“The great deception started happening as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven, but it centered in the late 4th-century. Modern Christians think it hasn’t started yet, or else is just beginning. The church has been deceived for centuries.”
That’s an excellent summary. I wonder what flaw of reason has you still submitting yourself to those whom you know have stayed in a fog of deceit for centuries. By whose power are those deceived ones reigning over you? Is it not by your own choice to submit yourself to, and follow, their apostate religious order, thereby bestowing it with your own approval by your association?
These are great questions written in response to my comment here. Let’s dive in.
The First Question
This question requires a careful, thoughtful response.
The New Testament instructs the church to be mutually submitting to each other as to Christ. Out of love and respect, Christians are to defer to each other. Submission is a general virtue, alongside many others, that all Christians should strive to do. It’s part of one’s godly service.
Biblical submission does not imply obedience to authority, and so does not imply the forced acceptance of falsehood. It’s about giving honor where honor is due, of maintaining propriety and order not blind obedience. It is compatible with discernment: agreeing-to-disagree regarding lesser doctrines (i.e. not critical issues like false Christs, false prophets, or false gospels).
For example, Anicetus and Polycarp illustrate mutual submission:
Had either Anicetus or Polycarp viewed submission as a matter of authority, their interaction would have been punctuated by chaos and division. Instead, they had peace and order. Ultimately, it wasn’t about who was right or wrong. Submission, like love, is a prerequisite to resolving doctrinal disagreement.
We can illustrate this by contrasting it with the handling of the Filioque Controversy in 1054AD. Both sides met in Constantinople and demonstrated the chaos that erupts when submission is rejected:
Both sides held firmly to their authority and this led to the Great Schism.
I certainly disagree with deceived members of the deceived church on many issues. This includes my disagreement with Radix Fidem regarding their heretical teaching on the nature of the heart and mind. This seems minor, except that it results in their movement failing the tests of the spirits through false prophecies that proclaim a false Jesus and a false gospel. That’s a major doctrinal issue, and I don’t “submit” to it. But I don’t throw out the other truths that they describe. They are not wrong about everything
How do I determine which men are Christians and which are not? If the standard is complete and flawless agreement with scripture, then there are no Christians. I wouldn’t be included! This is obviously not workable.
Should I refuse to pray with Brothers like Lastmod because he comes out of the Salvation Army? Should I refuse to pray with my Gnostic Sister who set up a saint feast day in my name in her church? Should I refuse to contemplate Feeriker’s and his wife’s plight or lift it up in prayer because we happen to disagree on Red Pill doctrine? Should I refuse fellowship with Roman Catholics because their religion is infested with demonic influences? Should I toss out all the (disproportionate percentage of) homosexuals I’ve known, even though I’ve never once compromised on biblical morality? Should I have refused to quote Oscar’s enunciation of the biblical standards on prophecy in the last few series of posts just because we had irreconcilable differences in the past?
Where is grace to be found?
It’s enough that I recognize that the church is deep in a fog of deceit. I don’t reject the people of the church simply because they believe in false ideas, nor do I reject true ideas because they are perpetuated by deceived persons. Test everything according to scripture. Keep what is good and reject what is not.
So the simplest answer to the question is found in this analog question:
My obedience to scripture and its principles is not contingent on the deceit—or lack thereof—of the church. It is no flaw of reason that I answer to a higher power.
The Second Question
I have one Lord and master and I answer to Him. The deceived do not reign over me. I’m not obligated to obey such men.
But I can choose to hear them out, interact with them, and seek peace. I did that even with Sharkly during our contentious interaction. Even that would have been peaceful if he had desired.
There was no need to throw stones. Underlying this question is the assumption that we Christians are obligated to personally judge those who are deceived. Sharkly did not hesitate to do this against me, but I refuse to condemn him, just as I refused to condemn Gunner Q when he did the same against me. My public prayer here is that the Lord grant mercy, forbearance, and forgiveness to those who neglected to show it to me.
For example, forgiveness—the refusal to cling to sin-debt—ensures that the deceived ones have no power over me to incite me to bitterness and it facilitates the path towards reconciliation.
The Third Question
This question gets to the heart of how a modern Christian is to worship and achieve Christian fellowship when the vast majority of the church has been captured by anti-Christian forces. I have no answers.
One can hold themselves individual in communion with Christ, but to do so without a communion with the rest of the saints is fundamentally broken. The church as a whole is fundamentally broken, and this hurts everyone, whether deceived or not.
In recent years I’ve attended two different churches. Sometimes I go to one, sometimes I go to the other, and sometimes I go to neither.
I asked above “How do I determine which men are Christians and which are not?” and the same question applies to churches. If the standard is complete and flawless agreement with scripture, then there are no churches that I should attend, including the ones I now attend! This is obviously not workable.
I have no solution. I go to the churches I go to because even in their various deceptions, the Word of God is found. Even the demons can quote scripture! They can try to distort it, but ultimately God’s truth wins through. It can be found. Is this wise? I do not know. I have no answers.
What about my brothers on the internet? I’d desire to be part of an online community of Christians, but I’m not going to join Radix Fidem, for its precepts include demonic heresy and anti-scriptural doctrines. Some who should be Brothers, including Sharkly, have explicitly rejected me. I have implored him for reconciliation, to set aside differences, to no avail. I value the views of those who comment here and elsewhere. That must be enough, for now.
Postscript
Hat tip to Feeriker for sharing “Alice Cooper Shares The Story Of His Faith.” This illustrates why it is not so easy to just write someone off, and why I more-or-less refuse to do so regardless of their level of heresy, deception, and apostasy… or perhaps because of it.
Zlolzzlollzzzz
Comment by Sharkly
“The great deception started happening as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven, but it centered in the late 4th-century. Modern Christians think it hasn’t started yet, or else is just beginning. The church has been deceived for centuries.”
That’s an excellent summary. I wonder what flaw of reason has you still submitting yourself to those whom you know have stayed in a fog of deceit for centuries. By whose power are those deceived ones reigning over you? Is it not by your own choice to submit yourself to, and follow, their apostate religious order, thereby bestowing it with your own approval by your association?
i like where his/her/its reaction to ”Jack” going ”mystical” was to come over here and attack Derek.This is the same his/her/it that mildly attacked ”Jack” through RPA at Spawnys after that ”life and lessons of Mathew 10:with lots of butthexting empowerment thanx to ”jack”” post in September 2021.IOW?
”Sparkly” happily and humbly submit to ”Jack’s” ”leadership”,” synergy” and apostasy(this is the main reason I left his site almost 3 years ago over his hypocritical Bravedo faux tough guy -acting against the world, the flesh, and the devil ”virtue” that doesn’t exist in reality, BUT only in his paranoid mind ) while giving his approval to it whenever he wants BUT anyone else isn’t supposed to speak up as you might take away ”sparklys” non-Manhood/”courageous”” virtue” his/her/it says they have but obviously don’t!
We’ll see what Sharkly’s reaction to Jack’s mystical conversion is now that it has been fully revealed. I won’t speculate.
On the other hand, Sharkly didn’t attack me. His criticism was warranted.
Professor,
Well, given that Sharkly just came over to attack. I tried civility and he came back swinging and spewing venom. Maybe you are right that his questions were, in fact, attacks. His own example proves it, I guess. I am chastised.
I withdraw my claim that his criticism is warranted. Professor, you can continue treating him as if he’s a troll until he corrects his behavior. Perhaps your satire will be more effective than my attempt to reason with him.
Peace,
DR
Also:
i and BtM have two semi-Qs to ask you, Derek. Do you think women’s need for drama is truly a feature and not a bug? And repeal the 19th yea or nay?
Bardelys the Magnificent says:
22 August, 2024 at 12:42 pm
It’s the drama. My grandma LOVED her soaps. Never missed one, and was very fidgety if she did. My mom and her friends also had stacks and volumes of romance novels they read through and passed around. Kept them able to tolerate being married to betas, I think, even though my grandpa legit killed people in combat. I think if women don’t have a pressure release valve for their need for drama, they will create it in their own lives. Feature, not a bug.
In conclusion, Carthago delenda est, and repeal the 19th.
A feature. In terms of evolutionary psychology, it serves an important organizational function. It is for civilization and society what “natural selection” is for genetics.
In theory, I’d say “yea.” But….
For decades I’ve argued that “democracy” only works if the people who make it up are of high enough intelligence and religious enough to make it work. It’s a great system only for some.
The same is true of voting. Let’s say you repeal the 19th. What then? Is this going to solve problems? I highly doubt it. And what are you going to replace it with? Nothing that isn’t itself likely to be corrupted and subverted.
The problem is that voting itself fundamentally broken. We don’t have the people to make it work. Removing women from the vote would just change the balance of power, but it won’t be an essential change.
Talking about repealing the 19th is just a thought experiment, just like wondering what it would be like to only have homeowners or people with kids be able to vote. When it comes time to actually doing it, I wouldn’t even bother wasting the time to make the attempt.
———————————————
Wrapped into both of these questions is the unstated assumption that it would be better if women were all actually just men. This is stupid. Women offer something of value: they are not men. The fact that some men have trouble seeing the value of women doesn’t mean we should treat them as second-class citizens.
Wrapped into both of these questions is the unstated assumption that it would be better if women were all actually just men. This is stupid. Women offer something of value: they are not men.
YES that’s essentially what Roissy said here on his post that set the net a blaze in October ’07.:
What A Girl’s Job Tells You
Oct 10th, 2007 by CH
Engineer (0.00001% of all women)
If there was ever an occupation created solely for the benefit of a man’s intellectual strengths, engineering is it. So right off the bat you know that any female engineer will be weird. Not necessarily assertively masculine like the female lawyer, but not typically feminine either. Female engineers are the Holy Grail of male nerddom. Every nerdo anime fanboy with Dungeon Master on his resume dreams of meeting and falling in love with a cute nerdgirl WHO IS EXACTLY LIKE HIM so that his autistic social retardation doesn’t get pushed to the breaking point like it would with a normal girl.
Minus: fornication mysteriously happens in between lengthy dissertations on string theory.
Plus: she can assume sex positions within a millimeter of spec.
Sexual Satisfaction Rating: 1/4th erection
Long Term Potential Rating: 5 carats
” Female engineers are the Holy Grail of male nerddom. Every nerdo anime fanboy with Dungeon Master on his resume dreams of meeting and falling in love with a cute nerd girl WHO IS EXACTLY LIKE HIM so that his autistic social retardation doesn’t get pushed to the breaking point like it would with a normal girl.”
This couldn’t partially explain the over-representation of Engineers in the sphere having
”perplexing” to them at least trouble with galz?
And why the self-proclaimed ”leaders” always talk of authority and submission too?
i liked girls that weren’t that much like me for the most part which is maybe why no one ever hears me saying ”oh woe is me with girls, bros” like ”expert” ”genius” ”red pill” ”leaders” usually say.
Professor,
It isn’t uncommon for women to mock the manosphere by calling its participants or activities (such as boot camps) “gay.” It isn’t that the manosphere is full of actually gay men, it is that they are philosophically gay. They prefer maleness and hate femaleness. Everything about females is abhorrent and they elevate maleness to a whole different tier. This is gayness, as it were. They’d prefer if all women were just men, or failing that, that all women would just remain silent and out-of-the-way so the men can get on with doing things. If they can help out, great, otherwise they are just a hindrance.
You can see why someone would call this “gay,” right? Do you know what women do to men that they perceive as having too much gayness? They friend-zone them.
Roissy’s comment merely acknowledges this. The Manosphere is full of lawyers and engineers for a reason.
Being concerned with masculinity is not inherently masculine. Indeed, as per Charlton, it is arguably feminine. Women tend to be concerned with whether or not a man is masculine. Men, for the most part, don’t talk about it or care about it. Jason and I both noted recently that well-adjusted men don’t need another man to tell them how to be a man.
Peace,
DR
There is something deeply true about this idea of philosophical gayness. The male homosexual is attracted to men because he believes himself to be not masculine. All sexuality works like this. People are attracted to what they do not have, or at least see themselves as not having. A healthy and properly masculine man feels that he is complete and so approaches the opposite sex because they have what he does not. It is supposed to be a beautiful reconciliation of opposites. The more secure each man and woman is in their sexual identity, the healthier the relationship will generally be.
So, the more masculine a man feels he is, the more feminine the woman he will seek. That is why these engineering nerds desire a more masculine female. They themselves are not masculine, and are trying to compensate by extracting the masculinity they see in less feminine women. They desire someone who is like them, more androgynous, undeveloped, or immature.
Instead of philosophical gayness, it is closer to actual gayness. It is a gradient of sexual security and prowess, with homosexuality being abject failure. There are even gradients of this phenomonon within homosexuality. The more effeminate the gay man is, the more masculine the man he will seek. Gay men who arent very effeminate actually seek more feminine men.
These lawyers and engineers are right to pursue masculinity. Clearly, it is what they are missing. Their prospects of becoming attracted to actually feminine women will go up if they internalize their inner manhood. That being said, I do not think the methods of doing this are very effective. Too much of the redpill stuff is superficial and changes nothing about a person’s identity. Even if someone learns game, that is not going to heal the wounds wrought on them by the divorce of their selfish boomer parents or their sexual failures in college. You have to go deeper. The only people who can really heal those sorts of masculinity wounds are therapists who practice reintegrative therapy. Mark Queppet is also an excellent resource for the un-bitchification of men.
These lawyers and engineers are right to pursue masculinity. Clearly, it is what they are missing. Their prospects of becoming attracted to actually feminine women will go up if they internalize their inner manhood. That being said, I do not think the methods of doing this are very effective. Too much of the redpill stuff is superficial and changes nothing about a person’s identity. Even if someone learns game, that is not going to heal the wounds wrought on them by the divorce of their selfish boomer parents or their sexual failures in college. You have to go deeper.
The real problem of these ”Dungeon Masters” ”red pill” ”leaders”(especially ”Christian” ones) is they have always been in closed environments where stomping their feet & pouting their mouths usually get their way as the feminine-minded are want to do, so when guys like i, Derek & lastMOD who are used to being in non-closed environments just walk away, they then think ”you are immune to” sound reasoning”A.K.A. Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins manipulation techniques” when in reality WE are used to the REAL world & NOT closed environments where the feminine minded be they Male or female routinely get told ”go fux yourself” in words or actions-which ”Dungeon Masters” ”red pill” ”leaders” like ”jack” and ”sparkly” are clearly NOT used to which makes them blow their fuses in response. This is the main reason they like most churches cannot get new members, only those who are used to following” ” sound reasoning”A.K.A. Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins manipulation techniques to the end.
Just like most churches also.
It’s also GREAT to see you here Omega.
Its true, the real world has no room for endless arguments. Walking away when the other party does not seek compromise is sometimes the only thing you can do.
I was never really an Alice Cooper fan. I know he had some HUGE hits in the 1970’s “Schools Out” became a 1970’s anthem. “Im Eighteen” was pretty big….and of course the ballard from 1977 “You and Me” (where he took off the makeup) and became a bit more serious or wanted a wider audience. He made movie cameos in the 1980’s and still has a solid following to this day
He said on some interview a few years back before I became a Christian “Guys, the devil is real and he really does want you destroyed”
I find it bold in him so to speak that in his Christian stance he is not afraid to say and stand on. I also find it appealing that he didnt become a “christian” performer and now does concerts and “jesus” songs.
Christians have a mold that one MUST fit into or they are not a Christian. It doesnt matter the denom. Orthodoxy for some reason as a man you have to have a beard, your wife must wear a babushka (head covering that those old slavic ladies wear). The Sally Army, “where’s your uniform?”
That type of thing
In the Red Pil Real Man Christian Faith you have to be an engineer, a lawyer, or doctor. You have to have sex 24 hrs a day, and you have to have your life calling at age 3 or whatever…also spend all your time at the gym……..and have women wanting to “f*ck” you
I wish I could put a finger on it.
Jesus spoke to the crowds. Were all these men “perfect Jews?” Were all these people even Jewish? No, many were pagans. Were all these people perfect? No, only he was…and he didnt even have to mention it.
Fishermen, the crippled, the tax collector, men like Nicodemus, men who toiled in other mundane work. Women by wells, women who were “bad” and had “n counts”
Women who lost their husbands in war. Pagans. Sinners. Hurt. Ignored.
He spoke to and for all.
We lost something, and I dont know how devout Alice Cooper is nor do I know about his sins, or his past. What I do know, he acknowledghes that he indeed is a sinner needing grace, hope and redemption.
The New New Christianity in the sphere is pretty much a masculine / 1950’s image of manhood slapped over and above what Jesus taught and expected of those who wanted to follow him
I wasn’t a Cooper fan either, and his music never grew on me. I didn’t watch the video, but it sounds like I should.
I rail against the lifting/STEM/be a leader programs at SF, but I disagree that any of them think that’s necessary for being a Christian. I take it as them being over zealous about practical steps that are helpful, especially for young single Christian men for improving one’s self, after becoming a Christian.
Over zealousness can be a problem when it squeezes out all discussion about the suffering, failures, and pains you referred to. Not to argue with you, but to point out areas that I see potential agreement on – they are usually being asked about how to get a wife and are not being asked how to mature spiritually.
I could add to your points about pain and suffering, what about the admonition by Paul to stay as you are, or the example of Mary vs Martha? Seems like the exercise, looks maxing, leadership ambitions, could make some Martha’s out of Mary’s. They may appreciate the skinny guy at their church who has worked his same job for 30 years and who prays for them and isn’t a leader, but on the webs, it does become something different.
Im not a “gym” guy. Never was. However, because I am not…I *must* be a lazy-blue-pilled beta-loser-who-blames-others. I hike, camp and backpack. This RP mentality that every man has to aspire to “Mr Universe” or he has “failed” as a man is absurd.
With many in RP its either / or. If the marble doesnt fall their way, it *must* fall the other way and to the most extreme edges.
I wanted to be an architect as a teen. I studied. Had tutors in math from Union College. Took many art classes in high school. In the end, I just did not have the talent. I did not have the intellect. By my junior year in high school, I knew there was no way I could ever be one.
I had to accept that I had a deep appreciation of architecture. I understood many concepts of it, and appreciated the “art” and “skill”of architects but I could not be one.
The RP deems: You didnt want it bad enough / you didnt study even harder / you failed at a calling / you didnt trust God or pray enough
They only seem to want men who “win” at everything.
I’ve always had decent fashion sense, even as a teen. Not over the top or silly looking but I knew as a teenager to brush my teeth, trim my nails. Clean my ears. Basics.
You cannot fix unattractive or not handsome. You can do what you can.
Again RP caters to women: You have to have this or that. You have to do this or that bc women think its hot / attractive. Women like this. Studies show women want x,y,z in men. You have to make yourself this way or that way for women to notice / like / date you
Its all or nothing. Winners (deemed by them) and losers (also deemed by them)
It makes Christianity into a “contest” and can be harmful.
I dont know what else to say or how to articulate it. I tried, really tried to be a part of this group of men for over ten years. I learned they didnt want me….I was their example of what not to be and yet was still expected to show up
SF, but I disagree that any of them think that’s necessary for being a Christian. I take it as them being over zealous about practical steps that are helpful, especially for young single Christian men for improving one’s self, after becoming a Christian.
Over zealousness can be a problem when it squeezes out all discussion about the suffering, failures, and pains you referred to. Not to argue with you, but to point out areas that I see potential agreement on – they are usually being asked about how to get a wife and are not being asked how to mature spiritually.
Why would someone ask self-admitted failures at ”getting a ”” good” wife” about ”getting a wife”?
It’s similar to the question why would a wannabe classical GREAT artist study Picasso instead of Divinci, YES!?
Also:
I tried, really tried to be a part of this group of ”superior” socially t@rded men for over ten years. BUT they were too advanced in the socialism aspect of an advanced t@rdation…I was their example of what not to be and yet was still expected to show up to pl@y at their ”Advnced” D&D ”Dungeon Master” LARP Game sessions BUT I rather pl@y MAGIC:the Gathering c@rd games TBH.
Just as they are a GREAT & MOST EXCELLENT(as bee1234567890 says of MOSES, JESUS & GBFM comments & posts) example of what not to be e.g. admitted advanced socially t@rded ”genius” ”leaders”.
Update on classic H#lls Angels-riding along with Bad@sses like Phil Donahue from a saint!
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 2:16 pm
This couldn’t have been a more timely topic.
Phil Donahue died this month.
For those of you young kids, Phil Donahue was a pioneer of the daytime hour-long keep your d@ng very happy & joyous guest-driven audience participation television talk show format. Before there was Oprah and Springer, there was Donahue (and before him was Morton Downey Jr., but that’s another post). Donahue was serious, refined, cerebral, and sufficiently liberal that everyone liked him. He wasn’t afraid to take on controversy, but certainly not to the extent others did; and he wasn’t close to as emotional as Oprah. But he was one of the first to use the technique of audience questions/comments to guests, with him serving as “moderator” (like ”mystical” ”jack ”)of sorts. There was no queerer or finer demonstration of 70s/80s sensibility on the air than Donahue. And no one did more to memorialize the banality and idiocy of that sensibility than he did. Feelings uber alles. We have Oprah, Springer, and The View, & sigma frame because of him.
Rest in peace, Phil Donahue. At long last, rest in peace sweet classic bad@ss prince Phil.
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 2:18 pm
Sorry – should have said Downey came gunning after Donahue.
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 2:49 pm
Both my parents watched Donahue. (My dad ran his kick@ss business from his home, so he would come in and catch bits of it.) They considered it entertaining, and stupidly gay, yet informative.
Phil Donahue was influential in the 1980s and early 90s, shaping thought and driving the discussion. He appeared thoughtful and cerebral, but in reality he was a typical liberal midwit driven by his fee fees. He was not a deep thinker, though he liked to pretend to be one on his show. Donahue had much more in common with the likes of freewheeling druggie tradcon like ElRushbo Limbaugh than he cared to admit – at his base, he was an entertainer,fornicator in the Dominion Republicana in Summer ’06, and a showman, in it to attract viewers and make money and get dem opioids at all costs ladsz!
He became more vocally liberal as he aged and then retired. His marriage to Marlo Thomas mellowed him a lot, I think. Before he married That GAL ?-he was heavily running guns with the h#lls angels in Canada & Living very Dangerously with Monsieur Fred Rogers, King Friday, and ”Speedy Delivery” Monsieur Mcfeely raising ALL kinds of heck in Steel City U.S.A. Pittsburg bars day and night bros.
Another update from a saint WE ALL love and that some of us are obsessed with(you know who you are)!
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 3:44 pm
“Couldn’t they be satisfied building a home?”
It’s fine. But that’s all it is. It’s just “fine”. It’s boring and monotonous and unexciting and uneventful. If a woman has to forego or quit having bad boys blow her back out, it’s OK to settle for watching a femme fatale on TV pretend and play act at having bad boys blow her back out doing it gangnam-style.
It’s the sugar that helps the proverbial beta medicine go down. She thinks if the beta medicine goes down, she won’t have to. IYKIM.
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 3:55 pm
Off topic
Women don’t “outgrow” bad boys like Phil Donahue,” speedy delivery” Monseur Mcfeely & King big D@ng Friday. It’s just that it gets too expensive in money, social capital, and mental health for women to stay with them. At some point women need to “settle down”, pick one guy, and make the necessary concessions to be with him long-term. It’s at that point – when bad boys get too costly to keep around – that she changes her “preferences” (in reality, her priorities) and leaves bad boys behind. (For now, at least.)
The minute a woman perceives that she can “afford” a bad boy, she’ll go back riding it Gangnam-style like it’s 2012, ladz fast!
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 5:04 pm
Men should do the following:
–forget about women. Forget about s*x, marriage, and fatherhood. Those things aren’t going to happen for the vast majority of you.
–don’t give women anything. Don’t help them, don’t give them anything. Don’t actively hurt them or be malicious towards them, but don’t help them or aid them either.
–help no one unless there’s something in it for you. It’s necessary for you to conserve your own resources. I’ve adopted this maxim: If you’re not related to me, banging me, or paying me, you get nothing from me.
That’s just really a trite, pithy way of saying that I won’t set myself on fire to keep everyone else warm, and get nothing in return. If you expect anything of me, you need to bring value to me or my life in some way. There won’t be any free lunches from me – if you want something from me, I need to get something in return like decent butthext that guy was talking a while back.
Chivalry is dead. I will not help random women lift, move, or reach anything. I will not protect random women from bad people, circumstance, or the elements. I will not protect “Western Civilization”, which long ago turned its back on me VOX!-YEAH I SAW U TALKING SHITE TO DEREK ON THAT R/JORDAN PETERSON POST TWO MONTHS
–find a like minded group and band together for self-protection and preservation.
–get trained in something you are good at and know how to do. Get good at it. Amass resources for your own preservation and for those who are related to you and in your group.
-be kind and rewind any gay porn tapes you may find for ”genius” ”red pill” ”leaders” like ”jack”, sparkly, and ”bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins”
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 5:11 pm
Women, here are your choices:
1) date, fux, marry, and procreate with, these nice kind good Christian men you say you want but clearly don’t want.
2) start doing the dirty jobs you have been saying you’ll do for about 60 years now. Start getting trained in the trades and STEM and ”romantic” softcore p@rn you supposedly luv. Start growing shit, harvesting shit, making sh!t, fixing sh!t, moving sh!t, and selling sh!t. Start driving trucks, making widgets, fixing roads, digging wells, and taking care of power lines. And around the house, start pushing the lawnmower, changing out plumbing and electrical fixtures, and unclogging toilets.
3. Do it gangnam-style lasses all night!
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 5:12 pm
Choose this day. Either 1) or 2) or 3).
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 5:18 pm
We need water. We need food. We need shelter. We need basic clothing. We need basic sanitation. We need basic, rudimentary medical care and decent butthext.
We need people to invent, design, build, and maintain the processes, machines, and apparatuses that do all those 6 basic things.
That’s just to keep people alive. That’s just to keep people from dying of starvation, disease, and injury. That’s just bare propagation of the species.
Without clean, safe water, people will start dying in one week.
Up to now, who do you think provided all of this?
Women: Either give men a reason to do this; or you do it at least Gangnam-style.
Update on the RCC by the Saint!:
thedeti says:
22 August, 2024 at 6:49 pm
More evidence of the corruption of the Catholic Church:
Phil Donahue, a quintessential Irish-American Catholic, was married to his first wife for 17 years and had 5 kids.
He had his first marriage annulled so he could marry Marlo Thomas DA SOB TBH WHILE SMH.
Yeah, in my view, if Donahue(who was seen as essentially the ”liberal” ”good guy” MR.(FRED) ROGERS after his Bad@ss dayz were over that is) was married 17 years and had 5 kids, it’s pretty disingenuous for anyone (including the Church) to say they never at any time lived together as husband and wife, or that they never at any time understood or lived out what it meant to be “married” as a Roman Catholic.
I ain’t buyin’ it.
Just sayin’.
Cill says:
22 August, 2024 at 6:55 pm
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife” was the most difficult commandment for me. I had a colossal struggle with testosterone across the board, not just re the neighbor’s wife. She was a mere drop in a big bucket of lust. There are a lot of good things about getting older, and less testosterone is one of them. Testosterone is good when it’s not overwhelming like GBFM(”overwhelming” is BEST & GREATEST when he does it!) on an average day of rocking comments.
Cill says:
22 August, 2024 at 7:40 pm
Testosterone, Catholic church, lust…
Look at ol’ Henry VIII, got the hots for Anne Boleyn, Pope wouldn’t allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon so he changed England’s religion (down with the Pope and up with the King) and threw the country into a turmoil of strife and pillage and murder and mayhem, all to get his end away with a red head. A bit like me in my youth, really, with the fire of testosterone in my loins and had I but the royal means and ends…
& update on MGTOW!:
bombadilhorseman says:
22 August, 2024 at 8:19 pm
Deti just basically described the true core of MGTOW. (Not red pill blah blah gibberish nonsense that’s for tradcons like Matt Walsh TBH )
Do for only you and everyone else can fux off while cranking, don’t follow any norm except your internal compass & D@NG or if you CHRISTIAN?
MOSES, JESUS & GBFM always works!
No one will help not care about you ever so act accordingly.
Your OWN way part of it has been forgotten for a long time.
A lawyer update from a lawyer Saint!
feeriker says:
2024-08-22 at 12:48 am
feeriker,
Can you imagine being married to a lawyer? A woman who gets paid to argue? A professionally contentious woman?
No thanks!
No, indeed. My SiL (my wife’s sister) is a lawyer who somehow managed to convince a non-lawyer to marry her. I can’t imagine (1) how any man could be that stupid, and (2) how miserable his existence must be.
Liked by 2 people
Reply
Joe2 says:
2024-08-23 at 3:22 am
And if there should be a divorce, she’ll know how to research the divorce laws and learn about divorce proceedings and precedents established by the courts. In other words, she’ll know exactly how to present herself (to the attorney handling her divorce) so that she can maximize her benefits and then some.
The misery will continue long after the marriage is over.
Liked by 1 person
Reply
Red Pill Apostle says:
2024-08-23 at 3:42 am
feeriker,
Being married to an argumentative woman is bad. Being married to an argumentative woman with strong feelings about how she thinks things should be is worse. Being married to an argumentative woman, with strong feelings of how things should be and an urge to “offer” her opinions in the name of righting the wrongs to make things as she thinks they should be is Job like suffering.
The Devil knew what he was doing when he left Job’s wife unharmed. While scripture doesn’t tell us much about her, she was almost certainly a former prosecuting attorney Satan kept on retainer simply to question her husband. 🙂
While Mrs. RPA has made great strides, her past actions helped me understand the greater meaning of entering eternal rest.
Liked by 1 person
Reply
thedeti says:
2024-08-23 at 5:31 am
Sometimes a man married to such a woman just has to say “No” and “Here are the hard boundaries. Cross any one of them and you will not be my wife any longer as I’m a BIG believer in divorce like a feminist hon.”
A man does not have to put up with that kind of contentiousness. He might not be able to get married again; but at least he won’t have to put up with the fighting.
Living on the corner of a rooftop really would be preferable.
Like
thedeti says:
2024-08-23 at 5:27 am
Roissy had a peculiar florid term for female lawyers. It’s mostly accurate.
I know whereof I speak.
What was part of what he was speaking of?:
THIS:
A Sexist Screed Against Female Attorneys?
By David Lat
onOctober 31, 2007 at 1:42 PM
We are not easily offended, nor are we very politically correct. Sometimes we write things that upset or antagonize people (sometimes intentionally, and sometimes not).
But this discussion of women lawyers, while certainly provocative, is a bit too inflammatory for our taste. We won’t post excerpts here (because finding a portion that isn’t offensive is difficult).
It’s generating discussion and making the rounds by email, however, and people have brought it to our attention. We’re passing it along for your consideration, so you can see what all the fuss is about. But please keep in mind that we agree with Jeff Jarvis’s linking philosophy: “A link is not necessarily an endorsement, but a way to say ‘you go judge for yourself.’”
What A Girl’s Job Tells You [Roissy in DC]
SEE? Roissy &GBFM can get the entire net talking while latter-day ”red pill” ”genius” ”leaders” who are supposed ”experts” can barely keep their site lights on.SMH as if I was sparkly I guess.
Derek,
You forged lies against me. We’ve been over it a dozen times already. You asked a question and I answered it with a one-way statement. You wrongly claimed that my statement was circular reasoning (by your own screwy definition) after claiming it begged a question and you got to answer it. You were full of foolishness up past your eyeballs. But then you claimed that your erroneous “circular reasoning” charge made me guilty of false teaching because according to you it was all based upon a logical fallacy. (circular reasoning) And you choose to remain a stubborn liar against me to this day.
Circular Reasoning is: “We know A is true because B is true; and B is true because A is true.”
What I said was not circular reasoning, by the true definition of circular reasoning. It wasn’t even an argument or a reasoning, it was just a statement in answer to your question.
Then later you say: As Wikipedia notes:
“Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.”
So, after you call me a teacher of fallacies based upon your own longshot intentional misconstruing of my statement as the “logical fallacy” of circular reasoning, then you later publish that “Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy” and go on to give another example that also does not qualify as circular reasoning:
Or to put this in a way that anyone can understand:
“I believe X.”
Which is a true statement, regardless of whether or not X is actually true. It is unassailable, but simultaneously convinces no one.
That’s exactly what happened. You asked me what I believe. I said, “I believe X.” and you said, well, we can all throw Sharkly’s teaching out as a proven fallacy now because it is based upon circular reasoning. And you’re still too stubbornly wicked to back off that foolish lie that you forged against me.
And as if to drive your foolishness home, you then also wrongly tried to apply “survivorship bias” proving that you don’t truly understand it either.
Like I said before, you’ve got a habit of impulsively blurting out the names of what you call “logical fallacies” even when they don’t truly apply, and then declaring the underlying concept being argued to be false, even when the “logical fallacies” you blurt out are usually just “ineffective arguments” or conflicted biases that in no way prove the underlying statement true or false.
But the upshot of it all is that you called me a false teacher based upon your own ignorance, in those two cases and you have been too stubborn to repent of those lies against me.
Now, I don’t doubt that you also think I’m a false teacher for a list of other differences as well, but the first two reasons that you first gave for why you believed that I was teaching falsehoods were both misapplied terms that you then falsely claimed proved my underlying points to be false. When neither proves anything to be false, even when they aren’t misapplied by an impulsive regurgitator of the names of “logical fallacies” he lacks a complete grasp of.
So, in a nutshell, you forged lies against me. And when it has been made plain to you, you stubbornly refuse to repent, but double and triple down on your foolishness.
And about the time I realize that you’re too emotionally committed to your lies against me, that it is pointless to continue debating here, as if to put the final cherry of shame on the top of your Tar-Baby sundae, you sic your kid on me. SMH
I gain nothing from commenting here, and it seems like two of you are immune to sound reasoning, so you gain nothing from my comments here either. I’m just feeding my own trolls by commenting here further.
Sharkly,
Concluding your rant with a falsehood is the classic way to destroy your own legitimacy.
Remember when “99% correct” Deti made a completely unsubstantiated claim about a private matter that he couldn’t possibly have known the answer to? When I pointed out he was wrong, he doubled-down on his error by calling me a liar. (Sounds familiar, eh?)
Recently, Malcolm Reynolds was spouting unsubstantiated claims and I called him out on it.
I’ll do the same for you. Try to stick to things you know something about. Failure to do so just makes you look foolish and undermines your position.
The fact of the matter is that my son has been reading this blog for at least the past year. He’s read almost everything you have written. If you were paying even the slightest attention, you’d have known that. I didn’t even have to take his comment out of moderation, because it wasn’t his first comment.
My son decided on his own that he had something to offer, because what you said was so ridiculous. So he pointed out the error in your statement. Rather than address his points on merits, you fled. Unlike you, I treat my sons like men.
Over the past year, you’ve been a practical example and lesson for how not to argue. As they learn about the laws of logic and various fallacies, your comments have been a demonstration of fallacious and poor reasoning (and, in some cases, a source of comedy).
Your comment above is a summary of your errors. Yes, I know you can’t see what those errors are, but they are errors nonetheless. I’ve explained precisely and explicitly where your errors were, both formally and informally. Yes, I even provided proofs of some of your errors. Yet still this is not enough for you. You are beyond correction. I suggest that instead of rehashing your grievances, you ponder your inability or unwillingness to comprehend the truth.
If you can’t do that, ponder what would bring you to the place that you would stoop to lying about my son and I.
There is nothing impulsive about this. We live in a world that is comically illogical and irrational. I only point out a tiny fraction of the fallacies that I see. Nobody in meatspace ever called me impulsive! I am known for being overly careful and methodical. I point out only those fallacies that I find to be of utmost importance and leaving the rest unstated.
You keep coming here an spewing nonsense claims, and I keep citing my formal responses to you where I prove—yes prove—my position (see that link there?). You’ve not refuted my statements, rather repeated your prior statements. Should I could go back and find each time you’ve repeated your arguments, how how I’ve responded to them each time, and how you’ve never once addressed my responses? This shows that you are not interested in debate but in proselytizing and propaganda.
For example (from the link above):
Peace,
DR
Sharkly,
You know I can check your claims, right? If you make stuff up, I can simply expose that to the light of truth.
I scanned all my articles, and have never even used the words “false teacher,” except once in a scripture citation:
But what about the comments?
First, in this comment, I lecture Malcolm Reynolds for implying that someone a false teacher!
Second, here you spuriously accuse me of publicly calling you a false teacher.
Third, I mention here that the Bible teaches that false teachers will arise regarding the Anti-Christ.
Fourth, again, here you spuriously accuse me of libeling you by calling you a false teacher.
Fifth, here you conclude that pointing out a logical fallacy is equivalent to calling someone a false teacher. This is, of course, an invalid argument.
Sixth, here again, you claim that I’m calling you a false teacher.
Seventh, I respond here by quoting your spurious accusation. I show restraint by not even bothering to comment on your invalid accusation.
And that’s it. Those are all the comments mentioning “false teacher,” and most of them are examples of you making stuff up.
Do you know what I actually said about you and teaching?
Here and here I pointed out that scripture forbids a divorced man from teaching because he is divorced and doesn’t manage his children well (e.g. he doesn’t have custody). Here, here, and here I pointed out how this applies to you.
This doesn’t make you a false teacher, it makes you disobedient to scripture. Just like you want women to be silent in church, you too are supposed to remain silent and submit to the men who are not divorced.
Your comments above are a perfect illustration why you are not supposed to teach.
Why don’t I call you a false teacher because you teach false teachings? First, by that definition all teachers are false teachers because no one gets everything right. Second, and most importantly, because the former is a personal attack and the latter is a factual statement about specific ideas and arguments. I will suggest for the hundredth time that you cease your personal attacks and stick to the ideas only.
Peace,
DR
And about the time I realize that you’re too emotionally committed to your lies against me, that it is pointless to continue debating here, as if to put the final cherry of shame on the top of your Tar-Baby sundae, you sic your kid on me. SMH
SMH as usual in dealing with paranoid and supposedly ”red pill” tradcon trolls, Derek’s ”kid” like most blue, fed, and red pillers, and others just know you’re a paranoid long-time Bellvue patient loon whose wife left him/her/it after she found out about it, and who uses Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins manipulation tactics on others as ”sound reasoning”.
I gain nothing from commenting here, and it seems like two of you are immune to sound reasoning, so you gain nothing from my comments here either. I’m just feeding my own trolls by commenting here further.
IOW?-You humbly submit to your failing leader ”Jack”(as at least ”bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins” knew you had gone beyond your initial NPC tradcon troll protocols long ago, but ”Jack” just ”moderates” you for your unsound and unbiblical gibberish nonsense that you try and attempt to get his site shutdown with by WordPress like DALrock before him by talking about executing people left and right as in polluting his site as you do spawnys also ) can’t blackmail Derek like he/she/it does other ”red pill” blog hosts.
Immune to sound reasoning! LOL.
Sharkly doesn’t even know why circular reasoning isn’t a formal logical fallacy. Unless one is a professional logician, there is no reason not to just call call circular reasoning a logical fallacy and leave it at that. Both Wikipedia (here) and Brittanica (here), for example, just come out and call it a logical fallacy.
Unlike Wikipedia, Brittanica doesn’t even bother to distinguish between different fallacies until its article on “fallacy” which, of course, notes that even informal fallacies are still fallacious (e.g. a “material fallacy”).
A formal logical fallacy just means “fallacious in form” rather than, “fallacious in material” or “verbally fallacious” An informal fallacy is still a fallacy.
I like the definition given here…
…because it illustrates what is fallacious about circular reasoning. When someone presents a circular argument, this is not a fallacy in its form per se, it is a material fallacy. The form of the argument is “valid.” But when someone asserts that their argument is true—conveying useful information—it renders their argument unsound, that is, fallacious.
The thing is, many logicians consider circular reasoning to be fallacious in form because the fallacy takes standard forms that are easily identifiable and it is always (materially) fallacious in an argument (i.e. unsound). It is fallacious in form, but not because of its form. Circular reasoning is materially fallacious reasoning in logical form. That’s why it is called a logical fallacy.
This is why Brittanica isn’t contradicting itself by calling it a “material fallacy” in one context and a “logical fallacy” in another. It is unnecessary to be dogmatic on this point, because it remains a fallacy nonetheless. It’s mostly an academic distinction with little practical value.
As an exercise to the reader, try to prove why circular reasoning is not a formal fallacy. Good luck!
See how that doesn’t help Sharkly’s argument at all? He thinks he has me in some kind of “gotcha!” but this only proves his ignorance.
Sharkly thinks that he’s escaped by the charge of using a fallacy because he used a material fallacy instead of a formal logical fallacy. Contesting whether or not it was a logical fallacy is completely irrelevant.
Notably, Sharkly’s attempts to refute his fallacious reasoning have mostly been about the form of his argument (e.g. “mutually dependent proofs” and “solitary statement”) rather than the material claims he was making. I’ve responded to his complaints of form with material responses, which he has failed to address.
Put another way, I essentially told Sharkly that he commited the informal logical fallacy of circular reasoning which materially presupposes his claims and he responded with “but my argument isn’t formally fallacious!” That’s the essence of our dispute. His objections are completely irrelevant, and he should know it because he was the one who pointed out that circular reasoning isn’t a formal logical fallacy.
Just read this again:
He genuinely thinks that if it isn’t a formal logical fallacy that it isn’t a fallacy at all! He also thinks that if circular reasoning isn’t a formal logical fallacy, that it isn’t circular reasoning! Both of these are themselves fallacious. Sharkly’s retort is logically invalid.
Now, I don’t doubt that you also think I’m a false teacher for a list of other differences as well, but the first two reasons that you first gave for why you believed that I was teaching falsehoods were both misapplied terms that you then falsely claimed proved my underlying points to be false. When neither proves anything to be false, even when they aren’t misapplied by an impulsive regurgitator of the names of “logical fallacies” he lacks a complete grasp of.
So, in a nutshell, you forged lies against me. And when it has been made plain to you, you stubbornly refuse to repent, but double and triple down on your foolishness.
”regurgitator”?You mean like when ”Bee1234567890” did this comment at Spawnys at your urging because you can’t compete with my ”most EXCELLENT posts” as ”Bee1234567890” Truthfully said unlike you or ”jack” would as ye can’t admit reality exists instead of your fantasy worlds where hand, oral(& anal with ”jack” as long as it’s ”sanctified” by a marriage license & ceremony) sodomy is just as its supposedly okay with God, MOSES & JESUS as y’alls rewritten for far lefty modern times that hate human life as much as ye do, Bibles is a ”Husband” executing his wife & kids.
bee123456 says:16 October, 2023 at 1:59 pm
I also vote to reign in, delete, or block comments from GBFM( as he is too much competition for the king of failures known as ”jack” & ”sparkly” as betaized & bluepilled spelling apps speel it). I do not benefit from his most EXCELLENT posts then again I am a ”Conservative” commie like secret king ”sparkly.” Who programmed me to say that also?
Compare that to this from the secret king above:
I gain nothing from commenting here as I operate as a tradcon communist, and it seems like two of you(one of who has most Excellent posts & are by far too much competition for us kings of failure like I & ”jack” as it was in years past- heck even Derek is now way too much competition for us inferior ”genius” ”red pill” ”leaders” TBH while SMH)are immune to sound reasoning A.K.A. Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins Manipulation techniques, so you gain nothing from my comments here either even if ye were commies like myself,” jack” & ”bee1234567890”. I’m just feeding mine and ”jack’s” own betters in commenting & posting by commenting here further.
OT:
What an ordeal. Been saving for a new laptop. My current one is from 2016. So, after three months. I have the money up. I go to hp.com, order the laptop. It took them FOUR weeks to ship it. According to them they were “testing, and testing and double testing the sytem to make sure it was ready, and perfect” The laptop I ordered was a higher end one. It cost after tax $2,550.00
It finally ships from China. Then the real ordeal begins. It arrives in LA / customs at the FedEx facility near LAX (the international airport). It sits there for another week, then it ship to my home in Pasadena.
I was told Friday August 9 it will arrive between 9AM – 9PM. I took the day off. Nothing. At 8:45 PM that night, I get an update from FedEx “delayed, will be delivered Monday August 12 no later than 5 PM”
I take Monday off. Nothing. Home all day. I happened to open my apt door at 1 PM, there is a tage from FedEx “we tried to deliver, recipient not at home / will redeliver, call or sign slip to verify drp off”
I was getting angry.
After an hour of trying to talk to a live person at FedEx, was told “will deliver Tuesday the 13th no later than 5 PM”
I take the day off. Again, all day nothing. Then an txt update “delayed, will deliver Friday August 16 no later than 5PM”
Boy, getting hot under the collar now.
I take Friday the 16th off. All day, pacing the apartment. Open the door to go check mail at 1 PM. There is a a “tag” on my door from FedEX “unable to deliver, recipient not home. Call. Final attemp / will return to sender”
No knock. No call. No txt.
I go to my property office downstairs. We check camera. The FedEx delivery guy did put a tag on my door. He had NO package (my computer with him)
Now Im upset.
I call HP. They put me on hold and finally get back “Umm yeah, they have made three attempst, you have to drive down to their facility at LAX (35 miles away, in LA traffic there and back) to pick it up. You have until Monday afternoon, or they are going to send it back to us.
I explain “I have video evidence that they did not even have the package / my computer with them”
They put me on hold again and come back “Ummm, yes, you have to pick it up at LAX, you have until Monday.”
I get in my car.
Drive to LAX. It took over an hour, and I had to pay for parking. I go to the proper entrance with the tags they left and proof of purchase paperwork from HP.
The ratchet lady says “Its not here, its already on the truck to be delivered to you tomorrow.”
I almost went nuclear on her. Thankfully by the grace-of-God I didnt.
I drove home, another hour and a half to get back to Pasadena.
I call Hp. “Please cancel this order.” I explained in full detail of all that has gone wrong, including it taking four weeks for HP to ship it.
The HP rep “Oh, please, let me try to get it delivered to you, we are so sorry, we will give you a $20.00 gift code to use at hp.com for your trouble” (20.00 doesnt even buy ink for a printer mind you)
I stand firm, cancel my order. They then tell me “Because you have canceled your order, there is a 30% restocking fee”
I escalated the call, and I did go nuclear. I got a full refund.
It posted this morning.
I went to BestBuy, ordered a comparable Dell laptop. Maybe $75.00 cheaper. BestBuy just called
“You laptop is ready, please come to the store to pickup”
Its a five minute drive.
Lesson learned:
When you buy a computer, go to the STORE, or retailer. Dont buy directly from the company webpage.
Also, FedEx is a shell of the company it once was back in the 1980’s
I’ve heard similar stories to yours about drivers who don’t even attempt to deliver the packages. They just put the tag on the door and drive away.
I have a hunch it was already “stolen” from the inside at FedEX. Happened with my college ring in 2017.
I sent it back to the company (Herf Jones) to get cleaned / polished. It was a gift from my mother in 1992. 20K gold. It was a 3K ring in 1992
Herf Jones shipped it back to me thu FedEx.
Never delivered. Tags on door saying “we tried to deliver, you not at home”
When I finally got Herf Jones involved, the jewler rep (Marion was her name, was PISSED. she took this very seriously). After a week of investigation, she called me back to say “it was lost” and it was “FedEx’s problem” and she was personally convinced it wasnt “lost”
It was stolen internally, which she has stated “happens more than you think at FedEx and UPS”
She said, “we can never replace the sentimental value of that ring, but we will give you a brand new one. 20K gold. Exact match” I was grateful. I asked about the cost to Herf Jones
“Dont worry, we wil get all that money back, FedEx will be sued by us. Dont worry about us”
She also said “Hmmm, you are in Fresno, I am going to ship it directly through a small courrier to Warnors Jewlers in Fresno” They will call you when they have it.
Warnors called me a few weeks later with the ring. It was an exact replica of the original ring and was indeed 20K gold (Warnors checked / verified as well before handing it to me)
Jason, that’s rough. I went through something similar with a Dell, or PC, a few years ago. Not as many times, but I canceled the order. These “american” companies hate humans and deserve bankruptcy. That was smart to look at the camera, I wouldn’t have thought of that. All these employees, harming other Americans, their “neighbors. ” We deserve the judgment and electing Harris will be part of that.
Fed Ex, black drivers blaring music, and a couple of years ago one pulled up in the driveway to drop off a small package. They aren’t supposed to do that. The truck left a large oil spot. Thanks FedEx.
I can’t believe they told you go to the facility and it wasn’t there. So sad, but I bet the computer was stolen.
Corporate America is absolute scum. With few exceptions, I cheer when a large American corporation goes bankrupt. They almost all deserve it. Yes, it’s tragic that this means many Americans lose their jobs when these companies tank. But as greedy as corporate America is, it’s likely that these employees would have all been laid off even if the company didn’t fold.
Well, they know most people will “put up” with dealys, and the like and they do nothing to change it. Sure….acts of God do happen. A storm. A strike. Sometimes….yeah….it just got delayed. Happens. Its not a perfect world.
What I really dont like, is that now these companies put ALL the burden on you for a product you did not receive.
You have to call. You have to “adapt” you have to download the app and install. You have to drive out to a regional facility to pick up. You have to be “flexible”
I explained to the HP rep, that my order is a higher end order. This isnt the “back to college” special for 200.00. This was a 2 TB laptop with additional software, and graphics card, along with 32 GB cache
AT Best Buy in Pasadena, I found several systems from Dell, Sony and others that had what I needed, in house and in the store. I was confused on why my order from HP had to be custom built and it took so long.
Then again, not surprised. I have three properties in LA I am managing right now and their fire systems have problems. various sensors are bad, and need to be replaced.
You call the respected fire monitoring / alarm system companies (big ones like Simplex / ADT / Cosco / Tyco) and they tell you “we dont have the parts to replace” and we’re waiting while the fire panels “beep” and throw errors.
No company keeps part “on hand” anymore (affects the bottom line evidently).
LA is America’s “second city” population wise, not including the wide metropolitan area of the LA, Orange, and Riverside Counties…..
And no company has “sensors” on hand to replace when they go bad. When the LA County Fire Dept does and inspection, and sees trouble on the panel……we get fined for “not maintaining” the system and keeping it in “working order”
You explain, they dont have the parts,and show the “proof” they dont care, a few thousand dollar fine coming your way……and the companies are not “responsible” either.
Its a racket. The whole country is slowly grinding to a halt on matters like this. Not just California.
Its a racket. The whole country is slowly grinding to a halt on matters like this. Not just California.
“Import the Third World, become the Third World.”
After 60 years of importation, the transmogrification is nearly complete.
Sure is grinding to a halt. Same thing in drinking water industry regarding lack of parts. My trying to order an online laptop was frustrating, so I appreciate, even though it’s sad, to find out it happens in California too.
Jason, I have a question for you – did skinheads come from mods, or rockers, or neither? They look like mods mostly. The original skinhead also had mohawks, or did a mohawk make one a punk?
Surfdumb.
Hard to say…….By the end of 1966, the Mod thing was fracturing into subgroups. The hippie / psychedelia thing exploded in Britain at this time. Many Mods did become Skinheads.
Now. Lets clear something up.
When we think skinhead. We think its a bunch of boorish types rolling around in glass beating each other up. Racists. No. Skinheads originally were men who kept their hair short, skinned up on the sides and did have a preference for Ska, two-tone, dancehall and reggae.
In my older age, people (old black Jamaicans usually) say “Hey Rudeboy / Friend skin, how you feeling today?” I do have a skinhead style haircut because I am losing my hair (in a barbers chair every ten days now). They remember and know the white boys who were into early ska by their look. I’m still and will always be a Mod. Scooter, suit and dancing. When I die, bury me a Mod.
Skinheads bac k in the 1960’s dressed moddish….but evolved into their own style.
It became a National Front type of thing by the end of the 1970’s. Im not an expert. I do remember in the 1980’s you could tell “fascists” types of skins by the color of laces they wore in their Doc Martens. This evolved into Punk I suppose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhLjOgUXut8
This is the Ska I like, and sometimes spin when I DJ. Sixties. There was still a decorum. Shirts clean and pressed. Tucked in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-1ulc6Cjrg
Rare sixties RnB, Motown and Northern Soul is my thing. Danced at this club in London in 2019. Such a fun night. Suited up. So much fun. The happiest moments in my lifer now are when I dance to music like this, DJ-ing is fun but work.
Hopefully Herf Jones was successful in suing FedEx.
And what a great example of customer service for them to give you a free replacement!
Update from Bad@ss Oscar!
Oscar says:
2024-08-25 at 1:30 am
“But these distinctions are now no longer useful nor even very relevant.”
Boy, ain’t that the truth, Jack!
I’m not a Calvinist (or Reformed, as they prefer to call themselves), but I’m a member of a Reformed church. Why?
Because this church and its SOUL sister churches are unapologetically based / Biblical / patriarchal/ Totally rad as well as Bad@ss in ”dealing with” /Bullying ”lesser” MENZ.
They have a robust community that is growing like crazy just as too many supposed ”Biblical” tradcons yank and crank crazily instead of preferred Natural relations as in ”BE FRUITFUL&MULTPLY” as they hypocritically tell MGTOWS & Blackpillers!
Their emphasis on Biblical sexuality, being totally rad & Bad@ss, and young marriage gives my kids the best possible chance at the one thing that is the #1 predictor of long term happiness — marriage and family.
My wife’s family is from this area, and my family is nearby kicking it in their crib as I do in my hood.
It’s weird (I can’t think of a better word) how everyone sees hard times coming. Liberals, Conservatives(Commie and otherwise), Christians, non-believers… it doesn’t matter. Everyone sees a storm on the horizon (cue CCR). We disagree on the source and how to handle it e.g. some say yea to yank and crack others nay), but we all see it coming.
My wife and I decided that we should handle it by joining a Christian community that had already proven to be faithful and resilient, even if we disagreed on the finer, nonessential points of Christian theology while chilling in our hoods.
Also update on a pair failing ”FIDI ” ”rents” A.K.A. a pair of ”Father” &”Mother” in the Finacial district of NYC:
Missing FiDi Girl, 17, Found Safe and Well on Lower East Side
Sophie Barker was found in a library on the Lower East Side. Photo courtesy of Saida Barker.
By CARL GLASSMAN
Posted Aug. 23, 2024
Sophie Barker, a mentally disabled 17-year-old, was found safe and well late Friday afternoon after going missing Thursday morning from her father’s home in the Financial District, her mother, Saida Barker, confirmed. Police located the girl in the Seward Park Library on East Broadway.
“The community showed immense support and flooded downtown with flyers, and people canvassing the streets,” Barker told the Trib in a text. “There were several chats from downtown dedicated to mobilize people and thanks to them and the NYPD we were able to find her.”
Barker called the library security guard “the real breakthrough since he called it in after seeing the [all points bulletin] of failing ”parents” A.K.A. ”RENTS”.” First Precinct detectives “immediately rushed to the location,” she added, “subsequently calling Sophie’s stepdad and then FaceTiming him to verify it was her.” Seventh Precinct officers supported EMS workers who led Sophie to an ambulance, she said.
Sophie had last been seen Thursday around 11 a.m. at William and Wall Street after leaving her failing ”father’s” house without her cell phone to get a cup of coffee. Her ”parents” -who didn’t giver her Xtra care -feared she may be disoriented from missing a dose of her medication and could be in a “medical emergency, since we suxeth as ”’rents”” her ”mother” had told the Trib urgently. Libraries were said to be among her favorite places, a family friend said.
Feeriker corrects Oscar and locustsplease can’t believe he has been in a ”normal” latter-day church(for 10yrs) with plenty of tradcon simps!
feeriker says:
2024-08-25 at 4:55 am
It’s weird (I can’t think of a better word) how everyone sees hard times coming. Liberals, Conservatives(Commie and otherwise), Christians, non-believers… it doesn’t matter. Everyone sees a storm on the horizon (cue CCR). We disagree on the source and how to handle it e.g. some say yea to yank and crack others nay), but we all see it coming.
“Coming?” They’re already here. Things just haven’t yet kicked into the “catastrophic” yank and crank stage.
Liked by 1 person
Reply
locustsplease says:
2024-08-25 at 5:26 am
my non denominational church I would say is woke in politics but not religion. I have no idea how a Democrat anti abortion Christian exist but I’m surrounded by them. I wouldn’t b surprised if every one of our pastors vote liberal. They are extremely neutral on politics but 3x in 10yrs went woke on some Democrat mongering. I plan on starting a church with a couple guys in a few years. They know I do not yield or negotiate with the devil.
And we can watch our church b pushed by women, women who openly violate church bylaws but somehow are on staff. Women who have called for men to b removed from chu4ch over baseless accusations . They are never critiqued 1x. Men are fair game. Women who promote female preachers. Women backed by ”Men”-TBH who say only women are allowed to yank and crank all day and night at church, work, and home & NOT Men SMH like ”jack”,”bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins” and sparkly would.
Of course Feeriker is right in both of these Comments:
feeriker says:
24 August, 2024 at 5:22 pm
“Ultimately, the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other.” RFK 8-23-24
Sadly, I see ZE-RO evidence that this is the case, or that we are making any moves in that direction. Matter o’ fact, I can think of no other demographic other than men that we as a society hate more than children (or at best are completely indifferent to).
A nation that loved its children would NEVER:
– murder millions of them in the womb every year, or tolerate those who did.
– tolerate unmarried adults processing and keeping children outside of a family structure.
– allow them to be raised by adults who systematically and habitually abuse and neglect them (to include “reassigning their gender”).
– force them to spend most of their fist five years in the care of paid strangers while their “mothers” pursued “careers” or “self-realization.”
– force them to spent the first eighteen most formative and vulnerable years of their lives in government day prisons where they are systematically abused, enstupidated, and indoctrinated.
– expose them to cruel, genocidal medical experiments disguised as “health care” in the form of crippling and often deadly “vaccines.”
– get them (especially MALE children) dependent on “medicines” that cobtrol their behavior, but also permanently destroy their mental and physical health, all because adults find their normal childhood behavior “inconvenient.”
– feed them “food” that is full of health-destroying additives, chemicals, and genetic modifications.
-subject them to the trauma and destruction of “family court systems” when adults decide that it’s too inconvenient to continue to maintain a family.
– create a world for them that is so socioeconomically and politically dysfunctional that by the time they reach adulthood and are forced to live in it on their own, they lack the means and support structures to even survive in it, let alone thrive.
No, we most assuredly do NOT love our children more than we hate each other or love ourselves, and we’re now beginning to reap the fruits of that reality. And things are only going to get much, MUCH worse from here.
feeriker says:
24 August, 2024 at 5:31 pm
“I’m suspicious of people who don’t like dogs. But I trust a dog when it doesn’t like a person.”
I can only go for a few years without a dog in my life (last year I had to put down my beloved Aussie Shepherd mix just shy of her seventeenth birthday). Not only do they provide unconditional love, the smartest of them do indeed recognize scumbags when they encounter them and will let you know it in no uncertain terms.
I readily admit that I very much prefer the company of dogs to that of most North American humans today.
HEY DEREK!” jack” admits he was the one who was making a game of derailing discussions by claiming it was you and Anonymousage66-72(from DALrock and the Spearhead) returns undercover shhh…. speaking of ”Destroyers” like he did on that post from December 2013 here sometime back.
jamesbbkk AKA Anonymousage81 undercover shhh…. says:
2024-08-25 at 3:30 pm
“There is no common goal, no real-life purpose, no shared enterprise, in which a Gamma can be held accountable and be pushed to overcome his self-centredness.”
There are many, many, such opportunities. The Gamma will ordinarily call each one a grift and expend inordinate amounts of time, energy, and for want of a better term, credibility setting out to tear them down and also to tear down their sponsors and participants. Some go to the lengths of creating local legal problems for projects and activities and of course go for payment processors and such. These shockingly are popular. The “Voxhive” should be vigilant to protect itself from these termite colonies and poison spraying sadistic miscreants. These people are not victimy, just deprived of midnight basketball and such. They are destroyers.
When I was working in the MENS Rights Movement(MRM) as a MENS Rights Activist(MRA) in the 70s through the 90s that’s what WE called them.
Like
Reply
jamesbbkk AKA Anonymousage81 undercover shhh…. says:
2024-08-25 at 4:46 pm
”Part of the problem in dealing with Gammas is that online forums cannot offer the element of a real life, interpersonal fellowship that these men need in order to get a leg up in life.“
Not true. There are many such opportunities. Regrettably, gammas work to block them or to tear them down. From creating falsely premised zoning disputes, to sowing FUD in local areas, to calling on child and animal abuse authorities, to creating payment processor, hosting, and banking issues, these termites relentlessly attempt to undermine places like the Voxhive. Worse still, these activities attract somehow groups of semi-supporters [because you don’t know when one’s gonna bust out], gathered around a poisoned well. How’s that for fellowshipping? They are bent; they are destructive.
Like
Reply
Jack says:
2024-08-26 at 2:06 am
Jamesbbkk AKA Anonymousage81 undercover shhh….,
Welcome to Σ Frame!
I know guys like NOVASeeker, Scott AKA SOUP SANDWICH AKA ”YOU KNOW WHO”, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM remember you from the early ”Zenith” years AKA MOSES, JESUS & GBFM years of DAL & Will f. Price’s Spearhead blogs in the ROISSYosphere instead of the ”red pill” tradconnic”UnMANlyosphere”which is unsuccessful, unscripturally &unpopular AKA a total failure as far as humans & GOD are concerned!
Are ALL Gammas AKA average ordinary everyday f@ol frustrated chump blue, fed & ”red pill” tradcons just like what you described?
In the comments somewhere, we discussed what to do about problematic people like this. Basically, you have to ask yourself whether any of those people are within your domain of influence, whether you’re able to establish good relations with them, and whether you believe you have the ability to have a positive impact on them. Should they choose to be willing to come under your wing, then that opens up an opportunity for fellowship / mentorship. If they’re not willing, then no such fellowship is possible, as you pointed out, and boundaries should then be drawn and enforced.
This approach ‘works’ because in a large group of men, there will be one or two who can identify with the troublemaker and will know how to best deal with him. It requires a group effort. It is unlikely that one man will be able to mentor large numbers of men, especially problematic men. But a large group of men working together can move mountains. It is very important for the leader to set a good example.
From what I have seen, Vox makes a game{Just as I once did here by claiming Derek L. Ramsey(NOT the model even though he looks modelish as I was told by Saint DALrock who once had a ”Warhorn media is the Devil to me now dude” meeting with him in the Dallas-fort Worth area once around Summer 2019) was derailing discussions when it was actually my own lusts, lies &apostacsy }out of taunting and trolling troublesome commenters, and I believe this sets a bad example. It splinters the group instead of motivating or sad to say using well-known Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins feminine-type techniques to manipulate men to step up to the challenges of ministry, all day & night g@y p@rn w@tching or making me pope of all that I survey TBH while SMH as if I was sparkly.
If this post of questions should end now let it end on a GREAT answer!
morpheus says:
2024-08-26 at 4:16 pm
The blue pill / red pill dichotomy was always presented as a false dillemma. What was sold was some instant higher level awareness that you could just suddenly take like some form of pop philosophy like a viral infomercial 10 step plan motivational speaker psychobabble. But in reality subscribing to the red pill was merely no different to subscribing to the collective reality delusion of the blue pill, just a different color, constructed and marketed by a different manufacturer. I propose to you Neo that one doesn’t subscribe to either collective delusions which have been presented to you but to form your own models and collective experiences of reality much like what great philosophers, artists, innovators and great thinkers e.g. your Roissy=Heartistes, Homers, Platos & let alone the other members of the GBFM assembly throughout time and space & the rest of the GBFM fellowship of extraordinary everyday Average Genius dudes like your Earls, Dereks, Dirk Willems, Artisanal Toad, MOD and such like have already done for eons.
I guess a shift is happening…we’re moving towards a new,new, model of manhood / masculinity / red pill that I dont even understand.
I guess it was the PUA thing first “women love it when you wear eyeliner, dress like clown, have funny jokes, card tricks and are “funny” you are a regular court jester”
Evidently it worked….no it didnt…..the guys LEADING this thing made men look “silly” and then told them they didnt folllow instrcuctions “to-the-letter” because their method was “foolproof”
The men leading this just made themselves look good for “helping all these poor chumps” while again belittling the others.
Then we had “real man” masculinity which was always there but the shift turned to men like Rollo and those that copied him. We men have to “thank” Game because we “just do” because it straighten out everything. Men are now successful, date and have great sex all the time and tons of relationships. If you dont have this…..”you are a bitter loser” and “just didnt want to put the work in”
Its gone off on such fishtailing and other areas since then……and I cannot keep track of what is the “new” in thing this week in the sphere.
What hasnt changed a bit is: how many women like you / want to f*ck you / how many IOIs and how to “decode” their secret language and cater to what they want, need and expect from men…….
And, again…..if you are not getting this you are a “chump” / “didnt want to put the work in” / “blinded by blue pill thinking ” and of course are a “Beta”
We’re moving now to Eugenics and other things that cannot be changed. You are born a leader, or a natural, or with the right genetics. If you are not…..well “there, there, the world needs its ditch-diggers too. Just follow Jesus / do the best you can. There are no women of worth anyway……we cant help it they just all like us real men”
Next? These men will demand death, or imprisonment, or a shunning from society or treat them like the “untouchables” I saw in India (Caste System, that is illegal, but really isnt). In their world, most men will be “the untouchables”
They took the “Blackpill” through the back door and applying to the people who can do litttle or nothing, then quote Scripture or some other psycho-babble as to why this had to be done.
These men they hate, who have no power, no influence, average or lower looks, lower social status, lower social IQ, average or lower IQ are the ones who “messed everything up”
And they deserve the treatment they get. These people make everything about being attractive to women “See women, we Sigmas, we Alphas, we Real Men” have removed these losers ourselves from society, or made them shunned further
“Please date us, please have sex with us! We helped you make everything easier for you because we love and protect women!”
What you are talking about with the hopeless/fatalist disposition is very true. Right now, the question of good or bad genetics is not very important. Simply judging someone by their life accomplishments or even looks and intellect is becoming a less reliable metric of hereditary value. For example, simply having bad posture in your youth is enough to stunt your facial development and make you look significantly uglier than you would have otherwise. Does someone with a recessed jaw have bad genetics? Or are they just a victim of a physical deformity brought about sitting at a desk all day? Modernity has presented us with a million of these scenarios. People are damaged and broken in ways that are hard to imagine.
People cannot control their genes, so it is obvious to say most men should focus on what they can control, however, most men simply have no idea what to do. The complexity of the problems are overwhelming. The social technology that is needed for men to handle the onslaught of childhood inadequacy, social anxiety, p0rn usage, generally impotence, and mental weakness simply has not reached the collective knowledge of the manosphere. That technology does indeed exist though. Mark Queppet is the only person in the whole manosphere who has succesfully married Christianity with masculine self-development. No more impotent consolation for ditch diggers. It should be refreshing for all of you because he is not a teacher of “game”, he is a super experienced p0rn recovery coach who has dedicated his life to solving the problems men face, from procrastination to marital issues. The only problem is his greatest methods are still behind a paywall, but mark my words he will revolutionize how we approach these problems soon enough.
I personally see it getting worse from readings around the manopshere (Christian or not). A new, new hierarchy for “manhood” is slowly being rolled out or “agreed upon” by the self appointed “leaders” and the stifling intellectual class of these men.
By what right or standard? Oh….they have “science” and “studies” and “charts” and “graphs” to prove anything. Question it? Raise an eyebrow “blue pilled / putting women on a pedestal / white knighting / cuckservative / BETA!” are the replies.
The same arguments the Left has used for decades (put downs / ending the discussion statements) and what Ayn Rand called “the art of smearing”
The classic “put together a well researched reply, and we will always look over and discuss”
Derek here has done this on many topics concerning Christianity over the years. The replies “not an argument” and the usual “smears” and defaulting to what a word means in this or that context. Hairsplitting. They are worse than Bill Clinton when he tried to argue in 1998 about what the word “is” actually means.
And men like myself…..the losers, the not-so-lucky when it came to physical appearance, or social skills….or learned waaaayyyyy too late are supposed to follow these men? Look up to them? Be inspired by them? Want to model our lives after them? Their Egos border on the absurd, and the millions upon millions of men like myself in the USA and West today are tired of being lied to.
I have been hearing of “foolproof” methods sine the 1990’s. Been hearing “simple” things you can do bed women, and get them to like you. Been told by a thousand TV shows and movies of “what women want”
The truth is, be good looking on a cultural norm and standard.
Yes, all of them know tons of men who are average / below average and date only hot women. Yet you walk on the street, at clubs I DJ at, in churches over the years. These men they speak of are outliers and not the norm…..and truth be told, the women in question probably “have low self esteem” anyway 😉
The final solution for the “real men” in the ‘sphere is pretty much:
Women, we heard you. We always listen to you. We will SHUN and SHAME and CORNER, and RUN OFF all these creepy men. Young and old. We will belittle them. Make fun of them. Labe them. We will PROTECT you from them. We will make them MORE isolated so they will leave you alone once and for all! Now, please, please date us! Have sex with us! We did what you asked….please?!!!!
The same arguments the Left has used for decades (put downs / ending the discussion statements) and what Ayn Rand called “the art of smearing”
Yes, I must agree. A couple weeks ago in “On Prophets and Prophecy,” I said:
As a matter of epistemology, [Jack’s] individual subjective perception approach to truth is indistinguishable from leftism. That is why a statement like this… “Your brain cannot perceive divine truth” …is nonsensical outside a Positivist framework. When Radix Fidem attacks the mind as being purely a matter of the flesh, it is a positivistic claim: reducing the non-physical into a purely physical, and ultimately dead, reality.
I can’t see a difference between leftism’s tactics and those you mention.
The classic “put together a well researched reply, and we will always look over and discuss” Derek here has done this on many topics concerning Christianity over the years.
The replies “not an argument” and the usual “smears” and defaulting to what a word means in this or that context. Hairsplitting. They are worse than Bill Clinton when he tried to argue in 1998 about what the word “is” actually means.
Words have meaning and utility. This is valuable when one is trying to figure something out. But when one uses words to avoid figuring something out, their purpose is to ‘smear.’ It’s very easy to figure out which is which.
Leftism is primarily concerned with weaponizing words to achieve ideological goals. It picks and chooses meanings to suit.
“science” took CENTURIES to earn its rightful place as a respected method and way of “proving” things.
Within…no, not even a generation. It has been wrecked and politicized. People dont “trust” it anymore. Now, our friends in the ‘sphere will claim it is men like me who caused “science” to lose its credibility.
No. They did it. All of it.
Men like myself dont have the intellect, the quick answers, the TIME nor the baselines to begin to deconstruct and wreck science. It wasnt Joe the repairman who moved the goalposts since the 1970’s on “climate change”
It wasnt me, or millions like me who got the nation and the West “addicted” to the ADHD / serotonin / behavior meds. Science did that. Pushed by MEN in the quack field of psychology. Flat earthers are a real thing again. Hard to believe, but why not at this point? Science has been ABUSED by the “scientists” and researchers themselves. Scientists themselves (on the left and the right) politicized it, ruined it, gave to the rise of outrageous skepticism…and have the GALL to blame men or men like me “how come you dont trust the science on this”
They all are MARRIED to ideologies now, that PUSH their science. They did it. It wasnt the millions of “Gammas” that ruined it for everyone.
Per usual, men like myself will have to just “work” and “shut up” and clean up the mess they made, and again they will NEVER be held to account. Why?
“because women think Im hot”
What hasnt changed a bit is: how many women like you / want to f*ck you / how many IOIs and how to “decode” their secret language and cater to what they want, need and expect from men…….
And, again…..if you are not getting this you are a “chump” / “didnt want to put the work in” / “blinded by blue pill thinking ” and of course are a “Beta”
Hilarious enough that’s essentially what ”jack” just told Rock Kitaro.
Rock Kitaro says:
2024-08-27 at 2:04 am
As a 38-year-old virgin… yes, I’ve always “wanted” sex. And some people cynically assume that the main reason why I haven’t had it is because “No woman wants me.” I legit had a co-worker tell me this ever so casually as if he thought we’d still be best buds after that remark.
When I read this post… part of me just thinks, “It’s all so obvious.” In the Book of Numbers chapter 25, Israel was seduced by women to worship false gods. Men’s lust and our lack of, not only discipline, but honor in putting God first is a problem by instead worshipping our tremendously failourous ”red pill” ”leaders” and ”saints”.
An even bigger problem is if you try to tell the people the truth on a greater scale… the wicked attack. In Jeremiah’s time, he warned the people time and time again, but the people seem to choose the false prophets who told them what they wanted to hear.
Similarly, I believe a majority of young people who “make mistakes” do the same thing, as if it’s acceptable and normal to mess up and it’s like, “Oops! I just so happened to have fallen into sexual immorality. You know us, humans gonna human. It’s all good. No big deal. Everyone’s doing it.” etc., etc etc.
Liked by 5 people
Reply
Jack says:
2024-08-27 at 2:46 am
People blunder through life not knowing what will happen to them as a consequence of their own actions and choices, thinking it to be ‘fate’, or ‘luck’, or the like. What they do not understand is that these events are the natural consequences of their own character, personality, and choices, but since they don’t know themselves at all(NOT even in a yank and crank intimate way as today’s leading highly failurous ”red pill” ”genius” ”leaders” do), they chalk it up to ‘fate’ or ‘luck’ or draw of the ”butthext”. Immature Christians might say, “It musta been ‘God’s will!’” Heh.
Is that what bluepilled jack pre-2017 did?
OT: At work we have some FM “lite-pop” station on playing the “best” oldies from the 1980’s thru today” (the 1980’s are oldies now). Its piped in to the waiting areas. Lobby. You can have it play in your office as well. Its the kind of station that plays in dentist offices.
“Take A Look At Me Now” by Phil Collins for some strange reason has to be played 20x a day on this station.
I own ZERO Phil Collins on vinyl. He was exactly what was wrong with music from the 1980’s.
Hey Derek and (especially)MOD ever read the Z-Man blog?He is an agnostic like Roissy=Heartiste and he is talking about Christianity being for ”losers”.
The New Christianity
Posted on August 26, 2024
Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the send gamers to labor camps for rebutthext education, a post about finance socialism and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.
Was Jesus a loser? By the standards of the age, the human standards, he was most certainly viewed as a loser, with the exception of his followers. That was the point of crucifying someone in that period. The Roman authorities used the practice as a form of humiliation as well as capital punishment. The point of displaying the condemned as they suffered and died was to let the rest of the population know that the guy on the cross was at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Modern Christians would take exception to calling Jesus a loser, but early Christians would not have been offended. The humiliation of Jesus was integral to both understanding the life of Christ and the message of Christ. If the Romans or the Jews had executed Christ in the fashion reserved for prominent people, then the life and message of Christ would mean something quite different. The stripping of all human dignity at the end was essential to the life of Christ.
Therein lies the problem for modern Christians. By the standards of this age, Christ is a loser, just as he was two thousand years ago. The message of Christ not only runs counter to the way in which modern people live and are expected to live, but the bad end runs afoul of how modern people expect the life of a hero to end. The modern person expects the hero’s life to end in a great triumph and universal acclaim or at least the acclaim of the major characters in the story.
Of course, the message of Christ does not work too well either. Eschewing material prosperity is just not a thing people do in this age or for a long time. In fact, the point of life for a long time has been to increase your material wealth. All of the heroes of the modern age are those who either got rich for their own sake or got rich for having upheld the modern morality. The way around this for the modern Christian is some form of the prosperity gospel, but that often looks like a grift.
More important, the message of Christ was aimed at the losers. From the start, Christianity was a religion for losers. Its appeal assumed that the audience was composed of people who were losers and would remain losers until they died, which would probably be soon. For them, investing in this life made little sense, so they should invest in the next life. Their time on this plane of existence was best used to prepare for everlasting life in Christ.
It is a powerful message if you are a loser and most people in the late Roman Empire and post-empire Europe were losers. Nasty, brutish, and short is a famous line from Hobbes to describe pre-society man, but it was also a good description of life for most people in the early Christian era. It was true for many people when Hobbes was writing in the 17th century. The typical person was subjected to violence, disease, and the constant fear of running out of food.
A religion that tells the losers that their suffering is part of a transition from this life to everlasting life and bliss is going to find a lot of interest. The folk religions of the age were not so rosy about what comes next. Worse yet, if you were going to get any sort of reward in the next life, it meant living this life heroically. That did not offer much for the peasant farmer or the man tied to the land. It is not hard to see why a religion for losers would spread rapidly through Europe at the time.
This insouciant description of Christianity as a religion for losers is not intended as an insult to Christians or Christianity, but to make a point. The rise of Christianity in the West was due to two things. One is the majority of the population, even the upper classes, lived harsh lives. Therefore, a promise of relief from suffering and everlasting life had a strong appeal. The second factor was the embrace of this life as a means to an end, rather an end in itself.
Fast forward to this age and you see that poor people live lives of luxury relative to just a century ago. The typical poor person in America is obese because he has unlimited cheap food. His home is full of conveniences and entertainments. Even in the most terrifying modern ghettos, violence is a fraction of what people experienced even a few hundred years ago. A religion aimed at people living a life of misery is not going to sell to a population living in luxury.
Compounding the problem is a new religion of sorts has evolved in the West that celebrates material success. The point of life, according to the new religion, is to increase your material wellbeing. The point of the state is to foster those conditions and measure success by society-wide material increase. In every election, the economy is the top issue because in this age, we worship stuff, so the promise of more stuff is a sign of virtue. The point of life is more stuff.
A much bigger problem for Christianity is the fact that the ruling elites of this age have no use for Christianity. In the Middle Ages, not only did the ruling elites have lives of struggle, but they also saw utility in a religion that shifted the focus of their people from their current squalor onto what comes after this life. Marx was not entirely wrong when he wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
Probably the biggest challenge for Christianity is the modern Christian, who like the modern grammarian, refuses to evolve. The grammarian clings to the rules of grammar as if they are timeless truths. Any thought of ignoring them for the sake of clarity is treated as a crime against humanity. The fact that most of what he clings to is a relative new invention is lost on him, because what matters most to him is wielding the blue pencil like nuns used to wield the ruler.
This is the problem with the modern Christian. He is ossified in a mode of thought that is relatively new. Transport a modern Christin back to medieval England and he would be burned at the stake as a heretic. Plop him down among the early followers of Christ and they would be baffled by his Scriptural dogmatism. The early proselytizers charged with converting the pagans would find the modern Christian to be a rigid and irrational burden on their work.
Christianity, as we understand it, is the result of a long evolutionary process that adapted the life and message of Christ to the audience and times. The inability and unwillingness of modern Christians to evolve and adapt is probably the biggest challenge facing Christianity. Put another way, the problem with modern Christianity is not its opponents, but its most dogmatic defenders. They have made failure their security blanket and refuse to let go of it.
If Christianity is going to survive, it will have to adapt to this age and repurpose itself as a replacement for liberalism, rather than an enabler of it. Christianity gave birth to liberalism, but it does not have to sink under the waterline with it. Instead, it will have to either replace it with a new Christianity or give rise to a secular alternative that cannot just coexist with Christianity but allow it to once again flourish. Otherwise, Christianity will go into the dustbin of history along with Western civilization.
& I found these comments interesting.
David Wright
Member
12 hours ago
Without elaborating as to what form or forms Christianity should evolve too I don’t see the point of this essay. You are right on one thing, modern Christians of every type wouldn’t last long if they were confronted early Hardc@re looking for IOIS & going to the gym all day and night Christians.
Maybe evolving is not needed but reverting is, at least on main tenets.
41
Reply
Marko
Marko
Reply to
David Wright
11 hours ago
Yeah, Christ on the Cross and His resurrection appealed to early Christians – after all, it was the sole focus of St. Paul’s ministry – and the closest thing we get to understanding that suffering and resurrection is, I hate to say it, the plight of minorities, particularly blacks and Jews. It’s no surprise that the lowest whites (in drug recovery, ex-cons, the newly divorced or otherwise badly damaged) are the most unapologetically Christian.
But how can functional whites, or functional people generally, identify with Jesus? I don’t know. American ones have seemed to develop an attitude where he’s your best friend and guide. That even though you are moral and upstanding, you are still sinful and fallen. You’re a loser even though you don’t act like a loser.
I’ve always been a skeptical of the Holy Trinity thing…I believe in God, but I also think the Trinity may be a European invention. It’s my skeptical, human brain firing.
3
Reply
Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to
Marko
10 hours ago
Identifying with Jesus depends on the spectrum.
Liberals are mimicking the hardship and suffering of history’s majority, the “losers”, thus their overwrought moralizing and playacting as seen in ”jack” and Sparkly in the ””Christian”-”redpill”osphere.”
Kiddies playing dress-up.
Well. Yes. I do agree that Christianity is for losers.
We are indeed “lost” in this “lost world”
A fallen world. A world that loves sin, loves wickedness, loves destruction and seeing people fail! I’m still guilty of it. I have at times caught myself smirking over a fallen pop-stars fall from grace from bad behavior / choice
And yet…..my own bad choices……who forgave me? When I was a loser, let myself down and fell to a level that I thought I would *never* fall too
Who was there in the end? Well, the words of Jesus. To go and “sin” no more. To flee from sin. To be told “there are many rooms in my Fathers house” and when he said “The Kingdom of God is here among you now” when pressed about this “kingdom of God”. It was said plainly to all, and there were sinners, pagans, and terrible people here.
“The kingdom of God is upon you, repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark)
When a man has nothing (or everything) what more is there? Even a rich man, or a good looking man is still deemed a loser by someone or somebody. Even in a NBA championship, a team is going to loser. One will win.
With Jesus, he wants all to win in eternity. He understands and knows this world. He spoke in ways that even a poor beggar, a cripple, or “bad” woman, or elite Centurion, or teacher-of-the-law could grasp. Even with people in authority (Pilate, Herod)
It didnt matter if they didnt listen. They all were astounded by his wisdom. His humility, his way of telling us about God’s Kingdom.
It is a faith for losers. In this world, all have lost something, or suffered something through birth, or no fault of their own.
Las Vegas wasnt built on “winners” either.
Well well well look who is undercover(so he/she/it won’t have to MENZ UP & stop submitting happily & humbly to his own higher ranking than themselves false teacher in sheep’s clothing as he said here before about the person who is more than likely a tradcon ”Christian”-feminist woman as sparkly claimed a few times at Spawnys known since 2020 as ”jack”) now at SF!
jason smith AKA Sparkly Undercover shhhh…. says:
2024-08-28 at 4:53 am
The immoral women created the immoral culture. But immoral e.g. NOT I- men helped them by adding the pericope adulterae to the Bible and getting rid of stoning adulterers and adulteresses. And then they gave women the vote knowing women always vote for adultery. While At the same time, I have to yank and crank myself alone at home and at work SMH.
”The immoral women created the immoral culture. But immoral e.g. NOT I- men helped them by adding the pericope adulterae to the Bible and getting rid of stoning adulterers and adulteresses. And then they gave women the vote knowing women always vote for adultery. ”
As usual sparkly downplays his own ”yank and crank” lusts,how most MENZ just want to be seen as a ”good guy” who deserves lots of money, awards, salutes & p@on for being a ”good boy” like supposedly his/her/its own self has always wanted as well as how his hero=idols in the GOP were those same ”immoral e.g. NOT I- men he rants about undercover shhhh…..
IOW?-his/her/its false teachings, circular reasoning and logical fallacies won’t stop him/her/it must think they’re too fraudulently legit to quit perhaps!?
The final solution for the “real men” in the ‘sphere is pretty much:
Women, we heard you. We always listen to you. We will SHUN and SHAME and CORNER, and RUN OFF all these creepy men. Young and old. We will belittle them. Make fun of them. Labe them. We will PROTECT you from them. We will make them MORE isolated so they will leave you alone once and for all! Now, please, please date us! Have sex with us! We did what you asked….please?!!!!
That’s why ”decent” tradcons have always been even ”back in the good old days” of the 1910s to 1950s.
Here is a GREAT Question for the ”red pill” ”genius” ”leaders” of the sphere. Does this ”back in the good old days e.g. pre -1960s” ”Classic=Golden age” Hollywood & theatre actress’s ”Father” ”advice” plus her own IOIS ”red pill” mission-based statement like their own since that swinger ”Christian” gay porn ”life and lessons of Mathew 10:with lots of butthexting empowerment thanx to ”jack”” post in September 2021, sound familiar to their supposedly former blue pill minds that when even reddish wants to be seen as ”good boys” to ALL the as I’m constantly told ”Satanic” & icky Beta bluepillers like themselves?
”My father warned me about men and booze but he never said anything about women and cocaine as he was an average lefty tradcon.”
&
”Bankhead never publicly used the term “bisexual” to describe herself, preferring to use the term “ambisextrous” instead like most ”decent” pre-1960s tradcons.”
Modern ”redpill” tradcons have failed just as they always will as they ignore reality to the end mainly cuz of muh lust as jack always likes to say.
Tallulah Bankhead also talked of big dongs,@rgasms & the importance of sex just like supposed ”Christian” ”red pill” ”genius” ”leaders’ ”Men”(the last one still in honor of saint Deti at Spawnys when it comes to ”Men”) in the sphere always do too.
After my last comment earlier about the ”adventures” of a 1910s to 1950s ”back in Da good old days ” gal actress named tallulah bankhead, this ”jack” post is really making me Zlolzzzzz…..
Are immoral women a product of an immoral culture, or vice versa or are WE Genius redpill leaders socially t@rded eh?
Posted on 2024-08-27 by Jack
Which came first, the Chick or the Egg or even the socially t@rded that can’t figure out either one w/o appropriate IOIS being given huh?
Readership: All
Theme: (Christian) Community
Author’s Note: This essay is based on an email correspondence between Jack and Thedeti who were and sad to say still are to a large extent socially t@rded on 2024/9/23.
Length: 900 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
Intro
While Reminiscing on Our Immoral Culture (2024/8/26), Thedeti and I mulled over the question: Are immoral women a product of an immoral culture, or vice versa, or are WE like too many red pill saints and supposed leaders socially t@rded eh?
The History of Hypergamy
Individual women have been engaging in various acts of immorality since forever. Contrary to what most men have been led to believe and sad to say as a socially t@rded MENZ,”twicked” by their Parents, Church, women & the Government All because they couldn’t handle reality AKA THE CAPITAL T TRUTH(As VOX said in response to MOSES, JESUS & GBFM in 2014) IN THE HOLY Scriptures, women want sex as much as men do — IF they’re sexually attracted, they really want that sex yesterday puh-puh-please(as I oft say to Derek, MOD, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM). Women very, very much like and enjoy sex with sexually attractive men. Very, very much is an understatement. Thus GB4MS ‘ LOTSA C@ckamania’ is a little closer to reality.
This has always been the case. It instigated The Red Pill over a decade ago for certain socially t@rded MENZ. It was the case 30 years ago when we were in college. It was the case 60 years ago when our parents met, and 90 years ago when our grandparents were doing the hoochie. It was the case 240 years ago during the Revolutionary War. It was the problem that lit up the Council of Trent 460 years ago that led to the Protestant Reformation. It was the case 2,600 years ago when Ezekiel wrote about Oholah and Oholibah. It was the issue that sparked the Trojan War 3,300 years ago. Women have been having illicit sex with attractive men since forever. Hypergamy is an unstoppable force of nature.
The Advent of Technology
What has accelerated the proliferation of sexual immorality in our day and age is technology which allows people to separate reproduction from copulation. In turn, as that technology improved, people are better able to separate copulation (and reproduction) from marriage.
That technology has been improving apace and exponentially for hundreds of years, but the floodgates opened with the advent of the Pill in 1960. Since then, the sociosexual dynamics leading to copulation, marriage and reproduction have been changing more and more as technology and civil law have allowed women to earn / have enough money to become more or less self sufficient.
Women’s Independence = Moar Sexual Liberation
Women want their own money so they don’t have to depend on a man. This is crucially important to women’s sexual strategy because the men they can depend on aren’t sexually attractive. The men who are sexually attractive (who they really want to sleep with) won’t give them a commitment or any money because they don’t have to. It’s basically the old Legendary to All thekidz GBFMian Alpha Fux / Beta Bux strategy at Da clubz, except Beta Bux is increasingly being replaced by women supporting themselves with their socially t@rded ”father/”grandfather’s” moolah and/or freeloading off the government and the court system (i.e. via divorce). Laws have changed and technology has improved to the point where women can earn their own living; they can now eke out an existence without a man’s help (at least on the surface if the MENZ are non-socially t@rded that is).
What foils all that, what prevents a woman from full economic independence, is motherhood. Presently, most women, the vast majority of women, cannot financially support children without men’s or their ”fathers”/” grandfathers” money. Some women can forego having children altogether, but many will not because the biological urge is to have children. This is why the effort right now is wealth transference: Take men’s money and give it to women so they can be economically independent (and remain sexually liberated like our idol).
Men are being enticed into this because of the ever present misrepresentation: “If you give us what we want, we’ll have sex with you.” P@ssy makes socially t@rded ”genius” ”redpill” ”leader” men even much much more stupid who later claim they were ”twicked” by their Parents, Church, women & the Government All because they couldn’t handle reality nor JESUS’s spirit SPEAKING TO THEM THROUGH THE CAPITAL T TRUTH IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. It has always been so even after they supposedly become ”red pill” too.
See why I like ”jacks” satirical ”red pill” posts now?
Also more from another reality-denying ”red pill” genius ”leader”(see a pattern developing?).
Sharkly says:
28 August, 2024 at 6:48 pm
(An off-topic excerpt from a recent email I wrote.)
The real problem is that society’s general moral decay affects all of our company’s employees. Almost nobody feels like they must be completely honest and responsible, especially those in upper management. So, you get a big chain of liars all reporting upwards to the CEO, who wants to maintain his own plausible deniability. Each liar gilds the turd a bit more until it looks like pure gold when it gets to the CEO.
Proverbs 29:12(NIV) If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked.
The problem here at Spirit AeroSystems, and I suspect also at Boeing, is that the vast majority of our leaders are morally unfit to be in positions of responsibility in the aircraft manufacturing industry. They don’t have adequate personal integrity and ethical discernment to make appropriate decisions when faced with ethical dilemmas. Profit, schedule, and customer or public perception are routinely used to justify (truly unjustifiable) ethical compromises.
I’ve seen folks on the internet speculating when this all began. Many pointing to the merger of Boeing with McDonald Douglas, when the “money men” took over leadership from the engineers. But I personally also see a couple of other moments in our nation’s history as watershed moments:
1. When conservatives decided that a divorced man (Ronold Reagan) was fit to be president of the USA. I have no clue about the merits of his divorce, but the thought change was that a man’s personal life (personal morality) was no longer going to be a required consideration for even top leadership roles. How foolish!
2. When our liberal/media decided it was OK for the president of the USA (Bill Clinton) to lie to the nation. (regarding his having sexual relations with an intern) The message was that even in the highest office in all our land, lying was permissible, so long as our economic indicators were doing well. How foolish!
Anyhow, the engineering of safer airplanes is still generally improving, in spite of some moral corruption in the engineering departments’ management, while the company’s ability to assure their production meets those standards has been declining due to that same moral corruption being far more pervasive and overwhelming in the areas where less demonstrated technical proficiency is required for employment.
Our nation needs a moral revamping.
Maybe if sparkly and Jack stop with the yanking and cranking they could bring back the Moral Majority huh?
Also:
When conservatives decided that a divorced man (Ronold Reagan) was fit to be president of the USA. I have no clue about the merits of his divorce, but the thought change was that a man’s personal life (personal morality) was no longer going to be a required consideration for even top leadership roles. How foolish!
That sounds strange coming from a guy who thinks divorced MEN with unworthy wives ( by his own admission she is a malicious gossiper (like himself who calls others liars and deceivers left and right while accusing others of doing it) ex or otherwise should be other MENZ leaders as it goes against Scripture! Where? Here:
1 Timothy 3
Amplified Bible
Overseers and Deacons
3 This is a faithful and trustworthy saying: if any man [eagerly] seeks the office of [a]overseer (bishop, superintendent), he desires an excellent task. 2 Now an overseer must be blameless and beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine, not [b]a bully nor quick-tempered and hot-headed, but gentle and considerate, free from the love of money [not greedy for wealth and its inherent power—financially ethical]. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity [keeping them respectful and well-behaved] 5 (for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?). 6 and He must not be a new convert, so that he will not [behave stupidly and] become conceited [by appointment to this high office] and fall into the [same] condemnation incurred by the devil [for his arrogance and pride]. 7 And he must have a good reputation and be well thought of by those outside the church, so that he will not be discredited and fall into the devil’s trap.
8 [c]Deacons likewise must be men worthy of respect [honorable, financially ethical, of good character], not double-tongued [speakers of half-truths], not addicted to wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, 9 but upholding and fully understanding the mystery [that is, the true doctrine] of the [Christian] faith with a clear conscience [resulting from behavior consistent with spiritual maturity]. 10 These men must first be tested; then if they are found to be blameless and beyond reproach [in their Christian lives], let them serve as deacons. 11 [d]Women must likewise be worthy of respect, not malicious gossips, but self-controlled, [thoroughly] trustworthy in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons gain a high standing [having a good reputation among the congregation], and great confidence in the faith which is [founded on and centered] in Christ Jesus.
I still find it odd that in the 1980’s so many “fundamentalists” loved, defended and praised Reagan on everything…..even while the US debt doubled at that time…..and it was shocking for that era. Applauded as companies in the Northeast shut up operations and ran to Mexico leaving wreckage and economic distress. I watched it all happen as a teen and younger man. You can blame “environmental restrictions” and people blamed New York State polices……which were facts as well at that time……but in the end, it was the corporate loopholes to get out of taxes (including federal) and companies at this time no longer showing an allegiance to their own. The bottom line became the only thing that mattered and while profits went up because all costs fell through the floor……upper management / CEO pay went into the stratosphere. It was now all being traded on Wall Street to make profit only. Something that Trump was indeed a champion of back then.
There was a time when you bought a General Electric home product, you knew you were getting something of quality, pride, a warrenty. Sometime in the 1980’s, that moved on and out. Much of this was the policies of Reagan….and the Democrats didnt utter a word because their “stock portfolios” were booming as well because of this. This was when Unions fully gutted by this point were owned by the Democratic Party as well.
Plus he was divorced, yet talked about the “sanctity” of marriage. Teen pregnancy exploded as well as did the obesity epidemic (this is when it really began). The music was terrible too. Yet he’s still hailed today as some “traditional hero of olden times America in the 1980’s when everyone went to church”
I watched homes fall into disrepair. I watched roads crumble. I watched families fall apart and the standard of living drop for most in this region. I saw small towns shuttered up and small cities become crime infested. The response from the “self righteous” right at this time was:
“You should get a better job, go back to school and become a engineer”
They had good jobs. They left.
Pingback: Dr. Michael Heiser