Tempting wives to stay married.

In God hates divorce? Pastor Sam Powell worries that some readers may suspect he is soft on divorce:

This article is a little more technical than I usually write. There is a reason for it. I am fully aware that the views expressed here will leave me open to accusations of being “soft on divorce”. I assure you that is not the case. My only concern is to rightly discern God’s word and go where it leads.

But Powell should not worry that he will be accused of being soft on divorce, because this is clearly not the case.  Powell is a hardliner on divorce, a true believer, a zealot.  Powell believes so strongly in divorce that he says it is a sin to encourage unhappy wives to stay married with the hope that things will improve.  He explains in The Secret Things of God (emphasis mine):

When she reports that she is filing for divorce, the answer of her elders is often something like this: “God can change hearts. Stay in the marriage. What will you do if he repents? What if he changes?”

It seems to me that this puts an unendurable burden on the heart of the wife (or husband, as the case may be). The church is asking her to make a life-altering decision based upon what God may or may not do in the future. But how can we ask our sheep to sin in this regard?

I encourage my readers to read his full post;  Powell really is claiming that encouraging a wife to remain married is a sin. Powell’s biblical rationalization for his divorce zealotry is a bizarre comparison to Satan tempting Christ in the Gospels.  In Powell’s rationalization:

  • A wife who wants to divorce is like Christ.
  • A pastor or elder who encourages a wife to remain married is like Satan tempting Christ.
  • Remaining married is foolhardy and sinful, like jumping off of a tall building to test God.
  • Divorcing is an act of obedience to God.

His reasoning is that staying married with the hope that things will improve is a form of witchcraft:

But our text in Deuteronomy forbids doing just that. We cannot make our decision based upon the “secret things of God”. We are required only to make wise decisions based upon what we know today.

If encouraging Christians to stay married with hope that it will change the spouse is a sin, clearly the Apostle Paul sinned in 1 Cor 7:16:

14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Moreover, in 1 Pet 3 wives are told to submit to their husbands with the hope that they might win them over.  Divorce is the polar opposite of submission:

3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

Lastly, setting aside Powell’s abysmal theology, staying married really does tend to ultimately create happy marriages (emphasis mine).

Many currently happily married spouses have had extended periods of marital unhappiness, often for quite serious reasons, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work reversals. Why did these marriages survive where other marriages did not? The marital endurance ethic appears to play a big role. Many spouses said that their marriages got happier, not because they and their partner resolved problems but because they stubbornly outlasted them. With time, they told us, many sources of conflict and distress eased. Spouses in this group also generally had a low opinion of the benefits of divorce, as well as friends and family members who supported the importance of staying married.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Beautiful truth, Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, New Morality, Pastor Sam Powell, Rebellion, selling divorce. Bookmark the permalink.

277 Responses to Tempting wives to stay married.

  1. anon says:

    “Why did these marriages survive where other marriages did not? The marital endurance ethic appears to play a big role. Many spouses said that their marriages got happier, not because they and their partner resolved problems but because they stubbornly outlasted them. With time, they told us, many sources of conflict and distress eased. Spouses in this group also generally had a low opinion of the benefits of divorce, as well as friends and family members who supported the importance of staying married.”

    This is so true. Ask any couple who are very happy after a long marriage together, late in life after experiencing a great many seasons together, if they encountered obstacles and how they handled it. Unless they are very unusual they encountered a great many of them, but there was never any real question they would stay together and honor their vows. They might even look back at those trials in the past as a character building exercise that brought them closer together. I know I do.
    It’s all a matter of perspective.
    I was thinking of that just yesterday when the pastor spoke about Jesus healing the leper(s). I’ll skip the passage but the point that struck home to me most (though it wasn’t touched on) was…their best day was the same as most people’s “every day”. Hurray! I don’t have leprosy!

  2. Pingback: Tempting wives to stay married. | Aus-Alt-Right

  3. Scott says:

    I’ll repost my comment in response to HoseB in the second Malachi post:

    HoseB

    So far, I have been pushed away from the church. If I try to discuss anything or learn anything, I am simply told I “need to be more like Jesus” and until I do, nothing will change.
    My wife is divorcing me and forcing me to communicate through her lawyer. When I suggest that we aren’t supposed to sue each other and instead take our issues to the church body, she says “no. That’s not what they are there for” The church seems to agree. Meanwhile, they still embrace her AND have her in leadership positions over the children’s program.
    While the bible will tell us to deal with our family issues BEFORE church, they seem to think the answer to all problems (men and women) is to just get busier within the church. Because serving Jesus and serving the church are synonymous to these wicked foolish people.

    I’m not protestant (anymore) but I have been there, done that. (Not that this only happens in protestant churches, but I can picture it better because of my experience).

    Every time I read a version of this story, with slight variations but basically the same narrative, I cringe. What you will be told (if you haven’t already) is that you are trying to “control” your wife using “technicalities” found in scripture. And what is sad about that is these “technicalities” are there to force the couples to stay in the fight and make the marriage work, when all else seems to have failed and there is no feeling of love between you.

    Those technicalities are a feature, not a bug of Christian marriage.

    The outcome here is predictable, but no less distressing to read. Praying for you, brother.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Powell belongs to a denomination that has written standards such as a confession of faith and a catechism. He’s referred to them in postings. Surely there are clear standards for divorce in those documents. Anyone care to place a wager that what he’s peddling isn’t what his denomination teaches?

    Not that debating him would be worth the trouble, it would be like engaging any of the aging feminist churchians on clear Bible quotes. A lot of “yes, but” and other squid ink surely.

  5. Oscar says:

    1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

    HoseB’s wife is behaving like an unbeliever who wants to leave, and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, his church isn’t doing its job.

    Matt 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

    Gents, we need to lift up this brother and his children in prayer. And we need to pray that his wife will repent.

  6. rugby11 says:

    Spent a good deal of my childhood not letting this happen to my folks.

  7. Lyn87 says:

    Once again “Pastor” Powell doesn’t know his Bible.

    Mister Powell says, “It seems to me that this puts an unendurable burden on the heart…”

    Unendurable burden?” Really? Does his Bible not contain Hebrews 11?

    As for these pampered first-world princesses and their so-called “unendurable burdens,” 1 Corinthians 10:13 says, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

    Note that even then the burdens are not necessarily taken away (in other words, we are not divorced from those burdens), but that God gives us the means to bear them. I’ll admit that’s a hard saying, and I hope I never have to experience the outer edges of what it can mean, but it says what it says whether I, or Mister Powell, or anyone else likes it.

    Of course Mister Powell will say that divorce is the “escape” God had in mind, but that directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 7: 12-15 and 1 Peter 3: 1-6, among other passages of scripture. So since divorce is not the “escape” from an “unendurable marriage,” then either these women are 1) declaring their marriages “unendurable” when they are not (which is most of the time), or 2) there are other, better, methods of making the “burden of an unendurable marriage” bearable. They could start by becoming better wives and see how that pans out… just a thought.

  8. Smithborough says:

    Great post. The myth of the holy divorce needs to be sent back to the pit of he’ll where it was spawned.

  9. feeriker says:

    Lastly, setting aside Powell’s abysmal theology,

    Powell has a large enough enabling harem that he doesn’t have to seriously worry about that “theology” thingy anymore. The adoration and dedication of one hundred vaginas trumps the love and power of God any day.

  10. BillyS says:

    A husband can be abusive just following God’s plan:

    http://www.alternet.org/belief/how-playing-good-christian-housewife-almost-killed-me

    Amazing.

    ====

    I have been hesitant to post anything, but any prayer would be appreciated. I am going through my own wringer now since my wife of 28 years has decided she is tired of the control, etc. and has filed for divorce. (I am having a hard time figuring out the exact control I had that she is claiming, but I think the root of that involves having to place my interests anywhere on her radar. I am very focused and intense, but mostly hands-off in day-to-day things.)

    God can do what He wills, but her will is very hard and I see no likelihood of reconciliation. My church is supportive, except that I have no connections with anyone and I mostly have to walk this on my own. No adultery that I know of (it is unlikely), just strong rebellion.

    My emotions are on a roller coaster now. We will see what will come about over time. Hopefully a peaceful resolution and splitting of things. I now have direct experiences with all the problems in this area.

    Having good close male friends would help, but none of those I can really talk to that share my faith view. One guy in these areas has offered help, which is the most beyond basic prayers. Prayers are good, but men going through this need more.

    It kind of reminds me of what James said about the insufficiency of telling the hungry person to be warmed and fed, yet not directly connecting with them.

  11. feeriker says:

    As for these pampered first-world princesses and their so-called “unendurable burdens,” 1 Corinthians 10:13 says, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

    Note that even then the burdens are not necessarily taken away (in other words, we are not divorced from those burdens), but that God gives us the means to bear them. I’ll admit that’s a hard saying, and I hope I never have to experience the outer edges of what it can mean, but it says what it says whether I, or Mister Powell, or anyone else likes it.

    What we’re seing here is the chaff that will be separated fro the wheat once the real persecution and suffering starts – and we are nowhere near even the mildest initial stages of what’s coming. Samantha Powell and her princess enablers are chaff, the worthless pollutant that will fall away and apostasize fully –in fact, they will join with the heathens in the persecution of the true church– once the middle ground disappears. The sooner we recognize these false believers for who and what they are and treat them accordingly, the better.

  12. feeriker says:

    BillyS says:
    October 10, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    That man’s wife was either never a Christ-follower to begin with (most likely), or she wrested her way out of his headship and fell into the path of worldly deception. Not surprisingly, his church is failing him miserably (what exactly does a “supportive” church look like in this situation, especially if he’s not connected to anybody [most likely not for his lack of trying]?).

  13. Am I supposed to mind when Muhammad/Abdul/Ahmed removes his rotten head with a dull hunting knife?

  14. BillyS says:

    I am quite a loner, so I don’t naturally connect as some do feeriker, though I do believe churches should do more in situations like this.

    I am certain my wife is born again, but she is definitely following some bad principles. I will not comment much on her at this point, especially since my lawyer advised that. It still sucks to see things going a way that cannot be controlled.

    The biggest problem I see is that “letting things go” is often a case of “stuffing it so it can blow up later” which is what happened to me.

    I will never give up my faith, but things like this do really test it. I wish I could just go to a more traditional church like some of you, but my commitment to what is Written is too strong for that.

    No biological children. Not an advantage in most cases, but good to know I don’t face any child support now.

    Any good advice on how to walk this through and properly connect with others could be helpful.

  15. BillyS says:

    Feeriker,

    I would almost certainly have not married in the first place if I had known what I know now. Too many warning signs that are completely clear with a red pill perspective. She was reborn, but much more clouded in her views than either of us had any clue about. Meeting with her former roommate from the church we met in who just divorced her husband for no valid Biblical reason didn’t help things.

    These things do infect others.

  16. Hmm says:

    Possible topic for another post: After Christian women hit the wall…
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/turning-40-while-single-and-childless

    Note that TGC reposted this from another site, but I expect that reposting indicates approval of its contents.

  17. Caspar Reyes says:

    By making a twisted case based on vowel pointing, Powell is engaging in sophistry worthy of the Pharisees by using high-falutin’ spiritual sounding talk, being more legal than the law to get around the law:

    From 18th century commentator, Anglican theologian Adam Clarke:

    The Masoretes were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D.

  18. Peter Blood says:

    The same lunatics will clutch their pearls as they point at Trump’s various sins.

  19. Sean says:

    @ BillyS

    You really need to get your church leadership involved. I presume you’re a member of this church so they’re not only needed but required to get involved. If they don’t, you need to go Matthew 18 on them as leaders are in sin by continuing to keep her within.

    Go listen to Voddie Baucham’s sermons on marriage if you find yourself amidst some trying times. There are Protestants who believe in The Word and actually evidence it.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    Meeting with her former roommate from the church we met in who just divorced her husband for no valid Biblical reason didn’t help things.

    In fact that may well have been the trigger, the catalyst. Frivorce is catching. Dalrock explained this in detail here:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-contagious-nature-of-divorce/

    However unhaaaappy Mrs. S is now, divorce won’t make her all better and probably will make her life worse in a variety of ways in the here and now. No idea how you can point that obvious fact out to her, or whether it would work – if she’s emotionally painted herself into a corner where the only way out that she can see is via the trapdoor in the floor labeled “divorce” there isn’t a way to reason her out of it. Because she didn’t reason herself into the position, it’s all emotion.

    Not to ask personal questions, but it is possible that she’s pre-menopausl / peri-menopausal which apparently can be a lot like pre-menstrual in terms of emotional storms. This is in no way an excuse for her or any other woman’s behavior, but rather a factor to be considered in evaluation of the behavior.

    Good luck, BillyS.

  21. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @BillyS

    I’m so sorry for what you are going through, you are not alone suffering at the hands of this kind of treachery.

    A couple of thoughts. First ask the elders of your church to pursue a course of Church discipline against you wife for defrauding you, contumacy, treachery and covenant vow abdication. If they are a church that values justice they will hear the case and adjudicate according to scripture and according to the principles of justice. I would not expect much thought as most elders are spineless feminist enablers. 2) Avoid bitterness by working on your own self-improvement project. Work toward making yourself the kinda of guy that you respect and admire. If your wife will not respect you, you make sure that you respect yourself and give no room for self-pity. It does you no good, robs you of energy and the mindset necessary for personal greatness and keeps you a perpetual victim.

    Praying for you, that you may not just endure this testing of your faith and see restoration, but also that in even this you be more than a conqueror in Christ Jesus.

  22. Pingback: Tempting wives to stay married. | Reaction Times

  23. thedeti says:

    Bottom line here is that liberal/modern pastors do not like Eph 5 and 1 Pet. 3’s command to wives to respect their husbands in all things. They just don’t like it. It’s a “hard” teaching. They don’t want to teach it because they know their clientele — er, congregations comprised of modern women– won’t like it. And they just object to it on moral and practical grounds. Women shouldn’t have to submit to or respect their husbands, especially not in all things, especially not to “ungodly” husbands. Women should not have to submit to or respect husbands. So they set about twisting and perverting scripture to find “workarounds” for it; or they just ignore it.

  24. Great post.
    I’m curious – What would be the reason for pastors to lick the boots of female parishioners in this manner? What’s the pay off?
    Are female parishioners actually paying the tithes and offering dollars, or approving the outlays, into these churches coffers?
    I understand that churches are becoming increasingly loaded with unmarried, single women as well, ages 25-35 – trying to hunt down a “nice”, “compliant”, “Godly” husband no doubt.
    I imagine that a modern day pastor today applying actual, canon, Biblical scripture would only succeed in alienating and angering modern day female parishioners (unmarried or married) who simply cannot hack any form of criticism or examination of common unfavorable female behaviors. I’m not surprised. This perfectly reflects the same limits on criticism of women, girls and wives in the American and Western media as well. These pastors get a gold star for message consistency, I guess.

    The young and adult men sitting in the pews witnessing such perverse and prolific pastoral ass-kissing of the ladies must be asking themselves as they walk out “just what the hell is this?”
    “Is this the best I can hope for?”

    Men looking for even smallest semblance of pastoral encouragement, congregational acceptance, spiritual guidance, healing and fortitude would do well to leave churches alone. Men are quite obviously the enemy.

  25. BillyS says:

    Sean,

    She has not contacted the church since she left. They are strongly against divorce and would definitely push against her in this case, so she will almost certainly not contact anyone who could push her otherwise.

    AR,

    She is also on post menopause medication (hot flashes for many years). I am betting that played a role too. Lots of factors.

    I tried (too much probably) to reach out in texts in the first few days, but she has no intention of reconciliation now, so I am not going to push that. Really hard to make myself be quiet, but I am doing all I can to do that, at least for a while.

    I also think her lawyer sold her on the cash and prizes she would get a bit too aggressively. I hope to not waste too much on my lawyer, but I will if it turned that way. Just some physical goods to lose, not much money reserves, which is a good thing in this case. A house sale might not even clear what we owe due to fees to sell and such. I would pick a smaller house, but I will stay here a while if I can. I am putting most things on hold until the hearing next week though.

  26. BillyS says:

    I am sure some here could relate, but while part of me is furious for this, another part does not want to give up my marriage. I will not crawl back for anything, but I would do what is necessary. Though knowing it got here once would make me much more cautious of getting here again if we did reconcile. I would definitely seek to deal with root issues, another reason reconciliation is highly unlikely at this point.

  27. Spinster Christians:
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/turning-40-while-single-and-childless

    The God-rationalizations are astonishing this was my (never to be approved) comment there:

  28. David J. says:

    @BillyS: “It kind of reminds me of what James said about the insufficiency of telling the hungry person to be warmed and fed, yet not directly connecting with them.” I had never made that connection before, but that is an excellent point; I think you’re exactly right about the church’s and other individual Christians’ failings regarding unbiblical divorce by rebellious wives.

    6 years ago right now I was in your situation with my (now ex-) wife; we too had been married 28 years at that point, and she was a life-long professing, supposedly ultra-conservative Christian. She had no biblical basis and was scraping for excuses, which of course most of her Christian friends were willing to accept. I’m not aware of anyone in our Christian circles who ever got in her face and challenged her actions or thinking, despite my direct pleas to several whom I thought might have some influence on her. Any who were skeptical or in disagreement simply avoided her. Unfortunately, we weren’t members of the church we were attending, so formal church discipline was a non-starter. I can’t really improve on the advice others have given, including Jonadab, but I certainly second it all. I wish I could offer concrete hope that she’ll change before the divorce is final (or before she makes the divorce permanent by marrying someone else); while I believe with God that is absolutely possible, it didn’t happen for me and, as you know, the odds are strongly against it.

    I can tell you the bad and good that came with and after the divorce — mostly bad to start, a lot more good in the last couple years. The divorce was heart-breaking for my four kids and especially hard on my youngest (son), who was 14 at the time. Thanks to some insane behavior on her part, he ended up almost completely estranged from her for several years. Their relationship is better now, but he still doesn’t trust her and prefers to visit her with a friend or his older brother present. It’s only been within the last 6 months, now that he lives out of state with that older brother, that I have begun to see the broad smiles that used to characterize his demeanor. Paying several years of child support (for our special needs daughter who spent anywhere from 50-75% of her time with her mother) and a year of alimony was very difficult, especially given the loss of work productivity (and income) that resulted from being a single parent struggling to hold it together emotionally. Then my wife rushed into a remarriage (to a loser) barely a year after the divorce was final and relocated 400 miles away, imposing significant additional costs in time and and money to have my daughter visit, as well as additional angst for both of the kids still at home. But slowly things got better (not my ex’s behavior or my interactions with her; she continues to this day to make things as difficult as possible) — my emotional and spiritual health improved, my finances improved, my son graduated high school, I relocated to a beautiful area where all of my family had settled over the years so I was no longer isolated, I found an excellent church, and (praise God) I began courting a beautiful, loyal Christian woman who is the good opposite of my ex in virtually every way. I look forward to marrying her within the next 2 years (we’re taking our time). Life is demonstrably good again.

    So, even if your present doesn’t get better, there is reason to expect that your future will. As my belle pointed out to me the other day, except for the impact of the divorce on my kids, my ex did me a favor by divorcing me (while not doing herself any favors at all).

  29. feeriker says:

    First ask the elders of your church to pursue a course of Church discipline against you wife for defrauding you, contumacy, treachery and covenant vow abdication.

    It almost goes without saying that any “elders” you ask such things of will look at you like you’re speaking to them in Martian. Very few churches have anything remotely resembling “elders” schooled in either Scripture or church discipline – ergo, the rampant chaos we see men like BillyS and others finding themselves in and the attendant apathy and neglect they suffer at the hands of the church that’s supposed to have their back.

    TL;DR version: 99.999 percent of churches are “playing church.”

    I’m curious – What would be the reason for pastors to lick the boots of female parishioners in this manner? What’s the pay off?

    Are female parishioners actually paying the tithes and offering dollars, or approving the outlays, into these churches coffers?

    You basically just answered your own question. What nobody wants to admit is that churches are a business (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …). As such they have to cater to those who keep them operating – which is, by a large margin, women. Alienating your customer base doesn’t keep collection plates full and might force pastorbators to have to seek gainful employment in the real world while treating ministry as the CALLING that it is supposed to be rather than just another career.

  30. David J. says:

    Also, BillyS, this was true of me as well: “I also think her lawyer sold her on the cash and prizes she would get a bit too aggressively.” My ex, in conjunction with her lawyer, somehow thought she was going to get double the child support called for by state guidelines, a ridiculous amount of *permanent* alimony, plus attorney’s fees. She ended up settling after 16 months of mostly pointless litigation for essentially what I offered at the very first mediation — child support at the guideline amount, minimal short-lived alimony, and no attorney’s fees. By then she had racked up $20K+ in attorney’s fees and had fired her first lawyer. Downside was it cost me $40K in attorney’s fees, which I’m still paying.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    Bottom line here is that liberal/modern pastors do not like Eph 5 and 1 Pet. 3’s command to wives to respect their husbands in all things. They just don’t like it.

    Direct hit. Now, if only there was some quote somewhere in the Bible about that…

  32. Frank K says:

    This comes to mind:

    Isaiah 5:20 ESV
    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

    2 Timothy 4:3 ESV
    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    I will not crawl back for anything, but I would do what is necessary. Though knowing it got here once would make me much more cautious of getting here again if we did reconcile. I would definitely seek to deal with root issues, another reason reconciliation is highly unlikely at this point.

    Reconciliation at this point would require both parties to admit to past bad behavior, acknowledge the harm caused, and to offer concrete ways to avoid that behavior in the future. Lyn87 posted on this in a previous thread, if I recall correctly he had Bible support for the process.

    tl;dr you can’t reconcile with her until she is prepared to do her part.

    Her pride likely would get in the way of that.

    If you have to live in a smaller house, it’s still larger than a tent on the roof of the previous house….

  34. MrWoot says:

    Following up from a previous thread, thankfully, no, I did not get divorced. Perhaps God, my game, my wife’s repentance…whatever. She’s been the most honest, straightforward, and contrite she has ever been. She’s actually adult’ed. What a change. I could not file the paperwork. Praise Father! My leadership and game must also improve, and strange to say, I look forward to seeing her after work. Redpill FTW and Dalrock (and commenters) for support. Thank you!
    As for California law, …I have a few years before this new data point fails to trend. If it does, which at this point I believe it well unlike before, I will remain (and happy/content).

  35. gunner451 says:

    BillyS,

    Having gone through this myself would advise a few things. First and foremost is that you should focus not on yourself and the misery and pain of the situation but on God and his grace and mercy. Don’t loose sight of what is most important which is your salvation and your faith in God.Pray as much as possible and start listening to the word on the radio or Internet if possible (through the bible and grace to you are two that I enjoy listening to).

    Second, realize that she has checked out emotionally and you’re basically dead to her, actually it may be worse than that as she may hate you with a surprising amount of passion as you now represent a failed past and she’ll heap on you all the missed opportunities and “fun” that could have happened if not for being tied to you. All that is wrong with her life will now be laid on you and her friends will be more than happy to reinforce those emotions.

    Third, get out a get a life! Make some connections with people, at church, pursuing a hobby, or just as part of some group activity. And don’t burden them with your hurt puppy problems, keep it light or you’ll drive them away. Even close friends (sorry that you don’t have any but you should look to try to connect with some guys and build some close friendships) will naturally distance themselves from you if you cry on their shoulder. Sorry that’s just the way guys are, so buck up, stiff upper lip and all that and carry on, it may feel phony at first but as the time passes the hurt will fade. View this as an opportunity to explore interests you probably put off because of your “relationship” with your wife and submitting to her agenda (which truthfully was probably part of the problem, women hate submissive guys but modern women will fight you tooth and nail for control but dis-respect you for letting them win).

    Forth, don’t look to get involved with another woman right away, or actually at all in this day and age but most guys can’t handle that so you’ll have to decide which way you want to go. Would not even consider dating until all emotions about your soon to be Ex have dissipated. Also, if you do go looking remember the red pill, don’t fail to notice the red flags in a womans behavior and don’t be afraid to cut her loose if she displays any of them.

    Lastly, forget about revenge or hoping bad things happen to your Ex. Realize that living well after shes gone is the best revenge and that being happy in life and at peace with God will move you forward far better than bitterness and anger.

    I pray you can get through this without getting burned too bad.

    Gunner451

  36. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    I known men in the church who were adopted by single women like that and raised from infancy without a father in their life.

    Intentionally raising a child without a father is abusive and evil, plain and simple.

  37. Boxer says:

    I have been hesitant to post anything, but any prayer would be appreciated. I am going through my own wringer now since my wife of 28 years has decided she is tired of the control, etc. and has filed for divorce. (I am having a hard time figuring out the exact control I had that she is claiming, but I think the root of that involves having to place my interests anywhere on her radar. I am very focused and intense, but mostly hands-off in day-to-day things.)

    I am so sorry to hear this, bro. Peace to you and your kids.

  38. Anon says:

    thedeti,

    Bottom line here is that liberal/modern pastors do not like Eph 5 and 1 Pet. 3’s command to wives to respect their husbands in all things. They just don’t like it.

    It seems Bible verses are very tweetable. Perhaps more red-pill Christians should become like Boxer/Herbie Marcuse.

  39. anon says:

    “Perhaps more red-pill Christians should become like Boxer/Herbie Marcuse.”

    Boxer is an atheist.

  40. @feeriker
    “You basically just answered your own question. What nobody wants to admit is that churches are a business (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …). As such they have to cater to those who keep them operating – which is, by a large margin, women. Alienating your customer base doesn’t keep collection plates full and might force pastorbators to have to seek gainful employment in the real world while treating ministry as the CALLING that it is supposed to be rather than just another career.”

    Understood. But I remember clearly that only a few years ago church pastors (in my example Lutheran) were not at all catering to the delicate sensibilities of female parishioners about things like child abuse, verbal abuse, wifely manipulation (sexlessness), lust, divorce, adultery, etc. Men and women in the pews were all looked upon as broken and sinful in their own ways and in need of spiritual healing. So there used to be equal parts fire, brimstone and dosage of fear in the Sunday message for the ladies in the pews as well.

    So how could pastors ever continue preaching canon, biblically-based messages about the appropriate roles and behaviors of husbands and wives and get away with that in the 1960s, 70s and 1980s, without observing female/wifely retaliation in the form of reduced tithing/offerings?

    One answer, I suppose, might be:
    1. the 2000’s onset of women in the workplace up to today – 48% of American household incomes being majority generated by the mom’s/wife’s employment (female financial head of household) plus
    2. the exponential proliferation of American consumerism and spending approval/commandeered exclusively by women, namely mom & wife (whether home, car, school, dog, vacation, discretionary outlays, etc)

    That would make sense.
    All we must do is put ourselves in the position of a modern day American pastor, and then ask ask ourselves: What would be the kinds of things I would include in your weekly sermons to ensure as many of the lady parishioners as possible leave the “temple walking on sunshine” (a.k.a. superior customer experience!!!)?? Secondly, in what areas of life and human relationship cycles can I apply that same message?

    Copy, rinse, repeat.

  41. Gunner Q says:

    “The church is asking her to make a life-altering decision based upon what God may or may not do in the future. But how can we ask our sheep to sin in this regard?”

    Pure faithlessness in God. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Hebrews 11:1.

    BillyS @ 2:40 pm:
    “Having good close male friends would help, but none of those I can really talk to that share my faith view.”

    A very common problem these days. It’s ever harder to make friends and the people one meets usually want to discuss the latest popular television show not serious philosophy. I myself have gone about two years now with no friends, family or social network to speak of and the emotional damage shows up in a dozen behavior tics.

    This world sucks and it isn’t your fault.

    “…while part of me is furious for this, another part does not want to give up my marriage. I will not crawl back for anything, but I would do what is necessary.”

    God shares this frustration 100%. Reading through the Prophets, listening to God switch between ruthless threats and emotional pleas for reconciliation may give you reassurance. This ordeal will be a harsh one but you’ll become better able to relate to God… which is the apex goal of Christianity. 2 Peter 2:19-21.

    Anon @ 5:56 pm:
    “It seems Bible verses are very tweetable. Perhaps more red-pill Christians should become like Boxer/Herbie Marcuse.”

    Does it really work? I’m still surprised that peaceful protests can change a politician’s mind. (Less so now that they’re openly acting like 8th graders.)

  42. @Deti,

    So they set about twisting and perverting scripture to find “workarounds” for it; or they just ignore it.

    I think Powell’s disregard is an illustration of the step between workarounds and simply omitting scripture from their own personal doctrine of feminine primacy. Dalrock did a series of posts around the time that ‘Fireproof’ was making waves in Christian culture that outlined the grey area of “emotional infidelity” on the part of men and how Christian husbands watching porn was equatable with the ‘marital infidelity’ Jesus scripturally states is the only breach of contract under which a woman can justifiably divorce her husband.

    The superstitious part being how Jesus says any other reason and both the husband or wife and their new spouse is guilty of adultery. But now it appears that even marital unhaaaaapiness, is really the only metric by which a woman will be allowed to divorce. The old superstition was so constraining, why not ignore it all together and just find some corroborative scripture to cancel the words of Christ?

    So, now, not only has the Feminine Imperative replaced the Holy Spirit interpretively, through its pastoral agents, the words of their ‘Lord and Savior’ are subject to cancellation and disqualification by what best benefits women and their imperatives.

    Tell me again why any unchurched man would find value in today’s church or converting to a faith and doctrine that is not only actively hostile towards men, but openly and fluidly redesigns that faith to acts against him?

  43. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    It seems Bible verses are very tweetable. Perhaps more red-pill Christians should become like Boxer/Herbie Marcuse.

    Y’all are certainly welcome to join. It’s a more-the-merrier situation, when bringing the fight to the enemy…

  44. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Women in their late 40s and 50s, contemplating divorce, should troll through the Craigslist personal ads. Many women in that age range seeking men. Their ads and photos are so pathetic and embarrassing. So many “curvy” (i.e., fat), tattooed women dressed like teenagers, full of self-praise and self-esteem, making ridiculous demands for rich, hot, younger men.

    An intelligent and self-aware woman would cringe upon seeing her future in those ads, and would reconsider divorce.

  45. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    Does it really work? I’m still surprised that peaceful protests can change a politician’s mind. (Less so now that they’re openly acting like 8th graders.)

    It’s less like a peaceful protest than it is the hijack and redirect of a signal. Pastorbators (like Sam Powell, for instance) have been using twitter for a long time, assuming that it worked like a television advertisement worked. When you talk back to them, it becomes bidirectional. You can reply to one of their advertisements, and effectively give Pastorbator Powell’s intended audience a critical message. It drives them crazy.

    This community has a twitter account, by the way. It doesn’t troll anyone aggressively, but it does advertise this blog and the best posts in the comments section. Create an account and come have some fun. 🙂

    Boxer

  46. DrTorch says:

    I posted before that Powell is an entryist, a corruptor who wrote the right things early on, so he could gain a position of influence and then do as he pleased.

    His leadership should react swiftly and sternly. Anyone contacted them regarding his false teachings?

  47. Anon says:

    Boxer is an atheist.

    Perhaps that is why he is doing to fight back than most…

  48. RPchristian says:

    Praying for BillyS.

    ANGRY at the “church” for promoting an atmosphere where this happens, seemingly on a routine basis.

  49. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @thedeti

    Bottom line here is that liberal/modern pastors do not like Eph 5 and 1 Pet. 3’s command to wives to respect their husbands in all things. They just don’t like it. It’s a “hard” teaching. They don’t want to teach it because they know their clientele — er, congregations comprised of modern women– won’t like it. And they just object to it on moral and practical grounds. Women shouldn’t have to submit to or respect their husbands, especially not in all things, especially not to “ungodly” husbands. Women should not have to submit to or respect husbands. So they set about twisting and perverting scripture to find “workarounds” for it; or they just ignore it.

    Damn straight to this, but I’d take out the “liberal” and just go with “modern” — because these days it’s pretty near a case of all pastors taking this approach. And bypassing scripture isn’t even enough anymore; now they’re going so far as to toss God off the throne and put the woman there in His place. Dalrock’s dealt with Glenn Stanton doing this on his site before, but if a recent essay is any indication . . . . he’s still up to his old tricks. And the “conservatives” are still there to fill in his cheering section. Here he writes in First Things:

    “Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable. Christianity has always known this. The Savior of the world chose to come to us through a wife and mother. It’s why you find what you find at the very center, the honored and singular position, on that superlative ceiling of a certain celebrated chapel.

    Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization.”

    Link available here: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/why-man-and-woman-are-not-equal

    . . . . This all makes me think of a time not too far back when a book called The Da Vinci Code was just starting to hit it big. Back then there were more than a few “orthodox” (with a small “o”) Christian pastors that were eager to denounce its writer Dan Brown for making a fortune off of peddling a heresy. But when you jump forward just a few years and see how quick the conservatives of today are to champion their own doctrine of the “Divine Feminine,” you suddenly start to realize that at some point the feminist champions of the past always seem to end up transforming into the most successful theological innovators of the modern day. At this point, it’s their church. We’re all just paying tithes to it.

  50. Gunner Q says:

    “Tell me again why any unchurched man would find value in today’s church or converting to a faith and doctrine that is not only actively hostile towards men, but openly and fluidly redesigns that faith to acts against him?”

    Christianity remains unchanged despite the best efforts of these charlatans. Their behavior so strongly resembles the original sin of Adam following Eve into rebellion, it’s like they’re proving Christianity right by the very act of claiming Christ was wrong.

    But now that you mention converting, one notices Churchians don’t exactly evangelize. At all. They complain about falling membership yet are more interested in poaching each other’s disaffected members or offering free donuts than preaching the Gospel. Their behavior is more like entryists than fanatics. Entryists are more interested in twisting an organization’s purpose than ensuring the organization continues existence.

    On the bright side, Churchians compete with nightclubs instead of asking gov’t for bailout money like most entryists do. Pastor Sam Powell should get a liquor license and turn that water into wine!

    (I know of a church that actually does this.)

    Boxer @ 7:44 pm:
    “When you talk back to them, it becomes bidirectional. You can reply to one of their advertisements, and effectively give Pastorbator Powell’s intended audience a critical message. It drives them crazy.”

    Hmm. I once swore to never use youTube, Twitter or Facebook… which I refer to in public as “youTwitFace”… but I haven’t done much for Christ lately and maybe some constructive virtual vigilantism would help me let off steam.

    A guy’s enemies can openly post against him on Twitter? How the heck did THAT kind of social media become a thing?

  51. Lost Patrol says:

    Tell me again why any unchurched man would find value in today’s church or converting to a faith and doctrine that is not only actively hostile towards men, but openly and fluidly redesigns that faith to acts against him?

    Because fighting is fun. Because you can follow a real leader to victory, Jesus the Christ, Son of God, Son of Man. Not the soft, graceful, white, flowing robe, recently shampooed Jesus of the middle ages paintings – the sunburned Jesus who worked for years as a carpenter (or day laborer as I’ve been told), with Popeye forearms and a grip like steel (you know guys like that today, and they have power tools). The One who spent a lot of time outdoors, walking for miles, slept on the ground, ate grain off the stalks, had thousands of people following Him around everywhere to see what He would do or say next, or what He would do for them. The Jesus that directly confronted the 1%ers of His day, the religious leaders, the professorial types, the rich guys; and told them why they were wrong. And did it so cleverly they never had any reply. The leader that demonstrated total mastery of any situation, able to simply walk away untouched if He so desired – Who then having shown the power, relinquished it to the point of dying for the mission upon which God had sent Him. There is a lot more but you already know it.

    These church guys are not in charge of what happens next. It’s not over. Join and fight. Join and die. You’ll be dead for millions of years anyway. What are we going to do with the here and now? Dalrock is opposing them. Hell – Boxer is making them squirm.

    Move toward the sound of the guns Rollo. You know you want to. You know you’d be good at it.

  52. N. Vandenberg says:

    “It seems to me that this puts an unendurable burden on the heart of the wife (or husband, as the case may be). The church is asking her to make a life-altering decision based upon what God may or may not do in the future. But how can we ask our sheep to sin in this regard?”

    That guy Powell actually said that?
    Dalrock I am so glad that you bring this crazy stuff to light. almost the whole of American churches are beset with this nonsense. I myself have been in churches where this fruitless claptrap is promulgated. If it were not for your blog, I would be propagandized into believing this hooey.
    I quoted Ecclesiastes 7:28 to my supposed orthodox minister:
    “while I was still searching but not finding– I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.”

    This “Bible believing” pastor explained the verse away as being written by an old man who was probably reprobate. Modern churchians will do anything to save harmless the true object of their worship: women!

  53. feeriker says:

    But now that you mention converting, one notices Churchians don’t exactly evangelize. At all. They complain about falling membership yet are more interested in poaching each other’s disaffected members or offering free donuts than preaching the Gospel.

    Yup, and this is most true of … evangelicals. They don’t evangelize (“too hard/scary/time-consuming”), study the Bible (too hard to understand/boring/time-consuming – this failure to teach apologetics being why they suck at evangelizing), pray (except as theater performance during “worship services”), attend to the spiritual needs of their brethren (can’t be bothered with “needy” people), or hold themselves and each other accountable in acvordance with Scripture (that’s “mean,” “boring,” “hard,” and “judgmental”).

    So, without the hard work, faith, rebirth in Christ, suffering for Christ, evangelizing for Christ, and discipline of the body to prevent corruption by the enemy, you have … a Jesus Fan Club that holds chapter meetings every Sunday morning????

  54. patchasaurus says:

    Praying for BillyS

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    GunnerQ
    But now that you mention converting, one notices Churchians don’t exactly evangelize. At all. They complain about falling membership yet are more interested in poaching each other’s disaffected members or offering free donuts than preaching the Gospel.

    The best satire always contains a grain of truth.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/sanctuary-mistakenly-omitted-megachurch-campus-design/

  56. feeriker says:

    The best satire always contains a grain of truth.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/sanctuary-mistakenly-omitted-megachurch-campus-design/

    You KNOW that this has already happened with some new “megachurch.” The only thing that separates this from actual news is the following:

    “We’ll make this right. Northwoods will get a sanctuary squeezed in between the men’s ministry’sclimbing wall and Olympic swimming pool sometime in the next three years.”

    Pure fiction. No megachurch would be caught dead with a men’s ministry.

  57. Anon says:

    A wife who wants to divorce is like Christ.
    Divorcing is an act of obedience to God.

    Shouldn’t pastors and divorce lawyers be one and the same, at this point? There is a lot of redundancy in the profession(s) that can be eliminated.

    I suppose divorce lawyers work M-F, and are free on Sunday to be at church anyway.

    Smart divorce lawyers should take up pastoral duties so as to eliminate the middle-man and capture more of the profits for themselves.

  58. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The best satire always contains a grain of truth.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/sanctuary-mistakenly-omitted-megachurch-campus-design/

    My Firefox browser warns me against going to the Babylonbee.com site. It says the site is improperly configured and might “steal” my information.

  59. Hmm says:

    @feeriker: “Pure fiction. No megachurch would be caught dead with a men’s ministry.”

    On the contrary – the megachurch men’s ministry is the key way they control men into the FI. Under the guise of men getting together to do “man stuff”, they teach and encourage them to become better servants to their wives. Ever since Promise Keepers.

  60. Hmm says:

    RPL: “My Firefox browser warns me against going to the Babylonbee.com site. It says the site is improperly configured and might “steal” my information.”

    I don’t get that warning on Firefox, IE or Edge. I am pretty sure it is safe.

  61. Lyn87 says:

    I got the same warning using Waterfox (the 64-bit version of Firefox).

  62. anon says:

    “On the contrary – the megachurch men’s ministry is the key way they control men into the FI. Under the guise of men getting together to do “man stuff”, they teach and encourage them to become better servants to their wives. Ever since Promise Keepers.”

    Yep. I’m guessing you haven’t been around church in a while, feeriker.
    Ever hear of the Promise Keepers?
    That “club” was more common back in the nineties/early 2000s, but it was the start of things.

  63. anon says:

    Oh geez…didn’t read the last. You already mentioned Promise Keepers. Oops…

  64. Mandy says:

    Marriage is a covenant made before God. Individual happiness is irrelevant and not at all the point. If her goal in life is to always do what makes her happy then in no way is she serving Christ.

  65. Lyn87 says:

    Men’s ministries are pretty common, actually. My church has a men’s study that meets early on Wednesday mornings (then again, except for a few coordinating positions under the direction of the all-male elder board, all leadership positions are filled by men: and women are not eligible to become deacons or elders).

    Personally, I’m not a fan of the modern trend of having a special group for each-and-every demographic slice of the congregation, anyway – God calls His people to unity.

    As I see it, the problem is not that there aren’t enough men’s ministries, but what a lot of churches are promulgating within those ministries.

  66. thedeti says:

    Rollo:

    I think you’re correct in that Powell’s twisting of scripture here is a good example of the step between “workarounds” and omission.

    I continue to be amazed at how hard pastors work to explain, excuse, restate, rework, reword, torture, and ignore Eph 5 and 1 Pet 3. Wives are to be subject to their husbands IN ALL THINGS. What is it about “IN ALL THINGS” do you not understand?

    By the way, this:

    “Jesus scripturally states is the only breach of contract under which a woman can justifiably divorce her husband.”

    Is not entirely correct. I don’t see anywhere in the bible where a wife can divorce a husband AND THEN be free to remarry (because that’s really the point of divorce for women – to clear the way for the hunky millionaire handyman). The scripture you’re talking about allows men to divorce their wives for HER adultery. It doesn’t necessarily permit her to divorce him for his adultery. It’s often interpreted that way. But that’s not what the text says, IIRC.

  67. thedeti says:

    Addendum to my prior comment:

    A wife is free to divorce an unbelieving husband who leaves her or otherwise “puts her away”. She’s free to leave him, live alone and live without him. She’s not bound to him anymore as a wife, she doesn’t have to respect him or submit to him. But she’s not free to remarry, at least not according to scripture.

  68. feeriker says:

    Yep. I’m guessing you haven’t been around church in a while, feeriker.

    I attend church regularly and have for the last decade. Of the half dozen that I’ve atended in that timeframe, only ONE, a small Baptist church, had an established men’s ministry (which unfortunately did not compensate for its other serious theological shortcomings; sad, because it was a very RP church otherwise).

    IME, the larger the church, the more BP/feminist it is, which stands to reason. I am now struggling in my current church to establish a weekly men’s Bible study, to a less than overwhelming and enthusiastic response. The success or failure at getting this going will determine my future affiliation with this church (men CANNOT lead a church without grounding themselves in the Word as a group).

  69. thedeti says:

    Good luck on starting a weekly men’s Bible study. Most church men’s ministries are a complete joke, really. Most men’s ministries are “worship your wives” and “don’t look at porn”.

  70. Isabelle says:

    ;;;;

  71. God bless, feeriker. God Bless. I hope it goes well. History doesn’t bode well, but it’s worth the effort. If for no other reason than experience of ways to deal with the next iterations.

  72. Sean says:

    Of the half dozen that I’ve atended in that timeframe, only ONE, a small Baptist church, had an established men’s ministry (which unfortunately did not compensate for its other serious theological shortcomings; sad, because it was a very RP church otherwise).

    I hate that this happens. I was, and still am, caught in this spot, too. It’s hard to find a church that hits all the spots and doesn’t make you queasy with quirks.

  73. UK Fred says:

    Praying for BillyS, both for the strength to get through his ordeal and for the Church to pay heed to all of Scripture.

  74. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Blue Pill Wisdom about Donald Trump, from the Mormon Deseret News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html?pg=all

    The idea that women secretly welcome the unbridled and aggressive sexual advances of powerful men has led to the mistreatment, sorrow and subjugation of countless women for far too much of human history.

    In my youth I refrained from any and all “unbridled and aggressive sexual advances” on women. I was a perfect gentlemen. Attentive and considerate. My many women friends appreciated it, even as they complained to me about their abusive, asshole boyfriends.

  75. Dalrock says:

    @RPL

    The best satire always contains a grain of truth.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/sanctuary-mistakenly-omitted-megachurch-campus-design/

    My Firefox browser warns me against going to the Babylonbee.com site. It says the site is improperly configured and might “steal” my information.

    Firefox barks at me too. If you pull the “s” off the first part of the url (removing the forced secure connection) it should fix this. http://babylonbee.com/news/sanctuary-mistakenly-omitted-megachurch-campus-design/

  76. Lyn87 says:

    RPL,

    Too true… when many young women are in the cat-bird seat of the the SMV (when they have what it is in high demand), they follow the tingles – and simultaneously complain to their beta orbiters about the ZFG jerk-boys they sleep with. When they age out of the best seats on the carousel they’re suddenly “tired of games” and want something different. But guys are starting to look around and ask themselves, “Do I want to be the one she latches onto once she’s “tired of games” (i.e., no longer fun), or do I want to be one of the guys who tires her out?”

    But once the women reach the “Epiphany Phase” – as Rollo puts it – they retroactively decide that they didn’t really enjoy all the jerk-boy attention they were basking in (while they were incentivizing that behavior with access to their bodies and generally ignoring the decent guys all around them). The problem is that there are a lot more years post-carousel than there are riding it, so for every PYT who’s enjoying the sexual attraction that comes with youth and beauty, there are four or five post-wall women who are bitter because they didn’t get the alpha they wanted and/or are insanely jealous that the current carousel-riders are getting the attention they no longer receive. Within the SMP that’s not a problem, because the only thing that matters is what the people at the top want – and they want the guys who are confident enough to give them the attention they crave (which they will retroactively label as “harassment” or even “assault” when they can no longer get it). But it DOES matter in politics, because older women bitter about being ejected from the carousel outvote the younger women who are the reason they were ejected.

  77. feeriker says:

    I hate that this happens. I was, and still am, caught in this spot, too. It’s hard to find a church that hits all the spots and doesn’t make you queasy with quirks.

    No church is perfect, or ever will be. I’d be satisfied to find one that at least seriously tried to reject the culture and take Scripture seriously. That by itelf is a Holy Grail-type quest.

  78. BillyS says:

    Thanks for all the comments and prayers. I may respond specifically later.

    She may have finally realized she will not leave rich as she planned. That may have changed her mindset, but it is still developing. I would rather keep going with what I have than any other approach, so hopefully this goes the way it is headed.

    ====

    I don’t know that I am ready for a lot of traffic, but I have a post about men connecting at https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/finding-a-core-group-of-male-friends/ for those who are interested.

  79. Gunner Q says:

    Thanks for the tip, Dalrock. I didn’t know about that “s”.

    From the Desert News:
    “The idea that women secretly welcome the unbridled and aggressive sexual advances of powerful men has led to the mistreatment, sorrow and subjugation of countless women for far too much of human history.”

    Which is why our churches confirm husbands as the leaders of families over judges and pastors, right? So powerful men WON’T be able to mistreat and subjugate women?

    Pastor: “Cruel, powerful men are mistreating our daughters! And the most cruel, powerful man in this church today is <> IRWIN THE I.T. NERD!!”

    Irwin: “Cool! She’s looking at me! Hi, Debbie! I brought you a flower!”

    Debbie projectile vomits 35 feet. Nails him.

  80. Novaseeker says:

    Any good advice on how to walk this through and properly connect with others could be helpful.

    Sorry to hear you are going through this. I went through it in the early noughts. It sucks, it is a terrible process, it is stacked against you in every way imaginable. But … it does get better eventually. The key is surviving the bad period, which is now, more or less intact.

    You have a lawyer, which is good. Are they male friendly? Do they have a history of representing men in divorces where you live with good results? If not, you may want to shop around for a good, male-friendly, ace divorce lawyer where you live. They do exist and it matters. A lot.

    Stay healthy. Eat properly, sleep properly, work out properly. Take care of your physical self in this crisis mode time. It will help you make better decisions, and make you feel stronger to make them consistently. Focus on this.

    Pray often. You already do this, I am sure, but focus on it more. It matters a lot. God is with us in these kinds of times, but you need to make the connection. Pray for yourself and your wife, ask God for help and strength and fortitude.

    Since you don’t have kids, the main issues will be property division and alimony. Fight hard on alimony. Hard as nails. It is a totally undeserved subsidy, especially if she didn’t even bear children for you. Assets should be divided 50/50 and anything other than that you should fight hard on — same on liabilities.

    Don’t play tricks — usually gets you in trouble with the judge, and the judge will be involved sooner or later. Discuss with your lawyer specific things which are not tricks but which are helpful in your jurisdiction — it differs depending on where you live and the courts where you are.

    Above all, keep in contact. In the real world, people will withdraw from you, mostly — that’s what the real world does when men are divorcing. The real world will, however, rush in to help your wife. Expect this, and do not be angered by it — it’s just how it is for men. Reach out to us, reach out to God, reach out to family and friends, but expect that in many ways this will be a lonesome path. Just how it works — society really hates divorced men. Stay close to God, and remember we are all here.

  81. Novaseeker says:

    For your consideration.

    The thing is that as much as that editor is correct about Trump, Hillary is worse. Hillary supports the absolute and total destruction of everything that is precious to Christ. Trump is simply a jackass who can’t control his impulses — he isn’t a hell-bent social engineer, like Hillary, who is bent on stamping out whatever smoldering ruins yet remain of the civilization created by the West. In other words, Trump is a buffoon, and an immoral one, but he isn’t demonic — flawed but not demonic. Hillary, by comparison, is a demonic avatar the likes of which we have never yet seen in our politics. She will completely destroy the remnants of the church in the US if she is President, which seems likely from where I am sitting. For Christians to be blind to her clearly demonic nature is breathtaking, but I suppose to be expected given the degree of demonic corruption that plagues all of our churches in the US currently.

  82. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    I am not an attorney, but come from a long line of them, and I think I have some insight into this…

    You have a lawyer, which is good. Are they male friendly? Do they have a history of representing men in divorces where you live with good results? If not, you may want to shop around for a good, male-friendly, ace divorce lawyer where you live. They do exist and it matters. A lot.

    The best way to pick a divorce lawyer, in my opinion, will also be a good way to get a feel for the process of divorce. I mean to go down to the divorce courts and see the playas on their feet, in action. They often have breaks between trials, where you can find these dudes in the hallway and get their business card.

    Do not immediately discount the idea of a female lawyer. I realize this is not conventional advice, but I’ve seen them work. Good women lawyers know what women do and can cut off your ex-wife’s plays in ways men often can not. But again, the proof is in how they perform while you’re watching them.

    Often you will actually get better service by hiring a younger lawyer, who has been practicing for a year or three, but who is still making a name for himself in the community. The older guys often get jaded and don’t have time to explain everything to you. Their fees are also higher.

    Once you retain the services of a competent professional, do exactly as he says, even if the advice is counterintuitive or goes against your instincts. If he tells you not to take calls from the ex-wife, don’t take her calls. If he tells you to keep your mouth shut during some proceeding, don’t be goaded into speaking. I’m always amazed at the stories I hear, of people who can’t take direction, and the trouble it eventually causes.

    Good luck dudes.

    Boxer

  83. RPchristian says:

    Because fighting is fun. Because you can follow a real leader to victory, Jesus the Christ, Son of God, Son of Man. Not the soft, graceful, white, flowing robe, recently shampooed Jesus of the middle ages paintings – the sunburned Jesus who worked for years as a carpenter (or day laborer as I’ve been told), with Popeye forearms and a grip like steel (you know guys like that today, and they have power tools). The One who spent a lot of time outdoors, walking for miles, slept on the ground, ate grain off the stalks, had thousands of people following Him around everywhere to see what He would do or say next, or what He would do for them. The Jesus that directly confronted the 1%ers of His day, the religious leaders, the professorial types, the rich guys; and told them why they were wrong. And did it so cleverly they never had any reply. The leader that demonstrated total mastery of any situation, able to simply walk away untouched if He so desired – Who then having shown the power, relinquished it to the point of dying for the mission upon which God had sent Him. There is a lot more but you already know it.

    AMEN. There’s a whole segment of men out there who know they’ve been sold a bill of goods by the feminist culture. Considering that Jesus was a rugged fighter. Considering that the bible is at its core patriarchal, gives men both responsibility AND leadership, a higher calling, and illustrates actual masculine virtues of courage, conviction, leadership, focused and disciplined violence, and sexual fulfillment. Considering these things, men should be flocking to the church. Instead, it’s viewed as even more feminine than the broader culture.

    This is a big reason why Western Christianity is on decline. We should having men out there fighting in the battlefield of ideas, fiercely defending the scriptures, rebuking evil and falsehood, campaigning for the God’s truth and his kingdom, renouncing materialism and sacrificing all for the King of Kings. Instead, we have these weak, effeminate, nice guys who sound like used car salesman, misrepresent the scriptures, and make Christianity seem soft. It’s not that Western Christianity is losing the ideas war, it’s that the people actually fighting in the war no longer even view the church as a worthy adversary. They’ve already won, but the church thinks it’s still in the fight.

    A total revamp is needed.

  84. thedeti says:

    “She will completely destroy the remnants of the church in the US if she is President, which seems likely from where I am sitting.”

    Yeah. I don’t share most of the manosphere’s optimism about Trump’s presidential prospects. The whole “grab em by the pussy” thing was released as an October surprise precisely because everyone knew the reaction would be shock and outrage.

    (This despite the fact that everyone knows — or should know — that rich and famous men conduct their personal lives as absolute toxic jerks who do pretty much whatever they want, when they want, where they want and to whom they want. I know men like this, who aren’t famous, but have a lot — A LOT — of money and power. Drinking, illegal drug use, sex with prostitutes, extramarital affairs, influence peddling, dealmaking, using influence to escape legal consequences, perjury, you name it.)

    Clinton has the following states locked up: NY, IL, CA, WA, OR, CT, RI, NH, VT, ME, HI, MA, DC, MD, and NJ. That’s at least 200 electoral votes right there. She will probably pick up WI, CO, IA and AZ, maybe NM and GA. Trump will have the Plains states, the rest of the south and Mid-South, the Carolinas, and AK. The only populous state he is reasonably assured of winning is TX. So the battlegrounds will be the usual – MI, OH, PA and FL. Clinton will get MI, most likely. Trump must carry OH, PA and FL to even have a chance. I just don’t see that happening.

  85. Novaseeker says:

    Clinton has the following states locked up: NY, IL, CA, WA, OR, CT, RI, NH, VT, ME, HI, MA, DC, MD, and NJ. That’s at least 200 electoral votes right there. She will probably pick up WI, CO, IA and AZ, maybe NM and GA. Trump will have the Plains states, the rest of the south and Mid-South, the Carolinas, and AK. The only populous state he is reasonably assured of winning is TX. So the battlegrounds will be the usual – MI, OH, PA and FL. Clinton will get MI, most likely. Trump must carry OH, PA and FL to even have a chance. I just don’t see that happening.

    Yep, agreed. Also VA is going Clinton as well.

    Times gonna get hard in the next 4-8 years folks. Real persecution is coming down the pike really quickly. Get prepared.

  86. mrteebs says:

    @ Boxer

    I agree – a female divorce attorney may be just what the doctor ordered. They can’t be accused of the usual “team men” misogyny while still being utterly ruthless. Harness the family court’s female bias and use it accordingly. It seems to be an emerging area of practice for women to represent men in divorces, as there is a recognized inequity they can cash in on, realizing that men are not only the underdogs, but alsothe ones with deeper pockets and more at stake in the short and medium run.

    I have actually seen TV and radio ads from women attorneys looking to represent men in divorce and child custody cases because they (rightly) perceive there are gross inequities to address – ripe for the picking to the right pit bull.

  87. Oscar says:

    I have no experience in this area, thank God (and I mean that literally), but I’ve heard a lot of commercials for this firm on the radio. Maybe this’ll be useful.

    http://cordellcordell.com/

    “Cordell & Cordell is an international domestic litigation firm focused on men’s divorce and all other family law practice areas.

    Men have chosen Cordell & Cordell because of our dedication to leveling the playing field for men in family law cases.

    Our mission is to be advisors and advocates for men before, during, and after divorce, with a passionate and intelligent devotion to excellence.”

    Again, I have no experience with this, so if anyone knows more about this firm, please chime in.

  88. Feminist Hater says:

    Yeah. I don’t share most of the manosphere’s optimism about Trump’s presidential prospects. The whole “grab em by the pussy” thing was released as an October surprise precisely because everyone knew the reaction would be shock and outrage.

    That’s pretty standard though, Hillary can break actual Federal Law and be completely incompetent whilst doing it but Trump speaks a few naughty words behind closed doors about women and it’s hell to pay and he’s isn’t fit to sit as President. Every American Election I’ve watched seems to always have the Democrats slinging as much mud as they can without having to explain, cause the media doesn’t want a fair fight, why the same mud they sling against the Republicans is 10 times more applicable to their candidate. Hillary is the perfect example. She truly isn’t fit to stand as a President.

    Still, the bread and circuses is for naught really, it’s a numbers game and the Democrats stuffed their voters over the years with immigrants, feminists, welfare queens, single moms and even dead people to carry them over the line. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

    Not my country though, we’ve had buffoons running our dog and pony show for years now, kinda used to it.. voting is for fools.

  89. Oscar says:

    @ RPchristian says:
    October 11, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    “This is a big reason why Western Christianity is on decline.”

    The Western Church is not declining, it’s being refined by fire as is necessary periodically. We just happen to live in one of those times. The dross will be burned away and the remnant will be gold.

    And it’ll hurt like hell.

  90. Clinton has outpolled effectively all of her actual results throughout the entire primary (both times, actually) and her 1 actual election. Where she ran behind Al Gore by 5% in New York. She’s the worst retail politician to sniff the Presidency in a century, if not more. That’s exactly why you’re seeing the media play things the way they are: they can’t create a desire to vote for Hillary.

    But they can run voter intimidation & suppression. That’s really what’s happening. It’s not about finding support for Clinton, as that’s beyond soft. It’s about limiting support for Trump.

    Also, there’s not a lot of shrieking violets left in the swing states. Those are mostly in the coastal states and the few places that are going to go R by a huge enough margin to not matter. (The Mormons still seem pissed about Mittens losing.) It’s not even Wednesday and it’s out of the news cycle on CNN. (Also a sign that Trump won the Debate by a massive margin.)

    We’re in territory we haven’t seen since at least the 1912 election. No one is alive to put to paper what we’re seeing.

    I favor Trump 47, Clinton 44, Stein/Johnson 8, Other 1. The EC depends where those other 9% end up being voted.

    Also, at least in my closer area, which should be more sensitive to the “locker room” talk, it mostly went over like a dud. The “jail” line was a hit, though.

    Our old metrics won’t play well because everything is shifting. We’re entering a new area in this country, regardless of the outcome of the election. It’s all changing.

    Oh, and the US Equities won’t probably implode until next year. But Deutche Bank is sitting out there as a neutron bomb about to go off. The carnage will blanket the news, even in the States.

    Lastly, we didn’t make it to Wednesday and Trump has already ended Paul Ryan’s career at the top of Republican Politics. Elites are always sharks and Ryan put blood in the water because he’s a damned fool. He’s going to cost some wings of the GOP seats because he couldn’t get along with Trump (yet he had no problem getting along with known pedophile Hastert), and they’re going to exact revenge. If not in this upcoming session, it’ll be in the next.

    Last point, but it’s important. “Power”, however defined, is at its peak when it *isn’t* used. Fear of that Power is more important than the actual use of it. What we’ve clearly seen, all year, is even if it wins them the election, the Elites clearly have lost most of their grip on Power. It’s pretty much taken the Boomers starting to die off to do it, but the “old ways” simply aren’t enough. And they don’t have the Manpower capable of enforcing a lot of things as we go forward. Call it the “Great Unwinding”, but things are going to get damn messy.

    Which isn’t to say Trump is going to win. I still expect it, but a lot can happen. That the media is outright working to make you think it’s impossible is a sign they know Clinton needs the help. They’d otherwise be running the coronation approach they did with Obama.

  91. @Oscar:

    Amen, brother. Amen.

  92. RPchristian says:

    @Oscar

    Good re-frame.

    Now, how can we accelerate the process? I’m ready to go to battle but there are no leaders. Hell, there are no comrades either. The only place I can find like-minded men is on this website. I tried to recruit some friends who I thought would be receptive and they rebuked me for challenging my pastor’s authority.

  93. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    In 2000, GWB carried VA. He also carried OH, GA and AZ, and we all know he won FL by the skin of his teeth. I think Clinton will flip GA and probably NC. That happens, it’s over, because I see her carrying MI and maybe PA. Maybe.

  94. You will never meet a man who more readily self-deprecates and nervously, jokingly, defers not just himself to women, but implies all men should, than an evangelical husband or pastor.

    This is a conditioned and internalized characteristic of every evangelical man. At any opportunity they will tell you how lucky they are that their wives would have anything to do with a hopeless schlub such as themselves. All the while you can see their wife’s pained expressions at their husband’s ready prostrations for them and women in general.

    They will go so far as to count it as a “God thing” that their wives would show mercy on their ridiculous and flawed maleness, thus making it a metaphysical and magical sign of divine intervention that they’d be married at all.

    On some level of consciousness even evangelical women see this humiliation as a Beta tell and hate that ‘their’ men would lie so low for them. They understand that women’s self-worth is intimately associated with the men they pair with.

  95. Novaseeker says:

    In 2000, GWB carried VA. He also carried OH, GA and AZ, and we all know he won FL by the skin of his teeth. I think Clinton will flip GA and probably NC. That happens, it’s over, because I see her carrying MI and maybe PA. Maybe.

    Yep. The country overall is trending center left, so it makes sense. Basically the political alignment in the US is (1) straight white guys (at least 65-70% of them) vs (2) everyone who isn’t a straight white guy (and the 30-35% of SWGs who are quislings). This is where white nationalism falls down — white women vote against white men routinely. They hate us politically.

  96. RPchristian says:

    @Rollo

    Absolutely, brilliantly, spot on.

    I always felt something was wrong but I didn’t see the problem clearly until about 1 year ago. You and others on this blog helped to clarify the nature of the problem.

    This is a festering, putrid disease in the church and needs to be amputated.

  97. Micha Elyi says:

    No church is perfect, or ever will be. I’d be satisfied to find one that at least seriously tried to reject the culture and take Scripture seriously.
    feeriker

    Search for the Church who compiled the Christian Scriptures and whose earliest churchmen wrote them. The true Church rejected the divorce culture, the contraceptive culture, the abortion culture, the euthanasia culture, and the hookup culture back in the days of the Roman emperors and still rejects them today. I’ve heard of groups of humble warriors against the secular culture. One’s called Little Sisters of the Poor, another is Friars of the Renewal. They can probably point you toward the Church you seek.

    In the end, the earthly authority in the household and the authority of the Church comes from the same source. “He who rejects you,” said Jesus Christ to the leaders of the Church he founded on the Rock of Peter, “rejects Me.” Men, do not reject the source of your authority over your household. If you are separated from the source of your authority, do as the Prodigal Son did. Get thee Home.

  98. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    That describes nearly every pastor I have known.

    It’s no wonder they tear down the headship of other husbands. Any man asserting authority over his own home or demonstrating authentic masculinity is tacitly proclaiming their superior leadership qualities compared to him.

  99. feeriker says:

    Get thee Home.

    In a word, no.

    This is not the time or place to go into detail, but what you consider “home” is worse than a homeless shelter.

  100. feeriker says:

    That describes nearly every pastor I have known.

    It’s no wonder they tear down the headship of other husbands. Any man asserting authority over his own home or demonstrating authentic masculinity is tacitly proclaiming their superior leadership qualities compared to him.

    It is not purely satire to suggest that perhaps an intervention/rehab program for pastors needs to be established, one that helps them find and reunite with their balls and self-respect.

  101. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Rollo

    This is a conditioned and internalized characteristic of every evangelical man. At any opportunity they will tell you how lucky they are that their wives would have anything to do with a hopeless schlub such as themselves.

    They are just loving their wives like Christ loved the church. You know like how Jesus was always telling his disciples how how He would be lost without them , how lucky He was to have them, to be able to wash their feet daily and make them happy. </sarc

  102. BillyS says:

    Well, it looks like I was the one getting my hopes up. I won’t put my son in the middle any more, but he validated that my wife still thinks she can get the most out of me so she can live a comfortable life without me.

    I will spend too much on my lawyer to keep that from happening.

    I know it is accurate, but it is still amazing to see stupidity in action here. A woman could have a better life with a husband, but will leave him anyway because of bitterness she has built up.

    Cutting off your nose to spite your face….

  103. Billy S I have had your experience and I have been at the crossroads you are at now. I do not want to unfurl all that here but if I can be of any assistance make a blank comment at my blog and I’ll have your email and contact you.

  104. John Linzmayer says:

    Respectfully, it’s obviously easier for me to state as an agnostic — is my first post now “DOA” :-)) that the point when serious, life altering psychological or physical abuse, sometimes resulting a life’s ending, against the wife (usually), husband, or children happens, there is no rational reason to find fault with a decision to divorce.

    You don’t have to watch the portrayals of such real life horrors on “ID” to appreciate such extremely unfortunate realities.
    Peace 🙂
    John
    NJ

  105. Anon says:

    Looking at the 2004 results vs. present, we can see how quickly America became blue.

    GWB won VA and CO by at least 7%, and NC by over 10%. They were not even considered swing states. But now those are blue. He won FL by 5% and even CA was lost by just 9%.

    There has been no state that is less blue than before. They are either the same (OH), or significantly more blue (CO, NV, VA, NC, FL). The fact that even AZ is in play is astonishing.

    BUT, as we know, most Republicans are cuckservatives, so this is no loss. Plus, there is a good chance Trump is a false flag candidate anyway.

  106. @feeriker:

    It’s not a joke and it will need to be built.

    @BillyS:

    Wives, in the American legal system, have the ability to go full Thermonuclear War on a Husband. The only response is in kind. It ain’t a knife-fight.

  107. feeriker says:

    You know like how Jesus was always telling his disciples how He would be lost without them , how lucky He was to have them, to be able to wash their feet daily and make them happy. </sarc

    Give it a year or two, and we’ll be seeing a new NT translation that reads exactly like that.

  108. Oscar says:

    @ RPchristian says:
    October 11, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    “Now, how can we accelerate the process? I’m ready to go to battle but there are no leaders. Hell, there are no comrades either. The only place I can find like-minded men is on this website. I tried to recruit some friends who I thought would be receptive and they rebuked me for challenging my pastor’s authority.”

    I don’t know this for sure, but I don’t think it’s something we can accelerate. I think it’s up to God’s judgement. I get the feeling (and I stress this is just a feeling – I don’t claim to be a prophet) that we’re heading towards judgement and God will judge the Church along with the rest of the nation, or maybe even before.

    As for joining the battle, we’ve been discussing that very subject over at Cane’s blog.

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/a-draft-of-a-manual-to-war-against-the-necropolis/

  109. feeriker says:

    BUT, as we know, most Republicans are cuckservatives, so this is no loss.

    Cuckservatives in general, and Republican cuckservatives in particular, are Libtards Lite. They have no principle other than craving power for its own sake, and in order to get it they are willing to be all things to all people (or rather, try to – and very ineptly at that). As the boys in the ‘hood say, people be noticin’ dat shit, an’ dey ain’t down wit’ it. Dried turd-ignorant as the American majority is, they are at least sentient enough to prefer honest-to-God, undisguised, unapologetic Libtardation, served up hot and fresh by the Democratic Party, over the ersatz “conservatism” served up by the Republican Party that tastes as phony as it obviously is and that wouldn’t fool a blind-deaf-mute person. The number of people who take the GOP seriously could fit inside of Donald Trump’s shoe with room to spare.

    Plus, there is a good chance Trump is a false flag candidate anyway.

    Yup. No one screws up a presidential debate like Trump did (TWICE) who takes his candidacy seriously. He has no intention of winning this election and if he does, he’ll waste no time in disqualifying himself from taking office. In his favor, I’d say that no self-respecting human in their right mind wants to occupy the Awful Orifice.

  110. RPchristian says:

    feeriker states: It is not purely satire to suggest that perhaps an intervention/rehab program for pastors needs to be established, one that helps them find and reunite with their balls and self-respect.

    The problem is that in a perverted way these pastors enjoy posing as the inferior in their marriages. In the same way that some pastors gets a big ego stroke from being the only alphas in the room, some pastors get a big ego stroke out of being the most “humble” husbands in the room.

    A man is never so proud as when striking an attitude of humility – C.S. Lewis

  111. RPchristian says:

    Man, I keep messing up my italics!

  112. MarcusD says:

    A Woman’s Account: “My Husband Cheated: Healing and Thriving After Infidelity.”
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1027767

    Husband cheated during engagement
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1027750

    Husband texts/calls female coworkers regularly
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1027736

  113. @Novaseeker

    This is where white nationalism falls down — white women vote against white men routinely. They hate us politically.

    The white women’s vote is split, but the majority voted for Romney last time. Married white women vote heavily Republican.

    The demographics are pretty clear: whites are trending more and more Republican, and all non-whites are generally voting as a block for Democrats. The Republicans could win if they got more white women’s votes and focused on turning out the white vote generally.

    The only chance the Republicans have to win elections in the future is to heavily promote white identity politics.

    Trump was doing well with his child care ads – it had a populist economic appeal to white women. That’s likely why this latest “scandal” is being played up – white women is where Trump is the weakest. His sniping at Megyn Kelly was tone-deaf and hurt him unnecessarily.

    A major problem the Republicans have had since Reagan is that white people don’t turn out to vote for Chamber of Commerce Republicans that harp on cutting taxes for the rich, deregulation, cutting welfare, etc. This simply does not motivate white people to vote.

    That’s why Trump was different than the average Republican – Trump isn’t really a conservative, and he’s not even really a Republican. His main appeal in on restricting immigration (civic nationalism) and economic populism.

    He’s not likely to win, but if the GOP has any future at all, it’s more Trump like politics (without Trump’s many negative personal qualities.)

    If you will notice – when elections roll around, people stop pretending that “race doesn’t matter.” Politics in America is probably 80% racial identity, and 20% “issues.” Since most Americans pretty much despise the Republican economic agenda, there’s really only one thing the GOP can do if they want to ever win an election again.

  114. Anon says:

    The white women’s vote is split, but the majority voted for Romney last time. Married white women vote heavily Republican

    And you think ‘voting Republican’ makes them right-wing? Rather, Republican women have just turned the GOP into a big government, pussywhipped party.

    The only chance the Republicans have to win elections in the future is to heavily promote white identity politics.

    With ‘friends’ like these, the right does not need enemies (race nationalism is a left-wing ideology, btw. Both Nazi Germany and the KKK were left-wing in all economic ideas).

  115. @Anon

    And you think ‘voting Republican’ makes them right-wing?

    No. Why in the world would you think that? Romney wasn’t particularly right wing either.

    race nationalism is a left-wing ideology

    Oy vey! /eyeroll Tell that to Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud.

    “Right” vs. “left” are meaningless labels at this point in history.

  116. Lyn87 says:

    From MarcusD’s link about the guy who sends texts to a few of his female coworkers:

    “My advice, as an almost formerly immature husband, is to go at him hard. Let your pregnancy hormones guide you. [Insert wicked grin emoticon] Throw his phone in the toilet if you need to. Boys need strong discipline, tell him to straighten up or leave. You will not have to live with this sort of behavior for the rest of your life. Not to mention the example he could be setting for your children.”

    So the wife is now the “mommy” who’s going to discipline the “boy” whose child she is carrying? Sounds about right for CAF, or Mister Powell for that matter. So she married a “flirty” guy… that same demeanor is probably what attracted her to him in the first place. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior (if that’s what it is), but when a man tries to turn a whore into a housewife he doesn’t get much sympathy when it goes as predicted. Why should a woman who marries a cad receive any more?

    I know it’s considered “polite” to assume a person asking for advice is telling the unvarnished truth in a fair manner, but we haven’t established that what she’s saying is even close to being accurate. You would think that the justified beat-down that CAF took from the husband who discovered the responses to his lazy wife’s complains about him would make them a little more circumspect, but apparently not. The writer herself thinks that she may be over-reacting due to pregnancy hormones.

    What her husband is doing may or not be over-the-line: if what she says is 100% accurate my take is that he’s setting himself up for trouble, but what are the odds that an anonymous, random woman on CAF – punch-drunk from pregnancy hormones – is being 100% accurate and objective about the situation? My educated estimation is, “Close to zero.” But of course some mangina immediately sees his “past” self in the husband, dons his white armor for m’lady, and tells her to destroy the phone he uses for work and demand that he submit to her or get out, as if 1) there was no ambiguity to what he “knows,” and 2) immediately jeopardizing his job and their marriage would be the right answer anyway.

    I don’t know which is scarier: the idea that guys like that are telling wildly hormonal women to “Destroy your husband’s lifeline to his job (the job that pays your bills and the bills the child will have) and that if he won’t submit to your authority then his child will be raised by a single mother”… or that prosecutors try very hard to seat people like him on juries.

  117. Frank K says:

    @ Rollo

    “This is a conditioned and internalized characteristic of every evangelical man. At any opportunity they will tell you how lucky they are that their wives would have anything to do with a hopeless schlub such as themselves.”

    It’s true, Evang churches are indeed beta wallet factories.

  118. Scott says:

    This is a conditioned and internalized characteristic of every evangelical man. At any opportunity they will tell you how lucky they are that their wives would have anything to do with a hopeless schlub such as themselves. All the while you can see their wife’s pained expressions at their husband’s ready prostrations for them and women in general.

    I guess I’ll go ahead and be the 4th person to quote this gem. Every time I point it out in real life situations, I get black stares (or worse). My own wife is disgusted by it when it happens.

    It is a thought nut to crack.

  119. Lyn87 says:

    This is a conditioned and internalized characteristic of every evangelical man. At any opportunity they will tell you how lucky they are that their wives would have anything to do with a hopeless schlub such as themselves. All the while you can see their wife’s pained expressions at their husband’s ready prostrations for them and women in general.

    Might as well make it five, then. Other than the general principle that one should avoid using words like every, always, and never except in the physical sciences, math, and when referring to God, I have to agree with the sentiment – having seen it so many times myself. I don’t refer to my wife as, “My better half” like a lot of husbands do. I think what starts as self-deprecating humor ends up being what both of them really believe. Not for me: I rarely miss an opportunity to tell my wife, “You won life’s lottery” both in private and in front of others, and it’s become a running joke between us. I say it with a smirk, of course (in truth, we both chose well, we both know we chose well, and each of us knows the other knows that they know) but if I’m going to “amplify” I might as well use it to strengthen rather than undermine.

    There are enough people and things that run down husbands in front of their wives – husbands don’t benefit by doing it to themselves.

  120. Boxer says:

    There are enough people and things that run down husbands in front of their wives – husbands don’t benefit by doing it to themselves.

    I think in the social context of a healthier society, this sort of self-handicapping would serve to lighten the mood from time to time. In that regard, people may be tempted to use it out of nostalgia or a sort of second-level criticism of present social norms. In most contemporary cases, though, it’s toxic.

  121. Every time I hear it, I get more sickened by it. It’s fairly disgusting, to be honest. Self-deprecating humor works from a position of strength because it plays on the irony of the comment. The professional athlete joking about being slow, for instance.

    But when you’re clearly not actually in control and everyone knows it, it’s just a massive flag of weakness. It ain’t funny, either.

  122. BillyS says:

    That image on your latest post makes me shiver Empath.

    ====

    This roller coaster is something I would rather avoid. Nothing is unavoidable with my wife, she just has to step back a bit and think. I am not sure that is going to happen, but we would both be better off, even with some sunk lawyer costs, stopping this direction.

    She is in an area with poor cell reception, greatly complicating this process. Stuffed hurt is really hard to deal with in that case.

    It is turning out to be a good thing we have few money assets. That keeps her more open than she would be if the cash and prizes were more obvious.

  123. BillyS says:

    His sniping at Megyn Kelly was tone-deaf and hurt him unnecessarily.

    I am not so sure about that.

    Do hawt men get degraded in the eyes of others because they diss a bitchy woman? That is not what I hear in other posts.

    Trump backing down, if he does, is far worse. Of course the MSM spins everything against him, so it is hard to know what he really is doing at times.

    I am not certain what the outcome of the election will be, but it will be interesting.

  124. BillyS says:

    I could see my grandfather saying that my grandmother was his better half, but both were completely clear that both were needed and they loved each other deeply. The culture was far different when they were wed and early in their marriage though and that plays a much bigger role.

    I agree that it is very offensive now. Even worse is the “better 2/3rds” I heard recently that really put down a man that was going to speak. So many are blind to such insults today.

  125. DrTorch says:

    I’m ready to go to battle but there are no leaders. Hell, there are no comrades either. The only place I can find like-minded men is on this website

    I feel the same way. I’ve found some like-minded on a few web sites, but having trouble meeting any in person. Even after requests.

    I think persecution is coming, and I despise the cucks who facilitated it. It’s my kids that will bear the brunt of it.

  126. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Media and feminists are making much ado about Trump “intimidating” Clinton during the debate by stepping too close to her: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/10/10/why-was-trump-lurking-behind-clinton-how-body-language-dominated-the-debate/

    Lots of news stories, and Wweets, and Facebook postings about this non-story.

    I thought Hillary was a STRONG woman. But if a man steps too close, her strength ebbs away.

  127. BubbaCluck says:

    Something similar happened when Hillary’s opponent[I think his name was Lazio] first debated her in her first run for the Senate. He walked over to hand her a tax pledge for her to sign. Everyone retired to fainting couches soon after. His “aggression” was not received well.

  128. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    More propaganda from churchianity.

    http://theaquilareport.com/donald-trump-and-sexual-assault-what-else-are-evangelical-voters-willing-to-accept/

    “I have heard much “locker room talk” over the years and I have never, ever, heard someone even come close to bragging about sexual assault without being called out on it by any man with any self-respect whatsoever.

    I am well aware that many men say these sorts of things. Many men commit sexual assault too. Indeed, one out of every five women in America has been the victim of rape or attempted rape, and half – half – of women have experienced sexual assault.”

    Not a Trumpenfuhrer fan myself, but this is what I love about the guy; he is causing everyone to show their true colors on so many issues.

  129. Lovekraft says:

    Today’s Drudge Report 2016.10.12 re: wikileak exposure of John Podesta’s push to infiltrate and undermine the Catholic Church in a “Catholic Spring”:

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

  130. DrTorch says:

    Looking Glass- what evidence is there that Hastert was a pedophile?

    This is a big reason why Western Christianity is on decline. We should having men out there fighting in the battlefield of ideas, fiercely defending the scriptures, rebuking evil and falsehood, campaigning for the God’s truth and his kingdom, renouncing materialism and sacrificing all for the King of Kings. Instead, we have these weak, effeminate, nice guys who sound like used car salesman, misrepresent the scriptures, and make Christianity seem soft.

    Yeah, this is actually stated in Scripture

    2 Cor 10: 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

    4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

    5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

    This is one of the most misused passages, especially the part about taking every thought captive. I once heard a Xian radio station morning DJ use that phrase to discuss here struggles w/ her diet. Missing the mark IMO. I believe this is to urge us to understand that every truth, whether philosophy, science, economics, etc, fits into the Truth that is Christ. And if they concepts and notions from any field contradicts the Creator, then we work to explain how and why it’s false.

    Revenging our disobedience? Wow, cucks have some work set before them!

  131. Byzantine says:

    Asking those awfully inappropriate intimate questions = You are undermining hypergamy, you Manslave….
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3833164/Why-NEVER-ask-partner-lovers-ve-number-mean-anyway.html

  132. Oscar says:

    “Women are to be championed and revered…” ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wisconsin)

    “All women deserve to be treated with respect.” ~ Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah):

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/11/mother-arranged-rape-murder-daughter-watched/

    “Shockingly, police accused the child’s mother, Michelle Martens, 35, of arranging for her boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, 31, to rape her child. Police also accused Martens of helping to stab the child to death and dismembering her. Gonzales’s cousin, Jessica Kelley, 31, was also arrested for participating in the horrific crime.

    Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.” ~ Breitbart

  133. PuffyJacket says:

    Highly relevant to the 2016 election and discussion re: voting split between men and women. Clinton leads among women by 15 percent:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834609/Map-shows-Clinton-win-presidency-MAJOR-landslide-women-voted.html

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dr. Torch
    Looking Glass- what evidence is there that Hastert was a pedophile?

    Let me Google that for you:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dennis+hastert+conviction+pedophile

  135. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar:

    Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.” ~ Breitbart

    Bottom line is this: If that innocent child’s father was in the home, none of that sicko nonsense would have been allowed to happen. This twisted crap is the direct result of things like VAWA (sponsored and pushed through by Republican Mormon congresscuck Mike Crapo (Idaho)) and no-fault divorce.

    All our politicians, with very few exceptions, have blood on their hands.

    Boxer

  136. Gunner Q says:

    The Question @ 11:37 am:
    “Not a Trumpenfuhrer fan myself, but this is what I love about the guy; he is causing everyone to show their true colors on so many issues.”

    Word. So many lies and skeletons are being exposed, in fact, that the Cucks have finally lost control in their desperate effort to elect their Queen. The sheeple want to believe in the lies but events like Republican leaders ordering their followers to vote for Hillary instead of the GOP’s most popular candidate since Reagan, or pro-lifers agreeing with abortionists that women shouldn’t be punished for murdering their babies, or “Army Ranger Barbie” make being a chump an impressive achievement.

    Dalrock once theorized that when feminism and its consequences become publicly acknowledged, the situation will get worse before it gets better because of latecomer opportunism and delayed consequences. I think this election will trigger that no matter whose butt wins the Oval Office.

    RPchristian@October 11, 2016 at 3:07 pm:
    “Now, how can we accelerate the process?”

    Holy turbo, Batman! If God was pushing events any harder, the entire world would be swapping nukes right now. Already it took the Roman Empire 400 years to fall as far as we did in 50.

  137. @Gunner Q:

    The death of political correctness will go in waves. And it’s ugly all the way down.

    Speaking of “all the way down”… if you happen to have heavy exposure to US Equities. Get out. The slaughterfest won’t be so bad in the States, that’ll be in European markets, but it’s not going to be pretty. There’s nothing “free” about our Markets. They’re manipulated beyond almost all belief, but they do have to actually perform transactions.

    For the States, it’s looking to be a repeat of the Dot Com “bust”, though like what happened in the SP500 not the NASDAQ. Think 2-4 year Down Trend. Upwards of 30% drop. Dow probably bottoms around 13000. Though this isn’t a “buy gold!” suggestion. (You *HEDGE* in physical metals.) Dollar is going to 105 over the long-term. Eurodollar should be pushing parity as well.

    The sharks are badly out for Deutsche Bank, which is a problem because that’ll set off a banking crisis across the world. Though it’s not going to be a GFC from 2008 rehash. They’d already blown apart most of the mortgage market. So think more “massive global recession” more than “massive global panic”, which is really what happened in 2008. Whoever wins the Presidency is going to be looking at “job loss” records in their first term, more than likely.

    Though I’m rather worried that some of the Elites have turned on Wells Fargo. (Especially as the news of the CEO quitting just hit. Took him long enough to fall on his sword.) DB being hit with huge fines is a way for the US-based banks to slice up and buy up chunks. Wells Fargo would be one of those banks that would be in on that scheme. Someone lost a round of Hot Potato fairly badly.

    And, yes, I do work in Finance and I know at least a few “connected” people. Plus I know enough about how they operate. They’ve been directly holding the markets up since February. They couldn’t afford them being -5% from where they’re at going into the Election. Hillary doesn’t have a prayer if Wall Street isn’t making money to funnel to her. (They did this with Brexit. The way they played it was pretty clear months before it happened. Can’t time the market? No, actually. But you can time the actors! )

  138. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer,

    Exactly. But if Ryan and Hatch are right, even that hell-spawned “woman” should be “championed and revered”, and “deserves to be treated with respect”.

  139. thedeti says:

    Off topic:

    Am I the only one who finds it quite funny that the people who are now bemoaning the “grab em by the pussy” remarks were the very same people wagging their fingers at us and lecturing us that sexual assault, rape, and lying about a sexual affair are “no big deal” and “not impeachable offenses” and “vast right wing conspiracies”?

    It’s OK if you’re a Democrat/liberal.

  140. Otto Lamp says:

    I took Trump’s statement to be rhetorical rather than literal.

    “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” ― Theodore Roosevelt
    “Grab them by the pussy; you can do anything.” ― Donald Trump

    Neither Roosevelt’s or Trump’s statements were literal.

  141. @thedeti:

    Progressive Alpha is the King! As long as his defenders have dirt and people to snuff others out. But it’s been 16 years and a very different media environment. “Chill” and not “handsy” are in, since Obama is the Chill “alpha”.

    It was really funny watching the imageboards when the news dropped. I had same reaction most normal American’s first reaction of “oh, his campaign is over”. Then, I thought for a second, “wait a minute, I see Family Guy gifs that are 10x as offensive every week; and let’s not talk about South Park”. That’s why I’d guess that the hit was probably from the Romney camp. There’s a heavy anti-Trump push from the Mormons. They’re clearly butt hurt about Mittens being unable to actually attack Obama the entire campaign. So the hit was to hit the pearl-clutchers and wishy-washy Mormons away from Trump. It’s a clear voter suppression hit. (This is a turnout election, more than a momentum one.)

    That’s why the handwringing over the “things Trump says!” in the primary was always stupid. Game of Thrones is the most popular show on TV, if the Internet has any say in the matter. I’ve not watched a single minute of the show directly, but I know how everyone dies! And I’m to believe that Trump says nasty things? Trump was somewhere between my 3rd to 5th choice going into the primary, but I think thinking some very nasty things about some of the Repub office holders the past few days. (Cucks are going to cuck, I guess. “Untrustworthy swine” might work as well.)

    If Trump wins, aside from the clear carnage to come in a lot of places (this really is the outcropping of a war among the Elites that’s been rolling since 2008), the historians are going to look back and wonder why it was even close. Hillary has said/done so many things that would run anyone else out of a campaign, it isn’t funny. But SJWs always gotta lie.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Otto Lamp
    I do not recall Theodore Roosevelt ever saying such a thing. In fact, it does not fit his personality to do so. Therefore I challenge you to produce a source for this quote.

    Frankly it looks more like something from Viet Nam, and we both know TR died long before then.

  143. Lyn87 says:

    It was Roosevelt, in 1906, speaking to Douglas MacArthur. I tried to supply links three times but they won’t post for some reason.

  144. They Call Me Tom says:

    @hmmm, Rollo-

    Nice article from hmmm, nice summing up of the idea by Rollo in his comment.

    Feminists want men to participate in marriage (or maybe just sperm donation at this point?) even while they diminish the esteem of the words ‘husband’ and ‘father’… as if that isn’t a self contradictory expectation. That’s what that ‘Man Up’ preacher missed in his lecture a month or two ago. You can spend every hour of every day wagging a finger at single men, saying, “Grow up, get married.” But it won’t move many men if it isn’t said also to women, “Grow up, honor your husband.”

    The closest allegory that comes to mind, would be a plumber trying to fix a leak by throwing water back at the pipe it’s spraying out of instead of repairing the broken pipe.

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    It was Roosevelt, in 1906, speaking to Douglas MacArthur

    No. Although there are ignorant people at Goodreads who claim otherwise with zero support, or attribution.

    WIlliam Safire’s book on slogans in 1993
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195340612?ie=UTF8&tag=thephrasefinder&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0195340612

    that this is quoted from here:
    http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/60/messages/258.html

    HEARTS AND MINDS – “The knack of turning a phrase was explained by Theodore Roosevelt to his young aide, Lieutenant Douglas MacArthur, in 1906. MacArthur had asked the President to what he attributed his popularity, and Roosevelt replied, ‘To put into words what is in their hearts and minds but not in their mouths.’

    That text reads like T. Roosevelt. Have you read any of his essays, books, speeches, etc.? He was never crude even by the standards of 110 years ago.

    Try posting each link separately. Use primary sources if possible.

    Do not confuse TR in 1906 with Marine officers in 1966.

  146. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Fired male IT workers sue Yahoo for anti-male discrimination: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/lawsuit-yahoo-ceo-tried-to-get-rid-of-male-employees.html

    Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led a secret campaign to purge the company of male employees, according to a lawsuit filed in San Jose District Court this week.

    Scott Ard, a media executive who worked for Yahoo for about three and a half years until he was fired in January 2015, alleged in the lawsuit that “Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of [an employee performance-rating system] to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.” …

    The complaint said quarterly performance reviews were implemented by Mayer in August 2012, shortly after becoming president and CEO of the company. Managers would assign each of their employees a quarterly rating on a scale of zero to five points, based on their performance.

    The lawsuit argued that during a second step of the review process, called “calibration,” higher-level management would modify employee ratings, despite having little to no actual contact with the employee. The suit further alleged that employees were never told their actual numeric rating, or how it had been determined. …

    Ard alleged that 14 of the 16 senior-level editorial employees hired or promoted by Savitt in about an 18-month period were female. He also alleged Savitt has publicly expressed support for increasing the number of women in media and has intentionally hired and promoted women, while firing and demoting men because of their gender.

  147. @RPL:

    When Mayer first took over, I was curious if this would end up happening. One too many Guurl-Powah! stories for this not to happen.

  148. thedeti says:

    Novaseeker:

    You said quite a bit upthread that a Hillary presidency will result in a lot of persecution of Christians. I agree, but I think current trends will continue and somewhat intensify in that it will be a “soft” persecution. It won’t be rounding up Christians into cattle cars and herding them off to concentration camps. It will, however, be

    –sharply limiting expressions of faith to within the 4 walls of your house of worship. Absolutely no tolerance of any faith expressions anywhere else (unless you’re Muslim)

    –threats of social ostracism and economic ruin for anything deemed “offensive”. Say that homosexuality is a sin? Offend some special interest group? You’ll lose your job, even if you said it as an offhand comment at a party or put it on social media. It’ll be reported to your employer. It’ll go viral on the internet. It’ll make its way to your employer and your social circle. Your name and face are now public property as you’re held up to relentless ridicule and “judgment”.

    You’re out of a job and you’re instantly unemployable. You’re out of the social groups. You’re off the nonprofit boards. You’re out of your country club. You’re shunned at church. Your friends disown you.

    This is the big one right here, I think. It will be simply “don’t say anything offensive. Don’t even think the thoughts. If you do, you will lose everything. You’ll be impoverished and isolated, marginalized and demonized. And we can do it too, and it’s the ‘right’ thing to do because we can’t have people holding those views or saying those things in an ordered society.”

  149. thedeti says:

    There will also be intensified efforts to doxx people who blog and comment anonymously on sites like this one. There will be intensified efforts to regulate these blogs, including requiring bloggers and commenters to use their real names or traceable IPs. The view will be that we cannot regulate what they say, but we are entitled to know who is saying these things. We cannot stop them from saying it, but we can make them show their names and faces, and we can make them say it in public.

    Which is really just code for “shut up. We will make you either shut up or say it in public.”

  150. Novaseeker says:

    but I think current trends will continue and somewhat intensify in that it will be a “soft” persecution. It won’t be rounding up Christians into cattle cars and herding them off to concentration camps.

    Yes, I agree. It’s the kind of thing I expect as well — lots more “soft” pressure, socially rather than legally for the most part, with social/employment consequences for dissenters. I think a key element will be flipping things from a situation where quiet personal dissent is acceptable to one where it is not, and anything short of open, enthusiastic support draws suspicion. Hence slogans like “white silence is violence!” and the like. That’s already here on campuses, which means it’s likely 10 years or so, if that, removed from workplaces.

    The result of this will be a combination of things. One will be the continued drift of segments of the population away from organized religion — not only the young, but also the poorer, the less educated, areas that are already seeing a lot of drop-off in religious affiliation and practice. The second will be the continued conversion of most of organized religion into a kind of thing that supports the cultural status quo. Most of American Christianity will fold itself into the new reality, as it has done over the past few decades with feminism already. There will be holdouts here and there, and these will be subject to a LOT of criticism from the larger, quisling element, and so it will be very rough sledding inside Christianity over these issues in the years ahead, as most Christians try to accommodate the cultural changes, while a smaller group resists and gets critiques to hell and back for doing so. This spectacle inside Christianity will also serve to turn yet more people off from organized religion.

    It will be an increasingly lonely walk in the decade or two ahead for serious Christians.

  151. Oscar says:

    @ thedeti says:
    October 13, 2016 at 8:18 am

    “You said quite a bit upthread that a Hillary presidency will result in a lot of persecution of Christians. I agree, but I think current trends will continue and somewhat intensify in that it will be a ‘soft’ persecution. It won’t be rounding up Christians into cattle cars and herding them off to concentration camps. It will, however, be

    –sharply limiting expressions of faith to within the 4 walls of your house of worship. Absolutely no tolerance of any faith expressions anywhere else (unless you’re Muslim)… ”

    The two aren’t mutually exclusive. One typically leads to the other. You can pay the Jizya now and still be crucified later.

    The Church in the West seems to be headed towards judgement – refining by fire – irrespective of who wins. We may get a temporary reprieve if someone other than the Hildebeast wins, but that will merely be a sign of God’s mercy. Conservatives in government never actually reverse the Leftist ratchet. At best they pause it temporarily, then the next Leftist to take power pushes it forward a click or ten.

  152. Lyn87 says:

    AR,

    Thanks, I stand corrected (but if you had the link available you could have just posted it to begin with).

    MarcusD,

    That “Too Ugly For Love” thread could use some help, but I’m not about to go to CAF and fix their problems for them… they don’t want real solutions anyway. Everyone acts as though men and boys are pigs for judging females on their appearance, while ignoring that woman and girls judge males on everything, then pretend that being ranked is something that males do to females exclusively. Short males know a whole lot more about being summarily judged-and-found-wanting by the opposite sex (and the same sex, for that matter) than any “Plain Jane” ever will.

    But what someone should tell that girl is that she can easily get into the “7” range just by being slender, which is 100% within her control, given that most Americans are overweight and most overweight people are clinically obese. “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King” applies here: “In the land of the fat chick, the slender girl is Queen.” All she has to do to is stay out of the tattoo parlor, the barber shop, and the cookie jar, and go do cardio and moderate weight training, and within a few months she’ll be well to the right side of the bell curve. “8” is even possible if she’s a cardio bunny who knows where the squat rack is located… if she pairs that with being smart about grooming, hygiene, make-up, and wardrobe, which she should supplement by having a decent (by which I mean feminine) personality.

    It has probably never been easier to increase one’s relative SMV than it is now.

  153. Novaseeker says:

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/the-benedict-option-theme-park/

    Pretty funny.

    The thing about the Benedict Option is that I think it will have limited appeal to most American Christians. This is why it has already gotten so much pushback, even though the concept is still in its infancy and Rod Dreher hasn’t even published his book on it yet.

    The core underlying reason for that is this: American Christianity is accustomed to being built into the culture, being ensconced in it, being a core part of it, and being relevant to it. The Benedict Option isn’t, as I read Rod, calling for a complete withdrawal from society, but it is calling for enough of a withdrawal such that the BenOp communities will be separate in some ways from the mainstream culture — something which, I think, makes people uncomfortable in general. Many will prefer to make some kind of peace with the mainstream culture, as they eventually did with feminism, so as to remain ensconced in it to some degree, rather than opting for some degree of separation in order to maintain a distance from influences in the culture which are corrupting. Again, we’ve already seen this to a large degree, even among “traditional” Protestant churches, as Dalrock has documented very well on this blog. I don’t expect that the issues on gays and trans and so on will go fundamentally differently, and that in 10 years or so, perhaps a few more or a few less, we will see the mainstream of most churches, including most traditional/conservative churches, going along with the social consensus here in a de facto way just as has happened with feminism.

    There will be some resisters, however. I still don’t think they’re going to like opting for the Benedict Option for a different reason. The Benedict Option tends to see evangelism as working primarily by creating an alternative example of life, rather than aggressively engaging people in the middle of the mainstream by using mainstream ways, means and memes to reach them — the latter being the most common form of evangelism in North America and the one that “feels like evangelism” to many (most?) American Protestants. This is why I think many of these people, who are inclined to resist going along to get along, nevertheless don’t want to create intentional separate communities and evangelize by example rather than by aggressive direct engagement. There will be some, but that some will be less than the whole, and this “whole” is, of course, itself only a smaller subset of the rest of Christianity, which I expect will very much go along to get along.

    I think Rod Dreher, for all of his enthusiasm about the Benedict Option, can overlook this somewhat because he himself is Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodox in North America are already the Benedict Option in many ways because they don’t have a choice — they are culturally aloof by definition because their spiritual sense is alien to the American spiritual tradition, at least to the mainstream of it. This provides as many challenges as opportunities, but it does mean that something like the BenOp “makes sense” to the ears of an Orthodox in ways that will feel off-putting, at least, to those of an American Protestant. This mindset also applies to some of the more traditionally-minded Catholics, in that they also feel a bit more aloof from the culture to begin with, and therefore more inclined to be predisposed to the formation of intentional communities (and in fact have done so already in a few places in the US). I think in terms of the broader sell, though, into the mainstream of American Christianity, even in its more traditional wing, it will be a hard sale for the BenOp, because it “feels wrong” to many of these people to be “retreating” into intentional communities for self-preservation while recasting evangelism as example rather than the more traditional direct engagement from the center of the mainstream. It doesn’t work very well from the cultural-religious mindset of these folks, which is why I think it has gotten so much pushback already, even in the earliest stages of thinking about it in a more public way.

  154. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    The core underlying reason for that is this: American Christianity is accustomed to being built into the culture, being ensconced in it, being a core part of it, and being relevant to it.

    I think for Protestants at least the far bigger risk comes not from secular culture, but from conservative Christian culture. Conservative Christian culture is seen as a shield from that crazy secular culture, so there are no meaningful defenses once conservative Christian culture is corrupted. Conservative Christians think they are already doing a form of the Benedict Option when they watch (and discuss their enjoyment of) movies like Fireproof, Mom’s Night Out, Courageous, War Room, etc. From the outside looking in this seems to apply to Roman Catholics as well. I don’t have a sense of this for Orthodox though.

  155. Anon says:

    I think Rod Dreher, for all of his enthusiasm about the Benedict Option, can overlook this somewhat because he himself is Eastern Orthodox.

    Rod Dreher is a pretty hardcore mangina : https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/june-2009-beta-of-the-month/

    He continues to be butthurt about being exposed as a mangina, 6 years later : http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/dazzling-the-pagans-benedict-option/comment-page-1/#comment-7501999

  156. RPchristian says:

    It will be an increasingly lonely walk in the decade or two ahead for serious Christians.

    I wonder though if it has to be.

    Maybe some of the military guys here can answer this question, but when do you feel more lonely, when you’re downrange with your band of brothers? Or, when you come back to the US? Or, what about when you retire and join the civilian workforce, how lonely do you feel then?

    My hope is that as the country becomes more of a battlefield, faithful Christians will feel less lonely. Hell, I can’t feel any more lonely than I do now at the large evangelical church I attend.

    The only issue is we need to find a way to band together, both for the sake of being a more effective fighting force, and in order to instill beliefs in our children so they can carry the fire. I am concerned that there are no other families around to reinforce biblical truths to my children other than me.
    Sure there are lots of “Christians,” but how many have true faith? I’m skeptical. How many families are actually in the fight? Not many.

  157. Since this covers more of the politics/future stuff, this is fascinating. It’s not that we didn’t know the President puts pressure on the Supreme Court. But it’s nice that the insiders confirm it. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7520

    As to the place ahead, you can project the next action of the dominant actors, but the response is almost impossible to predict. And the current trend only works if *no one* becomes even a little violent. Mostly as the thing you can reliably count on is that the current Elites are extreme cowards. But this isn’t the forum or the place to discuss future tactical actions, at least in that regard.

    Everything changes the instant even a small group of Christians drops the demonic pretenses of the current culture.

  158. feeriker says:

    The core underlying reason for that is this: American Christianity is accustomed to being built into the culture, being ensconced in it, being a core part of it, and being relevant to it.

    In other words, not really Christian at all. Sand rather than salt.

  159. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 8:18 am:
    “”It won’t be rounding up Christians into cattle cars and herding them off to concentration camps.”

    It will be. Being marginalized out of society is always the precursor to violent slaughter. That’s why the marginalization happens. If the Elites wanted to genocide a certain ethnic group, for example, they don’t start the killing until the group is ostracized from the military and positions of leadership… and ideally herded into camps/ghettos for easy disposal. If that isn’t their intent then why do they throw away cooperative, taxpaying citizens?

    On top of that, both God and the devil are well-known for demanding and testing loyalty. Neither has any use for “ghost Christians”. First they will force us to confess Christ, then they will feed us to the lions. That sucks but at least Christ promises it’ll be worth our while.

  160. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: –sharply limiting expressions of faith to within the 4 walls of your house of worship. Absolutely no tolerance of any faith expressions anywhere else (unless you’re Muslim)

    I see widespread public expressions of Judaism, especially around Chanukah. I see huge menorahs everywhere, with public menorah lightings (in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC). All the politicians turn out.

    I see far more menorahs than creches. And while people say “menorah” and “Chanukah,” the trees are usually called “holiday trees.”

    Magazines too. I saw a copy of Malibu Magazine a few years ago. Their “holiday issue.” Three articles about Chanukah. Three articles about “the holidays,” which had trees and cookies and wrapped gifts — they just couldn’t bring themselves to say “Christmas.”

  161. Novaseeker, if you see this, I’m curious.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/nyt-responds-donald-trump-declines-take-down-article

    This strikes me as a classic case of “how not to Lawyer”. It’s playing for the Twitter feed (where it was posted), not the very serious legal issues that it seems to already assume that the NYT has lost. The Sullivan test is going to require actual “malice” (legal definition), and the reporters on the story already had to walk back an attempted hit-piece from earlier in the year. Add together the timing to drop with other “accusations” on the same day, and you’ve already got both intent & malice shown. Add in that it took the Internet Denizens about 4 hours to prove at least one of the stories impossible, and it would explain the lawyer playing for the crowd.

    Thoughts?

  162. Tam the Bam says:

    They just couldn’t bring themselves to say “Christmas.”
    And a merry Yule-tide to ye, gentlemen all.

  163. Novaseeker says:

    Looking Glass —

    I think in a more normal case that the NYT wouldn’t be in a great position — it’s arguably something that would fail Sullivan if the accusations are true, probably. But, I’d be a bit skeptical of getting that result in the federal courts due to the context. Not necessarily anti-Trump bias in the courts, but the context being the Presidential race, which is likely to be seen as core 1st Amendment territory, where more latitude will be given. It could prove to be an interesting test case, actually, because of that, although I doubt we’d see anything like preliminary relief prior to the election, so mostly an academic issue I’d guess.

  164. Right, it would be after the Election, that’s a given.

    The interesting part is Trump was very ready to go the Lawyer route, with the Times having at least contacted the campaign pre-release. So there’s much more going on behind the scenes. Though the biggest issue might be the “piece of ass” point, as that seems to be factually incorrect. In a legal response. That’s a bad foot to start off with.

    But I would love to see Sullivan tested. It’s always been one of those terrible precedents from the Warren Court. Though it’s given the Press (i.e. lackeys for the powerful) carte blanche to destroy anyone they so choose.

  165. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    On top of that, both God and the devil are well-known for demanding and testing loyalty. Neither has any use for “ghost Christians”. First they will force us to confess Christ, then they will feed us to the lions. That sucks but at least Christ promises it’ll be worth our while.

    Too many Christians are just planning to lose. I’ve read the New Testament too, and I don’t see the precise command to go meekly into the lion’s mouth.

    You guys need to be inspired by the heroes of the past, and get ready to stand and fight for what you believe in. I’m not saying you don’t, but idealizing pacifism doesn’t suggest the right mindset.

    The scumbags who are against the decent folks are just people. They die too. If they come for me, I plan to fight back; and, if I kack it, I hope to take a few of them with me. I hope some of you religious bros will join me on that day. Your children and grandchildren are worth the effort.

    Boxer

  166. Lost Patrol says:

    @Boxer,

    I doubt Gunner Q numbers himself among the “go meekly into the lion’s mouth” crowd, nor most of the men here.  

    Luke 22, 35-38: And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

    How could two swords be enough? I don’t know, my theology is not always the soundest. Maybe He was just telling the boys that it’s enough you understand that things are different now. Be ready.
    That’s what I’m hearing anyway.

  167. Vanity runs rampant among the Churchians, so there’s a weird martyrdom complex that happens. It’s not actually a desire to be a martyr; it’s a desire to be special because you’re suffering.

    Which I can appreciate it, as it can feed off some of the traps Men can fall into. But the Bible is pretty clear that’s not actually the point.

  168. Boxer says:

    Dear Lost Patrol (et. al.)

    I doubt Gunner Q numbers himself among the “go meekly into the lion’s mouth” crowd, nor most of the men here.

    Well, I’ve read and analyzed texts for a living. When I read something like this:

    It will be. Being marginalized out of society is always the precursor to violent slaughter. That’s why the marginalization happens. If the Elites wanted to genocide a certain ethnic group, for example, they don’t start the killing until the group is ostracized from the military and positions of leadership… and ideally herded into camps/ghettos for easy disposal. If that isn’t their intent then why do they throw away cooperative, taxpaying citizens?

    I see a sort of resignation, if not an outright glorification of weakness.

    I don’t know why the Christian martyrs who were fed to the lions didn’t fight. I’ve read the NT but I’m not up on the history of your faith. All I know is that I’m not going to the camps, and the person who tries to force me in will have his head nailed to a spike… and Brother Boxer is much scrawnier and pastier than most of the rest of you guys, so I’ll be disappointed if my headcount isn’t the smallest when we all get together to compare notes.

    Boxer

  169. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t have a sense of this for Orthodox though.

    We face the same challenges. The only difference is that because, unlike the Catholics, we aren’t Western Christians, we don’t as easily identify as closely with the way things are portrayed in ostensibly Christian media, like those films, which are produced here. There are still many who are snagged by it all the same, but it isn’t as pervasive — and that’s completely by accident, really, because of our peculiar situation here in the West.

  170. Boxer says:

    Dear Looking Glass:

    It’s not actually a desire to be a martyr; it’s a desire to be special because you’re suffering…. Which I can appreciate it, as it can feed off some of the traps Men can fall into. But the Bible is pretty clear that’s not actually the point.

    I wasn’t raised a Christian and will probably never be one, and maybe that’s why I don’t understand it completely. I do see people here who are military officers and powerlifters, and I can’t imagine that I’ll be the only person who goes all Che Guevara if the theoretical apocalypse happens. I expect Gunner Q, Lost Patrol, Looking Glass, and many others to join me if we’re forced to re-establish a bit of sanity in the world through whatever means we find expedient. Don’t disappoint me.

    Boxer

  171. Novaseeker says:

    I think for Protestants at least the far bigger risk comes not from secular culture, but from conservative Christian culture. Conservative Christian culture is seen as a shield from that crazy secular culture, so there are no meaningful defenses once conservative Christian culture is corrupted.

    Very likely true. I suppose, from the outside looking in, that conservative Christian culture is still trying very hard to be as close to the mainstream as it can, while still seeing itself as distinct from it in some ways, if only for evangelistic reasons. It’s a tough road to walk in a culture that is shedding Christianity at record pace, but there are no easy answers that are exceptionally palatable for those churches, I think. Yes, return to proper doctrine and so on, but that’s what they think they are doing, as you say. It’s hard, I think, culturally to separate from the mainstream to the degree that is really required — which is why I think we see so many conservative Christians of all churches failing at doing so.

  172. @Boxer:

    We call Churches “beta factories” for a reason. So the “suffering martyr for Jesus” is a trap that either the Beta Male or the Vain Female can easily be sucked into. It’s all a Vanity trap, but the temptation is real in any feminine-primary situation. (For the Men, you can also read it as an Action/Adventure take with a Christian spin.)

    @Novaseeker:

    I think it’s important to understand that the “Conservative Christian Culture” operates much like the pre-1860s European Christian Cultures. It’s a hold over from the “everyone goes to Church on Sunday” days, but little more than that. Because its so infected, it no longer acts as an insulator from the rest of the World. If it ever did.

  173. Lost Patrol says:

    Boxer
    I don’t know why the Christian martyrs who were fed to the lions didn’t fight.

    Neither do I, and I mean that in the sense that maybe I won’t either. Maybe I just won’t “go meekly”. It’s always hard to say in the as yet theoretical.

    I wouldn’t try you on at wordsmithing on a bet, but what normally happens is this: It’s good for a man to have a plan, idea, or notion in his head about what he would do in any given situation. It’s a good idea to mentally rehearse his actions so that they have a better chance of being “muscle memory” at the crucial time. Even branch plans and sequels ought to be part of it. But at the moment of impact, everything usually changes, and manifests itself in unforeseen ways. So you end up doing a lot of stuff on the fly. It’s surprising what happens to people on the cusp of a fight, or on the point of dying; they can surprise you both ways.

    Philosopher, scoundrel and possible world class reprobate/ former world champion Mike Tyson may have summarized it best when he noted that – everybody has a plan, until he gets punched in the face.

  174. Höllenhund says:

    Hillary supports the absolute and total destruction of everything that is precious to Christ. Trump is simply a jackass who can’t control his impulses — he isn’t a hell-bent social engineer, like Hillary, who is bent on stamping out whatever smoldering ruins yet remain of the civilization created by the West. In other words, Trump is a buffoon, and an immoral one, but he isn’t demonic — flawed but not demonic. Hillary, by comparison, is a demonic avatar the likes of which we have never yet seen in our politics. She will completely destroy the remnants of the church in the US if she is President, which seems likely from where I am sitting.

    I’m not sure about that. She seems to be kind of low-energy, exhausted, intellectually empty. Basically an American female version of Brezhnev, to repeat myself. She cannot realistically offer anything to her supporters other than the continuation of the Obamaian status quo. She might become more of a threat as a president if her health keeps failing to the extent that prevents her from daily work, which means her various underlings, most of whom are probably more energetic and ideologically fanatical than she is, will govern of the country

  175. SmashtheMatriarchy says:

    Novaseeker
    “It’s hard, I think, culturally to separate from the mainstream to the degree that is really required — which is why I think we see so many conservative Christians of all churches failing at doing so.”

    Bingo. Our civilization is so far beyond what most would care to admit. And even most self-identifying Christians dont want to deviate that much. It’s too much of a “downer” to constantly have to be the wet towel in the room and say “no we dont need to waste money on that garbage,” or “why would we fund the very people and institutions that want to destroy us, our children, our religion and way of life by patronizing those stores, companies, movies, etc?” Let alone the extra work it takes to not let the daycares, public schools, universities, tv, and your own relatives even, raise your children. Going against the grain isnt glamorous.

    P.S. Im very new here, but I like what Ive seen Mr. Dalrock. It’s good to have a place like this for people who are awakening from the trance.

  176. Follow up on the Sullivan test, from Trump’s speech:

    “This weekend the New York Times published a full-page hit piece with another claim from an individual who has been totally discredited based on the many, many, many e-mails and letters she has sent to our office over the years, looking for work, Donald is great, wanting go to my rallies. But, the New York Times — and this was full op-ed piece — refused to use the evidence that we presented — refused to use it. If they used it, if they would have looked, they would have said, there’s no story here.”

    That would appear why the Trump camp went right for the Legal route. “Gross Negligence” should be fairly easy to prove, which let’s them get through the Sullivan test.

    Part of me would find it hilarious if a sitting President part of an SC case from running for President. Trump vs New York Times could be a hilarious precedent.

  177. Boxer says:

    Dear L.P.:

    Neither do I, and I mean that in the sense that maybe I won’t either. Maybe I just won’t “go meekly”. It’s always hard to say in the as yet theoretical.

    That’s true. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be some great hero if bad stuff popped off, but I’m also sure that going out on the boxcar wouldn’t be an option. I’d rather just take my chances out in the bayou.

    I have to wonder if stories of the Christians going easy into the colosseum weren’t, in some way, analogous to the story of the defenders of the Alamo. In other words, I think the original stories were told to inspire people to get revenge for these deaths, rather than to inspire people to commit suicide.

    Philosopher, scoundrel and possible world class reprobate/ former world champion Mike Tyson may have summarized it best when he noted that – everybody has a plan, until he gets punched in the face.

    I love Mike Tyson. If you want to see something hilarious, check this out:
    hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OPpoqM3Cr0
    Rough language and NSFW. (replace x with t to get the link)

    In any event, you’re all men, with the duty to survive and to keep your kids safe. If horrible stuff happens, I hope you’ll take that responsibility seriously. If it’s a fight to the death, I’m on your side, not the side of the degenerates.

    Boxer

  178. American says:

    I’ve earned a couple of masters degrees (MBA and MPHIL) and a bachelor’s of science and can say without any reservation whatsoever that Sam Powell’s theology is bat shit crazy.

  179. Boxer says:

    This “Bible believing” pastor explained the verse away as being written by an old man who was probably reprobate.

    Ecclesiastes has traditionally thought to have been authored by Solomon, writing under a pseudonym.

    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16462/jewish/Chapter-1.htm

    King Solomon was not a perfect person, but he had the wonderful quality of not being possessed of hubris (rare in a leader). The story goes that when the Hebrew god offered to grant him anything he wanted, he just asked for wisdom. In that regard, he’s somewhat similar to Socrates in Plato.

    I have no doubt that Ecclesiastes does vex these lunatic pastorbators, and the text surely makes them all laughingstocks. Unlike Solomon, they tend to be full of themselves.

    Boxer

  180. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ October 13, 2016 at 10:19 pm:
    “I see a sort of resignation, if not an outright glorification of weakness.”

    It’s resignation. I’ve tried everything I can think of in real life and have nothing to show for it. On the bright side, that means nothing about this situation is my fault.

    @2:26 pm:
    “I have to wonder if stories of the Christians going easy into the colosseum weren’t, in some way, analogous to the story of the defenders of the Alamo. In other words, I think the original stories were told to inspire people to get revenge for these deaths, rather than to inspire people to commit suicide.”

    There was no need to make stories up. Nero was known for burning Christians alive to illuminate his dinner parties and being sent to the Coliseum was an act of kindness compared to crucifixion. Such revenge never materialized anyway. Christianity’s legalization under Constantine was a remarkably peaceful affair.

    Lost Patrol @ 10:05 pm:
    “I doubt Gunner Q numbers himself among the “go meekly into the lion’s mouth” crowd”

    Thanks but I actually do. Where could I run to be safe from persecution? What would I be killing for? A dead Church, a corrupted nation, the chance to live free and starve? I’m a city kid, not a rugged frontiersman… one with no allies and few resources.

    I’m not happy about going quietly but if God puts me to it then I’ll do it. That’s what the Christian martyrs thought, too. It wasn’t pacifism. Some of us just don’t have a good alternative.

  181. Boxer says:

    There was no need to make stories up. Nero was known for burning Christians alive to illuminate his dinner parties and being sent to the Coliseum was an act of kindness compared to crucifixion. Such revenge never materialized anyway. Christianity’s legalization under Constantine was a remarkably peaceful affair.

    I don’t think they were fabricated. That part of history just isn’t an area of interest or experience for me; so I don’t know the details.

    I do think that people told them for a reason, though.

    Most of the guys at the Alamo could have surrendered and/or run away. The story is told not to deject people, but to inspire them to act, even when acting is painful or dangerous, for some greater purpose.

    (Most of those guys were Catholics and Protestants, too… and they didn’t mind shooting back at their enemies…)

    Thanks but I actually do. Where could I run to be safe from persecution? What would I be killing for? A dead Church, a corrupted nation, the chance to live free and starve? I’m a city kid, not a rugged frontiersman… one with no allies and few resources.

    This is all theoretical. I don’t see Hillary Clinton being sane or efficient enough to engineer any sort of genocide. I don’t think America has enough energy to do this no matter who is in charge, but, supposing it happens… Don’t you have a positive duty to try and survive?

    All of us are here today because every one of our ancestors were winners. They all survived long enough to reproduce. I wouldn’t want to let them down.

  182. Gunner Q says:

    “Don’t you have a positive duty to try and survive?”

    No, I’m Christian. Impressing God is far more important than success in mortal life. That’s why we do unreasonable things like suffer for doing good. Besides, I’m immortal. You want to forward your genes but I will personally watch the stars burn cold. We all will, actually, but only a few of us realize it and prioritize accordingly.

    “I don’t see Hillary Clinton being sane or efficient enough to engineer any sort of genocide.”

    How I see it happening is economic apocalypse followed by a cashless society combined with an oath of loyalty to the Brave New World. I won’t cooperate and thus will end up the slave of whoever will buy me food. There are worse fates. But then the persecution will start in force and I’ll either be rounded up or forced into the wilderness… and being a city kid, I’ll opt for the former.

  183. Lost Patrol says:

    @Gunner Q

    Don’t resign yourself to resignation just yet Bro. This ballgame ain’t over yet.

    I’ve tried everything I can think of in real life and have nothing to show for it.

    I submit you have more to show for it than many. Maybe not in worldly terms, but things you have written on Dalrock, like this –

    I’m not happy about going quietly but if God puts me to it then I’ll do it.

    – tell me you have chosen wisely as to where your real treasure is stored. Yeah, you’re a human man, so “not happy about going quietly”; but what else I’m seeing there is faith, courage, and obedience. “but if God puts me to it then I’ll do it.”

    I admit my first instinct is to go out in the bayou with Boxer, but this will not be the mission that everyone is called to. If it really comes to what we’re talking about in our lifetimes, some people may make their stand simply by declaring for The Christ; and this may cost them everything. I could make an easy case they are better soldiers of God than me hiding in a swamp.

    Where could I run to be safe from persecution?

    By that point nowhere, I suppose. But then safety and comfort will not have anything to do with it.

    What would I be killing for?

    Killing may not necessarily be part of the package for guys like us.

    A dead Church, a corrupted nation, the chance to live free and starve?

    The Church won’t be dead, because even the gates of Hades will not overpower it. As Oscar, and some other guys have pointed out, it will be refined by fire.

    All the nations have always been corrupted. Because, human beings.

    The chance to live free and starve is still a chance.

    You have allies right here. No, it is not a guy standing by your side. God can bring you some guys like that if needed, but in the meanwhile; here we are at Dalrock’s in a sort of communion.

  184. SmashtheMatriarchy says:

    Boxer
    “All of us are here today because every one of our ancestors were winners. They all survived long enough to reproduce. I wouldn’t want to let them down.”

    A touch more empty/ evolutionary than I would prefer, but basically I agree. I dont share what appears to be your religious/philisophical beliefs, but I can get on board with your survival drive. Only in our modern, extremely spoiled-in-comarison, luxurious lives can we humans become such lame quitters. People much more determined, tougher, and better than us have scratched, and scraped, and endured hardship and great loss, and fought exhaustively, and put up with tortures, and seen horrifying things and kept on til the last never giving up throughout most of human history with none of the ease that makes up the vast majority of our lives in the Western Civilization of today. Our ancestors would probably hand us a beating if they could for being so apathetic.
    Only with our have-everything appreciate-nothing society has the weak, naïve, folly of pacifism caught on to such a freakish degree. Our ancient forebears would never entertain for even a second the lunacy of pacifism. Only hippies living under the safety of greater, more courageous men’s blood and sweat could spread such a rediculous and suicidal philosophy.
    The modern (mostly Western) world has been deliberately separated from the true history of humanity to facilitate its dumbing down into submission. And for the record for everyone browsing, Christianity does not equal pacifism, and the martyrs of pre Christian Rome were not weak, they were strong. If anything that should display to the unbelievers how real Christ was. People dont endure such cruelties for a lie. They knew He was the real deal. Most of the torturers wanted only for the Christians to admit their folly and sacrifice to the Roman gods and they wouldve been spared. Not only that, but their loved ones wouldve been spared, they wouldve been given wealth, status, and embraced as brothers to people in high places and given a life of luxury. The Christians refused to deny Christ to face tortures most modern day betas wouldnt even speak of out loud for fear of nightmares. They endured hours and even days of these things. One after another, thousands of Christians. I could go on and explain more misunderstandings of Christianity, but I dont want to prosyletize unrequested. The point is that we are whiney quitters these days compared to our ancestors as you correctly recognize, and also Christianity is mostly misunderstood and screwed up in the West, which has much to do with why Christians are falling away like leaves from a tree in October.

  185. SmashtheMatriarchy says:

    Please allow me to slightly correct my essay. I didnt mean Christ “was” in the sense that He is no longer. I was speaking in the past tense about the early martyrs and that they knew He was the real deal back then. Christ was, is, and always will be unto the ages of ages.

  186. infowarrior1 says:

    Part of why so many so called “Christians” are not really:

  187. Linx says:

    “All of us are here today because every one of our ancestors were winners. They all survived long enough to reproduce. I wouldn’t want to let them down.”

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/scott-is-back-2/
    “While I would never raise my own kids, much less someone else’s,…………”

    How ironic.

  188. Frank K says:

    “Pastor” Paul Washer is full of it. Just as he needs to take care of his wife and his family, I also have to look out for mine. If I get killed playing White Knight protecting his wife, who will take care of my family? Him? He might have a fundraiser at his church for my widow, and after handing her a check that would only cover a few month household expenses, he would wash his hands of any further responsibility. No thanks. And his threat to come after me for not risking life and limb protecting his wife is risible and full of false bravado.

    Also, the fact that he disabled comments on his video shows that he’s a coward and is very unlikely to practice what he preaches.

    And don’t get me wrong. If a stranger were to White Knight to protect my wife, I would be grateful. But I would not expect or demand anyone to do that nor would I go after them, seeking revenge should they choose not to White Knight (so much for the good Pastor practicing Christian forgiveness). He’s just as much a heretic as the other pastors he loves to criticize.

  189. Frank K says:

    “Too many Christians are just planning to lose. I’ve read the New Testament too, and I don’t see the precise command to go meekly into the lion’s mouth.”

    Also, consider the fact that we don’t bow to Mecca to pray is because brave Christian warriors fought back and defeated the Muslim invasion many centuries ago.

  190. Boxer says:

    How ironic.

    Fookin’ lol at kooky Linx, babbling and dancing for my attention again. I live rent free in spankboi’s head.

    Boxer

  191. Boxer says:

    Dear Frank K:

    Also, consider the fact that we don’t bow to Mecca to pray is because brave Christian warriors fought back and defeated the Muslim invasion many centuries ago.

    Originally, I assumed that the stories of Christians as lion-chow were stories that glorified weakness, in the Nietzschean sense (he wrote about this in Genealogy of Morality). Really though, it is probably not so. That part of history is certainly a lacuna in my education and experience. Our brother “Smash The Matriarchy” explained above.

    the martyrs of pre Christian Rome were not weak, they were strong. If anything that should display to the unbelievers how real Christ was. People dont endure such cruelties for a lie. They knew He was the real deal. Most of the torturers wanted only for the Christians to admit their folly and sacrifice to the Roman gods and they wouldve been spared. Not only that, but their loved ones wouldve been spared, they wouldve been given wealth, status, and embraced as brothers to people in high places and given a life of luxury. The Christians refused to deny Christ to face tortures most modern day betas wouldnt even speak of out loud for fear of nightmares. They endured hours and even days of these things. One after another, thousands of Christians.

    This is certainly plausible and makes more sense than my original assumption. Christians told those stories to each other not to encourage the emulation of meekness and weakness, but to give examples of people who were death defiant, and who, even at their last hour, didn’t grovel or beg, but spat in the faces of their torturers. These are noble stories of free men, just as useful as the stories of the crusaders, in context.

    In any case, I’m grateful to all you guys for schooling me.

    Boxer

  192. Frank K says:

    “Conservative Christians think they are already doing a form of the Benedict Option when they watch (and discuss their enjoyment of) movies like Fireproof, Mom’s Night Out, Courageous, War Room, etc. From the outside looking in this seems to apply to Roman Catholics as well. I don’t have a sense of this for Orthodox though.”

    While I’m not an expert on the matter, I seriously doubt that practicing Catholics in places like Hungary, Poland, or in Africa, Asia or Latin America have ever heard of those movie abominations, much less discuss them. Modern American culture is simply toxic and I truly hope that the Orthodox here can insulate themselves from it.

  193. Frank K says:

    I agree that the stories of the early martyrs were told to inspire others to not lose faith against overwhelming odds. Unlike the Hungarians who were able to recover their country from conquering Muslims, the early martyrs had no army and were being persecuted by the mightiest nation at the time in the known world. They knew they could not win with the sword, so instead they trusted the Lord and their faith was eventually rewarded when Pagan Rome fell away.

  194. Oscar says:

    I think Frank has the right idea. There’s a big difference between the early saints who were persecuted by the Roman Empire, who had no hope of physical victory, but secured victory anyway through faith in Christ, and Charlemagne and John III Sobieski saving Christendom from the Muslim hordes.

    Either way, both the martyrs and the warriors ensured the survival of the faith, and they are the reason we have the Scriptures today. We owe it to them to do the same for our posterity.

    Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

  195. feeriker says:

    Frank K says:
    October 15, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    Excellent points that I hadn’t thought of. I was ready to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until I read what you wrote, but now I see that he’s a self-centered loudmouth just like the rest of them.

    In practical and literal terms, Washer needs to enroll his wife in a Krav Macha class and/or teach her how to carry and use a firearm. That goes for his figurative message as well.

  196. @Oscar:

    It’s really the “let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles” the part that most Christians don’t want to get. Because it means they aren’t God, and that offends them.

    As to the martyr discussion, Christians will either end up being Stephen or Joshua. Stephen, while the first martyr, also was given one of the greatest insults ever delivered in the Bible, to tell the Jewish leaders. (Acts 6 & 7 is worth a read.) Or you need to be Joshua, God’s appointed Warlord. And it was good when Israel annihilated certain groups, down to the animals.

    The “friendly, fluffy, “He luuuuuvvvvess me”” Jesus ain’t exactly Biblical. It’s revolting, truthfully. And Christians are going to need to learn that, likely the hard way.

  197. As a follow up to some of the other topics, I’ve been diving pretty deep into the darker corners of the information networks. So, something to watch out for:

    The “silly season” of the election is about to go from 11 to 15. But, for my discussion here, the real worry is US Stocks. If they think Hillary is toast, there is a good chance they are going to let the market go into “free release”. The Insiders are massively Short right now and have been positioning as such since last year. (When you pay staff members 250k+ a year, you tend to get the information you need.) So it’s really only a matter of “When” they start shoving it down. Because of the way they gap at the Opens, they can hide a lot of information.

    Regardless, it’s going to be a really wild couple of months.

  198. feeriker says:

    The “friendly, fluffy, “He luuuuuvvvvess me”” Jesus ain’t exactly Biblical. It’s revolting, truthfully. And Christians are going to need to learn that, likely the hard way.

    “Walking the talk” ultimately comes down to rejecting EVERYTHING that modern secular culture values. In practical terms that means true Christians living a marginalized and persecuted existence, in every age and every culture.

    Next time you’re warming a pew on Sunday morning, look around you, listen, and ask yourself honestly if you can envision any of those sitting next to you abandoning their comfy, middle-class lifestyle to take up the True Cross of Jesus. The answer will very likely be represented by the fluffy, feel-good message you’re listening to from the pulpit that has everyone’s ears massaged and their eyes fixated in a euphoric stare.

  199. Frank K says:

    If you’re attending at “Whole Gospel” (or perhaps more appropriately named “Prosperity Gospel”) Church, your fellow congregants will see no need to pick up their own crosses and follow Jesus. Not surprising, as being told that God wants you to be wealthy and prosperous is the ultimate feel good message. I’m not sure what could top that. Maybe a “Gospel” that promises mind blowing sex if you are a true believer.

  200. Opus says:

    I knew that Tyson could box but not that he philosophised. That snippet of information thus puts new light on the following: some years ago now at some upmarket New York party an altercation nearly took place between the said Tyson and distinguished philosopher A.J.Ayer. The cause of the altercation was that Tyson was apparently engaging in some ‘pussy grabbing’ with Kate Moss. Ayer – in true white knight mode – and unconcerned by the pugilistic reputation of Tyson approached Tyson and said that the two of them were in their respective fields pre-eminent and to protect the honour of Miss Moss he and Tyson should go outside and discuss the matter like two sensible people. The last time I relayed this story on-line one of the commenters said that he had been a student of Ayer and it was equally likely that it was Ayer pestering Moss. I must re-read my copy of Language Truth and Logic for the true meaning of Ayer’s famous work.

    I was in a local church on Thursday, turned over as so often happens for the purpose of a concert. The tacit bar on applauding in Church has now gone. All very civilised of course and I reflected that the said church was frequented in its earlier days by one George Frideric Handel the church in those days doubling as an assembly hall and a place to get out of the rain and though history has not recorded the fact I like to think that the great man played some of his own music in the said building and to applause. Beautiful Wren-like building with a warm accoustic.

    Gibbon devoted a chapter of the Decline and Fall (seventeen, I seem to recall) to Christians and their hIstory under Rome and came to the conclusion that there really was very little persecution and that what there was the Christians clearly asked for, but he would say that wouldn’t he.

  201. feeriker says:

    Maybe a “Gospel” that promises mind blowing sex if you are a true believer.

    That’s already out there – in the form of pastorbators promising Christian husbands that if they sufficiently grovel, pedestalize, and supplicate to their wives, that such will be their reward. Just as phony and empty as “prosperity gospel.”

  202. Oscar says:

    @ Looking Glass says:
    October 15, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    “It’s really the ‘let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles’ the part that most Christians don’t want to get. Because it means they aren’t God, and that offends them.”

    Correct. The flesh wants what it wants, and we’re supposed to crucify it, not give it what it wants. Western Christians – in general – haven’t done that, and that’s why we’re headed towards judgement. God will use persecution to refine his Church in fire, as He has many times before. Each of us needs to examine his own heart and figure out which parts of our flesh we’ve failed to crucify.

    “As to the martyr discussion, Christians will either end up being Stephen or Joshua.”

    I believe that is also correct, and I think we don’t get a choice between which we’ll be. I think God chooses for us, and we obey. Or not.

  203. Dale says:

    @Frank K
    Maybe a “Gospel” that promises mind blowing sex if you are a true believer.

    You are too late. This has already been preached.
    The following is from a report I wrote about a book that I think is Satanic: Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey, Every Man’s Battle, (Colorada Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2000).
    Lest you think the authors were unaware they were equating their own views with the word of God,
    consider this quote from pages 136-137:
    I guarantee you won’t feel cheated. With your whole sexual being now focused upon your wife,
    sex with her will be so transformed that your satisfaction will explode off any known scale.
    Yes, even whole consuming fewer bowls. It’s a personal guarantee, backed by the full faith,
    credit, and authority of the Word of God.”

    A man choosing to think sexually about only his own wife may very well be a great idea. Matt 5:27-28 speaks against thinking about committing adultery. Proverbs 5 speaks against adultery, and includes the desire that a man be satisfied always by the breasts of his (own) wife (Prov 5:18-19).
    The authors start the passage above with the claim that this restriction in thoughts will lead to the man having satisfaction with his own wife that will “explode off any known scale”. This seems an arrogant claim to made for every married man in the world, regardless of how lazy, selfish, overweight and masculine his wife may choose to be. So far however, the authors have only shown stupidity, not blasphemy. But they then add “It’s a personal guarantee, backed by the full faith, credit, and authority of the Word of God.” The word of God makes no such claim about the man’s satisfaction exploding.
    Unless the authors can give the reference from the Scriptures where God makes this guarantee, they are committing the sin of blasphemy in this also.
    (end of quote)

  204. Frank K says:

    @Dale

    I guess there truly is nothing new under the sun. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that feel good “pastors” are peddling such heresies.

  205. Linx says:

    @ Boxer
    “Fookin’ lol at kooky Linx, babbling and dancing for my attention again.”
    You are projecting Boxer and it doesn’t change the irony of what you said.

    “I live rent free in spankboi’s head.”
    You wish. However you are in my prayers.

  206. Boxer says:

    You wish. However you are in my prayers.

    When asked why he’s constantly trying to disrupt the conversations here, Linx blames Jesus. (LOL!)

  207. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “When asked why he’s constantly trying to disrupt the conversations here, Linx blames Jesus. (LOL!)”

    You did not ask a question Boxer. You made an incorrect statement “I live rent free in spankboi’s head.” Then again this lack of understanding is to be expect from someone who
    1.thinks more of the opinions of his dead ancestors than he could ever about his own descendants
    2. claims to be an atheist yet thinks that he needs to prove himself to the dead
    3. called himself a failure by his own standards without even knowing it.
    Your views are full of contradictions and when it is shown to you all you can do is attack the person showing it.

    Psalm 14:1”The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
    there is none who does good.”

    Your problem isn’t with me Boxer, your problem is with Jesus. That is why you mentioned Him by name. I have no qualms praying that God gives you the same grace that He gave me.

  208. Lyn87 says:

    I don’t know if Washer would consider himself as cut from a different bolt of cloth than Powell, but I see their messages as points along a continuum – and not very distant from each other. Both are heavy on male responsibilities and silent about female responsibilities.

    Since I don’t know either Washer or his wife, the only way for me to fulfill my “duty” to take on a mob on her behalf is to be willing to do so on behalf of ANY woman I see in trouble. Surely any “man of worth” 100 years ago would have sensed a duty to come to the aid of a lady being assaulted, but that was when it was possible to tell a “lady” by sight, and ladies tended to play their assigned roles for the most part. But now even “ladies” demand the rights of adults without the responsibilities of men – like the right to vote for politicians who can send men to war while having legal immunity from being forced to go themselves.

    But the questions I keep coming back to are these: what positive duty does his wife have to me to balance my alleged positive duty to risk my life for her – at a moment’s notice with no questions asked? That’s a pretty hefty “duty” to assign to me, after all: since if it goes sideways it’s bad for my wife (she becomes a widow) and worse for me (I become a corpse). The second question is whether she and he owe me (and since they don’t know me any more than I know her – any man) similar treatment. If I’m being attacked by five women claiming that I sexually assaulted them, will Paster and MRS Washer come to my aid with no questions asked? Will they “take on” my accusers as I’m supposed to “take on” her assailants? If not, why not? After all, I’m no more likely to sexually assault five women to justify a rape accusation than MRS Washer is to try to rob five men to justify a beat-down, so why should she be presumed to be a victim while I would be presumed to be a perpetrator if the shoe was on the other foot?

  209. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn87 et.al.:

    I listened to Washer’s comments carefully when they were posted, and just listened to them again. I think you guys are being overly general in analyzing the allusion — though I agree that his delivery is sorta ambiguous.

    In a healthier society, where I know Lyn87, know his wife, and where they know me, I wouldn’t find it unreasonable to posit a duty that I should help her if I see her in the process of being robbed/raped/murdered. The fact that she might not help me in a similar situation is speculative at best, and really doesn’t remove my duty to intervene.

    I think that we’ve lived in a low-trust society (the Great Satan/USA-Canada) for so long we probably forget what it’s like to be functional citizens of a less decadent order. It’s easy to be cynical and think that anyone who feels compelled to help out his neighbor is only doing so in hopes of ripping him off or gaining some advantage. In fact, for our great-grandparents, this was expected. There’s definitely a difference between white-knighting in hopes of a reward (female attention or sex) and just doing the right thing in the community.

    In context, Washer envisions the Christian church as a potential high-trust society in microcosm. His fault is in not constructing a critical theory of the status-quo, as it exists today, in an effort to get there. He thinks we should all just act as though the church is high-trust, and somehow this will magically transform it into a high-trust social order. This is naïve and silly, but he’s probably not some hardcore political theorist, so I read his comments charitably.

    Boxer

  210. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    I don’t disagree with your analysis, and struggled with the idea that people SHOULD be willing to come to each other’s aid, even at some risk. But the positive duty he assigns to men who don’t know his wife is not balanced by… we’ll… ANYTHING. If I retain the life-and-death obligations that go along with living in a high-trust society, then I demand the privileges that go with those obligations.

    Considering what they expect of me, those privileges had better be substantial, and since men hardly need to be reminded about our duties to women AGAIN, I would like to hear about a bit about her duties to me before I hear yet another lecture about what I owe her.

    I’m sure you’re right about his perspective, but it’s awfully naive of him.

  211. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn87:

    I don’t disagree with your analysis, and struggled with the idea that people SHOULD be willing to come to each other’s aid, even at some risk. But the positive duty he assigns to men who don’t know his wife is not balanced by… we’ll… ANYTHING. If I retain the life-and-death obligations that go along with living in a high-trust society, then I demand the privileges that go with those obligations.

    You’re right. It’d be a meaningless gesture to do this in today’s society; especially if the woman in question is unknown to the passerby.

    When I listened to his little youtube sermon, I took the little anecdote to be a metaphor for defending the church (i.e. bride of Christ) from unscrupulous Christian preachers, who are currently pimping her out for money, in many cases. And, of course, there’s no more entertaining way to do this, than to troll the false teachers on twitter.

    Best,

    Boxer

  212. Frank K says:

    Sorry, but when the “Reverand” Washer threatens to “come after” any man who won’t play White Knight, his “Christian” ideals fly out the window. Like I said above, would he take care of my widow’s financial needs if were to perish playing White Knight? He would not, Furthermore. I could even get into legal trouble coming to her aid, and wind up accused of “excessive force” should I injure one of her attackers, and wind up in the slammer for my troubles, especially if I were to produce a firearm and use it to defend her

    In the end, I find it amusing that he wails about “churches” using carnal means to draw people in, and then in the same breath he beats his chest and tells us he will track us down if we don’t protect his wife. I guess that type of “carnality” (seeking revenge) is somehow OK and compatible with Christian morality. Like I said before, he’s just another heretic.

  213. Frank K says:

    Dear Boxer,

    “When I listened to his little youtube sermon, I took the little anecdote to be a metaphor for defending the church”

    I think you’re being very charitable. Then again, charity is one of the seven virtues, so I begrudge you.

  214. feeriker says:

    I’m sure you’re right about [Washer’s] perspective, but it’s awfully naive of him.

    It would probably help us all tremendously to remember that “naive” is a major default attribute of most pastors. Theirs is a profession populated to a massive extent by sheltered “Momma’s Boys” who have very little experience interacting with the real world and its ugliest facets. Thus their idealism is seldom ever tempered by reality, because they have never experienced this reality and are utterly unable to relate to it.

  215. Lost Patrol says:

    @Lyn87

    …heavy on male responsibilities and silent about female responsibilities.

    Captured the central dynamic of a thousand marriage sermons.

  216. Frank K says:

    Correction to above post:

    I think you’re being very charitable. Then again, charity is one of the seven virtues, so I WON”T begrudge you.

  217. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lyn87

    Well he does seem to live in his own Christian microcosm. But the video does have a point when he talks about using carnal means to attract Christians.

    In regards to his comments about his wife he is using it as an example to illustrate his point about carnality in the church.

  218. Lyn87 says:

    I get the analogy. The church is the bride of Christ and pastors (indeed, all of us), have a duty to defend her. I agree 100% with everything Pastor Washer said with regard to churches. I’ve been saying the same things for decades: seemingly “Vox clamantis in deserto” much of the time.

    My issue is not with the point of the analogy (with which I wholeheartedly agree) – but with the subject of the analogy. I suppose it’s bad that the reaction I have to a message I agree with is to bristle at its delivery… but that itself is the result of the very carnality in our churches that he’s battling. I hear “Men are deficient of they fail to do X,Y,and Z for women” and it instantly raises my hackles, given that much of the carnality that’s crept into the modern American church came through the broader culture in the form of feminism.

    I agree with his theological point: I just wish he’d made it a different way.

    Having said that, the carnal church often acts like an errant, feminist wife. Valid criticisms are seen as “harassment” or even “assault,” (read “Pastor” Sam Powell’s responses to my valid critiques last week as a prime example of such “Carnal Christianity” if you have the stomach for it), and when men need a hand “she” is nowhere to be seen. Rather than serving as hospitals for hurting people, those types of churches tend to shoot their wounded (the wounded men anyway… wounded women get positively inundated with “help” – past the point of enabling, which just fosters further carnality).

    We can always discuss what duties (if any) men owe to random women some other time – I’m clearly detracting attention from his otherwise-solid point.

  219. Oscar says:

    He could’ve just retold the Parable of the Tenants. It makes a very similar point, and you really can’t improve on Christ’s parables.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+20:9-19

  220. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    I have no issue with a pastor creating his own version of a parable – which are just methods of making theological points using everyday examples. Like the Lord’s Prayer, there’s nothing “magical” about using a certain set of words – it’s the point that matters. When I teach I do it all the time, often on the fly when answering questions. Such a response can be tailor-made on the spot to convey exactly the point one wants to make, rather than trying to shoehorn one of the existing parables in.

    As I was watching I found myself nodding in agreement during the first half and wondering, “Why would anyone object to this?” At that point he went into his “parable” and I just saw red. I didn’t even realize that he was speaking metaphorically because my reaction was so strong. In the parable/metaphor, his wife represents the church and he represents Christ. Since people can understand how a husband would expect men to intervene on his wife’s behalf is she were in danger, so too Christ will hold the people who stand by and watch His church be violated (by carnality in the pulpits and pews) to account. I get it now.

    It’s a valid point, but the metaphor he used to make that point is based on the assumption that the listener will easily identify with the notion that good men are obligated to defend women they don’t know. Most people accept that all the way down to the DNA level. I imagine that includes nearly everyone with whom he interacts, so for the average (blue-pill) listener, that makes sense.

    For us… not so much. I was so distracted by, “Men have a duty to die for random women” that I missed the point, which is, “Christians have a God-given duty to defend the true church.”

    Oh well… I have to take my wife to the airport in a few hours. Time for bed.

  221. BillyS says:

    Words matter, though many do not realize that.

    I had a discussion with an associate pastor at our church who believed submitting to a wife was merely doing what is proper to love and take care of her, while still being in ultimate charge. I think his intent is correct, but his words are wrong and far more dangerous than he realizes.

    Note that my wife thinks she is completely just leaving me because reasons. She blames me reading “these sites” BTW. It is very ironic that her actions just confirm what I have been saying out loud for the past few years.

    She remains my wife and I will pursue that, but I will not consider myself bound if she ends up following through with things, though that will likely ultimately not be until next year from what I hear from my lawyer. (Courts go slower than some would like.)

    I am thinking that she never saw herself as my helpmeet and only married me because God told her to do so. That doesn’t stop her now though. Ironic that counseling is not even acceptable to her now, since she has taken this step. She is getting some very bad advice from others, including some who have already followed this path (an old friend is one, who was married about the same length of time). Post-menopausal drugs also likely play a role.

    But I am thinking that her lack of desire to really be a helpmeet is the core issue. She is now free of that “control” and cannot see any other way. I am not sure a slow divorce process will help anyone but lawyers and me to lose money as I support 2 households completely.

    At least we can likely agree amicably on splitting the household goods. Hopefully most things can work out well if necessary.

    It is ironic I should be completely angry with her now, but she is still my wife. I am definitely getting a result of my prayer to know God better. I can see what He went through with Israel and His Church. I wish I could skip that part of the prayer.

    But I am at relative peace about things. I might even consider a drastic change, such as heading overseas. I don’t have the reserves to do such now, but I do have skills that could be useful almost anywhere. I am not sure where I would go though. The far east has had an appeal for some time, but I am not sure that would be a good thing at my age.

    NOTE: I am not trying to skip out on any payments or whatever I would owe out of this, in case this post is drug into the court case. I am just noting that this may release me to do something really radical with my life in the longer term. I will not have any constraints, after the alimony is done (or otherwise paid off), so a more significant shift might be an option.

    I have a strong past basis in Spanish, but I am not sure tech is as hot in Central or South America. I would expect to continue working for some time. Anyplace with Internet access may work fine.

  222. Avraham rosenblum says:

    BillyS. I really feel your pain. I have no advice but I just wanted to mention that when my wife left me I found it helpful to be very careful never to say a negative word about her to anyone. Since I knew I was going into a period of tremendous turmoil I also found it useful to find one core principle to stick with at all cost and that was to tell the truth always under all circumstances. These two ideas I believed helped me get through the problems.

  223. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS says:
    October 16, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    “She remains my wife and I will pursue that, but I will not consider myself bound if she ends up following through with things… ”

    1 Cor. 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace.

  224. Isa says:

    @billys, if you happen to live near st. Paul, my cousin is actually a marriage counselor there. Solid man, left/kicked out of the Anglican priesthood due to his issues with female and gay ordination, now attending Greek Orthodox instead. Very smart, well read, etc. and quite a lot of experience with grief/loss counseling as well. I would encourage seeking out a man (def not a woman) to collect your thoughts and get on an even keel. Divorce is apparantly as damaging as the death of your spouse, so better to stop the bleeding before it hits an artery.

  225. Linx says:

    @BillyS

  226. BillyS says:

    The DFW area is a bit far from there Isa, but thanks for the recommendation. My church isn’t perfect, but I think they would have reasonable advice if we ever did get to counseling.

    Oscar, that would be my basis. I do believe she is reborn, but I think her mind is very clouded, so treating her like that would be appropriate if this did not reconcile.

    Avraham,

    Good point I need to constantly reinforce. Just shutting up is harder for me than it seems. God has already told me that and I have only been somewhat successful at it.

  227. BillyS says:

    Linx,

    That is very true. God was not surprised with this, in spite of Him initiating our marriage. I will never claim he caused it, as some do, but He is fully capable of bringing me through.

  228. Casey says:

    @ BillyS

    So sorry for your martial troubles.

    You are correct, the only persons who benefit from a long, drawn-out divorce are the dull, cow-eyed lawyers/attorneys.

    Divorce is a profitable business (if you’re on the take), and boy oh boy……..business is booming.

    As a man, you will be treated poorly by the courts. Worse yet if you live in California (sounds like you do).

    If you feel you have no surplus now to implement your overseas dreams, just wait for the family court decision.

    You will find when it comes to shaking men down for divorce/extortion money, your human rights are written in pencil.

    Stealing from a man through the divorce machinery is an assault on his person. His labour created that surplus, and for some reason it’s up for grabs to open theft through the divorce process.

    A judge may as well sentence a man (in lieu of cash) to be forced to go over to his ex-wife’s house and continue to affect household repairs, fix her car, mow the lawn, and shovel the driveway. Long, long after she has abdicated her role/responsibilities to you and your life.

    An escape plan is what you need, in case the courts go medieval on your person.
    The first thing you need is a current 10 year passport.

  229. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    “I do believe she is reborn, but I think her mind is very clouded, so treating her like that would be appropriate if this did not reconcile.”

    When a sibling in Christ refuses to repent, we’re supposed to treat them as unbelievers.

    Matt. 18:15 “If your brother sins[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every [n]fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector.”

    It sounds as though your church failed you, and you have no control over that. If you’ve done what Christ requires of us in the above passage, your conscience should be clear.

    I’m sorry to read of all your troubles, brother.

  230. Frank K says:

    “The first thing you need is a current 10 year passport.”

    I strongly encourage anyone who has the ability to acquire foreign citizenship (say via parent’s or grandparents’ citizenship in the “old country”) to do so. That way, if the state department were to choose to withhold or void your passport, you would still have a foreign one in hand. Plus foreign citizenship means you can go to said foreign country to live without having to apply for immigrant visas, which can be a nightmare to procure if you need to earn a living in your new home.

    Of course, this would mean that you could never return to the “land of the free”, but with the way things are going that wouldn’t be a big loss.

  231. Frank K says:

    Dear BiilyS,

    My condolences for what you are enduring. While it is small consolation, in the long haul she will realize that doing this to you was the biggest mistake she ever made, especially if you are civil with her through the break up process. I have seen instances where the wayward wife comes back begging for forgiveness. Do remember though, that it’s one thing to forgive her, and another entirely different thing to take her back.

  232. Avraham rosenblum says:

    I agree being at the mercy of the courts is a really really bad idea. There are plenty of places that the local people would to have a talented American in the area. I imagine the Far East is one idea. The Ukraine also.

  233. Frank K says:

    “the local people would to have a talented American in the area”

    My experience overseas has usually been the opposite. You can’t get the work visa unless you can prove that there is no one local who can do the job. If you’re just an average Joe (not a brain surgeon) that will be very hard to do. From what I have observed, IT or engineering skills won’t get you a work visa, unless you are sponsored by a multinational corp. Sure, your US passport gets you in as a tourist without a visa, but a work visa is a different beast. Even next door in NAFTA partner Mexico a work visa is hard as nails to get. Retiree visas are easy to get IF you can demonstrate financial independence (say a fat pension). But if you want to be able to earn a living, be prepared to jump through a lot of hoops to get that work visa, and understand that they will still probably say no.

    Of course, you could work in the underground economy (i.e. be an illegal immigrant), but if you’re caught doing that you can expect to be immediately deported and they won’t let you back in.

    I’m not tying to be a downer here, but Americans often have unrealistic expectations of being able to move to other countries. They think they can just show up and will be welcomed with open arms. That isn’t how it works.

  234. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    My church is strongly anti-divorce. She did not talk with them about this beforehand and has not been in contact sense. She knows they would not sanction her actions in any manner.

    They are not actively pursuing her, but I don’t believe that would do any good, so I am not seeking that. I am getting the support I need going through this and I will see what the future may bring.

    I am in Texas, which is a bit better in the divorce area. No children at home, so that makes that even easier. She is unlikely to get even all she wants. She could not keep the house, even with substantial support. Fortunately she realizes this.

    Things will be snug and I will do all I can to avoid bankruptcy.

  235. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Frank K. It sound like you are a lot more knowledgeable in this area than me. And in any case as Billy said the laws are better in Texas. I have been out of the country for some time and though I have managed I can see as you say a lot of Americans show up and things do not go according to plan.

  236. feeriker says:

    @BillyS:

    I know your pain too. I’m approaching the first anniversary (January) of my own divorce, which I finally initiated after my wife had moved out of the house three years previously because she was unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy and refused to even consider reconciliation or moving back home and living with me as my wife.

    I realize that my circumstances and the background of my divorce are probably slightly different from yours, but I can honestly say, with absolute certainty, that while you’re hurting right now and are feeling the acute pain that comes from such traumatic and sudden upheaval in your life, you will in the long run (actually, in the very near future) feel a sense of peace and of relief. YOU, after all, were not the cause of your wife’s actions. SHE was. SHE WILL eventually realize this and will very likely come very close to groveling at your feet begging for forgiveness, realizing that, far from erasing whatever unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaappiness she feels, divorce will only magnify it. BE VERY CAREFUL, however, if she does this. My ex tried this, not because she was in any way repentant (she still adamantly refuses to admit that she played any part whatsoever in the collapse of our marriage, or that her living apart from me while still claiming all the benefits of marriage while refusing to be a wife was in any way wrong), but because she suddenly realized how shitty life is for a late middle-aged landwhale ogress without the motivation to do anything with her life and that the gravy train she had enjoyed for so long had finally dried up. I’ve forgiven her (how could I not? I’m now happier than I’ve ever been without her toxic presence in my life), but have no intention of reconciling with her as long as she maintains the attitude that she does.

    Financially, things kind of suck for me right now, given that we had some joint debts requiring resolution at the time of the divorce, but I really was very fortunate in having a good lawyer (better than the one the ex chose) to negotiate the outcome of the final decree. Rather than owe her lifetime alimony consisting of half or more of my cash income and total assets, I wound up only owning her one third of my monthly net cash income for ten years, after which point she’d better hope that she has enough social security accrued or a decent enough job to keep her out of poverty (we never had any children together either during 23 painful years of marriage, thank God). The house and most of the real property remains with me and she cannot touch my military pension. I see a very bleak dotage for this woman, but dems be deh wages of sin. My point being, you will almost surely recover from any financial setbacks attendant to the divorce. Not only that, odds are overwhelming that you will also find love again (if you are so interested), whereas your ex almost assuredly will spend her last years alone and lonely.

    So cheer up, brother, and keep praying. You’re also blessed in that you’re getting support from your church. I was not so blessed (though I never asked anyone for anything other than prayer; I know better than to ask for anything more substantial). You also, if nothing else, have the virtual support of dozens our your brethren right here.

  237. mrteebs says:

    @feeriker,

    My situation was similar: my hand technical held the knife that stayed the marriage (I filed), but it was 100% my ex-wife’s initiative. She asked for the divorce and refused any attempts to reconcile. I told her she needed to move out of the house since if she wanted none of the responsibilities of marriage to me, neither could she enjoy any of the benefits. I ended up with sole physical custody of our son (then 6 yrs old) but joint legal custody. Long story I won’t go into here.

    I eventually had the police come and physically eject her from the house after the divorce was finalized. She refused to leave until they intervened. I moved out after the house sold and we split the proceeds.

    Ironically, my wife to this day says “I divorced her” in typical female rationalization. Although true, it completely ignores the salient details. She essentially abandoned me, and I thus used that as justification to proceed (1Cor 7:15). I realize there are differences of interpretation about whether I was released or not, but at the time there were many indications that she was backslidden. She no longer wished to dwell with me – but wanted my provision. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    BillyS, many of us have been where you are now. Our prayers are with you.

  238. mrteebs says:

    “slayed” not “stayed” (dang iPad auto-correct speller)

  239. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS says:
    October 17, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    “My church is strongly anti-divorce. She did not talk with them about this beforehand and has not been in contact sense. She knows they would not sanction her actions in any manner.”

    That’s good to hear. I misunderstood you earlier.

  240. BillyS says:

    My church could reach out more to hurting individuals as I was a weekend or so ago. I have talked with them about that. Even being invited out to lunch that Sunday would have been good.

    I couldn’t tell them an exact input, and some of my connection will come as I participate in things more, but that is as it is.

    I still want to figure out how men can connect reliably with others, but that may be part of the reason God is letting me go through this.

    My mother noted she asked my father to come back many years ago, but he refused. I can see why at the time and he did better, but then that wife (my step mother) divorced him too years later when he went into the ministry full time. (That was not the life for her.)

    Seeing his life from a different perspective led me to many of the truths I hold now.

    I am not sure how I would properly vet a 35-50 year old woman. Requiring reasonably thin would be the first thing (my wife is thin), but the attitude would be the most important. Anyone single at that age would raise concerns already, for many different reasons. I wouldn’t want a former carousel rider, nor would I want a literal alpha widow. Though the later is closer to what God seems to note (expecting the younger widows to remarry).

    I need to not think on that yet and let stuff play out now.

  241. BillyS says:

    Texas caps alimony at 20% for a certain number of years and I understand that it is literally a max, not a guaranteed minimum. The spouse has to work if they are able and my wife certainly is. I suspect she is going to be working far more than she wants.

    Some inherited things are excluded and I got a big chunk of money from my mother about two years ago that may play a role.

    I would, ironically, insist upon proper counseling were we to reconnect. I likely could change many things, but she has some core attitudes that would have to shift to make it worthwhile, though I could probably even tolerate a lot less than I would prefer to avoid divorce due to God’s stance on it. I see no reason things could not truly be better if we both worked at it, but that is the key that is often missing, as feeriker notes.

    whereas your ex almost assuredly will spend her last years alone and lonely.

    She is thin, so may have more options than most, but her options would almost certainly be older and not as appealing, though who knows. I am not going to worry about that part.

  242. Frank K says:

    Dear BillyS

    “My church could reach out more to hurting individuals as I was a weekend or so ago. I have talked with them about that. Even being invited out to lunch that Sunday would have been good.”

    The sad truth is that in most churches, as well as in other social circles, you are now considered “damaged goods”, even though you are the victim. I think it’s because of the current “it must be his fault” culture and hence people will keep you at an arm’s length since you are the bad guy. It’s at times like these when you find out who are your real friends. It’s like Samuel Clemons once said “The proper office of a friend is to side with you when you are in the wrong.” Of course, you aren’t in the wrong, regardless of what the popular culture says.

  243. Gunner Q says:

    SmashtheMatriarchy @ October 14, 2016 at 8:21 pm:
    “Only in our modern, extremely spoiled-in-comparison, luxurious lives can we humans become such lame quitters. People much more determined, tougher, and better than us have scratched, and scraped, and endured hardship and great loss, and fought exhaustively, and put up with tortures, and seen horrifying things and kept on til the last never giving up throughout most of human history with none of the ease that makes up the vast majority of our lives in the Western Civilization of today.”

    What you advocate is fatalism and it was the norm for most of human history. People endured incredible suffering because they had no choice; it’s that simple. People in the modern West do not eagerly endure suffering because, unusually for history, we have many cures for it from medicine to limited gov’t. This is a good thing.

    However, having a choice makes the suffering of today more valuable than in the past even when it is less extreme. Frivorced men refusing vigilantism, young men choosing incel over joining sluts in the moral gutter, Real Americans refusing to engage in justified but pointless violence, rejecting the welfare state when you need it because it is funded by theft… these are stronger tests of moral character than any involuntary hardship.

    Some people I’ve talked to want feudalism back because they want humanity crushed into virtue by weight of necessity.

  244. Frank K says:

    Dear Avraham,

    During my time outside the USA (12 years) I saw three types of expats:

    1) Financially independent retirees
    2) Those sponsored by their employers. Most were execs with multinationals who were “putting in their time overseas” to advance their careers and who would be returning to the USA after a couple of years of duty.
    3) Those who married a local and were thus able to get the local equivalent of a Green Card. Many eventually naturalized as being a resident alien often came with all sorts of baggage, such as restrictions on owning property, employment, etc.

  245. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Thanks Frank for that information. I will in the future try to be more careful about giving advice. As you noticed things don’t always go according to plan across seas.

  246. feeriker says:

    The sad truth is that in most churches, as well as in other social circles, you are now considered “damaged goods”, even though you are the victim. I think it’s because of the current “it must be his fault” culture and hence people will keep you at an arm’s length since you are the bad guy. It’s at times like these when you find out who are your real friends. It’s like Samuel Clemons once said “The proper office of a friend is to side with you when you are in the wrong.” Of course, you aren’t in the wrong, regardless of what the popular culture says.

    EXACTLY.

    I wound up leaving the church my wife and I attended at the time she left me. It was a small church and everyone knew us, knew the circumstances behind the split (my wife was unhaaaappppppppppppy, no biblical justification whatsoever for her leaving). The pastor, pastor’s wife, and elders tried to talk biblical sense into her that she refused to hear, and they all admitted to me that I had been wronged. And yet … and yet … it was just “too uncomfortable” for them to hold a woman accountable for her sins. They just couldn’t imagine any wife simply up and leaving her husband ’cause unhappppppppppppy, so they kept trying to get me to admit that I was must have done SOMETHING, must have in some way failed to be the perfect Christian husband, that caused her to blow up her marriage. In other words, these people, like most churchians, were willfully ignorant of fallen human female nature and were not going to allow themselves to see the truth.

  247. Spike says:

    feeriker:
    You may or may not have seen Wintery Knight’s article on women’s morality. I’m putting the link here
    https://winteryknight.com/2016/10/13/comparing-male-and-female-support-for-abortion-divorce-and-gay-marriage/

    even though I’m sure none of the data surprises you. It didn’t surprise me, but it is eye-opening to see it in graph form.

  248. Since this is the de facto Politics thread, an observation.

    The Flood Gate has started, and it’s only going to get worse. But that’s not the important detail. The important detail is who blinks among the Elites. Patrick Kennedy came up in the FBI doc drop, but he’s not the form Rep. He’s a State Department “untouchable”-type, but I don’t know who his Power Brokers are. Though I know it’s not either the Obama or Clinton camps, as he’s been in place since the Bush Admin. (But there was a story where John Kerry was talking about him working at State for him, from 2004, so he’s clearly a deep insider.) Some government spokesmen is already saying it was the FBI agent that asked for that, not Kennedy. Tells you how deep he is.

    (If you can semi map out the Players, you can predict what’s going to happen. Sadly.)

    So Kennedy will all but drop out of the situation, but we now have complete confirmation that a copy of Clinton’s server *is* on the Dark Web. Which means the Atomic Bomb can be dropped on her. There’s a type of intelligence classification called “SAP”. If there is 1 file with that sitting on her server, she’s going to be up for Treason, since the only reason that would be there is it was to be sent somewhere else.

    But what really matters is who among the Elites blinks. On some thought, I honestly think it’s Jeff Bezos. He owns the Washington Post, so being the first major news media to go full “anti-corruption” will let them play up the Woodward & Bernstein legacy while also building Good Will with the incoming Trump administration, along with all of the Bernie supporters While Bezos is clearly a liberal and will pay for the Dinner Circuit for influence, he’s very inactivate at the national level and isn’t a power broker in the way guys like Warren Buffet are. But he bought his influence with the WP and he’s got a massive opportunity to expand it. Especially with that much blood in the water.

  249. Smash the Matriachy says:

    Gunner Q
    “What you advocate is fatalism and it was the norm for most of human history.”
    merriam-webster: fatalism=the belief that what will happen has already been decided and cannot be changed.
    I dont belive that at all and certainly wasnt advocating anything like that. I was advocating for Modern (1st World/Western Civs/whatever you prefer) people to quit being such whiney, spoiled, self-centered hippies. And I apologize if anyone thought that was in reference to the divorce line of conversation, because it wasnt. I feel for the victims of the “I need to follow my happiness” generation’s destruction of family. I was referring what I percieved as another conversion topic.
    “People endured incredible suffering because they had no choice…”
    You always have a choice. People in much older times couldve committed suicide, ran out on their families, relented under persecution and renounced Christ, refused to fight invading barbarians and surrendered to the hordes of allah or whoever else the plundering rapist du jour was and some did, but many didnt. Many less than today in my oppinion. People today call 911 when the drive thru lady forgets their nuggets. Whole civilizations lie to themselves about being invaded and make up intellectual-sounding excuses while thousands of their women and children arent being abused right in front of their eyes.
    “..young men choosing incel…” According to Urban Dictionary, incel = involuntary celebacy. You dont choose something involuntary.
    “Real Americans refusing to engage in justified but pointless violence…”
    Self-defense and defense of one’s family, the weak, innocent, and Christianity isnt pointless.
    “People in the modern West do not eagerly endure suffering because, unusually for history, we have many cures for it from medicine to limited gov’t.”
    It’s not about being eager to suffer, it’s about being tougher, and where is this “limited government” that you speak of? Ive never seen it, only heard stories about it. The USA is a child in the sense of nation age and its limited government fantasy disappeared long before any of us were born.
    Following morality of one’s own choice as opposed to being forced certainly takes strength I agree, and is commendable. I have nothing against it and am all for individuals doing the “right thing.” Unfortunately, most these days in the cultures I was referring to couldnt tell true morality from a free cellphone. My complaint wasnt even about the moral character issue, it was about how Western Civilization is characterized by belly button gazers who think they are he most poorly treated humans in history while simultaneously having the easiest lives in human history. And that, my friend, does tie back into the divorce subject. The “my life is sooo totes tough cause my husband doesnt treat me like a princess from a disney movie 24/7” mindset. And plenty of the male gender feel perpetually sorry for themselves due to unrealistic expectations of life as well (again not directed towards BillyS, but others our societies promote).
    Also Im not advocating fuedalism. Even the conclusion that THAT was the only way of life in the olden times shows how disconnected (and by intention) our civilizations are from true history, which is another point that I alluded to. I certainly wouldnt mind a radically different way of life than what we are festering in, but it isnt the slavery and folly of Western Europe in the late Middle Ages. I would only suggest that those who recognize how screwed up thdir churches and societies have gotten and cant figure out why would start digging into Christian history.

  250. BillyS says:

    Frank K,

    The sad truth is that in most churches, as well as in other social circles, you are now considered “damaged goods”, even though you are the victim. I think it’s because of the current “it must be his fault” culture and hence people will keep you at an arm’s length since you are the bad guy. It’s at times like these when you find out who are your real friends. It’s like Samuel Clemons once said “The proper office of a friend is to side with you when you are in the wrong.” Of course, you aren’t in the wrong, regardless of what the popular culture says.

    I have no doubt that is true many places, but I have not sensed that here at all. I am still finding my place (which was a challenge prior to all this) for sure, but even the leaders have not pushed me out in any way I can see.

    I am very strong in my opinions, so I give them plenty of reasons to push against me already. I continue praying they will do better and that I can be a part of that. We will see what the future holds though. I could make a major shift if this follows through to its logical destination, including moving someplace. Though I really do like my job now, so that is much less likely in the short run.

  251. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    A post related to https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/interviewing-a-prospective-wife-part-ii/ that talks about finding an older wife would be interesting if you ever want to visit that again. (Or link me to it if you have and I just didn’t find it.)

  252. feeriker says:

    Spike says:
    October 17, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Thanks, Spike. I hadn’t visited WK’s site in a while and thus missed his latest commentary.

    Not at all surprising, the data presented. American women, in all their odiousness, on full display.

  253. Isa says:

    @BillyS Ironically, I do know a divorce lawyer in dfw, although I believe he began corporate practice again. I rarely look for linkedin updates.

    Could she not be persuaded to live separately but not divorce? There is no shame in separation and far less capital outlay. See: attorney fees.

  254. BillyS says:

    @Isa,

    She thinks she has her freedom right now. She will have to have a “come to Jesus moment” for her heart to change. I am still praying for that, but it is not likely on the outside.

    We will be living that way for a few months however since divorce is not a quick thing in Texas. It requires at least 2 months on paper and likely more based on what I have heard.

  255. Gunner Q says:

    ““People in the modern West do not eagerly endure suffering because, unusually for history, we have many cures for it from medicine to limited gov’t.”
    It’s not about being eager to suffer, it’s about being tougher,”

    Then I don’t know what you’re talking about. My impression was that you think, as many others I’ve encountered do, that past generations were tougher either because they endured more pain & suffering (that modern tech has made unnecessary) or because they didn’t tolerate evil in the halls of power (obviously false).

  256. Frank K says:

    Dear BillyS.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comment where you lamented the lack of support from your congregation during your time of trial.

    While I have never been on the receiving end of an unfaithful wife or one who simply wanted to abandon me, I have experienced similar shunning when I was laid off from my job many years ago. Again, no one went out of their way to help me in any way and instead I was treated as if I were a leper. When I contacted acquaintances looking for job leads I could tell they were annoyed that I was “bothering” them. In this case I also think it’s because people think that you did something to deserve what happened to you and hence “you had it coming” and shouldn’t receive any sympathy or help. Fortunately for me, one (and only one) person went to bat for me and helped me land a job. I was laid off two weeks before 9/11 happened, so you can imagine the dire straits I was in as NO ONE was hiring at the time.

    I found that experience to be unsettling, as I have always gone out of my way to help the laid off to find a new job, as I believe that would be the Christian thing to do.

  257. First cracks in the Media Shield are starting to show. PodestaEmails is finally trending properly in the States on Twitter. Since I’m awake at odd hours for the States (and need to use Twitter), the shenanigans have been utterly noticeable for a while. YouTube is still somewhat suppressing the O’Keefe video in the States, but that seems to be failing as well.

    I imagine the normal Media will hold until the Debate goes even worse for Hillary. They clearly have to hide her because of her health, but the rats won’t start fleeing until she really throws out a terrible performance. Granted, if you unskew the current polls, Hillary is looking at being completely wiped out. Best case scenario for the Dems is a D+3 Election. This could end up being R+2 with how bad the enthusiasm gap actually is. If D+12 samples are rendering only Hillary +6, Trump might be looking at turning New York.

    The Patrick Kennedy thing will die pretty fast, or at least his name. The “Quid Pro Quo” stuff will stick around. Told you he had a different power base, though I know not who it is. (Brent Snowcrowft, maybe?)

  258. BillyS says:

    Frank K,

    I may have been a bit inconsistent. I felt very disconnected in the first few days. I did push through things and I do believe the church did not intentionally cause any of the problems that happened and I have found support since that point. I am still working on building some close bonds, but that is a long term project no matter what.

    ====

    Preliminary settlement today. Too much cash going to my wife for a while to setup her own place, but at least this step is done and it is temporary. I do not anticipate reconciliation from her at this point, so I told my lawyer I would rather settle it all sooner rather than later. It will likely go to mediation at some point and that should ease some of the cost in place right now.

    Our judge apparently is one who just divides the take home pay in cases like this, letting the husband still bear the debts and such. Really stupid, but it is what it is. I got below that, though still higher than it should be given that she is the one blowing up the marriage.

    I will not push much in the next few months. Up to her where we end up. God can produce reconciliation, but it is not where her heart is in the slightest now.

  259. BillyS says:

    Looking Glass,

    This election will be an interesting thing to see how it turns out. We definitely live in interesting times.

  260. Gary Johnson doesn’t know where Aleppo is, but it appears that Hillary doesn’t know what Planet she’s on. (Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353#efmACvAD2 )

    This election is going to be a lot more fun to talk about after we’re beyond it. The whole “a sizable portion of the country is going to vote for a Career Criminal and likely Traitor” part is still too worrying.

  261. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ October 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm:
    “This election will be an interesting thing to see how it turns out. We definitely live in interesting times.”

    The Presidency is only a part of this election. One of California’s obnoxious Senators is retiring and the two replacements on the ballot are both Democrat women; the Reps didn’t even try to run a candidate for Congress. California is also set to abolish the death penalty entirely and (illegally) retroactively, fully legalize pot with a fat sin tax on it and so on.

    The enemies of America are pushing very hard on this election.

  262. BillyS says:

    I would argue that most drug laws are inane Gunner Q, even though I have and never will use such drugs. It just enables a strong police state as I see it.

    Much “reform” in this area doesn’t really solve that problem though, unfortunately.

  263. In most States, pot will be legalized. That fight was mostly lost back in the 1960s, and it’s just taken that long for the electorate to be replaced. The main issue is that the “War on Drugs” has been an epic disaster on its own. Though the Pro-Pot people don’t realize what they’re going to unleash on themselves once the Nanny Staters start to approach it as a Vice. The honeymoon period will be short lived before it becomes corporate controlled and regulated out the wazoo.

    https://twoseventysixteen.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/reutersipsos/

    This guy takes a stab at correcting some recent polls. The 3rd party support should break down to around 8% and most of that 6% difference will go to Trump. But the Party ID is the important detail. I’ve not been pulling the D+3 as a “best case scenario” out of thin air. That really, truly is the best case for the Democrats. And a R+2 election means NY is in play.

    If Hillary collapses at the Debate, 500 Electoral Votes for Trump is in play. If a large chunk of the electorate suddenly realizes the Empress has no clothes, they’ll be voting Trump. After they stop vomiting.

  264. I think a point that’s going to be lost for a while is not that we’re exiting the age of Propaganda, but that we’re enter a lower-trust age with weaponized rhetoric. This is how Trump has been able to live rent-free in the minds of so many people. He’s also clearly come into every debate with a far better understanding of the debate as a “platform” than a “competition”. When Trump wins, the line from the 2nd Debate “because you’d be in jail” will be seen as the end of Clinton’s political career.

    The entire online presence of the Clinton campaign is paid trolls. And even they’re having problems keeping up. The pro-Trump camp has completely taken over a significant portion of Reddit, of all things. Hillary has lost control of her own Facebook comments and the only online support she has is what she’s paid for. It’s the reason she doesn’t show her face in public but is high-paying fundraisers. Her base is only the super-rich and nothing else.

    But we live in a Media environment that’s in a death spiral of its own, so the only life-line most have is a government job. That + massive liberal bias is what keeps the media in line. Without blatant & active censorship by most Social Media platforms, everyone would be thinking of a complete walk-over for Trump. Granted, I don’t think it was ever that type of election.

    Until the Atom Bombs start dropping. The Podesta + FBI information drops from Monday confirmed the dark-web chatter: everyone has copies of the Clinton server. Add some other scuttlebutt (and/or basic logic) and there’s going to be “SAP” files there. That’s high treason, plain & simple. Not that Hillary didn’t just commit a serious felony in the debate with our nuclear response times. It should be fascinating to watch the Media ignore that one.

  265. BillyS says:

    My wife is dead set in her path and any efforts on my part to work things out now prove I am just willing to argue and control her.

    Amazing!

    Not surprising, but the system is definitely messed up.

    Nothing that couldn’t be worked out and I still have a sliver of hope, but it does not look good on the outside.

    Reminds me of Luke telling Darth Vader he saw the good in him. It is there, but really buried.

    She got somewhat repentant last Thursday and had to leave and spend the weekend shoring up her reserves to get back to this state. That tells me the possibility is there, but it is not easy to hit.

  266. feeriker says:

    She got somewhat repentant last Thursday and had to leave and spend the weekend shoring up her reserves to get back to this state. That tells me the possibility is there, but it is not easy to hit.

    Speaking as one who has been there, Billy, I can tell you in absolutely certain terms that YOU are going to pull through this ordeal just fine. It doesn’t seem like it at the moment, as things are in the ugly stages, as what has been your life for many years is changing course with all the power of a tectonic fault shift. But you WILL bounce back.

    SHE, on the other hand, has no idea how foolish her current decisions are and how dearly she is going to regret them – and much sooner than she realizes. Most likely, in less than a year after the final divorce decree is issued, after you have moved on with your life and are enjoying the fruits of new-found freedom and inner peace that flows from the “cessation of hostilities,” the Real World[TM] is going to intrude into hers in a very obtrusive and unpleasant way, causing her to realize all the she so foolishly threw away and the road into the endless desert that stretches before her. That doesn’t mean that she will be remorseful or repentant for what she’s done (remember that women generally NEVER accept responsibility for their actions, that it’s ALWAYS someoneelses[usuallyamans]fault). It merely means that the consequences of her actions are giving her the feelbadz and she wants to stop hurting. She has no interest in identifying the causes of her misery or fixing what she broke. That means accountability, and women are NOT wired for that. She’ll very likely make overtures toward reconciliation, but unless she grovels before you as a thoroughly broken woman, you would be wise to pass. She’s only manipulating you (or trying to).

    Anyway, hang in there, brother. Like I said, it hurts like hell now, but the pain will pass and you’ll be feeling like a new man soon.

  267. BillyS says:

    Thanks feeriker. I am not quite ready to aim past this, especially since it is not final, but I may have to just take that soon. The court may not have ruled yet and God can change hearts, but it will be tough for her to change hers, especially when this has been in the making since we married 28 years ago.

    I did hear another woman’s story at a Bible study last night and while she is attractive for her age, I would not go near her at all. Her husband did sound like scum, being hooked on drugs, for example. But the “he controlled me” language is the exact thing I will seek to not submit to again, at least as much as I could filter that out.

    I would/should remain alone in some ways, but I do like some things a woman would offer, so we will see.

    Chilling out and waiting on things is not my strength, but I have to work on that for the next few months.

    It does really irk me that a woman can cease her responsibilities to a marriage and yet still keep a man’s obligation of provision for some time. I know this has been discussed on this forum for a long while, but it is a really evil part of the modern system. The point it is a modern form of slavery needs to be pushed into people’s minds, though that will take some time to happen.

  268. feeriker says:

    God can change hearts, but it will be tough for her to change hers, especially when this has been in the making since we married 28 years ago.

    Mine lasted just short of 23 years, although fewer than half of those were years that I could honestly say were “happily married,” so the end came as more of a relief than a shock. Still, you’re correct in observing that you don’t end a marriage of that length without experiencing shock and adjustment at the change, no matter how welcome you might think it to be.

    It does really irk me that a woman can cease her responsibilities to a marriage and yet still keep a man’s obligation of provision for some time.

    As I and others have brought up before here and elsewhere, a marriage license in the western world today for a man constitutes an adhesion contract, something which, if it applied to any relationship or transaction other than marriage would be considered null, void, and unenforceable (all the rationalizing BS by the legal community to the contrary notwithstanding).

    I know this has been discussed on this forum for a long while, but it is a really evil part of the modern system. The point it is a modern form of slavery needs to be pushed into people’s minds, though that will take some time to happen.

    Yet another reason to welcome with open arms the complete collapse of the current system. It’s the only way any of this toxic nonsense will end for good.

  269. Frank K says:

    Dear BillyS,

    “But the “he controlled me” language is the exact thing I will seek to not submit to again, at least as much as I could filter that out.”

    That is a red flag, a sure sign of a broken woman. Other classical red flags include (IMHO):

    Being on prescription mood altering drugs
    Seeing a “Therapist”
    Has engaged in casual sex (this usually means she has a partner count previously only associated with the world’s oldest profession)
    Is divorced
    Has had one or more “bad boy” relationships (related to “he controlled me”). These usually come in bunches, like tomatoes on a vine.
    Has had children outside of marriage (usually with one or more of her bad boys)
    Has an STD

    While it is very understandable that you may eventually want to enter into a replacement relationship after the dust has settled, keep in mind that most “available” women, especially in your age demographic, will be seriously damaged and won’t be wife or even girlfriend material. Not saying that you won’t get lucky and find a pleasant, issue free widow or a non promiscuous woman who never married, but the chances of that are very low.

    Should you choose to enter into a relationship with one of these “typical” American women, you will learn the joys of becoming part of a “blended family” along with all the drama they come with (which is to say, plenty)

    The sad thing these days is that women having red flag issues has become the norm, not the exception. There’s a reason half of marriages fail, and a high percentage of the ones that don’t aren’t exactly great marriages. I strongly suspect that the “good girls” get snapped up when they are young and they don’t end up back on the “market”, so to speak. Kind of like a car. When you get a peach, you keep it forever, and if you get a lemon, well, we know where those end up.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s