Look on the brighter side

You'll only get this joke if you understand the benefits of having a 2nd passport for tax purposes.

Cancel Goya. Cancel Puerto Rico.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and leftists are stirring things up to make Goya's CEO (Mother is Puerto Rican and grandfather immigrated to Puerto Rico from Spain) recant his praise of Trump.

This is especially hilarious because just today, I drove by Goya's 100,000 Square foot distribution center in Puerto Rico. According to infogalactic:

Goya Foods, Inc. is a producer of a brand of foods sold in the United States and many Hispanic countries including Spain and the Dominican Republic. The company headquarters is in Jersey City, New Jersey. It is the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the United States.

Will Boricuas boycott Goya now as well?

Spanish Civil War from Leftist Perspective: Land and Freedom Movie

For various reasons, Spain is on my shortlist of countries I would like to explore prior to settling. Italy is on there, though, due to their immigration restrictions, Spain is easier for me to gain citizenship in. 

I have been reading further into the history of Spain and watched "Land and Freedom" last night.

It's interesting to hear how the dialogue of the Anarchists mirror those of Libertarians in regards to the "purity" tests and trying to appeal to the "masses." It was quite entertaining to see the Left eat their own and knowing that their evil enemy would eventually triumph. I do enjoy watching my enemies suffer.

The parallels of the various sides, and listening to the rhetoric of Vox (the new nationalist party in Spain), remind me greatly of how much I really don't want to be in the United States when things start getting violent.

In terms of Spain, if I have to settle there, I will most likely want to be in an area that has lots of food production, has traditionally always been part of the Nationalist side of things, and various other considerations based on the history of each region.

Definitely NOT Catalonia.

The Resilience of the Mediterranean

I prefer living in Western Civilization. With the oncoming collapse of the United States and its world currency (Vox Day predicts 2033), I have to think about the kind of world I want my children and grand children to live in.

Being a Christian, my choice becomes much clearer.

Asia is essentially out of the question because my children are bi-racial. They will receive an extra level of ridicule for their mixed blood beyond being entirely white. In any case, my children will need to find spouses along with my grand children, and I would want my lineage to follow Western Civilization, rather than worshiping Confucius or the Devil.

According to Vox Day, the three foundational pillars of Western Civilization are:

1. Christianity
2. The European Nations
3. The Graeco-Roman Legacy

A friend asked me why Italy seems to be more appealing to me when there seems to be stronger nationalism in places like Poland.

I will list some advantages or strengths Italy has:

THE FOOD
There's a reason why it is the most popular food in the world. Post apocalyptic pizza, pasta and Parmesan cheese? Sign me up!

GUN LAWS
The gun laws are arguable better than California (or that's the joke.)

GRAECO-ROMAN LEGACY & CHRISTIANITY
Rome and the Vatican are in Italy.

SWISS GOLD VAULTS
Close enough to drive to Switzerland where I will store a sizable amount of gold. It's a 3 hour and 40 minute drive between Milan and Zurich. It takes longer to drive between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in traffic.


MEDITERRANEAN TRADE ROUTES
Italy has well-worn trade routes of the Mediterranean should people need to resort to sail power.



Northern Italy is looking very prosperous, historically speaking by pre-electrical / Medieval standards. That's some pretty damn, good insurance.

FOOD SELF-SUSTAINABILITY
Europe is nowhere close to the United States and other world producers, but it holds it own.

PRE-COLLAPSED SOCIETY
The Italian government is already pre-collapsed where people have no faith in its functioning and organized crime are relevant forces. In other words, if the government disappeared, Italians are already accustomed to getting by. Still, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near ANY city in the world.

WAR & CIVIL UNREST?
I recognize all the wars that have historically happened in Italy, but that will happen all over the world for all of history (except for New Zealand). All the Silicone Valley smart people are considering New Zealand. Perhaps I should reconsider.

It's just that I don't know if there will be reliable plane routes immediately available in the aftermath to eventually get to Italy if I bunker down in New Zealand.

A place like Singapore may be great to hunker down in. I also don't know how China will act when it has the opportunity to freely spread its influence.

I would prefer being with my children in a small Italian town, armed to the teeth, well regarded, and safe within my homestead.

The other thing is I don't know how I will get to Italy if things start popping off fast, and furious, while I'm stuck in Puerto Rico. I will need to have additional backup plans.

13 years doesn't feel like enough time to prepare.

Being Blind Toward Evil

In common vernacular, when the term "evil" is used, it is intended for people like Hitler, mass murderers, and pedophiles. And so, it is understandable that when I describe the actions of my ex-wife and Churchians as "evil," that non-Christians scratch their head confused. Even Churchians will scratch their head in confusion as well, reluctant to cast such severe rhetoric on their fellow Churchians and against women.

When you read through the Bible and you see the actions of the Devil and whom Christ rebukes, it is very interesting to see how subtle the "evil" is. Let's look at Genesis 3, of the little lies that the Serpent spoke:

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Now to all outside observers, what the serpent did seemed minuscule. It was the last sentence he said that was the lie. And from that point on, God cursed the serpent, woman, and all of humankind.

The serpent lied. The woman believed it. And the man took the lead of the woman.

This was known to the point that women were commanded by Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Everyone seems to lie. The SJW narrative is one big lie. Racism, feminism, socialism, and all the other isms. They are based upon the greatest lie of them all: equality.

When Jesus warned his disciples, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," this is such a foreign concept to non-believers and Churchians.

Satan is hardly "real" so Churchians have been non-vigilant in calling out the "wolves in sheep clothing." Apostle Paul says the same in 2 Corinthians 11:12

And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 

 And what was the great "evil" these super-apostles did? Apostle Paul explained earlier beginning in verse 3:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Back to Jesus. Matthew 12:33:

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And almost the entirety of Matthew 23:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[f] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.


By the definition of Jesus himself against the Pharisees, the Churchians are an evil that would be purged should Apostle Paul have his way. They don't need to be Hitler, or rape babies to be "evil" in the eyes of God. The extent of the evil of Churchians is that they:

have elevated a literally extra-Biblical post-Christian concept [ie. Social Justice] that flies directly in the face of genuine Christian theology to a super-Scriptural level, then used as the basis to judge both members of the Church and the Bible itself.

Vox Day & John Red Eagle, "Cuckservative: How 'Conservatives' Betrayed America," Chapter 9 

What non-Christians & Churchians don't understand (and can't accept) is that this evil cannot be reasoned with. If you want a society based on the good, the beautiful, and the true, these lies must be confronted and destroyed head on. These lies will destroy your family. This is an existential battle that is as old as the battle against heaven and hell; God versus Satan.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial?[b] Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God...

2 Corinthians 6:14-16

Asymmetric Consequences When Telling a Wife to Leave Her Husband

UPDATE: Easier term is "skin in the game" in reference to Nassim Taleb.

One thing I have contempt for regarding the, "but ALL my friend's husband doesn't do it that way" and the White Knight pastor who swoops in to the rescue of an "emotionally abused" wife, is the fact that none of these people providing advice bear the long-term consequences of their suggested actions.

Nassim Taleb discusses this in more depth and is one of the reasons why he does not give personal advice. The cost of the advice giver being wrong is paid entirely by the person they are giving the advice to. The suffering has to be endured by the individual, and often times, those who give advice under-estimate the long-term consequences if they are wrong because they do not have to bear the cost.

Asymmetric consequences.

Basically, you have a woman who essentially is recommended to "stand up for herself," be more rebellious, or even outright divorce because of the "emotional abuse." But these outside counselors aren't responsible to monetarily support the woman for the rest of her life than her current husband who has to. This also doesn't consider the consequences to the children caught in the middle.

In this case, a father who would ultimately monetarily provide for his daughter after she divorces would be more credible since he would have to personally bear the financial burden for his recommended actions. I have contempt for the busy-body mother-in-law that doesn't work, because it will be her husband that bears the financial cost, and not her.

Especially in a situation where the husband is the one providing all the income, and the wife stays home to take care of the children, the husband is the one that ultimately has to bear the consequences of his wife's mistakes and poor judgment.

"He tells me my ideas are stupid."

"He doesn't respect me."

"He doesn't listen to what I say."

"I feel like I'm a doormat."

"I'm just his employee."

"I'm tired of being wrong."

Obviously, at this point, the husband was foolish to not vet his wife better prior to marriage. After signing the life-long contract, the husband is stuck with a foolish and rebellious wife that is getting outside advice from others to rebel even more. As Jesus warned in Matthew 16:8:

“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

These outside counselors do not understand the long string of foolish decision making of the wife, and instead simply see, "emotional abuse." For those in the SJW narrative, it is impossible for them to see the "victim" as foolish, rebellious, and evil in the face of their "abuser." (Let alone tell it to her face)

Remember that in the Cultural Marxist model, the "oppressed" can never do anything evil in their fight against the "oppressor." This extra-biblical doctrine from Satan is the lens by which these Churchians provide their poisoned counsel.

A wiser question to ask the outside counselors are regarding long-term consequences of her actions. 10 years. 20 years. 30 years. Eternity. Of course, even after knowing this, the prime characteristic of a fool is their inability for delayed gratification. Also, should the wife be discerning enough to tell the difference between wise and foolish counsel, she probably wouldn't be having her problems in the first place.

In any case, I wish that all those who recommend a stay-at-home with minimal earning potential to leave her husband to bear the financial cost of all the consequences that follow afterward. If they knew that would be the consequence for their poisoned advice, they'd probably just keep their mouths shut as to avoid liability in either circumstance.

Asian Privilege is Civilization: 2018 Numbers

Vox Day made a subscriber's only Darkstream #621: White Privilege is Civilization. In the video, he summarizes his article he wrote in 2017 with 2014 numbers.

The original author updated the data with 2018 numbers. (Archive link: https://archive.is/WwgqF). The author also made a video version explaining the data.

The average annual net tax/benefit broke down as follows per person:

• White: -$1,585
• Black: $16,392
• Hispanic: $5,589
• Asian: -$16,103

I calculated this by taking the aggregate Net Effect by Race/Ethnicity (below), divided by the population of each racial group.

In other words, each White individual is paying $1,585 more into the system than they receive in order to support Blacks and Hispanics. Each black individual receives $16,392 in Government services than they pay. Each Hispanic individual is receiving $5,589. Each Asian is paying $16,103.

Here is the tax Revenue/Government Usage by Race/Ethnicity per person.

[Updating Vox Day's Blog Verbiage]

Over the course of an average 79-year lifespan, a white individual contributes a net $125,215 to the system, whereas over the course of an average 75-year lifespan, a black individual receives a net $1,229,400. However, since there are 4.9 times more whites than blacks in the USA, the black share has to be divided among the various contributors to sort out a one-to-one comparison.

[Back to my Commentary]

Vox Day makes some calculations I don't really understand and makes a conclusion without looking at the Asian data. The conclusions are the same, but the added Asian twist makes things quite amusing.

Here are the Net Effects aggregated among the entire racial groups:

Assuming the following life expectations, you can see the total Net Effect over a projected lifespan by race:

Today, Asian Americans live the longest (87.1 years), followed by Latinos (83.3 years), whites (78.9 years), Native Americans (76.9 years), and African Americans (75.4 years).

 Which looks insane when graphed out:



The math for me is a little too complex. As much as I would like to continue Vox Day's conclusions of how much the White Family is paying for the Blacks and Hispanics, the magnitude of the Asian "contribution" into the system is too blinding for me to go any further.

Breaking up the Race population as a percentage:

• Whites: 60.20%
• Blacks: 12.3%
• Hispanics: 18.3%
• Asians 5.6%

I will need to see the calculations of the cost of supporting Blacks and Hispanics for the average Asian family and White family for some perspective. Just eyeballing the data, the Asians are disproportionately taking up the burden. If factoring in lifespan, it takes 11.3 White individuals to make up a single Asian into the system, but this isn't even a fair comparison as the average ages by race are as follows:

• Whites: 58
• Blacks: 27
• Hispanic: 11
• Asian: 29

Considering the average age of Hispanics are 11 years old, one could perhaps make an argument that they will be a higher Net Drain. So perhaps as the Hispanic population ages to the high 20s like the Blacks and Asians, we will be able to see better their Net Gain/Drain into the system.

Asians are half the age of Whites, and I'm assuming that if you had an average age of Asians at 58, like the Whites, Asians would match Whites in expenditures.

Going back to the individual contribution:

For Blacks, since their average age is almost equal to the Asians, you can see just how contrasting the differences are between the two. In essence, each Asian individual puts more into the system an equal amount as a Black drains the system. One Asian individual covers the drain from three Hispanic individuals.

I will have to place a general suspicion on the Asian data based on the Frankenstein approach of trying to gather the data from multiple sources, but it's still amusing to me to go forward with my analysis.

(You can see all my data calculations on my shared spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17_VfI9u3_mfLzFUulCyveaG6bB8bbbLcSatmezo_k0M/edit?usp=sharing)

LOOKING AT THE EXPENSES

It is unlikely that earnings potential can be changed drastically by individuals, so the only other option is to cut expenses.

Here's the original author's chart by race and aggregated:

Graph Form

Same graph but broken down to PER CAPITA:

Here is the above graph but in table form. I will highlight place in bold the highest Government Spending per Capita.

	Whites	Blacks	Hispanics	Asians
Law Courts	$175	$594	$174	$25
Police	$373	$1,231	$360	$52
Prisons	$219	$723	$211	$31
Public Transit	$131	$466	$280	$237
"Welfare"	$875	$4,387	$1,167	$586
Social Security	$3,608	$2,296	$1,055	$1,566
Medicare	$2,819	$1,837	$1,115	$1,628
Medicaid	$1,203	$3,088	$2,479	$977

CONCLUSION: IMPORT INDIANS

If you're looking at improving the Tax Revenue, it's obvious that you would want to import more working age Asians. For Hispanics, I'm not really sure what policies you can put in place to increase the average age from 11 years to 29. Tax Revenue would increase noticeably if you figured out a way to do so.

If you want to get more specific with Asians, you would definitely need to be importing more Indians since they make the most money of the Asian groups. There are 100 million Blacks and Hispanics, and 18.2 million Asians. The ratios are 1:1 for Blacks and about 3:1 for Hispanics based on current Net Outflows. 

Using those ratios, you would need to import about 42 million Indians (or 12.66% of the current US Population) within a very short time frame. The shorter the better. The number would obviously increase based on the increased Black and the 11-year old Hispanic population.

The population of India is 1.353 billion, so 42 million Indians would represent the top 3.1% of the current Indian population. The average IQ in India is 81 and the United States is 98 according to this site. Assuming a standard deviation of 15, we will need to import every Indian (who's not already in the US) with an IQ of 109 or higher.

India will suffer greatly by losing all their highest IQ people, but it is a price we, as Americans, should be willing to pay to balance the budget and maintain the seemingly hopeless deficits from the Blacks and Hispanics. The additional upside to the United States is that it will raise the average IQ of the United States (sorry, India).

Just to give a sense of scale of what 42 million Indians would look like, imagine the largest State in the Union, California. California has 39.5 million people in it. So imagine importing an additional California, but they are all Indians.

If you're looking to cut expenses, then you can look at the above table and just start cutting services. When looking at things like the Justice System, it's simply not really a large expenditure item compared to Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Anyway, I'm sure you can think of some better solutions than me now that you've seen the data. I'd be interested to read what you've figured out.

(UPDATE: To clarify, my "solution" is intended to be so ridiculous as to emphasize how inevitable the collapse of the United States is.) 

One Obvious Way to Raise Income of Native Puerto Rican Citizens

Mandating English again in Puerto Rico schools may actually accelerate the depopulation in the short-term as many of the youth, fluent in English, are easily able to find higher paying jobs in the States.

In the long-term, you may have more people Stateside start moving to Puerto Rico since the beaches and surfing are really nice, and won't have problems getting a job (even if they can't speak Spanish).

From 1902 - 1948, schools in Puerto Rico were mandated to teach in English, when it was repealed to leaving English as a second language.

Governor Fortuno tried to impose English again in 2012, but was opposed by the Teacher's Union (of course).

The result of the system is that you have Private Schools which teach in English, and the Public Schools in Spanish. The wealth gap only widens as the rich kids learn English, and then can get higher paying jobs off the island. The poorer students forced in the Public Schools end up getting trapped on the island (and ironically stuck with all the tax bills the rich kids left behind after graduating the heavily State-subsidized Universities).

The current situation of Puerto Rico would look much different today (better?) if the vast majority of the population could speak fluent English like the majority of States.

Obtaining a political solution at this point, due to the demographics & Democracy, would be essentially impossible. So, I'd expect that PROMESA or some outside creditor will need to impose it on Puerto Rico against the "will of the people." (Of course, in today's climate, one simply needs to scream "racism" and "colonialism" if a mandated English language program was ever attempted.)

The basic premise being that the ones who are motivated or care enough to learn English have already moved off the island. This leaves a disproportionate of people who chose not to learn English fluently to stay on the island.

When I offer this solution, I am going against my self-interest. Should the island become linguistically equal to Southern California, you'd most likely have a lot more "Gringos" transplant to Puerto Rico and Statehood would be much more likely. If Statehood happens, then I would be out of luck on my Tax Credits.

Now, here's another layer of complexity: Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code that gave tax credits primarily to pharmaceuticals and electronic companies. (It was ended in 1996, with a 10-year grace period, which is primarily blamed for the economic collapse of Puerto Rico).

Section 936 had a precursor, called Section 931 since the 1920s. English was removed as the primary language in 1948. Puerto Rico became a commonwealth in 1952, "where the Constitution stated nothing about the official language that would be used by the new government." Was it merely an oversight or intentional?

Assuming that the 1952 Commonwealth declaration took years in the making, I would not be surprised if the big money benefiting from the tax benefits aided the removal of English as a primary language in 1948. Perhaps they had some say in the missing official language in constitution as well.

If the big money knew Commonwealth status was coming, they'd also have to anticipate that having a Puerto Rican population that speaks primarily English (with many Statesiders mixed in) would eventually result in Statehood. Statehood would eliminate their tax benefits.

I have no way of knowing for sure unless I do more primary source research leading up to the 1948 language change, which I also expect will be primarily in Spanish.

If what I'm saying is true, it would confirm my suspicions that Puerto Rico is purposefully left in a weakened state to ultimately benefit the elite who find ways to take advantage of the tax peculiarities and/or "loopholes."

-----------------------------

On a side note, this was an interesting article I found out that discussed the anomaly in data for the English speakers. The timing is interesting in that it is in 1948 when English no longer became the primary language in Public Schools. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25612889?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

My War Against Churchians and the Church of Nice

My children are the battleground between genuine Christianity and the Church of Nice. One could also say that ultimately my divorce a year and half ago was rooted out of this conflict. My family is exactly as Jesus described in Matthew 10:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

By law, I cannot prevent my children from being raised by Churchians and taught the commandments of the Church of Nice:

• "Don't talk ugly!"
• "That's not a nice thing to say."
• "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
• "That's disrespectful!"
• "That's not edifying."
• "That's a bad word."
• "That's racist."
• "That's sexist."
• "We are all equal."
• "Don't say that something is 'stupid.'"
• "Don't be so intolerant."
• "Don't be abusive."
• "You just think you're better than everyone else, don't you?"
• "That wasn't a very loving thing to say, now was it?"

In the Church of Nice, wives should never be told they are wrong. Men should never be told they are being cowards (except when not submitting to a woman). And to speak Truth is to be an "abuser."

I thank Vox Day & John Red Eagle for better understanding where their perversion arises in their book, "Cuckservative: How 'Conservatives' Betrayed America," Chapter 9:

    Justice, in both Greek Philosophy and proper Christian theology, is "rectitude of the will", as can be seen in Aquinas's Summa Theologica, specifically Secunda Secundae Partis, Question 58, Article 1. And in the Christian sense, rectitude of the will is defined by conformity with God's will, which can be debated, but being immutable, is assuredly not defined by the ever-mutating social justice narrative.
    So social justice Christianity, or Good Samaritinism, or Churchianity, all amount to the same thing: a false form of Christianity that cloaks itself in Christian rhetoric while denying both the conceptual core of Christianity and the fundamental nature of the justice to which it nominally dedicates itself. And these false forms all flow from a concept that is considerably newer than Christianity, although it is related to an older religion.
    The term tikkun olam is from the rabbinic literature known as Mishnah, which dates back to 1492 and is believed to come from an oral tradition that may be as much as a thousand years older. It appears in the phrase mip'nei tikkun ha-olam "to indicate that a practice should be followed not because it is required by Biblical law, but because it helps avoid social disharmony."
    The phrase is often translated as "for the sake of the healing of the world", which is why the expression appears in English as a directive to "heal the world" or "fix the world", but a better translation is "for the sake of the perfection of the world".
    In other words, the cuckservatives and other Churchians have elevated a literally extra-Biblical post-Christian concept that flies directly in the face of genuine Christian theology to a super-Scriptural level, then used as the basis to judge both members of the Church and the Bible itself.

This is war.

This is what I was made for.

The day of evil has already come into my family. And I'm looking forward to the fight:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:10-17, ESV)

One indicator of whom they serve is how much they cower in the darkness and fear their deeds coming to the light. To that, all I can say is:

"Shine, Jesus, Shine."

They Don't Actually Believe The Bible

Back in college (early 2000s), I was serving as the Worship Leader for the "English" ministries of Korean Zion Presbyterian Church in Shoreline, Washington. You could say, I was "second" in command. The main pastor at that time has since retired.

The "English" pastor, was named Matthew, and over time discovered he was just a disturbed, angry, lying man, that had cheated on his previous wife and did not come close to meeting the criteria of an Elder according to Scripture. 

In my quest to discover the truth, I ended up talking to Matthew's ex-wife and wrote a letter explaining everything to the head pastor there, Pastor Kim. This was his response:

Hi Jefferson-  

I read your letter and I am now responding to inform you of the actions that will take place. In the meeting we had last Sunday, you agreed to teach under Matthew's leadership and not bring up anything about his past. We agreed that from now on, that you will only speak to me about things that are in the present, not having anything to do with his past, including assumptions that he is denying his affair. Instead you went ahead and spoke with his ex-wife. You have broken this promise once again. I want to remind you of the fact that it was not in your power to go ahead with these actions. Therefore, starting this Saturday (1/11) I am asking you to step down from all leadership activities in the church, including your Bible study and praise on Sunday until further notice. As for Matthew, I must meet with the Elders and decide his leadership position at the session meeting.  

-Pastor Kim

Into the lead up of this letter, one of the Elders was my father, who had been previously divorced and a recent convert.

My father, my younger brother (who was still in high school), and my older sister, all sat me down and had an "intervention" to have me stop doing my investigations and telling people that Matthew was completely unfit to be a Youth Pastor.

I distinctly remember getting pissed at them because I read the various verses on qualifications for elders, such as Titus 1:5-9:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

I basically said that it wasn't my personal criteria, but I'm just following what the Bible says.

That didn't help the situation at all. They just talked about shame and me creating trouble. They mentioned that my verse means my own father shouldn't be an Elder in the church and we all got into one huge shouting match.

Of course, they never countered the Bible verses, I stood firm, and basically told them to fuck off and I'm going to continue my investigation as part of my responsibility of protecting the younger kids who don't have an advocate on their behalf.

A couple years later, Matthew ended up having an affair with one of the married women at the church, and then he was fired. Last I heard, he ended up getting hired by a different church.

Twenty years later, my father is a Jehovan-Christian, or something weird like that, my sister admits to me that she never believed in the Bible, and my brother now agrees with me.

I should've made sure that we all agreed in the authority of the original intent and meaning of the authors of Scripture before getting so invested.

Today, you have to make sure that cuckservatives and other Churchians don't have a hold on the church that:

"have elevated a literally extra-Biblical post-Christian concept [ie. Social Justice] that flies directly in the face of genuine Christian theology to a super-Scriptural level, then used as the basis to judge both members of the Church and the Bible itself."

Vox Day & John Red Eagle, "Cuckservative: How 'Conservatives' Betrayed America," Chapter 9