regevdl

thank you!!

I know Stefan doesn't often use the term but he has on occassion...but there is a particular method of therapy he uses or promotes and I cannot remember the name of it. If I recall it's a 3 letter acronym. FDS or something? FST? I seriosuly cannot remember...anyone out there can help me out? Thanks in advance!

He was a human being.. He was a biproduct of horrific abuse as a child that was unresolved. That does not excuse him or the people around. They know killing is wrong, they got caught up in hate and fake fantasies. he if TRULY felt what he was doing was great and noble and moral, he wouldn't have been so sneaky and secretive and intimidate in how they carried eveything out, including the Holocaust. It's like if I steal something and I really think that it's a moral, I don't try to hide it. But when someone tries to hide their acts or circumvent or create 'escape hatches' for themselves it shows they ARE aware that they are acting immorally which means he had a fucked up childhood that gave him sociopathic tendecieis but he was 'sane ' enough to hold public office and be aware he was committing atrocities. NO SYMPATHY DESERVED

It's not about racism for the left. That is their bait tactic. If you are anyting but a leftist, they will call you horrible names...which reveals their bigotry.

This is their trap to paralyze you. you see,it's not about protecting the world from bigotry. They have bigotry for others but they find their bigotry virtuous. It's about being on the left and everyone else. They use racism and all the -isms as a front to paralyze you into their control over your life and thought. it makes good people who actually have a conscious and concern constantly look over their shoulder and self censor, etc. So you have a non white wife thinking they will see that and say... oh...clearly he's not a racist. no... to them, you already admitted your bigotry by voting anyone other than their hive-minded candidate. They will call your wife horrible racial names like Uncle Tom, etc and call you a rapist or an oppressor since you are trying to breed out her blackness or whatever new BS non argument they come up with. BUT... if you don't know a black person let alone don't marry one...you are a horrible xenophobe who supports segregation and bla bla bla bla Try not to fall into their honey trap when it's based on the crunchy outershell or the 'bait' of race. I often keep my Trump support hidden at the beginning and simply engage with people on policies and principles... they often assume I am on the left because my approach to social organization is fair and reasonable. Then, I may let out my little secret and watch their heads explode if I'm desperate for drama and entertainment. lol But this is how they lure ppl into their clamy dungeons...don't fall for it. Or start engaging in actual issues first. They are looking to lable you so therefore anything you say after they don't have to absorb. Talk first then if you feel like it reveal your support or party affiliation so that way they have already absorbed your viewpoints and THEN are conscious of them agreeinging with you but dumping them because of their own bigotry. lol It's delicous.

I'll share my personal experience as a mother and as a daycare worker and put my two cents in. I stayed with my son at home for the first year of his life. My hubby and I ran a business out of our home so I could work a little but always was present for my son. As the business grew and we moved it to a nearby office, I put my son in daycare partime. I never took him too early or picked him up late. I never let him be there for more than 5 hours. In those hours I worked at our business because at that time my hubby and I had all of our eggs in one basket. When my daughter came along, I wasn't working and stayed home with her for 6 months. But my hubby was gone all the time working and I had no family around to help. So at 6 months, I put her in daycare 2 days a week. It was terrible for her so I took her out. So my son was in daycare, as he was adjusted and I stayed home with my daughter. That felt like a nice balance and when we could find an available Montessori preschool, I enrolled my son and he loved it and thrived and entered my daughter at 2 years old. Since it felt like I was a single parent since my hubby worked outside of the state for weeks at a time and had literally no help around, my entire life evolved around these kids so yes...the 5 hours that I had them in the preschool/daycare was a lifesaver for me. However I knew other mothers from those schools who had family support and either worked or didn't and just shopped all day or worked their stupid jobs instead and I didn't understand it. Their hubby made enough money anyway and they still chose work over being with their babies at home. Fast forward almost a decade and now my kids are in grade school and I work during the day but get home before they do so they have a hot meal and a hug waiting for them when tey get home. But I've worked at a daycare with babies who were 3 months old. This....is absolute torture for the kids. I don't mind shaming mothers who put their 3 month old in daycare. EVEN the babies who were 6 months...like my daughter.... had a VERY difficult time which made me so glad I took my daughter out when I realized how hard it was and waited. Mothering small babies is exhausting, mind numbing at times, yes...we need a break from time to time but I think, mothers are NOT prepared of how difficult it is and thus when it becomes overwhelming, they just default on daycare and trick themselves into thinking this is what's best for the child and just happens to be comforable for the parent. Even when I had my children in daycare/preschool I was NEVER rushed. I always stayed with them until they felt comfortable and if it was a really bad morning for them, I wouldn't send them if I felt they needed extra time with me. But I designed my life for that flexibility. When I see parents hurry their children or rush to leave the daycare saying a quick goodbye...it's so depressing. There are some parents who hug and kids the kids and wish them a good day and that's encouraging but sometimes, it's how you deal with things more than debating if daycare is good or bad, etc. Parents who bring the kids in and complain to the CHILD how in a hurry they are and don't have time and need to go before they are late for work, etc. it's so pathetic. LIke a child can comprehend the importance of shuffling papers around. I get so disgusted by these parents. But anyway, I think, the trend arises from women who are already mothers not being honest in how difficult and challenging but rewarding it is to raise babies properly. They opt for convenience. I plan on having a conversation with my daughter in the future about it but not in a 'you were a burden' context as often is a maniuplation tactic by parents. But trying not to deter her to shy away from challenges in life and accepting this is a challenge but with fantastic rewards each and every day and embracing our role in child-raising. This has been lost in culture and hopefully is finding it's way back.

I don't know if this is still relevent as I haven't been in the Community threads for a few months, but 3 year olds don't have the ability to understand certain abstractions like 'NAP'. THey are still developing language and social constructs, etc. Go through these questions with yourself before worrying about NAP 1. Did this come about suddenly? 2. Has anything significant changed in his life (that would be significiant to him, as a child, not to you, as an adult) ...as often adults find certain changes no problem since they are more developed to cope yet don't see how hard it is for children to adjust to certain changes. i.e. new people/relationships in his life or in the lives of the peole around him? new school/daycare? Moving to a new home? A new sibling? new schedule of his daily routine, etc 3. Have any of his prior relationships been altered (with caregiver in daycare, parent, other relative, playmate, etc) 4. has something happend to him that you may not be aware of. 5. Has he witnessed hitting (being spanked, or witness other kids spanked or hit, even if he is spared?) 6. Does he have enough time with his father or with you? 'enough' meaning, if you spend more time with him...quality time, consistantly for a week or two +, does this hitting subside? Typically, at this age it is unspoken frustration that the child either doesn't have the language skills to communicate with you or the emotional maturity and cognition to associate his feelings with his actions/outbursts. I have two kids of my own and have been working with children for the last 5 years in private care-giving, daycare and now in a kindergarden. I see this behavior from this end and typically it's one or a few of the things I've mentioned above that are easily remedied and preventable once you become aware.

voting for better prison conditions is not agreeing with being in prison. not voting is an option and voting is an option. Being an anarchist in a state-environment is almost meaningless in terms of practicality. It's about intellectual purity and influence and education and honest discussion of course but how does our non-participation of the political process keep you immune to taxation and wars and floods of immigrats being granted citizenship who come from countries that LOVE big gvt and religion + state power. Like This is where the intellectual purity will be your own social suicide. I"m not saying we have to vote always in every election but reading the writing on the wall. Even anarchist prefer small gvt to big gvt if those were the only choices...we can still simultenously educate people about anarcho-capitalism and free-society but plan b is small gvt. So how does abstaining acheive this especially when one opponent is literally going to increase citizen by the tens of MILLIONS of people. That means tens of millions more votes for the left.... for a long long long long time. and we know how the left deal with people who don't worship the state....

The people will also be voting for Senate....

Hi Asaf, I'm Dana and I am an American living in Israel. I live in the South where it's calm and quiet. Helps me get my thoughts organized. I've been following FDR for a few years now...3 or 4. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat.

It's obviously a delicate and complicated and emotional topic for many but the way I see it is this. It's about risks and calculating those risks. Wearing provocative clothing, drinking alcohol to lower inhibitions, maybe become extra flirtatious, etc...to snare a man, go off with a stranger to be in one of the most vunerable positions a woman can put herself in and engage in sex and ONLY at the last minute say NO.... holds her responsible for those acts. Becoming violent and not respecting,even the most inconvenient or difficult or disappointing retraction of consent...would be the responsibility of the man/rapist. With THAT all being said.... the woman didn't deserve to be raped, this is not 'social justice' but.... knowing there are dangerous men (and women) out there who have a problem with self control it is everyone's personal responsibility to avoid the pitfalls of dangerous and nearly irreversable dire situations. Why was the man good enough to be flirted with and be drunk with and ride home with and go inside the home and on the bed with and get naked with, etc... but suddenly not good enough for penetration. LIke I know that sounds over simplified but women need to remember HOW many non-verbal consents they advertise and how men interpret them. You want to dry hump and kiss.... you can do that in the parking lot I guess where at least you have a less chance of getting raped. IF the man or you offers to go behind the dumpster for 'privacy'. you are increasing the chances of rape...or....you are consenting to be sex'd behidna dumpster....might want to evaluate how you value yourself in that scenario and worry about self-love than love behind a dumpster. So it's sort of breaking the 'event' down frame by frame leading up to the rape to assess what choices could have been made that would have lowered the risk of rape. Many people are not prepared or capable of having this discussion before they go into emotional hyperdrive panic and scream 'victim blame' at you.... but that's sort of where I am having put some thought into these situtations. Ican't say this will always be my conclusion as I revisit it but I have a young daughter and a son and will be having these conversations with them as they get older and 'out in the world' so they know simply how to avoid dangerous risks. For my son...being blamed for rape he didn't commit and my daughter having regrets or...making decisions that lead to rape. As for your last question....argue it this way. Do you think a man who finds you attractive and INTERESTING and smart needs to see your clevage and navel and bottoms of your ass cheeks? What kind of men will be attracted and interested in that? Sexualized...or overly sexualized, superficial or sexually violent, non committed men. So they can wear what they want but it's a bumper sticker whether they like it or not. Their INTENTION of what they wear may be different than the INTERPRETATION of how other men or women see you wearing it. So you don't need to tell anyone what to wear or not to wear...but argue it from the point I made above. That intelligent, reasonably sexual men can find a woman attractive who is genuine, dressed for her body and comfortable with herself. One night flings are attracted to instant gratification and 'teasers' of more skin/cleavage, etc and it increases risk of rape. I'm not a male and can't speak for all but that's what some males have told me... that even civilized men will be attracted to provocatively dressed women but don't see them as one they would 'take home to mama'.... so it is rarely a long term attraction. Where as a genuine, typically modestly made-up woman draws attraction for more long term. So the woman can decide. Do I want 'instant' connection that's superficial that carries higher risk or.... be more patient with more modest but form-fitting respectable dress that will increase risk of attracting a more suitable, long term mate. Even as a woman..I can appreciate a good body on a woman but I LOVE women who wear more form-fitting but elegant (not formal) clothing.... a-symetrical....etc...clothign that leaves SOMETHING to the imagination...But that's a hetero-female judging other females....so not sure if that's relevant. lol

Wow...it's astonishing isn't it. Those who tout about being tolerant are the most intolerant. What's even MORE astonishing is that the left always gripes about the wealthy and their greed and they don't have a principled bone in their body and this guy...I am sure is doing well for himself...has some clams stashed away for a rainy day and is losing literlaly MILLIONS because of his position which is pretty astonishing for anyone to 'prefer' sticking to principles and arguments over the cash...and....more astonishing, in his interviews he only luke WARM about Trump.... he's willing to give up millions over someone who he 'meh' agrees with just for the principled exercise to give an alternative voice. That's what's piqued my curiosity about him most of all.

being faithful doesn't always pertain to religious context or god. I'm not particularly religious but do want to preserve Christian values and am faithful to my husband...I don't know if I would be defined as being faithful to God. So your poll wasn't clear as there needs to be a clearer definition of what 'faithful' is referring to.

The key is prevention. I mean if you were at a bar, enjoying yourself and the driver you came with out of no where demanded, 'it's time to go' and if you resisted or gave any protest like....just after i finish my drink...' they dragged you out....would that seem forceful to you? Kids aren't intellectually developed as much as adults so you have to try as hard as possible to get inside their 'head' to see how they see the encounter. Before I go anywhere with my kids I let them know, "hey...we will be here for about xhours/minutes but I will let you know when we are about to leave so you can finish up whatever you are doing before we go.'. That's one proactive reminder I give them...before we leave the house. We get to destination, before we exit the car I remind them. Remember, we spoke about earlier that we will be here for about x amount of time. Let's enjoy ourselves and I will let you know when it's time to go with enough time to finish up whatever you are doing (game, etc) We stay, visit, enjoy ourselves and about 15-20 minutes before I know we are about to leave I tell them. Hey kids....We need to leave in about 10 minutes. Can you start to finish up so we can get home on time to (bath, eat, homework, etc)? I say 10 minutes knowing it may take them more like 15 or 20 in case there is any protest. I check back in 5 and if they at least start finishing up, I leave them be. If they act as if I never told them we need to begin to leave...then I stay and help them finish up whatever they are doing..in a positive and fun way. Typically this prevents any problems 90% of the time. But there are times when they just don't want to go. I don't drag them out but if I have asked patiently 3 times with respectful amount of time between each request, I will ask to speak with them in private (away from audience) and tell them that we agreed about how much time we woudl be here and that I would let them know when it's time to leave and every time we discussed they never opposed or offered another solution which means we all agreed to the plan. It's ok to change the plan but only if they come to discuss as we discussed before, not at the time the plan is being completed, that isn't fair or respectful. etc. I just have a diagloge with them making my case. We are the adults and have more advanced cognitive tools to manage these situations. I HATE it when parents need to leave by a certain time and only 5 minutes before they start ordering the kids around. Kids...at certain ages have no concept of time and....lose track of time...so gentle reminders are helpful. Now, if they are really young...like 3 and under...they lack the cognitive ability for time management and future time management. So in these cases, when it's about time to go....in the last 10 minutes I will spend one on one time with them with whatever they are doing. Meaning, I will finish my 'visit' with the adults, go over to my child(ren) and finish out the visit with them in their activity. Then they feel fulfilled that they got to play and get mommy time and I have more 'leverage' to simply request it's time to go. it's time to go since we finished our game.... let's go home so we can (make lunch, continue playing with your toys, etc)... If they still protest, you can reassure them you will visit again and set up a time with the hosts and be sure to keep it...do'nt break promises, especially in front of your kids.

It's not immoral if no force is involved and eveyrone is honest and upfront and in aggreance. I am not sure how you vett and enforce your standards. you mentioned you wouldn't take clients if they have children/partner...but couldn't they just say 'no' so you will take them on as a client? I get that some tell you upfront they are in a relationship and that's good at least that they are forthcoming but if it's an important standard, then make sure you have a way to make sure they aren't lying to you...and when it doubt....don't take them on. If you aren't sure but have suspicions....best not to take them on as a client. AGain...morality isn't an issue but doesn't automatically mean it's advisable. To answer your question about the virgin. No. it's unlikely to help him 'be with a woman'. That takes practice with a woman in presense of him physically. No matter how awkward and intimidating. Clearly these men or the case with the virgin has no one in his life (parents/siblings/friends) that he feels comfortable or is able to gain useful knowledge about sexuality. And only having a sexual conversation with him will only teach or prime him that woman are sexual tools. If they are not reciprocating the conversation to deeper matters (and understandably so) then it has nothing with helping him women other than using them as masturbatory devices. If you want to be honest with yourself and are ok withing running your body image and sexual language skills for that type of help, that's your call. But if you want to actually help people gain knowledge on how to deeply connect more than sex with each other....you probably need to clear up your own demons first. Typcailly pepole who 'sell' their body have a low self-value for themselves. That could have come from abuse or trauma. I don't have my great figure anymore but even still I simply cannot put a dollar value on my body, regardless of how many men would want it. I am not saying that as a judgement but just to let you know, this idea and how you justify it as a money-savings plan exposes to people how low you think of yourself and you need the dollars and clients approval to prop up any shred of self esteem. It's not sustainable and it's very risky emotionally and psychologically as eh steve pointed out. I was hypersexual when I was young and prime and had an emotionally distant father. This is a classic symptom. So...my point to you and for you to ask yoruself is.... how do you feel about profiting off of your symptoms rather than healing your symptoms and deep hurt and yearning which will provide you with far more valuable or invaluable profits and genuine self esteem.

Congrats! Man....I never wake up wondering what's on the news or want to check the news or updates first thing. but this morning I sprung out of bed and anxiously searched if you exited and you did! I was sooo happy! There is not a lot of news that actually gets me excited and hopeful. I think it's so awesome for you guys and the hater.....screw them for now. ....they'll soon feel what it's like not to have the shakles of the EU on.....slowly slowly....

Right. something Stefan told me when I called in one time and he actually mentioned it to another caller was that religion magnifies what's already in the person. So a person with an unresolved adverse childhood who finds religion is likely to go to the violent sects of that religion. Those who are more peaceful or raised more peacefully or healed from trauma are likely to find the more peaceful parts of religion. That really stuck with me. Because of course we know there are 1.6billion muslims but not many are actualy acting out the murders they have a 'free pass' to commit....they aren't cashing in on that 'priveledge' so to speak. I will say then you have the next layer of those who endorse it and then those who actually commit the act. Thanks for the source!

and the rabbit hole gets deeper. fascinating coorelations. thanks!

I get it. and yes. I thought of that as well...not all SUnnis are like that. But i guess it's following the 'rabbit hole' of sorts. What I mean is (I live in the M.E. and speak to Muslims here, around other parts of the M.E. and the US about these topics...sometimes successfully and sometimes not) But let's say, of course..not alll Sunnis are like tthat. ok.then who are? Well...this gets into the origins of war in child abuse' and IQ. The Shia are less likely...is that because most are raised better and then less likely to adopt the violent teachings of Muhammad? Are the Sunnis less intelligent, or abuse more and thereore stunt IQ potential and thus are drawn to the more violent teachings because of their adverse childhood. There has to be some coorelation and I don'tthink it hurts to plant these questions in the topic of Islam. I mean Brazil is predominately Christian and the murder rate there is astronomical. they kill their own people.... so it can be applied on anyone...just follow the breadcrumbs down and ask...why do some Christians murder...and of which sect (Evanganicals? Mormons? CAtholics? Luterhans, Protestants? etc). It's not to morally excuse the murderer but give some idea of who might be more likely because the Muslims choose conventional terrorism because they live under tyranny or very strict rule, so they have to get 'creative' to let out their rage. In the west and other parts....people are more prone to drug addiction to deal with their adverse childhood or take up hobbies rather than pray 10 times a day on a magic carpet facing Mecca or they go thug on others or they murder, etc There are more 'outlets'. These are just some of my theories... Wow thanks for sharing that information. I had no idea about the other groups. That was insightful. To answer your last question with a theory I've tossed around as to why Muslims if you need economic migrants is that anyway the financial ship is sinking and they need a good 'antagonist' when the ships glubs its' last glub because with financial collapse comes war many times. So...to distractthe population from turning to finally blame government....the violent-prone immigrants who are already on the teet of the state (at least the recent migrants) will be a useful distraction and race/baiting device to get the ball rolling. No one NEEDS these migrants. For now it serves the interest of the left to virtue signal and when they let them down financially, they will be scapgoated just like ALL middle Eastern puppets...but they've pretty much puppeted the entire M.E. despite a few select countries that tey are currently working on...now they need to puppet the migrants.

Hi everyone, I am really sick of hearing and saying 'not all of them are like that' when it comes to bringing up anything about terrorism or Islam. I've personally stopped but catch myself doing it from time to time and I annoy myself. lol But when I hear it I do an internal eye-roll like....yes...we get it...they all aren't like that and we all have an IQ abov 90 to understand that....speaking in aggregate is just that....aggregate. But I still felt unsatisfied about it...like there has to be more data out there to make a clearer distinction so we know WHO are like that...if there is a way to even tell. So Sunni make up the majority of he Muslim population...like...by far. But what's interesting is that the FBI, from 1996 until 2008 published yearly data reports about terrorism around the world and in the US, of course. Obama was sworn in in 2009 and there has not been an FBI published report on terrorism since 2008. I sifted through the various data points and it's ALL sunni and they kill far more muslim civilians. As most of us already know. But I wonder.....as bad as Iraq was and the amount of dead bodies and mutlated bodies we left behind. I won't be surprised if the Sunni population is counting the death tolls THEY rang up (which from 2003 - 2008 I roughly calculated more than 165,000) and adding those to OUR numbers. That doesn't make it better...dead bodies are dead bodies of course but again...the data only goes to 2008 so that number, if consistantly around 15,000/16,000 per year as the FBI reported, then that is at the hands of Sunnis against other Muslims...likely Shias. Now we know in the past, the US was on a hunt for Communists in the US and black listing and such. unfortunately, because of theocracies where the religion is the state and the state is the religion, the ideology and religious law/sharia law of the Sunnis can be weasled out by claiming religlious freedom if the US were to actually hold a more firm skeptical eye of allowing Sunnis in. I am sure there are some crazy Shia but the Sunnis by FAR take the statisticaal cake on terroism around the world. I felt a bit 'empowered' by this information so that the next time someone says 'they aren't all like that' I can confidently say.... you are right...it's mostly Sunnis. and frankly that is a helpful distinction. just as I don't want people to lump all Christians equal to that of Westboro or Mormons, I think Islam should be called out by their distinctions. Catholics, for example by FAR support gay marriage (64%) compared to any other christian group. They deserve credit for that...not be slandered as 'Christians are homophobic'. I think if we all do diligience on doing a better job fine-tooth combing and discerning which facets of the groups are causing the most harm, the more quickly we can advance and improve these violent and dangerous times.

ok so then stop using faces to push your agenda. You asked for names but we offered and you gave reasons why they won't work. so...maybe use an approach that won't require using 'famous faces' since some already have biases against said individuals. Use the moral argument.... that to end slavery, the masses didn't argue what the labor value of cotton picking will be in 5 or 10 years.... they saw it as immoral and began dismantling it. Argue how the EU is NOT democratic which is against Western values in exchange for what....convenience to enter in and out of other countries? Argue that even with the added layer of EU govt...the British gvt didn't downsize. So it's just MORE gvt layered on MORE gvt layered on MORE gvt. And ANYONE who knows the interest rates and how the economy will be in 5-10 years would be making a FORTUNE on the stock market... so this is evidence that it's a bullshit excuse and no one knows how the economy will behave in 5-10 years. no one. They know no more about the interest rates in 5 years than you do so when they say.... hey...it'll be fine and they say...NO...NO it won't..... they can't even truthfully say they know it will or won't be fine. These are the same people that either knew Greece lied about their financial status and didn't care enough to prevent that fiasco OR they didn't know which means...they don't even know what the hell is going on in present-day....let alone in 5-10 years. This economic scare-tactic is bullying in terms of 'gee....if you don't vote to keep us in power, it would be a real shame if something bad happened to your economy...' It's more gvt coercion. Just plant these logical seeds in people. They won't sink it right away but usually after the conversation it sticks with them...especially when they don't have a adequate rebuttal.

oh Jesus Christ..... I will spend 15 paragraphs writing a response and arguing the validity of my response about an article that OTHERS have read and made specific arguments within the context of the article but will REFUSE to read the article because of 'literary tactics'. I'm not arguing bikers or the individuals written in the article. But in the context of the article, the concept is a worthy one. It could be done with club bouncers or body builders or the average Joe or whomever. but seriously..... if people are going through great depths to respond and explain why they won't read the context that some of us have...then I'm done with this conversation. Maybe you don't experience it from my end but that is such an exhausting experience. I don't care if they made the damn thing up....we can at least entertain it for face value and go from there. But unwilling to read the like 4 paragraphs but stand firm on arguments from an out of context perspective is being manipulative. If you want to bring up the subject of child abuse totally disconnected from bikers and the story...then be clear and present the argument...but trying to base it on the article, then step back on why you didn't read it but still pushing anti-abuse arguments is a complete cluter frack of a conversation and incredibly counter productive. But good luck to you all. So you expect individuals to be the preventer & Healer of problems? I mean...can't people focus on where they can use their expertise or influence the best. If big and scary seems to work in helping the child have a sense of security and overcome stereotypes....then so be it. If they are not equipped with seeing signs of a child whom they don't even know and probably have never met and ONLY met after the child was entered into the court systems...then how in the world coudl they help the child...why does that responsibility fall on the bikers and not say...the neighbors and teachers who interact with the child on a daily basis. When in the hell did I ever suggest that I support letting the parents off the hook? Typically in these cases the child is REMOVED from the irresponsible parents but still are in court....sort of alone...ok maybe escorted by CPS people, but not always the parents because the parents were responsible for the abuse or neglectful which allowed for the abuse. you are creating false dichotomies in my argument which my argument is BASED ON THE ARTICLE. so you are dabbling in the few bits of info and then stepping out of the context then back in then out..... completely unfair to debate which such manipulating tactics. But good luck with that. I'm out.

your first sentence hit the spot. that really resonated with me and I think led me to identify my 'issue' with it. That yes...I love their curiosity and skepticism and whistle blowing but it stunts them from being more philosophically consistant and actionable. Stefan had a few 9/11 truther callers and it was interesting the evidence that was put forth and one of the conversations went on a good while and finally Stefan asked why it was important to the caller and if they prove everything tomorrow then how do we move forward and the caller couldn't even give an answer. Like he had NEVER considered it. Now maybe it's just me but if I'm putting effort into proving something I am also trying to come up with a solution and way to move foward AFTER the lie is proven a lie, no matter how big or small and it was incredibly revealing how the guy didn't even think past his efforts of providing evidence which shows either he believes interally that it can never be proven to which..what's the point in pursuing because even in legal matters, you need to be able to prove it so there will be no recourse for those repsonsible or he hasn't put equal or any thought into life after it's proven....then again...what's the point if there is no solution or practical course redirection or knew education, then it's bound to be repeated, etc. Then Stefan asked him if it would also help to put just as much time and effort (I think the guy admitted to spending more than 10 hours a week on 9/11 evidence), if he applied that to spending 10 hours /week or even 5 hours/week on taxation is theft or spanking violates NAP, etc...if that would havea more immediate, tangible affect on people's lives.

I agree that these events, whether they are false flags or not...are always scooped up and exploited by gvt to impose more power against its subjects. That's what I mean.....It doesn't have to be a gvt program/designed event for the gvt to exploit it. they'll do it anyway... I do think it's odd that there weren't any cases of people fighting back. There is one guy ON CAMERA admitting that he got outside to an ally and held the door SHUT! He admitted that he heard people banging on the door and 'woudl feel guilty' if he knew it was clubgoers and not the shooter. He said this on a major news network witha straight face without pause. I do recall (My data may be inaccurate) that it was 'Latino night' at the club. I am not privy to the proportion of latino versus non in attendance but I think it's safe to be (if we take the story for face value) that it was predominately latino. Now they are known for hot-temper...in aggregate. so maybe the 'gay' factor played into their cowardly panic or maybe this is the TRUE nature of latino in real combat scenario...meaning when they aren't picking on guys in Trump shirts walking down the street minding their business but need to face a REAL threat... I quietly pondered this as well and tried to put myself back when I was childless as I am sure most of the patrons that night are childless and probably young so I tried to put myself in that mindset and I was a total passive fraidy cat back then. now that I have children, there is really nothing that I wouldn't be willing to face since I have 'skin' in the game now. so again...this isn't to exonerate the individuals of the official narrative, whether it actually happened or not...but just other elements to ponder on the willingness to fight back due to ethnicity, offspring, age, circumstance.... It is odd that no reports of any self-defense are out there....

Read the article if you wish to continue because it will eliminate a lot of uncessicary metaphores that don't even apply to this particular article. the 'swooping in' IS the CPS and those groups. This isn't a debate on the effeciency of gvt-programs regarding child care but these bikers deal with the children AFTER groups (gvt, legal, non-gvt) have already identified and stepped in to stop the abuse and get the child out of immediate danger. From that point, the bikers are part of the 'recovery' process for the child because of course the legal process is necessary but that process alone (a child sitting alone on the witness stand in a room of only adults and adults with POWER having to look their abuser/rapist in the eye and accuse them is incredibly high pressure and difficult to say the least for the child's experience) so the bikers give the 'sense of security' which may look subtle and novel to the average adult but to the child is incredibly empowering.... if it wasn't, they wouldn't be continuing doing it I woudl assume.