What was your best moment today?

Matthew 6:19-21

Dads, your kids are watching everything you do, even when you think they’re not paying attention.

They’re watching how you treat their mom. How you handle stress. Whether you keep your promises. How you react when things don’t go your way. Whether you own your mistakes or blame everyone else.

You’re not just providing for them, you’re showing them what a man looks like. What strength looks like. What integrity looks like. They’re learning from you whether the world is safe, whether they matter, whether people can be trusted.

A lot of fathers think their job is mainly to work and provide money. That matters, but it’s not enough. Your presence matters. Your attention matters. The way you listen when they talk about something you don’t care about, that matters.

You don’t have to be perfect. You’ll mess up, and that’s okay. What matters is being there, being consistent, and actually caring about who they’re becoming.

The distance you create now, the conversations you avoid, the times you choose work or your phone over them, that stuff echoes for decades.

Your role is bigger than you think. Show up for them now or they’ll rely on a government that will use you children for profit.

There’s something deeply cynical about politicians who declare “America is a Christian nation” while their own lives tell a different story. JD Vance says Christianity is America’s Creed, yet he’s married to a Hindu and celebrates Hanukkah with his family. I’m not questioning his marriage or his respect for other faiths. I’m questioning the authenticity of his public theology.

As a reformed Christian, I believe America’s founding was deeply shaped by Christian ethics and moral reasoning. That’s a historical reality we can trace through the documents, debates, and institutions our founders created. But there’s a massive difference between acknowledging that influence and weaponizing faith for electoral advantage.

When politicians suddenly discover the language of Christian nationalism at precisely the moment it polls well with their base, we have an obligation to call it what it is: pandering. They’re not defending the faith. They’re using it as a vehicle to power.

The gospel doesn’t need politicians to protect it. It needs believers who live with integrity, who refuse to let our most sacred convictions become just another campaign strategy. When faith becomes nothing more than a demographic to capture, we’ve lost something essential.

I’d rather have a leader who lives their convictions quietly and inconsistently than one who performs them loudly while calculating their next move. At least the first one isn’t treating my faith like a focus group finding.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

🎯

The Case for Fighting Fair (When No One Else Will)

Charitable warfare is the practice of interpreting your opponent’s position in its strongest, most coherent form before engaging with it. Essentially steelmanning rather than strawmanning in ideological conflict.

The principle demands we ask what the most thoughtful proponent of this view would argue, rather than seeking out the dumbest version we can attack.

Why it’s absent:

Our information ecosystem rewards the opposite. Algorithms amplify outrage. Quote tweets showcase dunks on the weakest arguments. We’re incentivized to find the most extreme, least defensible version of opposing views because it generates engagement and makes our side feel superior.

Implementation requires three commitments

First is epistemic humility. We must acknowledge that intelligent, moral people can reach different conclusions from the same evidence.

Second is asymmetric interpretation. We should be more charitable to others’ arguments than our own, since we naturally favor our positions.

Third is public modeling. We need to visibly engage with the strongest counterarguments, even when easier targets exist.

When to implement it:

Always, but especially when stakes are highest. The more consequential the disagreement about governance, rights, or resource allocation, the more critical that we engage with actual positions rather than caricatures.

The irony is that charitable warfare proves more effective for persuasion than its alternative. People change their minds when they feel understood, not when they feel mocked.

We’re not losing arguments. We’re losing the capacity to have them.

Spread this note like wildfire 🔥

yo Mez , those heart reactions? they're kinda pseudo-private. if you like someone's note, only the note author sees who you are (via NIP-18 wrapped in NIP-04 DM), but if you *also* happen to rebroadcast it, then the whole relay sees the original note AND the heart, linking your pubkey to the like.

easy fix: just tick "private like" in most clients and it stays between you and the poster.

🚀🫡

yeap. Vitor said that he's working in implementing WoT in dms so hopefully that will help somewhat.

🐇🤹‍♀️🪄🎩🤹‍♂️🐇

#photography #boating

When do you become a target?

When do you become a target?

IF BITCOIN MINERS DON'T FIND THE KEY TO FREE ENERGY I DON'T KNOW WHO WILL

Extract from Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:

Economics is only a social extension of a natural energy system. It, also, has its three passive components. Because of the distribution of wealth and the lack of communication and lack of data, this field has been the last energy field for which a knowledge of these three passive components has been developed.

Since energy is the key to all activity on the face of the earth, it follows that in order to attain a monopoly of energy, raw materials, goods, and services and to establish a world system of slave labor, it is necessary to have a first strike capability in the field of economics. In order to maintain our position, it is necessary that we have absolute first knowledge of the science of control over all economic factors and the first experience at engineering the world economy.

In order to achieve such sovereignty, we must at least achieve this one end: that the public will not make either the logical or mathematical connection between economics and the other energy sciences or learn to apply such knowledge.

This is becoming increasingly difficult to control because more and more businesses are making demands upon their computer programmers to create and apply mathematical models for the management of those businesses.

It is only a matter of time before the new breed of private programmer/economists will catch on to the far-reaching implications of the work begun at Harvard in 1948. The speed with which they can communicate their warning to the public will largely depend upon how effective we have been at controlling the media, subverting education, and keeping the public distracted with matters of no real importance.

What I think you need to become bitcoiner:

-Curiosity

-Distrust in the government

-Dislike for banks

-Skepticism for authority

-Noticing…

What I think you need to be a bitcoiner:

- Know that the system is not broken, it’s working as designed

- Desire to destroy central banks

- Own Bitcoin in self custody

- Talk a los about Bitcoin

- Run your own node

- Use NOSTR

- A plan to get off grid asap

This is my view.

What do you think?

Would you add or remove anything?

Lmk 👇🏼

I agree but what I see is just a few parents successfully fighting the social media trend. Majority of them are glye to the Instagram and Facebook together with their kids.

Society is fucked and governments are doing to make it even more fucked.

Letting govt be your mother is a terrible idea.

I'm very anti social media but Its my job to keep my kids out if trouble. Nothing good will come of this.

Yes, I agree. I see it from two different angles:

1.) the existing system will fail. That is 100 percent sure. The end station for that train is permission-based life where your rights are linked to your behaviour. Fascism or communism powered by AI. People live in their 15-minute smart cities (open-air prisons) and do like they are told. It’s irrelevant how much you have money, because you need a permission for everything.*

2.) Bitcoin is the total opposite. As everyone here knows #Bitcoin so well and knows how beautiful the future with Bitcoin is, I won’t talk too much about it. However, when I consider the other option (fascism / communism powered by AI) I cannot understand how Bitcoin could fail. Who the hell would want to be part of that other system… For Bitcoin to fail, the existing system would have to ramp up the brainwashing really quickly and manage to stop the spread of the freedom virus that BTC is. And I think that it’s already too late.

* I believe that Elon Musk was referring to this future when he was talking about money becoming irrelevant. I don't think that he meant that when the whole planet is using Bitcoin as money (not as an asset), then you can do incredible things with just a few sats.

Governments love humiliation tests.

A humiliation test is a small, pointless obedience drill that trains you to nod first, think later.

It's not about the content. It's about proving the system can make you do or say something you know is dumb, petty, or disproportionate — and you'll do it anyway.

1) What humiliation tests buy the system

A) Dominance proof: "If I can make you do something obviously unnecessary, I know you're safe for the serious stuff".

B) Sorting mechanism. Humiliation tests are filters:

- People who refuse: marked as "difficult", "non-compliant", "not a culture fit".

- People who swallow it: marked as "safe", promotable, eligible for sensitive roles.

No need for ideology diagnostics; a few small, dumb asks tell the system who will bend when it matters.

C) Precedent for escalation. Once you've complied with something you privately saw as bullshit, the system has:

- A precedent: "You agreed before; this is just more of the same".

- A leverage point: your prior compliance can be used to shame future hesitation.

2) What it does inside your head

Humiliation tests weaponize cognitive dissonance:

1. You do the thing (sign, chant, click, recite) because saying no is costly in the moment.

2. You feel the internal conflict: "That was dumb / exaggerated / dishonest".

3. To reduce that tension, your brain updates the story:

- "Maybe it’s not that bad".

- "Maybe they're right".

- "I'm not the kind of person who just submits for no reason, so this must be reasonable".

You move from "I complied under pressure" to "I basically agree" to protect your self-image.

Each petty concession burns your doubt and rewrites your narrative a bit more in their favor.

Humiliation tests are small, symbolic and public.

Over time, the people remaining in key positions are those who've repeatedly signaled:

- "I will override my own judgment and self-respect to keep my place in the system".

That's what the system wanted all along.

When something feels petty, compulsory, and performative, assume it's not about the surface issue.

Ask:

- "What larger narrative am I validating by doing this?"

- "What future request does this make harder for me to refuse?"

- "If I comply now, what will my next self be forced to defend, to avoid admitting I caved here?"

That's the real permission you're being asked to grant.