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.

That's YOUR Truth

One of the things that has probably taken me more time than it should've taken to understand (or accept) is the fact that there are people who are simply unteachable.

If I had been paying any attention to the Bible as reality, rather than figurative stories, I would've completely understood this and saved myself immense trouble trying to "reason" with people.

Reading Aristotle's Rhetoric, Vox Day's Blog, SJWs, and numerous personal encounters, including with intimate family members, has finally gotten this through my thick skull. (See Rhetoric vs Dialectic)

Back in college, which is around the early 2000s, I was reading a lot of Christian Apologetics, such as from Lee Strobel. One of the themes was the concept of Moral Relativism vs Absolutism. You don't hear this argument much in churches anymore because Moral Relativism essentially won in American churches.

Because I came to a logical understanding toward Absolutism and the fallacy of Moral Relativism, I wrongly assumed that was the way to convince others.

I wrongly assumed that if other people simply heard and understood the arguments that lead me to my conclusions, that everyone else would reach the same conclusions.

This inaccurate mindset led me to become exceedingly frustrated and expend much more energy than I should had trying to "convince" others explaining the underlying logic systems.

What I should had done, was simply shake the dust off my sandals and walk away.

With my wrong assumption that "everyone else is just like me," I overly committed to those who were completely uninterested in Logos.

What happens when you have a family member, that when you are attempting to explain the reasoning of your decision along with their pattern of rebellion, plays the ultimate, rhetorical counter-argument: "Well, that's YOUR Truth!"

That is their justification for their actions to undermine your authority as head of household. You cannot argue for Moral Absolutism with a Moral Relativist. They are already lost.

As an Employer, it would be easy. They would be fired. If they don't comply to the rules I set in the household, they are gone.

For family members, this becomes more complicated. For children, it's not as complicated as it seems. In the Old Testament, these rebellious children would be stoned to death.

In the New Testament, I will extend as much effort as Jesus did to try and "convince" Judas from ultimately betraying him. I will extend as much grace as Jesus did toward the Pharisees. This is the extent of influence blood has on Logos (Matthew 10:34-39):
“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.
At no time in both the Old Testament Patriarchs or Jesus do you see him beg any of the individuals who rejected Him, to obey Him. It was ultimately their choice, and I'm sure Jesus was busy enough focusing on those who were interested in following Him.

If Jesus did not "convince" Judas, who was within his close 12 disciples, what are my expectations to be able to ever "convince" my own wife or children?

None. I will state my arguments as logically, thoroughly, and as detailed as possible. My arguments will be primarily dialectic, and if they can't accept it, I will not force the issue.

When they decide to stop following me and act in rebellion, then I am no longer under any further obligation to provide protection to them (except by the State).

The level of betrayal I received from my ex-wife for my refusal to submit to her rhetoric is reprehensible even among unbelievers. To have it done to me by someone who claims to be a "believer" and to have other so-called Christians support her rather than condemn her actions outright (even by Pastors), is testament to the level of evil that exists in churches. The God they serve is the one of this world and not of the Bible.

In the end, I came out ahead and in a much better position despite the circumstances I was placed in. The reality is that betrayal happens even to those who are perfect, such as Jesus.

Jesus never bent the knee despite the betrayal and his foreknowledge of the consequences that were coming.

If I already know that the level of betrayal I received from my ex-wife led me to a better place, how much more will I be able to withstand lesser levels of dishonesty and rebelliousness from my own children in the future?

Monday, June 15, 2020

The Supreme Court Won't Protect Your 2nd Amendment Rights

Ten gun rights cases were ignored to be heard by the Supreme Court which essentially allows conflicted lower courts to determine what it means to enforce the Second Amendment in various States.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-conservatives-get-massacred-fake-conservative-scotus/

At the same time, the concept of "original intent" is completely obliterated as a 1964 law is reinterpreted to include transgenderism which did not exist at its conception.

I am reminded about how terms like "domestic abuse" and "emotional abuse" (fake words that didn't exist until the 1970s) were somehow intended by Apostle Paul 2,000 years prior.

While living in California, forums like CalGuns.net and the libertarian world would declare how the Supreme Court would save them from their State Legislators. Heller was mentioned as well as "precedence" that will help them win their cases.

I remember the hype that Trump would get to elect the most conservative Supreme Court ever and all the wrongs of the liberals would be undone.

That didn't happen today.

So, whatever "check" was hallucinated to be some control against Government tyranny, has hopefully been squashed. Organizations like the NRA-ILA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation have pretty much been wiped out.

I suppose they can keep on hoping that if they keep pressing these kinds of cases that the Supreme Court will eventually hear their cases and make a binding determination binding to all the land?

How many Californians, New Jersey, New York, and other State residents with overly restrictive gun laws will be willing to help fund these organizations when the "most conservative" Supreme Court just refused to even hear their case?

They're left to fight on their own. But, that's a losing battle in demographics and democracy.

In face of the current violent protests happening in the major cities, it seems a politically wise decision. Deciding either way would piss off a huge section of the population in either direction. They are not forcing the issue on any unwilling State, but allowing each State to decide on its own.

What's left are the populace of the States who feel their 2nd Amendment rights have been infringed upon. Unfortunately, if charged criminally in violation of their State's gun laws, they will not have a Supreme Court to appeal to. So they are left only to comply, fight a bloody war, or simply move to a different State.

It's what I tell myself as well.

I'm ex-military with a license to carry handguns from Utah and Florida which means 32 of the 50 states. At some point, I was licensed to carry in California as well. Puerto Rico, unfortunately, restricts me as well, though they have recently changed their laws to make it much easier for all citizens to carry (it's included with the regular firearms license.).

But I tell myself, if I had a problem with it, I can just move to Florida.

Do I really want to die for my gun rights in Puerto Rico when I could just move to Florida if I actually cared enough?

I think that will be most people's thinking.

But at least now, residents in the gun restrictive States can have no illusion that their gun rights are protected by the "2nd Amendment" and now State Politicians should be more emboldened to place even stricter restrictions.

After all, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like there's a chance their case will be heard at the Supreme Court.

Monday, June 8, 2020

San Juan Ranked #565 by NomadList.com of International Cities

I knew that San Juan would not be able to compare to the quality of life I had in Los Angeles. I don't think I realized just how much worse it would be.

Hurricanes, Power Outages, Earthquakes, and then being trapped on an island so you can't easily escape by driving off.

The list can be found at: https://nomadlist.com/san-juan



One of the benefits of living in such a low ranked city for more than four years, and counting, is that pretty much any other international city is a step-up. Not being able to easily drive for a weekend in another quality city, plus the quarantine, only adds to the claustrophobia.

Basically, if I can make it here, I can pretty much be more comfortable anywhere else.

One of the extra criteria you don't see on this list is the availability of Asian Restaurants, which are my preferred restaurant types.

My family's future will most likely be in various cities throughout the world, so this gives me motivation to travel these top tier cities to find my favorite. Puerto Rico will most likely be the closest connection I will have to the United States for the rest of my life.

And as long as Puerto Rico remains my "home base" and the tax savings justify it, I'll be all the more motivated to spend less time here, and visiting the top ranked cities of the world.

Sunday, June 7, 2020

Federal Debt vs Domestic Private Debt vs Worldwide Debt

My analysis prior about Federal Debt in relation to Domestic Debt, to calculate the overall money supply in the United States is assuming that the DEMAND for those dollars are only domestic and remain constant.

Federal Debt makes up 20% of total domestic debt (private & Government).

Remember, money is essentially debt.

So, what about how the Federal Debt compares to WORLDWIDE private AND Government debt (AKA Total Worldwide Money Supply)?

I don't know specifically how I would be able to measure the worldwide debt, but this gives another layer of complexity & buffer for the United States against hyper-inflation:
OKAY. So demand has been reduced dramatically around the world, our $21 trillion GDP has basically been paused for 2 months, so to keep it afloat (rough math), the government had to add $3.5 trillion to keep the economy running somewhat smoothly. That's a lot of printing, you idiots probably expect inflation. Wrong, step away from the US and look at what other countries are doing, the ECB (European Central Bank) and BOJ (Bank of Japan) are having to print trillions of dollars worth of EURO and YEN to keep their economies going, along with every other country getting pounded. Not only that, but since the US dollar makes up 70% of global transactions, in liquidity terms, trillions worth of euro and yen is MUCH MUCH more than any amount Jpow feels like printing, there's no way our printing could offset what the rest of the world is doing, so inflation isn't coming. If you want proof, just look at the euro/usd (going lower) and literally ANY emerging market currency is getting absolutely clapped vs the dollar.
Furthermore, not only is US corporate debt at an all time high, but emerging markets, the eurozone, and asia has borrowed more dollars than ever before at any point in history, basically everyone around the world's debt is denominated in US DOLLARS. So what's about to happen? It's already happening, demand for US dollars is going up because everyone around the world wants to borrow more to offset cash flow concerns and pay off existing debts, which will cause the dollar to increase in value. What happens when the whole world has debt in dollars and the dollar goes up in value? DEBT BECOMES MORE EXPENSIVE. This is DEFLATION, and in particular and even more terrifying DEBT DEFLATION, a phrase that would make Jpow absolutely shit himself (and he knows its coming). This has already started before the whole beervirus nonsense, look at Venezuela and Zimbabwe, they had too much dollar debt, no one wanted to lend to them anymore and whoops, their currency is worthless now. It's going to be like a game of musical chairs for people trying to get access to dollars, starting with emerging markets and eventually moving into the more developed economies. The result: massive corporate bankruptcies, countries defaulting on debt (devaluing their currencies) and eventually a deleveraging of massive proportions. This WILL occur and no amount of printing can stop it, it's already too far gone.
In my previous model of hyperinflation-math, the assumption was that the DEMAND would remain constant. The SUPPLY (or debt), would decrease, resulting in a shrinkage of SUPPLY. When the Supply decreases and the Demand remains the same, that is deflation. The dollar increases in value.

Compared to the rest of the world, is it possible for total US debt (federal and private) to exceed the rate of increase that you see in the rest of the world?

Obviously no.

So, in relative terms, the US monetary supply will shrink in proportion to the rest of the world. In subjective terms, the SUPPLY will be shrinking. This will be at the same time that the overall money supply worldwide will shrink as debt gets written off. I think that government simply will not be able to keep up with printing enough money to offset the debt write-offs as we saw in 2008-2011.

On the DEMAND side, you have other foreign entities wanting to get their hands on some of that US dollar, which is above and beyond what the domestic demand would had been.

So you have a decrease in SUPPLY with a simultaneous increase in DEMAND for US dollars. That increases the purchasing power of the US Dollar worldwide.

International supply and demand on money supply is something I could look into further.

Saturday, June 6, 2020

No Widespread Looting/Fires in Detroit Michigan (84.3% Black)

Detroit is 84.3% black or mixed with black. It is the highest percent of a city with over 100,000 people. I could not find any videos of major violence or damage from the protestors.

What do you notice about the council members?


Interestingly, (((Gabe))) is currently being prosecuted for bribery. Here is the Mayor and their staff.


I noticed they staff are less representative of the population. The more important position is the Police Chief in this context. The Detroit Police Department is made up of 63% black officers.

You can hear the reasons the Mayor gives on why there has been relative Peace.


It's interesting how he acknowledges the effectiveness of the 8PM curfew that other mayors have chosen to not impose as strictly (ie. New York City is at 11PM). Also, note that he recognizes about 60% - 75% of arrests are from outside residents.

Smells like Soros funded chaos.

If the Mayor hasn't been bought out and their city is under siege from outside non-voters, it seems a very aggressive curfew would be warranted as you would in any other invasion.

Let's Do The Hyperinflation Math

Most of the money we spend is simply debt on a bank's balance sheet. You can lookup the physical cash in circulation compared to the total USD money supply.

This data is from the D.3 Credit Market Debt Outstanding by Sector, Flow of Funds.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20200312/html/d3.htm

Here is the data I collected in graph forms: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Up6Za6lOemFi_84KkzDh4JwMkuLnzgrFv1fbBfd9sWg/edit#gid=0

Numbers are denominated in Billions.




DateTotal Household/Corporate DebtFederal Government

LA314104005
Federal Debt %
vs Total
1980$5,719.20$812.2012.44%
1981$6,323.60$907.7012.55%
1982$6,786.70$1,081.0013.74%
1983$7,495.40$1,280.8014.59%
1984$8,630.70$1,496.5014.78%
1985$9,939.70$1,762.0015.06%
1986$11,320.30$2,007.5015.06%
1987$12,449.30$2,181.7014.91%
1988$13,767.70$2,369.6014.68%
1989$14,999.40$2,550.5014.53%
1990$15,977.30$2,830.8015.05%
1991$16,390.10$3,147.4016.11%
1992$17,029.10$3,491.1017.01%
1993$18,124.30$3,784.3017.27%
1994$19,632.20$3,977.8016.85%
1995$21,181.50$4,152.0016.39%
1996$22,808.80$4,343.1016.00%
1997$24,678.30$4,406.5015.15%
1998$27,581.70$4,395.1013.74%
1999$30,752.10$4,365.0012.43%
2000$33,728.70$4,090.0010.81%
2001$36,445.80$4,145.2010.21%
2002$39,023.80$4,427.3010.19%
2003$42,180.70$4,848.0010.31%
2004$46,127.30$5,250.9010.22%
2005$50,438.20$5,584.809.97%
2006$55,471.10$5,803.909.47%
2007$61,202.90$6,074.309.03%
2008$62,583.20$7,376.8010.54%
2009$59,834.60$8,882.6012.93%
2010$57,983.00$10,528.6015.37%
2011$57,824.60$11,667.2016.79%
2012$58,433.70$12,847.8018.02%
2013$59,643.40$13,705.1018.68%
2014$61,535.00$14,441.1019.01%
2015$63,312.30$15,165.6019.32%
2016$65,550.20$16,008.3019.63%
2017$68,470.20$16,606.9019.52%
2018$71,211.00$17,865.0020.06%
201973825.514$19,055.7020.52%

What inflationists fail to do when declaring that the US Government is borrowing too much money is that it is only in relation to itself. So we can see it's increasing and decreasing, but we don't know in relation to what. Often times it is in relation to GDP.

I'm more interested in relation to TOTAL money supply. That would be total debt from households, businesses, and corporate. More specifically, these categories:

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Households
LA154104005"

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Households
Home
mortgage
LA153165105"

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Households
Consumer
credit
LA153166000"

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Business
Total
LA144104005"

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Business
Corporate
LA104104005"

"Domestic
financial
sectors
LA794104005"

"Domestic nonfinancial sectors
Federal
government
LA314104005"

Back in 1993, we saw Federal Government debt to be 17.27% of total money supply. We did not see those levels until 2012.

In 2019, Federal debt is at a ratio of 20.52% of total money supply.

Let's look at the data beginning 2008, when the total money supply peaked, and then shrank.



DateTotal Household/Corporate DebtFederal Government

LA314104005
Total Money Supply% Federal Debt
to Total Debt
2008$62,583.20$7,376.80$69,960.0010.54%
2009$59,834.60$8,882.60$68,717.2012.93%
2010$57,983.00$10,528.60$68,511.6015.37%
2011$57,824.60$11,667.20$69,491.8016.79%
2012$58,433.70$12,847.80$71,281.5018.02%
2013$59,643.40$13,705.10$73,348.5018.68%
2014$61,535.00$14,441.10$75,976.1019.01%
2015$63,312.30$15,165.60$78,477.9019.32%
2016$65,550.20$16,008.30$81,558.5019.63%
2017$68,470.20$16,606.90$85,077.1019.52%
2018$71,211.00$17,865.00$89,076.0020.06%
2019$73,825.51$19,055.70$92,881.2120.52%
Private debt continued to drop until after 2011. It dropped down $4,758.6 billion, and the Federal debt increased $4,290.4 billion (that's $33,367.55 per household!). From 2008 - 2011, the Federal Government could not print enough money to offset the loss of money in the private sector. 

Overall, the money supply shrank, which means deflation (or the shrinking of the money supply).

Q1 began around November 2008
Q2 began around November 2010
Q3 was announced September 13, 2012

It wasn't until 2013 that the total money supply matched the 2008 levels.

Weren't those the glory days of the Hyper-Inflationists?

I wasn't really paying attention back then, so I don't really know. When I look at the data in relation to the overall money supply, I'm not seeing Hyper-Inflation. I only see DEFLATION from 2008-2011, which were during Q1 & Q2.

The Federal Reserve couldn't keep up.

Obviously, inflation is occurring. The Total Money supply is increasing. The Federal government keeps increasing its proportion of the overall money supply.

But what is the definition of "hyper-inflation"?

I think it has more to do with the velocity at which the total money supply increases.

I see a definition of more than 50% per month (https://infogalactic.com/info/Hyperinflation). I think this means that the total money supply would need to increase 129 times larger in one year.

In this situation, we are assuming that the increase of the total money supply is from the Federal Government printing money. Private entities do not have the power to create more money, so they would remain the same.

Total money supply currently is at $92.9 trillion.

To increase 129 times, there would need to be $11,984.1 trillion more dollars printed.

Currently, the Federal Government has $19 trillion, so the Federal Reserve would need to print 629 times more than that.

Let's assume they do helicopter money on a per household basis, of which there are 128,580,000 households. I think $11,984.1 trillion = $11,984,100,000,000,000.

That would be $93,203,453.10 for each household. or $93 MILLION for simplicity.

In the hyperinflation incidents that have occurred in history, there were some other, major underlying issues with the economy or war situations. Vox Day has done more analysis on each of the hyper-inflation scenarios. 

Basically, the countries were fucked anyway. Correlation does not mean causation. It's probably the other way around.

Let's Be A Little More Reasonable (Universal Basic Income)

How does $1,000/month for every family in the United States sound? 

$12,000/year X 128,580,000 households = $1,542,960,000,000. AKA $1.5 trillion.

That would be a 1.6% increase in total money supply each year assuming no reductions in any other program.

Is 1.6% hyperinflation?

Let's double it. $2,000/month. 3.2% per year?

$4,000/month = 6.4% per year inflation.

What is the number you would like to see to call it "hyper-inflation"?

Without UBI, the total money supply was already increasing at these rates:

DateTotal Money SupplyTotal Money Supply
Change Over Year
2008$69,960.00
2009$68,717.20-1.78%
2010$68,511.60-0.30%
2011$69,491.801.43%
2012$71,281.502.58%
2013$73,348.502.90%
2014$75,976.103.58%
2015$78,477.903.29%
2016$81,558.503.93%
2017$85,077.104.31%
2018$89,076.004.70%
2019$92,881.214.27%
3% is the "accepted" rate of inflation.

Tell me the scenarios you have in your mind, and let's run the numbers.

I think you will find the "hyper-inflation" math doesn't make sense.

That's not to say that there won't be a big reset.

If hyper-inflation is not a reality, then, the next reason for a collapse is a deflation. That's when all the private sector debt starts getting written off because of all the bad investments, and the Federal Government cannot print enough money, like they couldn't from 2008 - 2011.

How Much Would The Fed Need To Print?

If the private sector debt were to decrease:

5%, then $28,708 per household with helicopter money to offset.
10%, then $57,416 per household with  helicopter money to offset..
15%, then $86,124 per household with helicopter money to offset..
20%, then $114,832 per household with helicopter money to offset..
25%, then $143,540 per household with helicopter money to offset..

2019 Private DebtHouseholds
DECREASE$73,825,510,000,000128,580,000
-5%-$3,691,275,500,000$28,708
-10%-$7,382,551,000,000$57,416
-15%-$11,073,826,500,000$86,124
-20%-$14,765,102,000,000$114,832
-25%-$18,456,377,500,000$143,540
There reaches a point of diminishing return for helicopter money. Eventually, people just start paying off their existing debt. Which would lower the overall money supply in the economy, which is deflation.

If you want to increase the money supply (debt), the best way is for the private sector to take on more debt. Unfortunately, we've reached the peak saturation of debt that people and corporations can handle. They are imploding and defaulting instead, thus creating deflation.

I'm mainly regurgitating and processing what Vox Day has written on this subject but applying it more directly in ways I can understand. I may be misrepresenting what he's saying and not making any sense. I still have lots of holes in my head about this whole thing and will post more as things become clearer to me.