Internet No Longer Open


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yes, we can say "At least we have the dark web."  And maybe that is the solution.  I don't know since I've only just heard about this myself from this thread.  So, I'm obviously far from an expert on it.  Could this easily become a solution to online censorship?

From corporate censorship?  Absolutely, provided the ISPs don't crack down on our access to it.

The only difference between the Clearnet and the Darkweb is the protocols.  In other words, your normal browsers use an unencrypted http protocol or an encrypted https protocol to access the Clearnet.  Clearnet IP addresses are generally (but don't have to be) associated with URLs and those servers will respond to requests using the http or https protocol.

Sites on the Darkweb, on the other hand, use a different protocol, usually tor.  A Tor browser is a browser that is capable of communicating using either tor, http or https and can access sites using any of these protocols.  Tor sites are typically not indexed using easy to read URLs,  though some are.  Since the tor protocol is by its nature encrypted, an ISP cannot read the data going in and out when using the tor protocol.  This is why it's called the Darkweb… it isn't indexed, the data is encrypted, and under those conditions it's easy to see how it escapes corporate (and government) control.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

From corporate censorship?  Absolutely, provided the ISPs don't crack down on our access to it.

The only difference between the Clearnet and the Darkweb is the protocols. 

Yep.  I've read as much about the darkweb.  But the repulsion factor appears to be quite high.  Lots  more security risks.  Too easy to get caught in an online dragnet from the online police as an innocent bystander.  No real search engines, Viruses, etc.

I am looking for such an outlet to get away from all the controlled web, the clearnet as you call it.  But upon reading about the darkweb, I'm not too keen on going there.  As such, it seems like I'd be getting away from government/corporate controls by moving to Somalia.  Not a good plan.

Or am I overreacting?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Since the tor protocol is by its nature encrypted, an ISP cannot read the data going in and out when using the tor protocol.  This is why it's called the Darkweb… it isn't indexed, the data is encrypted, and under those conditions it's easy to see how it escapes corporate (and government) control.    

So, does using the TOR browser automatically mask your point of origin like a VPN would?  Or is that only if you're on a darkweb site? That is to say, if I were to use the tor browser and get on youtube, would youtube still be able to identify where I am?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yep.  I've read as much about the darkweb.  But the repulsion factor appears to be quite high.  Lots  more security risks.  Too easy to get caught in an online dragnet from the online police as an innocent bystander.  No real search engines, Viruses, etc.

I am looking for such an outlet to get away from all the controlled web, the clearnet as you call it.  But upon reading about the darkweb, I'm not too keen on going there.  As such, it seems like I'd be getting away from government/corporate controls by moving to Somalia.  Not a good plan.

Or am I overreacting?

You're right to be aware that the nature of the Darkweb enables a lot of shady goings on.  

That said, the Darkweb is infamous for that, but is far more, which can be very useful.  For example, Wikileaks does a lot on the Darkweb, because it's extremely difficult to be tracked there, especially if you combine the use of a Tor browser with a VPN.  Data and information that would be quickly censored or removed form the Clearnet can be found in the Darkweb. 

Being caught up as an innocent bystander in an online dragnet is nigh impossible.  When governments go after shady actors on the Darkweb, they do it by tracking down the source servers that provide the content.  That is incredibly difficult but not impossible... though they typically have to use other clues besides the data protocols and addresses.  The Tor network is tailor made to prevent this.  Innocents, and even the guilty who make use of these resources are pretty safe.

As for viruses, well those are no different from the Clearnet.  Stay away from nasty places and avoid doing nasty things, and you'll be fine.  

Search engines do exist on the Darkweb but, unsurprisingly, they only offer a very tiny sample of what's out there.

For me personally, I've messed around with the Darkweb a little to become familiar with it and to understand how it works, but I have no use for it otherwise... at least for now.  As censorship on the Clearnet tries to expand, the Darkweb may become our emergency escape hatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mores said:

So, does using the TOR browser automatically mask your point of origin like a VPN would?  Or is that only if you're on a darkweb site? That is to say, if I were to use the tor browser and get on youtube, would youtube still be able to identify where I am?

 You would still want to use a VPN, but tor does mask your origin sort of.  The way it works is that it connects to the resource you want via a very in direct and meandering path, stopping at various points on the tor network in order to conceal where the original request came from.  Combining that with a VPN would make you nigh untraceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yep.  I've read as much about the darkweb.  But the repulsion factor appears to be quite high.  Lots  more security risks.  Too easy to get caught in an online dragnet from the online police as an innocent bystander.  No real search engines, Viruses, etc.

I am looking for such an outlet to get away from all the controlled web, the clearnet as you call it.  But upon reading about the darkweb, I'm not too keen on going there.  As such, it seems like I'd be getting away from government/corporate controls by moving to Somalia.  Not a good plan.

Or am I overreacting?

Oy, Mores!  Don’t go to the Deep Web (where Dark Web resides) unless you’re very well versed in internet stuff.  

This is true wild freedom there.  Each person goes in there at their own risk.  There’s no “police” of any kind and it is completely lawless.  So, like, people who want to buy a human liver on the black market go there.  People who run pedophile rings go there.  Powerful people who want to depose a country’s president go there.  That kind of stuff... 12 year old professional hackers live there, so yeah, you’re responsible for your own protection.  It is not gonna be a surprise for someone who doesn’t know what’s up to tunnel to deep web and find out the next morning their bank account got emptied.  😉

So my kids can go to certain places in the dark web.  They usually go there for social experiments and to get the latest scoop on gamergate, etc.  But that’s because their dad does Computer Security for a living and took responsibility for it.  Otherwise, we’d lock the whole thing down.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oy, Mores!  Don’t go to the Deep Web (where Dark Web resides) unless you’re very well versed in internet stuff.  

This is true wild freedom there.  Each person goes in there at their own risk.  There’s no “police” of any kind and it is completely lawless.  So, like, people who want to buy a human liver on the black market go there.  People who run pedophile rings go there.  Powerful people who want to depose a country’s president go there.  That kind of stuff... 12 year old professional hackers live there, so yeah, you’re responsible for your own protection.  It is not gonna be a surprise for someone who doesn’t know what’s up to tunnel to deep web and find out the next morning their bank account got emptied.  😉

So my kids can go to certain places in the dark web.  They usually go there for social experiments and to get the latest scoop on gamergate, etc.  But that’s because their dad does Computer Security for a living and took responsibility for it.  Otherwise, we’d lock the whole thing down.

 

 

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sounds like we clueless children need a "How to walk down dark alleys in the bad part of town at 2am for Dummies" book, but for the darkweb.

The rules for interacting with the Darkweb are the same rules we tell kids:

  • Don't open the door for strangers
  • Don't take candy form strangers
  • Don't talk to strangers

And my personal paramount rule:  When in doubt, EJECT.

That said, it's actually harder than one might think to get into trouble on the Darkweb.  All the nasty is out there,  yes... but you have to be looking for it, and know how to look for it.  Personally, I'm not knowledgeable about finding that sort of thing and my forays into the Darkweb have just been to look at a couple of index sites that have a handful of working links.  Usually I would look for hacking tricks and such for my own personal edification, but that's about it.  Like I said, I really don't have much use for it at this point.

The first line of defense for Darkweb nastiness is its difficulty to find.  Most things can only be found if you already know where they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sounds like we clueless children need a "How to walk down dark alleys in the bad part of town at 2am for Dummies" book, but for the darkweb.

Somalia, baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

The rules for interacting with the Darkweb are the same rules we tell kids:

  • Don't open the door for strangers
  • Don't take candy form strangers
  • Don't talk to strangers

And my personal paramount rule:  When in doubt, EJECT.

Don’t forget:  Don’t trust your favorite uncle who told you to get the cookie from the cookie jar.  😀

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest Mores

OK.  With the hoopla behind Youtube v Steven Crowder, I'm finding it difficult to understand why there isn't just a conservative platform like Youtube (Facebook, Twitter). There must be some barriers to entry that we're not aware of.  Why wouldn't anyone be doing it?

You who know about internet stuff better than I do are saying anyone could set it up in their living room (essentially).  But that doesn't seem likely or else there would be more people doing it.  Is there some Hoffa type stuff going on?  Or is there a legal barrier?

I don't see Crowder (or anyone else for that matter) suing Youtube for banning them or demonetizing them for made up rules that were never part of the original agreement.  And because there is a contract violation involved, I tend to think that suing would be a reasonable course of action.  But no.

What is it that I'm missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

There must be some barriers to entry that we're not aware of.  Why wouldn't anyone be doing it?

There's minor barriers to entry -- a bit of money and programming know how -- but like with most things, there's huge barriers to success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There's minor barriers to entry -- a bit of money and programming know how -- but like with most things, there's huge barriers to success.

This would lead one to believe that liberals tend to be better at internet businesses than conservatives.  Do you believe that is so?  If so, what would cause such an uneven condition?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mores said:

This would lead one to believe that liberals tend to be better at internet businesses than conservatives.  Do you believe that is so?  If so, what would cause such an uneven condition?

That is a very interesting question. It does, indeed, seem to be the case, that liberals have been more successful in internet tech business. Pretty much all of them are strongly liberal.

But I'm not sure it follows, per se, that liberals are better at business. It might be the case that being successful at business leads to liberalism and not the other way around.

But that may be wrong too. It may be that typically big success in business requires certain characteristics, and people with tendencies towards those characteristics also tend to be liberal.

But I don't know.

Hollywood makes more sense. "Theater" people have always tended towards being liberal, and so when "theater" becomes "movies" it follows that the movie business is run by liberals. But in internet tech...it's kind of a mystery.

But as the country/world leans more and more towards evil and away from God, it isn't particularly surprising that those in power are also evil, having turned from God.

Another thought: Satan's doing everything he can to corrupt. And if people in big business aren't stalwartly leaning upon the arm of God, it is not surprising that Satan's influence in a variety of ways tends to lead their consciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:

OK.  With the hoopla behind Youtube v Steven Crowder, I'm finding it difficult to understand why there isn't just a conservative platform like Youtube (Facebook, Twitter). There must be some barriers to entry that we're not aware of.  Why wouldn't anyone be doing it?

You who know about internet stuff better than I do are saying anyone could set it up in their living room (essentially).  But that doesn't seem likely or else there would be more people doing it.  Is there some Hoffa type stuff going on?  Or is there a legal barrier?

I don't see Crowder (or anyone else for that matter) suing Youtube for banning them or demonetizing them for made up rules that were never part of the original agreement.  And because there is a contract violation involved, I tend to think that suing would be a reasonable course of action.  But no.

What is it that I'm missing?

There are several alternatives to youTube - Bitchute is the major one that most people on the right side of the socio-political-cultural war (they're not all conservatives, not even a majority conservative) use.

So why couldn't Bitchute replace YouTube?  I already answered this question a while ago... The popular kids are having a conversation in a certain table in the cafeteria.  The popular kids banned you from that table.  You can't just pick another table in the cafeteria and start conversing there and think you're "part of the conversation".  You're not.  You're in your own conversation.

The nature of the right side of the socio-political war is that they are the ones open to all speech, offensive or otherwise.  Therefore, segregating into a "right side table" defeats their purpose for engaging in conversation.  The left side, on the  other hand, is content to live in the left side bubble because - today, right now, they are The Culture echoed by the press and the entertainment industry.  The right side has become the Counter Culture - which is kinda funny because the right side used to be the fuddy duddy censorious people who banned 2 Live Crew and that kind of stuff.  It's completely backwards now.

P.S.  Using the government to force people to associate with them is also not a feature of the right side of the socio-political-cultural war.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2019 at 11:09 AM, Mores said:

OK.  With the hoopla behind Youtube v Steven Crowder, I'm finding it difficult to understand why there isn't just a conservative platform like Youtube (Facebook, Twitter). There must be some barriers to entry that we're not aware of.  Why wouldn't anyone be doing it?

Dave Reuben is partnering with Jordan Peterson and they're working on that very thing.  He's starting up some kind of Internet venture and has strongly hinted at its nature.

As has been said, there are alternatives but the problem with things like Bitchute is the same as problems with Gab and Minds...  When they say "free expression" they MEAN it.  There's some nasty stuff on those platforms that you have to navigate through, which we aren't used to seeing on  YouTube.

Plus, certain financial institutions have begun to refuse to do business with conservative outlets.  You know how Patreon started dumping content creators like Sargon of Akkad?  (Who isn't even a Conservative...  I guess the cause of free speech makes conservatives of us all.)  Well, SubscribeStar is an alternative that's being used, but you can't use PayPal with it because PayPal won't do business with organizations that don't punish thoughtcrime.

On 6/6/2019 at 11:09 AM, Mores said:

I don't see Crowder (or anyone else for that matter) suing Youtube for banning them or demonetizing them for made up rules that were never part of the original agreement.  And because there is a contract violation involved, I tend to think that suing would be a reasonable course of action.  But no.

What is it that I'm missing?

There's almost certainly wording in the contract that either allows YouTube to change the rules at their discretion, or the wording is vague enough that it doesn't really mean anything.  Bill Richmond is looking into it though.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 6/8/2019 at 7:12 PM, unixknight said:

Dave Reuben is partnering with Jordan Peterson and they're working on that very thing.  He's starting up some kind of Internet venture and has strongly hinted at its nature.

I've heard Peterson's announcement on that.  But I haven't heard anything since the announcement.  I fear that such an undertaking is beyond their wheelhouse.

On 6/8/2019 at 7:12 PM, unixknight said:

As has been said, there are alternatives but the problem with things like Bitchute is the same as problems with Gab and Minds...  When they say "free expression" they MEAN it.  There's some nasty stuff on those platforms that you have to navigate through, which we aren't used to seeing on  YouTube.

There are certain rules that can be put in place that are reasonable.  For instance, you cannot write anything that the FCC would not allow on TV.  These kinds of rules are common sense rules.

Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with conservatives making value judgements just as liberals make value judgments.  Conservatives' value of free speech will ensure more leniency, thereby making the platform much broader. And the liberal platforms will just be echo chambers.  That alone should make the conservative platform more desirable to frequent.

On 6/8/2019 at 7:12 PM, unixknight said:

Plus, certain financial institutions have begun to refuse to do business with conservative outlets. 

There's almost certainly wording in the contract that either allows YouTube to change the rules at their discretion, or the wording is vague enough that it doesn't really mean anything.  Bill Richmond is looking into it though.

These two are probably the biggest impediments.

  • Who controls the money?
  • Agreements don't mean anything anymore.

Remember that the thread started with the notion that just a few companies pretty much control the internet. And everyone said no because... reasons.

Now you, at least, are changing the story.  It is true, some few companies control the internet.  Not in the manner which I had originally thought, but they control it.  And it is this level of power that I find disturbing.  Half the US population could simply be silenced by just a few computer nerds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2019 at 8:12 PM, unixknight said:

Dave Reuben is partnering with Jordan Peterson and they're working on that very thing.  He's starting up some kind of Internet venture and has strongly hinted at its nature.

 

On 6/10/2019 at 7:59 AM, Mores said:

I've heard Peterson's announcement on that.  But I haven't heard anything since the announcement.  I fear that such an undertaking is beyond their wheelhouse.

Yes, they haven't been able to come up with a viable alternative because of the dependency on the card companies and paypal that they can't guarantee to share their ideals.  Their plan has been to leverage crypto currency but that is currently not quite viable either as crypto tries to survive without becoming the very thing it was designed to correct.

 

On 6/10/2019 at 7:59 AM, Mores said:

There are certain rules that can be put in place that are reasonable.  For instance, you cannot write anything that the FCC would not allow on TV.  These kinds of rules are common sense rules.

Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with conservatives making value judgements just as liberals make value judgments.  Conservatives' value of free speech will ensure more leniency, thereby making the platform much broader. And the liberal platforms will just be echo chambers.  That alone should make the conservative platform more desirable to frequent.

These two are probably the biggest impediments.

  • Who controls the money?
  • Agreements don't mean anything anymore.

Remember that the thread started with the notion that just a few companies pretty much control the internet. And everyone said no because... reasons.

Now you, at least, are changing the story.  It is true, some few companies control the internet.  Not in the manner which I had originally thought, but they control it.  And it is this level of power that I find disturbing.  Half the US population could simply be silenced by just a few computer nerds.

In my opinion, "conservative sites" as an answer to "liberal sites" is defeating the purpose.  I believe the answer to be found in a truly utilitarian site that is in the full control of the consumer.  For example, an internet service provider is completely utilitarian such that you can consume porn using the ISP without the ISP being made liable for it.  At the same time, a consumer who is completely against porn can be completely insulated from the porn consumer as he is in complete control of what he consumes.  Declaring yourself a "conservative alternative to YouTube" would give B2B providers with a reason to deny you service.  Declaring yourself a "utility" might be better especially if you create functionality that gives consumers the ability to insulate themselves from things they don't want to consume.  So, a leftist who wants to live in a leftist bubble can insulate himself from non-leftist content, etc.  So, consumers have the ability to create their own "ban logic" within their customized pages.

Okay, if somebody decides to built this site... I want royalties.  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2019 at 11:09 AM, Mores said:

OK.  With the hoopla behind Youtube v Steven Crowder, I'm finding it difficult to understand why there isn't just a conservative platform like Youtube (Facebook, Twitter). There must be some barriers to entry that we're not aware of.  Why wouldn't anyone be doing it?

You who know about internet stuff better than I do are saying anyone could set it up in their living room (essentially).  But that doesn't seem likely or else there would be more people doing it.  Is there some Hoffa type stuff going on?  Or is there a legal barrier?

I don't see Crowder (or anyone else for that matter) suing Youtube for banning them or demonetizing them for made up rules that were never part of the original agreement.  And because there is a contract violation involved, I tend to think that suing would be a reasonable course of action.  But no.

What is it that I'm missing?

So the latest on the VoxAdpocalypse...

YouTube messed up and ended up demonetizing channels that had nothing at all to do with "Hate Speech" like that History Teacher's channel that had mutliple videos on the history of Nazis, a journalist's channel that covers current incidents of activism and extremism, and thousands more.  One guy - a Swedish fitness coach who likes to dish his fitness advice with political commentary including expressing his disgust over a 10 year old drag queen getting celebrated in the Pride Parade - got demonetized right at the time when his wife is undergoing medical procedure that he needs money for.   

In the end, Crowder fought back, completely uncaring about getting demonetized as he has set himself up to be independent of YouTube ads.  Rather, he makes his money through the Mug Club and his tshirts and BlazeTV.  YouTube can't ban him outright because he has a large subscriber base so they tried to get him to monetize again (because, of course, YouTube makes money on monetized videos as well) by asking him to remove just 3 videos and Crowder went pffft...  In the meantime, Mug Club gained more new membership in one weekend than the entire history of Mug Club with Crowder discounting the Mug Club membership from $99 to $69.  And even then, a lot of people decided to not use the promo code and pay the full $99 with one stated reason - VoxAdpocalypse.  So YouTube and Maza are directly responsible for making Crowder richer.  And not only that, Crowder featured all the left-wingers - including Vox and Maza himself - and all their incidents of "hate speech" all over his YouTube and Twitter channels daring YouTube to demonetize them too.  So yes, Maza also gained subscribers but Crowder doesn't care about that.  Maza, on the other hand, cared very much that YouTube didn't ban Crowder outright. 

To be fair, YouTube has been less reaction-y than other Big Tech like Twitter and Facebook... and they usually go through demonetization first before outright banning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So the latest on the VoxAdpocalypse...

It's a lot bigger than that.

The NRA had a bank (I think it was Well's Fargo?) that they'd done business with for decades.  But due to congressional and hollywood pressure, they decided to drop them.  A whole bunch of benefits were not renewed.  And NRA is basically being told to find another bank... SOON!!!

Defunding, demonetizing, debanking...  Does this not set alarm bells off a-la the Book of Revelation?  We won't be able to buy or sell unless we buy into the Church of the Devil.

Sure, people are talking about their side being the champion of "What would Jesus do?"  But whose side is having rights curtailed to the point that they won't be able to buy or sell without adhering to a specific political (read religious) agenda?  Did anyone really think the masses would be taken in by a guy with horns, a pointy red tail, and a pitchfork?  No, they're being taken in by the semblance of the doctrines of Christ by the skin of its teeth.  And they're using that to restrict the rights of others for simply disagreeing with them.

Without the ability to have commerce and the ability to communicate, we'll be left out cold.  And no one else is worried about this?  I didn't think I was a doomsday prophet.  But I'll tell you, this stuff scares me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

It's a lot bigger than that.

I think you're responding to the wrong post.  VoxAdpocalypse is the Maza (Vox) vs Crowder YouTube debacle.

1 minute ago, Mores said:

The NRA had a bank (I think it was Well's Fargo?) that they'd done business with for decades.  But due to congressional and hollywood pressure, they decided to drop them.  A whole bunch of benefits were not renewed.  And NRA is basically being told to find another bank... SOON!!!

Defunding, demonetizing, debanking...  Does this not set alarm bells off a-la the Book of Revelation?  We won't be able to buy or sell unless we buy into the Church of the Devil.

Sure, people are talking about their side being the champion of "What would Jesus do?"  But whose side is having rights curtailed to the point that they won't be able to buy or sell without adhering to a specific political (read religious) agenda?  Did anyone really think the masses would be taken in by a guy with horns, a pointy red tail, and a pitchfork?  No, they're being taken in by the semblance of the doctrines of Christ by the skin of its teeth.  And they're using that to restrict the rights of others for simply disagreeing with them.

Without the ability to have commerce and the ability to communicate, we'll be left out cold.  And no one else is worried about this?  I didn't think I was a doomsday prophet.  But I'll tell you, this stuff scares me.

Social Media Content Creators and consumers are worried about this and have been fighting it for years.  This has been going on since 2015 when all these things have come to a head as the Mainstream Media and the puppetmasters that control them realized they don't have as much influence over minds as Social Media and the Wild Wild West design of the internet prevents them from taking control.  2019 is now the death throes of a dying traditional media platform pulling all the stops.  They can't win this battle even if they have control of the banks.  And part of that is because the iGen is growing up as a backlash to the millennial generation and they are now starting to get power as adults.

But yes, Biblical prophecy says evil will lay seige.  Maybe it is now coming to fruition.  After all, we don't know the day or the hour... I tend to think we're not close to it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I think you're responding to the wrong post.  VoxAdpocalypse is the Maza (Vox) vs Crowder YouTube debacle.

No, I'm not.  I'm pointing out that it's all connected.  Control of the internet, defunding, demonetizing, banking.   It's all about cutting off money and communications.  Those two are the key.  And look at who's going to be in control when it's all over.

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Social Media Content Creators and consumers are worried about this and have been fighting it for years.

I don't see much of anyone worrying about this at all.  When I hear statements from Twitter et al saying "We can no longer remain neutral" I think that shows a serious level of naivete when they don't even realize they've never been neutral.

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

2019 is now the death throes of a dying traditional media platform pulling all the stops. 

I haven't really seen this much.  Maybe I haven't been paying attention.  But apart from Vox, I am not aware.  Could you educate me and give some examples of "MSM" trying to control "Social Media"?

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

They can't win this battle even if they have control of the banks.  And part of that is because the iGen is growing up as a backlash to the millennial generation and they are now starting to get power as adults.

I don't see how they will be unable if they control the banks.  How will any competition do anything without the funds to do so?

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But yes, Biblical prophecy says evil will lay seige.  Maybe it is now coming to fruition.  After all, we don't know the day or the hour... I tend to think we're not close to it yet.

I tend to believe that the seige, by definition, will be a long period.  People keep saying the day of the Second Coming is too far away, not enough signs.  Yes, that's true.  But the time of tibulation was never going to be a short period.  I believe that period has already begun. 

We could make an argument that it began in 1820.  But in terms of what we normally think of when we think of the "days of tribulation", I tend to think that

  • The last wake up call that we were allowed to have was 9-11.  We woke up and went right back to sleep.
  • The societal collapse was begun under Bush, worsened by Obama.
  • We've been given a heathen prince who is trying to simply apply law and order to a system that has been failing those who still believe in freedom and justice.  And he's doing better than all the self-professed Christians throughout multiple previous administrations.  And it is beginning to look like Biden will defeat him in 2020.
  • War has been largely eliminated throughout the world since WWII.  But 9-11 reminded us of its spectre.  We can look forward to its growth again soon.
  • The alliance between the UK and Britain is in shambles.  Obama pissed off half of the UK.  Trump is apparently triggering the other half by simply mentioning his name.
  • The birth rate in the US born citizens is far below replacement rate.  The country will no longer be the US as we knew it.  It may already be gone.

The US was set up to be the place where the Church could flourish and expand its influence throughout the world.  But just ask people who have been in the Church in other countries and compare it to how the Church is in the US. It simply isn't the same.  Then extapolate that to a world where there is no US.

OK... I have to stop talking about this now.  I'm getting depressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share