Ukraine was ALWAYS going to lose unless the USA went ALL IN against Russia WW3 style. Not fighting a war that isn’t our damn business is not a betrayal. Acknowledging that Ukraine has the lower hand and, therefore, must make consessions to negotiate is NOT a betrayal. If I am losing a boxing match so badly that I might die, my coach throwing the towel for me is an act of LOYALTY, not betrayal.

*open Dumb keyboard

I can finally happen this without it crashing my app.

I keep seeing stuff about everything but Nostr being up but my client keeps crashing

If Canada was a nicer place and let me continue to exercise my right to bear arms when I visited, I’d consider it. As it stands, I’m worried I’d get arrested crossing a park to get there.

TPUSA was quite possibly the most consequential organization for zoomers being MAGA of all. TPUSA functionally WAS a super pac and also played around with all the same mega media donors. No, Charlie didn’t announce. But trump, himself, was an “out of the blue” candidate that almost no one saw coming when he ran. And Charlie was FAR more politically important and involved that pre-2015 trump was. Before 2015, all trump did politically is bluster about obama’s birth certificate (which we still didn’t get by the way). Charlie also wasn’t legally eligible by age yet. He died at 31. So, of course he didn’t announce. But he had all the makings and made a huge impact with his org regardless. Every take of yours has been so disingenuous at this point that I have to assume it is deliberate now. Sheinbaum, someone that does not represent the general demographic of the country, miraculously becomes President in an election with multiple assassinations… “but akshually”… I liken it to Charlie Kirk being struck from prominence as a future POTUS hopeful… “but akshually” And you’re not even right and are side-stepping critical points in the argument/analogy.

I don’t think any price would make me trust giving a random person I haven’t at bare minimum video called with my precise location. If the payment is for “in state X” of the USA, then sure. Hell, I’d give my 2-4 digit bitchat geohash location for that much. But no more precise.

Biden wasn’t running for potus until AFTER the Ukraine “fire the prosecutor” scandal became public… and the whole sham impeachment trial of trump over it was based on the assumption that “everyone knew he was running”. Agree with trump or Biden on the issue, the fact is that everyone knew Biden was a contender, in the same way that everyone knew Charlie Kirk was a POTUS contender when he got assassinated. Your AI was trained by Reddit and has all the same biases

Mass conversions is something an archbishop SHOULD want… but I agree with you that most, if not all, of these “conversions” are illegitimate.

All of these religions/ideologies have sub-sects. That does not make them beyond reproach. Yes, you’re right as to be careful for the differences between these subsets. But it is only “the Jews” and Muslims for which this happens. When Muslims attack Christianity or communists attack capitalism, no one feels the need to ask “rothbardian or von Mises?”. If you find yourself perplexed by modern Jewish hatred: this is the source. The majority white Christian populations noticed that the rules work for everybody BUT themselves. For example, they noticed that their women getting serially raped got covered up and ignored… but when ONE English mosque gets attacked, an anti-sematism task force is set up practically overnight.

The problem is that there is no solution but violence. They use licensenses and regulation to longhouse everything. And the average person doesn’t have a 3D printer/CNC machine to make everything him/herself. So they have no choice because they can’t make it themselves and they can’t hope for someone to rise up and do it for them. I literally wrote a song about this and immigration (they are directly related)

Was this done through zapstream? Or was this a primal-specific feature. I’m reading this on Yakihonne and it shows as an “unsupported kind”.

lol. Probably not from my experience. But I haven’t dealt with that yet here on Nostr. I had a completely different experience of a well known nostrich asking to sell me her nudes. She knew I was married with kids when she asked.

“Jew” is an ideological designation. That means they have shared opinions. “There are multiple co-equal gods” and “Israel was not the chosen people” are definitionally NOT Jewish statements because they directly contradict those definitional beliefs. However, for much of Jewish history, they were an ethnoreligious group, so it is also an ethnic designation with a large overlap with the religious even when excluding into/out of converts. You can criticize Jews on their shared ideological beliefs just the same that you can criticize communists, Muslims, or even Objectivists. You can also hold opinions on actions taken throughout Jewish history if even if the Jew you are discussing those opinions with wasn’t there for those events. I am just as valid criticizing major Jewish institutions pushing the proto-trans movement during the Weimar period as I am criticizing FDR’s domestic policy during the same time period (and, yes, this comparison was drawn by their contemporaries). It is also valid to hypothesize that the shared statistical characteristics of a group may have an impact on why they are under/over represented in one thing or another. For example: recognizing that Samoan cultural preference for dating very large men as a beauty standard and logically connecting that with their overrepresentation in sports like professional football does NOT deny the existence of Samoan midgets, but it DOES highlight a correct connection between cultural practices and their consequences. Understanding group commonalities and respecting individual differences are not mutually exclusive. In the same vein as the Samoans, acknowledging the FACT that blacks have a dramatically disproportionate rate of violent crime and, thereby, being weary of blacks you don’t know is NOT mutually exclusive of respecting the character of an individual black person you know personally and whose character you can trust. Your defense here is disingenuous. My original broad statement was deliberately made vaguely as to A) not make anything personal out of respect for your individuality and B) to avoid the exact “everything everything everything is about the Jews” sidebar from the original discussion on censorship. The defense you used implies a lack of an underlying identity that Jews share to which the term “Jews” refers and, by extension, that criticism of that identity is a contradiction. It is a form of no true Scotsman or “but I’m 5’6”.”

I get those on X all the time: They are almost ALWAYS doxxing bots

To be clear here, I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Jews. But there are some that jump off the cliff as if non-Jews can never be blamed for anything. Anyone who blames Soros but deflects/ignores Clinton is dishonest. My personal answer to the por issue would be to hold the correct people responsible: the parents. It is no more the porn company’s fault that the parents let the kids watch it than it is the knife company’s fault that they let their toddler play with scissors.

Obvs not my argument, but it’s usually either “but Jews own porn (thereby we need to shut it down to get the Jews, supposedly…)” and/or “but we have to protect the kids”. I haven’t really heard a really cohesive argument.

As I’ve said before: the porn issue has ALWAYS been a Trojan horse for deanonymization and digital ID/social credit.

Marxists didnt just “undermine” these things. They were violent vigilante terrorists in the 60s and 70s at least (with more communist guerillas in even the 20s than people give credit for) and were GIVEN those positions as a concession to stop movements like the weather underground. Force is ABSOLUTE. Sure, it won’t replace reality or make the impossible possible… But it ends the argument EVERY time. As the Charlie Kirk assassination showed, you can be right about so much and it STILL doesn’t matter in the face of well placed force. The counter to an evil government is a well armed citizenry. The counter to institutionalized collectivists who are still threatening you with force, but with semantic lies via “plausible deniability” is a force willing to engage in violence to call the bluff of the threat they are levying against you. Eg: “we know what your implication is when you call someone a ‘Nazi’ for not wanting to pay taxes. It is a dogwhistle for heretics to target for abuse. We are not stupid. Try it and it will be your grave.” Too much of right wing and libertarian discourse is “bigger man syndrome”. “We just have to win them over.” “We just have to make our own schools.” Then they send antifa/BLM mobs to smash your schools, beat you to a pulp, and then Kyle Rittenhouse you when you refuse to let you kill them. The left bombed courthouses. Freedom lovers can, for example, at bare minimum, physically detain judges trying to punish people for peaceful mere possession of a firearm. How about a citizens arrest for the blatant malicious prosecution of Rittenhouse and Daniel penny? Etc. Anything BUT meeting force with force is playing to lose.

The issue is “forever laws”. Hence why I came up with my “sunset amendment”. SUNSET AMENDMENT Preamble: For far too long, our Congress has passed far too many laws, with far too many of these laws being direct infringements upon the rights of each American citizen. These laws are too numerous and too long. And the volume of American federal law poses many problems. Redundancy and excessive complexity: There are laws against assault, and then laws against “hate crimes”, which include assault. There may be one law for a specific crime, but then the penalties were amended in 3 subsequent laws. Circumstances like this make it near impossible for a regular American to perform the due diligence required to understand the laws that he may be subject to and must obey. If every single American must understand hundreds of years of often contradictory laws that often reference each other, then it is unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that law, let alone abide by it. Undermining our Legal process and confidence therein: With such an impossibly long list of laws that are considered “in effect”, it becomes inevitable that some laws become forgotten and cease to be enforced. These laws cease being culturally, legally, or politically relevant, yet remain legal in all official contexts. This creates multiple corollary issues: A. This produces a lack of confidence in the American citizen that the older laws that SHOULD be enforced ARE being enforced. It causes a reasonable American to wonder if there is a bias or political malintent associated with the informal decision of which older laws should continue to be enforced. B. This also produces proverbial “landmines” where a political or legal actor can maliciously discover a forgotten and long irrelevant law begin to selectively enforce it for one’s own individual or political purposes. A bad actor, in this context, could work to resume the enforcement of a previously unenforced and forgotten law against enemies that could not have been reasonably expected to know that they were violating a law at all. Resistance to correction of errors: “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program”. Entire departments, bureaucratic institutions, and other government systems and policies continue to last well beyond the necessity of their initial intent. These systems exist both as a burden on the American taxpayer—requiring him to continue to fund organizations that have long since outlived their utility for him—and as a reminder that rights, once lost, will continue to be infringed even when the folly of the law that infringed on those rights has become evident. One needs to look no further than laws against the private ownership of alcohol distillation equipment, which were created as a part of the federal prohibition on alcohol which has since been overturned for almost 100 years, to see that laws cannot be written to last indefinitely if we are to retain our Republic indefinitely. It is for the above reasons that we, the American people, present this Amendment to the Constitution to our Congress, to pass it on our behalf, to save this Republic. Amendment Text: No law passed by Congress, as per Article 1 of the Constitution shall remain in effect for a period of 15 years or longer. Each law, when it has reached the 14th year since it has passed, shall be brought before each chamber and be reviewed on the grounds of its necessity, intent, and results. Between the 14th and 15th year, that law may then be amended, expanded upon, or removed from the body of American law. For a law to remain in effect past its 15th year, Congress must vote on and pass the law anew as per Article 1, sections 1 and 7. The body of laws currently in place when this Amendment is passed, will be divided into three groups by the Senate by the first Monday in December after its passage. The first group of laws shall require review by Congress as per the first paragraph of this Amendment within 6 years of its passage and will cease to be law if not passed anew by the 7th year. The second group shall require review by Congress within 13 years after the passage of this Amendment and will cease to be Law if not passed anew by the 14th year. The third group will require review by Congress within 20 years of the passage of this Amendment and will cease to be Law if not passed anew by the 21st year. Rebuttal of Criticisms: “This is what we need term limits for” Laws, not politicians: The issue is not politicians, it is laws. For sure, there are plenty of bought-out and corrupt politicians. But a good politician can work for his or her entire career and still be unable to overturn a bad law from well before his or her time. Forever campaigns: the time a politician needs the most money and is at most risk is when they are first running for office. Setting term limits (especially short ones) will create a vulnerability to compromise in our elections by allowing powerful interests even more opportunities to buy elections that would have otherwise not have been available to purchase. It will also create a PAC industry that professionally produces new politicians beholden to them. Lame-Duck Radicalism: the primary motivation for politicians to do well by their constituents is to gain re-election. Term limits remove this potential entirely and, thereby, remove consequences for pushing unfavorable radical policy at the end of their final terms. This is even worse when such radical actions might help secure some sort of quid-pro-quo deal with a private entity for the lame-duck politician to move into after their term is complete. And then, once the radical bill is passed, it is near permanent, like almost all other government institutions, even though the politician themself had a term limit.

I'm totally locked out of my and have no idea what to do to recover it. I have 6 episodes of my podcast just stuck in limbo and I don't know how to fix it. I cant even just re-register and upload using a new email. It's ridiculous that a so-called #nostr protocol requires a damn email in the first place when it should be able to run off of public/private keys like the whole rest of the system.

1) Mr. Neemeyer of killdozer fame moved to a town that then deliberately killed his business by discriminatory regulation where his competitors were in on the graft. They literally surrounded his scrap yard, then penalized him for being unable to conduct business with no access easement. I never accused any of the people being libertarians/rothbardians. My point is that livertarianism doesn’t solve for this modern leftist “I’m not touching you” “soft force”. If neemeyer MADE and easement, or refused to pay the fines, or otherwise refused to comply with the discrimination, he would have been subject to force. But your argument is “nobody caused harm to him”. They surrounded his business and prevented him from conducting any. Was he supposed to wait until they came to execute him? Until he starved to death? They were engaging in daily force against them and his attack was justifiable self defense, which is my point. 2) but let’s say he found a way to leave. He founds something like Ruby ridge. “I just want to be left alone”. But they wouldn’t let Ruby ridge be left alone. Again, your implication that it isn’t “libertarianism” because the people conducting the actions weren’t strict ideological libertarians is moot. It’s “no true Scotsman” in its portrayal. If it was Galt’s gulch itself, or any other libertarian utopia you could imagine, it wouldnt have changed the substance. They wanted to exercise the freedom of association to NOT be involved in government overreach by “checking out” to “a place of their own”. That could not be allowed so long as the parasitic government existed. “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is intensely interested in you.” So long as the government that disrespects those rights continues to exist, it will not respect your desire to be left alone by it. If you do not DESTROY that government and replace it with one that matches your values, it will come and knock on your door to assert its perceived right to your time and resources. That’s why the founders conducted revolution instead of just disappearing into the woods like many others did. THAT was the lesson of Ruby Ridge. That there is no safety in hiding from evil and expecting to do that indefinitely while you have anything to lose. 3) Gamer gate was a controversy where young men, made nihilistic by our broken culture and lack of opportunities (keep in mind it was around the time of the 2008 crashes so these kids couldn’t find work) ended up trying to find escape in videogames… and realizing there WAS no escape. Cultural marxist degenerates leveraging bogus gov/corporate bs money used the approved smear words to force themselves into the gaming community and began to take over the industries that produced the games these men used for escape from the very social psychosis that were now being forcibly injected into them. These were people that didn’t try to run a business like neemeyer nor to physically walk away from the mainstream like the Ruby ridge community. Their escape was solely SPIRITUAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL… and it STILL couldn’t be permitted. They had to actively build their own parallel game institutions to reclaim their hobby in order to keep it at all. The ideological and structural connections between the conquest of the game industry and other institutions (like the colleges and big tech) brought some of the gamer gate activists on the freedom side of the issue into broader politics. This is because some of them realized that gamer gate was a spiritual Ruby ridge with the same implications: The human parasites that believe they are entitled to control you will not respect your boundaries and rights until they are FORCED to, because they respect nothing else. They believe they know better than you, they believe that your rights are a threat to them (psycho-espistemologivally, they are right, as your ability to thrive by your own code is a refutation of their worldview, entitlement, and thereby, the source of their perverted self-esteem), and will not stop until forced to do so for those reasons. ——————- You can’t discount every time atlas tried to shrug the shackles of the cult because they failed some sort of “no true Scotsman” ideological purity test for not having read all the right books. If libertarians will not justify and empathize with their rightful desire for Justice against those that wronged them, then they will seek someone else that will. THAT is why they are becoming Nazis.