Consequences

Artisanal Toad

 

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods,
“And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
“Horatius at the Bridge” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay.

 

While the words are stirring and many fantasize about going out “in a blaze of glory”, life rarely works out like that. Ignominious death tends to be the order of the day. In the poem, the bridge had to be torn down and someone had to buy time for that work to be done. Enter Horatius into the annals of history. Everyone gets that and occasionally someone has to hold off the enemy while the bridge is torn down in order to save the town. But what happens when it becomes obvious that it’s time to burn it all to the ground? While destroying a bridge in order to keep the invading army out of the town is one thing, what happens when the problem is the town itself? As was once allegedly said in Vietnam:

 

It was necessary to destroy the town in order to save the town.

 

There Are Always Consequences

Hubris is an amazing thing. We begin with some powerful men who decided their industrial nation needed a suitable workforce that would maintain it’s place in the grand order of things. The goal was a vast multitude of drones who would toil away in their factories doing mind-numbing repetitive work without complaint. Strikes were a major fear of the owners, the idea that their workers would rise up and demand more. Even more of a fear was the great boogie-man of overproduction. It’s not difficult to slow down or even shut down a factory in order to adjust to demand, but how does one shut down millions of people who are producing independently in their own homes?
The idea was if men were intellectually dumbed down and properly “socialized” they would be easier to control and happier as individuals. They would be socialized and standardized as compliant consumers, not independent producers. They could easily be distracted by entertainment and encouraged to conform to the thought leaders. They would follow the party line and even if they couldn’t, they’d find another party and hold to their socialization and conditioning.
John Taylor Gatto, an award-winning teacher in the New York City public schools for almost 30 years, detailed the history of the plan to dumb down the population in his magnum opus, The Underground History Of American Education. The book was available for free on Gatto’s website for years and a PDF copy can be found online in lots of places. In fact, given how freely The Underground History is available, you’re an idiot if you don’t get a copy and read it. Seriously, no review can do justice to that book. Anyone who has grown up in the Western World needs to read it in order to understand what was done to them by the school system.
The grand plan was gradually implemented and the population was dumbed down over a period of some fifty years. In a later collection of essays titled “Weapons Of Mass Instruction” Gatto further hammered home the point that the modern school system was designed not just to manipulate and change behavior, but to harm the intellectual development of children. Especially boys. The primary goal of the system is to produce standardized consumers, not individual producers.
The designers of this system were uniformly men and they created it for the purpose of controlling the population. They admitted as much and they wrote about their goals (repeatedly, at length) in no uncertain terms. It was a long, slow fight to take control, but eventually it was done. But there are always unintended consequences. By the early 1970s the system was finally in place… just in time to instruct all those young women going through college getting degrees in education. Because women were entering the workforce in droves. Naturally, one of the first work-spaces flooded by women was the public school system.

Women At Work

Several hundred years ago a secretary in a business enterprise was invariably male. The question might be posed, why did this traditionally male job become female? The reason is the nature of the information a secretary is exposed to. All too frequently a male secretary, after learning all he could about the business that employed him, went into business on his own to compete with his former employer. That was a problem that had to be solved. Women are far more submissive to authority and far less ambitious. They are willing to work for less pay as well. And, there are other benefits of having female secretaries, as attested to by the presence of a couch in any executive offices.
Schoolteachers, however, are not secretaries. They tend to function as unsupervised or mostly unsupervised managers of their own classroom, responsible for teaching their students. While a secretary is (as a rule) directly supervised and managed, schoolteachers are rather independent in comparison. And while there are innumerable examples in the media of one-room schoolhouses being run by a woman, the truth is it was mostly a job held by a man. Yes, there were many women who were schoolteachers, but they tended to get married and leave teaching to have children. Men tended not to be teachers for long either because their ambitions led them elsewhere, but schoolteachers were traditionally men.
One of the principle aims of the new system was to consolidate the schools and segregate the children first by age, then by class. Standardization was the key and docile workers were needed for the great industrial economy. This began with industrialized schools. At the critical elementary levels, women were preferred over men for the same reason women were preferred as secretaries. Because women are willing to take less pay and principally because many women wanted to only work part-time, the pay scale for teachers stagnated to the point of decline. Male teachers began to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. While the management was uniformly men (Principal and Vice-Principal), the institutional schools became more feminine.

The Tipping Point

Did those men have any idea that this would happen? Through control of the schools, feminist ideology gained control of the next generations and in addition to dumbing down the children, especially the boys, schools became “beta factories” that destroyed masculine dominance and confidence in boys, shaping and “socializing” them into more feminine and docile creatures.
The vast majority of the population has no idea how the school system operates and what its real objectives are. I’ve recommended Gatto’s “Underground History” book for years and I always know when someone actually reads it. Anger is the predictable response. They get angry when they learn what was done to them. Interestingly, the other response is complete rejection. A family member (who was at that time a high-school math teacher) read half of it and stopped. He told me Gatto was “obviously crazy” and the book was “complete nonsense” and he refused to read any more of it. That was over 20 years ago and he’s gradually changing his mind on this, but it was interesting. The facts are irrefutable, but the idea his chosen profession was actually injuring children was too much for him to bear so he rejected the facts in favor of his feelings.
While many point to the “feminized” classrooms and their influence on the development of boys, they don’t understand the nature of what they are seeing. The compulsory school system was focused on the destruction of individuality and intellect; the destruction of masculinity was simply a byproduct of that.

They Got What They Asked For

The primary consequence of putting women in charge of anything is masculine men will flee from a female dominated space. Being creatures of the herd, women are particularly susceptible to group-think in which a few dominant individuals steer them in any given direction. This has been consistently true in terms of politics as well as with respect to feminism.
Men and women are not the same, they are not equal and they never will be because that is how God created mankind. That is objective truth. Yet, the central thesis of feminism is to deny that. Any argument of equalism is an attack on men and it always has been.
It no longer matters. The population was dumbed down and not capable of rationally dissecting the arguments of feminism, or of rhetorically destroying it in the marketplace of ideas. Because women are more than 50% of the electorate, easily swayed by emotions and powerfully influenced by the fear of being shamed, feminist ideals became both law and public policy. This demanded the school system do a better job of “socializing” the boys with the express goal of destroying masculinity that threatened to dominate the “equal” girls.
A war on men developed that has reached the point that masculinity is now officially known as “toxic” and must be stamped out. And yet, while women are attracted to strong, masculine, dominant men, the system they don’t understand is working hard to destroy the boys and prevent any masculine dominance from developing in young men. The end result is women looking around and then asking “Where are all the men?”
Men have been dropping out in droves, sometimes in interesting ways. A recent survey found that over 20% of the young men between the ages of 20 and 29 were not employed and had not held a job in over a year. The survey specifically excluded students. When asked why they were not employed, a common response was “what’s the point?” Over 70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are currently unmarried. Perhaps if asked why, their response might also be “what’s the point?”

Inmates Running The Asylum

An MIT professor, Langdon Winner, makes a disturbing point in his book Autonomous Technology, which echoes Neil Postman’s conclusions in his book Technopoly: We’re screwed because a problem has been created for which there is no solution. In the following citation from Autonomous Technology, Winner states:

 

Society is composed of persons who cannot design, build, repair, or even operate most of the devices upon which their lives depend … people are confronted with extraordinary events and functions that are literally unintelligible to them. They are unable to give an adequate explanation of manmade phenomena in their immediate experience. They are unable to form a coherent, rational picture of the whole … all persons do, and indeed must, accept a great number of things on faith … their way of understanding is basically religious, rather than scientific … The plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child … [but] Citizens of the modern age in this respect are less fortunate than children. They never escape fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world their senses report …

 

A question arises… what happens when things break? A better question is what happens when things break and the trained, qualified men are not there to fix things? Can the average man get the job done? No.
Having dumbed down and feminized the men, how does one recover from systemic failure? With a system firmly cemented in place that will continue to inflict damage on each successive crop of children, how does the population escape from this?
The simple but sad answer is that it doesn’t.
Catherine Austin Fitts wrote a fascinating essay called “Narco Dollars For Beginners” that introduces one to the narco-dollar economy. Once one understands the narco-dollar economic model we have today the incredible level of corruption becomes understandable. How do we cure this problem? To end the laundering of narcotics profits through the economy would take down everything.
Consider the question of what really caused the 2008 financial crash… then consider that the real answer is the Mexican drug cartels pulled their money out of the system following the Wachovia Bank money laundering scandal. $378 Billion was laundered through Wachovia between 2004 and 2007, according to the DEA. When they dropped the hammer on their investigation they seized $110 million of “dirty money.” The cartels said “OK, if you want to be like that, you won’t get our money” and they stopped laundering their money through US banks. That dried up the liquidity in the system and caused the financial crash of 2008. Did you hear about this? No.
How many people were prosecuted for money laundering in an institutional operation that laundered $378 Billion dollars between 2004 and 2007? Not a single person. Wachovia bank was given a ridiculously small fine and after that was quickly acquired by Wells Fargo in the midst of the financial crisis of 2008. Remember Jeffery Skilling and Enron? What Enron did was completely insignificant compared to what Wachovia Bank did. Assuming a 5% profit on laundering the drug money, Wachovia made a profit of $4.725 Billion dollars a year for a total of $18.9 Billion dollars for that four year period. What was their fine? A paltry $160 Million dollars.
Did the media explain this? Not really. Not in the United States. This NBC story implies Wachovia Bank only laundered a few hundred million. However, when one looks at the foreign press, a much clearer picture of what happened emerges. And not a single individual was prosecuted. That’s a hell of a war on drugs, isn’t it?
Consider the question of what happened on 9/11. I’ve written about it before and when considered in light of the evidence, certain conclusions are inevitable. So, why did only one person consider the evidence, out of all those with the knowledge and training to ask the right questions? Read Gatto’s books and understand the true purpose of the educational system. Why did everyone ignore the critical evidence, the lack of rubble and debris, that was before their eyes the entire time? The population has been dumbed down.
We have experts like Sir Ken Robinson, who talk about education and reveals that it’s been proven: the school system kills creativity. It kills curiosity. He’s not shooting from the hip, he has studies that prove it. Yet, like every other person who calls for education reform, he seems to have no idea how the schools got the way they are.

Two Solutions

The school system we currently have is effectively unchangeable under our current political system. Gatto has demonstrated this conclusively and his only solution is to flee from it and homeschool children. Unfortunately, homeschooling children almost requires an intact family with both mother and father working together in the same home. Yes, there are examples of so-called “single mothers” homeschooling their children and the famous example of Arthur Robinson homeschooling his children, but these are exceptions that practically prove the rule.
The ongoing destruction of families by the divorce industry demands an approved and blessed public school system that will warehouse the children who are invariable given to the mother in the aftermath of the divorce. Homeschooling is out of the question. The fractured economy that has seen real wages stagnant for over 30 years now practically requires both mother and father to work in order for the family to purchase all the things they don’t need and can’t afford.
There are no political solutions, as we understand political solutions… because what everyone forgets (or never learned) is that war is simply an extension of politics by another means. There are a great many theories about how the US empire will end, but very few of them take into account the incredible frustration and anger that is building up among men. Especially men who have been abused by the system.
At this point there are only two ways to change the system. One requires an incredible, brutal, limited war on women for the purpose of terror. It would require a battalion-strength force of highly motivated killers who were trained to operate as independent teams of 5-7 men each. The goal would be simple: terrorize women into voluntarily removing themselves from the rolls of registered voters. Could it be done? Absolutely. If it was done it would completely change the character of the United States.
It’s also true that the likelihood of such a group being recruited and trained by someone with the funding to do it is extremely low. 600 men, all killers? Even if that could be accomplished, the odds of such an operation being mounted without being infiltrated and shut down by the US security apparatus (which is quite formidable) are extremely low. Which means the odds of this happening are approaching zero. Should we believe in rainbow-farting unicorns as well?
The second way is if a platoon-sized group of men decided the system can’t be fixed and the best thing to do is burn it. Burn it all to the ground and start over. Which, of course, sounds preposterous. How could a group of 30 men do that? As it turns out, the infrastructure is rather fragile and it would not be difficult.
It is a fact that a platoon-sized group of motivated men could take down the power grid in the US and when that happens, it’s TEOTWAWKI. Consider the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines that are suspended way up high with steel towers. A little thermite applied in the right spots will drop those towers and cut the power. Done correctly in a coordinated manner, the result is a rolling blackout. Hydroelectric and nuclear power plants can be isolated from the rest of the grid.
With no power the supply chain breaks down quickly because fuel isn’t pumped and trucks stop rolling. Which means the food on the shelves is all that’s available, and most stores are closed due to lack of power. With no power the pumps don’t fill water towers. How long does it take for the municipal water system to lose pressure?
With no food and no water the most well-armed civilian population on earth will go nuts. What always happens in conjunction with looting? Fires. Which will draw down the municipal water supplies right when the pumps are not replacing it. And all those guns? They’ll be getting used. Police will come under fire wherever they go. Will power company crews work in a war zone? Highly unlikely. Will truck drivers take their loads into a cauldron of looting and killing- even if something manages to get the fuel flowing? No. Who will unload the trucks?
With no power and the population going nuts, where do the police get fuel? Who feeds the police and their families? With so many incidents happening all at once the standard swarming tactics will not work. With police coming under fire just for showing their faces, how long will it be before they go home to protect their families?
Thirty men? That can be done. The system has generated more than enough men who have lost everything and are willing to cheerfully burn it all to the ground. Given the fragility of the infrastructure and supply chain along with the ease of making thermite, that’s a death sentence for the US.
Which one will happen? My vote is on #2 of the above scenarios. There will be no spoiling action, there will be no plan to save the US, it will be an action by a few to burn it to the ground.
Is that pessimistic? No, it’s reality. There are always consequences.

23 thoughts on “Consequences”

  2. pro tip: wrecking a transmission tower only requires loosening the right bolts
    ps: bridge infrastructure is similarly vulnerable
    pps: the greatest difficulty is restraining or overwhelming the manpower available to effect repairs
    Reply
    1. Overwhelming the manpower is a function of maximizing the damage quickly. Loosening/removing bolts may drop a tower, but it could easily be put back up if the lifting capacity was present. Not so with a tower cut down by thermite.
      If one is out to burn it to the ground, bridges may or may not be taken down in order to enhance movement, channel movement or deny access, but again, small numbers can do a lot more damage with thermite in a much shorter period of time. Particularly if an efficient and effective means of remote ignition was developed and used.
      Figure ten teams of three men each. One man on each team learns how to fly a helicopter. It isn’t that difficult, easier than fixed wing IMO. Any idea how easy it is to steal aircraft? And if they know a TEOTWAWKI event was about to go down because they were going to do it, do you think any of them would worry about something as minor as stealing aircraft and fuel? Helicopters can move fast and land in out-of-the-way places, maximizing the number of places damage could be done while minimizing the odds of discovery.
      However, it’s not like I’m writing an operations order here. I could, but there are plenty of other men out there who could do as well or better. Maybe they wouldn’t be as creative, but they’d be effective.
      What I find interesting is that so very, very few understand just how fast things would go sideways if the power grid goes down. Neither do they understand what happens when the supply chain breaks.
      Once the critical failure hits, everything after that is a cascading series of failures as other parts of the system break. When that happens it’s over and nothing will allow a recovery.
      Reply
      1. It seems to me that loosening bolts is enough.
        If the US were attacked by a foreign power or foreign terrorists, then US countrymen would likely unite. On the other hand, if a minority group attacked the infrastructure of the nation – ir a hated facet of that infrastructure, such as abortion clinics, then a united response would not necessarily result.
        In that sense, targets matter. Do you cut supplies to Florida, the home of Disneyworld, NASA launches, and retirees, or South Texas, home of hordes of illegal aliens and dual-national Mexicans? Do you cut power to Detroit & Chicago, or Salt Lake City & Boston? The answer is found with New Orleans. Or Flint.
        Select a lynchpin city, like Chicago, populated by residents incapable of self-preservation, & despised by most Americans. Remove from that city critical infrastructure – power, telecom, natural gas, & transport – & then motivate the remainder of the nation to withhold relief or prioritize resources elsewhere. How? Wreck a city people want to save, like Salt Lake City.
        Men prioritize. Make them choose.
        Thermite isn’t required, only relentless attacks at seemingly random targets.
        Neither you nor I need lift a finger. If Americans don’t strike at their own infrastructure, Muslims will.
        Reply
        1. I think you misunderstand what I was pointing to when I said burn it to the ground. I was talking about taking the entire country down. At best there would be few local areas that could cut themselves off from the rest of the grid and get power restored quickly, but even then they’d need to be in an agricultural area that produced food. And there would need to be oil production and refinery capacity nearby. Not many places like that in the US.
          Salt Lake City would probably be just fine no matter how much damage was done. Cut the water aqueducts going into Southern California? It’s toast. The same with New York City.
          The United States electrical grid was broken up years ago into three parts which are now each running at a slightly different frequency. Which means separate parts of the grid cannot direct power to other parts in order to restart dynamos at power plants. Hitting critical paths through which electricity is directed across the grid from those plants with excess capacity to those with inadequate capacity will cause some plants to shut down. That means they are no longer contributing to the grid and as each one shuts down, what results is a rolling blackout as demand far outweighing the production capacity hits various locations. And it happens fast.
          The point is to take down the power grid in order to break the supply chain. Which means it has to be a coordinated attack because the timing is critical. Ideally it would be timed as three separate waves, one for each grid, specifically designed to maximize the number of plants that were shut down.
          Once the power is out everywhere the infrastructure destruction can continue, making it far more difficult to repair the damage, much less get things fixed before the supply chain is broken.
          To maximize the killing and destruction, do it in the middle of a heat wave in the summer (max electrical demand as well). Looting almost always goes hand in hand with arson and firefighters will draw down municipal water supplies at the worst possible time, before backup generators could be put in place to run municipal pumps. Keep in mind the kind of panic that occurs when the faucets don’t work.
          The dramatically increased level of diversity has dramatically reduced the level of social cohesion. It won’t take much to get to the attitude of shoot at anything that moves. Of course, if one had some select cell phone video of racial atrocities that could be released in the very beginning, they’d go viral before the cell phone networks finally died. That would ensure the fighting would get genocidal very quickly.
          It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s reality.
          I write novels. Everyone needs a hobby. A few odds and ends, but mostly I tell long, multi-generational stories. In one series the United States is taken down with scalar weapons that trigger the Cascadia and San Andreas faults on the left coast, the Yellowstone caldera, the New Madrid fault in the midwest and a massive earthquake that moves the western escarpment of Cumbre Vieja into the Atlantic ocean. Which results in a series of massive tidal waves destroying the East Coast 6 hours later. All of this takes place at the beginning of winter and weather control is used to inflict the worst winter in history on the United States. By spring, over 90% of the population is dead.
          I did a lot of research on that and out of that I got to see just how fragile the infrastructure really is. Those kind of events (earthquakes and tidal waves) knock out infrastructure, most of which rests on power generation capacity. The supply chain rests on the infrastructure.
          In another series (working on book 4 right now) a spoiling action is taken that causes the women of the US to remove themselves from the rolls as registered voters and all female elected officials resigned. That cost over 22,000 dead women, but it headed off a total collapse that was inevitable. Again, it’s fiction, but I like to be precise. I research things.
          I also read the Bible, which has plenty to say about the way things are right now.
          Reply
    1. Could they cause it if they wanted to? Yes, easily. Do they have a contingency plan in place if such a thing were to happen? Probably, but I don’t know. There are entire underground cities in different locations around the United States, but the problem is they won’t like what they find when they come out of their holes.
      I’m sure that for most of them, their contingency plan is a place in another country.
      Reply
  4. I’m surprised with how many men who have lost enough to desire to burn it all down haven’t already done something. How long would it really take to put together an operation like this? If this is on the horizon, I hope I can achieve self-sufficiency soon enough. Some kind of community being built that is ready to function in those times sounds invaluable.
    Reply
    1. First, read the post on God’s Wrath” That has a graphic at the bottom that I used to try to illustrate a generational view of the prophesy of Romans 1:18-32, which is a New Testament prophesy that applies to us right now”
      If I’m right, the precursor generation that provoked everything was the one from 1917 to 1945. The generation given over to impurity was from 1945 to 1973. The generation given over to degrading passions was 1973-2001. Which means the generation that was given over to depraved minds is the current generation, starting on 9/11.
      The description is from Romans 1:18-32 and each of those generations is about 28 years if I’m correct in my calculations. Which means we are 16 years in right now and if this continues to the conclusion of this generation in 2029, we have 12 years left until the end of this generation.
      Read the post on the prophesy of Isaiah 3. I’m not saying that’s how it will go down, but the Bible demonstrates that when God has had enough he destroys nations.
      I could be completely wrong but I don’t think I am. It could be another 12 years and it could all fall apart in 12 days.
      When it happens it will go fast. With the power off, when the water stops and there is no food, panic sets in. No boob tube to tell everyone to relax. No radio. No soothing tunes. Just the sound of gunfire.
      When the EBT card system went down in 17 states a few years ago, there were near riot conditions in some diverse areas of the south (especially Mississippi) in 12 hours. Extrapolate. No power, no water, no food, but your CELL PHONE still works because many of the towers have battery backup. Think about it.
      Read the Strategy For Men of the West section, The ability to produce food will be the difference between being able to eat or starve. Being well armed and organized with people you can trust in the right location will mean the difference between living and dying.
      And that may sound ugly, but read the posts I linked to. Especially the post about Isaiah 3. There are two promises in verses 10 and 11, that it will go well with the righteous, who will eat the fruit of their actions. Another way to say that is they will eat the fruit of their preparation. The second promise is woe to the wicked, it will go badly for him because what he deserves will be done to him.
      As to the war on men and all the men who have been burned by that and the pent-up anger, the pendulum is going to swing the other way, hard. Again, read the post. From the description we’ll have slavery again (I’m talking about women) and at the end of that prophesy comes the famous Isaiah 4:1, in that day 7 women will lay hold of one man, saying we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes (we will support ourselves) only let us be called by your name (Marry us!), take away our reproach.
      We live in interesting times, and everything is normal and OK until it isn’t. That’s what is known as a fools paradise.
      Reply
      1. Thank you for those references. I’ll be reading them after this reply. I’ve actually been very inspired by your posts on Strategy For Men of the West. I’m using the plan you laid out to achieve a self-sufficient homestead growing ginseng as a way to keep me moving in the right direction, tailoring it to my context as I move forward. I’ll be studying more deeply those endeavors as I get nearer to each step. I think the main thing I’m not sure how to plan for is to be organized with others to be ready to defend ourselves. I’ve wondered if being part of a militia would be the wise choice in that regard.
        Reply
        1. First, it depends on how old you are and what your background is. Homesteading, which is kind of a back-to-the-earth type of movement, is really all about becoming an independent producer.
          There are different types of “preppers” but the “stored food” type of preppers who don’t have the capacity to produce food are only putting off starvation a little longer or providing supplies for someone stronger. Food production is where it’s at.
          As far as joining a militia, in my opinion you’d have to be insane to do something like that unless said “militia” was composed mostly of your relatives and people you’ve known all your life. Even then, it’s a good way to get into the middle of stupid quickly.
          If you’re interested in learning how to use weapons, there are lots of tactical schools that teach you how to shoot and scoot. You’d be amazed at what they teach. Join a dojo and learn how to fight. It will do you a world of good.
          However, having a good location is one of the best bets you can make. Water, water, water. Have control of your own water supply. Food. Produce your own food, and I am talking about diversity. A couple of milk cows means milk, cheese and butter, as well as beef when the steers are grown. Chickens means eggs and meat. Hogs are useful. Rabbits breed and grow quickly. Don’t have much use for goats but some folks love them.
          Plan on a huge garden along with an aquaponics setup. That requires a greenhouse anywhere that’s good for growing ginseng, but it’s year-round fresh veggies and fish.
          Yes, all that is a hell of a lot of work, but it’s honest work that provides one with a sense of accomplishment. It’s not the same as being a keyboard jockey in a cube farm.
          Learn everything you can about homesteading and permaculture.
          Reply
          1. I’m on board with everything you are saying. I’m 26, but still very new to this. The hardest thing has to be that I have a wheelchair bound wife, so I foresee greater than average work to get where I’m trying to go. Maybe a militia is a bit of a short cut that could blow up in our face. If I had time I’d rather turn my family into a tribe prepared for generations of self-sustained living and protection.
  5. Sir toad
    I’ve been thinking about that all day. In the Bible God told Israel to wiped out all the men over a certain age and all the women who have known man. I very much see that happening in the scenario that you wrote about.
    The only difference is it will be all women of a certain age will be wiped out because feminist Way of thinking will be too deeply ingrained in them. Long story short if a woman is not married to one of the commanding officer so she will be Blodgett out. How men who are not fighting alongside these men will probably end up having a chance to be reformed in a certain time. And if they’re not reformed though be wiped out. What are your thoughts on that issue
    Reply
  6. Sir
    I apologize because I perceive that I’m being a pain in the ass. I apologize for that because I feel that my natural state
    Reply
  7. The facts are irrefutable, but the idea his chosen profession was actually injuring children was too much for him to bear so he rejected the facts in favor of his feelings.
    “Rejected[ed] facts in favor of his feelings.” A perfect example of a man emasculated and feminized by the very system he became a cog in.
    Reply
  8. AT,
    OT but I’ve been wandering around your site for a while and I have a question……You have described adultry as having sex with an married woman and that a man having sex with an unmarried no virgin (4 categories) is not a sin. What do you define biblical fornication as and how is it it applied to every day life?
    Overall your views are thought provoking and eye opening. Thank you for your willingness to put it out there
    Reply
    1. Sex with prostitute.
      The Greek word “porneia” that is usually translated as “fornication” in versions of the Bible like the KJV is better translated as “sexual immorality”. Which means the word points to the various sexual violations. Once you get past adultery, incest, bestiality, male homosexuality and sexual idolatry, what’s left? The 1 Corinthians 6:16 prohibition on having sex with prostitutes.
      The origin of the word, from the Oxford English Dictionary:
      Middle English (as fornication): from ecclesiastical Latin fornicat- ‘arched’, from fornicari, from Latin fornix, fornic- ‘vaulted chamber’, later ‘brothel’.
      The arch was the symbol of the brothel because it was under the arches of classical architecture that prostitutes would stand to wait on their customers. However, because the church had completely changed the Bible’s rules regarding sex, they considered all sex to be a sin (even within marriage) and thus obviously sex outside of a marriage that the church had blessed was a mortal sin.
      However, that meant redefining things in the language, which meant that all sex outside of the official marriage was either adultery or fornication. This is how the church got away with the fact that there is no Biblical support for the changes they made: they changed the language.
      In Hebrew, the word “zanah” is used to describe idolatrous prostitutes (forbidden), adulteresses (forbidden) and righteous prostitutes (not forbidden). The prohibition on men in the NT that forbid them from using prostitutes meant that the church defined all forms of prostitution as a sin.
      Masturbation was defined as a sin and the example of Onan was used (a ridiculous example- what he did was coitus interruptus, in order to avoid his responsibilities under the law of the levirate marriage).
      Lust was defined as sexual desire for any woman, including your wife. How does one commit adultery with their own wife?
      Adultery was applied to men who had sex with any woman other than their wife. However, a man can only commit adultery if the woman he’s having sex with is another man’s wife.
      That morphed into the idea that having more than one wife was adultery and thus polygyny was officially forbidden as a sinful practice.
      Female homosexuality was condemned based on Paul’s description of God’s Wrath being poured out on the people who refused to honor Him as the Creator and give thanks for all He had done. In fact, female homosexuality is not forbidden (therefore not a sin) and was extremely rare at the time the New Testament was written. Female homosexuality is never actually even mentioned, unlike male homosexuality.
      This all came out of the idea that sexual pleasure (and therefore sex) was evil, wicked and sinful behavior. Even within marriage it was considered a minor sin and outside of marriage a mortal sin.
      The result is that when people read the New Testament, they don’t understand the words that are being used. When Paul says to flee from sexual immorality, he is referring to a specific set of prohibitions. The example he used of the man who had his father’s wife is an example (the father was still alive). That is specifically forbidden 4 separate times in the Law and once, generally, as adultery.
      Words mean things.
      Reply
      1. I see where the language has morphed and changed meaning.
        In Hebrew adultery and fornication are different words unlike (as you mentioned) Greek Pornea which covers both of them.
        in your opinion, fornication does not apply to a man and a divorced woman banging for fun? Or maybe a more real example, if a man is banging a couple of divorced women, who are also banging other men………is this fornication?
        Honestly I find the topic and your views on it fascinating, regardless of whether I understand or believed all
        Of them. Keep up the great work.
        Reply
      2. Words mean things.
        Leviticus 21:13-14 gives five sexual categories of unmarried women. The virgin (bthuwlah) has never had sexual penetration. The rest have: the widow (almanah), the divorced woman (garash), the profaned woman (chalal), and zanah” Adultery is a subset of zanah(Hosea 4:13-14; Jeremiah 3:8; Ezekiel 23:43; Proverbs 6:26)” Idolatry is frequently included in zanah” Prostitution is included (see below)” It is broadly inclusive.
        Deuteronomy 22:16-21 gives the death penalty for zanah if a woman is not found to be a virgin (bthuwlah) on her wedding night when it is expected and cannot be proven. A similar presumption, zanah and death, is made in Genesis 38:24 when Tamar is found pregnant when she is expected to be a widow (almanah). When Shekem raped Dinah in Genesis 34, Shekem was accused of treated her like a zanah” Her brothers eventually kill him for it”
        1 Corinthians 6:16 prohibits pornea requiring marriage instead (7:1-2,8-9).
        Any objections to this?
        Reply
        1. “Any objections to this?”
          Yes.
          “zanah. Adultery is a subset of zanah (Hosea 4:13-14; Jeremiah 3:8; Ezekiel 23:43; Proverbs 6:26). Idolatry is frequently included in zanah. Prostitution is included (see below). It is broadly inclusive.”
          You are in error, conflating ordinary prostitution that God did not prohibit with the forbidden practices of adultery and idolatry, which includes cult prostitution.
          What we see from a careful study of zanah is that it is so broadly inclusive that it includes ordinary prostitution, which is not forbidden. There is a tremendous desire on the part of many to claim ordinary sex-for-payment prostitution by a woman who can legitimately do so is a sin because zanah also describes sinful behavior such as adultery and idolatrous sex. That is the error you are making because you have not shown any prohibition on ordinary prostitution that would make it a sin. You cannot because such a prohibition does not exist.
          “Deuteronomy 22:16-21 gives the death penalty for zanah if a woman is not found to be a virgin (bthuwlah) on her wedding night when it is expected and cannot be proven.”
          You are wrong. She was put to death for a specific crime that carried the death penalty, not for being zanah. Given the facts of the case, there are only two options, both of which are described by the word zanah, although as you have admitted, zanah is broadly inclusive. Zanah includes ordinary prostitution which is not forbidden and for which there can be no penalty.
          Of the two applicable crimes of adultery and idolatry (both of which carry the death penalty), which one is it? Because even though Deuteronomy 23:17 says a cult prostitute is not to be found in Israel, the only way the death penalty could be applied to such a prostitute is through either the offense of adultery or idolatry. It might help if we compared the verses that use the exact same linguistic construction for the word in consideration. There are five of them:
          Leviticus 20:5, passing a child through the fire to Molech. Death penalty, Idolatry and Murder.
          Leviticus 20:6, using a spiritist or medium. No death penalty, God will cut them off from the people.
          Leviticus 21:9, Unknown, but most likely cult prostitution by the daughter of the high priest, adultery and Idolatry. Death penalty, burn her with fire.
          Numbers 21:5, eating the meat and in doing so bowing down to Baal. Corporate sin by the nation of Israel. idolatry. Death penalty for the leaders of the nation.
          Deuteronomy 22:21, not found to be a virgin on her wedding night. Adultery and idolatry. Death penalty, stone her to death on her father’s doorstep
          Did she commit adultery against her husband by having sex while she was betrothed, or did she commit adultery with the man she was betrothed to because she was already married (no longer a virgin) when she became betrothed? The text does not tell us which crime it was that she was condemned to death for, but what we know is that ordinary prostitution was not a crime for which a woman could be executed.
          For a much more exhaustive explanation that covers this particular passage, within the context of zanah, read The Easter Bunny and Zanah” Pay attention to the quotes about church history at the bottom”
          “A similar presumption, zanah and death, is made in Genesis 38:24 when Tamar is found pregnant when she is expected to be a widow (almanah).”
          I’ve covered this too in Marriage, Whores and Churchians” That was prior to the Law, Tamar did not commit any sin and neither did Judah” However, just for giggles, which portion of the Law (that would not show up for another few centuries) would Tamar have been violating? Her betrothal agreement? Judah broke it. Idolatry? There is no evidence of that. Your example here is meaningless in terms of what Zanah actually means.
          “When Shekem raped Dinah in Genesis 34, Shekem was accused of treated her like a zanah. Her brothers eventually kill him for it.”
          Again, hundreds of years before the Law. Yes, her brothers accused Shekem of treating her like a whore because he grabbed her and had sex with her. Perhaps that’s the way things were done with whores back then. Following that act, Shekem was her husband. Her brothers eventually murdered Shekem and all the men of the town over it, making their sister a widow. However, assuming the application of the Law, what was Shekem’s crime?
          This is now the second meaningless example you’ve used, but to establish what?
          “1 Corinthians 6:16 prohibits pornea requiring marriage instead (7:1-2,8-9).”
          Here you are completely wrong, assuming facts not in evidence. First, the word “pornea” is not even used in 1st Corinthians 6:16. Second, your statement presumes that the use of a prostitute is a violation of the Law. It is not. It is a regulation for Christians that does not apply to non-Christians. Which means that an individual who is not a Christian is not in sin if they have sex with a legitimate prostitute who is not committing adultery or associated with idolatry.
          Specifically, 1st Corinthians 6:16 prohibits the legitimate sexual intercourse christian men might have with a prostitute, an act that is not a violation of the Law and previous to that instruction been a perfectly legitimate activity. It is a prohibition limited to Christian men because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a prostitute.
          From the context of every use of the word pornea in the NT, it is a sin every single time. If you are claiming that ordinary prostitution is a sin, please cite the specific law that a woman who is not married and not a virgin is violating when she trades sex for money with a man she is eligible to marry. Likewise, please cite the specific passage in the Law that forbids a man to have sex with any woman he is eligible to marry.
          You cannot do that because no such prohibitions exist. Therefore it’s necessary to shoehorn common prostitution into something else in order to make it a sin if you don’t like the fact that God chose not to forbid it.
          So, is prostitution adultery? Adultery has a specific definition in the Law and if the woman is not married, she cannot commit adultery. An unmarried woman cannot commit adultery because adultery is the specific crime of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. Some argue that due to the connotation of the Hebrew that adultery can only be vaginal intercourse. Others argue that any sexual contact would be adultery.
          Do unmarried non-virgins (widows, legitimately divorced women and women not bound in marriage) have agency? According to Numbers 30:9 and 1st Corinthians 7:39 they do, they can choose who they marry and thus cannot be raped into marriage. This is in contradistinction to the virgin who can be raped into marriage because her consent is not necessary. For the non-virgins eligible to marry, both the act of sex and the agreement to marry are required, thus sex alone will not make a woman with agency married unless she agrees to be bound.
          The other cited passages from 1st Corinthians 7 do not require marriage in any way.
          1st Corinthians 7:1-2 (NASB)“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of (pornea), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
          Let’s look at what the text actually says. A straight translation from the Greek goes something like this:
          Because of sexual immorality and idolatry, each is to have his own wife and each is to have her own husband.
          If a man has “his own” wife he is a husband, so we should say “each husband” instead of “each man”. And if a woman has a husband, she is a wife and we should say “each wife” instead of “each woman.” Otherwise, we are changing the meaning of the text to imply two things. First, that a man should only have one wife and second, that because of temptation men and women should marry.
          But, what is the thrust of Paul’s instruction? The context is the temptation of sexual immorality, so the best reading of the text would be this:
          Because of the temptation of porneia around us, each husband is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man- which is pornea) and each wife have the husband belonging to her (and not any other man, which is pornea).
          Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… as well as what it wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law. As he phrased this, it is correct in terms of the Law and he is not adding any new restriction to Christians.
          However, there is no requirement to marry in that passage because it’s immediately followed by verses 3-5 as a continuous instruction to the married. Because of the rampant sexual immorality and idolatry that provides temptation, the husband is told to focus on his own wife and the wife is told to focus on her own husband and that instruction is followed by an explanation of how it’s done:
          “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.”
          This is not instruction requiring marriage, if anything, Paul is advising not to get married.
          Finally we get to verse 8-9
          “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
          Paul says it is better to marry than to burn, but that is in no way a command to marry and nothing has changed. A virgin is still married with the act of intercourse. The unmarried (eligible to marry) and the widow are married when they decide to marry and sex won’t make them married until they agree to marry. Note that I take that phrase “to the unmarried and to widows” to mean the non-virgin women who are eligible to marry. Paul knew that men needed no authorization to marry and now that he just forbid them from using whores in the previous chapter they’ll have the motivation to do so.
          Having said that, take note of the phrase “let them marry”. The form of that word is imperative and the implication was the church was preventing women who desired marriage from marrying. Paul is telling the church that if the women who are not under a man’s authority desire to marry to let them marry. Consider the instruction a bit later to the father of the virgin (who has no agency) that he does well if he allows her to marry and does better if he refuses to allow her to marry. Paul does not have the authority to tell the father what to do with his daughter, but he does have the authority to tell the church to let (allow, not hinder) the eligible women who desire to marry to marry.
          Viewed through this lens, the statement that “it is better to marry than to burn” takes on a different meaning. The unmarried non-virgins who already know what a sexual relationship is like burn with passion because the church is hindering them from the marriage in which they could have that desire satisfied.
          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *