Judaism is what arose from ditching that old Hebrew mysticism by running Hebrew Scripture through the meat-grinder of human reason. It wasn’t a single moment in history, but a wearing away of the heart-led resolve via exposure to the Assyrians, then Babylon, then Medo-Persia. Upon their return from Exile, the Hebrew people were eventually exposed to the Greeks, and it was the final death-knell of the heart-led way. And yet the persistence of the mystical approach was never quite buried. Only the leadership in the form of the rabbinical colleges were completely sold, and even then it was never quite ubiquitous. It became the mainstream sometime before Jesus’ day, but there was always a vestige of mystical scholarship around.
So, Dear Reader, can you explain what is wrong with this claim regarding the Assyrian Captivity (from 732BC) and the Second Temple Period (586BC to 70AD)?
The answer is found in the prophesies contained in the Hebrew scriptures.
The story of the fall of the Hebrews can be summarized with one word: idolatry. God told them what would happen if the obeyed his commands…
Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.
…
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit. [..] I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country.
…and he told them what would happen if they worshiped idols instead:
But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you…
…
I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. [..] If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over.
…
I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. [..] I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins.
God established his Covenant and gave due warning about what would happen if the people broke the Covenant. After the Covenant was broken, God sent Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 25) to declare to the people that seventy years of desolations (those spoken of in Leviticus 26:31-21) were about to take pass under the Babylonians. Prophesy was about to be fulfilled due to their idolatry.
Behold the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people because of them that dwell in a far country: Is not the Lord in Zion? is not her king in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities?
Why was the original punishment 70 years? One year for each of the children of Jacob described in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, and their nations in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The punishment for not repenting during the first punishment would be a sevenfold multiplication of the original punishment: seven times for each of the seventy children of Jacob, or seventy sevens.
The punishment of Israel was commensurate with their inheritance.
And what was Daniel reading in Daniel 9? Jeremiah. Daniel understood that the people of Israel had been experiencing the promised desolations promised in the law of Moses (see: Daniel 9:11,13). But the seventy years was about to end. Daniel was hoping that he would get good news: that the desolations would end. But instead the angel informed him that the punishment would be extended by seven times, producing for seventy sevens of years of punishment. Through Gabriel, Daniel received the worst possible news.
Though the exile ended, the punishment continued until 164BC, when the Maccabean rededication of the temple was completed and the punishment ended.
Now let’s go back and look more closely at the reasons for the fall of Israel.
You are not to make for yourselves idols, nor are you to set up a carved image or a standing-stone, nor are you to place any sculpted stone in your land to bow down to it,a because I am Yahweh your God. You must keep my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am Yahweh.
What are the three core statutes and commandments that Israel must do lest they trigger the punishment? To stay away from idols, to keep Yahweh’s Sabbath, and to reverence the sanctuary of Yahweh. Prior to delivering his prophesy of judgment, Jeremiah accused the people of doing these things: worshiping idols (Jeremiah 8:19), not keeping the sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-23), and doing detestable deeds in the sanctuary of Yahweh (Jeremiah 7:9-11).
They were not punished for “running Hebrew Scripture through the meat-grinder of human reason.” They were punished for doing each of the three things that God said they must not do, lest they fall under condemnation. And, speaking of idolatry, there was a specific kind of idolatry that Israel was commanded to avoid.
As the people of Israel prepared to enter the Promised Land, God gave them some specific instructions:
The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
God commands Israel—on pain of death—not to import the theology and practices of their neighbors. What are those idolatrous practices?
“When you have come into the land that Yahweh your God is giving you, you are not to learn to do the abominable things that those nations do. There is not to be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, who practices divination, who tells fortunes, or interprets omens, or practices sorcery, or one who casts spells, or one who inquires of spirits or of a familiar spirit, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh, and because of these abominations Yahweh your God will drive them out from before you. You must be blameless before Yahweh your God. For those nations that you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery and to diviners, but as for you, Yahweh your God does not allow you to do so.
See that reference to human sacrifice? That’s Baal worship. Baal worship was a centerpiece of one of the writings of the Ugarit, the Baal Cycle. It is out of these writings that Heiser (and many others) largely derive their Divine Council theology.
Stop and consider this carefully. The Divine Council is a traditional theology that comes from the pagan religions of the neighbors of Israel. It does not originate with the Hebrews. Almost the entirety of modern scholarship over the last six to ten decades affirms this (this includes “Dr. Michael Heiser“). God explicitly told Israel not to inquire after the practices of their neighbors, and this included Baal specifically! He said not to copy them, and that includes the pagan notion of a divine council of gods.
The reason for the fall of Israel after the Assyrian Captivity and the fall of Judah during the Babylonian Exile was not because they embraced their neighbor’s use of reason. Scripture itself identifies the reason. The fall was due to the Hebrews embracing the idolatrous practices of their neighbors and refusing to repent.
The Divine Council theology relies heavily on a particular interpretation of Deuteronomy 32. This theology relies on verses 8 and 9 speaking of a 70-member divine council of lesser gods who were placed as rulers over the nations. This, as we noted above, is based entirely on the 70-member divine council contained within the religious traditions of Israel’s pagan neighbors and by copying those beliefs. It’s a cursed theology.
Scripture itself—not external sources—identifies the significance of the 70: the earthly children of Jacob (and the nations they represent). In Deuteronomy 18, God specifically and explicitly told them not to inquire after the pagan religions, and that includes their 70-member divine council. What the Divine Council proponents don’t tell you is that they’ve chosen to inquire after the pagan explanation rather than the one contained in scripture.
When one rejects the imported pagan theology, this passage opens up and becomes one of the best passages to explain why God ultimately rejected the Jews. We already saw how it explained the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, now we will see how it explains the rise of Judiasm, the arrival of Christ, and the rejection of the Jews as a nation in 70AD.
They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God. They have made me angry by their worthless idols. So I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people. I will make them angry by a foolish nation.
Once again we have the theme of idolatry: worshiping gods that are not gods. We’ve already talked about the desolations that God promised to bring, but we have not talked about this prophesy, which was fulfilled in Christ’s and Paul’s ministry:
God promised that he would make Israel jealous of the Gentiles because of their idolatry. And that’s exactly what happened.
When Paul wrote the book of Romans,he took his strong reason and wrote one of the most important works ever written. But that’s not why he wrote the book. He wrote it for a very specific reason as he identified the purpose of his ministry:
Now if their transgression resulted in riches for the world, and their failure resulted in riches for the Gentiles, how much more riches will their complete number bring!
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Precisely because I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I can make my own people jealous and save some of them.
Paul did not write these words idly. It was no coincidence that he wrote Romans to make the Jews jealous. It is no accident that his ministry was as a Pharisee sent to the Gentiles and not the Jews. He understood that his mission was a continuation of Jesus’ ministry and the fulfillment of God’s promise to the children of Israel in the Mosaic Law:
The only way for Paul to try to save the Jews was to make them jealous, throwing them into an angry rage. He understood the prophesy of Deuteronomy 32 was being fulfilled and that jealousy was the only means to rescue even a few Jews from out of their idolatry.
Now, let’s look at the purpose of Jesus’ ministry. In Luke 4, Jesus begin his preaching ministry in the most curious of manners:
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And he was given the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. And he unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down, and the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say to them,
And they all were giving a good testimony about him, and were amazed at the words of grace that proceeded out of his mouth, and they said,
And he said to them,
And he said,
And when they heard these things, everyone in the synagogue was filled with rage, and they got up and threw him out of the city. And they brought him to the brow of the hill that their city was built on in order to throw him down the cliff. But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way.
Do you see it? Jesus informed the crowds what the purpose of his ministry was: to save the Gentiles, just as Elijah helped the foreign widow and the foreigner Naaman even though many in Israel were in need of healing.
Sent into a jealous rage, the people tried to kill Jesus by throwing him off of a cliff.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus would make the Jews jealous by pointing out how the Gentiles had faith and did the will of God while the Jews did not. He did so with the Roman Centurion, with the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the healing of the ten lepers, the Parable of the Two Sons, and others. He consistently favored those who had little—the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the Samaritans (including the woman at the well), and the Gentiles—at the expense of the Jews who had received everything.
He repeatedly made them jealous and angry, until ultimately they killed him. Then did God fulfill the promises of punishment again, but this time he destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and permanently gave the Jews’ inheritance (including their status as a nation) to his followers under a New Covenant.
Christians to this very day are still making the Jews jealous. God keeps goading them, just as he promised he would. The hope is that some might be saved.
But what is the point of this? Why did Jesus and Paul try to provoke the Jews to a jealousy-induced rage? Why did they maintain that the Gentiles were better Jews than the Jews? Because, as Paul makes clear throughout the book of Romans, the Jews were merely “hearers of the law” but the Gentiles were “doers of the law.” In doing so, Paul taught justification by faith (and only faith): the doers of the law will be justified by their faith.
The Jews were not participants in the New Covenant because of their idolatry. They were rejected as a nation because of their idolatry.
As Paul said, Christ’s followers are justified by their faith. As Jesus said, they are justified by their words.
Not a single Jew or Gentile was rejected for accepting reason, nor rejected for rejecting mysticism. All were either justified by their faith or else rejected because of their unbelief.
The greatest irony of all is that Paul used the example of the worldview of the Greeks as the standard from which to make the Jews jealous. The Greek Christians were doing the law. The Jews, with their Hebrew ways, were not. After reading what Ed Hurst has written…
…I don’t get the sense at all that Paul had a problem with the Greek approach to reason. Paul explicitly commends the Bereans’ academic approach to scripture. He explicitly commands Gentiles to use their minds—not their hearts—to find the Will of God. Paul repeatedly flaunts the failures of Hebrew mysticism and praises the all-encompassing mind-led=heart-led approach.
As I have pointed out in many places (e.g. “Heart and Mind” and “Redux“), the Hebrews did not believe in the distinction between heart-led and mind-led. As I pointed out in “Emotion and Intellect” the seat of human moral awareness is the mind. The separation of one’s heart and mind, like the separation of body and soul, is a concept rooted in Greek philosophy. It is not a Hebrew abstraction.
Hurst’s view of Jewish history is a creative fabrication that isn’t consistent with the words of scripture or with history itself. Notably, absolutely none of his claims in his article are supported by scripture (i.e. on exegesis). They are all rooted in external assumptions (i.e. in eisegesis).
Interestingly, the Pharisees had a real big problem with Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath (e.g.the “work” that he and the disciples did). And the only time Jesus got violent was in response to the defiling of the sanctuary of Yahweh.
This parallels what a certain fellow has been doing for almost 15 years: pointing out that those who are despised by the supposed righteous in the sphere are doing a better job believing the “red pill” than those who think they do.
Also I thought the red pill and Christianity or at least the early Church(as someone told you here so many months ago about the definition of the red pill were supposedly the Scriptures(when that is an innovation & NOT what was believed in the early years of the sphere) were either identical (the latter day redpiller belief) or nearly identical(the old belief of the ”redpillers”), but now I’m being told ”NOT so” BUT ”GBFM was always right dude”…
People, including Red Pillers, are prone to view the world through a Worldly / Red Pill lens, instead of a Biblical / Christian one, respectively as GBFM has stated for years.
In general, Blue Pilled men are having significantly better marital success than Red Pilled men. And TRP folk often do fly into a jealous rage when you point that out.
That is it, indeed.
watched a video recently. Very handsome guy. Basically said the “red pill” needs to be “red pilled” and came to the conclusion that the “red pill” is a psyop at this point.
Remember when cameras on police officers became a thing? People expected it to show huge amounts of abuse by police, but it didn’t actually do this. For example, most of the times it showed that the violence that police shell out isn’t racially motivated: if there is abuse, it applies to whites and blacks equally. When actual abuse occurred—and it totally did—the cameras would magically malfunction (or it would run counter to the narrative by being against white people). Police cameras did expose police behavior, but it didn’t have the result that the activists intended, in large part because the activists were mostly wrong about police being racist.
The irony is that we already knew, before the camera policies were implemented, that cops were not racist. For example, activists could not bear the fact that black men commit about 7x more murders on average than white men, which fully accounts for the supposed “racist” policing: more crimes, more interactions.
The Red Pill is similar. It has definitely exposed many real problems, but it hasn’t had the effect that the proponents intended. It’s ultimately disappointing because the promises that TRP activists have made are simply not coming to pass. TRP gave us something else than they were expecting. This is in large part because their assumptions about interpersonal relationships are inherently flawed, so they take the real facts, observations, and data and misunderstand and misapply it.
Just as the anti-police activists erred in thinking that cops were racist, so too have TRP activists erred in thinking that the problem with marriage is a lack of patriarchy.
Remember when cameras on police officers became a thing? People expected it to show huge amounts of abuse by police, but it didn’t actually do this.
YEAH all they needed was more funding and all would be solved!
Just like the ever-changing ”red pill” supposedly ”set in stone or human nature” or ”human DNA” doctrine to make more converts does. As seen in this exchange over the last few days on Father courting & Marriage.
Jax says:
2024-09-28 at 12:23 am
You are familiar with my story. Part of my concern with this system is that it seems to encourage “Oneitis”-or ”I only have eyes for you FIL.” I have my doubts as to whether this woman is actually interested in me. Her father might think I’m great as he whispered in my ear as we waltz, but if the feeling isn’t mutual with his daughter, am I not just running in vain? Instead of mission-based modern ”Patriarchical” courting of the dad & dad princess daughter like Oscar recommends?
Like
Reply
Oscar says:
2024-09-28 at 7:47 am
First, let’s acknowledge the obvious. Rejection hurts, no matter how it happens, and men are usually the ones that have to bear that burden, because we’re the ones that usually take the initiative. I’m sorry that you had to go through that.
That being said, “oneitis” only applies when you’re married. Once you’re married, she’s the one for you and you’re the one for her and her ”Father” thank you very much-IOW?-I loved courting my FIL. Until then, if a woman doesn’t want you, then she’s not for you. You don’t want to end up married to a woman who doesn’t really want you or you and her Father courting, just like you wouldn’t want to end up married to a woman you don’t really want.
If/when rejection happens, I’d advise you to take it as nonchalantly as possible, regardless of how you feel on the inside for her or her dad you are really courting like myself-personally?-I love quiet strolls together on the beach by moonlight. If you need to throw yourself a short pity party with your bros, that’s fine. We all need that sometimes. Your bros should be there to encourage you to snap out of it, not wallow in it, but a few beers with your bros can do a lot of good in these situations. In front of people other than your bros, your attitude should be a shrug, a smile, and “oh well”. The saying “never let them see you sweat” applies here.
Anyway, back to your question. It’s easy to get tempted into “oneitis” when you see 20-year-olds get married who’ve known each other since elementary school, but that’s not your lot, nor was it mine, or that of most men. Don’t give in to the temptation. “Oneitis” is only appropriate after the wedding.
Liked by 2 people
Reply
Jax says:
2024-09-29 at 4:56 am
Oscar,
I appreciate the reply. I think there may be a misunderstanding. The coffee-shop woman I mentioned in the other post was me keeping my options open so as to not develop oneitis for the young woman at church. I am still interested in her, and her father has kind of made an attempt to get to know me, but not to the extent that I feel confident.
I think I’m having a difficult time accepting this:
“If the men respect you, then the single young women who love and respect those men will be attracted to you.”
Because I’ve been conditioned to think that all that matters is how the woman feels about me.
Like
Oscar says:
2024-09-29 at 9:34 am
“I think there may be a misunderstanding. The coffee-shop woman I mentioned in the other post was me keeping my options open so as to not develop oneitis for the young woman at church.”
You’re right, I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing that up.
“I think I’m having a difficult time accepting this:
“If the men respect you, then the single young women who love and respect those men will be attracted to you.”
Because I’ve been conditioned to think that all that matters is how the woman feels about me.”
First, it’s a general rule, not an absolute. It’s like saying, “Men are taller than women”. It’s generally true, but not always.
Second, how she feels about you definitely matters, but the respect of the men in your church also matters, and it’ll influence how she feels about you.
Third, it’s fine for you to keep your options open. You’re not even courting her yet. I’m not advising you to “spin plates”, or anything like that, but if you see better odds with another girl, there’s nothing wrong with that.
“I am still interested in her, and her father has kind of made an attempt to get to know me, but not to the extent that I feel confident.”
What did her father do to get to know you? Could you reach out to him?
Liked by 1 person
Jax says:
2024-09-30 at 7:33 pm
Oscar,
Apologies for the long read, but I’ll take you through it. Way back on Father’s Day I wished him a happy Father’s Day and asked if we could meet sometime for a sit-down conversation. He said that we could & he hadn’t been properly courted in a ”long.. time brah”. I didn’t hear anything for a month, until late July when he approached me and said that he hadn’t forgotten about me, but his schedule is busy.
Late August, I reached out to him and asked if we could talk briefly after the service one Sunday evening, and he agreed. I told him that I wanted to have a clarifying conversation. He asked what I meant, and said that he knows that I’ve been wanting to meet but that he hasn’t really had time to meet with anyone. At that point I made it pretty clear that I was still interested in his daughter. And I needed clarity on whether he even wants me interacting with his daughter because I don’t want to be disrespectful to him or her. He said that he would talk with her.
The following Sunday, he approached me and said that there is “no negative tension” as he just needed ”space” to ”find who he is without I” as ”our courting was suffocating.”He also asked me if I’d be attending the (obvious) blue-pilled men’s breakfast in a couple Saturdays so I could court him better &maybe give him a commitment ring to show my worship to him. I said yes. He asked if I’d like to help out and I said of course. I think this may have been a modern ”Patriarchical” daughter dad $#it test, because he asked if I would help with prep (5:30 AM) and ” the proper way of Dating a princess daughter’s Father today for young MENZ”. I was a little surprised that it was that early, and he said he could put me down for clean-up if that’s too early, and I said no I’ll be there at 5:30. The next Sunday he asked if I’m still able and I said yes. And then he texted me the Friday before with one final reminder. I was there and stayed until noon to help with clean-up after one dad had ”a moment” after his daughter’s prospective daughter told him ”sirz you are the most handsome & nice dad I have ever courted” his tears went everywhere dudes. He expressed his appreciation from a far with blown kiss TBH.
That Sunday and the next we didn’t talk. But yesterday I approached him and asked about serving opportunities. He and his wife run the children’s ministry, so I asked if there was any need there, acknowledging that I’d understand if as a single man I’d be restricted. He said that they do have to be more cautious, but that there’s no need right now, but that he would keep me in mind for the future or opportunities in other areas. And then we talked briefly about my week and upcoming week.
That pretty much sums it up.
Like
Oscar says:
2024-10-01 at 2:20 pm
Thanks for the details, Jax I almost had ”a moment” dude.
Most of what you wrote sounds encouraging. The only part I didn’t find encouraging is the time it took him to respond to you. However, I doubt he would’ve asked you to help setting up for the men’s breakfast unless he thought you had potential. In fact, I see that invitation as a major positive.
If one of my boys was in your shoes, I’d advise him to keep his options open in courting various dadz, and continue helping at and attending the(obvious) bluepilled men’s breakfast, and whatever other events he finds interesting.
It sounds like you’re doing well. Keep up the good work of courting dadz.
Liked by 2 people
Jax says:
2024-10-01 at 9:25 pm
Thanks Oscar. I did omit a probably important detail. He told me that he has advised his daughters to not date until they are marriageable, which for him means at least 18 years old (as he is a modern ”Patriarchical” dad like yourself )and having been baptized. Truth be told, she won’t be 18 for another four months, hahazlollzlolzzzz. And she hasn’t yet been baptized as she keeps her options open to it seems.
That could partly explain his hesitation to meet with me in earnest. Also, my discipler, who is a close friend of his, says that he can vouch for his busy schedule. So, who knows, but I will, as you said, keep on keeping on.
Like
Jack says:
2024-10-01 at 9:51 pm
The good ones{which WE used to say didn’t exist as recently as a few months back, now we’re changing the ”red pill” ”rules” again to fit our narrative for dads of daughters who We court now instead of blackpillers who( like Vox Day ) only continue to ignore us and mock us as constant ever-changing doctrine hypocrites SMH right? where do they that from huh?} get snatched up young.
Liked by 1 person
Oscar says:
2024-10-02 at 12:57 am
Yes they do as we dads do to by our various paramours to (giggles).
Like
Oscar says:
2024-10-02 at 1:55 am
Yeah, 18 is reasonable(as I myself am a modern ”Patriarchical” dad who thinks 1950s dating is Biblical instead of Femoinistic). The fact that he’s willing to court to get to know you before she’s even ready to court is another good sign. Keep your options open and be encouraged. You’re doing well.
Liked by 1 person
Jax says:
2024-10-02 at 2:31 am
Jack,
Importantly, the good ones{which WE used to say didn’t exist as recently as a few months back, now we’re changing the ”red pill” ”rules” again to fit our narrative for dads of daughters who We court now instead of blackpillers who ( like Vox Day ) only continue to ignore us and mock us as constant ever-changing doctrine hypocrites SMH right? where do they that from huh?} desire to get snatched up young.
Yes.
In the video, he mentioned “If Red Pill is really being silenced, along with MGTOW and “mens rights” then how come there are a gazillion blogs, videos on YouTube, and lots of information that can be found?”
He also mentioned that “Red Pill actually celebrates the destruction of the family. Not in the way you may think. It glorifies and worships the sex-act. It sets up the premiss on how to get-women-to-like-you and in those areas teaches men how to talk to women. Be a clown, be an assh*le, talk to them like children on all matters”
“It teaches men to not get married…..all of them (women) are only good for one thing, tells men how to dress, act and behave in ways that are not conductive to a marriage, or finding / getting a wife for a good marriage.”
“It even decides what career or field or work a man must do and be in order to be deemed a man by them. It caters to what women want in men, and today…..it isnt marriage or commitment in the traditional sense”
The video purports that the Red Pill is actually the work of neferious people that celebrates the destruction of the family while cloaking it as ‘standing up for men’and ‘being a real man’ and if the Red Pill is so underground, and dangerous….why is it mainstream? Why has not marriage increased, and divorce rates dropped in real numbers? Why are men still so frustrated by not being able to uphold this standard…..and how come women are not responding to this ‘natural male’ stance that all women are attracted to?”
He is convinced Red Pill is indeed a psyop of sorts, and mentioned how “movements” in the past were used by the top to convince the useful idiots that they were in charge. He mentioned the Red Guards in the Chinese ‘cultural revolution’ (1966-1968) and how the CIA and other groups infiltrated the “weathermen” (left) and “minutemen” (right) and used them in the end for their own means.
I thought it was an interesting take. And no, this guy was lean jawed, handsome, you could tell he worked out / hit the gym and he has a decent job. This was not some whiney soy boy
Pingback: The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 5