Sign into an existing account

even the reptiles. you arent afraid to communicate. you're thinkers. and thats a very rare thing nowadays.

[Some ignorance, along with some good points in this article - Excerpts only are below]

"When the Left was in charge, any speech that disagreed with the narratives being pushed by the Left – for example, that “masks” served to “stop the spread” – was delegitimized as “misinformation.” Now that the Right is in charge, any criticism of the policies or actions of the government of the state of Israel is about to be criminalized.

A vote was scheduled to take place in the House this week on something called the Anti-Boycott Act (H.R. 867) that, if it becomes law, will legitimize federal prosecution of anyone who “participates” in boycotts of Israel or its “settlements,” as its land seizures, forcible evictions and occupations of land previously settled by other people are styled.

That comment just indicted me – potentially. Under the tenets of H.R. 867, I could face a fine of up to $1 million and potentially 20 years in prison. Such comments, you see, constitute “anti-Semitism,” a crime far worse than raping underage girls (i.e., the Epstein list) which the institutional Right stopped caring about very shortly after it took power away from the Left. There is now “no specific timeline” for the dangled promise of arrests that are likely to never happen – because those criminals are not a priority.
----
But, you see, it is never acceptable to express revulsion (via disassociation) about anything done by the government of the state of Israel.

One must always support the government of Israel. Anything less is . . . well . . . you know.
----
The government of the state of Israel – like the Fuhrer of National Socialist Germany, interestingly – is always right. More finely, it is always in the right. And anyone who says otherwise is “anti-Semitic,” i.e., they loathe people who happen to be Jewish on account of the fact that they happen to be Jewish.

This is also interesting in view of the fact that the current Fuhrer of the state if Israel is not himself a Semite. He calls himself Benjamin Netanyahu but his surname is Mileikowsky and he is ethnically a Pole ; i.e, of eastern European origins. It is hard to divine how it is possible to be an “anti-Semite” for questioning the actions of a man who is not a Semite.
Screenshot

It is also hard to understand how it is that questioning what is done by the government of the Jewish state constitutes loathing of Jews. The Right used to rightly point out that it is not “hateful” to question that business of permitting men to use the women’s room because men are not women; i.e., to raise objections based upon facts. The Left’s tactic has been to shout-down facts by impugning motives. And now the Right is doing precisely the same thing.
-----
"It is all extremely “anti-Semitic.”

And it may soon be a greater crime than murder."

[CONTINUES]:
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2025/05/05/the-first-amendment-is-anti-semitic/

Finally.. someone gets it. This is how you deal with being called a racist.

https://x.com/Antunes1/status/1920313580664082538

NIGGA HAIL HITLER!

pavement ape is too long, something shorter would be better

India is aligned ostensibly with the west.
India claimed pakistan was the sponsor of the terrorist attacks.
India put out a war-preps video.

We can conclude war prep videos by western-aligned nations are therefore used as an intelligence
signal either ahead of actual strikes, or as a sort of bluff.
We can further conclude that this is therefore a western playbook.

As an aside, what other nations have put out 'war preps' videos?
Germany, France, and a few others.

Now germany has promised taurus missiles to ukraine. And the candidate who promised
them has won election (somehow) after losing the initial vote. What a turn around.

But conspiracies aside, an annihilating war between india and pakistan would be
a great way to force india to choose a side (they've been waffling a lot, esp. with
respect to brics). A lot like turkey actually, but I digress.

The war has now expanded from kashmir to punjab. Arguably it was a fly over, but
then if fighting is happening in that region, it is a lot more than a fly over on
the way to kashmir.

They say they're striking terrorists, which is a reasonable, perhaps even honest, statement.
Assuming thats who they actually hit.

Pakistan claims otherwise.

And all of this out of the blue over a terrorist attack no one is claiming responsibility for.
Terrorists don't typically refuse to take responsibility for their attacks. Usually
attacks are explicitly about making a message heard by as many people as possible.
Two reasons for that: the people authorities claim did it aren't actually responsible,
or they did in fact do it, but under coercion or as mercenary work for another group or nation.

Chatter came out right after the attack in india that pakistani terrorist groups (sponsored by the pakistani government or not) have, along with the government of pakistan, worked as
mercenaries for western intelligence for some time, if only reluctantly (though how reluctant or enthusiastic about it is anyone's guess).

Were they responsible, and the pakistani government is disclaiming responsibility first we have to conclude that of course pakistan is going to claim they're not responsible.
But second, if pakistan was ordered to do it on behest of another power, say russia, china, or the u.s. it would explain the chatter. And if not responsible why would the pakistani government not be vigorously going after the groups responsible?
And thats the big tell.

Face-saving not-withstanding, if they were innocent, they'd be looking to be proactive to prevent war.

And if india weren't involved in a provocation they would have commenced with strikes against the terror groups rather than going the round-about way by cutting off strategic water supplies first.

Thats arguably something you might do to pressure a government to go after terrorists,
which pakistan wasn't doing, but its not the FIRST thing you do, as a matter of policy, especially before diplomacy, especially if you enter the crises with good-faith or good intentions, which as far as diplomacy goes, goes without saying--good faith being required at minimum on a surface level.

But they didn't because they had no intention of entering with good faith.

Which would explain why pakistan didn't go after the terrorists, or if they did, the western media didn't publish as much: Precisely because the pakistani government was blindsided and couldn't definitely determine which group was responsible. Which explains why no group claimed responsibility. Because none of the groups in pakistan were responsible.
And how do we know this?

Because if it was a non-pakistani intelligence operation, the operation would have tried to claim it was a pakistani group as cover. Which tells me most of the terror groups in pakistan are
either heavily monitored and/or well-known and tightly coupled to pakistani intelligence.

Which means by implication any outside party committing an attack in india wouldn't be
able to easily claim the attack was committed by a pakistani-sponsored terror group.
They'd be found out too quickly and the conflict would be resolved before it began between india and pakistan.

Hence no pakistani terror group claiming responsibility.
Hence why india escalated quickly past strictly diplomatic measures to strategic water supply cutoffs, which is a move, taken in context, thats way too fast considering they didn't have all the facts.

Which means they entered it with that outcome in mind.

So now we know the players and who intended what, but not why. So theres either elections, politics, or money involved somewhere, and the government of pakistan is in the dark.

But you know who isn't in the dark? India.

If I was a gambling man I'd be looking at the odd pick of JD Vance, with his indian wife,
and how perfectly these events line up with that VP pick in hindsight, especially in relation to the isolation of china, but thats just one interpretation, and by all means, not the only thread.

Dual Ana-Digi Displays: The Best of Both Worlds

Wristwatches are more than timekeepers—they align with how our brains process time. Dual analog-digital displays, blending electromechanical dials with LED/LCD readouts, offer the best of both worlds, as the saying goes, “having your cake and eating it too.”

They optimize cognitive time perception by combining spatial intuition with instant precision.

Analog electromechanical displays, with rotating hands on a circular dial, engage the brain’s visuospatial cognition. This interface provides a clear sense of temporal flow—how much of the day has passed or remains—perfect for contextual time management, like pacing tasks or planning meetings.

Digital LED/LCD displays deliver immediate temporal data through numeric readouts, enabling rapid, precise time checks without cognitive effort. This is essential for time-critical moments, like meeting deadlines or timing activities.

Single-mode displays fall short. Analog-only systems slow precise checks, while digital-only readouts lack spatial-temporal context. Dual ana-digi watches, integrating both technologies, meet the brain’s dual needs: intuitive flow and exactness in one glance.

Wearing a dual ana-digi watch uplifts your mood and efficiency. This hybrid chronometric tool syncs with your cognitive processes, making time feel intuitive and empowering.

I call it: The Bra-ll sack sock. Envision, if you will, a cup much like that of a womens bra but a single cup but in this cup are two cage ball holders. and don't even come at me with "hurr derr jock strap" nonsense. Its not the same, fagit. This cups each nut in safety and comfort. It's made from a stretchy material so that it can grow and shrink with your nuts. No matter where ya go you will feel confident in your nut safety.