"Sometimes it is worth bearing in mind that endings are just new beginnings in disguise."
To anyone reading this: This goes deeper than your hopes will whisper to you. Your hopes will continually tell you that a savior is coming (He is), but first and foremost He wants YOU to save yourself.
This war against the armies of old and evil will be the defining point of our existence - we were put here on this earth and at this time to face and confront these obstacles - and if we fail to fight these battles with truth, faith, and courage both ourselves and future generations will be condemned to a hellish existence where famine, pestilence, pain, and misery will reign supreme.
But that being said, please do not make the mistake of confusing the outcome of this all-encompassing conflict with the struggle to win it—it is the struggle itself that holds all of the meaning, and that is where your true personal victory lies. Nothing in your life has ever been about whether you win or lose, it has only ever been about how you conduct yourself the during these trials and tribulations.
It is what you do in the midst of this war when things are not in your favor that will define you: will you stand firm and embrace your integrity in the face of the impossible odds of a losing battle or will you renounce your honor and seek refuge against the raging storm? If God is watching which course of action would be favorable to Him? If you were watching from outside yourself which course would be favorable to you? To run and cower or to unflinchingly face the wickedness and fight it head on?
Do not be like Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn. You CANNOT comply your way out of this tyranny.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
"UK Director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, wants to prosecute people for sharing or posting content that could 'start racial hatred,' or could be 'likely to.'"
So you're responsible not only for the housing, food, and welfare of sociopaths; you're also responsible for their *potential* emotions about your opinions of them. Doesn't stabbing the natives of the country you just broke into risk "starting racial hatred"? WTF does "starting racial hatred" even mean?
I remember a couple decades ago being outraged by stories from the UK involving home invasions in which the homeowner defended himself and his property and was sentenced to prison, while the invaders were caressed and coddled. I can't say that I remember clearly what the British public's response was, but there wasn't enough reaction to stop that bullshit in its tracks. Predictably, it's now gone from being illegal to object to having your house broken into, to being illegal to object to having your whole country broken into.
I think the homeowner you might be referring to was a farmer named Tony Martin. He was sentenced to be jailed for life in April 2000 for shooting dead a burglar who was a 16 year old teenaged boy named Fred Barras. Via the Guardian:
Tony Martin was released from prison in 2003. Via the BBC:
Twenty years on from what he calls "that fateful night", Martin maintains he does not "have to excuse myself for anything", and believes the law still falls short in protecting householders defending their homes.
He insists his "problem" - the term he uses to refer to the break-in, shooting and imprisonment - matters, because he believes he should have been treated as the victim, not the criminal.
"I've always said when people get into exceptional circumstances which are beyond the norm, the law should leave you alone," he said. "You should be protected in law against these things."
Prof David Wilson said Martin became a powerful and divisive symbol, held up both by those who believed his actions were justified and those who did not.
"Was he defending his home from intruders or simply a vigilante taking the law into his own hands?" said Prof Wilson, emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.
"I don't think any journalist missed the opportunity to frame that story in the way that suited their readership."
Despite those interpretations, Martin was found guilty - and the impact of his case has not changed the legal facts, Prof Wilson said.
"The law has not changed. You are allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself and your property.
"The test of what's reasonable was not felt to have been met in Martin's case because the intruders were running away."
The law allows for reasonable-force-against-intruders to be used - a test Martin failed, leading legal experts to warn after the verdict that he should not be seen as "the typical Englishman trying to defend his castle".
Yes, Tony Martin. I recall it being outrageous because of the authorities' depraved indifference to the series of break-ins on his property and their shrugging off all his appeals for help. The cops were at least as much to blame as the repeat burglars, but Martin, the victim, was the one punished for everyone else's failings.
Where I live, the responsibility for deciding whether property is worth dying for lies with the person thinking about stealing it. The FAFO doctrine.
"Sometimes it is worth bearing in mind that endings are just new beginnings in disguise."
To anyone reading this: This goes deeper than your hopes will whisper to you. Your hopes will continually tell you that a savior is coming (He is), but first and foremost He wants YOU to save yourself.
This war against the armies of old and evil will be the defining point of our existence - we were put here on this earth and at this time to face and confront these obstacles - and if we fail to fight these battles with truth, faith, and courage both ourselves and future generations will be condemned to a hellish existence where famine, pestilence, pain, and misery will reign supreme.
But that being said, please do not make the mistake of confusing the outcome of this all-encompassing conflict with the struggle to win it—it is the struggle itself that holds all of the meaning, and that is where your true personal victory lies. Nothing in your life has ever been about whether you win or lose, it has only ever been about how you conduct yourself the during these trials and tribulations.
It is what you do in the midst of this war when things are not in your favor that will define you: will you stand firm and embrace your integrity in the face of the impossible odds of a losing battle or will you renounce your honor and seek refuge against the raging storm? If God is watching which course of action would be favorable to Him? If you were watching from outside yourself which course would be favorable to you? To run and cower or to unflinchingly face the wickedness and fight it head on?
Do not be like Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn. You CANNOT comply your way out of this tyranny.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
"UK Director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, wants to prosecute people for sharing or posting content that could 'start racial hatred,' or could be 'likely to.'"
So you're responsible not only for the housing, food, and welfare of sociopaths; you're also responsible for their *potential* emotions about your opinions of them. Doesn't stabbing the natives of the country you just broke into risk "starting racial hatred"? WTF does "starting racial hatred" even mean?
I remember a couple decades ago being outraged by stories from the UK involving home invasions in which the homeowner defended himself and his property and was sentenced to prison, while the invaders were caressed and coddled. I can't say that I remember clearly what the British public's response was, but there wasn't enough reaction to stop that bullshit in its tracks. Predictably, it's now gone from being illegal to object to having your house broken into, to being illegal to object to having your whole country broken into.
I think the homeowner you might be referring to was a farmer named Tony Martin. He was sentenced to be jailed for life in April 2000 for shooting dead a burglar who was a 16 year old teenaged boy named Fred Barras. Via the Guardian:
Martin's mother Hilary, 86, said it should have been the burglars in the dock and not her son. She added: "I am shocked. I am disappointed. I can't believe it. Because of this verdict decent people will not be able to sleep at night. He was merely defending himself against people who were thieves and vagabonds." https://web.archive.org/web/20150429103452/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime3
Tony Martin was released from prison in 2003. Via the BBC:
Twenty years on from what he calls "that fateful night", Martin maintains he does not "have to excuse myself for anything", and believes the law still falls short in protecting householders defending their homes.
He insists his "problem" - the term he uses to refer to the break-in, shooting and imprisonment - matters, because he believes he should have been treated as the victim, not the criminal.
"I've always said when people get into exceptional circumstances which are beyond the norm, the law should leave you alone," he said. "You should be protected in law against these things."
Prof David Wilson said Martin became a powerful and divisive symbol, held up both by those who believed his actions were justified and those who did not.
"Was he defending his home from intruders or simply a vigilante taking the law into his own hands?" said Prof Wilson, emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.
"I don't think any journalist missed the opportunity to frame that story in the way that suited their readership."
Despite those interpretations, Martin was found guilty - and the impact of his case has not changed the legal facts, Prof Wilson said.
"The law has not changed. You are allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself and your property.
"The test of what's reasonable was not felt to have been met in Martin's case because the intruders were running away."
The law allows for reasonable-force-against-intruders to be used - a test Martin failed, leading legal experts to warn after the verdict that he should not be seen as "the typical Englishman trying to defend his castle".
https://web.archive.org/web/20190817152242/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-49355814
Yes, Tony Martin. I recall it being outrageous because of the authorities' depraved indifference to the series of break-ins on his property and their shrugging off all his appeals for help. The cops were at least as much to blame as the repeat burglars, but Martin, the victim, was the one punished for everyone else's failings.
Where I live, the responsibility for deciding whether property is worth dying for lies with the person thinking about stealing it. The FAFO doctrine.