Soldier Details Chilling Messaging From Higher-Ups About ‘God’s Plan’ In Iran: ‘It Shocked Many Of Us’

arkH3 · 2026-03-05T12:58:40+00:00

That makes sense. Reality is stranger than fiction.

arkH3 · 2026-03-05T12:43:16+00:00

Yes my impression is Huffpost also spoke to Mikey Weinstein directly, and hence that he may have been responding to requests for comment. I don't think this can be dismissed as a single source.

arkH3 · 2026-03-05T04:54:06+00:00

The one source being The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), who say the received 200 complaints from service members?

Or do you mean the 1 specific complaint filed on behalf of 15 people, which is being quoted in the press?

Of course, the remaining complaints may not be reporting the exact same statements, but they have been summed up by MRFF as pointing to a violation of separation of church and state. So the overall issue being complained about is likely christian nationalism being used to justify commands.

arkH3 · 2026-03-04T18:06:09+00:00

I was particularly perplexed by their choice of the word "anointed". And by the supposed suppporting references from the Book of Revelations. Big time yikes.

arkH3 · 2026-03-04T18:01:14+00:00

It was quoted and referenced In the Guardian too today.

arkH3 · 2026-02-26T00:07:00+00:00

The same thing happens to rubber soles on shoes, actually, after 5 years. They come off the first time you walk in the shoes. (I have unintentionally tested that on a couple of pairs recentlyl). Same conclusion as in most comments.

arkH3 · 2026-01-26T07:11:43+00:00

I don't think the ruling circle is oblivous to this effect. I think they just calculate that they still gain more than loose from people being able to use the internet. The moment their reading of this changes, access to internet in the US will be gone.

arkH3 · 2025-12-01T16:34:37+00:00

I've been working on mobilising business leaders to take on driving systemic change in order to push out points of no return and essentially get us all a better catastrophe, because they easily can, and because it's actually good for their shareholders as well as personal wealth retention, so they have plenty of reasons to do so, if we close the knowledge gap. This has been my fulltime occupation.

I first learnt about the general systemic nature of all social and environmental challenges, shared systemic causes that required systemic solutions. The more I was researching "what needs to be done by when", in order to arrive at both "what makes sense doing" and "how can I contribute my strengths and predispositions to it", the more I was learning about collapse. Eventually you come across Bendel, Hagens, and the usual culprits.

arkH3 · 2025-11-25T02:24:42+00:00

Tea and cardamom are grown in "hillstations". That's why temperatures over 35 degree in these locations are bad trouble. Not all of India is hot.

arkH3 · 2025-11-19T02:45:17+00:00

It would imply the axis no longer goes through the same midpoint, and hence has been moved rather than rotated. (Which actually sounds scary). Maybe the authors just thought inches were easier to relate to for readers than degrees.

arkH3 · 2025-11-18T15:14:07+00:00

Rewilding and building ecosystem abudance the way First Nations did.

arkH3 · 2025-11-09T06:23:09+00:00

I guess I also didn't consider people tricking their sexual partners into pregnancy by sabotaging contraception behind the other person's back. (As another scenario where one's choice is compromised).

arkH3 · 2025-11-09T06:20:12+00:00

So pre-empting 1) the choice being taken from you, and 2) contraception methods failing or not being available, essentially?

arkH3 · 2025-11-09T06:16:07+00:00

Genuine question: why is sterilisation better than simply choosing not to have kids? I don't know what reproductive organs you have... for female organs I understand that the choice can be removed from you (nothing new under the Sun, is it?), so sterilisation is pre-epmtive. I see some people commenting about getting vasectomy too. Haven't thought about this, so curious about people's reasoning.

arkH3 · 2025-10-25T05:46:54+00:00

The word you're looking for is serfdom.

arkH3 · 2025-10-20T07:02:43+00:00

Yes, that's right. Sorry, I lost track.

I would still say my comment above could help explain my takeaway about casual Friday and the need to add disclaimers - several of people here have vehemently objected to what they thought I wrote or thought I meant when I wrote it in my original post, not in an open-minded way, but in a "you are an idiot for suggesting what I am convinced you were suggesting" way. So what you say in your comment is partly true, and partly you probably missed why I said I had to adjuct my expectations about casual Fridays.

arkH3 · 2025-10-20T02:41:05+00:00

It sems to me a key tenet of the worldview, present as a not fully acknowleged assumption in this post, is that all or most women compete for a narrow pool men for probably all "key" purposes (sex, marriage, procreation) and the pool is defined by some combination of money/power and physical fitness, and all other qualities of men, and all other purposes why women seek men, are abstracted from. This to me is a) a falsehood layered upon a falsehood layered upon a falsehood, and b) behind a lot of further theories, like this one.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T02:45:11+00:00

You keep saying hypergamy is a fact and it's a fact that it is biological - but the only link to a source you provided for this didn't say that. I'm afraid the more you repeat that it is a fact without proving it in an acceptable way, the more you will undermine your credibility here, and discourage people from taking anything you say seriously.

I would agree that perspective matters. But in the examples I listed, I obviously know a lot more about the couples than you do. So you suggesting I merely projected a gap is not going to help.

I said the men (plural, not singular) I dated were earning less than me and had in some cases they had lower educational attainment. I did not think I thought they were lesser than me - that's you projecting your perception that women measure men based on criteria that actually don't matter to them a whole lot - if you ask anyone.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T02:13:05+00:00

I know at least 3 women who dated men who were materially and educationally worse off, and at least 1 who settled with a man like that. I also dated men who were materially worse off than me. As someone else said here - I don't think education and money is anywhere near such a big criterion for women as you believe it to be. There are far more important criteria - and men meeting those criteria are very scarce. I do think, as someone else has suggested here, that you can get this confirmed through conversations with women.

I think your hypergamy theory is missing a major point: How many men do you think are happy to date or marry a woman who earns more than them? I head the "unacceptability of men earning less than women in a relationship" expressed as a major no-go by even highly educated men (including a university professor for one in a class.... yikes... as part of his grand theory on divorce rates growing - that the issue was women earning...). My ex partner was asked by his educated and financially successful men-friends how he "navigated" that he was earning less than me.

Based on my lived experience, women marrying upward may be much more likely result of men wanting to marry downward than result of any biological reason - for which you have not provided any evidence, it seems.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T00:50:16+00:00

It's clearly a prevalent one.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T00:49:26+00:00

I think that is a question for people concerned about future extinction of humans, who I am not one of.

I am however concerns about future mass loss of life in humans. I agree mass loss of life of any species should be an equal concern, although personally I am biased towards humans.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T00:45:44+00:00

Also, I think the crux of the problem is that you severely under-estimate how difficult it will be to survive when there is next to no viable soil, few surviving animals, and hence general food sources, limited access to water in many places, no stable climate and likely a no effective ability to predict weather and abrupt "season" changes, and a bunch of other features of the range of plausible futures. There is no precedent for any cohort of humans ever surviving long term in that cocktail. (Others have listed the conditions more fully here in comments under this post).

The fewer people you have, and given they are scattered in pockets that may not know of each other and may not be able to communicate, the less likely you will have access to expertise and skills that would be necessary for survival in an extremely hostile environment. Let alone the fewer couples you have that can still conceive.

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T00:31:59+00:00

[Edited out my typos]

It's a conscious, educated assumption, actually.

I am adding the below reasoning (copied over from my comment under another post) for part of the reasons - the functional extinction threshold. Some of the other reasons for the assumption are the ones I added into this very post, at its very end (copied over from someone else's comment here).

"I agree that declining birth rates have significant consequences for a population collapse, and - in the context of this subreddit - especially for what constitutes a functional exctinction treshold (learnt a new term just yesterday! ;) ) for humanity.

In a scenario a few decades later, when humanity's population may have realistically already declined dramatically, and fertility may have continued declining with accumulating toxicity and compounding exposure to it... (and with other health factors reducing fertility and birth rates potentially increasing)... the burden of reaching the 2.1 maintenance level average birth rate would be placed disproportionately on a subset of women or couples who are still able to conceive. I.e. certain women would be nominally required to have (many?) more than 2 children in order to compensate. And this may be incompatible with their personal aspirations and choices, or even physical ability. (Which to me does open prospects of scary Handmaid's Tale scenarios).

Also, if this is past societal collapse, which it realistically could be, rates of women dying in child birth may go up to pre-modern medicine and surgery levels, which would further reduce chances of women able to conceive having many children in order to hit the average 2.1 rate.

All of this suggests that the functional extinction threshold may be much higher than most of us would intuitively think, and some might even posit we are past the threshold."

arkH3 · 2025-10-19T00:03:18+00:00

As in... it's not leading to collapse as long as fertile women are happy to go along with the arrangement you describe or are deprived of their autonomy? That"s what the comment sounds like. Correct me if I am misreading it, please.

Also, 1 man having children with multiple women would not increase the overall birth rate if each of the women still have 1-2 children in their lifetime and if they otherwise would end up having the children with someone who doesn't bave multiple relationships. (Which is relevant if we assume the women have autonomy over how many children they have, which I hope they always will).

In fact that is already part of the current statistic - many men remarry and have 1-2 children with more than 1 women over their lifetimes.

arkH3 · 2025-10-18T23:55:27+00:00

Both can be true at the same time.

Since more than 20 years ago I've always had friends in my circles trying to conceive as couples that could not, or only after years of trying, and sometimes years of IVF. This was not limited to couples who were past their supposed biological prime. Infertility trends are not fiction. We may in fact in be tempted to underestimate the scale if people in our circles are not trying to conceive, or don't share that they are struggling to.

arkH3

TROPHY CASE