In the age of the polycrisis, we must see through ALL concocted problems, operations, hoaxes and scams.
Shownotes:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/polycrisis-global-risks-report-cost-of-living/
https://thefreedomarticles.com/deep-down-virus-rabbit-hole-question-everything/
https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1710689115522371772
https://armageddonprose.substack.com/p/former-breitbart-colleague-i-saw
https://thefreedomarticles.com/zionist-neocons-at-helm-usg-salivate-idea-wider-war/
*****
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Break Your Chains, the book series Controversial Truths Revealed (Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and 40 Incredible Real Life Alien Abductee and Contactee Experiences) and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Rumble and Odysee.
3 Comments
The thumbnail is immodest and should be changed.
The minimum standard for modest dress for females is to wear only an opaque, with-no-holes, not-flesh-colored, dress/skirt that covers the knees, and a top, of the same material (e.g. opaque, etc), that covers the elbows, is loose in the bodice (e.g. tuxedo starched shirt that accommodates the bodice, but doesn’t hug it) so that the form is concealed, and that has a neckline which is no more than two fingers-width from the bottom of the pit of the throat all the way around.
Pants/shorts (or worse) aren’t ever acceptable for public view on females.
I would say that the same should go for males except that bifurcated garments such as pants and long shorts are required. As such, at the minimum shirts with long-enough sleeves must be worn.
These standards don’t discriminate with regards to activities. There aren’t exceptions for the weather or activities such as swimming.
A person’s age doesn’t matter here. Little children ought to be covered probably even more so than adults. This is because typically their skin is perfect. The idea that modesty only applies to children as they get older is false.
Finally, even art isn’t exempt from this. So-called “religious” art with “angels” in the form of unclothed little children with wings are immodest.
The standard of modesty can be seen in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The angel in this image made by Heaven has his arms covered.
The best work concerning modest dress is the modified version of the Marylike Modesty Handbook of the Purity Crusade of Mary Immaculate
http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html
It makes an important point. Just because a female is modestly dressed doesn’t mean that she can’t/isn’t an occasion of sin. Even a pretty face, especially one enhanced with face paint is at least a remote occasion of sin. A Catholic saint made a vow to not gaze on the face of his own mother.
The Jews know this. Orthodox Jews have a prohibition against women singing for those not their husbands. Why are there women working on Jew-owned TV news? It is satanically manipulative.
I was banned from American Greatness after making a comment which included the statement that females ought not to be permitted to be news anchors.
Another good book is Immodesty: Satan’s Virtue.
Finally, while it ought not to be allowed to be published in its present form most of the book The Valiant Maiden’s Crusade: A Catholic Girl’s Guide to Modesty and Purity is good for female modesty and purity guidance. It has specifics about “modest” garments that aren’t so. It also goes into modest behavior and cosmetics. The part to watch out for with regards to immodesty is the history of dress.
I personally object to any images of humans, especially females, in the interest of avoiding even the slightest remote occasion of sin. The Valiant Maiden’s Crusade does include a lot of images. Even if they are modest, they aren’t appropriate, in my opinion, in excess.
I note that none of the major “Catholic” publishers (even TAN) who almost certainly follow Antipope Francis are publicizing any of the above. You can see books published by them with really immodest images (e.g. “religious” art). They don’t know, don’t care, or don’t both concerning immodesty.
Shawn, sin means to miss the mark. While the mark you are aiming to hit is morality you will miss Jesus. Just like the pharisees did. Rom.7:1-4.
Modesty is a good thing. But, people do not miss Jesus when they fail in the modesty parameters you laid out here.
To be a sin, technically called “formal sin,” there must be knowledge.
But it should be obvious that knowledge doesn’t make much of a difference in this matter with regards to what is called social immodesty. Those in ignorance/error will still be materially leading others into sin, even if they aren’t guilty of formal sin.
Whoever was – and is – behind the immodesty conspiracy (i.e. at least Jews and Freemasons) is the most culpable.
Then there is the sin of omission aspect. The Catholic hierarchy (i.e. in the 1950s) and Catholic parents had a duty to teach concerning immodesty. I think that they failed at some point.
I am teaching what I believe to be true. I have delved deeply into this topic, and have reached conclusions which I share for the edification and education of others.
The pharisees weren’t good people. That is why Jesus called them out.
If a woman/man fails to dress contrary to his conscience informed by the minimum standard which (FYI) came from the office of Pope Pius XI, then he is sinning, either venial or mortal (i.e. Hell).