Wednesday, February 26, 2020

When Having Too Much Sex In Marriage is a Bad Thing

We all know that if a man masturbates daily (or multiple times a day) they will generally have lower energy levels and motivation for self-improvement. There seems to be a mental de-motivater and physical energy drainer. The idea is that the man should use his sexual energy from no-fap to become a God and acquire a wife to form a family.

But what happens when the married husband receives an orgasm at the same frequency as a daily masturbator? It's not as though marriage suddenly transformed his mind and body to react differently to an orgasm. De-motivation and energy draining still occurs. The man still needs to expend great amounts of effort to provide for his wife and family.

The cycle looks something like this.

  1. After orgasm, chemicals get released into the bloodstream causing drowsiness and lower energy levels
  2. These chemicals affect men in different ways. There are some men where the lowered energy levels last 24 hours.
  3. With lowered energy levels, the husband has less motivation to provide emotional stimulation to his wife
  4. The wife feels emotionally neglected.
If you can imagine a situation where the man has an orgasm, every single day, you can understand that the man will have lower energy levels to emotionally satisfy his wife. If the wife continues and gives the husband orgasms on a daily basis, she is also reinforcing the emotional neglect she is receiving because the husband is already getting what he wants. The husband is also in a constant state of low energy.

For boxers and martial artists, it is traditionally taught that you don't have sex before a fight. In football, they'll say no sex during playoffs. There's all kinds of examples you can look up on Google.

This guy says optimally no sex 1 month before a fight, and minimally 2 weeks:

Every man's energy levels are different. If a husband does not have enough energy to properly fulfill his responsibilities to his wife, he should be looking at what he's expending his energy at. It may be other activities like sports, video games, and even a high frequency of sex.

Perhaps he needs to re-prioritize where he spends his energy and allocate it instead toward the emotional needs of his wife and the neglect of his other duties.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying lower your frequency of sex with your wife to 1x/month or 1x/2 weeks. This is where wisdom plays in. It will be different for every husband in context to his personality, hobbies, wife, and responsibilities.

Maybe you're one of the lucky ones where sex every day satisfies your wife's emotional needs. In this case, trying to lower your sex frequency would be neglecting your duties to your wife. You lucky dog, you. 

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Why The Red Pill Does Not Fully Apply to Christian Alphas & Sigmas

I think it is pretty much only Athol Kay that emphasizes that you need to have beta traits to maintain a long-term relationship.

Generally speaking, in the Red-Pill world, they all decry marriage (for good reason). There are very few who speak on how to maintain a marriage.

There are hints on some of Vox Day's blog that too much dread is just not optimal in a marriage. Thus, Alphas make really bad husbands (they can't help themselves from cheating).

More on Alpha Game Plan:
For some reason, men seem to be much more aware of the fact that they can be replaced than women, perhaps because they are more accustomed to there being competitors for the favors of the women in whom they are interested. Women who feel they have the upper hand seldom behave magnanimously; one need only ask women who have worked for other women to confirm that. Therefore, it may behoove the average Beta, Delta, or Gamma to occasionally act in a manner that reminds his wife/girlfriend that she is not, contra what his normal behavior indicates, his only option. Alphas and Sigmas need not bother, as their women tend to be hyperaware that their men not only have options, but know they have options.
You simply cannot make a popular blog about Red-Pill for Alphas and Sigmas due to their rarity. Thus, the majority of articles are focused on Beta, Delta, and Gammas how to have more Alpha traits.

The dangerous portion is when you have an Alpha or Sigma read these same posts and then basically double down on their dread and "Nexting." This might be fine for short-term relationships where you are spinning plates, but for a Christian marriage (where you don't believe in divorce except for basically sexual immorality), this is outright disastrous.

Dalrock's blog is perhaps the closest on Game in a Christian marriage context, but his focus is to decry the rebelliousness of women encouraged in the modern church. He doesn't really say much about what you do once you are married to a rebellious Christian wife. He can only state that you screen your prospective wife very carefully.

Vox Day states similarly:
Marriage is not to be entered into lightly. Christian men should not be encouraged to marry if they are not fully ready to embrace the serious commitment it entails. If a man has any doubts, any doubts at all, about the woman with whom he is contemplating marriage, then he should not marry her.
So then you have an especially big problem for Christian Alphas & Sigmas that read the majority of these blogs.

For a relatively functioning Christian wife (without major rebellion), Christian Alphas & Sigmas should definitely realize the blogs don't apply to them. Though the pedestal-worshiping, White-knight pastors usually gloss over the whole "wife submit to your husband part", they are not wrong about husbands being commanded to take extra care for their wives. Alphas/Sigmas should be focusing more on their beta traits as the Bible commands:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.
Ephesians 5
Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.  
Colossians 3
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
1 Peter 3

Just as natural betas may have a certain amount of emotional disgust toward demonstrating Alpha traits (taking up Leadership as they are commanded), natural Alphas/Sigmas really need to step up their Beta-game (serving their wives as Christ serves the church).

Yes. I know. All the beta church pastors are cheering that they were right, and need to take down the big, bad Alphas they secretly despise. This is the minority example they are correct.

I would say to help an Alpha/Sigma with their disgust, take a look at the example and life of Jesus Christ. Really meditate on how Christ was glorified in his humbleness, even to the point on the Cross. Perfect authority and perfect sacrifice.

Let Christ be your example.

Alpha Game Plan summarizes:

AF has an interesting take on how Jesus Christ's life can be related to each of the various ranks and suggests how the ideal Christian version of that rank might be exhibited. Please note that I did not write this, nor do I agree with all of it, but I think it provides an enlightened vision of how the Game-aware Christian can better understand both his place in the world's hierarchy and his Christian duty to be in, but not of, the world.

The Redeemed Societal Ranks of Men

The societal or sociosexual ranks of men, namely alpha, beta, delta, gamma, sigma, and omega, are in themselves nonmoral aspects of men. Although we place societal value on each, since a man does not fully choose his rank but is subject to it by nature, he cannot be morally judged on account of it. Like the sexes, each one has its own peculiar strengths and weaknesses that must actively be cultivated or suppressed.

Naturally, every man falls and is dragged into sin, and normally into the sins of his rank. But in Christ a man is redeemed, and redeemed according to the godly aspects of his own nature. The question posed is what redemption looks like in each rank, what a man in Christ ought to strive for in the knowledge of his placement in the Body. A sinful gamma will not be a redeemed alpha male in the church, but will be a redeemed gamma who will fulfill his role and his own manliness as it is reflected in Jesus Christ.

As we believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man, I also believe him to have fully exhibited the redeemed traits of every rank of men. In the Teacher we each see our own place in his Kingdom and our own wavelength of light to the world, forming together as his Body now on earth the same pure light that shone through his flesh many years ago.

 α: Christ was the alpha male when he overturned the tables in the Temple and drove out his enemies with a whip. He as the alpha male when he rebuked the Pharisees to their face in public, demolishing their power and credibility in the most humiliating way possible.

The glory of the alpha male, redeemed, is the power he exerts over immoral and weak leaders. When he asserts his dominance over the corrupt he brings justice to the world as no other can, and he provides upright leadership and inspiration that other men and women thirst for without even realizing it. The alpha has the power and energy to inspire in his followers the best of themselves for his cause.

 β: Christ was a beta when he claimed two witnesses to validate his judgments, including himself. “If I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father.” His fanatical loyalty to the Alpha God, and his supreme confidence in their solidarity, left crowds breathless as he walked through them untouched, though they were full of enemies. He was beta when he planted his feet before heaven and irrevocably declared, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” He possessed the absurd confidence of the wingman of the Almighty, and when it was time, he followed his Alpha to the death. The bond between Jesus and the Father was beyond unbreakable; it was even beyond comprehension. He did exactly what the Father desired him to do, and the Father glorified him above every creature and every power in heaven and on earth.

The glory of the beta is the unshakable confidence that comes from his loyalty to God and to a godly alpha. His self assurance makes his team seem impenetrable from the outside, and he is a credit to the faith he espouses. He is the right man to have around when someone is spouting insolence toward God or toward a fellow Christian. He is a defender and an encourager, a Barnabas, who perpetuates the divine spark among men and fuels the Spirit’s fire. He draws out of men the best that is in themselves, and in so doing exhibits the best in himself.

 δ: Christ was a delta when he turned away the stones from the adulteress, when he comforted as a daughter the woman who touched his cloak, when he lifted Mary from her wretched state into his blessed ministry, and when through her he unveiled the secret hidden through all ages, his resurrection from the dead, to the world.

The glory of the delta, the White Knight, is to find in a humble woman the beauty she can become, and through his vision of her lead her through a transformation. She, no matter what wretched state or rank of women she inhabits in the world, becomes in his eyes a daughter of the King, and the true potential that lies in her can be realized in Christ.

 γ: Christ was a gamma when he declared his Kingdom not of this world, the one true Secret King. He knew what power lay in himself, while the world only saw his ordinary flesh from a mundane family of some small town. He hinted at his origins and his authority, but shunned the crown and the worship, and would not even stand to be called “good.” Ten thousand legions of angels at his command, he died without unleashing his power, and in his restraint he revealed a power even greater than was ever imagined, the power of humility to redeem the world.

The glory of the gamma is to embrace the humility of his low status in the flesh, even knowing the power of God that inhabits him through Christ. He is content to be recognized by God and hated by the world, thus storing up treasure in heaven. He rises to the challenge among men only when the occasion absolutely demands it, and then returns to his humble state. It is his restraint that allows other men receive their glory and teaches them the humility to temper it.

 σ: Christ was a sigma when he ditched the crowds and his own apostles, and appeared later like a ghost on the stormy sea, walking on the water without a care in the world. He was pure sigma when his brothers dared him to appear in Jerusalem to challenge the Pharisees and he declined, humiliating them in their cozy unbelief, then showing up anyways to change the world when he invited all who are thirsty to come to him and drink. Jesus was a sigma when he prayed alone in Gethsemane, and spat at his disciples for falling asleep in the midst of battle. Sigma was his most consistent role; he was a complete mystery to all around him, a wild card who played by his own rules and beat the world at its own game, even in death.

The glory of the sigma, the loner, the wild card, when truly redeemed, is to leave the world alone in order to pray. When he seeks God alone he attains wisdom and strength that other men do not understand. He is a visionary unbound by the limits of culture and societal status, thus his words have an unexpected depth that command attention. His strength does not come from his social standing but emanates from his experiences with God. In this way he fulfills a priestly role.

 ω: Christ was an omega when he died on the cross. Denied by God the cup to pass from him, he endured the show trial, the humiliating slap, the utter torture of the flail tearing his flesh apart piece by piece. He wore the purple robe, felt the pricks on his brow from the crown of thorns, heard his enemies worship him with mockery dripping from their tongues. He carried his own cross. The entire world turned its back on him, even those closest to him; they denied his name like it was a plague. The crowd embraced a rioter and a murderer over him. Uplifted on the cross to the lowest state attainable by a man, marred beyond the appearance of a man, he looked down on the world with mercy, and forgave it.

The glory of the omega is to receive his lot in life, the lowest of the low, and then extend to the world the hands of forgiveness. In this way he carries the heaviest burden, and also receives from God the most handsome reward. He also is rewarded in the church, the realm where the low are exalted, the weak are indispensable, and the unpresentable are treated with special modesty. The omega is honored by his low status in the world, and the community learns from him as from no other the power and blessing unleashed by washing his dirty feet, and the unexpected strength God can reveal in those the world has overlooked.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Patriarchy in Practice (Power & Control)

Imagine a situation where there are three options to choose from in the dynamics of your marriage. In these cases, the man works and the woman stays at home.

Under Patriarchy, the husband has final authority over all things, but practically speaking, he allocates 25% of his power and control to his wife.

For an Egalitarian, he gives 50% of his power and control to his wife.

For a Feminist husband, he surrenders 100% of his power and control to his wife.

Now, if you were to ask a modern woman which ideology she would live under, she would say either the matriarchy or egalitarian perspective. They would say it is simply impossible to live within patriarchy where the man has the final authority in the household. They would never dream of living with a man who had such sexist beliefs.

Of course, not all husbands are created equal. They have different income levels.

Realistically, a wife can probably expect to be in an Egalitarian marriage if she chooses to stay at home and raise the children. She will obtain about 50% of the power and control from the husband. If you look at the actual numbers, the wife will yield much more power and control if she married a Duke who operates his marriage in patriarchy ($125,000) versus a Merchant who believes in Egalitarian. Even if she were to be the Matriarch and gain 100% control over her working husband, she would still wield less power and control from an objective measurement than she would as a submissive wife to the Duke.

Practically, this means that the when you are the wife of a Duke who believes in Patriarchy, you will have staff to cook, clean, nanny, and educate the children for the family. The comfort you will live in, even though you have to submit to your husband, is incomparable to the situation a Skilled Craftsman or Peasant would have even in a Matriarchy situation. The resources of the husband are so great, that even when he allocates a small portion of his power and control, the woman lives in luxury. By medieval standards, you can say she lives better than a Queen.

Even in an Egalitarian relationship with a Merchant, maybe the wife will have help with cleaning of the house, but will probably need to cook, nanny, and educate her children.

In my case, I very much believe in Patriarchy, but I'm also essentially a Duke.

I can afford to provide my future wife with a house cleaner, cook, nanny, and tutor for the children. I can afford numerous expensive, family trips and cruises. This is beyond what even a Matriarch Merchant could dream of providing for herself with her husband's limited resources.

Ideology is not enough to explain the situation. Yes. I am a Patriarch, but you can be sure as hell that my wife will live like a queen as long as she pleases me and doesn't openly rebel against my benevolent reign. I am more than happy to bring her pleasure while she brings me pleasure.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:25-32, ESV

Mini-Mike is Shorter than Elizabeth Warren

Granted, you can argue the angles are off. But there are just too many pictures and different angles. He's clearly shorter than Elizabeth Warren who also claims to be 5'8".

Can you trust any man who will publicly lie about his height that is so easily disprovable?

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Garden Update - 2/18/2020 (Food Scrap Success)

It hasn't even been a month since I started my gardening and I'm amazed by the results. I bought and constructed the garden on January 22, so it's been almost one month.

In my previous update, nine days ago, I had just started planting scraps from the grocery store into my garden. I am please to say that they are mostly growing well. The salad has not been as successful.

Here are my green onions. They are basically ready to be harvested. Nine days!

Here are my attempts to planting some lettuce from the scraps from the store. I think I need to keep more leaves on them next time, otherwise the die. Maybe, I can just chop off the top part.

I actually think planting store scraps is a better option. The salad comes with the roots intact. The technique of using food scraps to start your garden seems to be more effective than starting from seed. My green onions are still struggling that I started from seed. Maybe because I planted way too many close together.

You can see how I didn't mix the soil well. I have some "dead" patches due to my laziness.

Overall, I enjoy looking at the growth every morning and giving God the glory. It's been raining a lot lately, so I haven't even been watering the plants, so I can't even take credit for that.

For the food scraps, I just save the root portion, and put them in the soil, and they grow. I think I will dedicate the second portion of my garden to just food scraps.

IQ Communication Gap Between Husband and Wife

UPDATE: I'm not the only one to observe this. Of course, wifely submission is an additional factor they don't consider as non-Christians:
Marriages are happiest when the IQ of the spouses are as close to each other as possible. If they differ more than one standard deviation, divorce is likely. If they differ two, divorce is almost certain.

I'm reminded of a time that a gentleman with very high IQ (probably 145 or higher) was listening in on a conversation I was having with one of my below average IQ employees (maybe 95, if that). He stated to me that he would be absolutely offended and could not tolerate if I talked to him how I talked to my lower IQ employee.

With my lower IQ employees, or those who maybe are just rebellious, I have to take extra attention to explain every single step. I have to minimize their ability to make decisions on their own volition because if they do, they may mess up my goal.

My annoyance will be something like this: How did you not see the consequences of your actions?

Some of them get offended when I say it like that. They may make an excuse. They may lie in their mind. They may say I'm the asshole for pointing out that they were wrong. They will feel angry at me because I made them feel stupid.

When the lower IQ person explains to a mid-wit friend of how maltreated they feel, the mid-wit may just say, "I agree. What a dick." They may project themselves in the shoes of the lower intelligence individual and basically say to themselves, "If I was talked to the same way as that person, I would feel angry too!"

The problem with this type of thinking is that they never go into the details of the situation. They don't realize that if they were in the same position, they probably wouldn't make the same mistake, and I probably would not talk to them in the same manner because I'm not as frustrated with their continual mistakes due to their low IQ.

I know enough about these kinds of conflicts with lower IQ individuals that I will ask for details of everything and the situations. It is often the case that I discover that the person who is bitter about being called out is actually the person in the wrong. I do not fall into the common traps of Social Marxism. I desire to dig in and find the actual Truth of the situation. It's also probably why most people don't complain to me about the "abuse" they receive, because I will correctly point out that MPAI and deserve to be called out for their foolishness.

Vox Day talks more about this communication gap of 2 standard deviations. When it's even more, I feel like I'm talking to a child. It is compounded when the individual is dialectically illiterate and incapable of the most basic logic. This may be assumed and redundant as the ability to think logically tends to correlate with IQ.

So, imagine being married essentially to a retard and trying to communicate with this retard. Imagine that the retard keeps demanding the retard's way. You're stuck in a position where listening to the retard's argument is actually offensive to you because it is so foolish and devoid of basic reasoning. The retard will agree with you one day, then the next day do whatever the retarded wanted to do anyway. The retard is tired of being told that she's wrong.

The retard tells her story to her psychologists, friends, and pastors. They all don't want to recognize that she's actually a retard and needs to be told that she's wrong. The retard is suffering because the retard doesn't want to admit that she's actually retarded and is wrong. The retard cries and cries because she's suffering so incredibly living with a husband who thinks she's a retard.

By the legal definition, an IQ under 70 is considered mental retardation. Imagine how a marriage would go between an average IQ man of 100 with a mentally retarded wife.

Now, imagine a man who has a much higher IQ, such as 130, 145, 150. For someone with a 130 IQ, being married to a woman of average intelligence will be like being married to a retard. The wife is functionally retarded from the perspective of the husband.

No one wants to hear the rantings and ravings of a retarded wife demanding to have things her way. You will try and explain your reasoning, but in the end of the day, the retard will just declare, "You're just a big meanie. You abuse me. I'm tired of being wrong. I want my way."

And then imagine this retard going to psychologists, friends, and pastors, and all of them supporting the retarded views of the retard. They declare they admire the retard's strength to final stand up to her abuse. The retard only becomes more emboldened to live in rebellion against her oppressor.

How is it possible for a husband who mistakenly marries a retarded wife to allow her to run the household simply because he's afraid the retard will divorce him?

If the husband gives in, he essentially handed over the family into the hands of a retard and bears the responsibility and consequences of a retard. When the retard inevitably fucks up, it becomes the problem of the husband to fix. The husband still cannot use it as an example of why he needs to take charge. If the husband refuses to abdicate his authority to a retarded wife (despite how many times she's made retarded decisions), the retarded wife will call him an abuser and divorce him.

Now, it's possible that with an ultimatum, that the husband will be scared by the prospect of alienation from the children and divorce rape, so he will agree to let the retard run the household. This will only last for a short while because eventually the retard will mess things up because that's what retards do. They do retarded things.

And so, the husband just gets pissed, and states he can no longer tolerate the retarded handling of family affairs. They end up divorced anyway.

This situation would be different if the retarded wife submitted to her more capable husband's decisions. There will still be retarded decisions that are made leading to frustration because retards can't help themselves. If there's equal acceptance of the wife's retardation in comparison of the husband, then there would be minimal conflict. The conflict arises when the retard demands the family be run under the lies she tells herself (namely that she's right and she's not a retard).

But what self-respecting man could allow his family be lead by a retard?

A Reasonless Marriage

E. Michael Jones discusses how reason & logic existed before Christ came to Earth. This is expressed in the beginning of John.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
This is also reflected in Greek & Roman Philosophy. Aristotle was born about 400 years prior to Christ. His writings shaped Christian theologians.

E. Michael Jones mentions that the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the destruction of logic and reason. Based on what I've seen in Protestant churches, I will have to agree. Protestants tend to be illiterate of the early Catholic authors.

Instead, Protestants rely on the illogical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's the "Living Word" giving us new revelations today that the Church Fathers would had never interpreted. Forget "original intent."

One of the implications of the death of reason and authority in Protestant tradition is that this becomes reflected in the household.

Without reason, one cannot state that one interpretation is better than the other. Without an authority, one person's "reason" is as good as another.

What results is that in a marriage situation, the wife will be able to find any "authority" figure to justify her flawed reasoning on a subject. The reasoning being so flawed, that it justifies open rebellion and means the opposite of what the author actually intends. You can call this Bible lawyering. The rebellious wife will declare that she has God on her side and that the husband must submit to her wishes, and the white knights will support her claims.

You can try to use reason and logic to explain your position of original intent of the authors, but without basic faculties of reason and logic, they can simply impute modern definitions of the words onto the words. Who are you to say that is the incorrect way to interpret Scripture when there is no overarching Catechism that exists to declare their method of interpretation as wrong?

Who even gets to setup the rules of reason and logic?

My argument would be that God created logic and reason, and without using such faculties to interpret Scripture, you will fall into fallacy.

Under what authority can I declare such a logical statement if the other party does not understand what logic is to begin with?

Sola Scriptura is not enough. Reason & logic must be applied for Scripture's proper interpretation.

In a society where submission is the norm and there is emotional pressure for a wife to do so, you don't necessarily need a wife who can tell the difference between a good or bad argument. She will default to trusting the husband who has the faculties of discernment to make the final decision in the household.

In a society where the norm is rebellion, then the wife definitely needs the ability to discern the difference between a good and bad argument. Failure to do so will mean that the wife will eventually take up the cause of whatever position has the strongest rhetoric even if it means rebellion & divorce.

Monday, February 17, 2020

A Childless & Godless Marriage

Adam Piggott opens up about his divorce and reflections on it. In his case, he did not have children. My previous comment in a previous post about preferring four kids over a 12 years of marriage (suffering) is better than having nothing to show for it, came up while listening to his podcast on his article:
My ex-wife and I had a godless marriage, and a childless marriage into the bargain. In other words, we had nothing at all. In that sense, her ending the marriage was a mercy killing. We were amusements for each other, all good while things were going well and the arrangement suited us, but ultimately devoid of meaning and substance. That doesn’t mean that her behavior was acceptable, but I no longer view her with the contempt that I did previously.
Based on his age, I don't know if Adam is considering having kids still should he find a woman willing to live in submission to his headship. At least in my situation, because I had children so young, and am still only 36, I will be sure to have more children.

That flips the script greatly. If my goal is to have as many children as possible, rebellious wives divorcing me becomes a way for me to gain more children.

The cost, is of course, my fancy pants and lollipops and having to share custody.

But if we're honest about antiquity, I'm guessing it was pretty common for fathers to not interact with their children a whole lot anyway should they go to war, or need to sail for months someplace.

I see my divorce in the greater context of eternity and the Culture Wars. My family is but a small casualty in the greater war. In the end, Truth will prevail and everything will be redeemed.
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And we all know who will win in the end.

Skyler Did Him a Favor (Breaking Bad Spoilers)

It is very different watching Breaking Bad again from the perspective of Red Pill and after being through my own divorce. By the end of the second season, the great cliff hanger was that Skyler finally came to believe that Walter was secretly involved in the drug trade. As a result, she separates from him. She makes this revelation in the beginning of Season 3, Episode 1 when giving him the divorce papers.

Obviously, cucked audiences will see this as being a great challenge to Walter, but I know differently. At age 50, with more than a half-million dollars, he should be thanking the Lord that Skyler is willing to divorce quietly without telling anyone. I was applauding the great favor Skyler was doing for Walter. Of course, like me, Walter did not realize just how much better his life could become because he'd been indoctrinated by pedestal worship.

Now he can learn Spanish and fly to Colombia and see just how much better his life can be.

Skyler is such a rebellious, judgmental wife that I would never want to beg to remain married for. Imagine the rest of the story arc if he just divorced her and cut her out of the rest of the story.

What I realized in social programming is that no one ever considers that it actually may be better off for the man to be without such a rebellious, hell inducing woman. By the time the divorce is over, his son will probably be graduated from high school and can choose who he wants to live with.

It is an unfortunate thing for his newborn daughter, but that's ultimately not Walter's choice. It's Skyler's.

The reality is that if Skyler holds all the power in the divorce. She can blackmail Walter that if he does not do everything Skyler wants, that she will report him to the police.

While looking for her face, it turns out, other people recognized just how much of a bitch she was in the series.

I concur. I also need to applaud Anna Gunn on playing Skyler so well as a representation of just how inverse marital roles have become in America. She played it so well, there were unintentional backlashes from the creators himself:
Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan was among those thrown for a distressing loop; if anything, he’d braced himself for the idea that fans would have a hard time siding with a different character. “I figured Walt would be the one that’d be hard for people to sympathize with,” he says. “Suddenly, lo and behold, we’re hearing this animus toward Skyler White. To this day, it confounds me. Anna Gunn gave such a brilliant performance. We never tried for sympathy or lack of sympathy, we let the chips fall where they may. I would change that if I had a magic wand.”
And there's the recognition that the intent to create villains and heroes is partly dependent on views on gender roles:
“Now that the show’s done, it’s kind of amazing how much it’s shifted,” says Gunn. “In particular, women will say — I mean, it still gets me kind of emotional — ‘The journey that she went through…’ They may or may not be aware of the Skyler backlash. That’s incredibly gratifying. It’s men and women who connect with that. There’s been such a shift happening in society and in our consciousness that it’s really landing much more strongly now.” 
The other component I've found interesting is just how much Skyler reminds me of my personal experience. I recognize that shrill face of scorn all too well.

Questioning Protestanism

I've been listening to E. Michael Jones' podcast and listened to him speak about the inherent, illogical premises of Martin Luther.

Sola Scriptura - Where does this doctrine exist in Scripture? Can you just arbitrarily throw out Christ's proclamation?
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Bible - Who created the canon that Protestants use today? The Catholic Church. How can you even trust the Canon?

I was a Comparative Religion major in my University and noticed these questions. When I'm faced with the realization that Protestants can't even maintain the original intent of Paul in a family and actually encourage Divorce under the guise of "Christianity," what good are they?

Are Catholics any better? Haven't they been converged as well?

Let's face it, even in Paul's day they were arguing over circumcision and whether or not a dude could sleep with their mother, so I can't necessarily state that the disorder in the Catholic church is a disqualifier.

What a mess.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

What If? (on Regrets With My First Marriage)

While looking back at my life choices, I think about how I failed and how I could had acted differently knowing the knowledge I have now. The reality is that when I was first searching for a wife and during my college days, the "Red Pill" blog-o-sphere did not exist. I entered college in 2001, graduating in 2005.

The extent of my dating advice came from pedestal-worship indie bands and "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." This was before YouTube even existed. I was uploading videos to Google Videos when it still existed. The first video I uploaded to YouTube was March 6, 2006.

I look at the main pieces that really changed my views through Rational Male, Dalrock, Alpha Game Plan, and Vox Day. Except for Vox Day's blog, the rest did not really start until about 2009/2010, two years after I was married, or about 4 years after I was dating toward marriage.

In essence, the knowledge base that I have today simply did not exist back in 2005. Had it existed back then, I probably would had devoured it. During this time I was locked inside 12 hour night shifts with nothing but podcasts and DVD series to watch. I listened to hundreds of hours of Mark Driscoll, Act 29 Network, and Gospel Coalition podcasts. I was reading a lot as well. It is well documented on Dalrock's blog how bad the dating advice Mark Driscoll gave in his sermons. I concur.

I'm not exactly sure how I would had stumbled upon the blogs to begin with. I fell into them through a round-about process after being introduced to Vox Day from a friend in California that I had met while attending the church plant at Mars Hill Church around 2014/15. By then, I had at least two kids, maybe the third.

I thought I would be a nightmare in my high school should I return after entering the sphere of Anarcho-Capitalism and Stefan Molyneux, but even those thoughts are tame in comparison to my strong positions on male headship in context to the Cultural Marxist narrative. My positions make some Anarcho-Capitalists uncomfortable.

The "what if" is just not a possibility because this knowledge simply did not exist as it does today. This is not a tortuous frustration that the knowledge existed and I was just blind to it, or that I was aware it existed and ignored it for whatever sort of intellectual biases I had. The "red pill" world simply did not exist for me to consider as another alternative to my beta-Churchian upbringing.

I just don't see anyone in my life during that time that could had made me red pill aware, except for some of my peers who were into fornication (which I immediately backed away from).

The other component is that my current girlfriend was 12 years old at the time I was first married. Some of the girls I have dated since being divorced were 6 years old. So even in an alternate world where I didn't make the mistake of marrying my first wife at the age of 23, there's no way I would had been able to date whoever ends up being my next wife.

Cue the joke from SNL:

The blessing of children is that you can never say it was truly a mistake. I can easily say that the 12 years of my first marriage, despite how miserable they were, and even the way the divorce happened, that I would not trade any of my children for it to not occur.

The other strange concept is that if I knew things were going to happen the way they did, would I had stopped after the first child? Or not had children at all?

I think the divorce would had occurred much earlier if kids were not involved.

These are complicated "what if" questions, but I think in the end, God is gracious. He ultimately is the one in control. Even when Christ is crucified, and even when Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers:
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
I would say my kids were that grace.

I would had seen it as a waste if we had been married for such a long period without any children. What's the point of marriage if you don't have kids?

There is redemption and purpose in knowing that the lessons I learned will be passed onto my children and grandchildren. Should they be as hungry for the Truth as I was in my youth, they will not be able to make the same mistakes I did.

It is commonly said that divorce is awful for children, but in the context of the lies that are in our society today, I would say that my divorce will end up being their blessing and the blessing into future generations.

It will be more compelling to my children, my grandchildren, and perhaps great grandchildren to adopt the Pauline, Household Codes of male headship. They will be equipped to understand the lies that exist in churches and our society that seek to undermine it, and will be able to see the consequences of disobedience from God's design.

Only God can grant them a hunger for Truth, but should God grant them that mercy, they will have a patriarch they can refer to that can be honest, direct, and unafraid to expose himself to the judgment of man and help them find the Truth.

God the Mother, Gave her only begotten Daughter

John 3:16 is well known as stating:
For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Coming from a patriarchal view this makes sense. The term that I found particularly interesting is the term "gave." Authority. Delegation. Submission. Obedience.

I think a lot of the significance of giving your first born son has lost its meaning in today's society. In today's context, I can only see granting one of my sons with the authority to speak on my behalf. I don't own my son at any time, and at any point in time, he can say, "no."

Even Donald Trump, Jr., is seen very much as a separate entity compared to his Father. I imagine that this distinction we have today would not be so separate during Roman times.

The question arises, how would had things been different if it was, God, the mother, who gave his only begotten daughter?

Or, what if it was, God, the father, giving his only daughter?

Or, God, the mother, giving her only son?

My understanding in Scripture of authority, delegation, submission, & obedience make it seem much more clear that it had to be a Father-Son kind of sacrifice, rather than any other mixture of genders.

I think the importance of the Father-Son dynamic will become more clear to me as my sons grow older. It will also demonstrate just how perverse the attempts to gender-neuter Scripture & adhere to Social Marxism are.

"Christian" Music, Feminization, & Infiltration into Evangelical Churches

For those familiar with Hollywood & the Music Industry, you recognize that the most popular actors & artists are not necessarily the ones with the most talent. Some research on YouTube will demonstrate individuals with much better talent. Most likely, it's who've they've slept with, or perhaps which children they've sexually abused. They took the ticket. It is also known that the gatekeepers of these industries worship Satan.

Unfortunately, I don't think the world of "Christian" music is any better. With enough digging, you will find that many of these Christian publishing groups are ultimately subsidiaries of the very same people who worship Satan.

When I lead the worship music in various churches, and in the Charismatic churches I attended, the music was selected based on what was most "popular" at that time. The Internet was not so robust back then, so I often resorted to worship CD compilations such as: WOW, Passion, Hillsongs, & Vineyards.

I would listen to these CDs obsessively attempting to recreate the emotional experience recorded at that specific event, and try to create it in a church setting. Even without God in question, it is clear that music performances and energy levels between a stadium full of people and a standard Sunday church would be different. My theology was based on the "spirit" during worship which was measured by how Charismaniac people would get.

Is the Congregation "alive" in the Spirit? This could be demonstrated by how much people lift their hands in the air, if they close their eyes, and by looking at their faces. Are they REALLY into it or just reading the words off the transparency projection?

Whether I was in the seats, or leading worship, my goal was to create the spiritual, emotional, ecstasy that I experienced perhaps the first time I listened to the song.

I can recall the song, "I Can Only Imagine." The first time I heard it in the car (thanks to Spirit 105.3 in Seattle), I cried my eyes out. But then quickly, every fucking church service I went to started playing that song until I reached the point where I could not stand hearing that damn song, another god damn time.

Another thing I recognized about a lot of the songs on the CD compilations was just how inwardly focused they were. It was how I feel toward God, rather than what God has ALREADY done. Feelings change. The focus of the songs are about your FEELINGS toward God. And when you try to take these inward focused songs that may work better in a stadium setting specifically where people paid money to attend, into a normal, Sunday service, the contexts are completely different.

This energy differential is clear in the secular realm as well. There is a difference between a comedian telling jokes in a living room versus a stadium. This goes as well with music. This applies to Christian music.

When you take a song suited for a stadium full of people or a "revival" type event and try to stuff it into a standard, Sunday service, it is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

This is just the pragmatic reality.

And often times the inward feelings are a reflection of a female song writer. So suddenly, for me to truly relate and lose myself in a song, I have to feel the same emotions of a woman. Oh, God.

Seriously: "Jesus, lover of my soul." Gross. Shall men start singing praises of their male lover in the style of Song of Songs? That's essentially what these female-centric, worship driven music has become in Evangelical churches.

The Psalms is filled with David lamenting about his feelings toward God with raw, vulnerability. I just don't see David using his Psalms in the context of a large, group gathering.

Context. Purpose. Wisdom.

Why is the church so obsessed with playing the newest and most popular songs in church service?

Does anyone actually check the theological accuracy of these songs and their implications?


Found this. I can't even watch this video. But when I write, it's mainly as a rebuke to old way of thinking.

The Altar Call

As I've began questioning the source of bad doctrine in church and the perversion from culture, I've also noticed this thing called "alter calls." It's been such a staple in my church upbringing, I've never really questioned it until I saw it today.

Upon seeing it, I felt zero pressure to go up to the front when previously I had felt some kind of "pressure" to do so in my youth. Instead, when I looked at it, I was just confused as to the purpose. It would seem that taking communion would be more edifying to the church as a whole.

Also, it seemed to give the opposite impression, that as Christians, we are to take up our crosses daily and repent daily. Other than great theatrics, I see no benefit to an "altar call." Upon looking it up, it became clear to me that it was created primarily as a pragmatic device that has since been adopted as common practice from the 1800s.

Of course, I'm not saying it's bad in itself, but if it was created for pragmatic purposes, it should be evaluated on such grounds as well.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Will Your Future Wife Survive a Zombie Apocalypse?

She doesn't have to be strong and brave like you, but she certainly shouldn't be entitled and rebellious when you are fighting for survival.

Lens Curvature Distortion on Curvature of Earth

Sometime last year, a bunch of university students launched a rocket really high into the sky. It should've been high enough that you could see the curvature of the Earth.

Flat-Earthers state that you can't trust the footage from the sky because the cameras distort the straight lines with their lenses. I thought I would take a look at the raw footage from the rocket launch to see if I could gain a little bit more perspective.

This is from the time that it launches.

You can already see there is some kind of distortion. The horizon is central to the lens, but it seems to already be bending upward, rather than the downward you'd expect if the Earth was curved.

When the camera finally slows down a little, you can see that the lens on the camera, definitely distorts the image. This looks to be the edge of the blue Earth with space. Notice, like the previous picture, it seems to curve upward again. This seems to correlate with the "Fish-eye" effect of the lens.

Here's the curve I'm expecting to see:

Here's another part where the Earth looks flate.

In sections like this, you can see that the Earth looks round at the top of the lens, but as the edge moves toward the bottom, it seems to flatten out.

I can see why they would make the claim about the lens causing distortion.

My next question is why the Flat Earthers haven't managed to get an Antarctic expedition or funded their own launch with non-distorted lenses. It looks as though Red Bull Stratos ( reached fairly high using helium balloons.

Speaking of which...

Another "flat" line of the horizon.

This curvature looks to be lens distortion from GoPros.

Another example of distortion.

From this section of the video, you can see the distortion of the camear. About the midway point, the horizon seems pretty flat.

Even trying to ask the diver what he saw is distorted by his helmet being curved as well.

One experiment that I came up with is that if Antarctica is illegal to fly over, why not just go up much higher than usual for the Antarctic plane tour.

Couldn't Flat-Earthers charter a flight and go up really high in Antarctica and see if they can see over the edge? Or is the wall so thick, you can't possibly see the distance required? Maybe other tools can be attached on the plane to see the further distance required from a very high altitude?

And, as I dig deeper this video:

It tries to demonstrate proof that the Earth is flat, but after reviewing the raw footage, the lens also has the fish eye effect. (

What is stopping Flat Earthers from doing the same experiment but with lenses that don't have distortion?

Is it really that expensive?

He's not 5'7"

I will admit, I looked it up on Google and was fooled to believe Bloomberg is 5'7". I didn't question it further until Vox Day actually looked into it
There is absolutely no way that Bloomberg is 5'7". It's absolutely impossible. Look at him standing next to Eva Longoria, who claims to be 5'1.5" and is more like five flat. Even if she had four-inch heels on, Bloomberg is at most 5'5" tall. And there is no way that Americans are going to vote for a midget for President, no matter how rich he is.

I see interesting parallels with Joe Rogan and his lies about his height.

Can you trust someone who lies about something so basic, as their height?

Historical Divorce Filing Rates for Women in the United States (1867 - 1995)

It's about 70%. I've seen that figure thrown around, but I wanted to look into it further. I found this table at in a research article from 2000 called, "'These boots are made for walking': why most divorce filers are women."

What is commonly said is that women are more likely to file because they receive the economic benefit from the court system. That doesn't explain why it's close to the same figure (67%) BEFORE all of the economic benefits of the court systems started to come into effect. Look at the data from 1867 - 1931.

The Suffering of Submission

Suffering is an interesting concept because it seems to relate more toward perspective than the actual "wrong" itself. The suffering of worry, expectations, consequences, fear, embarrassment, pride, etc. These tend to be more emotional suffering that is self-inflicted.

I was listening to this podcast here where they interviewed Dr. Philip Kayser. Dr. Kayser's blog is at What struck me in the interview was Dr. Kayser's mention of the importance of a Theology of Suffering for the wife and how to teach your daughters to be able to endure suffering with Christ in mind.

In our culture, suffering is a bad word. Delayed gratification is another word for suffering. Another concept is suffering under the oppression of others. This is an entirely new kind of suffering created by Social Marxists. Unfortunately, this type of suffering from "inequality" is encouraged in American churches.

Under the mindset that there is a natural hierarchy between a husband and wife, there is minimal suffering on the part of the wife who is dependent and submissive to the husband. When there is a mindset that there should be "equality," then there is immense suffering on the part of the wife because of "social injustice."

Here are some common "sufferings" that a feminist Christian wife has to endure when married to a Pauline husband who doesn't back down from his place of authority:

  • He expects me to make coffee for him. That's demeaning.
  • He expects me to maintain a checklist to manage household affairs. That's demeaning.
  • He places a higher standard of management in the household than what is expected by the husbands of my girlfriends, family members and my mother. That's demeaning.
  • He tells me I'm wrong.
  • He tell me "Facts don't care about my feelings" and "Not an argument."
  • He tell me I'm incapable of reason and logic.
  • This is not what I expected my marriage to look like.
  • I am trapped.
  • He treats me like a doormat.
  • I have no power or control over him.
  • He treats me like his employee, not his wife.
  • I feel like I'm his sex slave.
  • He is an abuser, emotional manipulator, and narcissist.

At some point, she finally finds the strength to stand up to her oppressor. She's finally had enough. She's tired of being the one who's wrong and being the one who has to change. The suffering she's had to endure from her husband, finally, is simply intolerable. You go, girl!

Now, place this in contrast with common Christian wife vows of submission and serving to a husband:
I love you, ____ and I know that you love me. Because of this I desire to be your wife. For _ years I have prayed that God would lead me to His choice and I am confident that His will is being fulfilled tonight. Through the pressures of the present and the uncertainties of the future I promise to be faithful to you. I will love, serve, and obey you as long as we both are alive. Christ told us that the wife must submit herself unto her own husband as unto the Lord. For as Christ is Head of His Church so is the husband head of his wife. _____, I submit myself to you.
What happened between the wedding vows and the divorce?

The natural sin, rebellious nature was encouraged to thrive by the doctrine of Cultural Marxism as it has infiltrated the American churches.

The Family Intervention Against the Father (Breaking Bad Spoilers)

In Breaking Bad, Season 1, Skyler organizes an "intervention" for Walter to do the treatment for his Cancer. Walter, even in his story on how he approached Skyler in the diner, demonstrates that he was a cowardly man. He was too scared to approach Skyler directly, so he concocts this scheme where he does the same crossword puzzle as her over a long period of time and rearranges his schedule around hers.

Pedestal Worship. Losing his frame.

The rest of the conflict between Skyler and Walter is basically Walter attempting to assert dominance in the relationship and Skyler revolting against it.

One of the ways Skyler attempts to undermine Walter's authority is by surprising Walter with a family intervention so that he would take cancer treatment. Ultimately, the attempt was to apply emotional pressure to undermine the decision that Walter was making.

I have also experienced "interventions" like this in my past on multiple occasions. The reality of when I am confronted by large groups of people is that MPAI (most people are idiots). They simply do not have all the information I have, or are not operating from the same value system I am. Even when I present this information, they still insist on their emotional pressure. They were never interested in hearing it anyway, and their entire attempt at an "intervention" was not to discover the Truth, but to simply exert power and control over my life.

It is also not coincidental that the most vocal of these interventionists tended to be women or men who thought like women. This could be circular reasoning as most women do not have a primary interest in the Truth.

I do not mind having a group thought session if everyone is seeking the Truth and if that is the intent. But if it becomes into a, "I feel that..." kind of session, then it can go to hell. I will not tolerate my family being led by women.

If it was me, I would immediately tell everyone to leave the house and that if they had any concerns, they can bring it to me individually. But I think this case would be moot, because I'm fairly certain I wouldn't had married Skyler in the first place, and even if I had, she would had divorced me quickly after it became clear I would never let her have any of the power and control she desperately craves over the relationship.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Coronavirus Dramatic Increase

Either today or yesterday China announced a significant increase in their reported cases. See the updated graph below from Johns Hopkins:

I had originally planned on going on a skiing trip to Park City, Utah, but I chose to cancel it due to some very unusual government actions with the virus.

I don't want to be quarantined on a plane.

Also, my risk seems to be higher as there are reports that the virus is affecting Asians more than Caucasians.

I would probably say that the sample size for Caucasians is not enough to say for sure, but the whole situation is ringing my "bull shit" alarm. At least in South Korea, there have been 28 confirmed cases, zero deaths, and 7 recovered.

I don't trust the Chinese government, and especially after the most recent increase in cases, I REALLY don't trust the Chinese government.

On the plus side, I do live in Puerto Rico, so if anything crazy starts happening and all flights start getting cancelled, I'll be pretty isolated from the infected mainland.

Maybe I should look at raising chickens more seriously now.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

When Egalitarian Mindset Corrupts Paul's Commands

I made a mistake in understanding the commands of Apostle Paul thanks to my egalitarian upbringing. It's in regards to Corinthians 5, when Paul is telling the Church to judge a believer who is sleeping with his mother:
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Paul continues to discuss lawsuits against believers:
Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
I understood this to mean that women are supposed to judge as part of their duties as Christians. But, when placed in context with the fact that in Paul's day women had no legal standing, and that Paul commands women to not talk in church and ask their husbands their questions at home, it's clear my understanding is completely wrong.

In addition, Paul always seems to refers to males, or "brothers." In that case, in context of only men being Elders and Deacons, and this instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
It would seem that it is not the job of a woman to judge other believers.

The Greek translators will state that Paul uses the Greek word "adelphoi" which can mean "brothers and sisters" or simply "brothers." You can see the frequency of usage here:

You'll see context where "sisters" is explicitly used separately as the word "adelphē." Unfortunately, I could not find clear examples of Paul using this word in regards to sisters. In the Gospels, it seems much less ambiguous.

But you can see where things can get really distorted in terms of gender roles.

This is where I have sinned greatly. I encouraged the women in my life to use dialectical reasoning to judge others as Christian or non-Christian views. When they state that they are uncomfortable to judge others, then I hit them over the head with Paul's commands in 1 Corinthians.

But, I'm completely wrong. The command isn't to the women of the church to judge. It is not for a wife and husband to have a conflict because they both come to different judgments about unclear matters.

It is the responsibility of the husband to come to the understanding through careful deliberation, and for the woman to ultimately submit to the husband's judgment.

This seems to fit the pattern of Paul's worldview.

While writing this post, I also noticed that in Matthew 18:15 Jesus applies the principal of confronting sin in this manner:
“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. 
If you look at the Greek, this is very much a masculine manner. This is about a brother sinning against a brother. A male sinning against a male.

This does not discuss how things should be absolved between a female and male. Perhaps, one could say that a woman who has been offended by a male, would have her male guardian in the family confront the male who confronted her, rather than her confronting the man directly.

This also seems to fit into the pattern.

I have to be very careful in the future when reading into the commands of Paul and Jesus and pay special attention to what gender these commands apply to, otherwise, I may be commanding the women in my family to act like men in violation to God's design.

I can go further into the secular, biological, and practical reasons why you don't want to encourage women to start being judgy bitches.

  1. Most women are incapable of dialectic and resort to rhetoric.
  2. The male, head of the household will over rule them in the end, so why even have them go through all the wasted effort of sifting through all the evidence to come to her own judgment
  3. It will only encourage her to come to her own conclusions which may be different, and cause unnecessary conflict in the household
I would put it another way. I would never involve any of my children to make a judgement about a complicated and emotionally charged manner. Ultimately, I am the one who has the final say. If it is a boy, I certainly would want try to help teach my son the dialectic and logic and explain my reasoning. But if it's my daughter and wife, why would I burden them with such a controversial, anxiety filled, emotionally draining, process of casting judgment against another Christian when they have no moral responsibility or authority?

I wouldn't want my boss coming to me every time he has problems and a complicated judgment to make. All it would do is stoke my pride, and when he makes a different decision anyway because he disagrees with my logic, it'll just annoy me. 
Why the hell did you waste my time if you were going to do it your own way anyway? Just leave me alone. I'm not going to spend the hours needed to review all the evidence. It's not my responsibility and I have plenty of other problems I have to take care of. 
Plus, when you make a judgment, you will have to bear the cost of your decision. It is a huge burden and makes you hated by many when you have to stand up for Truth. This is a cost that is too much to lay on those who do not have the responsibility or authority to endure. The wife and the women in the family get to remain neutral and don't ever become direct targets for the judgments that have great costs associated with them.

When Speaking Dialectic is Emotional Manipulation

One of the things I noticed on 12 Angry Men was that those who wanted to talk about the evidence were accused by all kinds of nasty words and intentions by those who only understood rhetoric. One commonly used one was: "This is a waste of our time. We all know he's guilty."

Aristotle states in Rhetoric within the first chapter:
Moreover, (2) before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. 
Imagine being someone who is incapable of understanding dialectic  The world is full of emotions and "hurtful" rhetoric. Emotions, become the highest dictator of Truth. They are unable to discern a good argument from a bad argument. Basic concepts of logic are foreign to them.

To them, someone wielding logic and the dialectic in a skillful fashion, and declaring that they have a good argument and the person incapable of dialectic has a bad, illogical argument, would simply see "emotionally manipulation." To the dialectically-challenged, the dialectic argument is a completely ineffectual rhetorical attack. To them, dialectical talk is about control and just proving to everyone that you are a smart boy. They are projecting based on their own ignorance. For the dialectically-challenged, the person who can emotionally hurt the other opponent with stronger rhetoric is the winner.

In response to a question I had sent, I received a rhetorical attack via email. I was able to immediately recognize just how dialectically incompetent this individual was. I offered to publish his rhetorical questions in this blog (for which he criticized as just another method of "control" I wanted) to answer publicly his rhetorical attacks. He denied the invitation, but of course, emphasized he stands by what he said without changing a word. I told him I would not quote him directly which is why I am summarizing rather than directly quoting.

He wanted me to respond to his rhetorical questions based on his faulty assumptions (a commonly used, intellectually dishonest technique). But, he set up the rules that in my answer, he didn't want me to waste his valuable time with biblical, theological, psychological, political opinion, debate, argument, ideology or analysis. In all my years of argumentation, I have never seen someone be so honest about their disinterest in dialectics. On one hand, it was offensive to me that people like him even exist. On the other hand, I wish people were more explicitly honest like him about their complete disinterest in having a dialectical debate.

Could you imagine a world where the dialectically-retarded wore a pink feather somewhere on their head to indicate to the world that all their opinions should be completely ignored and shunned from any position of authority or power?

We only see this with people with Down Syndrome, but it would be interesting if there was some kind of physical characteristic in correlation with dialectic-retardation.

Side note: Check out Vox Day's theory that Atheism is Genetic.

Is dialectic-retardation genetic?

Monday, February 10, 2020

The Lie that Everything Older Than 1965 is Wrong

At some point in my Government education, I bought into the belief that everything that is older than 50 years ago is true and that everything prior to that is a lie.

"We have progressed beyond those old-fashioned beliefs."

This is basically saying, don't look at the 2,700 years of writing that has accumulated in Western Civilization. Only look at what's been developed within the last 50 years. Look back 150 years if it fits the narrative of today (ie Nietzsche & Marx).

The rough math is to ignore 95% in time of the writings developed in recorded, Western Civilization.

Thankfully, they weren't able to dissuade me from taking the Bible as the ultimate Truth. But, what I have a lot of catching up to do are all the classics. Roman, Greek, Medieval, etc.

One cannot make a judgment that the 95% of recorded Western Civilization is "wrong" without actually investigating it. From the little that I've gathered, the 95% that I have nibbled on is way more accurate and true than the 5% Cultural Marxist, SJW, Post-Modern, psychobabble based primarily on the absurd concept of "equality."

This is not a debate that exists between people who have seen all the evidence. This is a debate between those familiar with the writings during the entirety of Western Civilization versus the ignorance & delusion of those who only know post-modernism.

The great, post-truth society will come crashing down and history will look back at these fifty years as a bunch of fools and lunatics who thought themselves above God and their inherently, sinful nature.

12 Angry Men & The Minority of Truth

I watched 12 Angry Men again after perhaps 20 years and found the movie to be much more insightful now with more experience than before. I identified with the lone character in the beginning who stated that the culprit was not-guilty. It was interesting to see the dynamics of the individuals in context of Vox Day's Social-Sexual Hierarchy.

It was also interesting to compare rhetoric with the dialectical. What I noticed was that there were jurors who were more open to dialectics than rhetoric. I also noticed that the strongest rhetoric was for those who also had dialectics to support their position.

One thing that seemed to play a role for some of the jurors was peer pressure. For at least three of the jurors, peer pressure seemed to have an effect on changing their opinions.

Jesus talks about how the path of Truth is the much narrower one. Even non-Christians recognize this in our post-Truth society.

It may seem as though I am in the minority opinion in the clown world we live in today, but I know through the history of Western Civilization, that my opinions form the majority opinion. Obviously, this makes no difference to those who rely primarily on rhetoric and have no concept of history (stuck with a limited view of mankind). This makes no difference for me in either case either, but I have no doubt that over the grand scale of history (and into the future), I will be vindicated.

The conclusions I have come to really are not my own. I merely repeat the conclusions that others, much more intelligent than I, and filtered through thousands of years of trial and error, have found to be wise and Truth.

I believe Nassim Taleb calls this the "Lindy effect."

The feminist rebellion, as reflected in divorce court within the last 50 years, will be seen as a gigantic failure. You can probably include the entire Cultural Marxist agenda for that matter. It simply cannot stand on its own without the State's enforcement.

It is a Culture War.

Myself and my family have been a casualty.

But in the end, I rest well knowing that Truth will prevail. The pudendum is already swinging the other direction. I would not be aware of all the forces at play in my life if it weren't for authors like Vox Day, Dalrock, The Rational Male, and other bloggers / YouTubers.

You cannot hide the Truth, no matter how loud they screech and scream with their rhetorical lies. It doesn't matter how many laws are passed. The Truth will stand as nations crumble.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Garden Update - 2/9/2020 (And Chickens)

About two weeks ago, I planted a bunch of seeds to eat. I posted a video here:

Here's the updated picture.

I have pretty much only watered them. The salad in the upper left has flopped over because I ripped off the lower leaves, and now it's way to top heavy. The lower leaves looked to be dead, but I should've left them because it was helping support the weight. Eventually, it'll probably die off.

A couple nights ago, I had clipped off some green onions and placed them in a vat of water. I put in the vat also the rest of the green onions I bought from the store. Placing the roots was a good idea, but the remaining green onions pretty much withered in the tropical sun. Not a good idea.

The base parts of the green onions did well in the vat of water. You can see the new growth from the parts I cut.

You are seeing the little base nubs I planted the other half of the garden I filled in with 1 part peat moss, 1 part potting soil, and 1 part manure/compost mix that I had picked up at Fort Buchanan here in Puerto Rico. Their pricing for the peat moss and manure/compost mix is cheaper than Home Depot.

As I purchase more green onions, I plan on transplanting them into this new space I had created so that I can eventually have unlimited green onions.

My next project is to have chickens. I think about five hens will do. All my neighbors seem to have chickens. I will try the deep bedding method where their bedding will essentially be a compost pile that the feed into with their constant pooping.

I will be creating a 2 foot deep "raised bed" that will just have pine chunks that will mix in with the chicken poop and start composting. I will add more pine as I notice the smell. I will start with about 6" of pine chunks.

My chicken coop design will be relatively simple. I can buy the roosting boxes pre-made off Amazon, and then I just need to make a simple roost, some food, and water.

The simplicity of the design is inspired by this deep litter design in the Philipines:

It'll be about a 8'x8' enclosure that will be at least 6' tall. I can fit 10' long lumber inside my car. With 64' square feet, I can probably fit in eventually 12 hens according to the 2-chickens-per-square-meter rule, according to this video:

The thing that I have noticed with a lot of YouTube videos and other people's preparations is that they are in much colder environments with a lot more predators.

The poor, barrios that are around me don't seem to have issues. In fact, for many years, I've had chickens walk around freely in my back yard. Including roosters which woke me up until I started using a sound machine to drown them out.

If these chickens have been walking around freely in my neighborhood with the neighborhood dogs and cats running around too, I think I'll have a relatively easy time.

My main concern with having chickens is managing the poop, but if the deep bedding method is true, then the cleaning will be one time a year, if that.

I am about 15 minutes from Costco. After calculating in the labor, it's probably not worth it. But it's a good educational opportunity.

I would say this is good for the kids, but I remembered as a teenager that my father got into gardening. It didn't interest me at all, and I never helped him. I didn't go into gardening because of him, but based on watching all the videos from Owen Benjamin, David the Good, and Wranglerstar.

Also, video games don't really interest me at all anymore. I started with an interest in gardening, and each step, I've been adding on.

I've been surprised how easy the gardening has been. I'm sure I'll enjoy it more once I start eating from it.

Saturday, February 8, 2020

Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School

Previously, I had observed that many of the words used today by SJWs, including domestic abuse, emotional abuse, racism, etc. all began around the same time period, about the 1960s - 1970s time. At the time I wrote the article, I had a vague understanding from listening to Thaddeus Russel's podcasts that this emerged from the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism.

I also hypothesized that I could read the first books that started using these words, and discover that the original intent was to destroy families and other Christian institutions.

From just reading the summary articles, it seems to be the case.

I cannot state it definitively because I really don't want to spend the time to read all the original source and start citing primary source evidence on this blog.

Also, does it really matter?

Pretty much all people who spout off feminist rhetoric are entirely uninterested in a dialectical debate. In fact, without knowing any of the history of the origins of their theories, you can dismantle their logic in the dialectic.

To try and discuss the history and origins of their theories would be about as effective as stating that the Democrats are really the party of Racists by explaining that Abraham Lincoln and the Civil Rights leaders were all Republicans. "THE DEMS ARE THE REAL RACISTS."

It may be true, but entirely ineffective rhetoric.

The reality is that there will never be a dialectical debate that can disprove my faithful readings of Paul's teachings in the Christian Household Codes. I can waste 20 years trying to disprove the rhetoricians to discover, they never cared about Truth to begin with and even if it was screaming at their face (The Bible), they would make up some excuse, no matter how non-nonsensical, to justify their evil interpretations.

They are ruled by rhetoric.