Birds are not real

I believe it is on lemmy and you’re right since most users of this platform are here for a reason, and it mostly comes from witnessing first hand digital changes, mine is seeing recurring patterns of digital weaponization and coporate/governmental appropriation of the digital medium.

But to most people, using facebook, tiktok, using public access internet with no filtering of their IP or using the router your ISP gave you is totally valid and the broad public lacks the knowledge to understand why some people default to avoiding these options and why there is a moral explanation for why the internet should not be used with ignorance. My sharing of a historical fact was only because I made the error of thinking this was not public knowledge here.

Fun fact: the internet actually has a precursor believed to be the real origin of the concept of the internet. It used to be called ARPANET developed by ARPA, a US military organization which later changed name to DARPA. This is similar with the concept of VPNs which actually were invented by the US military when they designed IPsec. I will abstain from trying to connect the two since this would sound conspiratory but it is a pretty weird phenomenon that instances of the western internet being militarized are becoming more frequent and observable through time and this aligns with the tendency of most digital innovations usually having creation origins stemming from military research.

Your point reminds me of the logic behind certain religious psychologies that see this world not as an end in itself, but as a proving ground or a purgatorial space. Its morality is sometimes inverted for a higher, otherworldly purpose.

Take public execution in medieval Christian Europe. While a spectacle of deterrence, some theologians (like Nicholas of Cusa aka who I picture rubbing my rod at night) grappled with a darker rationale: that the intense physical pain of burning could serve as a form of accelerated penance. The idea was that this suffering might pay the temporal debt of sin before death, potentially sparing the soul a longer, more severe punishment in the afterlife. The executioner, in this context, was performing an act of supposed spiritual charity, which is actually why executioners were often clergy or faith oriented men.

This mirrors,the core doctrine of Frankism, an 18th-century Jewish heretical movement. Frankists believed in ‘redemption through sin.’ Their goal was at times personal regret, but a cosmological acquisition of a higher knowledge. The pleasure or suffering of the sinner was incidental to this divine path to regret and penance.

We see a third variant in groups like ISIS. When they stoned Muslims for adultery, it was framed as enacting divine law to purify the community and offer the sinner ritual atonement. When they cut the throats of Western captives, the logic switched entirely to theater of terror, a spectacle for global distancing (stay in your country, as a result of the frequent invasions of countries from west asia), but also because in Islam, the act of cutting through the neck artery is seen as a quick and painless death. It causes death quickly because oxygen output runs out very fast and is why it is the mandatory way of making meat halal, part of it is to use a quick, simple and relatively painless death.

The unifying, and strangely rational, thread is this: when reality is viewed through an eschatological or cosmological lens, worldly concepts of pleasure, pain, and even morality become secondary. Acts are judged not by their immediate human cost, but by their function in a grand narrative of spiritual war, purification, or redemption. It’s a logic that operates on a plane completely separate from humanist rationale because humans are not the end all be all.

I advise you do and it may get a bit more difficult to follow but your comment is partly right yes. The only aspect of it that differs is that it is a form of acquiring knowledge, because knowledge of god means knowledge of the sins. Through sinning you acquire understanding of why sins are wrong and the more you sin, the more valid your faith is unlike the faith of someone who has never sinned and therefore has no innate understanding of why sinning is wrong. It is a very strange cult but it is the only one that explains logically why powerful entities choose to commit things like the ones epstein did and there is a lot of goddamn powerful maniacs that have been proven to be true frankist and believe the nonsense it is.

Well isn’t this funny when you think about how Bill and Hilary refused to show up to court and had the court find them in contempt? I think it is very funny that a former president and first lady refused to testify to a court investigating a pedophile who previously worked as an israeli soldier and had ties to israeli secret services.

The only logical explanation I have found about it is by learning about Frankism from Professor Jiang and his youtube channel Predictive history.