Today as I watch, a Memorial Service is being held for Senator John McCain at the North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona. I have seen Senator McCain speak on various occasions, but on one notable occasion in July 1983 I met him personally.
The occasion was the International Christian Book Sellers Convention in Washington, D.C., July 12-14, 1983). I was sitting at a large conference table in a press room where I was being interviewed. Sitting at the same table was a man who graciously introduced himself to me as a Congressman. He was a new member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Arizona. He introduced himself to me and said he was familiar with my work. I believe that may have been because in early Spring 1983, I spoke for a week in his district. I was brought to Phoenix, Arizona by the Arizona Breakfast Club run by local activist Harry Everingham. I spoke many places that week in the Phoenix and Scottsdale area. The stint included in several large area churches. I still treasure the trophy the Arizona Breakfast Club presented me at their Saturday morning meeting. My Uncle Melvin Butler who lived in Phoenix came to hear me and it was good to see a family member who lived so far away from Fort Wayne, Indiana where I grew up and Michigan my permanent adult residence.
As I recall the conversation, when whoever finished questioning me was finished, Representative McCain spoke up and as I can best recall said, "Mrs. Cumbey, my name is Representative John McCain . . . More was said but I can't presently recall what was said. I told him I was happy to meet him, which I, of course, was.
My memory of that encounter with then U.S. Representative John McCain is brief but memorable. I suspect his interest grew from the Arizona Breakfast Club which clearly was an important part of his base, but I remember him as a pleasant and memorable encounter.
From my personal perspective, he will be missed. This is not to end the discussion on my last post, which I want to continue, but I thought this was an important memory to share. It has certainly been on my mind during this past week.
Stay tuned!
Constance
282 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 282 of 282Why a distinction? Always go through proper channels--and social media hardly fits. You should never make a private matter public.
You were silent during the whole controversy about Catholic priests and cover-ups, so I have to ask, do you think the same standard should be applied to accusations against priests in the Catholic church?
One more question, do you think the solution to these problems is only legal, or do you think there should be a deeper moral solution? I notice MRAs and "Honey Badgers" do not ever question the sexual revolution. Do you?
Of course the sexual revolution is the genesis for all these problems; but, we’ll never get the lid back on Pandora’s box/jar, so we’re stuck trying to apply bandages over all the wounds.
----
I don’t wish to get in any sort of drawn out discussion on the RCC issue. It’s not so cut-and-dried. But, yes, everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty; however, the problem is the systemic cover-ups, obfuscations, and obstructions by the RCC. When the RCC is, in effect, its own ‘police’, we have what I call circular justice—a circling of the wagons. I know someone who was abused, and, of course, the abuser was just transferred to another area.
And, I’m in agreement with RayB regarding the confessional. I don’t think it should be sacrosanct. Crimes need to be reported. The confessional should not be a means by which to confess to a crime in order to have this crime shielded by same.
OH, I wanted to add to your 10:38 PM question: See the video I referenced at 7:50 PM "Why Women DESTROY...", as it addresses this question.
It is a short book, a very fast but gripping read.
https://www.amazon.com/Serpent-Savior-Occult-Level-Spiritual-Warfare/dp/150895819X
The Serpent and the Savior: A True Story of Occult-Level Spiritual Warfare and the death of Anton Levay
Craig,
Thank you for indulging my string of questions, and in your own name, instead of anonymously.
You mention systemic cover-ups in the RCC.
Have you noticed no systemic cover-ups in Hollywood or in the big media conglomerates?
I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion about it, either, so I'll just refer you to the "Big Hollywood" tab at Breitbart, and especially a lot of good stories there by John Nolte.
I started reading John Nolte's articles after being impressed by the first article by him that I ever read, after Hugh Hefner died, titled:
Nolte: Playboy’s Hugh Hefner Liberated Us Straight Into Hell
J,
I don't wish to delve into any alleged systemic cover-ups in Hollywood, media, etc.
Craig,
Neither do I. Like I said above, "I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion about it, either, so I'll just refer you to the 'Big Hollywood' tab at Breitbart, and especially a lot of good stories there by John Nolte."
You were interested in Sean Penn, so I thought you might be interested in John Nolte. I'm sorry, you're the one who keeps bringing up the topic of #MeToo. I was discussing Dispensationalism before you brought it up.
Craig,
You can feel free to skip this if you are not interested. This is a post in general to anybody interested who may be reading.
"Back on the set there was a scene where I had to do a backbend over another actress. RR kept saying, "Higher, higher. You're not getting your arch high enough." To do a backbend in a 4-inch high-heeled boot is already challenging, but with one of your legs straight in a heavy weighted cast, it is pretty much impossible. I told him my arm hurt and I couldn't. He kept pushing me. I tried so hard to please him, my body the offering. RR pushed more, "Get your back higher." I used my last bit of strength and then SNAP. I felt my arm, like a cable in an elevator shaft, snap. Hot fire burned in my arm and brought tears to my eyes. I shoved them back down and finished the scene. I didn't know it then, but the snapping I felt was severe nerve damage, which would ultimately lead to my being paralyzed..."
From Brave, by Rose McGowan. She's pretty much the one who started #MeToo on Twitter. What she told in her tweets isn't even 1% of it, and she never got due process for this nerve damage or anything else.
Of course, Hollywood men are not normal men. Hollywood is what is known as a pathocracy. Rose McGowan's book exposes it. She thinks she is exposing a patriarchy. But she doesn't realize that because she was a victim early in life, it set her up to be targeted by predators throughout her life, and she has no idea what normal men and normal relationships are like.
Men used to protect women from psychopaths until feminists shamed them for it and insisted on throwing caution to the winds as they embraced the sexual revolution. Rose does not talk about this in her book.
"Patriarchy" used to allow women to protect their children. Rose's mother did not protect Rose on their cult commune. Rose does not talk about that in her book, either.
Her interpretation is a little off. But her stories are a gut punch, over and over. Behind the waxy smile and the gloss was something completely different.
We could also talk about the many murderers in Hollywood who never got their due process, either -- the kind of due process they should have gotten. Maybe there should be a #MurderedToo hashtag, although it would have been better yet if the deaths had been properly investigated and reported on in the first place.
J,
I wanted to give you a background re: my initial experiences with Dispensationalism. I will try to be brief by purposely leaving out a lot of my account.
First, I came to a saving faith in Christ alone outside of any church. A friend (raised Catholic) I had in high school began calling me and telling me about what he had been reading in the Bible. I sincerely thought he went off the deep end. Although I had what a lot of people would have considered "a lot going in life," I felt empty inside. Being an avid reader with the habit of "proving" things for myself via research, I decided to buy a Bible and read it for myself ... something I had tried years before, but couldn't make sense out of it. This time (because of the Holy Spirit's workings), I began to "see" the truth unfold. Eventually, however, I noticed that the Bible makes very distinct claims upon your life and was brought to the cross roads, where, by God's infinite grace, I was compelled to repent and follow Christ.
I had read the Bible on my own for over a year, and had developed a deep respect for its authority. My old high school friend and I attended a one week evening "Prophecy Conference" (late 1970's) put on by the Moody Bible Institute at a local church. I still have notes from that conference. Quick side bar; prior to this, I had a very brief experience with the Jehovah Witnesses, attending one service at Kingdom Hall and two home "Bible studies," whereby I immediately recognized their very effective brain washing techniques, along with their habit of taking Bible verses completely out of context and using them to force an interpretation upon them. The reason I bring this is up it this; in my notes that I still have from the MBI Prophecy Conference, I wrote at the top of one page "Taking verses out of context, just like the JW's."
(continued)
Not long after attending the Prophecy Conference, my friend and I began attending this church, where I met and eventually married my wonderful wife. Back then, I typically attended morning and evening Sunday worship along with Wed. prayer service. I also started a Bible study in my home, attended by about a dozen or more people in my similar age bracket. I began to notice somewhat of a fixation upon prophecy along with the pre-trib rapture within this group, which was reflective of the teachings from the pulpit. The Pastor was a grad of the Dispensationalist flagship Dallas Theological Seminary. In our Bible study group, we began to have some serious disagreements over the pre-trib rapture doctrine, which I was convinced was a false doctrine. One day, I asked the Pastor if I could have some time to talk with him in private. We met in his office, and I brought up Matthew 24, which clearly declares that "the rapture" will occur AFTER the tribulation period, to which, and to my shock, the Pastor agreed! When I asked him if that is the case, why he was teaching the pre-trib position, his answer was that Matthew, along with much of the New Testament "is NOT written for Christians, but rather, for the Jews," and must be interpreted as such! I was literally stunned by his response.
This was my very first exposure to Dispensationalist theology. Note: I had never even heard the term Dispensationalism.
(continued)
My employment at that time required me to spend most of my time "on the road." One day, I was eating lunch at a lunch counter. Sitting next to me was a young man of similar age. We struck up a conversation about current events, etc. and eventually shared our mutual faith in Christ. The conversation then turned to current events and how they might relate to Bible prophecy and found that both of us were in agreement that the pre-trib rapture theory was false. He then told me that he was a graduate of Cedarville Bible College, describing it as a "thoroughly Dispensationalist school" which of course taught pre-trib. He said that he came to realize that Dispensationalism was a false system after graduation and studying the Bible personally and taking it on face value, without man's interpretation. I confessed that I had never heard the term "Dispensationalism," to which he was somewhat surprised. When I told him about my experience with the Pastor stating the "most of the N.T. was not written to Christians, etc." he chuckled and said "that is pure Dispensationalism to the core."
After this encounter, I was determined to find out more about this system, along with its historical origin.
(More later when I have time if you are interested)
RayB,
Very interesting, please continue your story if you want, later. I will wait until you are all done telling your story before I comment on it.
Okay Craig,
Although you will not read John Nolte's articles, I kept my word anyway, and I braced myself to be POed by watching the video with the not at all insulting click bait title. I've been POed many times in my life before. What's one more time?
I determined to go into computer mode as I watched and replied. In spite of being a biological creature, yet I used to work for years as a programmer and analyst troubleshooting many problems before I had a special needs child -- who required my greatest troubleshooting and emotional selflessness of my whole life.
Since becoming a mother, my problem-solving demands and demands on my emotional patience were relentless for many years with literally no break, no lunch break, no vacations, no week-ends, no long evenings and no holidays and -- also no good night sleep for five years. It helped that I did extended breastfeeding, which released prolactin, an endurance hormone. Since you appreciate biology, I thought you may appreciate this information.
My training in troubleshooting and in isolating variables has served me well in my need to do medical troubleshooting for my own child, in conjunction with practitioners of integrative medicine. My child's medical issues have been the most important troubleshooting responsibility of my whole life.
However, even before I had prolactin, once I was constantly attacked by emails with VPs copied on it as I was troubleshooting a project for weeks. In such cases, I went into computer mode and became Spock-like.It helps that I am good at dissociation, due to my having been subjected to a childhood with a lot of discipline straight from the Garner Ted Armstrong book on child rearing which . Anywho, here are my best Spock-like comments on this video, but I will begin by transcribing it into text so that others can follow.
I will continue in the next post...
J,
No, I was never “interested in Sean Penn”; I referred to him in order to make the point of how illogical many are when discussing ‘hot’ issues, how many will straw man another’s comments…
I’ve no interest in Rose McGowan. She’s another with the typical feminist ideology of ‘I’m so empowered, yet I’m a perpetual victim’, all the while riding the coattails of her fame/infamy. Amazingly, she thought it wise to not be so quick to judge regarding the allegations of a then-17-year-old male who claimed Asia Argento had sex with him (she paid him a settlement on this issue, and there is photographic evidence of the two in bed, along with her own admission of the incident online), yet all the men accused in the me-me-me2 ‘movement’ must automatically be guilty.
---
For the record, I reject Dispensationalism and the “pre-trib rapture”.
The video that Craig recommended I watch, seemingly in a quest to continue escalating until I finally lose my cool, although hope that's not really the case -- "Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS" -- was made by a YouTuber who is anonymous but calls himself Black Pigeon Speaks.
I will transcribe this video so that others may follow if they are interested. The topic, in spite of its click-bait title, is, after all an important one -- although it is couched here in not only secular but Darwinist and utilitarian terms.
All of the below is transcription, not my own words:
"If women's sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked, they destroy civilization. If women are allowed to choose, harems form. If women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation, then that nation will die, inevitably. It's as simple as that. Once you realize this, you understand the entire basis behind civilized society. And if not, you'll understand by the end of this video.
As this is a complicated subject, let me state briefly what I'm talking about in this video so that you can follow along more closely. Women do not on an instinctual level care very much about her tribe, nation or civilization.
(Words appear on the screen in big block letters: WOMEN ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH IN-GROUP LOYALTY)
It's in their nature not to. Women are biological creatures like all others. And they seek to maximize their chances of having viable offspring.
(Words appear on the screen in big block letters: WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICAL CREATURES)
(Words appear on the screen in big block letters: THE FEMINISATION OF THE WEST HAS BEEN A DISASTER)
This half-century long experiment of women's liberation and political enfranchisement has ended in disaster for the West.
(Words appear on the screen in big block letters: WESTERN CIVILIZATION MAY BE IRREPARABLY DAMAGED)
And the damage done to the West may be irreparable. And the only solution would be a return to a more patriarchal society. And this seems entirely unlikely.
(A woman's face takes up the whole screen. She is young and blonde and puckering her lips.)
I want you to hold onto this key thought, as the meaning will become clear as this video progresses. When I'm speaking of Western women, I'm talking of women as an organism, or in general. Of course there's a spectrum, and every individual is different. But for the purposes of this video, I'll be speaking of Western women and their general characteristics. I realize this is a sensitive topic, and women with children are different from younger women.
(The blonde woman's face fades and becomes transparent. The word CAVEAT appears over her face.)
But it's the broad strokes of Western women that need to be addressed. If you're a woman watching this and take offense to this video, please understand that I do realize that not all women are the same. But there are some very easily identifiable patterns of behavior that need to be discussed. Also key to understand is that every dramatic change that Western women have brought to society has been allowed by Western men."
(A cartoon appears of black and white silhouettes of men and women shaking hands against a bright red backdrop.)
To be continued...
Craig,
The issue with Sean Penn, if I did not make it clear before, is not about logic per se. It is about moral authority.
John Nolte is a man. Notice I care what he has to say about #MeToo. He has moral authority to write about it.
Sean Penn is a man. Notice I don't care what he has to say about #MeToo. He has no credible moral authority to speak about it.
Also, I really don't care if a Honey Badger is a woman, and women don't give moral permission to other human beings not to care about women. It doesn't work that way. For the record. Women don't take away God's moral law from other women. Women don't take away the exalted role God planned for women. Women don't give permission to men not to treat women according to the Golden Rule. Women don't take away rights from other women, the rights are God-given. Men don't give rights to men or women and they can't take them away. The rights are God-given.
I really don't care if a man or a woman says it. And I got an A in my Logic class in college, BTW.
Now, to continue with my transcription.
Transcription continued:
"Western women -- or for that matter, any group of women -- are not seeking to consciously undermine the foundations of any particular society...
(A silhouette of a woman in black and white walks across a bright red background.)
...through calculation or deception or for any underlying agenda. It's just that women have never been the builders of any of the larger edifices of civilization...
(Big block letters appear against a red background: MEN BUILD CIVILISATIONS)
(Big block letters appear against a red background: MEN MAINTAIN CIVILISATIONS)
...and are not, and have never been, responsible for maintaining them.
(Big block letters appear against a red background: IN ALL SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT HISTORY)
This is borne out across every civilization throughout history. So to be clear, I am not assigning any ...
(Big block letters appear against a red background: NO BLAME OR RESPONSIBILITY)
...quote unquote blame on any group or gender in this video. I'm only trying to explain how I see the world that we've all inherited.
(The background turns black. Big block letters appear in red this time: BETRAYAL. Classical music starts playing for the first time. A news site appears with the headline: "The Japanese women who married the enemy")
And let's get this out in the open. Women are not very good at being loyal to the tribe.
(Now there is an old black-and-white picture of Japanese women sitting and smiling with white military servicemen.)
They never have been. They never will be.
(Now there is an old black-and-white picture of a Japanese woman posing with a serviceman against a snowy backdrop.)
The reason is, it's not in their nature to do so.
(More pictures of a similar nature, showing other Japanese woman/white man couples)
Women throughout history have shown time and time again. They're quick to seek the favors...
(Now a sequence of pictures is suddenly flashing very fast. A Nazi flag flashes for only a second, barely noticeable. It's harder to keep track of what all the pictures are. They seem all have in common that they are WW II era pictures. Ah, one shows a woman in a bar setting with a serviceman groping her breast. There she is, exhibit A! Only she doesn't even look like a woman. Her face literally looks about ten years old.)
... of men they feel are stronger and more dominant.
(Now the picture looks more cheerful and romantic, showing a nice looking couple with the Eiffel Tower in the background. The man does look quite strong and dominant, dressed as he is in his uniform, with his booted leg up on a bench assertively. The woman is looking at him coquettishly from under her nice hat, which is tilted jauntily. She is a white woman this time.)
...whether they're part of their in-group or not.
(Suddenly the picture changes to a stripper with servicemen watching, sitting down decorously at tables in the background, all looking quite strong and dominant. Still black-and-white and WW II era.)
Recent examples of this besides Japanese or ...
(The picture changes to a Nazi with his arm around a pretty young blonde. The less-pretty woman sitting on his other side is looking sideways at both of them, and she doesn't look happy.)
...Vietnamese war brides come from Europe and are illustrated by the countless numbers of...
(A screenshot of a news article flashes on the screen: "Sleeping with the enemy: New book claims French women started a baby boom with Nazi men during the Vichy regime")
...Belgium, French, Dutch, what have you. Women that took up relations with the occupying German military personnel.
(Now a picture of Hitler fills the screen. It happens to be a picture with the Eiffel Tower appearing prominently behind Hitler, echoing the Eiffel Tower that appeared behind the flirting couple a minute ago.)
And this was only a short time ago.
I'll continue the transcription...
Transcription continued...
Nazis were defeated, and social stability was restored.
(Pictures flash briefly. Still black-and-white WW II era. One shows just a crowd of men and women in public. The next picture depicts a whole group of soldiers gathered around and behind one woman, grinning, while one squeezes the woman's cheeks quite hard. She is not smiling, and she is covered and buttoned up from neck to wrist in prim and proper clothing. Although she looks very prim and proper in her dress, and she is wearing no make-up, her hair is very touseled. A veteran with no arm is resting his arm stub on her shoulder and grinning.)
They were punished...
(Next we see pictures of women with shaved heads, stripped down to slips, out on public.)
...for their betrayal and transgressions against their people.
(Now there is suddenly a contemporary picture in color. It's a picture of three young women smiling while they hold a banner that says, "Refugees Welcome.")
Now, not only are women not punished for inviting alien...
(The picture changes to a black background, with yellow cardboard cut-out shapes, depicting a man running, holding a woman's hand while she runs behind him, holding a child's hand while he runs behind her.)
...and unassimilatable armies of men into the West, they then vote...
(The same picture as before zooms out, showing it's a banner that says, "Refugees welcome," and "Bring your families".)
...for parties that force the entire society to have its national wealth redistributed to this army of aggressive...
(The picture changes to a video of a mob of people breaking through a chain link fence with incoherent and mass yelling and a line of riot police who look like they are out of control.)
...and hostile men. And women who...
(Now there a picture of a smiling Angela Merkel takes up the screen.)
...are in positions of power openly celebrate the destruction that they bring upon their people and openly taunt those ...
(Picture changes to Henriette Reker, Mayor of Cologne, also grinning.)
...that seek to maintain their culture and civilization from obliteration...
(Picture changes to Stefanie Von Berg, member of Hamburg Parliament.)
...as in the following video of German politician Dr. Stefanie Von Berg in Hamburg.
(A video follows of Stefanie Von Berg speaking in German, with subtitles. The subtitles say, "Mrs. President -- ladies and gentlemen. Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years, there will no longer be [German] majorities in our city. This is what we will have in the future. And I want to make it very clear, especially towards those right-wingers: This is a good thing!")
And as our societies become ever more dangerous...
(The picture changes to a shot looking down at a young, pretty, blonde woman walking down the sidewalk, wearing a form-fitting yellow tank top. In the lower left of the picture, a group of men in funny hats are watching her from the entrance to a restaurant or shop where they seem to be loitering. They look vaguely ethnic.)
...because of people like Ms. Von Berg ...
(Now the picture changes to a group of brown men rioting in a public space that looks like it is set in a European city.)
... and even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men.
Continued...
(The picture changes to a red background with a silhouette of a black-and-white man wearing a tuxedo.)
This is very important. Women will thus only have as much freedom as their men are willing or capable...
(The picture zooms out on a silhouette of a naked woman lounging against a red background.)
...of guaranteeing them.
(Big block letters appear in bright red against a dark red background: MOTIVATION. Classical music plays. The background changes to simply a red background with no letters.)
So the question begs, why do women do this? Why do women betray...
(Big block letters in black appear against a red background: WHY?)
...their in-group? And how is the current situation different from those that preceded it? Well, in a word, "enfranchisement".
(Big block letters in black appear against a red background: ENFRANCHISEMENT)
Women have been given the vote, and in a democratic society, they vote their biological imperative.
(A strand of green DNA appears against a murky background.)
Now what do I mean by this? Well, recent genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women ...
(The DNA still there, words overlay it in white block letters: "80% OF WOMEN MANAGED TO REPRODUCE)
managed to reproduce, while only 40% of men did.
(The DNA still there, new words overlay in white block letters: "40% OF MEN MANAGED TO REPRODUCE)
The obvious conclusion...
(Now there is a photo of a group of young blonde girls sitting in pink dresses against a bare cement block wall, looking very nubile and with an air of waiting expectantly for something.)
...to this is that a few top men had access to multiple women, while the bottom 60% of men had no mating prospects at all.
I'll continue the transcription...
Transcription continued...
(Now the screen shows a picture of little paper cutout men and women holding hands, and they look like the symbols on bathroom doors, sort of. The women are red, there are two red women holding hands with one blue man. It zooms out. Now a chain of four women is holding hands with one man.)
Women clearly didn't mind sharing the top man with a dozen other women, ultimately deciding that being one of many women sharing a man who leads...
(The picture shows one blue man and one red woman holding hands.)
... was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a man who serves.
(The picture changes to the smiling face of a bearded, blonde white man in a suit, against a beige background. A caption comes up with his name, "Roy F. Baumeister" against a darker brown background and "Social Psychologist" against a red background.)
Commenting on this, Roy Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist, who teaches at Florida State University, had this to say: "It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences." He went on, "For women the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you'll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We're descended from women who played it safe.
"For men the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won't have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities."
(Now the picture changes to a man starting to put one arm into his coat as he walks alone down an empty road, and all we see is his back, as he goes his own way. It is almost but not quite black and white. It looks very grey and cold, although it looks like the picture was Photoshopped to make it look that way, since foliage can be seen on the grey trees in the distance.)
Continued...
Continuing the transcription:
(Now it is the narrator's voice again, not Roy Baumeister's quote.) Many societies, including the West, long ago devised a simple plan to stop the inherent infighting that occurrs because a large majority of men in any in-group don't have sexual access to women or the ability to reproduce legitimate children.
(Now there is a picture in black-and-white that looks fifies-era. Two women kiss one man, who is rolling his eyes, his face covered in lipstick marks.)
The entire basis of Western society was the male agreement to keep only one woman in public...
(The same picture gradually turns pink, then red. Then big block letters in black say: "1 PUBLIC WIFE PER MAN")
... so that every male has near equal chance at reproduction. It's for this reason that organized and advanced civilizations have always...
(Now there is a new picture of two profiles back to back in white, with the woman's profile against a pink background and the man's profile against a blue background. One the profiles appear the words: "GENDER INEQUALITY" with "GENDER IN" pink and "EQUALITY" blue, overlaying the white profiles.)
...needed to agree on the equitable distribution of women, so as to incentivize its men to produce and ...
(The picture changes to paintings of ships at sea.)
...have a stake in the society's health and security.
(The same picture zooms out, so you can see many ships, with one on fire, perceiving the ships are at war.)
But this, like other cultural arrangements that held the West together for centuries, is breaking down.
(Now there is a graph tracking declines in fertility, with the caption, "Fertility rate". There is a colored line to chart the declines in fertility in France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.)
And can be observed in something as basic as the fact there are no Western countries that are even at replacement levels in their birth rates.
(Now there is a picture of a very young model in a ponytail, clad in her white bra and underwear, with a rather vacuous expression on her face and her mouth hanging open.)
This can be laid at the feet of loosening of sexual morality...
(Now two brunette vixens appear on either side of the blonde in the ponytail. One is wearing a bright red bra and underwear. The other is wearing bright, multi-colored bra and underwear. Both brunettes have very worldly and knowing expressions on their faces and are consciously provocative.)
...and the dating habits of young women.
Continued...
Transcription continued:
(Suddenly the pictures of the women in their underwear fades and gets replaced by a bright red background with big block letters in black: "80/20".)
Colloquially called the 80/20 rule, what it basically means is that the vast majority, the 80%, are sexually pursuing the top 20% of men. This is highly damaging...
(A picture appears of a black silhouette of a family, with a man and woman each holding hands of two children in the middle, against a red background.)
...to the formation of monogamous couples and successful formation of families. And the children that will be the next generation of any given country.
(The children suddenly disappear from the picture, leaving an empty red space in between the man and the woman.)
And we'll be talking about this more later in the video. But if you're interested see Google for more information on this.
(Now there is a picture in black-and-white that looks like it could be a WW II era photo again. A brunette pin-up vixen poses in her old-fashioned bra and slip.)
Also, one thing to understand is that female psychology has always been about adaptation. In our tribal past, if women of conquered tribes didn't submit to their new masters, they faced death...
(The picture zooms out to show the brunette vixen is actually shackled to a cement pillar.)
...along with their husbands, brothers, sons, fathers. Even today, many women seek out aggressive men, whether consciously or not. As it seems this psychology has been ground into women after countless years of our species' evolution.
(The picture is now of a very young girl next to a very old man -- who is Charles Manson on closer look.)
That means criminals, gangsters and mass murderers are always going to be more attractive to women than hardworking, honest men. They always have been. They always will be.
(The picture changes to depict a rap star surrounded by women.)
Think of how many women throw themselves at drug dealers vs., for example, math teachers.
(The picture changes to a woman's head looking up, from down on her knees, at a man who is clad in a suit, and whose head is out of the picture. His hand is pushing her head down. She looks afraid. Her hair is fifties era. The man is starting to unbutton his suit coat.)
Sexual attraction is based on this reality for many women, regardless of whether they admit it...
(The same picture zooms out. Now we can see that the woman has her arms around the man's leg. He appears to be looking down at her as one would look at a pet.)
...or not.
Continued...
Craig,
Is this what you do to Christian, married women with children who show a willingness to dialogue with you? Persuade them to watch the most cold-blooded, Darwinist and degrading imaginable propaganda about men, women and families?
Hey, girlie, if you liked Cassie Jaye's Red Pill documentary, maybe you'll like this. If I said I liked this Youtube video, what would you have escalated next?
It's time for a break. I'm only halfway through. I'm going to return to this tomorrow.
Craig,
Before I watch the rest of the video, I'm just going to summarize lists of facts and claims so far. I'm going to start with just the facts and claims before moving onto the interpretations. I don't know if the claims are substantiated in the remaining 8 minutes or so of the video. I do need more substantiation than being told to "Google it", as the narrator said after one of his main claims. I'm hoping he does offer more of sources besides the one Social Psychologist before his video ends.
I think the burden is on the narrator to prove his claims, and the sprinkling of provable facts among his claims does not lend credibility to everything else he ever says.
Logic is no better than starting premises, which need to be proven inductively, as I'm sure you must understand.
When I move onto interpretations, I don't think the burden on me is to argue with them, when I have history to argue from instead of "just-so stories". That is where I will be going with this. For now here is my response, though.
And I don't intend to discredit the narrators every concern once I am done, although I think his Darwinism is just as damaging to society as feminism, if not more so.
FACTS
1. Women are biological creatures like all others.
2. Women have never built large buildings.
3. Men have often built large buildings.
4. Some Japanese women married the enemy after WW II.
5. Some French women slept with Nazi men during the Vichy regime.
6. Nazis were defeated.
7. WW II era women who had slept with the enemy were subjected to public shaming in some European countries.
8. Today, many Western women welcome refugees into their countries.
9. Some Western women politicians do as well, such as Angela Merkel, Henriette Reker and Stefanie Von Berg.
10. It has always been mostly men who have fought in wars.
11. A traditional role of men has included the protection of women from invading enemies.
12. Women have been given the vote.
13. There is such a thing as DNA.
14. Men and women reproduce.
15. No Western countries are even at replacement levels in their birth rates.
16. Women in the past sometimes faced death if they did not submit to the men who had conquered their people.
CLAIMS
1. Women are biologically driven to seek to maximize their chance of having viable offspring.
2. Women choose men who are stronger and more dominant than other men.
3. Women vote their "biological imperative" to seek to maximize their chances of having offspring.
4. In the past, 80% of men reproduced, while only 40% of men did.
5. Women don't mind sharing the top men with other women.
6. Women don't choose to have the undivided attention of a man who serves instead of being a top man.
7. The dating habits of young women are the reason behind the declining birth rates of Western countries.
8. 80% of women pursue the top 20% of men.
9. Women are more attracted to criminals and gangsters and mass murderers than they are to hardworking, honest men.
For the benefit of those who have never had the pleasure of being introduced to the beliefs of MGTOWs, if you are interested in following my discussion of the video, you may want to get an overview of Men Going Their Own Way at Wikipedia.
Black Pigeon Speaks did not come up with his whole interpretation himself. He is very well versed in MGTOW ideology. It is a type of backlash against feminism.
Are you seeing a dialectic yet?
One former psychologist, who named himself online Zen Priest, said in an interview that an unnamed "we" kept finding that men were going their own way when they tried to work with men who were disenchanted by not only feminism but by all women. He may have been the one who coined the MGTOW label. He has been interviewed by Dr. Helen Smith, who wrote a book about MGTOWs.
I have sometimes wondered about the psychologists who work with these disenchanted men, speculating that perhaps they may be manipulating men into a type of controlled opposition or two or three.
Helen Smith has been on Fox News. Her book is called: Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters.
MGTOWs tend to be heavily Darwinist and Libertarian, with a heavy streak of biological determinism and fatalism in their worldview. They are mostly Generation X or younger men.
Rather than pick and sort out things to recover from a heap of intellectual garbage, if you want to know how a MGTOW thinks and why, you could go straight to Helen Smith's book, if you wanted to.
Another helpful term to anybody following the discussion will be hypergamy. Black Pigeon Speaks does not use the word but has been influenced by the MGTOW obsession with their theories of hypergamy.
This could possibly have been the source of Black Pigeon Speaks statistics about hypergamy. He didn't say; maybe he says later in his video.
Hypergamous Behavior in Dating Apps
"According to an anonymous internet user, the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men when it comes to "liking" a profile of the opposite sex on Tinder [18]. This would suggest a female hypergamous behavior on Tinder. The author also claims that the Tinder economy has a higher Gini coefficient than 95.1% of the countries in the world (ranking slightly above countries such as Angola, Botswana and Namibia) which would suggest a high inequality in Tinder wealth distribution."
I don't want to keep going on about this topic if nobody is interested in discussing it. I'll finish watching the video and then if anybody wants to discuss it, they can express interest, and I'll share my further thoughts. If not, then I'm just going to wrap it up now. I said I'd watch a video which was suggested two or three times to me, and I did.
Is there any further interest in this subject?
Meanwhile, here is an interesting allegation from InfoWars.
Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Exposed for Ties to Big Pharma Abortion Pill Maker… Effort to Derail Kavanaugh is Plot to Protect Abortion Industry Profits
Nobody replied, but I feel a little guilty, because I didn't watch to the very end and comment on it. I'm just going to summarize the main points of the remainder of the video and ignore the very strong insinuation that Western women enjoy being raped by immigrant men. I'm not going to comment on the remaining pictures.
These are the main points of the second half of the video:
The narrator says chastity is historically associated with great civilizations.
He says it's too late to save Western civilization from the damage women have done to it by being unchaste.
He strongly insinuates that the Muslim hordes will change countries like Sweden to put them under Sharia law and that Swedish women will be happy and orgasmic when it happens.
I really need to take a deep breath now and unboggle my mind that there seem to be a few men in the world who attribute so much power to a little piece of my anatomy, to imagine that this part of me is the single most important thing determining the course of civilization, and the rise and fall of empires
Deep breath. Sigh.
One a more serious note, the problem of declining birth rates does seem to be related to elites wanting immigration for the sake of lower wages and rising rents and rising housing costs and more demand to build more housing and on and on it goes...
So therefore I don't want to completely discredit all of the narrator's concerns. As far as I'm concerned, he could have spit this out in two minutes, and it would have saved me a bunch of time, and I would have agreed with that concern, which seems to be the central concern.
I cannot, however, agree with his causal analysis of all of this -- although I definitely do believe humans pay a penalty of natural consequences for disobeying God's laws, including God's will for chastity and families.
I cannot agree with the overall narrative, relying as it does upon serious ommissions, as well as a number of assumptions.
And now I'm done unless somebody comments.
This is purported to be a childhood photo of Angela Merkel with Theresa May and Dalia Grybauskaite.
As the Pinterest person says in the caption:
"This childhood photo of the leaders of Germany, Great Britain and Lithuania needs to be explained. Especially since two of them were allegedly living behind the iron curtain."
One girl definitely looks like Merkel. It's harder to see the resemblance in the other two girls. I think I'd need to see other childhood pictures of them all to positively identify them in this picture.
This picture could possibly be Photoshopped.
Did you know that before evolution was considered scientific, it was a Hindu idea?
Did you know that Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, became a Mason in the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge No. 2 of Edinburgh, Scotland?
Did you know that the occultist so-called Philosophical Society that was founded by Erasmus Darwin was the wellspring for the ideas developed by Charles Darwin?
Did you know that Charles Darwin's co-discoverer of the theory of evolution was Sir William Crookes of the Theosophical Society?
Did you know that Darwin never proved evolution?
Did you know that the geo-historical record does not scientifically prove
the General Evolution Model but contradicts it?
Did you know that in Darwin's time the fossil record hadn't been well examined yet?
Awesome, J
Have you ever read Gerald L. Schroeder?
His book "The Science of God" contains lots of information similar to your last comment just above.
He tells a story about Charles D. Walcott, and his discoveries at the Burgess Pass in the Canadian Rockies at the start of the twentieth century. I wish I could quote the whole story but I'll leave it to anyone who might want to find it themselves.
His discoveries would thoroughly destroy Darwinism if anyone took the time to check them out. And Charles Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute!
Paul,
No, I hadn't read this author. I just looked him up, and his books look extremely interesting. Thanks, I'll check him out!
What is our most important right as men and women?
Is it the right to do whatever we want, or is it the right to do what is right?
It seems as if we don't actually have to "fight for our right to party", as an old Beastie Boys song suggested.
What seems much harder is to insist upon the right to do what is right.
The Bible says in Psalms that evil laws are from Satan.
Jesus says we can't serve two masters.
What is our most important freedom as men and women?
Jesus says we are enslaved to sin, and He can free us from it.
God tells us in the Bible that if we seek to do His will first, then all other things shall be added.
The world cannot hear these messages. As the Apostle Paul says, the truth of the cross is folly to the world.
I have taken "Black Pigeon Speaks" suggestion to Google it (or, in my case, DuckDuckGo it). Out of curiosity, I've been trying to track down the claim that in the past, geneticists have proven that 80% of women reproduced, but only 40% of men did. The claim is based on a comparison of Y chromosomes with mitochondrial DNA, in a sample of about 600 men from around the world.
But one problem is that mitochondrial DNA may not always be passed exclusively from mothers 100% of the time, as used to be supposed. Here is one article, from the Lancet:
Can paternal mtDNA be inherited?
"Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother. On this basis, men with Leber's optic neuropathy and other mtDNA disorders have been told that there is no risk of their transmitting these disorders to their children. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate."
The New England Journal of Medicine, August 2002 issue, ran a paper about one study which found:
"Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added)."
Japanese War Brides: An Oral History Archive
Stories from across the United States as told to a daughter of a war bride
Here is just one of many stories, and it is actually very sweet:
"Chikako (Peggy) Kutsuna Olejnik
"Peggy was fairly certain she did not want to be involved with the American GIs at the Kure Ammunition Depot in Hiroshima depot, where she had gotten a job as a typist. But one young man asked several times and Peggy agreed to go out on a date with him because she knew he was leaving Japan in just a few weeks. She figured it would be a few dates with no obligations on either side. But Cy told her he would write and that he wanted her to write back. And he did. For three years. When he was finally posted back to Japan, he wanted to marry her but first she had to convert to Catholicism. Getting baptized, it turned out, was not going to be easy."
Immigrants: Legal, Illegal and the Old Testament Law
Two Observations from the Old Testament
"First, the Hebrew word ger has been variously translated as 'stranger' (KJV, NAS), 'sojourner' (ESV, RSV), 'alien' (NIV, NRSV), and even 'foreigner' (TNIV, NLT). The latter is misleading and inaccurate as there are two other Hebrew terms that mean 'foreigner,' namely zar and nekhar. From the Abraham and Isaac narratives in Genesis we learn that the Patriarchs had to negotiate treaties and agreements to sojourn in the territory of and obtain water rights from the local Canaanite and Philistine kings (cf. Gen. 20, 21 & 26). Pharaoh gave Joseph permission for his family to 'sojourn' in Egypt (Gen. 45:17-18), and when the family arrived in Egypt the brothers asked Pharaoh for permission to 'sojourn' in Egypt with their flocks (Gen. 47:5-6). From these and other references, I conclude that a ger was a foreigner who comes to live in another land with the permission of a host or the proper authority.
Second, the Old Testament law insists that once a foreigner attained ger status in Israel, he was to be treated like a native born Hebrew (Exod. 14:49; Lev. 18:26), enjoying legal protection, social benefits and religious inclusion. The Law, however, does not offer the same protections and benefits to the 'foreigner' (nekhar and zar). For example, an Israelite was not allowed to charge interest to a ger, but could to a nekhar (Lev. 25:35-37; Deut. 15:3). Similarly, the ger could participate in Passover observances while the nekhar was prohibited (Exod. 12:43-49).
Conclusions
These distinctions demonstrate that the 'foreigner' and the 'alien' did not have the same standing in biblical law. Applying the foregoing observations to the current immigration dilemma, I propose a correlation between the ger of the OT and the legal immigrant today, and the 'foreigner' and the illegal immigrant. In the current debate about the status of the illegal immigrants, some have cited OT passages about the ger arguing that illegal immigrants be treated accordingly. If my analysis is correct, this is a faulty application of these biblical laws to the illegal immigrant of today. On the other hand, the biblical laws urge us to help and incorporate foreigners who are legally among us, especially because they are easily exploited (Deut. 24:14-15)."
Craig 1:52 PM,
Actually...
"On Good Morning Britain, actress Rose McGowan said Asia Argento was 'lying' about the nature of her relationship with accuser Jimmy Bennett.
While she called her personal feelings 'very insignificant' in the situation, McGowan said 'if we’re going to look for beauty in this really horrible situation,' it is that 'boys have voices too.' Regardless, she expects to see 'due process' in resolving the allegations.
'MeToo is not just for women,' McGowan said, adding:
'I’ve had so many men share their stories of abuse, it’s never happened before in history and people are freaking out and trying to analyze and crunch the data, my response is to let it breathe, let people have their voice. If I feel like walking down the street naked, no one has the right to rape me. When I take my girlfriend, who is masculine presenting, to a gay club, oftentimes she gets grabbed. Everybody has the sovereign right to their body.'"
J,
Actually, MacGowan initially defended Argento:
https://hellogiggles.com/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-asia-argento-defense/
Her Aug 20 tweet: "None of us know the truth of the situation. I'm sure more will be revealed. Be gentle."
After receiving twitter backlash, she changed her tune.
---
I've been fairly busy, so I've not had any time to counter any of your earlier comments.
Craig,
"None of us know the truth of the situation. I'm sure more will be revealed. Be gentle," could be a paraphrase of the thoughts I initially had when the news about the allegations against Kavanaugh broke.
I'm not even on Twitter, and I don't follow news stories about Rose McGowan's every tweet. So I don't know how she normally responds, and if initial response of hers represented a double standard for her, then I suppose it is fair to call that out.
According to your narrative, the effect of calling out Rose's perceived double standard, seems have gone in the direction of pressuring her to believe every victim's claim immediately.
But weren't you just saying that you don't want that?
Would you have preferred for Rose to respond to all the tweets from women the same way she did to Asia Argento's young man?
If there's a double standard, and if it is to be corrected, then what standard should it be corrected to?
J,
The point was the double standard (believe the accuser IF IT'S A WOMAN), which is what I addressed in my initial comment. I actually think McGowan was right to exercise caution, generally; HOWEVER, this standard should be applied equally to everyone, both accuser and accused in every case.
But, yes, she's now going to the 'believe the accuser' narrative that's so popular, which we both agree is wrong.
Please, let's not go 'round in circles on this. I've already made my stance clear that DUE PROCESS is the standard for each and every case.
[I'm not on twitter, either; I just saw the link to an article regard McGowan when someone else posted it in a YouTube comment.]
Craig,
A word about my overall conceptual framework. I don't disagree with your view, but I am expanding upon my area of agreement, not to subvert the area of agreement but to expand on the legal subset into other subsets of consideration.
The standard legally should always be the same.
That does not mean perceptions and emotional reactions can, should or will ever be homogenized.
Thoughts determine feelings. Moral thoughts determine moral outrage, which is partially emotional in nature.
Some accusers are more credible than others. Some accused are more credible than others. Some accusations are more serious than others. Some accusations are repeated multiple times with similar details.
Some men are sweet. Most men fear rejection. Many men can behave like an a**hole when drunk. Many young men can succomb to peer pressure in a frat house or party.
Most men are not psychopaths. Some are psychopaths. About 1% of both men and women are psychopaths. Women psychopaths operate differently than men psychopaths. They may be good at playing a victim card and lying. Men pscyopaths, however, may also be willing to play a victim card and lie if caught -- although their primary modus operandi may be more direct and aggressive.
When psychopaths are at the top of a system, they corrupt it. They may partially corrupt even non-psychopaths in a very toxic system. It may be likened to cult behavior in some ways.
Most psychopaths are criminals. Many are in prison. A very few psychopaths are elite. Just as blue collar criminals are more likely to be caught and imprisoned than white collar criminals, so non-elite psychopaths are more likely to be caught and imprisoned than elite psychpaths.
A very few men are psychopaths who are embedded at the top of a pathocracy. One pathocracy is Hollywood.
Harvey Weinstein is not Brett Kavanaugh.
Just as John Nolte is not Sean Penn.
Just to be very clear, my not-just-emotional-but-also-moral reaction to men who are clearly psychopaths -- does not encompass all men as a category.
My not-just-emotional-but-also-moral reaction to pathocracies -- does not encompass "patriarchy" as a category.
The reason why I have not condemned the entire #MeToo movement is because many psychopaths who had always evaded accountability were suddenly held to account. Many dirty deeds that had been done in darkness had a bright spotlight shone on them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Although I cannot condemn 100% every result of the #MeToo movement, like all mass movements; it, too, is gaining a mob mentality.
I cannot agree with some of the women at Jezebel who are now saying that it is time for #MeToo to expose the gray areas that are not illegal, if it means that your boyfriend gets fired from his job, because you said he was not always a gentleman to you during the three years you were together.
Again, none of this can simply be treated as equivalent, whether to always agree with it or to always disagree with it.
Because the sins are not all homogenized, neither my logical nor emotional reaction can be homogenized.
That does not change the standard legally. But legal is legal. Legal is not moral, although of course it should be as much as possible. Legal things must be practical and possible. Human justice can never be as good as God's justice.
Craig,
Leaving aside the subject of #MeToo, and the subject of the sexual revolution; you have demonstrated a repeated concern about the looming threat of Islamic mass migration into Europe. This concern was raised in the video you wanted me to watch in this discussion thread. But you have also demonstrated an interest in Islam in other discussion threads attached to other posts.
I would like to change the subject now to Islamic mass migration into Europe. I will gather my preliminary observations and thoughts, and then I will post them.
Craig,
I'm going to begin with an article by Fritz Springmeier (who is, by the way, a man who was falsely accused and served time for it -- but not accused by a woman; accused by a man and a bank robber). And Craig, I hope nobody ever tries to accuse him of being a coward in the face of Islam, because he has been threatened before, for criticizing it.
This article is not specifically about mass immigration into Europe, but the purpose of sharing it is to introduce the concept that the Islamic nations are manipulated and are not acting as they do only "because Islam".
Later I will more specifically address mass immigration.
I've only highlighted some things. I hope you will read the whole thing on your own when you have time, though.
TO LOVE OR HATE—KNOW YOUR ENEMY. A look at the details involved in the creation of a third world war.
"In this article I hope to provide the reader with many specific (and little known) details concerning the creation of what may evolve into an actual third world war. The latest manufactured crisis has already taken on global proportions.
This article has been written in response to people repeatedly asking me, “Are we headed for W.W. III?” This is a valid question considering Osama bin Laden has been circulating the manuscript of his unpublished book (which he wrote) entitled America and the Third World War. For years, I have been looking beyond the theatrical symbols of the world’s movers and shakers and examining the underlying realities. These global elite would not dare let you know their plans, but I will provide you with more details so that you might know your enemy, for whether you chose to love or hate your enemy you need to know them.
I will organize this information into two parts:
A. THE OUTLINE OF THINGS
B. DETAILS OF SPECIFICS, first Osama bin Laden, & then second, the creation of a viable Moslem threat.
...
"The Moslem world has had a predictable pattern with the west (European culture). In fact there is a book, which provides Muslim country by Muslim country, year by year, the history of how this cycle has occurred. The Moslem world goes through a cycle, one phase is where its adopts technology and liberty from the west and then the other phase is where it rejects what is foreign and goes back into Islamic fundamentalism. Different areas of the Moslem world are at different phases at any given time. The Moslem world usually not had all of its territories in the same phase at the same time. The world’s movers and shakers have aggravated and manipulated this natural cyclic pattern.
Continued...
...
"Their detailed plans have been repeatedly leaked in vague ways to the unsuspecting public. For instance, H.G. Wells, one of their Fabian Socialist-Masonic-Illuminati prophets, in his film 'Things to Come' made in the late 1930’s, shows delta-winged planes (resembling stealth fighter-bombers) flying over Iraq’s oil fields to bomb."
...
"Of course, Islamic fundamentalism is a natural reaction to the modernization, secularization, and corruption that is accelerating in what is termed 'the West' (European civilization). Such a strong reaction to the sinfulness of the West has taken place that the Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists are in full collaboration. Devout Christians who hold to wholesome family values, freedom from global corporate tyranny, and the destruction of communities are also having some similar 'reactionary' reactions to the New World Order. Christian fundamentalists turn to the Bible and Biblical law, and the Moslem of course turns to the Koran and its
Sharia (Islamic law). The trick of the elite is to harness those natural reactions to destroy their opposition. This is why both the Christian Patriot movement and the Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrated with agent provocateurs who will encourage both groups to run to their own destruction."
...
"The script calls for a primary 'bad guy', in this case Bin Laden, who like other modern 'bad' guys, actually is quite popular with fundamentalist Muslims. Actually a number of bad guys have been created, and we will examine some of the details of these. The puppet strings of many of the leaders of around the world can be discerned by looking at their affiliations, their training, their genealogies, their fraternal memberships and their actions. These puppet strings ultimately go back to the global elite. For instance, the elite here in America verbalized to each other how pleased they were with Saddam Hussein’s destruction of things.
Islamic fundamentalists would say that Allah is responsible. If the West’s leaders had seriously wanted to halt the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, they had the ability to do so, but they added fuel to the fire at each step. My point is that the rise of fundamentalism is being encouraged and manipulated. How convenient for Israel that Iran has its religious revolution and then goes to war with Iraq. How convenient for all the corporations in the West and the Soviet Union that supplied materials for the long war and the attempts to rebuild after the war. How convenient for those who made profits off of oil and gas and opium. Follow the money of Moslem terrorists, the CIA, the Illuminati elite, and the rich Gulf Arabs and you will find much of it met at the infamous BCCI."
....There is much more. I hope you will read and comment.
Craig,
As promised, here are my preliminary thoughts about Islamic mass migration into Europe.
Let me start with a question for you. If elite men did not want Angela Merkel and other German women politicians to let in the floods of refugees -- do you think Merkel and Co. would still be able to do it? Or do you think all the German elite males are just too metrosexual in the face of the overpowering, overly enfranchised Merkels of the world?
I'll lay out what I think. I think the elite (aka They -- and who is They?) are getting several things out of the Muslim mass migration into Europe:
1) Lower wages, higher rents and house prices, more home sales, the same benefits they'd get from a higher birth rate in the native population;
2) A voter demographic the Left wants;
3) And most of all MORE HATRED to manipulate as they plan for their coming WW III!
I think Black Pigeon Speaks is a useful idiot for these same elite, just like his feminist bete noirs, although not nearly as influential as they are.
Why would that be? How could that be? Quite easily: a) He is helping along with the destruction of the family; b) He is giving angry young men somebody to scapegoat for everything bad that may happen to them and their larger culture: women; and c) He is promoting fatalism.
Craig,
Now I will address the poignant paradox that was severely caricatured by Black Pigeon Speaks: it is the paradox of Western Leftist women welcoming into their countries men who believe in Sharia law, even as they watch and police the every offensive word of Western men. In some publicized cases in Europe, high profile Leftist women were raped and murdered by recent immigrants.
The trick is that Leftist women see the refugees as victims, but they don't see Western men as victims. They think collectively, not individually. Individual crimes are covered up and spun, anyway. This is no accident. It didn't spring straight out of biology. It is a result of conditioning and propaganda -- like apparently what Black Pigeon Speaks is trying to learn how to do -- even as he espouses biological determinism -- as if nobody is ever propagandized -- and as if everything we do, we do as biology-bots.
40 White Guilt Propaganda Tactics Used by Media and Political Elites to Push for Third World Immigration
(I disagree with Joel's causal attribution of different crime rates to racial differences; I think moral and cultural teachings and social stability matter. Joel ignores the influence of Christianity upon Western history. The Western Left still has counterfeit and perverted versions of historically Christian ideas. It is a complicated subject for another time.)
As a Christian white woman, it has sometimes been frustrating to me to get a little bit of what white Western men get dished out to them. Christians can be bashed, but not Muslims. When there is a tragic shooting, journalists are rushing to say that shootings are done by white men, so it is a white problem. White women are blamed for electing Trump. For this reason I stay away from Leftists online. I don't want them to make me emotional, and they will do so after a while.
It is a natural emotional reaction to resent the Left and to defy them. But it is still a reaction that can still be manipulated in a dialectic. There is not only a worldly dialectic but also a spiritual dialectic involved. I don't want to be tempted to be un-Christian. If I win an argument with a Leftist but lose my soul, what have I gained?
I also don't think "The West" can save its soul by making a deal with the devil.
Craig,
Now I want to address the fatalism of Black Pigeon Speaks.
You may recall that in a previous discussion thread, I mentioned some YouTube videos of Ursula Haverbeck, noting one of her recommendations was that the mass immigrants could be repatriated to their own countries. I would think you would have been interested in that topic, concerned as you are about the survival of white peoples. But you did not reply to it at the time. Maybe you were busy and missed it.
You must be following news about Sweden's far right making election gains:
Sweden election: far right makes gains as main blocs deadlocked
Doesn't it seem foolish for Black Pigeon Speaks to so easily have become fatalistic? He gave up so easily. That doesn't bother you at all? But you know, that's what scapegoaters give themselves and others the chance to do...become quitters!
To clarify: I don't agree with Ursula Haverbeck's holocaust denial. All she does is to discredit some discrete claims but not the whole holocaust narrative, in my mind. There is just too much evidence. If there were exxaggerations and false claims about the holocaust, it would not be surprising, because it is human nature to lie and exxaggerate about good causes and not only bad causes.
Also to clarify: I don't consider myself far right, but in Sweden, far right is likely to mean something like what the Clintons were like during the nineties. I'm being facetious, and I haven't really studied Sweden's far right party. I only know they're talking about repatriation, the same thing Ursula Haverbeck talked about.
I think repatriation would be better for the home countries of these men, because these young men are the very ones who could rebuild their home countries. And the money that is being spent on them as a welfare state could be spent rebuilding. After all, it's kind of a normal thing historically to help rebuild a country after it has been devastated by war. Iraq was rebuilt. Japan and Germany were rebuilt. Normally people stay where they are, and their country is rebuilt.
J,
First of all, I cannot possibly begin to address all of what you wrote, as I have to WORK during the day (I’m at lunch, currently). I’d begun a much longer response yesterday, but I don’t know if I’ll finish it.
As regards the Swedish elections and repatriation, I’d mentioned this very thing a while back (and Paul commented on my post). I even posted that the Dalai Lama supports repatriation. I don’t have time to find either of these. But, the Sweden Democrats did not get anywhere near what they expected in the election. See this 6 minute video (I think you’ll like this guy better), in which this vlogger suggests the real possibility of election fraud, etc:
After Sweden's Election
To be clear, I’m a nationalist, but not a white nationalist (though I am white). I don’t think the latter is necessarily racist, though I do think there are racist elements in that group. And, if whites don’t wish to reproduce at replacement rates, then it will be what it will be. I’ll be long gone.
I don’t think it fair to judge Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) on just one video. [He, the narrator, is clearly not just one guy doing his research; and he’s apparently well-connected.] If you view his other videos, you’ll see he looks at lots of other problems related to the overall issues plaguing the West, including propaganda. Thus, it is implied that he doesn’t attribute the eventual destruction of the West as solely at the hands of a subgroup of women—and the men who’ve enabled them.
I’m glad you brought up the collectivistic thinking of leftist women (and men). THIS is a large part of the problem, and this problem will only grow, as the indoctrination centers (schools) churn these out and the older population dies off.
There is a confluence of factors bearing on this problem. And, while you may call BPS fatalistic, I think he’s being realistic (and this is one of the reasons I posted this: your question regarding eschatology). This current wave of populism is being fought on my different sides (including the Pope). And just look at how Tommy Robinson is being unfairly persecuted. It is very clear to me that Islam (Islamization) is being used as a tool by globalists to destroy the West. (No, not all Muslims are trying to destroy the West.)
J,
Speaking of fatalism, I've posted this a long time ago, but now seems like a good time to post it again. The following is a website that is a "Guide to Military Equipment and Civil Aviation".
Look at the stats as of 2017
Now compare to the projected stats for 2025, noting all countries of the West. What do they know that we don't know? Or, is this all just some propaganda?
Craig 2:16 PM,
Interesting that the BRICS countries are projected to have higher GDP and military expenditure by 2025.
What I suspect is that the elites who are planning the NWO know that they won't get the buy-in of countries around the world, as long as the NWO is perceived to be Anglo-American led.
Photo of Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dianne Feinstein huddling in the Capitol basement, posted two days ago on Twitter.
Notice the body language. Murkowski's back is against the wall. She looks almost like she is wincing. Feinstein has her hand up on the wall, almost as if to trap Murkowski there, and she has an angry look on her face.
Murkowski is one of the key swing votes on the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Craig 1:56 PM,
I understand needing to work. I just spent the whole summer with my son home with me while I worked on painting the house and sanding and re-staining the deck. Now I have more time, since my son is back in school, and I am blessed to have some time to think and to read and write. I do understand that not everybody enjoys this blessing. My husband is completely consumed by his job; and he usually works from home whenever he is home, too.
There is never any pressure to respond to anything. That said, however...
One of the things I just used quite a bit of my time to do was to watch a video that you had recommended to me at least twice, and you say you had recommended it to others here before. This video made me experience a lot of thoughts and feelings. Then I processed through those, choosing to focus on analyzing the thoughts and mostly keeping my feelings to myself, although I'm sure some of my feelings have leaked out.
Halfway through watching this video, my heart started beating at a very fast rate, and it kept up that rate for hours afterwards. I did not sleep well that night. The next day when I cat-napped, woke up out of it with my heart beating fast again, from a dream and thoughts that led to fears about my ten year old son.
When I picked up my son from school after watching this video, I felt angry and preoccupied, while he wanted to play with me. It was necessary for me to end my preoccupation with my thoughts my processing my thoughts and communicating them.
Day two after watching the video, I felt extremely exhausted. I barely felt like I could do the minimum of cooking and laundry and keeping my son on his schedule and being mentally and emotionally available for my family.
It took me three days to feel back to normal again. And I have never been a victim of a crime. I have never understood before what it was like to feel "triggered". I hesitated to share these personal details about my reaction, because I worried it might perhaps give a perverse satisfaction to any random person who may be reading my words, and it might in some way help them to know what reaction they were able to cause. (Not you personally.)
Although I do not work outside of the home at this time in my life, my whole life involves nearly constant emotional control, because my job as a special needs mother -- and as the wife of a man with a very demanding management position -- requires me to be very stable and very patient.
I value keeping my cool and maintaining stability in my life, and I risked sacrificing those things, things that cannot be measured by a time clock or a payroll application. I made this sacrifice because you had gained enough of my trust that I was willing to watch a video you suggested to me, in spite of its title. You insisted that it was worthwhile to watch it until the end. In fact, I recall you asking me to "please" watch it until the end.
Next time I will not choose to sacrifice my time and my brain waves nor to give away my personal power in that type of a way.
You choose to use your time according to your priorities. I will do the same.
Two more comments, Craig. Because the video gave me a lot to process, and I am not 100% done processing it.
FIRST
Motherhood is so much more than the physical act of conception followed by the physical act of giving birth. Motherhood is my commitment to help my child develop safely and optimally, so that he can be independent of myself and my husband after we are dead and gone -- and after we are gone, he will be living in a civilization.
Civilization is more than "edifices". It is people with their morals, their speech and language, their psychology and their socialization.
Do you really know anything at all about early childhood development? Have you ever given it any thought at all?
Do you really think it's logical to suppose women are not invested in civilization because they mother children more than they build "edifices"?
SECOND
Seriously, f--- psychological theories that make humans into either animals or machines. And, by the way, those theories are dated. Cognitive psychology, information theory and communications have opened up new conceptual frameworks in psychology.
I read about it in my free time. Anybody who has enough time to make tons of videos on YouTube -- or to watch them -- must also have time to read about updated psychological theories.
Cognitive psychology is compatible with Biblical teaching, because it takes beliefs seriously.
J,
It seems your pre-prejudicial stance of the video (“I braced myself to be POed”), presumably by its title, created a distorted lens by which you viewed the entire video, inducing an emotional reaction to it, thereby causing you to miss the forest for some of the trees. First, I shouldn’t have to provide a disclaimer before every single piece of information I supply. It should go without saying that I don’t necessarily agree with all the contents. Yes, of course, it was put together from a secular perspective (hence the Darwinist statements), and yes, I don’t agree with all the points Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) made. It’s the ‘forest’, the main thrust, that I agree with. And the phenomenon discussed has to do with secular society—which is now the largest part of Western culture by far.
Following are direct statements bookending the vlog, and I think this is the lens by which you should see the rest:
…Women with children are different from younger women…If you’re a woman watching this and take offense to this video, please understand that I do realize not all women are the same. But, there are some easily recognizable patterns of behavior that need to be discussed. Also, key to understand is that every dramatic change that Western women have brought to society has been allowed by Western men. Western women, or, for that matter, any group of women, are not consciously seeking to undermine foundations of any particular society through calculation or deception, or for any underlying agenda. It’s just that women have never been the builder of civilizations…
…While Western women might be the ones advocating..for the destruction of the West, via misplaced compassion, or hyper-emotionalism, it’s also the fault of Western men, by giving them the choice, and allowing their gender’s particular predilections to dictate what our civilization’s values, priorities, and, ultimately, what our future should and will be.
Though you did make some valid criticisms, you also erected a number of straw men, and I don’t have time to address them all. Your comment @ 12:52 AM is a mixture of good analysis and straw men (e.g.: that Swedish women want Sharia law and will be “orgasmic[!] when it happens”—the exact opposite of the implied message). Also, it seems you over-focused on some things. For example, you reference the b&w photo at 2:59: …Ah, one shows a woman in a bar setting with a serviceman groping her breast. There she is, exhibit A! Only she doesn't even look like a woman. Her face literally looks about ten years old.
I think you are seeing this all wrong.
[cont]
[cont]
These are Nazi servicemen (you can see the iron cross on one). The woman pictured here has her right arm around one man, leaning into him. I do believe his (right) hand is not touching her at all. The photo is not very clear, but you can see that he has something between his index and middle fingers. It appears shiny in the photo, but it may well be a lit cigarette, as smoking was very popular at the time (you can see a cigarette in the hand of another man). And, by my estimation, she looks to be late twenties to thirty-ish. This part of the video is regarding the women who quickly abandoned their own in-group to the one now dominating, once there’s been a regime change. The men of the old regime are discarded by these women. Though he doesn’t define this practice, this is an example of hypergamy.
Now that Western women have complete sexual freedom, marriage rates have plummeted, and Western societies reproduce at less than replacement rates. We have a defacto “matriarchy that disincentivizes young men” (BPS). When dating, a number of young women ignore good young men in favor of the more ‘bad boy’ types and other men with money (in which the relationships resemble in essence, prostitution, in many cases). Now, in my opinion, dating should be the search for a suitable marriage partner, not a means by which to sleep around, and then to only later search for a man, a different kind of man, to ‘settle down’ with and have children.
But now, when these young women who’ve been, let’s say, “around the block”, eventually want to ‘settle down’ with the ‘nice, stable guy’ for a long term relationship—who, by this time has started out in a career and has accumulated some wealth—they’re encountering some resistance: some of these young men have wised up to this, feel betrayed, and are shunning marriage altogether. But, some of these women find men who will marry them, yet some get bored with their husbands, some having flings on the side, and some of these even getting pregnant AND HAVING THE CHILD, only to have the poor husband raise a child not his own—which he may or may not ever find out about. If he finds out and wants to divorce (or if she wants to divorce him), well, then he receives the shock of his life that, according to law, he is STILL FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, as he is the one who signed the birth certificate.
Not mentioned in the video is the fact that ~70% of divorces are initiated by women. There are a host of factors for this. Hypergamy is one—if a particular woman thinks she can better her socio-economic position by jumping to another man who has higher socio-economic standing, she may do it. Another factor—to my mind the biggest one—is divorce laws favoring women. The woman typically gets full custody (as opposed to shared custody, even when that would be beneficial for the child[ren]) because the family courts are incentivized via Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, otherwise known as Child Support, in which the states are given federal monies as a percentage of child support collected. Thus, it incentivizes high child support demands, most often from the father (or husband who isn’t actually the biological father). Also, in some states, there is alimony. And if there is an economic downturn, or some other factor causing him to make less money to the extent he cannot afford child support, he stands at high risk for being jailed for non-payment.
As I was conversing with my neighbor and her grown/married daughter about some of these things, my neighbor told me she had an ex-coworker—apparently, a real head-turner—who told my neighbor she was going to marry this other man (good looking, WEALTHY), have a child, then divorce him within about two years. And she did just that. Nowadays, some women look at having kid(s) as a great financial investment, a guaranteed return in the form of child support (and alimony).
[cont]
[cont]
These are some of the reasons for the MGTOW movement (which you’ve partly mischaracterized by overgeneralizations). Having looked into this (I have Smith’s book), I will state that my advice to any young man is to be VERY WARY about getting married. Looking at marriage statistically, and factoring the disadvantage men have in the family courts in a divorce, I’d say the risk-benefit ratio is just not worth it. The problem is not the marriage; it’s the divorce—most especially if there are children involved. This, of course, also contributes to the low birth rates in the West, and I think it’s devised by the powers-that-be as a means by which to destroy the West. And it’s working.
Now, should the family courts receive an overhaul, then marriage would lose some of its stigma for these men. But, this seems very unlikely.
A comment by “Theraphim Hebraeorum” on another BPS video is a fairly good analysis:
This "cultural suicide" movement is part of the 3rd Wave Feminist ideology and is paradoxically consistent with traditional female hypergamy. Ancient reproductive and survival behaviours exhibited by females outside of their consciousness. Men have been the disposable guardians, manning the hill fort village stockade walls against invaders since the year dot. When invaders prevail and enter the village, the women can capitulate, shift allegiance and join the new tribe, at first unwillingly maybe, but soon the women fall into line with the new regime and babies are made. The men of the old tribe perish or are outcast. The West is suffering a "soft" invasion, as devastating as any brought about by war. The state, driven by 3rd Wave Feminism has diminished the role of the traditional guardians, the men, and the women have been allowed to make far reaching and flawed decisions on the safety of their tribes in place of men, without any of the millenia old inherent masculine traits required for defending the tribe from existential threats. What has happened in Germany being one such example. The village fort gates being thrown open to a tribe with a violent history and an ideology at odds with their own by a naive woman with a Christian ideology [ED: I wouldn’t call Merkel “Christian”]. Us "Red Pilled" men and a few enlightened women like Ms. Southern can only watch on in horror as Rome is handed over to the barbarians without a fight, as of course this aggressive trait is labelled "toxic masculinity". Well ladies (and your Beta Blue Pilled Male enablers), your world will come crashing down too and you will have to "submit" like never before and by the time you say "what have we done?" it will all be too late.
In any case, if you don’t like the video, then that’s perfectly fine. I didn’t post it and suggest you watch it just to raise your ire. That is not the kind of person I am. I thought you might find it of interest, in part because of your assertions regarding eschatology. I didn’t think you’d take it personally, most especially because your subgroup (women with children) was implicitly excluded from the very start of the vlog.
I will not even engage with the peripheral issues in your most recent comment @ 6:09 PM. The fact that you resorted to using a truncated cuss word, indicates to me that you just wish to fight. I don’t.
Craig,
I am familiar with MGTOW and MRA talking points, and I don't swallow them whole. But neither is it my intention to discredit all of the MRA or MGTOW concerns.
I think I made it clear what I objected to. I stand by my objections.
If you had wanted to discuss MRA ideas, you could have discussed the Red Pill documentary that I brought up. If you had wanted to discuss MGTOW ideas, you could have brought up Helen Smith's book and expressed interest in discussing it.
You asked me to watch a video. I did. The video caused me to have a lot of thoughts and feelings to process. I did.
I am not sure what you were hoping to accomplish by urging me to watch the video. You had to know it would make me POed, but now you are wagging your finger at me for having gotten POed. Isn't that really what you wanted, though? If so, why?
J,
I posted my 3-part comment at the same time, as I wanted it to be seen as a whole. The 2nd to last paragraph @ 8:58 AM answers your questions @ 12:54 PM.
Craig,
Could you elaborate on what you think the video has to do with eschatology?
If/once the West is overtaken, globalism will be that much closer to its goal. With the implementation of globalization comes the prospects of the realization of Revelation 13:16-17, which I see as a precursor to the end of all things, and Christ's return.
Craig,
The agenda of globalists to use Islamic peoples to destroy the West, as part of a dialectic toward complete globalism, is the main theme you want to discuss?
The worry I always have is that right when I think I have it all figured out, a globalist has me right where he wants me. Do you ever have that worry?
You talk about being logical and not emotional. Hatred and fear are emotions that can be manipulated by globalists.
I am not confident I fully understand Islamic peoples. All I know is that the following happened:
1) People lived in Syria a long time without pouring into Germany or Sweden.
2) Obama and Hillary and others acted to destabilize Syria, and ISIS got billions of dollars worth of military equipment and arms and vehicles by accident somehow.
3) Merkel invited the refugees into Germany.
4) Now we need to ...what? Have less privacy so that the terrorists can be spied on? Have no religious liberty so Islam doesn't threaten secular liberties? "War on Terror?" Bomb bomb Iran? Dare to hate in defiance of PC politics? What?
I think the refugees need to be repatriated.
And, BTW, I have brought up The Red Pill documentary, the MGTOW movement (and the Japanese 'herbivore' movement), and Smith's book in the past here. I even quoted portions of Smith's book. These are reactions to the problem addressed by the BPS video (and TRP). Since you'd already seen TRP, I thought you might be interested in the BPS vlog (in addition to what I see as the eschatological aspect).
I provided the vlog as fodder, food for thought, mainly to illustrate how I see that this fits in with eschatology. You made the claim (paraphrase) that you don't think we're near the end. I disagree, and I think the BPS video offers one plausible reason in its implications.
I know I don't have the aims of the globalists figured out. I read, watch, consider, and ponder. And, while I hold my eschatological views loosely, given the evidence, I do think we're near the end.
Craig,
I don't know if we are near the end or not.
I think prophecy is supposed to let us see the hand of God whenever we are living in perilous times.
I think Revelation and Daniel were fulfilled historically in the first century AD.
I don't know if there will be a double fulfillment.
Luciferians (High level Masons, Gnostics, Kabbalists, Theosophists, etc.) are planning not only political theatre but religious theatre. That much we know, right?
But what are God's plans? It seems God gives evil enough rope to hang itself and discredit itself.
Historically both Nazism and Communism hung and discredited themselves. It was not yet the end.
Nazism and Communism were never global. Maybe what comes next will be global. And maybe it will also have enough rope to hang itself.
Will it mean that it is the end of history on Earth in human terms? Maybe, maybe not.
You have love of the truth; it doesn't mean you need perfect truth. (Paraphrasing Constance here. She has sometimes mentioned the Biblical teaching that love of the truth is what saves people from end times deception.)
Craig at 1:43 PM,
Thanks. Your 1:10 PM comment is exactly what we have to consider. Time is nearly up being shown in how fluid everything is these days. If not changed soon and extensively, an internet takeover that is up and coming will play very nicely into everything that will make that scenario reality.
I think it wise to be in the ready mode rather than it is a long way off mode.
The mental, as well as spiritual, lull in the long way off thinking plays right into the hands of those who truly hope people think that, so no one will challenge the global crack down.
The frog is nearing closer and closer to boiling in the pot from all indications I see in Scripture playing out in real time. And why I have followed Constance's postings for several years now. Too much, too real, too close, too ready to become what the Bible calls the fullness of the times of the Gentiles and the finishing of the transgression.
My understanding is that the Bible reference to "the times of the Gentiles", is about the destruction of Jerusalem during the time of Nero.
I've read Constance's books and most all of her blog entries, too.
I think we could be in a time of double fulfillment.
Another possibility I consider is that Satan's minions are active around millennial times.
How many times have the occultists and elites and globalists tried so far to fulfill their "Plan" involving a NWO with a one world religion and religious theatre to fool people into thinking their messiah is here?
They tried with Benjamin Creme and Maitreya in the 80s. Benjamin Creme is dead now.
They tried to make 2012 the year. Now we are in 2018.
How do we know God will not let the globalists almost finish their new Tower of Babel -- and then destroy it like He did the first one?
How do we know God is not ready yet and will continue to hold the globalists back?
But the globalists are not being held back.
They are gaining ground, by stealth in the past and now openly, so steadily, is a forward motion with many twists and turns and what appears detours by degrees, but especially since Israel is back in the land after 2000 years being gone from it, all advancing in the prophecy timeline.
The nation born in a day....
Israel is at this point looks to be what Ezekiel saw in Chapter 37. The players of Ezekiel 38-39 are readying themselves as we speak.
Israel is the supersign that all other signs of the times revolve around.
The devising is to internationalize Jerusalem but God has staked His claim upon it (from the beginning), and will move in His own time frame to take it back, meanwhile somebody with a 'shortened time' will arrive on the scene as these times commence called the fullness of the times of the Gentiles and will certainly involve Jerusalem as noted. Emboldened by hell itself, this somebody will attempt to take it for himself to usurp God's plans, and yes, done before, but now on the grandest scale. Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 all show us Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies so this will be a fulfillment that has been around the bend already, but now recycling to a broader fulfillment that is in the making, with the stakes even higher for them, and the entire world. The world has more capacity now for more destruction than ever too. Zechariah 12 is the perfect description of Jerusalem her capital, as the world is dictating to Israel, calling for her to be carved up and and the desire of certain ones, even destroyed. It will be epic as the Bible describes, as Israel's enemies...and Ultimate Enemy, make the move against God. God will allow what He will allow, but only for a time that suits Him to turn the tables.
When they say peace and safety (security).....
The Lord will complete His unfinished business with Israel and with the nations. The times are getting very ripe and ready for this.
And if I believe that the church became Israel?
J said...@ 8:19 PM
Really? I'm sorry. That is not Biblical.
The whole counsel of God, which is the Old and New Testaments, teach us the difference, so we must keep things in proper context.
Cherry-picking Scripture is where that error comes from.
For starters read Romans Chapters 9, 10, and 11 and also look at Major and Minor Prophets for comparison.
God's got a great future planned for the Jew and the Christian, with no more walls between.
There will be a harvest among the Jews also, as they will look on Him whom they have pierced...just like the Christian came by faith to know the Lord Jesus Christ.
That day is coming sooner than people think.
Anonymous 10:51 PM,
I will agree to disagree with you about this. I don't feel like getting into a theological debate. I am still learning, and it's possible I'm being too black-and-white in my theology on this particular point. I'll need to revisit the relevant scriptures and pray about it.
This is such an inspiring story, and it shows which side of racism true Christianity is actually on. It's a story about untouchables in India converting to Christianity suddenly and en masse! They walked away from 3,000 years of Hinduism!
Hinduism has been more racist than Jim Crow and apartheid, but it has received far less international attention.
Breaking the spell of slavery
Anon states to "J" (in part) @ 10:51 PM:
"There will be a harvest among the Jews also, as they will look on Him whom they have pierced...just like the Christian came by faith to know the Lord Jesus Christ."
The prophecy of Zechariah 12:10, referred to above ...
“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
The fulfillment of Zehariah's prophecy found in John 19: 33-37 ...
“But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
NOTE: The above prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 was FULFILLED at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Nothing could be plainer, yet, as is typical for Dispensationalists, they choose to ignore the plain language of Scripture and attempt to twist the Zechariah prophesy to mean a future when there will be a massive conversion of Jews believing in Jesus as the true Messiah, due to them “looking upon him whom they pierced.” Believe it if you want, but that is not what the Bible clearly declares.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (the Gold Standard Dictionary for Bible word definitions)
fulfilled: Accomplished; performed; completed; executed.
RayB,
You are glossing right over the book of Revelation, just like Constance said you need to be mindful not to do.
There are many prophecies in the Bible, in Daniel, other prophets, and in Revelation, that have had a smaller and localized fulfillment, but several come around again in the larger sense, seeing a much wider, broader fulfillment concerning the nations, but also the Jewish people.
It is you missing something very obvious, and limiting God, whose grace is much better than your version.
ارخص شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض
تقدم شركتنا افضل الخدمات المنزلية علي الاطلاق حيث انها تقدم خدمات التنظيف المتكاملة مثل تنظيف المنازل والبيوت والفلل والقصور وتنظيف الموكيت وتنظيف الكنب وتنظيف الستائر وغير من العمل النظافة يمكنك زيارة موقعنا لانها هي الافضل علي الاطلاق حيث انها توفر كل الخدمات
شركة تنظيف سجاد بالرياض
شركة تنظيف ستائربالرياض
شركة غسيل كنب بالرياض
شركة تنظيف كنب بالرياض
شركة تنظيف موكيت بالرياض
Agreed!
Hello everyone,The blank ATM card I got from Mike Fisher's blank ATM hackers helped save my life. I was in a very terrible situation financially but then my friend told me about them. I was skeptical about it but he assured me that it worked for him so I ordered one and here I am, back on my feet. Its the best out there with multiple withdrawals up to $80000 per month, easy usage and very safe as well, it's arrival was in less than a week. If there's anyone in need of financial saving you can contact them at blankatm156@gmail.com . I cannot express how grateful i am to blankatm156@gmail.com for placing me in a better financial position. Email : blankatm156@gmail.com
Post a Comment