there are hidden factions and variables. You *know* how things will turn out? And here I’d thought you a man of Faith… ^^

          • I have no problem with the idea that a Creator is outside our conception of time. Chances are, time is a creation, too. No more time, no more turtle stacking up. Chicken or egg? I know this sticks in the craw of logicians, but once you remove time, the question of which came first is moot. Maybe, just maybe, there are things that are above our pay grade. Does this bother you?

            • Humans experience time linearly. Beginning and end. It is difficult to imagine time and space being the same thing and expanding in an Omni directional way. Our sensory organs are bad at perception. Understanding being limited to interpretation of sensory input.

              Everything has always been. Everything will always be.

              God is everything. God doesn’t care which human group made up a new name or assigned a guy to represent. God doesn’t care about being god. God is a name we assigned to describe what just is. Those who get it, get it.

            • Exactly, Rog!
              Time is only relative to physical things, because, as acknowledged by the laws of thermodynamics, and entropy- all physical things degrade, wear-out or die.

              There are no such constraints in a spiritual realm. It is hard for us to comprehend eternity, or the idea that anything could exist without having a beginning or end, because we are physical and live in a physical realm, and thus can not comprehend a realm which is not constrained by the laws of physics.

              Even the most atheistic theoreticians (styled “scientists” in today’s parlance) concede that at some point the physical universe did not exist, and then just came into being; that the forces which supposedly were responsible for the creation of the universe have essentially existed in perpetuity, and acknowledge that physical matter did not always exist.

              So they too are asking “Where did it all come from?”- but they can not explain this without resorting ignorance or “cheats”- such as the current theory that the contents of the universe existed prior to the appearance of the universe, but compressed into a little ball smaller than a period (.) on this page….which somehow exploded and formed an orderly universe and life, and the mechanisms to sustain the same. But that still contradicts the truths of nuclear physics which they acknowledge, that preclude the eternal existence of matter- they’re just saying “Yeah…but it was just a little speck of matter…itsy-bitsy…(but contained all of the matter we now see in the universe!)…so it really did exist”!

              And the forces apart from the universe which created that matter and compressed it and then caused it to ‘splode? They call it “nature”- but it existed apart from the physical universe!(LOL).

              Their “nature” sounds a lot like an invisible intelligent being in the sky, doesn’t it? Seems to me that it takes a lot more faith to beliueve in such, which are nothing but the ramblings of some ignoramuses who are merely speculating about what happened “billions of years ago” in a place where they nor anyone else has ever been, nor witnessed or testified of.

              Religion for those who don’t want to acknowledge a God who would have the right to declare how His creation may be used.

              • That great nukular physicist ( 😀 ) the Apostle Paul, put it simply (2000 years ago):

                Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” -Hebrews 11:3

                • Hiya Nunz!

                  Faith is an interesting thing; real but hard to prove to another. At least, in the manner of: 2 plus 2 equals 4. Accordingly, I regard matters of faith as being of individual conscience/certitude but not conveyable – or rather, not subject to agreement in the manner of 2 plus 2 equals 4. I have respect for a person’s right to their faith. I do not like the idea of anyone’s faith being imposed on others.

                  This latter is, of course, at the root of many people’s uneasiness with religion generally.

                  A parallel can be drawn with Diapering: Those who believe have every right to wear a Diaper. But it becomes problematic when they demand others share their belief (and Diaper).

                    • Rog, it seems that most religions go through their conversion by the sword phase. Some sects are still trapped in that mind set. Thats why I consider Islam to be a great religion… For the 15th century. ^^ Promoting and speaking ones belief should be enough. Coercion is crossing the line.

                  • I agree, Eric.
                    As I mentioned somewhere else, that is why it has often been a priority of real Christians to ensure that we all remain free to live our own consciences without threat of compulsion by others. This is essentially the root of Libertarianism.

                    One distinction I would like to make about faith though, is that contrary to what many (even professing Christians) would have us believe, “faith” is not something to be blindly accepted in ignorance.

                    Faith, in the true sense of the word, is expected to be something that can be tested via extant “witnesses” (physical evidence)- be it through the existence and workings of the physical creation, or the efficacy of prophesies and or even personal experiences, etc.

                    I used to be embarrassed when I’d see debates between evolutionists and some well-meaning but ill-informed Christian types, when the “Christians” would just proffer “faith” as the reason for their belief in creationism and rejection of evolution.

                    Such “faith”, how ever well-intentioned and sincere, is really not faith in the scriptural sense, but rather just ignorance, and a desire to maintain belief in something they know little about.

                    That is ultimately why I used to join such debates- to make relevant points which others could not, thereby (hopefully) educating both sides- as such “Christians” needed those facts as much as did the evolutionists. (And until one actually managed to get into a conversation with an actual academic or scientist, it was painfully obvious that the average evolutionist was often just as ignorant about their “faith” [which ultimately is what evolution is] as the “Christians” were of the same!).

                    It made for some very intriguing conversations. Wish I had kept up on it- as I have forgotten so much from those days!

                    • PS. That is also why I am very leery of groups, such as the Moozlims or Cat-holics who would compel outward adherence to their “faith” by the sword/compulsion/government- and why I don’t trust Catholic Libertarians.

              • Nunz,

                Well said, sir! There’s no real difference between the folk lore stories and science stories. It is all the interpretation of man. Science book or fairy story, all ways of explaining the same concept for humans of differing developmental stages.

                • Who’s forcing you to believe in any religion? Are there laws, actual laws, not statutes, that compel you to embrace a particular religion?

                • I loved it when Stephen Hawking was alive. He’d sit there in his wheelchair pontificating about “What may have happened 80 billion years ago in some universe far, far away”….

                  What an ass!

                    • Science is simply interpretation of data. I put no more faith in a scientist than I do Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or a George bush. We absolutely cannot see far enough out to collectively know.

                      This is a fucky time of the world. Most of the history people think they know is a lie. No human can accurately recall past events, because we don’t live there. The individual can only experience the world through his own impressions of it. No body knows what is about to happen and we’Re terrible with recall. People have this moment. And now that’s gone.

                      Nothing wrong with wanting to know how things tick. But there are things we simply can’t know. There are colors that we can’t see. Humans can’t even imagine them. And idk if that is true I just heard it someplace.

                    • Well-said, Anon! (Good thing it’s raining outside! So many good comments here! Great afternoon to be stuck inside!)

                      Sad thing is, that much of what is termed “science” isn’t even the interpretation of data, but merely the inventing of hypotheses which can never be tested, -and then the further expanding upon of those hypotheses by others who build upon them.

                      And even where actual data is involved, they often just pick and choose which data to use, and ignore anything to the contrary which might cast a different light on the meaning of the chosen data.

                      E.g. is Airy’s Failure EVER mentioned in any school science class? Or… why is Embyonic recapitulation STILL contained in biology textbooks, when it was proven long ago to be a fraud?

                      Not only are these various theories as much “faiths” as any other religion, but they are dishonest ones as well, which unashamedly perpetuate lies and omissions.

                  • Vile Heretic! Saint Hawking was the Word of Science writ large! ^^ As much as I enjoyed some of his talks, his concepts on several theoretical topics lacked rigor. But everyone has blind spots. Even Einstein could never really accept quantum mechanics, and some of its implications. Words of wisdom, never bet with Kip Thorne. unless you have a VERY detailed grasp of the entire problem. ^^

                    • Bj, re: Islam: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
                      Qur’an 9:5

                      So, there’s that. As for science and masks and junk: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Agent K.

          • Who “created” existence? We exist, we have being. Denying this involves a performative contradiction. We know this intuitively without requiring explanation.

            “God” is Existence, Reality and Being. Paul in discussing this with the Greek scholars on the Areopoli in Acts 17 said “In Him we live and move and have our being, as some of your own poets have said. We are his offspring.”

            Has existence always existed? Has being always been?

            It puts quite a different exposure on the God definition to say God = Reality, Existence and Being. Yahweh (Exodus 3:14) says “I AM.” This says to me the statement of eternal Being.

        • its a deep philosophical question. How did all thius stuff get here, Billions of galaxies in the known universe. There could be an un;limited number. from where. What are the boundaries of the universe. Apparently there arent any. How did all this start.

          Atheism is the belief if you put enough chemicals in a puddle a billion years later an elephant will pop out.

          • One needn’t be an atheist to believe that nonsense. They don’t hold a monopoly on incoherent ideas. However, atheism is most definitely a spineless incoherent perspective to take. You will be hard pressed to find an atheist who will say claim anything more than a lack of belief in the gods, or God. For the most part, the modern atheist is really just an agnostic, but just like the agnostic, they are under this delusion that evidence of God must be presented in order to prove God’s existence.

            The question then becomes; where do these people get their standard for determining whether or not one is in possession of legitimate evidence in the first place? Who made them the final
            authority on who to recognize the gods when they see them? Seems a bit presumptive to say the least.

            It’s strange how we assume a beginning or end to empty space simply because we see things come into existence and disappear. But what is empty space? From all outward appearances, it’s nothing. The problem is that by definition, nothing doesn’t exist. There can be no beginning or end to nothing.

            We talk of empty space, but for something to be empty requires a vessel, e.g. an empty cup, and empty womb, and empty tomb.

            It’s all relative, but the relative points to the absolute, or at the very least a relative progression to transcendence. Either way, you can’t conceive of one without the other, and to claim that one is valid, real, or legitimately proven with evidence is preposterous without the other. It is a Given, and must be assumed in order for anything to make sense.

            • Hi Shnarkle,

              I won’t insist on what I can’t prove. I have many beliefs that don’t rise to that standard, so when I speak of them ( for example, my belief in the probability of extra-terrestrial life) I always couch it in terms of belief. Not certainty. My attitude toward (for want of a better term) God falls into the same category. I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows – or at least, I don’t think anyone can prove it. So I keep it at the level of a belief that’s interesting to consider and weigh – being open to facts, from whatever direction, in support or to the contrary.

              I am well aware of my own limits and so make no pretense about being able to define the infinite. But the subject is of great interest to me!

              • Hi eric, This is an interesting perspective in that I also would never insist on anything I can’t prove, but then I never insist upon proof of God for the salient reason that I have no clue what criteria one could possibly come up with to establish anyone’s claim that God exists. Whatever do they even mean by this term? Whenever someone asks for proof, or evidence, I can’t help but ask them to present their criteria for proof. Just what am I supposed to be looking for on this wild goose hunt anyways? Some old guy with a long white beard, some guy walking around in sandals, someone who makes David Blane’s magic look we’re picking from a deck with only two cards? Could someone supply me with the handbook for identifying God? I can identify the Greek gods, the Roman gods, and the Norse gods, as well as a smattering of the Hindu’s 330 million deities, but no one has ever presented me with any way to identify a transcendent god. I’m pretty certain nothing of the sort exists, or ever will.

              • I have read and listened too all sorts of wacked out stories about aliens and such and as my view of humanity deteriorates and my knowledge increases the wacky idea that the earth is a prison planet for souls seems more more like a viable explanation. Like any prison there is a mix of people who are political dissidents and intellectual enemies of the state to thieves, murderers, and worse. The sad thing about this theory is that it also involves reincarnation and being trapped here as well as a universe where even in spirit people of wrong think go to prison.

                • Morning, Brent!

                  That was L. Ron Hubberd’s idea 🙂

                  My view in re aliens is based on my understand of probabilities – and yup, I’m hip to the Fermi Paradox. That said, when I look up at night and see uncountable stars and realize those I see are the tiniest fraction of the total number in our galaxy, forget the others, and that many of those suns have planets in their orbit, just as the planets of our solar system orbit our sun, I think it improbable that none of these have life. I understand that complex life – intelligent life – may be very rare. But if it is found on even half of 1 percent of the planets that are probably out there, the galaxy is teeming with life.

                  Of course, given the galactic speed limit, it may be that life is isolated by time/distance. But I also incline toward the view that there is a way around the galactic speed limit – I’m just not smart enough to do the math! But that doesn’t mean someone else isn’t smart enough…

          • our closest star is proxima centauri. About 4 light years from here. Supposedly with a habitable planet, If you want to get thre at 1/10 the speed of light you’ll need a craft capable of 68 million miles per hour and it will take 40 years.

          • replying to shnarkle without going through the skinny response chain Youre right. The idea we know everything and “the “science is settled” is for politiocal reaons only. Could the earth be flat? i guess but I dont think so. Im not going to belittle or insult anyone for thinking that way. I question everything we’re told because everyone has an agenda- especially our self-appointed betters. And its almost never in my best interests.

            • Mark3,
              We’ve all been around that kid that keeps asking “why?”. Encourage that kid, answer his questions the best you can. I’m 58 and I still ask “why?”, as you apparently do too.

          • Has anyone NOT on Uncle’s payroll/not using Uncle’s artificial eyes (programmed by Uncle’s disciples) ever actually seen billions of galaxies?

            Has anyone ever measured the distance to a star, apart from suppositions and theories which claim that the color of an unsampled gas or behavior of some radiowave beamed into the great unknown which has never been touched by human hands, necessitates that if ‘a’ be true then ‘b’ must confirm it”?

            • Yes, Nunzio. In fact you can see the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye on a clear, dark night. A fairly modest telescope accessible to individuals can reveal a lot more.

              Distances to nearer stars can be measured directly via parallax using the earth’s orbit as a baseline out to about 1600 light-years. It is a very old technique. (The earliest use of parallax was probably the Greek astronomer, Hipparchus, who used it to measure the distance to the moon in 189 B.C.)

              There are several different methods of measuring further distances that agree the universe is an extremely large place. It would be incumbent upon those who disagree to come with alternative explanations for the phenemona used in coming to that conclusion.

              • Nah, Jason- you can see some stuff out there in the sky with the nekked eye or a decent telescope. The idea that it’s a “galaxie”, and how far away it is, is pure conjecture….and changes wildly every decade or so.

                The rest you mention is nothing but relativism- ideas and theories which are only true if other ideas and theories are true and if the ideas and theories upon which they are built are thus true, and so on.

                Same as when they used to say that ice layers or tree rings could be counted to measure time- one layer or ring equaling a year- until, of course physical evidence was encountered to prove that many ice layers can form in one year- and several or no tree rings might be produced in a year.

                This is simple stuff, right here on earth where we may handle and observe it without special equipment- and they couldn’t even that right- and it took them decades to acknowledge that fact- now extrapolate that to something far more nebulous and complex, which we can’t handle and touch nor measure, nor possibly have any physical evidence to dispute the “official narrative”.

                If you want to speak cf fairy tales……

                • Sorry Nunz, but we can chart our increasing understanding of the universe from ancient times all the way to today. There are features of the cosmos readily apparent through telescopes, both optical and radio, others are found through their effects. Also, unlike the China virus nonsense and the climate change lies, there is nothing to be gained by some grand conspiracy of astronomers.

                  Of course you are free to ignore the things we have discovered in the extant cosmos as well as the subatomic world which is even more bizarre. However there are definitive objects and phenomena that have been detected and measured, and to dispute them in an effective manner one needs to come up with rational alternative explanations for what has been observed, not general handwaving about the evils of an “official narrative”. Since you mention galaxies, the fact is that they can be seen through telescopes and sufficiently powerful scopes can make out individual stars therein. What do you think they are? What would “they” have to gain by lying about it?

                  Of course if you really want to go down the rabbit hole there is no way to “prove” that we are not all in the Matrix and all of what we perceive as our daily reality is not faked sensory inputs being fed to us. As an example, the nature of perceived reality was explored in the 1974 movie “Dark Star”.


                  However in that direction lies madness. Not everything is a vast conspiracy.

                  • Hi Jason,

                    One of my rules for dealing with any given question is the principle of parsimony – also expressed as what’s most likely? Is it likely that the other stars/extra-solar worlds,other galaxies, etc. are real – or that we are being fed a lie about them? The question answers itself.

                • Hi Nunz!

                  I part with you on this one. The physical evidence for other galaxies is literally right before our eyes. We can see Andromeda, for instance, with the naked eye. With a home telescope. It is one of countless galaxies, in addition to our own (see the Deep Field view). The idea that this is faked… is that likely? More likely than it being the physical reality?

                  What do you infer from the inarguable fact of our solar system? From the existence of our galaxy? Which we can also see, with the naked eye. Is it more or less likely that other solar systems are out there? What do you see when you look at the stars at night?

                  It is easy to deconstruct lies – e.g., Corona, the WTC narrative. Not so easy to gainsay red shift, the evidence of other suns, the evidence of other planets orbiting those suns… of other galaxies, beyond our own. These are not only to be inferred based on what is inarguable, they are things we can weigh and measure.If they were lies, it’d be easy to prove it.

                  But it’s not – because in this case, it’s not lies.

                  • Hi Eric!

                    Eric, if I may: You seem to be looking at this ‘through the lens’ ( 😀 ) of what you have been taught to assume as true.

                    When one looks into space, one sees various lights and twinkling things floating around. The idea that these comprise “solar systems” and “galaxies”- or what even defines such things, is a supposition based on acceptance of various ideas proffered by those who hold a particular worldview- and those ideas are [cue Saturday-morning cartoons] by the same people who brought you terrorism theater and COVID vaccines……

                    The idea that such things can be “measured” is predicated upon the acceptance of conjecture and circular reasoning- much the same way as “We know how old y fossil is because we found it in x layer, and we know how old x layer is because it contains y fossil”.

                    Shoot a radiowave into vast space, and then say that it’s behavior “proves” x because we have sculpted a theory to dictate how a radiowave behaves in an environment we can never sample, or because of the color of light, IF certain premises are first accepted as the nature of things we have never laid hands on….but whose creation and make up we purport to know about intimately. Hey, after all…it is confirmed by fancy-schmancy electron doohickies as interpreted throgh computer programs programmed by guys who were educated in the specific rhetoric and dogma of those who make the claims which they are trying to prove….

                    Here’s one for ya: (And for the purpose of this discussion, I’ll act as if the Moon Landings were real): If the universe is so full of all these vast galaxies which are millions of light-years away, how come neither they nor stars are visible from the Moon, which is “only” ‘250K miles’ from Earth?

                    Do you remember ‘the first untethered space-walk’ (c. 1986)? Look up a clip of it on Youtube. After you stop laughing, tell me honestly that you believe that was real….

                    Sorry, my friend, but this outer-space BS is the very mechanism (The ‘miracles’; lying signs and wonders…” which the Bible speaks of, which will cause all to worship The Beast) which has won the hearts of the masses to accept the unintelligent amoral worldview of “naturalism”, and has greatly advanced collectivism by promoting the sentiment “Look what we can do if we all work together (and give all of our wealth and autonomy to the state)”. [I’m still trying to figure out what they have done- other than waste a lot of money and put a bunch of junk up in the sky- we’re certainly none the better for it- but definitely worse.].

                    “They lie about everything else…but this one is true!” 😀

                    • Hi Nunz,
                      This discussion is interesting. Nunz, what is it that you see when you look at the night sky? Just wondering.

                    • Hi Ya William!
                      (Where’s Doug?!)

                      When I look at the night sky, I see little lights up there of varying intensities. (If there are no clouds).

                      I*t was truly wonderful when I first moved here to the sticks and got to REALLY see the sky in darkness, and in an open area!


                    • Good afternoon Nunz,
                      Every time I get out of the city I always take a peek at the night sky, it’s beautiful!
                      I get it that you see little lights in the night sky, but what do you think they are?, physically. Do they represent something to you, maybe spiritually?…
                      I hope this isn’t coming across as being rude, (too much of that lately here) just talking like two guys sitting on the porch enjoying a refreshing beverage.

                    • Hi, William!

                      Oh, absolutely no rudeness inferred! I do enjoy these discussions very much, and since the things we are speaking of are things which we can not physically examine, we really can not prove nor disprove anyone’s speculations- but hearing different views is always interesting.

                      Naturally, I believe what the Bible states: That the heavenly bodies were established as lights in the sky, to demarcate times and seasons, and to declare the glory of God. (I LOVE walking out here, especially on crisp clear winter nights when the stars appear at their brightest!).

                      I have also seen that what we can see through a good telescope often appears radically different than the “enhanced images” we have all been shown since childhood, of the planets- many of which do not even appear to be solid objects.

                      What do you think?

                      Pass the lemonade, my friend! (Just don’t drink the Kool-aid 😉 )

                  • I’m kinda hearing: “We can destruct their lies about things which we can personally investigate and test and see and handle personally- but we can’t do that with stuff up in the sky, so we’ll just take their word for that- just because they lie about everything else, including that which is here in front of our faces, they are probably telling the truth about that one thing. C’mon, they have those brilliant Nazi scientists working for them! Would Werner Von Braun lie?!”


                    • Hi Nunz,

                      One can ” personally investigate and test and see and handle personally” with regard to the solar system, our Milky Way and even other galaxies, such as Andromeda. A $300 home telescope is sufficient; some of this stuff can be seen with binoculars and the naked eye, even.

                      There are other planets orbiting our sun; this can be observed and recorded. There are other stars and it is reasonable to infer they, too, have solar systems/planets. There is also data that can be checked in re this.

                    • Nunzio, I’m nearly at a loss for even where to start with this. In all of the various red flag activities, and out right frauds, there have been people or groups who benefit. Who benefits from this global conspiracy about the moon, and space in general?? I’m feeling rather left out, as I’ve been involved in some of these measurements, and no one has asked me to join the secret club… ^^

                    • Oh, now Eric. Have you ever taken out your ruler and measured the distance to a star? Have you ever touched one?

                      I think you have been prejudiced by drawing and diagrams and models and words in textbooks which predispose you to conclude that when you see these pretty lights in the sky, that since they look like the pictures in the books, they must thus be what those books purport them to be- just as some believe that 9-11 was done by foreign terrorists who took a few lessons in a Cessna, because “they found their passports and had their pictures in the paper!”.

                      Heck, you can not read a thing about astronomy with endless references to the Ancient Greeks and their methods- but they always neglect to mention how relativistic their methods were, because so much of what is still maintained as astronomy today is dependent upon the Greeks- and all of our current high-tech BS is just as relativistic, if not more so.

                      Eric, what do YOU really see when you look through a telescope, if you divest yourself of what you were taught since childhood by government and by the government’s scientists as quoted in magazines and books?

                      Funny too, how with a telescope, we’re lucky if we can see a satelite the size of a school bus just 100 miles in the sky…..but we purport to see things which are a gazillion LIGHT YEARS away?

                      Sorry buddy, but I’d sooner believe in the Easter Bunny… 😀

                    • Hi Nunz,

                      No, of course not! I also haven’t done the same with regard to measuring the distance from my Bunker to Berlin. But the measuring is possible – and provable. As is the case with, say, measuring from here to the Moon. You can do it, I can – anyone with a bit of brain and some maff can. Also to Mars – and so on. It scales because it follows.

                      I have personally observed the motion of Mars, which can be seen with the naked eye in my area at certain times of the year. I have seen the polar caps through a telescope. The orbits of the planets are mathematically demonstrable, too. I’d need to reject the evidence – the math and the physical evidence – to take the view that our solar system’s arrangement, the planets and their orbits, etc. aren’t what they are.

                      Do I believe everything about the Official Story regarding Apollo? No. I think it is quite probable some of the images were faked for various reasons; I think it is possible there are things on the Moon that have been hidden from us. But I have no doubt that the Saturn V was capable of breaking Earth orbit and that men did so using it and travelled to the Moon and back.

                      To me, the interesting question is why men stopped going to the Moon.

                    • Hey BJ!

                      Who benefits? Hmmmm….how many trillions have been spent on NASA and all of the aerospace industries in this country alone- not even mention all of the others?

                      Who has captured the hearts and minds of the masses, starting in 1969, so that every little boy (and half the little girls) would flush their own autonomy down the terlit if they could just be an astro-not?

                      Who gained from having people become gleeful about paying taxes “since they support such great causes like like putting a man on the Moon”, and who gains by parading “heroes” before the public who wear little flags and military-style insignia and uniforms, whom the people virtually worship- because THE GOVERMENT was able to do “such a God-like thing” with the wealth collected from our “contributions”?

                      I don’t know. I guess it was just “for the good of humanity” 😉 (Such a shame that they lost all of that telemetry data from the most expensive undertaking ever undertaken in the history of the world to that point- They might have been able to figure out how they got Buzzed Aldrin and co. through the Van Allen belt alive, in that tin can, whyen they weren’t even aware of the Van Allen Belt at the time. Hey, maybe “foreign terrorists” threw the data out).

                    • Nunzio, exceptional claims require exceptional proofs.
                      Given the experimental data involved (data sets that extend back a century or more) I’m willing to give the current system the benefit of the doubt, especially since I generated some of that data. ^^
                      As for the lack of stars in the moon video, you do know that the moon is tidally locked?
                      They landed on the bright side. The moon has a VERY limited atmosphere, so light doesn’t scatter like on earth. That means the sky is black, like night time. But because its always daylight, the stars can’t be seen. If you can find an area of deep shadow and let your eyes adjust, then stars might be seen.
                      As for the stars being stars, some G class stars have much the same spectral out put as our sun (a G2) which tends to support that observation.

                    • Mornin’ Eric!

                      **”But the measuring is possible – and provable. As is the case with, say, measuring from here to the Moon. You can do it, I can – anyone with a bit of brain and some maff can”**

                      That is not true, unless one first accepts some unknown variables as fact- such as the size of the object whose distance is being measured- as is the case with “proof” for all the theoretical “sciences”.

                      The math works if one accepts the unknown variables as fact, because math merely describes the relationship between variables when the values of the known variables are accurate.

                      Here is a good example of how, despite all of the expense, technology, and effort expended, shoddy the fakery is, and how easily even the most glaring inconsistencies are ignored by most, because we have been programmed to “believe” and to accept the “authority of experts”:

                      Google[sic] official NASA images of earth from space.

                      On the more detailed images (Which are all CGI- if not admittedly so, then can be easily confirmed by loading any such images in GIMP/Photoshop/etc.)- and what do you see if you look with a critical eye?

                      Notice the differences between the images- how the size of the continents varies (In some images, North America occupies a much larger area in the northern hemisphere than in others); How the alignment of land masses varies (e.g. in one image South America is in much greater alignment with North America than in others), etc.

                      Such glaring and obvious inconsistencies do not even make for a good hoax! It’s as if “they” are saying “These idots will believe anything we say, so we don’t need to even fake it that good!, because no one will notice”.

                      If such is the case with things right here on Earth…..we’re supposed to take their word for it about things which WE can not personally test and for which “they” are the only gatekeepers?

                      This is religion, worthy of as much skepticism as any other faith.

                      BTW: Their math and distance, etc. falls apart when one considers that the size of the Moon is sometimes the size of a dime in the sky…and at others, the size of a small plate. If the Moon is 4K miles in diameter and 250K miles away…..the variation of it’s orbit would not mathematically be great enough to ‘splain such a disparity (And why would the orbit “vary”- or what would even constrain it to orbit reliably if the nature of space were what they state it to be? The very laws they describe as regulating space and it’s physics, would prevent such constraints.

                      But we’re not supposed to think about that (or to THINK)…just “believe”…because they are “experts”, and are the experts ever wrong? 😀

                      But we are indoctrinated with this BS virtually from the first day of government skool……and it’s hard to overcome what we have been programmed since childhood to believe as legitimate fact.

                    • Hey BJ,

                      **”you do know that the moon is tidally locked?
                      They landed on the bright side. The moon has a VERY limited atmosphere, so light doesn’t scatter like on earth.”**

                      No, I don’t know. I only know that that is what they claim.

                      Tidally locked? And so the theory that such is responsible for our tides (circular reasoning)- which for some reason operates on the largest oceans…but is incapable of moving a small pond…..

                      We can see stars through our atmosphere….but not from a place with a lesser atmosphere, and not from the ISS with “no atmoshere”? O-K…..

                      They landed on the bright side of the Moon? That must’ve been a little toasty.

                      My BIL worked for Grumman for 40 years. I had a model of the LRV when I was a kid. My BIL commented that he got to personally witness a demonstration of the LRV at work, and that it could barely manage to navigate around the parking lot on a nice day.

                      My BIL has always been a rank and file conservative “Just follow the program and go work and buy everything at Sears type of guy….but THAT even ignited skepticism in him. He was never the kind of guy to question things/authority….but hearing HIM ask “You believe cwe really went to the Moon?” (In his quiet, nonchalant way, but with an obvious air of skepticism) was HUGE! (That’s about as bold as he’s ever gotten).

                      Fast-forward to today, and at 78, BIL is approaching the door of Libertarianism! (If he lives long enough, wouldn’t surprise me if joins us here on this site at some point. Hey, Jason Flinders would have a buddy- BIL is half Jew!!) [Great guy who’s good with money- but he got no bargain in marrying my sister!- Must’ve been his Dago half that prompted that!]

                    • Hi Nunz,

                      Tidally locked means the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis, as the Earth does. This is why we see only one side of the Moon. The other side is perpetually hidden from direct view.

                      Tidal effects can be observed and measured; they correspond with the Moon’s orbit around the Earth. Without the Moon, there would be no tides.

                      The Lunar Rover would seem flimsy and untenable on Earth. It was designed to operate in lunar gravity, far lower than the gravity on Earth.

                      One of the many problems with the “Astro-not” hypothesis is that the evidence does add up. The Saturn V had the thrust to escape Earth orbit; it had enough fuel to send a craft the size of the Lunar Module to the Moon and back. There is physical evidence – hundreds of pounds of lunar material- brought back from the surface. One can see the tracks made by the Lunar Rover; the descent stages of the Lunar Landers of all the Apollo landings are physically present on the surface.

                      Is it more probable that all of this was faked somehow – or that men actually did land on the Moon?

                    • So, only the earth exists, and everything else is an illusion or lie? No orbital systems, comm sats, space telescopes, military “assets” or the international space station? The planets are illusions, so are the stars and galaxies??…

                      Nunzio, while I suspect your sense of humor is almost as warped as mine is ^^ Do you actually believe all of this? This is on par with the Flat Earth types, and almost up there with the Lizard aliens who actually rule the world… Face Palm.

                    • BJ, how in the world did you infer that I “don’t believe [the heavenly bodies] exist” from what I stated???

                      I can’t believe that I have to state this….but of course I believe they exist!

                      It is the specifics of their nature and distance etc. that I (and all) should question.

                      What I don’t believe is the current narrative advanced by the state and those in it’s employ, who claim to know the exact nature of such things.

                      What you are inferring is similar to when someone says “Oh, you deon’t believe that the Twin Towers were destroyed by foreign terrorists? So you then believe that the towers never fell?”.

                    • Hi Eric,

                      Yes, I know about tidal lock vs. tides….T’was just piggybacking there.

                      But as for the theory of the Moon controlling the tides, correlation does not prove cause.

                      Their theory does not explain why that same Moon does not affect small bodies of water, as I mentioned previously.

                      Aww, now C’mon- The Lunar Rover would seem flimsy on earth?- and yet could withstand the rigors of a much harsher enviuronment and terrain- just because there is supposedly less gravity?

                      Welol, I do have to say that you are a man of faith after all… 😀

                    • Hi Nunz!

                      It does affect them! Just not as obviously. But the principle is the same and scales up. Oceans and large lakes have tides because of the gravitational effect on these enormous bodies of water. The slight movement of a little water ins’t noticeable. The slight movement of an ocean becomes very noticeable. There is also inference and deduction, verifiable with testing and based on math. The Moon’s mass/distance and so on can be calculated, which allows calculation of its gravitational effects – which have been confirmed by the physical evidence we see in the form of tidal effects.

                      Then there is the simple which is more probable? That a large satellite orbiting this planet induces tides … or… what?

                    • Hey Eric,

                      **”Oceans and large lakes have tides because of the gravitational effect on these enormous bodies of water.”**

                      So let me get this straight: A great gravitational force has less of an effect upon things of lesser mass- to the point where it will not affect things below a certain threshold at all?

                      So it can move an ocean….but not a pond?

                    • Hi Nunz,

                      The effect on the larger body of water is more noticeable because of the huge mass of the water itself. Millions (trillions) of gallons of water moving even slightly amounts to a lot of kinetic energy.

                    • Nunzio, you do realize that the DoD and various black operations spend many multiples of NASA’s budget, each and every year? Trillions are unaccountable in that regard. Why would they need a scam like that, which would be so open to exposure? You really think that a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and other technicians could be kept going for decade upon decade? Thats not even counting the hobbyists, some of whom have really nice and expensive equipment themselves. There are entire groups whose entire focus is on astronomy, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, world wide.
                      Your position just doesn’t square with the reality I’m familiar with.

                    • You did note my use of the words illusions lies?
                      But on whose behalf, and to what purpose? A centuries long conspiracy to take over the world, is simply in line with human nature, and the will to power. But some scheme to defraud the entire human race with some illusion about anything space related is a bridge too far.

                    • **”But some scheme to defraud the entire human race with some illusion about anything space related is a bridge too far.”**

                      BJ, remember those words, and keep an eye on “our” Spasce Weather Agency and Space Force. (Hmm…why on earth do such exist?)

                      And even disregarding the above, the most powerful deception ever to have been perpetrated in the history of the world, to turn the hearts and minds of people to venerate the capabilities and power of the state, and put them in awe of such, has already taken place- 50 years ago- before three quarters of the people who are alive today were even born- and they keep up the illusion for the benefit of the newcomers.

                    • Nunzio, the moon’s gravity does impact bodies of water. If they have enough mass themselves, for it to be obvious. The great salt lake and the great lakes back east are just a few examples. If not the moon, then what else do you propose to be the source of the tides?

                    • BJ, I don’t purport to know what causes the tides. Quite simply, I don’t think anyone knows….and no one has yet to advance any credible scientific data- just correlation.

                      The idea that a body of water has to have “enough mass” to be affected, is contrary to established physics. It’s just an excuse to try and explain something which contradicts their theory. Either Newton’s apple was wrong…or their theory is wrong……

                    • Hi Nunz!

                      I’m not following in re your critique of tidal action being caused by the Moon. We can see the Moon; we can track its orbit in relation to the Earth and compute the effect of its mass/gravity on the Earth. I use “we” because we can do this. You and I and anyone else who can make the observations and do the math – or check the math already done by others. It is not a take-it-on-faith thing.

                      The Moon’s effect on the Earth’s tides also passes Occam’s Razor. Which is more likely? That a large satellite orbiting a planet exerts gravitational force on the orbited body (gravity being established as a very real force)… which the math explains and confirms?

                      Or something else?

                      Is there a more credible alternative explanation?

          • While that may be the view of some, the reality is a bit more complicated. Cosmology (a dismal science, right along with economics… ^^) has always fascinated me, in a morbid sense. But some of the concept structures involved, upon examination might actually be of some utility. Looking at the initial conditions of a given universes start, the patterns of the interactions of the various forces, would lead to certain consequences. Given a large enough sample size, one would expect highly organized patterns to naturally evolve in some. Could some supreme being, be involved in that? Certainly. But it wouldn’t be necessary, given a large enough sample set.

            • Hi BJ,

              That’s my view as well, in re cosmology. Also, as you probably know, there is a hypothesis that “membranes” separate our universe/reality from others; that our universe, as it is, came into being via a form of propagation from another/prior one – and that this cycle is infinite. The mind reels. Well, my mind does!

              • Nunz, I did say it had to have enough mass to be obvious… If one has the proper equipment the effects can be measured on a much smaller scale. If you can’t propose an alternative, that can be measured, as the gravitational effects are, then I’m going to have to stick to what we currently have. It provides various benefits, that would be lost in the absence of such insights. But I do wonder, how that much green cheese got into orbit… ^^

          • Well, some believe that the planets, stars, and galaxies are illusions. Or something other than they appear. While I’d not personal wish to defend this position, I’m quite certain someone will be along shortly to do so… ^^

              • Hi BJ,

                In re the edit function: I know. So many things need tweaking. I’d do it if I could. But my computer/coding skills are as advanced as my knowledge of Advanced Diapering!

            • Hi BJ,

              If someone wants to believe the planets, stars and so on are illusions – or rather, not physical bodies fundamentally similar to the Earth and sun – that’s certainly their right.

              I just don’t believe it myself – because it seems a lot less probable than the conclusions to the contrary indicated by my eyes and physical evidence to the contrary.

              • Very true. But remember that while people are entitled to their opinions, they aren’t entitled to their own facts. ^^ But of course, when one jumps on to the magical mystery tour bus, one never knows what ones destination might end up being… ^^

                • Morning, BJ!

                  I hope Nunz chimes in. I completely understand skepticism – especially with regard to anything the government says is so. But with regard to things I can see and check myself (e.g., the Moon’s phases, correlation with tidal effects; the visible planets) I am skeptical of claims to the contrary!

                  • As well you should be Eric. Given my decades of experience with our Dear Leaders, if they said the sky was blue, I’d go outside and look… ^^ But in other matters, I prefer to trust my own eyes, and the tools of logic and reason. As far as I’m concerned, Solipsism is a dead end. Its an interesting observation, but its implications lead nowhere.

      • Hi Eric!
        If I may play God’s advocate for a moment…..

        The concept that our rights originate with God are based on the premise that God, as the creator of the physical world and all life, is thus the author of the laws which determine how we are to interact with His creation, and thus each other. E.g. “Thou shalt not steal” is the ultimate proclamation of private property; “Thou shalt not murder” is the basis sanctity of life; That God does not punish men in this life (nor does he delegate such to other men) for their thoughts or speech, means that those who would impose penalties on men for doing so are in fact committing crimes against their fellow man.

        Converserly, if we are nothing but carbon blobs that somehow evolved from stardust….and thus just essentially more highly-evolved animals, then who is to say that the law of the jungle; the ability of the fittest to survive; brute force, and or the various schemes of order imposed by the stronger, etc. are wrong? If such were true, how are we any different than cattle?

        Perhaps this is why the overlords have worked so tirelessly to destroy all vestiges of Christianity and traditional Western culture which was once-upon-a-time based at least loosely on those values- for indeed, since the propagation of evolution, brutality, domination by force, andf tyranny have increased exponentially- because if we are no better than cattle, then we can be treated like cattle- and treat each other like cattle- and no true rights can exist, because any such “rights” would originate with us and our particular preferences- which are no more valid than anyone else’s ideas and preferences- and thus it just becomes a matter of who is stronger or more devious, who gets to decide what will be allowed or prohibited. They can say that we have no private property because all wealth ultimately comes from the earth, and since we are collectively a part of that world, we have no private right to lay exclusive claim to anything- and if others agree or can force such an economy, what is to restrain them if there is no ultimate higher law, other than that some (like us) don’t agree?

        This is why virtually all the roots of any liberty movements- from early Libertarianism to the home-schooling movement, to the exposing of political agendas/the NWO trace back to Christians- and why, conversely, the “human rights” ideologies embraced by liberals today- everything from The Civil Rights movement to socialism to environmentalism, can be traced back to those who are hostile to Christianity.

        As a few others have said in these comments recently, what we see going on today is very much a clash of religious philosophies- good vs. evil. But the thing to remember, is that we do not determine what is good or evil. If we could, then who is to say that anyone’s definition of good or evil is any more or less valid than anyone else’s? In fact, there could then be no demarcation between good and evil.

        • Nunzio, it works in the other direction too! Have you ever taken out your ruler and measured a molecule? Or even worse an atom? Have you ever touched one?…
          I tell you we’ve been lied to about both sides! Its a grand global conspiracy by ((((THEM)))) Hmmm…I always forget how many of those I’m supposed to use… ^^
          Then there is the horrid germ theory! When anyone who hasn’t been brain washed, knows that disease is caused by evil spirits and/or bad humor…
          I tell you those Punz are killers!… ^^
          Epistemology is all well and good, but its best taken in small doses, or one will spend all of ones time in arguments about the whichness of why, in a cave, sans all of the technology we have… ^^

        • The Native Americans have the Great Spirit, so indigenous peoples have a better concept of a Supreme Being.

          Deists do not believe in revealed religions, Revelations, prophets and what not.

          They believe in Natural Law and a Natural God. Simple as that.

          Communists believe there is no God, therefore you have no God-given unalienable rights.

          William Tell, his story, comes to mind in all of this nonsense.

          The Big Bang theory is nothing more than creation sans a creator.

      • You lolbertarians claim to be historians and logicians, right? Let’s see if you can connect these simple dots:

        The roots of our free nation were laid by Puritans landing in Massachusetts ~1640, arriving not as single men looking for adventure with as serious adults bringing their families. 140 years is plenty of time to lay groundwork, ad lay it they did. Something like 80% of the New England colonists belonged to a congregational church, which you cannot qualify for by merely showing up. Five of the eight Ivies were founded before the Revolution, and all of them had religious (read: Christian) foundations. Yale was once one of the major Divinity schools on the planet. Out of this stock America was born.

        Fast forward to today, and you find that over half of the US population is (a not of New England ancestry and (b atheist. And in most cases, they are militantly so. Now then, do you might think there’s some connection between God and a free nation? Because if it were possible, we would be, at worst, treading water with our ancestors.

        • 8 Ivies? I only know three: Oak, Sumac, and Poison.

          Birdleys, I forgot to mention in my earlier post: We Christians [Well, not the modern so-called variety] tend to be far more diligent about preserving liberty, because it is our duty and obligation to worship and obey God, and to have none before Him, and to live our lives by His law.

          Those duties can quickly become impossible to perform when other men gain control over one’s life, family, finances, livelihood, social interactions, etc.

          Paul said: “to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey”.

          This is why governments have always persecuted any who would obey any other entity than itself, because governments want to be God- they want to possess the earth, as if they had created it; they want to decree what is right and wrong; define personal relationships; have ultimate control not only of the land and sea and animals, but other men and their offspring. They want to act as the temple which sanctifies and sets the value of money; they want to edumacate your kids, they want to receive the tithe multiple times over, and decree who occupies the offices of the black-robed priests (In every courthouse)., etc. etc.

          It is a war between two opposing systems.

          Most people don’t notice because few have any allegiance to God these days (even so-called Christians) so they just take the path of least resistance, and it matters not to them whom they obey.

          Many of the original Founders- although often very misguided in their application and administration of their principles (Thinking that a veritable theocracy was desirable to both God and men…) held at least one truth which was fundamental and superb, and which was the basis for true liberalism (Of the classic variety- as in Libertarian- not as in modern liberalism), that is: The belief that all men should be free to live their lives and worship in accordance with their own conscience. That was the core belief for desiring the establishment of a “free country”- until opportunistic businessmen and political types came along shortly thereafter.

          • Nunzio , I doubt I have to remind you (of all people… ^^) that some of the Founders didn’t claim to be any type of Christian. One of my favorite works from that time, is of course Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason. I’ve no doubt that a scholar such as yourself is familiar with it. But I’ll list it here for anyone who happens to be interested.

            • Hi BJ,

              I feel simpatico toward the deism of many of the Founders, especially Jefferson. I am instinctively leery of the certainty espoused by many religions, which claim they “know” the nature of God and what his motives are, etc. I disbelieve in that because I know no one knows any such thing. Many believe, of course, but that is a different thing. And it becomes a dangerous thing when belief is paired with certainty which often leads to insistence.

              I don’t pretend to know, though I do believe it is probable there is a designer, an intelligence if you like. I infer this from the order and intelligence one can see manifest in creation. I am awestruck by it. But that is as far as I will go. I think it imperative that we each respect one another’s inquiries while being careful not to impose our beliefs when it comes to matters of faith.

              • Eric,

                If you get a Bible and read Revelation 13 carefully, you can SEE all that coming to pass! In Rev. 13, it talks about the world leader (i.e. world gov’t), the Mark of the Beast (hello cashless society, world ID, etc.). The Bible has proven itself right with the passage of time. Ergo, Christianity, unlike the other religions, is RIGHT…

                • Uh, no it isn’t, no more so than any other religion. There’s nothing in the Revelation that one cannot find in a good dystopian science fiction novel. It’s written in a generalized fashion that can be shaped to fit almost any time that readers happen to find themselves in, due to the perfidious side of human nature which has not changed for thousands of years.

                  Throughout history there has always been someone who wants to take over the world, put his “mark” on the population, control commerce, etc. There have been many times in the past when devout Christians have believed “This is it, the End Times!” Needless to say they were WRONG each time.

                  The value in Christianity and other religions lies not in their mystical mumbo-jumbo but in the sense of community and moral values they bring to the table. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible sans miracles as he believed those defied reason.

                  As a born-again heathen, my own belief is that a man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

                  • Well-said, Jason –

                    Without any intention to disparage faith, the problem here is as you’ve note – vagueness open to parsing.

                    That said, I respect the fact that Christianity did encourage respect for the individual apart from the collective, both in terms of his conscience and literally (physically).

                    And though it is not unique to Christianity, the idea of do unto others is a wonderfully Libertarian notion.

                  • **”Uh, no it isn’t, no more so than any other religion. There’s nothing in the Revelation that one cannot find in a good dystopian science fiction novel.”**

                    Except that Revelation was written 2000 years ago when electricity did not even “exist”; nor computers (Not to mention the parallel prophecies in the book of Daniel, which is even older)- and the fact that Jesus said that these things would come to fruition during the span of one generation….

                    To briefly touch upon some of the highlights of those prophesied events:
                    *The armies of the WORLD would be focused on the Mid-East (Check!)
                    *The nations would cede their own sovereignty to form a worldwide government (Happening!)
                    *There would be no cultural unity, as the nations which would collectively comprise this new worldwide system would be comprised of MINGLED peoples- which do not adhere and unite “just as iron does not mix with clay”. (Check!)
                    *The masses would be deceived by and thus greatly “marvel after”, admire, and outright worship this Beast, due to it’s propagation of “LYING signs and wonders” (Psyops!) [Moon-landing; terrorism, COVID…)
                    *That a system of tyranny over commerce would exist to the point where anyone who does not accept a mark of subservience to this worldwide tyrannical system will be prohibited from engaging in any commerce- and that to accept that mark would be so egregious and invasive that to accept it would preclude one from physical and spiritual salvation from God. (This is being implemented NOW!)
                    *That there would be a great apostasy from Biblical morality, even by so-called believers (Check!)

                    And much, much more…. And all indeed converging in a single generation- right at the end of 6 thousand-year “days” on the verge of the 7th day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord- which will be the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth at His return.

                    And you think that several writers of fiction 2-3000 years ago, could invent these things?! Have you ever read any fiction from that time period? Have you ever read the Koran or the Vedas? Do they contain ANYTHING remotely like this that is coming to pass before our eyes?

                    • Nunzio,

                      There’s also a passage in Revelation (forget exactly where now) that talks about the value of money being lost in an hour, something that could only happen NOW! Back when the Great Depression happened, it took a couple of months for the monetary impacts to work their way through the system. Why? Because everything was done via pencil and paper. Now, we have spreadsheets. Not only that, TRILLIONS move electronically every day. Ergo, today, the value of money COULD be lost in an hour-just as Reveleation says…

                    • Sorry, Nunz, but the Revelation doesn’t mention electricity or computers. It actually doesn’t name much that’s specific at all. As I said, it’s very generalized and can apply to many different times and situations.

                      Frankly even if we accept your statement about what Revelation “proves”, time travel and space aliens are far less outlandish explanations than a supernatural being who created the entire universe only to focus for some unfathomable reason on a tiny part of this speck of dust to give visions of the future to its then-primitive inhabitants. The idea beggars belief.

                      Oh, and MarkMark, the value of money could be lost in an hour anywhere and anytime people living in the country issuing it lost faith, even due to rumor. Bad news travels fast even by word of mouth on horseback. No divine inspiration needed to come up with that one.

                      From the standpoint of the non-believer there is just nothing “special” about Christianity versus any other religion.

                      Gentlemen, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of Christian “True Believers” are extraordinary indeed, but there is a paucity of evidence to back up those claims.

                      To make things clear, I have no problem with someone who just says “The Bible is the Word of God and I believe every word of it based on faith”, assuming of course that they don’t force those beliefs on others, or make war against “heretics”. No evidence is required for that, just faith. Want to prove it to me though? You’re going to need extraordinary evidence.

                    • Hi Jason,

                      Bubby, true- Revelation doesn’t mention computers or electricity- but yet, the events it speaks of would be utterly impossible without such modern technologies (e.g. there would be no way to exclude anyone from private commerce in a system based upon physical currency- nor would a cohesive system of world governance be possible with physical currencies, all of varying values- for just ONE example).

                      No one in the first century could even conceive of such technologies….much less what their use would enable…..

                      If such is mere fiction, then it’s authors were geniuses, but ones who must have been so self-deluded that they were willing to die for their “fictions”.

                      **”who created the entire universe only to focus for some unfathomable reason on a tiny part of this speck of dust to give visions of the future to its then-primitive inhabitants.”**

                      Tiny spec? How about if THIS is the center and focal point of the “universe” which was created for a specific purpose?

                      Funny- despite the TRILLIONS spent sending rockets and various high-tech gizmos into space- even if one believes all of the BS which emanates from the orginization which employed so many Nazis (And the fact that we just have to take their word for all of it- as they’re the only ones who can “prove it” with their fancy gizmos- and we all know how honest they are, and that the government would never lie….)- one still has to conclude that this earth IS the only place so favored with an environment and life, and all of the favorable conditions necessary to sustain such things.

                      Choose to believe in heliocentricity or geocentricity, evolution or creation, men going to the Moon or not…the fact remains, that THIS tiny spec is IT.

                      If someone didn’t make it this way…then we sure got lucky, eh? (Hey, just another year and a half, and you can take a ride to Mars on E-loons rocket ship and check it out! 😀 )

                      So here we are: The economies of the world are being collapsed via a “Lying sign and wonder”, and we are being set-up to accept a DNA-changing vaccine and chip and digital currency- in a world where one is already largely excluded from commerce if they don’t don a stupid-mask. What will you say when this comes to fruition shortly?


                  • What is interesting too, is that if one compares Orwell or Huxley et al to Revelation, is that the fictitious ones, though written only 70 or so years ago, seem rather antiquated already by the reality which has come to pass- even though they were written after the advent of household electricity and radio, cameras, motion pictures, radar, printing, airplanes, telephones etc. , and the burgeoning of television; AND after the establishment of the League Of Nations(UN), after two world wars; and the authors of those works were well-acquainted with the actual political agendas of those who are foisting these things upon us- and yet their works are not specifically prophetic, but only offer a very vague scenario of how daily life could be in the then future.

                    By contrast, the Scriptures make specific claims which were penned by men at a time when none of the above technologies existed or were even dreamed- much less their successors, like computers and smartphones and RFID – even PAPER as we know it didn’t exist in their world- yet their prophecies require the technological infrastructure of our world in order to come to pass.

                    Theirs is no vague “Someone will strive to take over the world at some time”- but rather many specifics about a one-time scenario that will be unique in that it will affect not just one continent or certain nations of an empire, but “ALL peoples and nations and languages”; and that this time period would be different from any other in history (and indeed it is) and that all of these foretold events would happen over a short span of time…..

                    How anyone can compare that reality; one which we are seeing come to pass before our very eyes, with mere fiction, just boggles my mind.

                    • Sorry, Nunz, I’ve read it and do not see anything all unique about what it portrays. The Revelation is fiction just as much as Orwell’s vision of the future.

                • Hi Mark,

                  Yes, but – with respect, I know the subject is touchy – Revelation can also be interpreted to refer to the Roman caesars and there is scholarship it was in fact meant to do just that. In any event, the predictions are vague enough and general enough to be almost infinitely parsed. This doesn’t mean they don’t convey/impart useful lessons. But it also doesn’t mean they’re literally, exactly true.

                  • Eric,

                    The Mark of the Beast can only happen now. One, it’s about a cashless society, something that was impossible until recent years-forget about ancient times. Two, IBM did research in insertable chips, and guess where they worked BEST in the human body? In the right hand or the forehead, just as Rev. 13 says! Three, there’s a passage in Revelation that talks about how all the money lost its value in an hour. Again, only with the advent of modern technology is such a scenario possible. The Great Depression, which took place less than a century ago, took about two months to set in. Why? Because everything was pencil and paper; there were no spreadsheets, nor did we have the capability to move TRILLIONS of dollars electronically as we do now.

                    • The Mark of the Beast could happen at any time, it could have been done even in the ancient world with a literal, visible mark, I really have to laugh at this stuff. I remember when bar codes first came out, the True Believers though that was the Mark, even concocting ways to see “666” in the specification for it.

                      Basically you are making a lot of assumptions here, none of which are compelling in the least.

                    • MM!

                      Dude! You just made me remember something!

                      666- from the Greek letters chi-Xi-Stigma [NOT the modern “sigma”].

                      Were those letters/words meant to be translated together as a number?

                      Whether yes or no, the interesting thing is, that last one -stigma- (from whence we get our English word of the same spelling)
                      has, as it’s definition:

                      “‘a mark, dot, puncture‘ or generally ‘a sign’, from the verb stizo (‘to puncture‘)”.

                      Ring any bells?

                      (They sure did have some good science-fiction” writers back then, eh? 😉 )

                      Almost sounds like that thingy that Trump wants to use the military to distribute, and which Swill Gates says 7 billion people need!

                    • **”The Mark of the Beast could happen at any time, it could have been done even in the ancient world with a literal, visible mark”**

                      That is not true, Jason.
                      Most commerce until quite recently was mainly between individuals- farmers, smiths and tradesmen.

                      Outside of major cites, there could be little surveillance or enforcement, since it is only widespread technology and digitization which enables such at a personal level and in all places.

                      Even 50 years ago, right here in “Merca, such a thing would not be possible- as 80% of the population still lived rurally or in small towns, and most bidness* was still conducted locally and personally, between individuals and small businesses.

                      Such a scheme is ONLY possible since the advent of computers, wireless communication and the alienation of most people from the land.

                      This has never been done before…because it couldn’t have been.

                      (*= Where the heck is the Eightman?!)

                    • And Jason,


                      Prior to industrialization, the fastest method of communication over land was via horses or camels!

                      Getting a message to another continent- even a close one, could take MONTHS- one-way.

                      Armies traveled primarily on FOOT!

                      There wasn’t even paper money. Currency was bulky and heavy in even rather modest amounts- and was hard to transport- and impossible to surveil!

                      Do you really believe that global government and a system of surveillance that would allow enough economic control so as to make ostracizing the non-compliant feasible would have been possible under such conditions?

                    • Sorry, Nunz, but no I do not believe that modern technology would be needed to implement a “Mark of the Beast”. The Romans, for example, were quite good at enforcing their laws over a large area without the benefit of modern technology. Fear and the occasional show of force against refuseniks goes along ways to keeping the proles in line, in any century.

                      It’s very common to give short shrift to people who lived in the ancient world because they did not have the benefit of our technology. “How could they have even conceived of this, how could they have even even thought of accomplishing that” are commonly expressed.

                      That is basically the same argument put forward by the ancient astronaut True Believers saying that the Egyptians could not have possibly built the pyramids without the assistance of space aliens. (I don’t believe that malarkey either.)

                      The ancients were just as intelligent and imaginative as people are today and driven by the same motives and passions, and they were much more clever and inventive than many people living today give them credit for.

            • Well I’m no scholar, BJ- (far from it!) but yes, I am acutely aware of the fact you stated- nonetheless, the vast majority of our founders were largely agreed on at least the basics of morality which originated from the Scriptures, and which were passed down through the traditions of Western civilization by everything from common practice to Alfred The Great and English Common Law.

              Much like today, where most of us right here in this comment section may differ to the point where some of us are Christians or agnostics or atheists- and even among us Christians, we may differ greatly on details- but we all seem to agree on many fundamental truths. In-fact, I’d posit that some agnostics here actually advocate and practice many of the attributes of Christian morality more so than do many professing Christians these days.

              • Hiya Nunz!

                Yes, exactly . . . I am not a member of any particular faith but am not an enemy of any faith that espouses live – and let live. Which respects the right of the individual’s ownership of himself and all that implies. I’m fundamentally a humanist – the thing liberals were, about 230 years ago.

                • Right-on, Eric!
                  A lot of professing Christians could learn a thing or two from you!

                  The Bible even speaks of this-

                  “When the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law unto themselves”

                  and: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”

                  This is essentially the “natural law” we speak of. An honest and reasonable person can figure them out apart from any written revelation. Even many rather primitive people in isolated cultures know that it is wrong to murder or steal.

                  We can not come to the realization of who God is, or how to please Him or garner His blessings, as one can do in a covenant relationship with Him- as revelation IS necessary for that; and that relationship is by covenant -agreed consent- but most of the basics of basic physical morality can be ascertained- and you have figured that out quite well, and act upon it!

                  As one who has done well and who has been faithful in that respect, it is only fitting that you will be given more! You may or may not embrace that “more”- but you are honest, and you admit that you simply “Don’t know”- and are therefore neither for or against such a possibility- and that is all anyone (even God) can ask.

                  Such is a much better position than some who claim to believe but who act hypocritically; and also far superior to those who are adamantly opposed to the prospect of becoming convinced of the existence of God.

                  You ARE living your conscience, and advocate that all others be free to do the same- and as such, you are far ahead of all atheists and many “believers”.

                  One can not help but to have nothing but admiration for such honesty!

                  If you ever do become a believer, you will be a top-flight one!

              • Nunzio, I know I tease you from time to time… ^^ But your depth of knowledge in matters of the Bible is akin to some established scholars That I’m familiar with. My faith is obviously not yours, but I can recognize expertise when I encounter it.

                Now, if I could just get you to read some of William Lind’s works… ^^

                • Thanks, BJ! Awww, it’d be no fun if we all didn’t tease each other!

                  I can’t take any credit for familiarity with the Bible- I’m actually pretty deficient, considering that I’ve been reading the Good Book for 35 years from cover to cover.

                  I’ll try and at least take a look at Lund. I’m always interested to find things that are3 new to me and good- and appreciate it when someone such as yourself makes a recommendation, ’cause it’s hard to find good stuff just out-of-the-blue….it’s just that time is so fleeting… (Lately, I’ve come to the realization that at 58, I’m just never going to have the time to do all the things I’ve always imagined myself doing. Doesn’t help that I spend so much time here…but it’s well worth it!)

                  At some point, one just has to start culling!

  15. I came up with a brand called Hoax last night, but alas, its already a skateboard & apparel company out of the UK. However, there are etsy sellers making shirts that say Hoax & similar sentiments.
    Some of these sellers also had crocheted anti masks that look hilarious as well as masks made from sheer cotton single layer cheesecloth so thin it was virtually clear.
    If I was in a work place like the coach, one of those mask options would clearly send the message that you dont believe while at the same time keeping the position.
    A super thin muslin cotton could also suffice.

    • How about one of those mouth-protector thingies from a fuuuuutball helmet, with plastic netting stretched across it? How would one wear it though, without wearing the helmet? Ah, may as well wear the helmet- for “saaaaaaaaaaftey”- ya never know, you could get bonked in the head any time!

      How about a shirt that says “Flu goes here” with an arrow pointing up to one’s face?

  16. The poor kids already submitted to the brain damage injection so they could have the privelege of being brainwashed in the commie indoctrination day-prison-camps, now they’re being terrorized with this mask thing. Geez, these govt people just won’t leave the kids alone.

  17. I concur with the counter argument. Even if it means being gone, better to be an example to those kids, and to let them realize that they lost a good coach, merely because you would not play along with the virtue-signaling. It would give them courage and make them realize the reality of the situation. Conversely, by playing along, you are showing them that it is O-K to do something which contrary to your own autonomy and beliefs, just to be able to essentially participate in a state-organized/sanctioned activity; that it is O-K to sacrifice principle, liberty, and sanity….for permission– and THAT is a dangerous thing which will be propagated to all other areas of endeavor.

    Better to be a good example, and to let the kids get a first-hand view of how this BS works. Imagine if by doing so, it served as an example for them to refuse to play along with the Kabuki, even to the point where they stopped participating? THAT would make a bold statement, and empower those kids to do in other areas of life as well- which is far more important than winning a foot race. -Losing the battle, as it were, to win the wart. Sacrificing the smallest of things, to gain far greater.

    THAT is what the kids need!

    I don’t like what I’m seeing with these kids and young adults. I had to hang-out with my nieces two kids recently, while visiting someone in the ICU. All of us adults were unmasked. We did not even possess masks. The two kids though- one 17 or 18, and the other early 20’s, both had masks, and were “playing” with them- Though no one was making them wear one, they would arbitrarily don them just for the hell of it- like: The early 20’s guy would hang-out with us in the hospital unmasked…and then put the mask on when he went outside to meet someone!

    The thing is, they’re comfortable with the masks…and don’t perceive masking as an assault on liberty- they just don’t care. Wear one because “you’re required to” or not; wear one as a fashion statement, or because everyone else is doing it; put it on or take it off just as one might do with a hat or sunglasses…the thing is, it has been made to appear that it has no impact on them- and it has nothing to do with preventing the flu or any other health issue- it is just “a thing”, and has already become so normalized that they just take it for granted and don’t care.

    THAT is scary! They need to be shoiwn that it DOES matter, and that it is important to stand on principle- not just to do what they are told because what has been decreed may not seem egregious to them; that they need to resist, because there are consequences- not because of a failure to do the right thing, but merely because of failure to “obey”. Let THAT be hammered home NOW, while the consequences are still minimal- because as this is ramped up, the consequences will be ramped up too- both the consequences for not obeying, and the consequences of actually complying (like: if they accept a soon-to-be-proffered vaccine) .

    Those kids would be far better served to learn to resist NOW, while there is less at stake; to take a stand NOW, when all it might mean is that they can’t participate in some race- rather than later, when it may come to economic exclusion or imprisonment or death. If enough would resist NOW, the insanity would be rolled back.

    Imagine if they gave a race and no one showed up? THAT would be HUGE! That would do everyone- especially those kids, a world of good. But by teaching them to acquiesce (Which is what you are doing by obeying something you are opposed to and which you know to be futile and wrong- just in order to keep participating) you are setting an example which says that it is O-K to grudgingly comply in order to be allowed to participate- and that example will be extrapolated to every other facet of their lives.

    Most people would gladly walk out if they decreed that blacks were not allowed to participate- even if they are not black. Why should it be any different for something which affects YOU and every kid under your tutelage DIRECTLY? This is the difference between mere virtue signaling and resisting.

      • Ken, they would simply fake it. If you look at the real stats, around 50% already don’t bother to vote. Jack that up to 90% to 95% and the results would be the same. This is, and has been for a VERY long time a rigged game. The Oligarch factions own and rule this country, as they do the rest of the world. Sainted “democracy” is simply the face of their current hoax. Two rules define and control this. Rule one, I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating. Rule two; Those who cast the votes determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything. Put those two together, and you have a system as rigged as the old “Divine Right of Kings”.

        • Hi BJ,

          “Democracy” is a magnificent con. The average person is just as enslaved as under a dictatorship of an individual but doesn’t see it because the dictators are several.

          • Who allowed Trump to arrive? (The same ones who have allowed Biden to arrive. We have been set-up. We always are. What we are seeing is a part of the plan to Balkanize the US- to break it up, because there will be no super-powers in their NWO. This is to make it look like a “grass roots” movement….but it hasd been long-planned).

            If this were real, would the Dems REALLY proffer a demented senile candidate like Biden, and a VP pick who has already been rejected by their core constituents? If it were real, would the MAGA guy really allow more invaders in than even Obozo did, and happily sign-on to a deal which is essentially the “Green New Deal” under another name?

            It’s nothing but theater for the ignorant masses, and the actors are carefully chosen…but not by us.

            • I agree with you that Trump wouldn’t be there without first being vetted by the global bankster ruling class, and also that politics is theater. Brandon Smith makes an excellent point that Trump was brought in so that conservatives would more readily accept, and even request the tyranny they’d have resisted passionately had it been ushered in by Hillary.

              I believe that balkanizing the US would be a good thing. Dismantling the empire and decentralizing the greatest concentration of power ever to exist would seem to be a desirable outcome. I don’t think the globalist ruling class is opposed to superpowers either. It looks like they are engineering the decline of the US, but not without a replacement.

              • Hi Hank,

                All probably true; even so, I will vote Orange this fall if only because there is no question that if red wins, there will be a national Diaper Mandate, with Needling to come. Granted, that could spark the resistance so badly needed. And perhaps I am only rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic. But as bad as Orange is, red is worse and if Orange wins, maybe there is a chance red can be pushed back – and not just with regard to Diapering…

              • **”I believe that balkanizing the US would be a good thing.”**

                If it were an organic thing, definitely! But it the forces which are causing it, as well as the purpose for doing it are not organic- they are a part of the agenda for world governance- which is why we see what we do all around us right now: The leftist mobs rioting, while the politicians stand down; the attacks on traditional Western culture; the Scamdemic; The senile being nominated for high office; Trump doing the very opposite of what his platform promised, etc.

                It’s all designed to effect this Balkanization- the good old Hegelian dialectic- create a problem or problems, and then offer a “solution” which is the end result that “they” wanted all along- but this way, it ends up looking like it was something “the people wanted”; as if it came about naturally.

                Getting out from under Wurshington’s centralized rule would be a blessing…if it were not that the intended purpose is to replace DC’s rule with even tighter regionalized rule directed by a government even bigger and more loathesome than DC- a.k.a. the NWO.

                But the people will gullibly buy it, and fight for it…thinking that they are doing so in the name of “freedom”, just as they “served” to fight “terrorists” who “hate our freedom”- thus doing the dirty work of those who REALLY hate our freedom.

                There will be no winners in this war.

    • That is one of the best things I’ve read in a while. Thanks Nunzio…… reminds me of:
      I did something similar way back in HS. The coach told me I was out for xxxxx reason. And he couldn’t really do it cause I beat the top kid (wrestling). I cleaned out my locker and quit, principle and all that.
      Later that night, the coach came to my house, and wanted me back in. Why? “the whole team quit”
      Gotta love it.

      • Hah! Loved your example their, Chris! If only even maybe 25% of the population would do such things, we’d have a veritable renaissance! If our fathers had only done that when the stakes were much lower, and the tyranny much less in evidence, we’d be living with the liberties of 100 years ago!

        “They” know what they are doing though, to keep mist people participating, and to keep them from resisting in the slightest. If it’s costs something- anything- even a penny- few will resist. And if could cost a lot, almost none but the hardcore will resist.

        And if people can’t resist in the littlest of things…they certainly won’t resist the bigger things. They didn’t resist the income tax, but rather cheered it- and now we are virtual slaves. They don’t resist the masks, they won’t resist total economic surveillance and control…and the RNA-level vaccine!

        • And why my favorite word has become No. It seems everyone is trying to tell you what to do. No…………..I will not.
          “you have to….., you must……, you etc…..” No.

    • I sure hope the coach reads your comment at least a dozen times.
      You couldn’t be more right on the money.
      Following your advice, one has to wonder if some of these children’s parents might also “get the message”. What an example for all if this coach were to do exactly as you suggest.
      I have to ask, but I think I already know, “Where did you get your logic and common sense?” The world sure could use a whole lot more of it.

    • Well said, Nunz. I have a friend who insists the TSA is nothing more than an inconvenience. “That doesn’t stop me from going where I want to,” she said. BUT, whether she knows it or not, she is asking permission from government to board that plane. Just because you look the other way doesn’t mean someone isn’t stealing your wallet.

      And by the way, who is this rog posted at 8:55, it’s not me.

      • It’s me. rog. Regret to say that I’m not Jolly but only because we are all in the same boat.
        Nunz has said more in just a few words about the deal with the coach than anyone else I’ve read or heard. I’d love to know what the coach thinks and does if he reads that advice. Nunz’s suggestion is absolutely the best possible road for coach to take and I only hope the coach takes it and lets us all know the outcome.

        rog too. Or two. or whatever.

  18. A good article “Face Masks Make You Stupid”,,, as if we need more evidence than watching the masked morons but it’s interesting….


    “Kids are already being required to get Needled in order to be “schooled” by the government”

    Most GAF this off but, prior to 1986 there were only 3 mandatory shots. Autism was 1 in 10000. Today there are 72. Autism is 1 in 32. (1 in 22 for males) People pay a high price for Corpgov babysitting. (Schools) Considering Gates entire family are eugenicists people might wonder what they’ll put in the Corona shot.

  19. Eric, your advice is perfect.
    I recently did the same thing to the coaches of my kids University ice hockey team. The Univ. and hockey association canceled the ‘fall’ sports.
    I opined to the coaches something like this “……..They are hurting more kids than they are helping. You should go rogue and start a black-market team, or whatever you want to call it. Get together with like minded teams and start your own season (for the kids, especially the seniors). The future belongs to the bold…………..”

  20. Eric,

    Why do you have a problem with passive resistance? Why is it a problem for someone to wear the mask, gain entry, then remove it once in the door? Isn’t this akin to guerilla warfare? Isn’t guerilla warfare effective? Granted, doing so isn’t IN YOUR FACE resistance, but it is resistance nonetheless. Sometimes, one cannot take on the enemy via a frontal assault; sometimes, one has to be sneaky about the fight. What were our nation’s Minutemen all about?

    When I attended a couple of races at the old race track I used to go to in Jersey, that’s what people did. We’d wear the mask get in, then take ’em off. The track doesn’t REALLY believe it; they’re just pretending to go along. How do I know? When the big race of the summer was held, they never stopped selling tickets; they let in anyone willing to plunk down the fee. Once folks were in, most of ’em took the masks off, and there was little or no social distancing going on! Again, what is wrong with passive resistance like this?

    • Hi Mark,

      I don’t have a problem with passive resistance; I tried to make that clear. But I think overt resistance is the only way this business will be defeated. My reasoning is what I’ve laid out before: If these loathsome cockroaches succeed in establishing the visual of Universal Diapering they have succeeded in maintaining the fear driving this mass hysteria and all that attends. Only by mass refusal can this be halted without resort to mass resistance – by which I mean physical resistance.

      The whole thing would fall apart if even 25 percent of the population simply bowed out and organized their own Diaper-free groups and so on.

      These pushers will not take no (much less live – and let live) for an answer.

      So let’s give them our answer.

      • I don’t wear a face diaper (or respirator in my case) in public, and I don’t wear one in most local businesses I go to. That said, I’ll occasionally wear one to get in somewhere, then remove it once I’m in. Passive resistance can and does work; indeed, history shows us this. I think that there’s a place for both active and passive resistance. The main point, for me, is to resist…

        • Indeed, one can make the call with regard for the cost involved, just don’t make it cheap. Don’t diaper if you can find an alternative. Don’t diaper for convenience. Don’t diaper to acquire that with which you can live without. My personal example, when I went to the only business I know of to get a hearing aid fixed, the gal at the front desk was koolaid saturated and truly believed that if I didn’t wear a mask I might kill her. She stated as much. I did diaper up, but the entire time, if I wasn’t conversing about my hearing aid, I constantly harangued about the absurdity of it. Spouting the real facts instead of the propaganda. Starting at the beginning, when the virus was never isolated and examined, as all dangerous viruses typically are, and no effort has been made to do so. Ergo, there is no concrete evidence it even exists. Continuing on with the fact that given even the wildly exaggerated numbers put forth by “experts”, this virus is LESS dangerous to the reasonably healthy than ordinary influenza. Adding that there are multiple cheap safe effective treatments available that are being ardently repressed for nefarious reasons. The only way to defeat lies is to arm yourself with the truth, and proclaim it at length given the slightest opportunity.

      • Marky does make a good point. I have refused to wear one unless paid- if a paying customer demands it I will weigh the pros and cons and might wear it.

        But to be a customer, I have refused. But I am getting shell shocked, and mostly avoiding going out among the crazy people. Which is getting depressing.

        Thank God I live near North Dakota and in a rural area where it is relatively easy, I cannot imagine the stress of living in an east coast/Democrat state without that safety valve.

        I am starting to consider street theater- wearing my cold war gas mask or my fireman’s air pack in some of these places to illustrate the absurdity of it all.

        Anybody have thoughts on this?

        • Hi Erie,

          If I could suppress the anger I feel about all of this, I might be persuaded to wear a full Docktor Mengele outfit. But – like you – I am so sick of seeing all the Freaks dressed in their Sheep Gear; all that’s missing is the baaaaaaaaaaa’ing!

          • The whole charade works whether you’re diapered or not. For the sheep the dehumanizing indignity is obvious, they have been programmed for misplaced trust and irrationality. Their actions are simply the manifestation. But to the still sane skeptics and dissenters seeing that the majority of people around you are willfully ignorant morons is legitimately a taxing mental burden.

        • I’ve done exactly that, Ernie. There are a few places I have to go with actual armed security guards (off duty cops) where things could get ugly quick if I used my usual ploy and just walked in and ignored them. I tried once. I’m lucky I wasn’t arrested. So now if I go to one of these places I wear a full gas mask, or a plague doctor’s beaked mask and hood, or a hockey mask (Jason Voorhees!) or just pull a silk bandana up over my nose like a train robber in the old west. The initial reactions are priceless.

    • Eric has recognized the mask charade for what it is and has taken a stronger stand against it than most people are willing to take. But there are plenty of other things a half-way or passive resister can do to help resist the mandates, without taking as strong a stand as Eric. Some examples include making phone calls to businesses, talking to other people like business owners or students, writing emails, civil disobedience, wearing T-shirts with an anti-mask message, sometimes refusing to wear a mask,or financially supporting people and organizations who are on the front lines actively resisting. It’s all good. As Eric says, we all have to choose where to draw our own line in the sand. Hopefully most of us will never reach the point where we feel like we have to draw that line.

      I reached the line-drawing moment about 15 years ago resisting something most people have never even heard of called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which is a good example of how far the govt is willing to go if they aren’t stopped. https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/truth-about-national-animal-identification-system-nais
      At the time there was a big scare because of diseases like Avian Flu and Mad Cow Disease and NAIS was seen as a way to control it. The Dept of Agriculture and crony-agriculture factory farms as well as some international government organizations spent many millions of dollars promoting this program, which was unbelievably intrusive and burdensome. It would have required anyone who owned any kind of livestock to register their premises, register their animals with a unique ID number, obtain and report on mandatory vaccinations, and report all animal births and deaths and animal movement to and from the premises. There were lots of heartbreaking stories about armed government workers conducting raids on private homes and killing every animal on the property when one of them tested positive for antibodies to one of the diseases on their watch list, that was reported by a veterinarian as required by law. (Antibodies just indicate that at some point in the past an animal has been exposed to a disease and not that it is currently infectious.) Fortunately, there was a huge groundswell of resistance by small farmers and eventually most of the program was shelved. If it hadn’t been shelved, (and I know this sounds overly dramatic) I might have ended up dead or in prison from defending my extended family (which includes our pets) from armed intruders coming to do them harm. Hopefully, I’ll never feel the need to draw that kind of line in the sand again.

      • Well, all of this could be negated if only modern medicine, and the rest of us, would divest itself of germ theory, after all, it’s STILL just a theory. By attributing illness to one thing, that nasty bug/germ, other causes are dismissed. I know how difficult it is for most people to wrap their heads around terrain theory. We have been told over and over again that viruses and bacteria cause disease and there is such a thing as contagion (neither one has been proven, see Jon Rappaport) and we believe it because Suzy went to a party where someone was sick and she “came down” with it a few days later. That some ubiquitous toxin in the area or the presence of a strong EMF might have been the cause is dismissed out of hand because, well, you know, germs!

  21. I was raised United Methodist. Every week we dragged ourselves to church, sat in the pew, sang the songs, recited the prayers and did everything the same way, the same time, the same day. It is rote muscle memory religion. I’d wager about 20% of the congregation even knew what they were saying. No one ever questioned what we were saying, and I’ll bet most people, when they got home, didn’t remember anything they said earlier and outside of the sanctuary wouldn’t be able to recite the liturgy.

    I see the mask as a similar ritual. The mask is intended to stop sick people’s spittle and phlegm from escaping into the atmosphere, but if that were the case and someone were spotted wearing a mask they’d be treated like a leper, and we can’t discriminate against the virusly-challenged. So they gin up the “asymptomatic” case with their useless test and now force everyone to mask up. Just like we’re all sinners in the eyes of God, so you’d better get religion and follow the script.

    • As a “Judeo-Catholic,” I get the “muscle memory” reference…sit, stand, kneel, genuflect, rock back and forth…

      On a related note, the thing that has struck me is that climate change and COVID-19 share this common thread: They are not treated with cool, careful, and calculated scientific analysis, but heated religious fervor.
      For example, overly simplistic and onerous solutions, like switch to solar and wind, or do a lockdown and make people wear masks, are the solutions being promulgated. Furthermore, solutions for these are ones that impose a great deal of hardship on people while not really solving the problems, even when obvious solutions that work and don’t impose great hardship are readily available, such as nuclear energy, CNG engines, and immigration restrictions/targeting vulnerable people for mitigation.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here