Impervious To Suffering; Senate Passes 'GENIUS' Stablecoin Bill In Bipartisan Vote; Benjamin Netanyahu's 33 years of Iran nuclear warnings (Video)
Impervious To Suffering
“Can I be so bold as to say I may have figured something out? It is probably something all of you already know, as I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I keep hearing from the sheep-types that they really don’t care if we lose all of our freedoms. They don’t care about losing privacy because they don’t have anything to hide, they don’t care about losing free speech because people should be punished for saying bad and/or dangerous things (and they have nothing to say that would be considered bad and/or dangerous).
“They have no fear of the government getting too much control because there will never be a reason the government would want or need to control them.
They don’t fear communism or fascism primarily because they don’t know what those two ideologies clearly mean, and besides, that would never happen in a free society—which they are ready to give up anyway.
Of course, to all of us shrew-types, we practically lose our cookies thinking about living in a society where basic freedoms have been stripped away, or where the government, or any other authority, has power over our movements, our money, and our fundamental existence.
When we hear someone say, “I don’t care how much control the authorities have, I have nothing to hide, and I do nothing wrong, therefore it is not something to worry about for me,” we blow a gasket.
Don’t they know?
Don’t they know that when the control over the masses surely does take effect it won’t matter a tinker’s damn if they “have nothing to hide” or “don’t do anything bad.” Oppression comes in many flavours, and its primary purpose is not to punish wrongdoing, but rather to keep people, in a very general way, compliant and under control.
Control sets the tone of the behaviour of a society. A good example of this came about during the Canadian Trucker’s Convoy. People who donated to that cause ran the risk of having their bank accounts frozen. (I was one that this happened to.) Was donating to a “cause” such as the Trucker’s Convoy a “bad thing”—was it against the law, was it criminal? In a free society, protesting (peacefully) and standing up against any sort of injustice an individual finds abhorrent is one of our fundamental rights as citizens of a free country.
However, punishing people who do something the government does not approve of sets a bar that indicates what is acceptable and what is not. People seeing friends and family being punished for contributing to a cause such as the truckers convoy, will categorize their activity as the activity of “a bad person”—whereas before the punishment was laid upon them (the freezing of their bank accounts) these same people would have had no trouble wearing a pussy hat and marching against Donald Trump.
They find what the government did (freezing accounts) as “reasonable” and they tell themselves that whoever contributed was a “bad person” and deserves to be reprimanded.
There is no better word for this than indoctrination: people are being taught what is right and wrong, and being taught what the punishment is for being wrong. It is much like training a dog, but not with positive reinforcement (although there is a lot of that going on as well) but with negative reinforcement.
Needless to say this negative punishment starts out mildly. And this is the thing I figured out—people don’t know yet what the real punishment is going to be for wrongdoing, and for straying away from the desires of the agenda. They have never experienced real suffering at the hands of their captives, so they don’t know what is in store for them. None of them have lived in North Korea, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Mao’s China. None of them know what it means to live a life in any of these environments where you don’t have to be a criminal to be seriously persecuted and physically punished for just being.
Well, neither have the shrews (more than likely anyone reading this is a shrew). So, what gives? This is the part I have not yet figured out. I have a few theories, but most of them are rather lame. One theory is that shrews are more aware of history and world events than their sheep brethren. I can’t imagine that this is as true as it would need to be to have any sort of impact. But I have noticed that the shrews I have met are very well informed about totalitarian regimes—current ones and past ones. Shrews seem to be more well-read than the sheep-types—history (as mentioned), philosophy, psychology, biography, classic literature, etc. Maybe there are a few Nora Roberts romances in there, but not many.
I am sure there are lots of shrews who haven’t read a book since High School, but that doesn’t seem to be the truth. It isn’t book reading altogether either, it is just information, awareness, and understanding that seems to be prevalent. Combine that with common sense and critical thinking, and you may have a viable formula there for shrew-ness.
Like I said, I don’t think I have that one figured out yet. But I do think there is some viability to the idea that the sheeple don’t really know what they are handing over to the agenda. They don’t know what politically inflicted pain feels like. And they are rather certain that this sort of pain is not down the pike.
Of course, there are always strange anomalies to these theories.
Why are the same people obsessed and terrified that Trump is going to make this oppressive, fascist, totalitarian world for them, where they will all, if they are lucky, writhe in pain on the streets, deprived of food, water, and any sort of decency in life?
This is strange, for sure, as it makes no sense that if they are so terrified of this happening with Trump, they can’t see it with Carney in Canada, Merz in Germany, Macron in France, Xi Jinping in China, and Starmer in the UK. Of course, they have no problem seeing it in Putin of Russia. But Zelenskyy of Ukraine is the hero of all time. Go figure.
So, I guess I was wrong. I haven’t figured this out at all. Oh well, back to the drawing board.”
Todd’s new book The View of the Shrew launches later this month, and is available for pre-order, or you can enter a draw to win a free copy by signing up to his mailing list here.“
—
Senate Passes 'GENIUS' Stablecoin Bill In Bipartisan Vote
“The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, is one step closer to becoming law in the US after the US Senate voted to pass an amended version of the bill.
In a Tuesday vote of 68-30, a majority of the US Senate chose to pass the GENIUS Act roughly six weeks after Tennessee Senator Bill Hagerty introduced the legislation. The bill’s companion, the STABLE Act, may be considered in the House of Representatives next, where it could face additional proposals for amendments.
“With this bill, the United States is one step closer to becoming the global leader in crypto,” said Hagerty from the Senate floor before the Tuesday vote, adding: “Once the GENIUS Act is law, businesses of all sizes, and Americans across the country will be able to settle payments nearly instantaneously rather than waiting for days or sometimes even weeks.”
“It’s unclear whether the stablecoin legislation will have enough support to pass in the House, where Republicans also hold a slim majority over Democrats. Trump’s AI and crypto czar, David Sacks, suggested in May that the president would support the bill passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Should payment stablecoins be recognized in a US regulatory framework, it could potentially open the floodgates for companies to issue their own tokens. Apple, Google, social media platform X and Airbnb were reportedly looking into the matter amid debate on the GENIUS Act, and two US senators questioned whether Meta might have the same plans if the bill were to pass.
“Recent reporting projects that stablecoins could grow into a $3.7 trillion market by the end of the decade,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a Tuesday X post. “That scenario becomes more likely with passage of the GENIUS Act.”
Prior to the vote, Sen. Lummis (R-Wy.) told The Epoch Times that she was “excited about the momentum” regarding Washington’s acceptance of cryptocurrency.
“We just couldn’t in four years, we could get no momentum right here. And finally, we’ve got it. I don’t want to lose it,” Lummis said.”
“Market structure under consideration in the House”
Open link for complete article
—
—
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : What the Kremlin Thinks of Trump
—