Tuesday, July 7, 2020

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.

Monday, July 6, 2020

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

Saturday, July 4, 2020

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.


WhitesBlacksHispanicsAsians
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.) 

Thursday, July 2, 2020

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

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

The White Knighting for Crying Karens

One thing Churchians can't resist is coming to the rescue of a hysterical, crying Karen.

She's obviously crying that hard because she's the victim, otherwise, why would she be crying so hysterically?

Listening to the other side of the story before making a judgment? Fuck that!

That'll just ruin their opportunity to come to her rescue!

Here's a quick example:


She literally could kidnap the children with a restraining order, asset rape her soon-to-be-ex-husband, call her husband an "emotional abuser" because he said some "hurtful" words when she was being outright rebellious to his headship, and claim to be the victim.

The Churchians will fall over themselves seeing who can cuck harder and aid this helpless Karen and throw the husband under the bus. At all costs, the White-Knighting narrative must be maintained. Truth be damned!

At the 3:46 minute mark of the video, you will see the man in the blue t-shirt White-Knight to Karen's rescue. This is the face of a White Knight realizing he probably should've gotten more information before taking sides.


Karen is extra hysterical because she realizes she's been caught, it's going to be public, and she will have to face the consequences of her actions like every other person in the world. She's scared shitless. Oh, poor, Karen!

At the end of the video, you can hear Karen try to weasel out of responsibility. She can't think straight. "I didn't mean to..." "If you knew me on a daily basis..." trying to justify she's actually a good person.

The unfortunate thing is that the "Karen" meme (originally, "Karen took the kids") is turning into a Black Lives Matter meme, so that's one way of poisoning it out of existence. I'm not sure how many memes can make the claim of crossing the ideological barrier.

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

The Convergence of "Domestic Abuse" in the Church

It is interesting to read about a woman named Jessica Fore go through the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) hierarchy to obtain the justice of equality for reasons I can't disclose at the moment.

Even if my ex-wife were to write a tell-all about all the Wrongthink I would spout in the house that offended her so greatly, it probably wouldn't be as bad as Jessica describes her late husband. Minus the drug and money problems, my ex would probably go to great lengths about how bad I made her feel as explained by Jessica. For them, their ultimate arbiter for Logos are their feelings and Scripture exists to boost their feels:
Like many victims, I did not conceptualize what I was experiencing as “abuse” (although what I’ve described is textbook domestic violence– gaslighting, isolation, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, and coercive control.) 
It took my ex over 35 years of reading, praying, and studying the Bible, for her to FINALLY discover that there was a secret abuse she had been a victim of called "Emotional Abuse." Some converged, Feminist Christian podcasts and Churchians to white-knight helped her along to get her woke to the neo-Babel religion of Equality. Inject some lies straight from Satan that "submission" doesn't actually mean "submission," but means its exact opposite (Inversion). Apostle Paul was a secret feminist all along 2,000 years before the word "Feminism" even existed!

Everything makes sense now when you read the Bible from the lens of a 1970s Feminist.

I've read through Jessica's entire blog including the official rulings from the various levels of hierarchy in the PCA system, and noticed some things about her thought process:

  1. How little to no attempt is made to counter the verses regarding submission of a wife to the husband (primarily the Household Codes)
  2. How little to no attempt is made to counter the verses regarding permissible Divorce
  3. How little recognition there is the rights of an employer to fire an uncooperative employee
This is Jessica's Social Justice crusade to end inequality as described by God himself. This is what convergence looks like (if the Presbyter allowed it):
Jesus Christ is my Lord, and I will obey Him.  I am a sinner and far from perfect, but my conscience is clear before God on the essential points of this matter.  There are two ways the Session can get my sign out of the Sanctuary.  The first is a sea change pertaining to abuse in the church, with abject, unequivocal public repentance for the issues I’ve raised, accompanied by churchwide abuse and domestic violence training for all leaders.  This is how the Session should have responded to this whole situation long ago.  The second is a spurious excommunication with our whole community and the wider body of Christ watching, followed by appeals all the way up to PCA General Assembly.  I’m fine either way.  If you put me on trial, it will be the proudest moment of my life thus far, in the company of my heroes, and in the company of Christ.

Complete Biblical illiteracy. She will be proud standing up for Satan's lies all the way to her death in rebellion to the clear instructions of Scripture. She doesn't serve Scripture, but the God of Equality.

I have a general rule. If you want to create some kind of religion that perverts the original intent of the authors of the religion, just change the name. Or at least have the intellectual honesty to publicly declare that you throw out any Bible verses that go contrary to your pursuit for Social Justice.

For this, I respect Mormons. They add a completely new book. Now that's intellectual honesty I can respect!

But the Churchian liars and deceivers try to slither in obscuring the fact that they have an additional Holy Book that supersedes and interprets the Scriptures. This is not a written book, but it is well known and accepted by the God of CNN & Cuckservatives. It is the book of Equality and Social Justice that didn't take prominence until the mid 1960s & the Civil Rights Movement.

I can see this clearly now. I can see through their rhetoric, and slimy tactics of using fake words, like "racism, sexism, and abuse" to reveal the true God they serve. I see them invert the plain meaning of words. I see how they add additional clauses or words to Apostle Paul's commands to make them mean the complete opposite.

There needs to be an inquisition to weed out these little devils from the church.

But here are some other observations I see in the leadership:

  1. They are too afraid of being called Racist
  2. They are too afraid of being called Abuse Enablers
  3. They are too afraid to directly rebuke and call out the lies
By calling out and rebuking the lies of Equality, they damn themselves to the fury of their own wives and "Women's Ministries." They see evil, and choose to look the other way. They have to be willing to have all the women leave their churches and their wives divorcing them. Matthew 10 is no joke:
“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.
Whoever said Christianity was easy? I know I could never be a Pastor. Probably most Pastors should NOT be Pastors because they are too afraid to speak Logos. No one forced them to be Pastors, but there are many who are just going through the motions because they know they can't get a better job and they have a family to support.

Back in 1992, the 20th General Assembly of PCA had more courage to call it for what it is in their Position Paper on Divorce and Remarriage:
We are quick to add, however, that the list of sins tantamount to desertion cannot be very long. To qualify, a sin must have the same extreme effect as someone‘s physical abandonment of his spouse. Both porneia and desertion are objective acts by which a marital covenant might be broken. The Bible gives no justification for divorce based on merely inward, emotional, and subjective reasons. Even if we find justification for interpreting porneia and desertion in a broader sense than some have, they must be broadened only within the boundaries of serious objective acts of sexual immorality or desertion. They must not be interpreted in any way that opens the floodgates to divorces based on subjective reasons, such as ―irreconcilable differences,‖ ―emotional separation,‖ ―loss of affection,‖ or the like. There is often great pain involved in marriage, and God intends for His people to work through the pain and learn to love even when we are not loved by the other. Emotional problems in and of themselves are not Biblical grounds for divorce. And the elders of Christ's Church must not surrender to worldly pressures and allow that which God does not allow.
We can keep going back to the writings of the Puritans, and the early church fathers, and even to Apostle Paul himself. But it won't change anything. No one cares about the original intent of the Scriptural authors, and if they do, they are too scared to weed out the little Devils out of fear of being called "abusive" or "unloving."

God have mercy.

Monday, June 29, 2020

The Logic of a Nine Year Old Girl vs TikTok's #BlackLivesMatter

When I was trying to explain to my young daughters the propaganda and lies of Black Lives Matter, her immediate retort to me was:
Dad, are you saying Black lives don't matter?
What was annoying was that I can imagine a grown adult saying this exact same thing to me in retort and then subsequently stop listening. MPAI. But to the level of a nine-year old?

This issue came up because one of the TikTok influences she is following has the "Black Lives Matter" logo as her profile picture. Also, what I found astounding was how quickly she was able to pull up a photo of the infamous white cop on George Floyd's neck when I asked her if she understood the context of that motto.

She parroted the narrative that it was white cops who killed a black man because of racism.

By default, young children are NPCs.

Under normal circumstances, I simply disengage with NPCs, but with my daughters, I don't have that luxury.

So I had to make something up on the spot to the effect:
All lives matter. What if you wrote down "White Lives Matter?" What do you think would happen?
I then struck at the root of the problem. I told them that the word "racism" is a fake word that has been created as a lie by Satan for even those who call themselves Christians. They know that Satan is real.

I told them that racism is not a sin listed in the Bible, and, in fact, there are stories Jesus tells that demonstrate that not all people are created equal (which is the fundamental, flawed premise of all the -isms. Equality). We then went through the parable of the master who gave different talents according to their abilities.

"Wicked and lazy!" was the condemnation received by the last servant who buried what he was entrusted with into the ground. This also helps dispel the notion of the church of "Nice."
Does this mean then that Jesus and God sinned because Jesus said those mean things?
"God and Jesus cannot sin. It is everyone else who are lying to you."

The root lie is that everyone is equal in God-given ability. Once it is understood that everyone is different in their production potential and effort, along with specializations (ie. Body of Christ analogy is helpful), then, hopefully, the various isms can be better seen as lies.

The lies are so prevalent. My children are surrounded by Churchians, cucks and liars that I am tied by law from preventing their interaction with.

The only thing I can do is be the strong counter that calls out their lies and teach my children to recognize the Churchian perversions. In the end, it will be their choice whether to choose to serve the God of this world, or the God of the Bible.

At the very least, they won't be able to plead ignorance and autopilot toward Churchianity.

I am understanding more just how much this is a spiritual war that only God can win. I play but a small part.

The Inversion of Truth & Cowardliness of Churchian Men

If you were a pastor, small group leader, or a father of a woman with small children that wanted to kidnap them from her husband and file for divorce, how would you react?

Would you simply listen to her testimony and then give her counsel and emotional support to proceed with her actions?

Would you seek to investigate the truth of the matter?

Or would you simply listen to the accusations of this distraught woman alone, cheer her on, or perhaps just look the other way?

I would imagine that the type of woman would had pre-selected these Churchians with various statements about her unhappiness with her husband prior to get a gauge on their general reactions. She wants emotional support, and not someone to tell her she is being wicked and foolish.

She will discuss much about her "feelings" and how her husband makes her feel:

"I feel demeaned."
"I feel scared."
"I feel he doesn't respect my opinion."

"Has he hit you?"

"Not really, but I feel physically threatened by him."

"Can I talk to him to see if we can find a solution?"

"No. I'd rather not, because I'm scared he will hurt me."

"OK. Well, based on your emotional state, I believe you and it must be true. I will help and support you."

And just like that, Matthew 18:15-17 is completely thrown out.
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Instead, this verse is replaced with, "Believe All Women." Once she is labelled an "abuse victim," the "Domestic Violence Handbook" supersedes the Bible's commands, and you get some additional inversions:
The worst thing an abuse victim fears is not being believed. 
Emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse because at least bruises heal, but the emotional ones don't.
I imagine a Churchian feels more fear out of being accused as being an "abuse apologist" more than a "racist" (especially if they have therapist credentials) so they'll just go along and white-knight the best they can, Logos be damned.

How would you react if the wronged husband then contacted you about your support and your cowardliness to confront his ex-wife's wickedness and foolishness?

Just double down and declare he's the abuser and deserves what he gets. Declare that he should focus on his own sins of being an abuser before he points out the ones of his ex-wife.

Churchians are going to cuck. They serve the God of this world. They do not serve the God of the Bible. They've worshiped the altar of inclusion and equality their entire Christian lives.

This is their moment to FINALLY be able to serve the God of this world, and feel like they made the world a better place by doing so. They SAVED a woman from her abuser!

After all, the Churchians' wives are watching too. They wouldn't want to act or suggest actions in a way that might offend and cause trouble with their own rebellious wives.

Sunday, June 28, 2020

The Old Testament and Genocide

One of the strange things in reading through Old Testament passages, where the Israelites, fresh out of Egypt, go around conquering and genociding the promised land, is looking at it from the assumption that God's actions are justified.

From my earlier youth days, indoctrinated with the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, I just hand waved all that "sin" of the Old Testament as saying, "Well, Jesus changes everything." It's as though there are two different Gods, and you can kind of just ignore the Old Testament for that reason.

As I've come to understand the lies of "equality," I've come to recognize that many of the "sins" of churchians, are not actually sins.

Racism, Genocide, Sexism can be seen as words that were non-existent until the last 70 years or so.



Who are we to create a new morality that goes even greater than the Bible or at least the times of the authors? What is this new Morality? Not even Jesus talked about these great "sins."

For Churchians to add extra morality to Christ's commandments is exactly what the Pharisees did.

Will I end up accepting the World's morality and declare moral judgment against God? Or will I humble myself, recognize that these words were created by evil people, and declare that God's word holds true, and they are children of the devil?

By their fruits, they will be known, as Vox Day states:
It's remarkable how the point about diversity, war, and peace flies right over this guy's head. The point of preaching diversity + proximity = war in a diverse society is to warn people and discourage them from making what is already a serious challenge even worse. Conflict is coming to every diverse society, but with a proper understanding of why that conflict is inevitable, we can hope to mitigate it somewhat, even if we can't reasonably expect to entirely avoid violence and bloodshed. 
As for Matthew 7:15-20, we already recognize the evil fruits of Churchianity, chief among which is the enthusiastic acceptance of the rule of Antichrist. They are the deceived of whom the Apostle John warned in his Book of Revelation. They call good evil and evil good.

TikTok & #BlackLivesMatter

Today, I saw one of the creators on TikTok have a banner that said "Black Lives Matter" that my daughter is following. It is no question that TikTok is a propaganda arm for the lies of Satan. Because she looks up to this creator, she accepts the norms as truth without further explanation. She does not understand how much the lies have propagated society. 

Unfortunately, at their ages, their abilities for the dialectic are too underdeveloped to counter such strong rhetoric.

As a result, I had to remove their access to it until they can articulate the logical fallacies of "equality" and how it is ultimately from Satan and not from God.

I am further competing against the lies of churchians that she is in close relationship with that I am restricted by law from interfering with.

I thought I was protecting them from the social media aspect by setting their profiles as private and not allowing them to have any followers so they can watch seemingly harmless, silly videos like on YouTube. However, that is not enough to protect against the rhetorical lies of Satan. They go through tens to hundreds of videos at a time so it's impossible for me to monitor what they are actually seeing.

Now that I understand better the power of rhetoric, and the fact that not all are gifted with the ability of the dialectic, it would be negligent for me to allow the rhetorical lies to take hold upon their minds without a strong defense rooted in Scripture and logic first.

What if your kids found out?

There's a scene in Breaking Bad, Season 3, Episode 2, where Skyler is discussing with her boss how she cannot sign off on some accounting books that are clearly faked. She then asks her boss:
Skylar: What if your kids found out?
Boss: If my kids found out?
S: This. What you're doing? Someday they're gonna be old enough. How would you explain it to them?
B: Well, put me on the spot, why don't you? I guess maybe I'd... I'd say that might have feet of clay... but that whatever I did, I did it for them. You know, trying to provide.
And I'd ask them to try to take the time to understand...
You know what? Truth is, I haven't thought that far ahead, Skyler. I'm just trying to keep my head above water, so... I'd better get back to it.


I've discovered with my interactions with most people that I'm one of the weird ones to think about this fact. Strategic and long-term planning is a gift that most people don't have. Once again, the axiom, "most people are idiots" rings true.

I consider how my children will judge my custodianship of them while they were too small to fend for themselves. It's one of the reasons why I document so much of my thought processes both in this blog, and on videos blogs I make just for them.

I will have no way of lying and hiding the facts of what I was thinking at the moment. My thoughts will be exposed to the light of judgment.

I judge my parents and I expect this same judgment I cast on my parents to be cast upon me. I cannot fathom neglecting my children the way my parents neglected me. As I understand who they are as people, I am not surprised.

I think for most people, the thought of your private actions being judged in the distant future by your children, is something so abstract, that they don't care.

All they think about are immediate consequences, as Matthew 7:13, ESV states:
13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
I recall an even greater judgment. The one that will be before Christ.

Yes. My children will judge me. But, ultimately, it's nothing compared to the judgment I will have before Christ for the things that he has entrusted me with.

How will I act when threatened with my children being taken away? When my fancy pants and lollipops are threatened to be taken away? Will I remain silent? When faced with evil within your household, will you allow it to control your family, or will you stand your ground in Logos even if the end result is divorce?

If you had to choose between your wife divorcing you, or you submitting to her headship, what will you choose?

I can tell you many men choose to simply submit to their wive's headship and pervert the commands of the Bible to mean something entirely different than the original intent of the authors.

I can tell you that I wasn't given that choice in such an explicit matter, and if I did, I probably would've taken the submission option for a short time, until I thought about the implications some more. I would've been too disgusted with myself to allow it to continue.
I'm not allowing the family to go down the wide and easy path because of her sin.
What kind of man would I be? How would I be judged to allow that?
Let her do her worst.
And now on the other side of things, I see even the worst she could've done wasn't all that bad (and actually benefited me in many ways). All will be made right in the end as long as I make a stand in Logos. Have no fear.
26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.[h] 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?[i] And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

"Karen," Coronavirus, and TikTok

It is amusing to read in social media comments discussing how they were confronted by a "Karen" for not maintaining social distancing or wearing their mask improperly.

I can only hope this meme survives for the next ten years to help me illustrate the context of my divorce, simply as: "Karen took the kids."


I also hope that feminists decry how sexist this meme is and completely misunderstand the backlash they are receiving for encouraging the Karens of this world.

It will only ensure that the meme stays alive.

TIKTOK Compilation of Karen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erXTV2tNi04

The Failure of Rhetoric in Face of Truth

Vox Day mentioned in one of his video streams recently about how once you get the taste for conflict and have victory, that you start looking forward to the next battle.

Since at least high school, I have been openly confronting individuals in leadership who have been dishonest. On pretty much a 100% track record, when I approach the individual with the dialectic, they respond defensively with rhetoric in order to silence my dialectic argument. They don't even attempt to address the observations and conclusions that I bring up.

In the end, I will move on and it will be some years before I am vindicated.

Since I've been doing this long enough, and thanks to Vox Day who helped me see these patterns in pretty much all facets of conflict that occur in society (ie. Dialectic v Rhetoric), I was better equipped to recognize the unteachable in this email response after I offered to publish our correspondence online:
Look, this conversation is between you and me.  You started it in email format, so we will keep it that way.  Not because I regret or am ashamed of anything I said.  In fact, I firmly stand behind every word. I will not “recraft my response” as you suggest.  I see absolutely no purpose for this to be the subject of your next blog rant, theological debate, or analysis.  You sent the email to me and I answered your question.  If you wish to extend the same courtesy and answer my questions, then hit the “reply” button.   But don’t waste my valuable time with biblical, theological, psychological or political opinion, debate, argument, ideology or analysis.  I won’t engage.  I’m open to hearing answers - not questions, analysis or opinion.
I could not had asked for someone to provide such a transparently anti-dialectic response.

When I state just how reprehensible the acts of my ex-wife and her church leadership acted toward me, I know this for a fact because they operate in darkness.

They will not be able to respond in the dialectic, but only in the rhetoric. They are afraid of the Truth coming out. They act and live in darkness. They are afraid of the light exposing their evil deeds.

I provided my 38 page documenting occurrences and my analysis to the governing authorities of the church and their response was that they will deal with it in private manner.

They simply cannot argue dialectically on this matter since they know their case does not exist.

Based on my track record and what I've seen, I look forward to the day when everything is brought to the light and I am vindicated.

How Will Asians Fare in the Coming Race War?

First of all, I will point out that even with the "Rooftop Koreans" of the Rodney King riots, it should be clear that when the time comes, you won't be seeing the "Asians" coalesce as one group.

Included in the category of "Asian" are Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

Even a cursory understanding of SE Asian history will demonstrate that these nationalities don't get along well with each other. I won't even try to state they are necessarily different "races" as there has been so much raping going on between, at least Korea, Japan, and China, that the blood is fairly mixed. Indians don't even get along with other Indians thanks to their caste system.

Perhaps, I can make the exception for the Japanese, since they are an island, and tend to be the ones who rape in Korea and China.

Nevertheless, their languages are completely different, and you will never see a pan-Asian alliance like you see the Europeans do, or how African-Americans do in the United States.

Remember: Diversity + Proximity = War.

So the shooting won't occur on State lines like it did during the American Civil War, but based on ethnic enclaves that have developed throughout the major cities. This is especially predominant and can be tracked by looking at elementary school racial makeups.

It can probably be mapped out based on elementary school data.

It's a waste of time for me because there's no way I plan on living in any major city in the future anyway, especially California.

Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks have an established gun culture.

Whites = Red Necks
Hispanics = Drug Cartels
Blacks = Gangs

Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, and Indians have no gun culture in their native countries. Vietnam may have had some in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, but the Vietnamese who reside in the United States are predominately the ones who were on the losing side or fled (rather than fought) when the fighting started.

Looking at demographic data:

60.4% - Non-Hispanic White
18.3% - Hispanic and Latino (of any race)
13.4% - Black
5.9% - Asian

As I stated before, the "Asian" part will need to be broken up even further into the different nationalities. They will not risk their lives for each other on a scale you will see the other demographics.

Hispanics can also be broken down to Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexican, Colombian, and whatever other Latin Country they come from. They don't get along with each other either. There is no pan-Latin unity either.

At least in Los Angeles, it's predominantly Mexican. They already have established drug cartels that can take on the Mexican Government.

How do you think the Asians will fare against these Cartels?

Both the Mexicans and Blacks hate the Korean & Chinese grocers. They will get attacked by both. For the suburban Asians, they tend to intermix with the Whites due to their higher school scores, so they may get indirect protection, but will be completely useless in protecting their own.

If I were Asian, I would be looking at repatriating instead of trying to make it in the coming blood bath.

Unfortunately, my bi-racial children will not have that choice (as bi-racials are discriminated heavily in these Asian countries), so a European nation will most likely be their best bet where there is very little diversity, and will need to take on wives/husbands of whatever nation they choose to settle in.

In regards to the future of my grand children and great grand children, my hope would be the disappearance of my Korean blood, and instead the adoption of Ancient Roman / Christian values which originate out of Europe.

If my father had any foresight toward the legacy of his children and grand children, he would had stayed in Korea.

Tywin Lannister's Choice Not To Have More Children (Spoilers)

In a world where your dynasties are reliant upon your children not getting murdered and not being rebellious, it makes sense to have as many as possible. If you look at Eddard Stark, he had five children. When one of them died, they had backups.

For the degree that the television series made Tywin Lannister a very intelligent man, he was an idiot in this most basic regard: he didn't remarry after his wife died after Tyrion's birth.

According to the series Wikis, Tywin is age 67 in Season 4. Tyrion is age 39 in Season 8. Let's assume that in Season 4, that Tyrion was 35 years old.

That means that Tywin Lannister was 32 years old when his wife died.

This is just stupid. What man in the fantasy world at age 32 would choose not to get married and have more children, especially considering his wealth?

Cersei and Jamie are four years older than Tyrion.

This is in contrast to Walder Frey (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Walder_Frey):
Walder has had twenty-two trueborn sons and seven trueborn daughters from his marriages, with an unknown number of bastard sons and daughters.
A lot of the drama in the series seems to revolve around families that have a small number of children.

If I were a King, or Lord of my own vassal, in that kind of world, I would sire as many children as possible.

The stakes were so much higher when the only son dies, versus if there is a football team ready to take the field.

This was how things were done in Old Testament times and makes the most logical sense.

Tywin should had read Psalm 127:3-5 and taken it to heart:
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
    the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
    are the children[a] of one's youth.
Blessed is the man
    who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
    when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.