The span of our days is seventy years,eighty perhaps for those who are strong;yet their sum is but toil and sorrow;they are soon gone, and we fly away.
Saturday, October 31, 2020
I am finding more benefits of having a pool in my backyard. The latest one is being able to go swimming at night. Normally, community pools do not allow this. For younger kids, this adds another level of excitement and a way to burn off excess energy before going to bed. It's also convenient because we usually all need to take showers before going to bed anyway. I think in colder climates, the time around a camp fire are bonding experiences. Here in the tropics, being able to swim at night and the water not being freezing is probably its equivalent. It's not very comfortable to be in hot tubs here in the tropics. They are not too popular here in Puerto Rico. I imagine I will be enjoying a hot tub at night though in colder climates. These are the kinds of shared experiences that envelop all the senses that the children will be able to reminisce and bond over.
Friday, October 30, 2020
- Vox Day is correct in stating that "free speech" never was intended to protect the Christian worldview. It will be interesting to see how the Judges decide to punish me in light of the religious nature of the dispute. I am 100% against Free Speech since it is rarely, if ever, applied uniformly.
- Even though I was born in Seattle, the US Territory of Puerto Rico equally discriminates against all its residents in its disregard for the First Amendment through the Puerto Rican Supreme Court. My only recourse will be the US Supreme Court, depending on how the Judge decides to punish me.
- Because the Plaintiffs chose not to go through a standard defamation case, the actual "truthfulness" of my claims are not the primary metric. The primary metric is that what I say is "offensive" and "demeaning." That is enough to convict me. The Bible is offensive by its nature. Speaking Truth is offensive by its nature.
- Anything that I have written in my blog is nothing compared to the tweets of President Donald J. Trump and much that goes on Social Media. Nothing in my blog comes close to being as offensive as the Prophets, Jesus, and the other writers of Scripture.
- Over the past 6 months, this blog averages 189 views per day. I don't consider that to be high traffic. It is likely my Facebook posts receive much greater attention if I were to use it. In fact, none of my friends or family regularly read my blog. Most people just don't care. By filing the lawsuits, all the evidence will become public record, including the posts that they deem so "offensive." Streisand Effect is in play.
- I know my writing effectively incorporates both the Dialectic and Rhetoric.
- I know that some of my most devoted readers of my blog are my enemies and their attorneys. Imagine hating someone so much that you have to read every single one of my posts because you are afraid of what they might say about you.
- The plaintiffs are completely incapable of publicly countering my truth claims, so instead they run to the Government to silence me.
- I side on the Catholics for mandating celibacy in its Priesthood. The risk of gay orgies is much less than Churchians too afraid to speak the Truth due to the consequences it will have on being able to feed their children. Luckily for me, I'm independently wealthy with "Fuck Me" money. I heard this from Adam Corolla. I will willingly hurt myself for a greater goal.
- The Plaintiffs' best bet was to simply ignore me, and I would just lose interest. Instead, they did the complete opposite. Conflict is the air I breathe.
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Here are some ideas to transfer money from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden legally (with my limited knowledge).
Annual Gift Tax exclusions means that each person can give another person up to $15,000 per year and it not be considered taxable. This was for 2018, 2019, and 2020.
So, Hunter Biden gets the money from whatever sources and pays the taxes. He then gifts the following individuals in the family the following amounts:
|Joe Biden's Wife||$15,000|
|Jim Biden's Wife||$15,000|
|Ashley Biden's Husband||$15,000|
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, ESV
I will note that it is interesting that Apostle Paul seems to be speaking specifically to men. I think the ESV translates to "brothers and sisters" when appropriate. This would make sense during Roman Household laws where unmarried women remain under authority of their father's household until married. This also seems to apply directly toward believers. I do not know what Paul would say in terms of charity for unbelieving men. But, the next section seems to provide illumination.
Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.
1 Timothy 5:3-15, ESV
It seems the strictness also applies to believing women who are sisters. There are two verses which infer that the Widow is a believer:
"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
"But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith."
The question I would have is what should the Church's position be toward unbelieving idlers. Should unbelieving idlers be eligible for the church's limited resources?
The logic would seem no as for believers, there is a distinction between "widows who are truly widows."
I am inferring that Apostle Paul would also have a distinction for unbelieving "poor who are truly poor."
I've certainly recognized this in my personal life. When I was attending University, the main avenue had a lot of homeless people. I felt it was my responsibility to take these individuals to eat food and hear their story. Well, one of them was drunk all the time and smelled like piss. The other would roll his cigarettes and smoke all day.
When I became an employer of over 100 individuals at a time, I had to fire my share of dishonest and lazy people. No, I would never give charity to the dishonest and lazy people who I had to fire. I would also say, they would not be eligible for the church's limited resources.
I would be short-staffed of reliable people and even housekeepers often times.
I would see an individual on the side of the street begging for money, and I would ask myself, do I think that if I offered a job to this person that they would take it and do a good job? No, they wouldn't.
There are times of course when people hit hard times despite their hard work. There are orphans who I would say are more worthy of the church charity.
Generally speaking, with the safety net of the United States, I would say that they are fine, and if they are living on the street, it is most likely because of some major personal sin or character defect which would make them ineligible for charity if Apostle Paul's teachings apply to unbelievers as well.
Considering the lack of safety net in the Roman Empire, I would imagine that Apostle Paul's early church was even more lacking on resources, and would thus be even more selective in the unbelievers they would support.
If Christians are "brothers and sisters" then it seems that it would be the Church's responsibility to help its family members first before unbelievers. Of course, not if they are idlers.
I do not see why the church would not extend that same policy to the leftover resources it dedicates to unbelievers. Also, if unbelievers had higher priority in resources of the Church before believers, it is likely that there wouldn't be anything leftover (considering the small percentage of believers to unbelievers) leaving all the above instructions unnecessary.
When I was in college, I went on a "mission" trip to a soup kitchen in Atlanta, GA. I think this is the exact thing that Apostle Paul was warning against. It is likely many were idlers and the Church should had "let them not eat."
Unfortunately, most of the Protestant church pastors and their "ministries" are way too cucked to take Apostle Paul's words seriously.
I'm also reminded of the morality of the Left that always talks about the "injustice" of the number of children going hungry in a rich country as the United States. The next logical step, assuming their father is also idler, is for the idler's children to go hungry too.
Save the food for the true orphans.
Women's Shelters and Homeless Soup Kitchens I don't believe are the kinds of charities that Apostle Paul had in mind. Or if they do exist, being a lot more selective and intrusive toward the exact circumstances of each individual asking for charity.
If this logic is extended to the poor, African babies, I think the photos of idle, African men should be considered as well.
I do not think World Vision is very selective into the circumstances of the children you are savings from their idle fathers impregnating multiple women, and mothers who open their legs to multiple men.
I suppose "micro-investing" would be a much better "ministry" where you are giving interest free loans to men in developing countries to start businesses. But then again, there needs to be tons of vetting, and they need to be under the authority of the Church as believers. They need to be married, and stop fornicating and impregnating random women.
It's interesting that these micro-investing websites tend to focus on the impoverished women of Africa. Where are the fathers?
Monday, October 26, 2020
“Not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true doctrine is to suppress it.”
Anyway, sometimes when you see a person talk and you see how they handle themselves, you realize they are creeps. Or a little bit effeminate with low testosterone. Or a soy boy. But in any case, they don't tell the truth. They are slimy.
You wouldn't think for a second of taking advice from them.
Yet, in the case of Internet commentators, and even more concerning, "Internet discipleship," you are getting Spiritual advice from people you probably would never take advice from if you actually met them face-to-face.
I think this goes back to the concept of "skin in the game" and Nassim Taleb's general position of never giving advice, because the person giving the advice doesn't have to face the negative consequences.
In my case, and those who don't hide behind anonymity, we have a little more credibility because if what we recommend or type are lies, then our reputation is shot. There is SOME skin in the game, but still not a lot, and thus still a lot of skepticism must be maintained.
For anonymous users who hide behind anonymity, their "skin in the game" is basically nothing, in which case anything they say requires an extra level of scrutiny. Also, I would say there is a certain amount of lack of courage behind the purposes of their anonymity.
I do not see "anonymous" being anywhere compatible with Christian ethics, or at least for anyone who can speak with some kind of authority. Christians have had to face death for professing their beliefs, and here we are today of having people afraid to say they support Trump because they might get fired from their jobs. Certainly, they have their tactical reasons which I can respect, but to state they have any sort of moral authority in their anonymity, is a more dubious.
The office of Elders and Deacons requires you to know their reputation, and how their children behave.
You can't do that through anonymous profiles on the Internet.
Sunday, October 25, 2020
The same criticism is given to Conservatives. What have they actually conserved? Churchians share the same criticisms as Cuckservatives. It is true that Churchians are Catholics and Protestants.
But when looking at the doctrines between the two, if starting from the 1500s, which side has actually conserved more of the original teachings of the Church? For the sake of definition, when I say Protestants, I am referring to Protestants in the United States on average.
A Protestant counter can be stated, "Well my Denomination isn't completely cucked." Or that your specific church isn't cucked. What will happen when your pastor dies? They all get cucked. All Protestant denominations, by their nature, eventually get cucked. Even the patriarchs and Judges could not keep their game strong more than 2 generations.
What makes you think your Protestant churches or Denominations can? They won't. And if there are that exist, please let me know which have. (I'm assuming no one from the Amish are reading my blog)
Somehow the Catholics have been doing a pretty good job conserving the original faith and doctrines, at least on the Latin Mass side of things.
I suppose if I had no choice and HAD to do a Protestant church, I would try and copy the Latin Mass as much as possible. I would not be able to uphold the celibacy portion, but as a counter, I would need to ensure that all "Priests" were independently wealthy with enough "fuck you" money for them to not be concerned about providing for their family. Obviously, the Lindy effect proves this to already be an impossibility. If it could had happened, it probably would've. Historically, I don't think there's a very good track record with ultra wealthy Catholic leadership and them maintaining doctrinal purity.
Truth is unchanging.
Saturday, October 24, 2020
Maybe a non-functioning 911 system isn't really that bad when compared with the fact that Puerto Rico repeatedly loses power, which subsequently turns off the running water because the water pumps can't run without electricity (and they don't have backup generators).
The Secretary of Public Security made the announcement in brief expressions broadcast tonight.
“Tonight, a decision was made to close the 9-1-1 Emergency Systems Bureau Call Reception Centers (NSE911) after employees from both facilities reported positive results for COVID-19. To guarantee the continuity of operations and that emergencies are attended to correctly, the Office of the Bureau for Emergency Management and Disaster Administration (NMEAD) will be used, known as Central Control, which operates 24 hours with duly trained personnel ", he said. the official.
Janer maintained that, to report emergency situations, they should call 787-724-0124. The Dispatch staff will channel calls with the corresponding municipal or state response agencies for each emergency. Similarly, they can call 787-343-2020 to communicate directly with the Police.
Vox Day isn't being overly cute when he states that the decline of Civilization means the lack of a plumbing system. You need water to run it.
And if you want to get even more ridiculous, Puerto Rico regularly runs into DROUGHTS despite being a tropical island and is forced to turn off water or restrict usage on certain days.
The water and power inconsistency is so bad that most people have water cisterns and power generators. I certainly do. Going off-grid entirely is something I would do if I knew I wasn't headed to Idaho to ride out 2033.
Friday, October 23, 2020
Living in Puerto Rico, I'm constantly forced to listen to this trash in the various restaurants I eat. This entire genre has to be the best example of the bottom tier of musical talent being fed on a musically illiterate population eager to eat it up in their drunken, grind-fests. I have walked out of certain restaurants or asked them to change the music because I am so insulted to have to listen to talent-less phonies.
Vox Day mentioned in one of his Darkstreams how P-Diddy has no musical talent. I have to concur. While in high school, I had friends who thought they were so "cool" for listening and being able to recite his raps word-for-word. I was always a little confused. I was in a jazz and concert band and listened regularly to the technical greats in Classical and Jazz. I could tell their "popularity" wasn't for their technical skill, but more for their "image."
They took the ticket. Every Reggaeton trash artist has taken the ticket.
What's even more infuriating about Reggaeton being blasted throughout South American restaurants is that they have an entire catalog of Salsa artists. Some of which are alive today. Now those guys have talent.
Unfortunately, Salsa isn't conducive toward grinding, and requires a certain amount of technical skill to dance. So for the unwashed, musically illiterate masses, they push out Reggaeton on the Latin American population that don't know any better.
My wife tells me that every woman she knows has Instagram in Colombia.
"Image" becomes all the more important in this game of Influence peddling.
Also, with such a large Latin American population, you need Latin artists that are local to push their overly, computer-processed, auto-tunefest.
I wouldn't be surprised that if you were to track who actually produces and distributes this trash, it will be the same record labels that push out all the other talent-less music in the United States.
It's all one artificial cabal and none of it is organic.
Thursday, October 22, 2020
It would be a very long article to try and unwind the Puerto Rico "loophole" as a tax haven for United States citizens. Also, it's not really that interesting unless you actually plan or are thinking of moving to Puerto Rico. I know that if I lived in Idaho, I wouldn't think about Puerto Rico. In fact, I pretty much did not even think about Puerto Rico my entire adult life until I seriously thought about moving there in 2016. But, I'll give it a shot.
First of all, the US Constitution does not fully function in Puerto Rico. Even though I was born in the States, an American Citizen, AND a United States Officer, I have had both my 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights violated on multiple occurrences. If this occurred Stateside, I would have a legal case. But, because I am in Puerto Rico, the Insular Cases may apply.
Basically, the "Insular Cases" of the Supreme Court established in the early 1900s that the newly obtained territories from Spain (ie. Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico) did not have the same, full rights as on the mainland. If the territories had the same rights, then obviously the territories could not be as easily looted and exploited as Colonization dictates.
Somewhere down the line, it also established that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay Federal Income Tax (You don't enjoy the full rights. You also don't have to pay the taxes!). Puerto Rico has its own, tiered tax system like many States do, but tiers that are higher than Federal Income Tax brackets after a certain income level.
The IRS has specific communications about "Source of Income" specifically in regards to Puerto Rico. So, if I physically perform the work in Puerto Rico, which technology has made exceptionally easy, then that income is considered to be sourced from Puerto Rico.
It's also why movie stars who shoot in Hollywood, will have to pay California and Federal income taxes because the "Source" of their income was completed in California. Companies that end up editing the film, like in New Zealand or Ireland, will have their work taxed at their respective tax rates in their country because they physically do the work there. (Side note: California may still try and claim their share through various other laws they have depending on other factors).
Puerto Rico, due to their Federal Income tax exemption, has special tax programs to incentive companies to do their work physically on the island. The tax rate is 4% total. 50 cent realized it could be higher than 60% mainland. So, it's quite the savings.
But if you travel frequently between the mainland and Puerto Rico, and you act as a "consultant," then it becomes very sketchy on terms of "Source of Income." For example, let's say the consultant spends 5 months in the States, and 7 months in Puerto Rico. Maybe they do 50% of the work Stateside, and 50% in Puerto Rico. They should be paying Federal Income tax on the 50% they did Stateside because of "Source of Income" rules. Many "consultant" individuals create corporations in the respective states they practice in and "bill" the parent company with tax exemption to keep the "Source of Income" separate. Smart. Clean.
But, sometimes they don't. Sometimes you outright tell your CPA that you want to commit fraud(?) and charge 100% of the work to Puerto Rico (despite actually doing 50% of the work Stateside). I don't know if that's what happened in this situation. Maybe it was more egregious. I don't have access to the email history.
In December 2018, Hernández formed Company A under Puerto Rico law for an undercover special agent of the IRS-CI posing as a wealthy United States taxpayer from Arizona. In December 2019, Hernández caused to be prepared and filed a fraudulent tax-exemption application with the Office of Industrial Development and fraudulently obtained Act 20 tax exemption status for Company A.
In December 2019, Hernández also determined that Company A would report $500,000 in business earned income in Puerto Rico, which would reduce Company A’s federal taxes. Then in July 2020, Hernández caused a Puerto Rico corporate tax return for Company to be prepared and filed with the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury (Hacienda), falsely claiming that $500,000 was earned in Puerto Rico by Company A.
I have a good friend who was wrongfully, criminally prosecuted by this same office. We all know the DOJ is corrupt as fuck and many of their actions are done for political reasons. Is this another example of Entrapment?
I will be interested to read the emails that the undercover agent sent and their evidence if it ever goes public.
I know many CPAs right now are shaking in their boots for dealing with any Act 20 decree holders until they see to what degree the Fraud was.
Keep in mind, BDO is the same firm that was involved with a partner resigning after an indictment in a corruption scandal. Justice is political these days.
UPDATE: It could be entrapment, but if there is a way out (ie. the CPA could decline the client), then it's not a defense. Also, it is possible it was quite blatant. But we'll see if it goes to trial.
Cardinal Raymond Burke provides some clarification on the Pope's comments on his support of gay, civil union:
First of all, the context and the occasion of such declarations make them devoid of any magisterial weight. They are rightly interpreted as simple private opinions of the person who made them. These declarations do not bind, in any manner, the consciences of the faithful who are rather obliged to adhere with religious submission to what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the ordinary Magisterium of the Church teach on the matter in question.
I'm actually liking Catholics more now at least in comparison to Protestants. I cannot imagine an "Elder Board" being able to overrule like this their lead or preaching pastor. There is something comforting to know that even when the Pope himself goes contrary toward the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and ordinary Magisterium of the Church, that the Pope himself will be called out for his "private opinions."
Most Protestant churches don't have so many controls which can countermand the false teachings of the "head" pastor.
The Latin Mass that is local to me in Puerto Rico posted the Archbishop Vigano's response prior to the cardinal's publication on their Facebook page:
It appears that Bergoglio is impudently trying to “raise the stakes” in a crescendo of heretical affirmations, in such a way that it will force the healthy part of the Church – which includes bishops, clergy, and faithful – to accuse him of heresy, in order to declare that healthy part of the Church schismatic and “the enemy of the Pope.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is trying to force some Cardinals and Bishops to separate themselves from communion with him, obtaining as a result not his own deposition for heresy but rather the expulsion of Catholics who want to remain faithful to the perennial Magisterium of the Church. This trap would have the purpose – in the presumed intentions of Bergoglio and his “magic circle” – of consolidating his own power within a church that would only nominally be “Catholic” but in reality would be heretical and schismatic.
This deception draws on the support of the globalist élite, the mainstream media and the LGBT lobby, to which many clergy, bishops, and cardinals are no strangers. Furthermore, let us not forget that in many nations there are laws in force which criminally punish anyone who considers sodomy reprehensible and sinful or who does not approve of the legitimization of homosexual “matrimony” – even if they do so on the basis of their Creed. A pronouncement by the bishops against Bergoglio on a question like homosexuality could potentially lead civil authority to prosecute them criminally, with the approval of the Vatican.
Bergoglio would thus have on his side not only the “deep church” represented by rebels like Father James Martin, S.J., and those who promote the German “Synodal Path,” but also the “deep state.” It is not surprising that in the documentary there is also an endorsement of the Democratic candidate in the upcoming American presidential election, along with a disconcerting condemnation of the policy of the Trump Administration, which is accused of separating families that want to enter the United States illegally, while the reality is that the President is confronting human trafficking and the trafficking of minors.
What percent of Protestant pastors are this based?
Could you imagine if the entire Catholic clergy thought like this? I understand better why Satan wants to keep the Church converged. Seeing it mobilized in God's Will would be a terrifying and awesome sight to behold!
I look forward to the day when faithful Catholics retake the hierarchy. Deus Vult!
Thanks to cuckservatives and civic nationalist "right-wing" media, they try to portray places like France as "overrun" by Muslim radicals. It is a compelling narrative. Vox Day mentioned on one of his Darkstreams that the Muslim immigrants are concentrated in walled sections of cities that makes removing them easily when the time comes. Supporting Vox Day's observation is that France shut down over 70 mosques and expelled 231 radicals after a beheading:
“We must expel 231 foreigners from French territory, who are residing there illegally, and are being pursued on charges of extremism, including 180 in prison,” France’s Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin announced in a recent press conference.
In a separate tweet, Darmanin wrote: “The fight against radical Islam: In the month of September, 12 places of radicalization have been shut (businesses, schools, culture centers…). That is 73 places closed down since the start of the year.”
I will note it is ironic for Americans, for which 40% are minorities, to be criticizing minority rule of a country like France (8.8% Muslim). Get the plank out of your own eye.
Also, could you imagine the US President closing down 231 mosques in the United States or any level of government over Islamic extremism? The expelling has only occurred because it's Donald Trump. But any other Cuckservative or Democrat would most likely never do so because of "Racism."
I would also observe that Europe has a much longer history of repelling Muslims with bloodshed than the United States has. At least for Florence, they have a long history of expelling their fellow Florentines. I don't think they'd have any problems eventually expelling any foreigners.
If the next crusade launches, it will be in Europe.
It was around 7th or 8th grade that I went to my first LAN party at a Wizards of the Coast in Seattle, Washington. We played Mech Warrior and Starcraft. Goldeneye 64 was a staple.
This was during a time when automatic assigning of IP addresses were not well used and we had to manually assign everyone an IP address on a whiteboard. CRT monitors were the norm.
Fast forward to today, and my children and I have a permanent setup for LAN parties. This is their wall of computers and for my wife as well. My computer is in a different part of the room. So we have at least 6 computers ready to go. I also have 5, VR Quest headsets that we sometimes play all at once together. though it is quite frustrating with the youngest who doesn't know how to read.
It's so much of a pain that we don't really want to play VR because none of us want to deal with the headache of trying to get him connected.
I have been gaming with my children since they were four years old. That seems to be about the age that they can manage playing an FPS with the standard WASD configuration. I played Minecraft survival with them quite a bit.
Today, Roblox is super hot.
The next generation of games involves using smart phones that focus on gameplay. These include Among Us and Jack Box. Last night, I was able to invite the children of my friend and we were able to play an 8 player game of Among Us. We would've had 9 players in the same game, but my friend's children were having difficulties logging in.
I also enabled web cams and headsets for each of my children so they could communicate directly with my friend's children when they were playing Roblox or whatever games they decided on.
While growing up, my family only had one computer that we all had to fight to use. I think there would had been a different level of bonding if I actively gamed with my siblings and father.
Certainly, I attribute the strength of my relationship with the children with the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours I've spent gaming with them.
Last weekend was the beginning of my 20% of time with my children. For more than a year and a half prior, I had only 8 hours of physical time with them when my ex-wife stole them from my household (Biblically speaking, not legally). Our gaming and pool time ensured that my children always looked forward to coming to the "fun" house.
Because my ex-wife has been on a continual campaign to alienate the children from me and absolutely can't stand spending any time with me, she has placed the children in a position where they will end up having to choose their father or their mother.
I say this because this is the position my father and mother placed me and my siblings in after their acrimonious divorce. The way my ex divorced me was even more egregious and acrimonious.
When my siblings and I spend time with one parent, we do not mention any enjoyable times we spent with the other parent. We understand enough that it would be too awkward. Sometimes we slip, and then we have to stop ourselves. Neither one of our parents really attempted to foster fun activities for all of us to share as a family. Thus, we don't really share many positive memories together to reminisce and bond over. We see mainly landmines.
In the case of my children, they will be having an avalanche of positive, fun experiences together that will not be able to be topped for their entire lives.
Group gaming has been the highlight of fun in my life, and I suspect it will be the same for my children. Once the youngest can finally read, I believe VR will be taking it to the next level. Other components will be camp-outs, Skiing trips, and European vacations.
My heart will always be to invite my ex to all the fun adventures and good times we'll be having, but I already know that she despises me and will refuse. She's entirely incapable of facilitating the level of fun & excitement I will be generating due to her own insecurities and fears. I had been trying to include her in all the fun activities I had with the children over our 12 years of marriage, but she absolutely hates losing or is too afraid. There is a certain amount of jealousy that she probably has toward me because of the "fun" gap.
If we assume she's projecting, then she's thinking I am giving the good times to my kids solely to "steal" them away from her. The problem with this logic is that I have been gaming with them, built the pool at our house, took them on a skiing trip, a 7-day Disney Cruise, and a 5-full-day trip to Disney World all before she stole the children from my household. I am only continuing all the fun things we were doing prior.
I now have a wife who is quite adventurous too, so this only motivates me to take us on more exciting trips together.
I do the fun things with my children because I personally enjoy them and because it brings me great pleasure to provide good things to my children and see the joy on their faces. There is perhaps added satisfaction in being able to share the joys I wish I was able to with my own father.
It is only through the perverted lens of Feminism, that me, being a good father, is seen as me being manipulative and hungry for power and control. My ex has turned spending quality time with the children into a zero-sum game.
Whether I want to admit it or not, it is now a competition. It is unlikely that she will ever be able to spend any prolonged amount of time with me again, let alone have fun. It is possible for divorced couples to divorce each other and not from the kids. My ex's best bet would had been to come along for the ride, but she has chosen her path.
But of all the parents I know, she chose the worst father to compete against when it comes to fun. And the competition to have fun, only pushes me harder to have even more fun.
The other great advantage I have is that my identity is not wrapped up with my children ultimately accepting me or not. The fun I have with my children does not come from a desperate place that they'll accept me, but from a heart that is already overflowing. I gain more pleasure the more pleasure my children experience.
Some of my children will go off the deep end no matter how perfect of a father I am. You see this time and time again in the Old Testament. If Jesus couldn't prevent the betrayal of Judas, certainly I won't be able to with my children. Plus, numbers help in spreading risk. God willing, I'll have six children. If I get three to stick, I'll consider myself a success.
I also have lots of money that I enjoy spending on my children's fun.
The Good. The Beautiful. And the True.
No one is having more fun than us.
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
John C. Wright reconsiders the benefits of the 19th Amendment. The top comment made by HMSLion summarizes the "fruits" of women's suffrage over the last 140 years in a nice summary for which I am too ignorant to confirm its accuracy (but seems about right):
The strongest argument for the prohibition of women's suffrage is the history of the last 140 years.
Let's review...when the United States was organized as an independent country, the vote was limited to free men, 21 or older, who possessed either land or other income. 40 acres was the normal threshold. That requirement disqualified about 30% of free adult men. There was a reason...owning property or having an income meant that you had a stake in the nation. Something to lose. Unfair? Maybe. But it produced leaders like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison - outstanding men of great wisdom.
In the 1820s, the property requirement was abolished, the vote given to all free men 21 years of age. This produced leaders like Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and Davis. Good men...but not nearly as wise as their forebears. Less inclined to compromise, more inclined to corruption.
Starting in the late 1800s, the vote was extended to women (the 19th Amendment merely standardized what most states had already done). The early experiments in the Western states worked...but what we ultimately got was Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Would-be fascists pushing personality cults as they misgoverned the nation. Inflated the size and reach of the Federal Government, got the country into major wars on very unfavorable terms.
In the late 1950s, the vote was extended to 18-year olds. This worsened matters...the only competent Presidents since then being Reagan and Trump. The GOP produced a string of incompetents, the Democrats a succession of sociopathic criminals.
As an engineer, I am a practical man. I know that the old requirement of free, male, 21, and property owner worked. We can tweak the property requirement into a minimum tax requirement...pay a Share of tax (the Federal Government takes in roughly $6,000 per adult annually, I think that a good starting point), and cast your vote. I'd allow active military service to substitute. But you have to have skin in the game.
Now, if you wish to argue that women who pay their Share should be allowed to vote...I'll listen. It's a defensible argument.
Remember, the purpose of a system of government is not "to be fair". It is to provide wise governance to the state. And the Declaration of Independence makes the purpose of government also clear. "That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men."
I will add another remark. There is a difference between allowing someone to vote, and allowing someone to hold elective office. I could easily envision a system under which the franchise is limited to men...but women are perfectly able to hold office.
I much more prefer an elite run "Golden Book" kind of society as you saw with the Venetians or Spartans, so I am even more strict than what the United States founding fathers envisioned.
"Skin in the game" is a great concept. In today's society, where travelling between borders is so easy, I believe the "Golden Book" exclusions becomes even more important in order to maintain Christian values. If not, you will find it quickly converged and rotted out by those who would like to "progress" or "liberalize" (see Satanize). You also need to protect from so called "Christians" which is why the "Golden Book" approach is even more valuable.
Perhaps even the Old Testament approach of not taking in foreign brides would need to be enforced due to their influence over the husband. Once you take a foreign wife, you are automatically removed from the "Golden Book." It could cause some other problems like marrying first cousins so I will need to analyze this concept some more.
Congratulations to Vox Popoli for reaching 200 Million Views:
First, it underlines the importance of consistency. If you're not going to post at least 3-4 times per day, you're much better off contributing regularly to a group site. Very, very few one-man blogs have survived the demise of what used to be known as the Blogosphere.
In the case of Vox Day, he's not including his 150 IQ and his unique insights. 3-4 posts per day are not unheard of especially on Twitter and Facebook. I was easily reaching that amount on Facebook. I stopped posting on Facebook, which is a good thing, and now posting on my Blog. What a waste of insights on Facebook that I have since deleted.
Vox Day's shorter posts are an encouragement that you don't need to say much for an interesting post.
I don't think anyone I know anyone personally in Puerto Rico who actually reads my blog.
But so what? I write because I am compelled to and have been doing so since being a teen. I write for my children and grand children. I hope that they will learn from the mistakes and observations I have made. I may die before they reach an age where they can comprehend what I write.
And if it helps others along the way, that's a bonus.
The blogosphere/literature world is where I am one of the most ignorant and low IQ. And for that, it feels great to know how much I am learning from these giants around me and share what I have learned to those I care about. I am inferior.
There's so much more I can post about because there's still so much I have to learn, and for that I am so grateful that others much more insightful and intelligent share their knowledge with me.
I marvel how I have been transformed by Logos communicated by scribbles on a piece of paper.
William S. Lind provides a well summarized explanation of Critical Race Theory and it's relation to the Frankfurt School. I've heard these terms and understood how they related to one another, but I haven't seen all the key words and key concepts summarized in one, easy to read document. This will be my reference in explaining it to others:
To his great credit, President Trump recently ordered an end to “anti-racism” training for federal employees and contractors. A number of articles discussing his actions have referred to “critical race theory”. What is “critical race theory”?
Critical race theory is a subset of critical theory, which in turn is a central element in cultural Marxism. Like the bulk of that hideous ideology, it was created by the Frankfurt School, formally the Institute for Social Research, a Marxist think-tank founded in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1923 (it still exists). When Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School relocated to New York City, where it remained until 1947 when it returned to Frankfurt.
The Frankfurt School translated Marxism from economic into cultural terms. The Frankfurt School’s primary goal was to destroy Western culture, which it defined as “oppressive”. Critical theory is a tool to that end.
The term is something of a play on words. What is the theory? The theory is to criticize. By submitting every aspect of Western culture to constant, unremitting criticism, it would be discredited to the point where people would abandon the ways of thinking and living it embodied. What would replace them? The Frankfurt School refused to answer that question, although one of its key members, Herbert Marcuse, promised a world of all play and no work. In the 1960s, college students in large numbers believed that promise, which is the philosophical equivalent of buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
Critical theory now wells up around us in many different forms. Feminism endlessly criticizes the family, marriage, and traditional definitions of men’s and women’s roles. Education theory demands children be taught certain “attitudes”, including disrespect for parents and elders, rather than skills or facts. Critical race theory says that all whites are inherently evil “racists” and “oppressors”, regardless of what individuals do. It demands whites grovel at the feet of blacks, endlessly apologizing for “discrimination” and “white privilege”. Even if whites do what it demands, critical race theory continues to denounce them. Like the rest of critical theory, its demands can never be satisfied, because then the criticism would end. Remember, the theory is to criticize, endlessly, relentlessly, until any defenders of Western culture or traditional ways of living are silenced, “cancelled” or liquidated.
Critical theory, in all its forms, says its goal is “equality”. This goal can never be achieved, because nature has made people unequal. So the criticism must go on forever. But cultural Marxism’s desire for “equality” is also a lie. What it actually seeks to do is invert all existing relationships, relationships that have evolved over many generations and reflect reality. Inversion includes putting blacks over whites, women over men, and gays over straights. That was exactly what the “anti-racism training” President Trump cancelled was about: whites were to crawl on their bellies before blacks, submitting themselves to whatever demands blacks made of them. Sometimes this was literal: showing that critical race theory had conquered him, the head of Chick-fil-a said every white man should shine a black man’s shoes, then he did exactly that, on camera. I don’t know about you, but I’ve eaten my last Chick-fil-a sandwich.
The essence of critical theory is that it can never be satisfied. So why should we try? If cultural Marxists denounce us as “racists”, “sexists”, or “homophobes”, who cares? Their boogeyman words have no real power, and they are all lies. Men and women are inherently different and their traditional social roles reflect their inborn differences. There are differences among races and ethnic groups within races. Does anyone think the Cleveland Cavaliers would have won the NBA championship if the team had been all-white? Or that Sub-saharan Africa would be what it is today if it were inhabited by Chinese? Who pretends there are no differences between, say, Irishmen and Russians? How many people, looking for a good time on a Saturday night, go to a Russian bar? And moral disapproval is not a “phobia”, an irrational fear.
President Trump showed courage in the face of cultural Marxism and we should do the same. Break its rules, defy its commands, thumb your nose at its lies, and expose what it really is: a Marxist ideology no less totalitarian in its ambitions that was the economic Marxism of the Soviet Union. As Rod Dreher wrote, live not by lies.
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
54% was enough for me to move my family to Puerto Rico. This was in 2016. It was a no-brainer. It was such a no-brainer that I supposedly threatened my wife I would take the kids with me to Puerto Rico unless she came along. I don't recall exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had. She was paralyzed with fear. What did she care about having more than half of the money for the rest of my life stolen by the government? She was just a homemaker and hated looking at anything financial. Her opinion was correctly ignored.
I would do it all over again even knowing that she would eventually divorce me on the island.
The fact is that the tax savings and other investment opportunities were so large that when the asset rape finally settles, it'll most likely be about equal or less that the gains I have received by moving my family to Puerto Rico.
Then, from Puerto Rico, I was closer to Colombia than the States which is how I met my second wife.
An alternate reality is that I cucked to my ex-wife, staying in California, and she would end up divorcing me anyway. I would still be asset raped (but much harsher by California Law), and all the excess gains thanks to living in Puerto Rico would had been unrealized. I would had been in a much worse situation had I kept our family in California.
Now, because of the gains made by living in Puerto Rico, I will be able to invest in a large Idaho homestead that should be ready in time for 2033 for my children to prosper in. If I had stayed in California, I would have only a fraction of what I will be having when I start buying land and constructing in the next five years.
CLARIFICATION: Act 20 provides me a 4% tax rate for my corporation (Puerto Rican income is exempt from Federal Income Tax), and Act 22 provides me 0% taxes for Capital Gains.
I just finished Book I of the Florentine Histories by Niccolo Machiavelli. I do recommend the New Translation by Banfield. It makes reading much more enjoyable.
Book I was primarily just a meta view of all the barbarians and changing of power within Italy. Toward the end of Book I, there was mention of a time when there were three competing Popes! Despite how crazy that sounds, it is nothing compared to Protestants, where essentially each Pastor is their own mini-Pope. I'll take three Popes any day versus the millions of mini-Popes of false teaching.
Speaking of which, I think it's time an anti-Pope arises to compete against the current Pope. I do not know how that would work exactly, but it would still be very entertaining to watch the anti-Pope call out the current Pope.
Book II begins specifically with the history of Florence and its founding. The intense rivalry between the Guelfs and Ghibellines (each made up of numerous families), began with a slighted marriage proposal. Basically, the other family "stole" a betrothed from the other family with their exceptionally beautiful daughter. As revenge, the now-married husband, was murdered.
The constant back and forth between the sides, essentially kicking out the other party from the city was quite enlightening, including the various forms of government they would attempt. They would call outside help from the Pope and local Kings.
It's a big mess that I will not claim I follow along 100%. There are so many "characters" that it's hard to tell which ones are important later in the story.
Somewhere in all this are the "people" who are caught up in the middle of this blood feud.
It is unsettling to read the constant back and forth. It goes in stark contrast to the relative stability that has been seen in the United States. And the concerning part is that I don't think the Guelfs and Ghibellines saw each other as different races or cultures. They all considered themselves native to Florence.
Exile by race and nation seems to be what is in store for America's diverse cities. You definitely don't want to be living in any major cities, which will most likely turn into some sort of City State like Florentine once the Empire crumbles.
How would City States of Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles be governed when they don't have a Federal Government keeping them in check?
Mayors gone wild.
For certain cities that make up such a large section of the population of certain States, it is unlikely that Governors may have that much power. In more rural States, yes. But in States where the Mayors have much more power, you will most likely see that many National Guardsmen and State Troopers are entirely uninterested in risking their lives to bring back to order the cities.
At least in States like Washington, Oregon, and California, the rural parts have always been wanting to be independent from the cities which dictate State policy. They could finally be autonomous. I don't know why the rural portions would want to die to maintain a rotting, shit holes the cities will become.
If anything, people will be fleeing out of the cities into the rural areas just as we have seen with Coronavirus, but in a much larger degree.
States that have more unity between the rural and city portions will see a more unified response with the National Guard.
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
2 Timothy 3:3-9, ESV
I wonder what specific examples Apostle Paul was referring to when he referenced "those who creep into households and capture weak women."
What comes to mind are the lying, SJW Pastors (whom shall not be named) that aided the unbiblical divorce of my ex-wife and the theft of my children from my household.
My ex-wife certainly was "burdened with sins and led astray by various passions" and the SJW Pastors are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."
But, this is Protestantism. With all the flavors of "Christianity" being passed off by Churchians today, it was inevitable that my ex would had eventually found some male allies to support her claim that "emotional abuse" is a Biblical cause for divorce.
What does "creep" look like?
It looks like a wife hanging out with a wife's Pastor or women's group, telling her sob story, and then the Pastor hears about it. The Pastor lends a "compassionate" ear to the emotionally battered wife and offers her support. The battered wife doesn't want the Pastor to try and confront her husband because she is in fear of her life. So the Pastor simply takes her side of the story. Of course, she's the victim!
UPDATE: Today, you can see this "creep" in podcasts and web pages. Apostle Paul today would be losing his mind with the level of false teaching going on.